Feminism

[sehad]

if you are equal, how can you be the head?

This is not really complicated. Ever had a boss that always seemed like he was acting "better" or above you just because he was your boss. If you ever have, you tend to start hating being around your boss, talk about him behind his back, and almost get to the point that you don't want to do what he says. On the other hand, if you have a boss that gives you instructions and does what he can to help, if he acts as your friend and not just your boss being concerned with you as a person and not just what you can do for him, you don't mind doing extra stuff to make him look good or get your work done better. This is the same concept. If you act dominating and "better" than your wife, she begins to spite you as you would your boss. Even though your boss is over you, it seems as though you are a team even though he is responsible. Same with the wife, even though she is the weaker vessel and you are responsible, it seems as more that y'all are equal.

Sehad,
You bring up some good points.

One thing about the family that needs two incomes to survive is this: The more people that decide that they need TWO breadwinners instead of one, the more difficult it is on those families that have only one working.
Here is how it works. When there are more and more families with two people working, they have more money to spend. When they spend more money, prices for everything go up due to the law of supply and demand. This puts a strain on single income families causing some of them to send the wife out to work just to keep up. See how that works?

You asked about women that do not have a husband. I would encourage christians to return to the God sanctioned practice of having more than one wife. This makes it easier for a family to raise children and if we could become more sustainable agriculturally speaking this would work out great.

When women do not have a husband it leads to great unhappiness. Check out what Paul has to say in 1 Timothy.

I agree with the supply and demand somewhat, I do not think that it matters THAT much but to a small extent I agree with you. One thing about the old testimate is that most wives had handmaidens or servants if you will to help with the raising of the children as well as men having multiple wives(which this is another issue than feminism). Many of GOD's chosen were married to only one wife at a time(Moses, Adam, Noah, Abraham) and those that weren't often had problems with that. So this begs to ask if GOD instituted this practice or if he simply allowed it to happen. While marriage is not for everyone, I agree it is more fulfilling for someone to have a marriage and make it work but happiness is a state of mind, marriage will not make you happy and will only make matters worse if you are not happy. In the biblical days, the man and wife often had the same occupation, which was herdsmen. When Moses married Zipporah, she was a shepherd and she continued to be one even after they were married with children. It just so happened that this occupation could be done from home with the kids around, but as I stated earlier...they had servants and handmaidens to help with this.

 

[peace4all]

well, I guess that both my bosses I have eve rhad, have been MARVELOUS people. I absolutely love them both. I would never go out of my way, to make them look better than they are, because they are already so awesome. (idunno maybe your analogy just can't apply to my jobs)

I feel that both husband and wife shoudl be equal in all aspects, Both should win the bread, both should raise the children (if desired), Both should do work around the house.

I mean, Obviously, the stronger of the 2 will do the more "manly" work, and if one has special skills (i know plenty of men that cook better than plenty of women, along with sew and clean (i also know women that are better painters and fixing small motors :-P)

I don't believe it is fair to a father to deal with the stress of "I don't do anything with my kid, except provide for them. Where are my benefits? i get to see them occasionally, and know they are ok, But i dont get to help them when they get hurt, I dont get to teach them morals, and ethics, I dont get to be there for the first steps, or the graduation, or whatever, because I have to be there to put food on the table and clothes on his/her back.

Its so much more fair if both parents share everything equally (obviosly with the exceptions that are jsut common sense. If one is better at changign diapers, or playing catch, or making lunches, then of course, let them do it)

My opinions on this matter are probably due to the fact that I hate my father, because he did nothing but provide the bread, and then, well, become addicted to crack again and stop providing all together.

I hated it when he was clean, and would never plaay with me. Tuck me in, or take me to practice or anyhting. He was always too busy working (my mom also worked as a daycare provider, in our own home) so I never got to spend time with my father really. (cept for getting punished seems about it)

 

[Perry Reid]

I think Abraham was definitely married to two women at once.

 

[sehad]

I think Abraham was definitely married to two women at once.

Think?

 

[ArtGuy]

One thing about the family that needs two incomes to survive is this: The more people that decide that they need TWO breadwinners instead of one, the more difficult it is on those families that have only one working.
Here is how it works. When there are more and more families with two people working, they have more money to spend. When they spend more money, prices for everything go up due to the law of supply and demand. This puts a strain on single income families causing some of them to send the wife out to work just to keep up. See how that works?

I'm not sure whether I'm more frightened of your grasp of economics or belief that women should get in the kitchen, shut up, and start spitting out babies like God intended. I'll only address the former, since you're probably pretty married to your misogynism, so to speak.

A family of a given size is going to consume, more or less, a fixed amount of staple items. By these, I mean things like basic food, clothing, shelter of some sort, utilities, gas, and so on. If I suddenly become rich, I may alter the types of these goods that I consume, but not the amount. I'm not going to suddenly eat twice as much, unless I wasn't eating enough before. Demand for these items as a class, then, is more or less unchanged by a family having more money. Demand would, however, be affected by spitting out a lot of mouths to feed, so if anything, it would be the humongo-large families you seem to favor that would drive up demand and stick it to the poor, single-income working families.

That aside, "demand" works a little differently than you seem to think. Because there's also that "supply" thing, and there's also the fact that the position of the demand curve isn't fixed. Without going into a lot of boring detail, I'll just point out that even in the case of legitimate increases in demand, a variety of factors can and typically do result in prices decreasing in the long term. The upshot of it all is that those nasty, nasty, women who want to work aren't the reason why it's difficult to get by with a single income. The main factors are the increasing cost of real estate coupled with our increasing standards of living. Things that were luxuries 50 years ago are now considered necessities. While I'm sure this is something you find extremely distasteful, and you no doubt wish we could return to an era where people died in the streets of polio and were largely ignorant and poverty ridden in exchange for keeping the wimmins in their barefooted place, the sad fact remains that the increased cost of living isn't something you get to blame feminism for.

 

[Perry Reid]

I'm not sure whether I'm more frightened of your grasp of economics or belief that women should get in the kitchen, shut up, and start spitting out babies like God intended. I'll only address the former, since you're probably pretty married to your misogynism, so to speak.

Oh good. You start off with an ad hominem attack. And your attack makes no sense. A misogynist is one who hates women yet I’m advocating marrying several. I love women. Godly women that is. So your harassment technique falls short. I feel embarrassed for ya.

A family of a given size is going to consume, more or less, a fixed amount of staple items. By these, I mean things like basic food, clothing, shelter of some sort, utilities, gas, and so on. If I suddenly become rich, I may alter the types of these goods that I consume, but not the amount. I'm not going to suddenly eat twice as much, unless I wasn't eating enough before. Demand for these items as a class, then, is more or less unchanged by a family having more money. Demand would, however, be affected by spitting out a lot of mouths to feed, so if anything, it would be the humongo-large families you seem to favor that would drive up demand and stick it to the poor, single-income working families.

You haven’t proven anything except that you can type. I’m arguing against high consumption multi breadwinner families in favor of self sufficient single bread winner families. Families that can make some of their own things instead of buying everything from China Mart such as clothing or food.

That aside, "demand" works a little differently than you seem to think. Because there's also that "supply" thing, and there's also the fact that the position of the demand curve isn't fixed. Without going into a lot of boring detail, I'll just point out that even in the case of legitimate increases in demand, a variety of factors can and typically do result in prices decreasing in the long term.

But you’re forgetting to include the extreme bottleneck phenomenon that exists in this global economy in which our dollars come back to us much slower than they leave.

The upshot of it all is that those nasty, nasty, women who want to work aren't the reason why it's difficult to get by with a single income. The main factors are the increasing cost of real estate coupled with our increasing standards of living.

Pejorative aside, you are right about the real estate market having an effect. But that is due to high consumer two bread winner families that can take out 30 yr mortgages and effectively shut out of the market the single breadwinner families that might save up and pay cash. I mean, who really can afford to pay 350K for a modest three bedroom home?? Oh I forgot, the materialist christian families that have 1.7 children and push their daughters into becoming corporate lawyers instead of homemakers as God intended. Would not want to be standing next to them on that great day of Judgement.

Things that were luxuries 50 years ago are now considered necessities. While I'm sure this is something you find extremely distasteful, and you no doubt wish we could return to an era where people died in the streets of polio and were largely ignorant and poverty ridden in exchange for keeping the wimmins in their barefooted place, the sad fact remains that the increased cost of living isn't something you get to blame feminism for.

Such crude and oversimplified aggravation techniques tell me that you are just too sophomoric for me to try to engage in such dialogue.

 

[ArtGuy]

I'm not sure whether I'm more frightened of your grasp of economics or belief that women should get in the kitchen, shut up, and start spitting out babies like God intended. I'll only address the former, since you're probably pretty married to your misogynism, so to speak.

Oh good. You start off with an ad hominem attack. And your attack makes no sense. A misogynist is one who hates women yet I’m advocating marrying several. I love women. Godly women that is. So your harassment technique falls short. I feel embarrassed for ya.

The fact that you want to be able to have sex with a whole lot of women doesn't mean you like or respect them any more.

You haven’t proven anything except that you can type. I’m arguing against high consumption multi breadwinner families in favor of self sufficient single bread winner families. Families that can make some of their own things instead of buying everything from China Mart such as clothing or food.

You were saying that the very existence of dual-income households made it harder for single-income households to get by. I was explaining how this wasn't the case, because people with more money are going to be spending that extra money on luxuries, and thus not driving up the demand for the essentials. Trying to change the argument isn't going to help you make your case.

But you’re forgetting to include the extreme bottleneck phenomenon that exists in this global economy in which our dollars come back to us much slower than they leave.

Well, I suppose I'm also forgetting the cost of the navigational system on the space shuttle. Oh, wait, no, it's just that has nothing to do with the conversation at hand. Kinda like your "extreme bottleneck phenomenon". Did you just read that term somewhere, and thought it might make your case sound better, or something?

Pejorative aside, you are right about the real estate market having an effect. But that is due to high consumer two bread winner families that can take out 30 yr mortgages and effectively shut out of the market the single breadwinner families that might save up and pay cash.

Man, what? It's extremely easy to get a 0-down loan on a home. There are all sorts of first-time buyer programs provided by the government to help lower-income families buy houses. What you said there is largely nonsensical, and the parts that do make sense are irrelevant.

I mean, who really can afford to pay 350K for a modest three bedroom home?? Oh I forgot, the materialist christian families that have 1.7 children and push their daughters into becoming corporate lawyers instead of homemakers as God intended.

If you're not living in California, then you don't need to pay 350k for a three bedroom home. But that's telling, right there. You're equating wanting to live in a modest home with being "materialist". All good Christians live in slums and shacks, I presume? Wanting to provide a safe environment for your children is the devil's doing, huh?

Such crude and oversimplified aggravation techniques tell me that you are just too sophomoric for me to try to engage in such dialogue.

True or false: Things were better 100 years ago, when women stayed home and men made all the money.

 

[Prakk]

Lifestyle?

The truth is that even the poorest of Americans are wealthy by world standards. If we did not consume in such grand fashion, the majority of men could probably support two wives. This is not just the fault of the men however, a lot of the women are not content to eat well and live well, they are subscribers to consumerism as well.

Hugh McBryde

 

[ArtGuy]

Re: Lifestyle?

The truth is that even the poorest of Americans are wealthy by world standards. If we did not consume in such grand fashion, the majority of men could probably support two wives. This is not just the fault of the men however, a lot of the women are not content to eat well and live well, they are subscribers to consumerism as well.

Our ability to live well is not separate from our consumerism. If we were content to live in humble abodes and never bought non-essential goods, we'd still be living in the 18th century. Consumerism drives the economy, and the economy improves our collective well-being in all manner of very tangible ways, including improvements in health care, information transfer, and the simple happiness derived from not having to worry about putting food on the table.

There's nothing bad about buying a new DVD, or going on a vacation, as long as these things are viewed as the diversions that they are. And generally speaking, women in the workplace has done a lot more good than harm.

Mostly, though, I just don't get the assertion that women working is fundamentally evil. I can see the argument that a child will be better off with mom than in a daycare, though this is by no means a given. (My own daughter is much more independent, well-behaved, good-natured, and well-developed than many other children I know whose mothers stay at home, and my kid's been in daycare since she was 6 weeks old.) But what about prior to the parents having children? Is it a sin for the mom to not being shooting out kids the second she hits child-bearing age? Is it a sin for a couple to wish to build up their coffers, or simply enjoy being together, for a while before having kids? Is it a sin for the mother to work when the child is at school? Is it a sin for the mother to work when all the kids are grown and moved out?

Lastly, I don't get this thing with wanting women to do all the housework. My gosh, how lazy are you people? I prefer helping out around the house. I like the feeling of accomplishment I get when I spend a couple hours cleaning and the whole house is nice and tidy afterwards. I enjoy working in the yard, I enjoy cooking. (Actually, I really enjoy cooking, and prefer to do it.) Why is this a bad thing? Why would God frown upon a family that had decided to split up the housework fairly?

For the love of God, people, grow up. Be man enough to lift a finger around the house. Help do some laundry - it'll be good for you. I know it's easy to let your harem cater to you, but you'll feel better about yourself if you take some initiative and get things done yourself.

 

[Perry Reid]

Artguy,
You don't get it that women working is evil because you have a pollyanna mindset and don't see how divorce effects society in such drastic ways that we can hardly comprehend it.

And yes divorce is caused by women working. They have no incentive to stay in a romance-less marriage when they can support themselves. You may be able to put on blinders and not see that 90% of the men in our prisons come from single mother homes, but I cannot do the same in good conscience. You may be okay with the fact that the majority of all violent crimes in our country are the result of children growing up without fathers. Children growing up without fathers is largely due to the feminist/matriarchal State in which we live that encourages hatred for the male part of God's creation. This in turns spurs and fertilizes entire industries including but not limited to the Judicial System and the Social Welfare system.

It is a law of nature that the overall amount of women will not be happy married to a man that is beneath them in society. Yet men continue to push their daughters into going to college which automatically puts a great majority of the young men beneath them.

 

[ArtGuy]

Artguy,
You don't get it that women working is evil because you have a pollyanna mindset and don't see how divorce effects society in such drastic ways that we can hardly comprehend it.

And yes divorce is caused by women working. They have no incentive to stay in a romance-less marriage when they can support themselves.

Wow, I take back my misogynist comment. You so very obviously love women. It takes a lot of affection to reduce them to the status of cattle to be herded about according to the wishes of their husbands and to be shackled to their current lifestyles in manners not applicable to the menfolk.

For one thing, why would men want to stay in a crappy marriage any more than women? They're certainly capable of divorcing their wives just as much as women are.

For another, why shouldn't the solution be for young people to stop getting married to the wrong people? I think this would go a long way towards address the divorce issue, as opposed to handicapping women so they're subjected to the whims of their husbands.

It is a law of nature that the overall amount of women will not be happy married to a man that is beneath them in society. Yet men continue to push their daughters into going to college which automatically puts a great majority of the young men beneath them.

Even assuming that this isn't one of the stupidest overgeneralizations I've ever heard, the average woman is still lower than the average man on the economic totem pole. So it's still very possible for women to find men who are of equal or greater status. Why can't lawyer-woman simply find a lawyer-man to settle down with?

By the way, are you married?

 

[Lewis]

I think Abraham was definitely married to two women at once.

Think?

the law was not given yet.

 

[DivineNames]

I watched an interview recently, and this woman admitted that she had been turned lesbo by feminist philosophy. (and not the good kind of lesbo...) She had eventually reverted back and is now married.

 

[sehad]

[quote="Perry Reid":99c1e]I think Abraham was definitely married to two women at once.

Think?

the law was not given yet.[/quote:99c1e]

If Abraham had more than one wife, why(when Sarah believed that she couldn't have children even after GOD said she would) did Abraham turn to Hagar, Sarah's handmaiden, instead of one of this "other" wives?

 

[Prakk]

Ok..

"the law was not given yet."

Interesting. Does this mean that you say the Law prohibited having two wives at the same time, or discouraged it in some way?

Hugh McBryde

 

[Everyday Person]

Being a male myself, I dont have any problems with Feminism, it is just unfortunate that the minority amongst them - the raving lesbo man hater - is the one you are most likely to see on TV News programs and read in the papers because those are the types that are going to attract more viewers/readers. There has not been a feminist I have met yet that thinks down similiar avenues.

I live in a univiersity dorm with 7 other girls (There are 10 people in our dorm in total), each one is a feminist, yet their outlook is not that of the stereotype 'man hating lesbo', but rather as young women that want to be rewarded the same for their work in life as men are, as well as having the opportunities to acheive the same things in life that males can acheive. I personally see it as highly unfair and contradictory to a societies belief in freedom and equality for all, when the amount you are rewarded for your hard work is reduced based upon your genitalia.

As far as the man always being the head of the household...to each his own I suppose. Personally, I know for a fact that if my father had have been at the head of our household when I was growing up, I would not be in the fortunate situation I am now. My mother held the family together and saw us through each hardship, and if it had have been up to my dad, things would have been much worse. I am sure there are plenty of other scenario's out there that are similiar in nature.

 

[Prakk]

Wakey Wakey, hands off Snakey??

"I personally see it as highly unfair and contradictory to a societies belief in freedom and equality for all, when the amount you are rewarded for your hard work is reduced based upon your genitalia."'

This fails to understand that God plans lovingly and with precision and perfection, exactly who you are. Thus the value of your work is not determined by your genitalia, your value is illustrated by them and God planed you to be someone very special to him. This is also a crude way of saying that all men are obsessed with their crotch.

"As far as the man always being the head of the household...to each his own I suppose."

Scripturally, that is simply not possible.

Hugh McBryde

 

[Hierophant]

First I want to thank Perry Reid from the bottom of my heart. I haven't laughed this hard all week. Seriously. It only got better when I realized that you might not be a troll and actually believe the things you are saying. Keep it up, you are wonderfully entertaining!!!!


Now, on this subject I would love to share an observation that seems to have escaped everyone. I truly wonder what you are thinking when you talk about the "head of the household" here. For some reason you seem to think it is the man. Do you just mean who has control of the money? Or do you mean who actually runs the family?

Let's take score:

Who cooks and feeds the family?
Who cleans the house?
Who does all the laundry?
Who actually buys the clothes the family wears?
Who keeps track of birthdays and social events?
Who plans birthdays and social events?
Who teaches the children right from wrong?
Who soothes the hurts & comforts?
Who scolds and punishes misdeeds?
Who does the bills?
Who plans get-togethers and family activites with friends?

That's the short list. Tell me? Who actually runs the house?

 

[ArtGuy]

Let's take score:

In my family? It goes about like this:

Who cooks and feeds the family?

Mostly me, because I like to cook.

Who cleans the house?

Both of us.

Who does all the laundry?

She washes, I put away.

Who actually buys the clothes the family wears?

We each buy our own clothes, though she buys most of the clothes for our daughter.

Who keeps track of birthdays and social events?

Both of us.

Who plans birthdays and social events?

Both of us.

Who teaches the children right from wrong?

Both of us.

Who soothes the hurts & comforts?

Both of us.

Who scolds and punishes misdeeds?

Both of us.

Who does the bills?

Mostly her, because she's more organized.

Who plans get-togethers and family activites with friends?

Both of us.

That's the short list. Tell me? Who actually runs the house?

Well, I'd have to say... both of us. And that's more or less how it is in all the families I know. I think the idea of one person "running the house" is a quaint, if somewhat annoying, throwback to an older generation. At least in my household, nobody is "in charge", and nobody gets final say on anything. We're equal partners, we get equal say, and we do equal work. All this bickering over who's "head of the household" is just silly, to me.

 

[Everyday Person]

This fails to understand that God plans lovingly and with precision and perfection, exactly who you are. Thus the value of your work is not determined by your genitalia, your value is illustrated by them and God planed you to be someone very special to him.

So, this means that it is okay that a woman doing the exact same job as a man gets paid less based upon physical characteristics? The fact that he is a man warrants the justification of him getting paid more in the work place than her?

This is also a crude way of saying that all men are obsessed with their crotch.

I fail to see the hidden message in my last post that suggests that.

Scripturally, that is simply not possible.

Realistically, it is possible.

There are women out there far more capable than their partner's of running a household, or earning 'the bread and butter' so to speak, just as there are males that are more capable than their wives. I repeat myself when I say that I know for a fact, had my dad been in charge of the household and my mother 'submitted' to his whims, we would not be in the very fortunate possition we are now.