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.
Before anybody calls me a sexist or a bigot, I have been an advocate for women's rights practically all my life. Years ago, I said frequently that this country needs a female as President because they tend to be more caring, honest, and empathetic ... however, after seeing how modern day feminism has turned many women into egotistical monsters, I am now saying just the opposite.
Let's take two of the most vocal and well known women in the past few years: Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. On a personal level, both of these women make my blood boil, and for many different reasons. Hillary believes that it takes a village to raise everybody else's children (as she proudly espoused in the 1996 Democrat Convention), and even wrote a book about it. When she ran for President two years ago, one of her campaign issues was advocating for the government to grant $5,000 to each child born in the U.S. All of this might come across to some as caring, but it's actually very demeaning to taxpayers in general (especially those who don't have children).
Sarah Palin talks like a conservative, but like Hillary, she is a feminist liberal in real life. She has five children (the youngest of which has Down's Syndrome) ... so instead of being at home caring for her family like a good wife and mother should, she is out bouncing around the country shouting at rallies while carrying her baby around ... then becoming highly offended at the word "retarded". She preaches abstinence for teens while her unwed teen daughter is out banging around & getting pregnant. Gee, perhaps if she was HOME with her family more often instead of trying to play Super Mom, things would be different.
I could go on and name a few other loud mouthed women in politics(Nancy Pelosi, Janet Napolitano, etc.) who are really about as distant from being nurturing or caring as one can get. These women are caring, but only about themselves and/or anybody who agrees with them. Those who disagree are called "intolerant", "sexist", "selfish", etc. In this sense, women are no better than men. In fact, when it comes to issues involving children, female politicians are even worse than the males because they seem to think it's everybody else's responsibility to fund and raise all the kids in the U.S. ... and they expect everybody to be tolerant of those who make the choice of procreation even if unable to afford this choice monetarily, timewise, or both.
Worst of all: women in power tend to have a bias against MEN. Most of the things they speak about involve THEIR female issues, THEIR personal beliefs, THEIR causes, and THEIR ego trip to overpower men and rule the world. It's too bad it has come to this because back in the 1970s, feminism used to be about equality, and that's the way it should be. However, since women have pretty much become equal to men, feminists seem to want superiority and dominance instead of a balance.
Wow, there are a lot of issues piled up in that post. I am just guessing but you probably haven't been too successful in the relationship department with that kind of attitude. You either have some serious issues with women or hit your head getting out of the time machine and haven't realized that it is the year 2010 yet.
I'm a woman in a male dominant profession (less than 5% of those in my industry are women) so I've seen and experienced some very interesting things. A man can be 'aggressive' when it comes to business and be pat on the back, have his hands shaken and be called things like confident, aggressive, gets stuff done etc etc, while a woman can do the EXACT SAME THING and she will be referred to as cold, callous and bitchy. I've seen it happen right in front of my face.... and I've also seen groups of men who have pushed a seemingly confident woman to tears and laughed about it afterwards. No real reason why, they basically did it because they could.
Women have worked their collective buns off to get where we are today and there are still men out there that would like nothing better than to go back to the barefoot and pregnant model, so they go out of their way to make women in their profession feel like crap while hoping they quit. Then, they get to go on and tell everyone how 'weak' women are.
I'm really lucky I work with a group of men (I'm the only female in the department... in fact, I'm the only female who has EVER been in the department since the inception of my company 12 years ago) who aren't afraid of people with ovaries and treat me as a member of the team, rather than just 'the woman'.
Before anybody calls me a sexist or a bigot, I have been an advocate for women's rights practically all my life. Years ago, I said frequently that this country needs a female as President because they tend to be more caring, honest, and empathetic ... however, after seeing how modern day feminism has turned many women into egotistical monsters, I am now saying just the opposite.
Let's take two of the most vocal and well known women in the past few years: Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. On a personal level, both of these women make my blood boil, and for many different reasons. Hillary believes that it takes a village to raise everybody else's children (as she proudly espoused in the 1996 Democrat Convention), and even wrote a book about it. When she ran for President two years ago, one of her campaign issues was advocating for the government to grant $5,000 to each child born in the U.S. All of this might come across to some as caring, but it's actually very demeaning to taxpayers in general (especially those who don't have children).
Sarah Palin talks like a conservative, but like Hillary, she is a feminist liberal in real life. She has five children (the youngest of which has Down's Syndrome) ... so instead of being at home caring for her family like a good wife and mother should, she is out bouncing around the country shouting at rallies while carrying her baby around ... then becoming highly offended at the word "retarded". She preaches abstinence for teens while her unwed teen daughter is out banging around & getting pregnant. Gee, perhaps if she was HOME with her family more often instead of trying to play Super Mom, things would be different.
I could go on and name a few other loud mouthed women in politics(Nancy Pelosi, Janet Napolitano, etc.) who are really about as distant from being nurturing or caring as one can get. These women are caring, but only about themselves and/or anybody who agrees with them. Those who disagree are called "intolerant", "sexist", "selfish", etc. In this sense, women are no better than men. In fact, when it comes to issues involving children, female politicians are even worse than the males because they seem to think it's everybody else's responsibility to fund and raise all the kids in the U.S. ... and they expect everybody to be tolerant of those who make the choice of procreation even if unable to afford this choice monetarily, timewise, or both.
Worst of all: women in power tend to have a bias against MEN. Most of the things they speak about involve THEIR female issues, THEIR personal beliefs, THEIR causes, and THEIR ego trip to overpower men and rule the world. It's too bad it has come to this because back in the 1970s, feminism used to be about equality, and that's the way it should be. However, since women have pretty much become equal to men, feminists seem to want superiority and dominance instead of a balance.
Sarah Palin's kids are NOT in daycare. She takes them with her when possible else they are with their dad.
Sarah Palin's kids are NOT in daycare. She takes them with her when possible else they are with their dad.
Sarah did haul her kids around when she was campaigning for VP. Lately, when she makes a public appearance, her kids are not with her. Which means they must be, well, somewhere else. The youngest two are too young to leave alone w/o supervision, and Trig will probably required adult supervision for the rest of his life.
I have a friend who has a daughter with Down's Syndrome. He is also highly offended with the word retarded so it is NOT a female issue.
Well, then your friend needs to get over it, and not be so super sensitive. Apparently, you and he weren't around back in the days when they used to refer to those type of children as "idiots", "defective", and "freaks of nature". Now, I can see where those names would be offensive ... but the word "retarded" is appropriate. In fact, it's actually the more polite term for the derogatory terms I listed above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayland Woman
As for Palin going all over the country and leaving her kids home for their dad to raise---I can't believe I'm defending her but what is wrong with the best bread winning in a household getting out and doing that? As long as both people in the marriage agrees, and the kids have a parent with them on a daily basis, it's not our business. Hint: men are perfectly capable of being good stay-at-home parents.
Because children need BOTH mother and father as role models ... and the mother can often provide more in the way of care & nurturing than the father. In a situation like Sarah's, she has an added responsibility of not one, not two, but FIVE children, including the youngest with a special need. Lugging him around the country to rallies isn't my idea of a loving, caring parent. Home is where the heart is, as the expression goes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayland Woman
Hillary's "it takes a village" is purposely misunderstood by the right, I think. It means a return to the values of the 40s and 50s where everyone looked out for the kids in their neighborhoods. Like it or not, individuals outside of a family have an impact on a child---for better or worse. What is wrong with acknowledging that and advocating that we all strive to be positive role models?
A community looking out for each other is perfectly fine, but it shouldn't be mandated that everybody contribute time or money to the cause ... it should be strictly voluntary. Hillary's philosophy is involving the government in mandating what SHE thinks is right for children. During her campaign, she proposed a new entitlement program: giving money to every child born in the U.S. ... which would have amounted to $5,000 per kid. Your tax money!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd
As a very very very conservative person, let me just say I would vote for your female neighbor for president and I dont have a clue who she is.... or what her politics are...
She would be better than what we have in office right now.
Really? What if that female neighbor is a clone of Hillary Clinton, or a diehard Obama supporter? I'm also pretty conservative, but I'm a Libertarian (not a Republican). Quite frankly, while I tend to agree with a good share of what Sarah Palin SAYS, I find that her actions are not the same as the words she speaks. While Governor of Alaska, she used taxpayer money to send her kids on business trips with her ... and she didn't pay it back until it was made public. She has done many other things that I consider quite hypocritical to the positions she claims to take on reducing the size of gov't and limiting spending.
Well, then your friend needs to get over it, and not be so super sensitive. Apparently, you and he weren't around back in the days when they used to refer to those type of children as "idiots", "defective", and "freaks of nature". Now, I can see where those names would be offensive ... but the word "retarded" is appropriate. In fact, it's actually the more polite term for the derogatory terms I listed above.
Personal opinion over the word I guess. You might change your tune if one of your children were to have a health problem.
BTW, how does it feel sitting in your ivory tower looking down your nose at everyone? Your attitude typifies our higher education system.
Well, then your friend needs to get over it, and not be so super sensitive. Apparently, you and he weren't around back in the days when they used to refer to those type of children as "idiots", "defective", and "freaks of nature". Now, I can see where those names would be offensive ... but the word "retarded" is appropriate. In fact, it's actually the more polite term for the derogatory terms I listed above.
We've discussed the issue of the word "retarded" before. We came to no consensus. My opinion is still that it is inappropriate to use as an adjective, e.g. "this is a retarded thread".
This isn't "back in the days; this is 2010. "Developmentally disabled" or just "disabled" has largely replaced the use of "retarded" among health care providers.
Personal opinion over the word I guess. You might change your tune if one of your children were to have a health problem.
I'm actually glad you brought this up because, while I don't have children, I have elderly parents with serious health issues. One has Alzheimers, and the other is disabled with severe Rheumatoid Arthritis. I could choose to be easily offended when somebody calls my father "impaired", or my mother "crippled" ... but I suck it up and take care of my own family matters ... and that's what Sarah Palin should be doing. In her case, making a huge national stink about a word like "retarded" tells me that she has jumped on the political correctness bandwagon, just like many of the liberals have.
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.
