Quote:
Originally Posted by John1960
Over the past several decades, America has witnessed a profound change in the way women view men and marriage. It began with the baby boomer adage “never depend on a man.”
This message resulted in a generation of women who turned their attention away from the home and onto the workforce. They did what their mothers told them to do: they became financially independent so they’d never have to rely on a husband.
Why women still need husbands | Fox News |
Thank you Fox News (Ms Venker) for stating the obvious as I wade into the murky waters.
Some thoughts after reading the article. It is funny how these thoughts manifest themselves over the years. There's an old George Burns and Gracie Allen routine, where she's being encouraged to pursue her career outside of her 'Burns and Allen' couple i.e. marriage, and I'm paraphrasing as best I can recall it, but when she is encouraged to pursue her career in spite of relationship / marriage she replies, "yes, but you can't warm your feet on your career". Just as Ms. Venker alludes to in the statement, "Financial independence is a great thing but you can't take your paycheck to bed with you".
The feminist movement as it played out (IMO) sold females bunch of lies about being able to 'have it all' by letting the vocal 'anti men minority' get lots more media time, and in turn, color the dialogue into "us versus them" (
Competing Against versus Competing With) without trying to foster understanding (yes and I know, the understanding is a two way street).
Basically, what it accomplished was to devalue women's historic role as civilizing, nurturing / nesting force (the basic hardwiring for the female species with some exceptions on personal preference etc..) and turned many into lab rats on the corporate mass media centered madhouse of dissension makes profits. That is, create and amplify conflict and controversy to keep a majority of people of both sexes dissatisfied / unfulfilled in the hopes of $elling them $omething to $omehow make their unfulfilled lives just a little more complete with ___________ (fill in the blank).
The irony is, this put women, in general, in a compressed 'wash cycle' like vortex between
having the most important years for getting an education, building a career, and having children (the most oft reason for wanting husband in marriage) coincide with their most desirable mating and marrying years. Its inherently a conflict for 95-98% of women outside of celebrity elites (Jennifer Aniston, Jody Foster et al) who can easily afford the amount of additional care providers. Women who want to be married and have family need to decide early and the corporate driven cultural mindset is anathema to raising healthy children based on early childhood development needs.
Personally, I think a concerted effort to encourage an environment where the best and brightest women are enabled to pursue motherhood without shooting themselves in the foot would be good. Or provide better education into what the decisions to forego 'motherhood' for 'corporate-hood' entail. Don't know exactly what this would look like, but some variance of extended leave, stipends for working mother in two couple households. On the other hand,
the US Government - through policy- has encouraged the most irresponsible to procreate freely (whelping for benefits by absentee parents) in the hopes of growing a government dependent voting bloc, all the while destroying the country in the process by creating a negatively leveraged societal model. That is not to say exceptional children can not come from single parent households, just that overwhelming research shows the benefits to children of two parent household (with the obvious exceptions).
This plays up to the growth in 'economic relationship based thinking' in the productive classes that encourages humans to have a 'cost benefit' social relationship outlook toward potential mates. This also portends poorly for women who want husbands, in finding suitable ones. Men who have long had the culturally accepted role as provider, now makes them less inclined to even desire marriage. The old adage "why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free" - comes readily to mind as one outcome from 'the sexual revolution' which has essentially devalued women. (A foray into the fashion and beauty forum here will provide 'ample' samples).
If men haven't been raised in an atmosphere that holds women up in value, (respect) with reasonable expectations, they likely succumb to the mass media programming, which promotes antagonism between the sexes. This causes some of the strange dichotomy of C-D threads that proliferate with Male whining ( I can't find a woman to even talk to me without showing disgust) and Women whining (you men are all alike, you only like centerfolds, etc). There should be a PSA commercial made for TV with these two groups and their 'lament' as a Greek Chorus that then says: "Put down your devices, pursue an interest, meet live real people in everyday life and get to know them on a human level. Not behind a digital façade and in 140 words or 3 minutes or less."
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.
