Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's an honest answer and I appreciate it. I don't think a woman who decides to stay home should have her "job" considered demeaning. But what about the women who choose not to stay home? Every time someone says I'm delusional for thinking like that or that I was just brainwashed into thinking like that, am I not being demeaned and insulted, as though I didn't have enough intelligence to make an important decision on my own?
Your choice of words defending your wife's decision are demeaning to the people who choose otherwise. I would never tell a woman she had to work for a living or force her to do so. But from what I'm hearing from you and men like you is that you would personally have no problem if women were made to stay home and not work.
And just to let you know, as someone who hasn't been married, nor had a child, nor been a stay at home wife and as someone who never, ever wanted to do any of that (long before I heard of women's lib), I don't consider myself acting like a man in any way and my behavior reflects me, not you. What I am is a person, first and foremost. If I give you the respect due to someone because they are a person, not just a male, then why am I not entitled to the same respect back, regardless of whether I work or not
Well, no, I would not support any effort to "make" women stay home! I think perhaps you are talking about specifics and I am talking in broader terms. In an individual case, I have no problem if a woman has a talent and wants to follow her dream as far as it will take her, or even if the role of wife, mother and homemaker just holds no appeal for her and she simply wants to work. I have always extended complete respect to the women with whom I worked, even if I was often bewildered by their choices.
In fact, my wife's 36-year-old daughter is a lawyer in Belarus. My wife and many other family members are constantly pressuring her to get married and start producing babies. I sent her a long email saying in effect, "Look, just listen only to yourself. You have a very nice life now, and there is no reason this can't be a nice life for the rest of your days if this is what you want. You have absolutely no obligation to anyone else to get married or have babies. In fact, a marriage you don't really want and babies you don't really want would be a disaster for everyone involved." We are barely more than acquaintances, yet she told her own mother that I understood her better and was the only man who had ever spoken to her like a real father.
In short, I am not some Troglodyte. Oh, wait a minute, yes I am - but only on C-D.
My objection is to what has occurred on a societal scale. The nuclear family is no longer important. The role of wife, mother and homemaker is the one that is demeaned. Women are pressured to have "careers," even though that term is almost comical when applied to the jobs many of them hold. They are made to feel like second-class citizens, almost like parasites, unless they work outside the home. The "necessity" to work is, in many cases, simply to underwrite a selfish fantasy lifestyle of luxuries that a conventional nuclear family of 50 years ago would never even have dreamed about.
In short, my experience and observation has been that the "demeaning" you are talking about flows in precisely the opposite direction from what you are suggesting and that society is collapsing around us as a result.
But if I may play devil's advocate here, what about the thousands and thousands of women who don't want to have children? Are you trying to tell me every woman has to fulfill herself by having a baby? You seriously think nothing else can make her happy?
Take the kids out of your equation and redo your post. See how it comes out then.
I'm not confused, but as I stated above, I would like to be seen as a person instead of having my entire identity and gender be defined only on the number of babies I can produce.
To everyone else, I'm not saying what these guys posted is not valid to them, but these are the attitudes I am talking about. Where do they come from?
I am not sure about "these are the attitudes I am talking about" and lumping me into your labeling is fair.
Nor are you "playing devils advocate" by attributing your imagination to me.
I am not familiar with such attitudes and honestly, never even encountered it in real life.
With all due respect, if you don't have kids, well from reading your posts.... it seems a good thing. Of course this is just a forum and we all have bad days, maybe I am having one today, who knows.
A false persecution complex is usually not conducive to being a good mother. Some people have issues to where just living is a struggle so may choose to have no children, one child (like us) or however many kids works for them. Too many kids, of course, mean there are only two parents so logically there wouldn't be a way to even be a parent to them with only 24 hrs in a day. Example- The Duggars. They say they "let God decide" how many kids to have while they do that exact thing which produces more children. Makes no sense to me.
Well, I will wade into these waters and doubtlessly emerge covered with mud. I believe that the nuclear family is God's plan for humanity. I do not believe that a woman fulfilling the role of wife, mother and homemaker is or should be considered demeaning at all. I happen to be a licensed professional (lawyer) whose career theoretically should be glamorous and fulfilling, but I have said to both of my wives (I lost my first to breast cancer after 33 years) a thousand times how much I envied their freedom, the actual importance of the work they did, and their ability to structure their days pretty much as they wished. I would always look at the women in my offices and think "How could this paper-shuffling silliness possibly be more fulfilling and rewarding than being a full-time wife, mother and homemaker? Indeed, how could it be fulfilling and rewarding at all? What bizarre and delusional philosophy have you bought into?" My current wife worked many years as a social worker because she had no other choice in the USSR, but she is so thankful to now have a normal home life.
If a man and woman want to have a nuclear family with the man fulfilling the typical female role - fine, go for it. But I am firmly in the camp that believes the collapse of the nuclear family is the road to Hell and we are already many miles down it. So celebrate your newfound strength and independence, ladies. Enjoy those "rewarding and fulfilling" careers away from home. Be just like men in every way. You are actually losing what you think you are gaining and are destroying society in the process.
I don't have an issue with a woman who wants to stay at home with the kids and it is not demeaning. Raising kids is a very important job. And if she CAN stay at home-that is great. My step-daughter is one of those. She is expecting kid #3 and she would LOVE to be a stay-at-home Mom but economics dictates that she can't.
And having women with careers do not make them "just like men." And as for "destroying society," this is the attitude that rodentraiser is questioning. Having strong, independent women will change society and in many ways for the better. The whole idea is choice! Women are now able to choose for themselves what they want in life instead of having society dictate to them how they are supposed to live. And everybody knows that a happy wife is a happy life.
Catwoman has, IMHO, dranketh from the Kool-Aid pitcher! Paragraphs 1 - 3, reasonable observations. Four and five read as though lifted from an Angry Feminists handbook!
I don't mean to be mean, but as a stern nun once said on seeing a pregnant 15 year old, " When one exposes oneself, one must expect such things."
The other day I was reading the comments on a news story and one man there commented that women should stay home and take care of the children. It gave me a pause, especially as I realized that this was from a younger man, perhaps 30 years old.
I've seen a lot of posters here calling women feminazis and saying men can't find a good girlfriend in certain cities because of all the "independent" women out there. I also have seen posts that stop just short of saying women should be second class citizens and depend on men to take care of them. And trust me, there's no lack of women to back them up.
I'm just curious to know where this attitude comes from, women as well as men. I realize a lot of men are bitter about former wives and girlfriends, but somehow I feel the issue is deeper than this. So does it come from the way a person is raised, or is it because a person is angry and wants a target or is it a religious thing? Just what is it about independent women that make others feel so threatened, if that's the case?
Where and why do people have this attitude that women should not be able to have a life outside the home?
I'm really interested in seeing your responses.
Find the partner that suits you and vise verse, the rest is not you.
How others think or live their lives is their business.
I married a lovely Chinese gal, very traditional, won't even let me in the kitchen.
I'm a chef in real life.
There's a topic on CD asking why there is a Women's Studies major, but not a Men's Studies.
That kind of dovetails with this.
There is a huge mass of thousands of years of tradition that is the baggage of our society. It's a matter of chipping away at it and acknowledging small gains.
In the 1920s, women scandalously cut their hair, wore short skirts, and smoked cigarettes--all things previously reserved for men. Except the short skirts. Well, maybe in Scotland. My Italian grandmother was granted US citizenship because my grandfather got it; she could not have gotten it by herself (I think that changed in 1923).
In the '40s, women worked (and did a great job) in shipyards and played professional baseball while the men were at war. When the boys came home, the women were fired and expected to go back to being second class citizens. My mom was a Navy nurse in WWII, had to give that up when she married. She loved being a nurse, and would have been much happier if she could have kept working.
In the '70s, women were encouraged to explore freedom; but the "freedom" being pushed was the kind men liked, and women who wanted some other kind of freedom were demonized as feminazis or libbers.
In the '80s (or maybe the '90s), the US issued a dollar coin honoring a woman--Susan B. Anthony. It was considerably smaller than the existing dollar coins honoring men.
Now women are running for president. Obviously, there's still enough baggage left to make Hillary lose.
Well, I will wade into these waters and doubtlessly emerge covered with mud. I believe that the nuclear family is God's plan for humanity. I do not believe that a woman fulfilling the role of wife, mother and homemaker is or should be considered demeaning at all. I happen to be a licensed professional (lawyer) whose career theoretically should be glamorous and fulfilling, but I have said to both of my wives (I lost my first to breast cancer after 33 years) a thousand times how much I envied their freedom, the actual importance of the work they did, and their ability to structure their days pretty much as they wished. I would always look at the women in my offices and think "How could this paper-shuffling silliness possibly be more fulfilling and rewarding than being a full-time wife, mother and homemaker? Indeed, how could it be fulfilling and rewarding at all? What bizarre and delusional philosophy have you bought into?" My current wife worked many years as a social worker because she had no other choice in the USSR, but she is so thankful to now have a normal home life.
If a man and woman want to have a nuclear family with the man fulfilling the typical female role - fine, go for it. But I am firmly in the camp that believes the collapse of the nuclear family is the road to Hell and we are already many miles down it. So celebrate your newfound strength and independence, ladies. Enjoy those "rewarding and fulfilling" careers away from home. Be just like men in every way. You are actually losing what you think you are gaining and are destroying society in the process.
The women in your office shuffling papers (which, actually, describes a lot of what you do, as well, if you think about it), are doing so probably in large part because they couldn't afford sufficient higher education to qualify them for a higher level of work. Many are doing those jobs because they need to pay the rent. But you should also ask yourself what's so fulfilling about being a homemaker? Have you tried it? It doesn't take much effort; it can be done in the time one has after work. If you think it's so fulfilling, why don't you try it yourself? Marry a lawyer, and become a homemaker.
And why are you limiting your argument to office staff? What about all the women lawyers, doctors, professors, and other professionals out there? Alternatively, what about all the male construction workers and "sanitation engineers" out there? Have they bought into a bizarre and delusional philosophy that somehow swindled them into taking unfulfilling jobs, too?
You haven't thought your argument through, at all.
Last edited by Ruth4Truth; 06-25-2017 at 11:14 PM..
Well, no, I would not support any effort to "make" women stay home!
Thank you for that.
Quote:
My objection is to what has occurred on a societal scale. The nuclear family is no longer important. The role of wife, mother and homemaker is the one that is demeaned. Women are pressured to have "careers," even though that term is almost comical when applied to the jobs many of them hold. They are made to feel like second-class citizens, almost like parasites, unless they work outside the home. The "necessity" to work is, in many cases, simply to underwrite a selfish fantasy lifestyle of luxuries that a conventional nuclear family of 50 years ago would never even have dreamed about.
In short, my experience and observation has been that the "demeaning" you are talking about flows in precisely the opposite direction from what you are suggesting and that society is collapsing around us as a result.
Now see, I don't really see any women pressured to take a job outside the home unless she needs to. In which case that's economic pressure and that is something I wish wasn't a factor in women working.
I really don't think the nuclear family is collapsing as much as it's changing. And I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. But one thing I've noticed is a lot of men who want women to stay home want those women to be subservient. Laura Ingalls Wilder said she was a "partner" with her husband. I doubt if she would have put up with being subservient to him. So in that respect, I feel the traditional marriages of today have changed to being much more one sided in that the two people in a marriage are not considered partners anymore, but instead men seem to think they're the end all and be all of the household. JMHO.
Last edited by rodentraiser; 06-26-2017 at 01:32 AM..
Reason: can't spell worth a darn today
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
