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.
Sure, and don't forget that I'm a man hater for not agreeing with every Tom, Dick, and Harry. Oh, no. My mother and grandmother are man haters for...what was that again? Working or something.
What does history have to do with what is happening with the participants in this thread that would lend to monetary obligation? Spell it out if you can. Or is the purpose of posting to just read/hear yourselves talk? I also don't buy into the beaver/cleaver bologna that women haven't been working. My grandmother was an average Jane. She and millions of other women worked. Women have always worked.
Again, what does this ^^^ have to do with anything relevant today? Both men and women benefit from the work done by men and women. And what does that have to do with you or TK?
Hi Braunwyn,
You jumped all over his post with an anecdote completely out of context. He simply pointed out men typically transferred wealth to women which is absolutely true to this day. He implied that perhaps women may want to do the same as an example of equality. What does the fact that no man ever took care of you have to do with it? You also expressed it with paranoid hostility. That is why he reacted the way he did.
I'm in the my late 30's. Whatever my situation growing up, I did not have the opportunity to cultivate an entitlement attitude. I learned to be grateful for what I did have and make the best of it; and that's exactly what I did.
That's an idiotic statement. So, according to you, women that are capable of thriving without the help of men are man haters? My mom still cares for my dad, in very real practical ways, because she's a man hater? I have an awesome husband and one of my best friends is a guy (he was my man of honor at my wedding) because I'm a man hater? Don't confuse your trashy worldview with my reality.
People that won't let men do their proper jobs in supporting families are man haters.
He asked me if I wanted to meet for coffee. I told him, "I don't really feel a connection but I wish you luck."
That's really cold blooded the dude prolly had enough to treat you to Starbucks. You could of had a great time and may have made a friend , no telling when you might need one.
You jumped all over his post with an anecdote completely out of context. He simply pointed out men typically transferred wealth to women which is absolutely true to this day. He implied that perhaps women may want to do the same as an example of equality. What does the fact that no man ever took care of you have to do with it? You also expressed it with paranoid hostility. That is why he reacted the way he did.
Boloney. He said "men have been supporting women for years. Perhaps, in their drive to be "equal" they should turn it around?"
What men have been supporting which women for years? Where's the follow up application that pertains to this thread? It's a straight forward question. I certainly strive for equality for both genders, but I fail to see how this would play out for the individual posters in this thread. I'd like you to explain it to me.
To add, I will say again that the premise is misinformed. Women have always worked. Yes, for a time it was soley in the home due to the uproar during the depression IIRC. Even so, women have busted their behinds. Children are to be supported, not women and women are not children. That's the reality. If you find reality hostile, that's your business.
People that won't let men do their proper jobs in supporting families are man haters.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Who doesn't let men do their proper jobs? People work, for the most part, because they have to. I won't fault people that cannot get it together. They have a host of solid reasons, I'm sure. But, I don't see the merit in blaming others.
eta: tho, as a disclaimer, I will add that a segment of the US population has it very hard (thinking hard ghettos and the like, where systemic issues are largely at fault), but I don't believe they are the subject of this conversation.
It is a man's job to support his family. The women in your line did not let their men do the job they were supposed to. Probably out of an insane desire to be "independent" instead of part of a couple.
Men have been the primary breadwinners for centuries, and the woman was the chief of staff as far as the home was concerned. He was to have NO input on how things got done, how it was to be decorated, etc. The home was HER bailiwick.
It is a man's job to support his family. The women in your line did not let their men do the job they were supposed to. Probably out of an insane desire to be "independent" instead of part of a couple.
That is ridiculous. My grandfather had the same job for a couple of decades, if not more. Nobody stopped him from working just like nobody stops you from working. When non-english speaking immigrants were coming into this country back in the day, people had to work, regardless of gender.
Quote:
Men have been the primary breadwinners for centuries, and the woman was the chief of staff as far as the home was concerned. He was to have NO input on how things got done, how it was to be decorated, etc. The home was HER bailiwick.
That is such bullocks. Pre-industrialization women not only kept the home and tended to the children, but worked the family farm. It was only the elite that were kept and they were few. In the US, we had a few decades...a FEW decades, where one income could cut it (providing the goal is not residing in a shack). That left as fast as it came.
Boloney. He said "men have been supporting women for years. Perhaps, in their drive to be "equal" they should turn it around?"
Yes, it is what he was saying.
Quote:
What men have been supporting which women for years? Where's the follow up application that pertains to this thread? It's a straight forward question. I certainly strive for equality for both genders, but I fail to see how this would play out for the individual posters in this thread. I'd like you to explain it to me.
When women were raising children, men were gathering materials. Its in the Anthropological record. That you ask for more anecdotes demonstrates you are not capable of understanding the problem you are having.
I can't seem to explain anything to you.
Quote:
To add, I will say again that the premise is misinformed. Women have always worked. Yes, for a time it was soley in the home due to the uproar during the depression IIRC. Even so, women have busted their behinds. Children are to be supported, not women and women are not children. That's the reality. If you find reality hostile, that's your business.
Women worked at raising children and their additional work needed to be in that proximity. In terms of investment, it would be qualified as long term hence men supported women for more immediate needs. Only you are mining for some semantic angle that means supporting women means women did not work. Its our secrete language that we use to say that women are useless and should be slaves. You caught us.
It is obvious to me you are looking for a stump to demonstrate your Amazonian prowess. You are howling with an obvious mist of rabid anger.
Some people wish to retain these divisions of labor which they are free to do if they so wish. Feminism is acceptable in the form of allowing women to do as they please. It becomes unacceptable when it becomes I cannot do as I please.
The women didn't have the strength of the men on the farm. Your assertion is boll ocks. Women took care of everything in the home.
By the way, by eliminating women from the workforce, employers would face increased demand for workers, and have to pay higher wages.
But I've been able to support two people on $10 an hour--as well as paying a $400 vet bill for her cat. When I met her, I had no car--she bought a car out of the income I had. She had absolutely NO income--she was waiting on a disability settlement--for four or five years.
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.
