Women are the Spleen of Civilization
Here’s an interesting scientific thought experiment for you.
Everyone knows that women belong at home and not in the workplace. Just like everyone knows that men are responsible for being the providers in the family unit. That’s why lesbianism doesn’t work and doesn’t exist. It’s like having a car with no steering wheel and a 2 hp engine.
That’s called bumper cars. They sound fun, but really they’re just a waste of your fucking time.
Technology. When it comes to science, it doesn’t get more “science” than technology. That’s a man fact that you can take to your man grave.
Technology’s job is to improve life. That’s why men invented it in the first place. Everyone was having a hard time dragging their shit across the dirt and dying of syphilis at 23, so men invented technology to help with that. Women invented denial for similar purposes, but that hasn’t progressed in ten thousand years — just like women.
Here’s the thought experiment. Over the years, technology has improved life at home equally to how it has improved life in the workplace. You’d think that would lead to lazier employees, but it hasn’t. The truth is today’s modern man-employee has to be just as attentive, productive, and proactive when it comes to learning these new technologies as he ever has; even when not in a technology field, such a crab fishing or being a detective. Technology has not begotten laziness in the workplace, no sir.
But what about in the home?
Businesses are designed to maximize productivity and money. The home is not. The home is more like a crossword puzzle. You sit down, solve a few riddles never straying outside the box, and then you’re free to eat another “healthy breakfast” bar. Have you seen how much fucking sugar is in those things?
Of course not because you’re a man and that’s not a man’s breakfast.
What’s left for women to do at home after the automatic, no-scrub dishwashing machine has cleaned up from last night’s supper? You can’t extra wash dishes. That doesn’t make any sense, so that job’s done. And what’s to do while the rechargeable floor sweeping robot — which actually exists — is cleaning up after the children? Flirt with the UPS guy? Yea, that sounds about right. And speaking of children, is there any real mothering to be done anymore? What with televisions and Speak n’ Spells and Happy Meal Educational inserts.
No.
Technology has taken women — who used to be probably the colon of civilization, and transmogrified them into the spleen. That little mass of flesh (well on its way to being replaced by the liver) that hasn’t had a real purpose in thousands of years.
That’s why women hate and suck at technology.
Related Articles:
May 18th, 2006 at 8:38 am - IP Man-Hash: 5950bb08d3016
Oh and I am sick of hearing the Rosalind Franklin DNA thing.
She didn’t solve the structure of DNA, she was a worker that took x-ray pictures of samples somebody else created. She didn’t even posess the reasoning skills to interpret the data.
Giving her credit for it is feminist propoganda and is like giving the photolab credit for developing a picture that turns out to be a masterpiece, not the artist
May 18th, 2006 at 9:20 am - IP Man-Hash: 19105c7fbb7a4
Okay. Sorry Mike I must have misunderstood you. Thank you for clearing that up.
May 18th, 2006 at 9:48 am - IP Man-Hash: 19105c7fbb7a4
Geeza said:
I was stating that there is a luxury of choice for people. The luxury of choice does not have to be between clerical work and bricklaying work - as there are plenty of career options for men and women to choose from. Not really sure what you mean by ‘a potential female bricklayer’ - would you mean a woman that is strong enough to do the work? If that is so - yes maybe a woman who could have skill and ability to do a certain job CAN choose to do something in another career, if she wants to. The point wasn’t that she has the choice, the point lies in the fact that just because she does not choose that as a job, does not always mean that she is not capable of doing said job.
I am sure there is a potential in every one of us - it is not like we all grow up with abilties for a particular job - often we can get quite a mixture of talents that do not all get use in the same area of work. That is part of what makes us all individuals in this sense.
Actually. I did not say that, you just inferred that from my argument. I don’t think there is a need to force women into anything. Are men forced into work as builders, carpenters and so on? Do men do this work because they have to or do they like doing this work? If it the former rather than the latter, then we have to stop and question that in more detail.
That a woman does not want to do a certain job doesn’t make her lazy, maybe that career path doesn’t appeal to her. I am sure there are some jobs you would never consider doing…?
The idea of feminists in this respect is completely wrong. Then again, it is easier to know that upon hindsight than it is to know at the time. Now it is clear that with some of this supposed ‘patriarchy’ removed, women prefer not to do certain work anyway- I don’t believe women should be forced into roles that do not suit them as individuals but I do not think certain things should be closed to them either.
I may have misunderstood you here, but you do make it sound like you are suggesting men would actually rather not do construction work and would prefer to do some clerical work for a while instead.
This concept of the ‘natural’ gender is taken so much from a long running cooked up argument of feminists - this debate they started about whether female/male behaviour is learnt or natural - I mean if were to be talking about homosexual behaviour (both that of lesbians and gays) would that be ‘natural’ behaviour or learnt? I think we would find a rather grey area to our concept of the ‘natural’ gender especially when considering trangender and cross-dressers and even people born with both genders or no biological gender at all?
In which ‘natural male/female’ group do we fit these people in? In other words, what exactly is ‘natural’? I think that is another debate altogether, but never mind.
May 18th, 2006 at 10:15 am - IP Man-Hash: 19105c7fbb7a4
Well I think we can argue these points to death, but really all of these are moot points, given that they describe a scenario that is unlikely to happen that will prove any of our claims - we are dealing with the what if and if only territory, one that we will never resolve.
That said, I will offer that women could still learn - she could learn from a book, or a man - either way, the point is made that she could learn. I was arguing from the point of view that it is not that women are NOT capable - (which seemed to me to be what you were saying) it was that often she chooses not to. In a world where men are quite happy to do the job, it seems a bit underhand to start announcing that women are therefore useless.
Maybe you are reacting to feminist propaganda, and if that is the reason, I understand where you are coming from. However I find it more superfluous to be arguing how women are so useless and complaining about doing a job that you like doing anyway. It also seems a bit hypocritical to criticise women for selecting jobs that they prefer to do, when you select jobs you like doing too - namely these ‘civilisation backbone’ jobs. It just so happens that men like doing it and women don’t - so what is wrong with that? It is good luck - lord knows how much worse the gender war would be if men AND women didn’t want to do the exact same work. Perhaps we would have to resort to slavery to get anything done!
Perhaps, the problem is not that women don’t want to do the jobs - it is the fact that they do not give men the respect that they deserve - considering what they do? Is that right?
Well, gentlemen, respect does have to start somewhere - and I don’t think you are going to get much respect from women if you keep going around telling them that their existence is superfluous. Even if they are (I don’t think they are) it doesn’t matter that they are ‘useless’, either way, women exist. And, at the moment, men exist because women exist and women exist because men exist. We can either learn to live together as best we can or destroy each other and ultimately ourselves. I would prefer the former.
May 18th, 2006 at 10:24 am - IP Man-Hash: dc4b477cfd13b
This is a common female misconception.
Women believe that since they have the luxury of choice — particularly about whether to work in order to survive or not — that men have the same choices.
Men do not.
Men take jobs depending on whether it will allow them to survive or not. Now, there’s a range within what will allow us to survive, this is true. But even within that range, sometimes men have little choice.
I was lucky: I’m intelligent and my father was well-off, so I could fritter away ten years of my life before finally figuring out that no one was going to help me survive, so I got a degree in computer science. Not all men are as intelligent or have the luxury of parents who can spoil their ass for a decade, so they wind up in less lucrative positions.
Women, on the other hand, can choose whether to work at all.
A man who does not work lives in poverty or dies. A woman who does not work can tak advantage of government programs or marry a man who can support her.
Women have choices. Men don’t.
Here’s a general concept:
No one — men nor women — wants to spend all their time in back-breaking physical labor.
Men do so because of three factors: some men must, because women won’t; some men can’t find other work, either because they’re not capable of it or it’s not available; some men enjoy aspects of it.
But if you gave the average construction worker a choice between ten hours a day making buildings and sitting in a swivel chair in the office, most of them would take the chair. But here’s the problem:
Women choose not to do construction. In general, they do office work of some kind. Therefore, if two equally-skilled people show up for the same office job interview, a man and a woman, an employer will give the job to a woman. Why? Because if his situation is dire, the man can always find manual labor work. The woman will only ever do office work.
Women have the luxury of not having to work in order to survive. Men don’t. It all boils down to that fairly simple concept.
May 18th, 2006 at 10:36 am - IP Man-Hash: dc4b477cfd13b
I agree in general about the futility of arguing hypothetical situations. Regardless, women are useless in terms of maintaining civilization. I absolutely stand by that statement.
I agree. The disgusting thing from my perspective is that even after two generations of near-parity with men, women choose to remain ignorant and to allow men to maintain the civilization they enjoy.
All the while bitching about it from the sidelines.
I disagree. When women spend two generations screaming that the only reason they aren’t equal to men is because men won’t allow it; and then when they have every opportunity to become equal to men but don’t take advantage of it; I think you’re looking at one of two reasons:
A) Women are just lazy and only wanted to be let out of the house so that they wouldn’t have to do any work at all, or
B) They’re not actually capable of being equal to men.
I’m charitable, so I choose (A).
Respect would be nice, but we’ll never get it. To admit that a debt of some kind is owed would be to admit that the debtor hasn’t even tried to contribute in this case. That acknowledgement would in turn require a level of introspection that I do not believe women in general are capable of, ruled as they are by random emotions.
Yes, we’d be happier if they’d just stop bitching about how awful we are while simultaneously contributing nothing. But that’s not going to happen.
All women have to do in order to stop it is stop being superfluous. Step up to the plate and exercise the rights they demanded for half a century.
It’s not a man’s fault if a woman chooses to not exercise her rights. Can we then be blamed for saying, “Well, you’re choosing to be superfluous, honey.”
May 18th, 2006 at 11:07 am - IP Man-Hash: 31c21bee93bb0
How did you get a wife who will clean for 2 hours a day?
May 18th, 2006 at 11:28 am - IP Man-Hash: b39671b23df39
Hilarious, Rob.
-Dick
May 18th, 2006 at 11:49 am - IP Man-Hash: 19105c7fbb7a4
It’s not a man’s fault if a woman chooses to not exercise her rights. Can we then be blamed for saying, “Well, you’re choosing to be superfluous, honey.”
Maybe not. Although a lot of feminists like to shriek about the fact there are not enough women in certain jobs, personally it doesn’t bother me. I think if women wanted the jobs, they would get them regardless of some stupid idea that men are holding them back. At least in this day and age a lot of women could get what they want if they wanted it enough - maybe more so now than ever before.
Yet I think feminists need to re-think this aspects of ‘rights’ with respect to work. I don’t think anyone has a RIGHT to work, I think you find work and if you are suitable for the role or position you get hired. It is a competitive system of the best person for the job wins. If you don’t get a job somewhere, you have to look somewhere else. I don’t have a job because it is my RIGHT to have one - I have one because I am suitable for the work.
Another aspect of this ‘equality issue’ is the simple fact that it is women that gives birth and may have to decide to stay at home with the child. It is obvious that when a woman does get pregnant, she does not end up working the hours that a man does. If it is the women staying at home looking after the children then I would hardly call that a lazy-job (unless she is a lazy mother - as some women are, unfortunately)… and it really isn’t that much fun either, I shouldn’t think.
All depends on what you consider to be the most ‘important’ job… I think child-rearing is just as important. I am not saying that to blow women’s trumpet… because a lot of women are not doing a good job of their parenting - why? Because perhaps she thinks that she has this RIGHT to work and she goes out an exercises it but does not see the importance of what is needed to be done at home?
Unless of course, we flip that on its head and suggest that maybe some Dads could stay at home and look after the children while the women work? To be honest, I don’t see that happening… I see more children being left to their own devices while both parents are out earning a living - which I don’t really agree with. The mind boggles.
May 18th, 2006 at 11:50 am - IP Man-Hash: 19105c7fbb7a4
Sorry. The above sentence was that of Dakota’s - I forgot to put that as a block quote.
May 18th, 2006 at 1:30 pm - IP Man-Hash: dc4b477cfd13b
It doesn’t bother me, either — but that’s because 41 years’ experience teaches me that men as a group are not doing anything to hold women back. In my field (computer network management) there are no women. They exist in the programming fields, but not in the nuts-and-bolts, run-around-fixing-1d10t-errors level. Nobody is trying to keep them out — in fact, I think if we actually had a woman apply, my employers would snap her up just to show that they’re not prejudiced.
They just never apply.
Oh, it’s far more important, hands-down. Ultimately, any competant person can hold down a job. Only a dedicated parent can raise children to become civilized human beings. In the job of maintaining civilization, parenting is more important than keeping the infrastructure going.
Unfortunately, feminism caused women to abandon that important job as demeaning to their personhood. Consequently, a huge percentage of women who have children may be parents in the technical sense that they reproduced. They aren’t parents where it counts, unfortunately, which is in actually caring for and raising their child.
Worse: modern women are raised to believe that parenting is an afterthought, something demeaning, something you do once you have the $80K job, if ever. It’s sort of expected that a woman spit out a child, but raising it is for other people.
I, for one, would have been thrilled to raise my children — up to and including home-schooling them. At one point, when my ex was gibbering incessantly about how afraid she was to not be working after having children, I offered to be a full-time house-dad. I’d've loved to have done it, and I think I’m well-suited to it.
Unfortunately, making such an offer only made me appear lazy in her eyes. I suppose there are many good reasons that after 13 years, I finally had to leave her ass at the curb … ;)
And sadly, women have only one group to blame for this mess: other women, specifically feminists. It’s other women, not men, who told them that child-rearing was demeaning. It’s other women, not men, who told them they could have it all (a good job, lots of posessions, a family) without sacrificing anything.
May 18th, 2006 at 3:11 pm - IP Man-Hash: bfd66b4084d2c
Gentlemen,
One of my biggest pet peeves is the female idea that children are a chore or burden. When a father gets a chance to spend a day with his children he considers it a “day off”. Perhaps part of that is men’s own childlike nature. I don’t want anyone to think of that as an insult. We are curious, energetic, positive, and playful.
Anyone who looks at being childlike as a negative must be a woman. Our children command our attention by default. Our time with them is so restricted and limited by the demands of survival that when we do have a chance to have them to ourselves for a few hours or days we treat them like the precious little toys we see them as. They love it, and respond to it with respect and love. We love it, and it is far from a chore or “work” as women label it.
Perhaps part of the reason women fight so hard to maintain an iron grip on “domesticality” despite their vocal distain for it is their jealousy of the attention children shower on their fathers. No amount of harpy like shrieking or complete spoiling and bribing of children until they have no respect for her can replace the unconditional love we give them.
Men are better at being loved by their children than women.
May 18th, 2006 at 3:58 pm - IP Man-Hash: b39671b23df39
ED, you’re absolutely right on that. Sounds like a good article.
-Dick
May 18th, 2006 at 4:37 pm - IP Man-Hash: eadd56da2c7c9
Ah, that would be the errors caused by female chair-to-keyboard interfaces.
-Big Al
May 18th, 2006 at 6:30 pm - IP Man-Hash: 8f5fa079b338a
Well, to be fair, there are plenty of men who cause 1D10T errors. But in thinking about it … hm.
I support IT for a manufacturing company — one of the last in the US, with no plans to outsource to Mexico any time soon, for a variety of reasons.
There are two parts to such a business: the “front office,” where management and support teams sit, and the plant floor. Because of what we manufacture and its highly-automated nature, it’s fairly 1D10T-proof — if it required any level of hands-on maintenance, it would be a disaster in terms of productivity.
The front office is pretty much dominated by women. Most of the managers are male, and I rarely have any difficulties with their systems. But the women …
Yes, I’d have to say that I get more 1D10T-type calls from women. Example:
There was a union arbitration over a terminated employee yesterday. The female in charge of the company’s end of things required constant hand-holding to display a couple of security camera files on the board room’s projector. These were a couple of fairly small AVI files.
First she thought she needed a DVD burned that she could play, and asked me to do so. I had to question her in some detail to determine if she was planning to actually play them on a DVD player at some point or just on the projector attached to the computer in the board room.
Once I determined that all she really needed was the MS Media Player sitting on that computer by default, I showed her how to insert the CD on which the AVI files resided.
She didn’t know how to get to her CD-ROM drive to see the files.
I then put the AVI files on her home directory on the network and told her that if she logged in to that computer the same as she did in her office, she would have immediate access to the files — the same as all the Word, Excel, and other documents she uses from her office computer on a daily basis. Double-click, and they would display.
Deer in the headlights.
Ultimately, I had to log in to the computer as her, put a shortcut to directory containing the two AVI files (said shortcut descriptively named for her convenience), and then show her how to double-click the short cut and then double-click the AVI files.
She thought it was pure magic that they just started displaying. Profuse thanks to me, telling me how amazing I was.
While I no doubt made her life easier and I’m happy to have spent five minutes for such undeserved praise, it wasn’t rocket science. I wasn’t delivering a lecture on the 7-layer OSI networking model and how it (barely) relates to the TCP/IP protocol stack. I wasn’t engineering a firewalled security solution for the enterprise, complete with VPN and DMZ.
And this isn’t the first time we’ve had a union arbitration that involved security camera videos. I’ve been with the company for six months, and I’m sure it’s happened before. But as near as I can tell, the person in charge previously had been a man who understood the whole concept.
It’s not an isolated thing, either, the deer-in-the-headlights look of females dealing with such technology. Probably 90% of my office trouble-shooting involves women having trouble printing because their normal printer wasn’t automatically chosen in the “Print” dialogue box, not being able to log in to the network because their capslock keys are on, and so forth.
While it’s true that men have 1D10T errors, I would have to say that it’s more common with women.
May 18th, 2006 at 6:42 pm - IP Man-Hash: af75034ccec5e
Enya said:
Well, I don’t agree. I think if men were wiped off this planet and say there was a way to reproduce without men - I wouldn’t be so sure that women would not continue to keep the world going. I mean, a lot of women during World War II had to take over men’s jobs -I don’t think they did a bad job in keeping the war effort going. If women don’t do as good a job as a man, it does not mean that the whole world is going to collapse, maybe it will just take on another way of doing things.
Good post Enya, I agree with your point here.
They say necessity is the mother of invention, I am sure if either gender were caught out without the other, somehow or another (assuming that reproduction could still continue by some new technology) - the women or men would work out a means to live and they will live. There is little to say that either society will collapse.
This is where I disagree with you. As Dakota said before, many of the jobs that maintain society, (road repair, construction, computers, automotive technology, to name a few of the hundreds out there) are almost wholly in mens hands. If men disappeared I think that society would collapse completely. It may reappear in the future, (something that I doubt seeing as how you may have about 80 years to do so before the race dies out, however anything is possible) but it would collapse upon itself. How long does it take to learn how to fully maintain and repair automobiles effectively? How long for computer programming (not myspace websites either). How long to learn how to build a house, or how long to get a degree in engineering? For all of those, it would take quite sometime, something you wouldn’t have if men disappeared. Note that I am not saying that women couldn’t LEARN how to do these things, however I am saying that they wouldn’t have enough time to do so.
This leads me to another thought. Who says that this civilisation that men have built is so great anyway? Yes,a small percentage of the world population live in luxury . Everybody else lives in a shithole and as of yet nothing is done to really resolve that - although I do not doubt that there are the resources and the means to do so.
It’s a good thought however one must look at the relative timespan of human civilization and then extrapolate that onto a geological timescale, or even just humanities timescale in itself. Its been a relatively short period of time if you look at it from that perspective, not even an eyeblink really. What you are talking about (I think) is a Utopia. My question to you is what does that mean? What does Utopia mean?
A lot of the time the human race is raping our planet with excessive greed and stupid levels of consumption…don’t get me wrong, I am not blaming men for the evils of the world - but if you want to claim ownership to creating human civilisation then you must claim some responsibility for these ills as well. (Although I would prefer to state that humans create systems and at the moment these systems are flawed.)
I agree that we are wasteful with the limited resources that we are given, however that will soon come to an end(in my view), and I agree with you that all humans are flawed or imperfect beings and so the systems we create cannot help but be the same way. However what many countries have created is a constantly evolving way of life with a grounded set of principles. Is this the best way to do things? I don’t know the answer to that one.
I guess my argument boils down to this. It all depends upon your viewpoint. From one point of view, the entire human race can be seen to be superfluous in the bigger world picture. What good have any of us done to the world? At the moment we are damaging it. If the human race were wiped off the planet, the planet would not collapse and die - life moves on. Life does not depend on human beings. Most of the time we have a more arrogant picture of ourselves than which is healthy.
I also agree somewhat with this point. Humanity has a much too prideful and arrogant view of our race. We think that we are almost indestructible, and that we will dominate the planet for a long time. Once again if you want to seek humility, just look at how long we have been on this planet, and then look at how long we have been at the top of the foodchain. Again a short period of time, and yet look at what we have done with that time, many good and beautiful things have arisen from mans innovations, there may not be luxurious things for all, however many peoples quality of life has risen. There have been horrible things as well.
The barebones of your point is right that the only thing that women can do that men CANNOT do is reproduce - that is a fact. Yet this does not mean that this is all she is good for - as if somehow human beings can be only be valued by their function and production. That is a very bloody-minded way to put a value to life.
However, that is the nature of the planet you live on. Mother Nature, is a cruel and harsh judge. She has only one critera on her test, that you survive whatever shit she throws your way (much like some women I have met). Many of her decisions have been both brutal, bloody and have almost wiped out humanity. Your idealism is nice to see, but the point is that there is a lot more out there than that. If times became a lot harder, I wonder how long that idealism would last in the struggle for survival?
Strength and Honor
May 18th, 2006 at 6:54 pm - IP Man-Hash: 8f5fa079b338a
And actually, if you want the very best 1D10T error I’ve seen in twenty years in the business … and yes, it was by a woman …
I actually support multiple plants. At one of these plants located in a large metropolitan area, the employee parking lot is surrounded by a high concrete fence. There is a chain link gate to allow entry. It’s automated: the employee passes a magnetic passkey in front of a reader, and the gate slides opens of its own accord along a track in the ground.
About a hundred feet in front of the gate is the front wall of the plant. There are parking spaces immediately in front of it.
One night, a woman arriving for third shift got out of her car to swipe her magnetic key. Unfortunately, she neglected to put her brakes on. The car started to drift. She noticed and ran back to her car.
She didn’t get in the car, however. She held on to the frame of the car and tried to stop it by pulling backward on the frame.
Naturally, the car wasn’t stopped by her efforts, but rather by its impact with the security gate. The gate tore loose of its frame and swung open like a massive screen door.
Note that at this point the car was stopped. The woman, however, paniced. She desperately put one foot in the car and stomped down as hard as she could.
You guessed it: she hit the accellerator.
I honestly didn’t know a small SUV could accellerate as quickly as hers did. In the measley hundred feet between the gate and the cars parked in front of the building, she managed to build up enough speed so that when she crashed into the rear of a parked car, said car was thrown through the front wall of the building.
In fact, it punched a car-sized hole in the building. I’m told the maintenance operator who was working there at the time was rather surprised when a car smashed through the wall in front of him. Fortunately, he wasn’t injured.
And as I mentioned, the woman only had one foot in her car and a rather precarious grip on the outside doorframe. When her car struck the parked car, she was thrown from her car — narrowly missing being run over by the rear tires of her own car.
And why, may you ask, do I know so many details of this? Because the entire thing was caught on two security cameras.
When I was last at this plant, I grabbed the videos, which were made with two different cameras, each of which caught two extraordinary clear images of the event. I edited them together into a single video so that what happened was easily-observable.
I wish I could post this video on an Internet site devoted to such things, because it’s positively hilarious. I dare not, however, for fear that the company would be identified and the leaker found and terminated. All I can say is that it’s a pretty amazing 1D10T error. Easily the dumbest thing I’ve ever been near.
May 19th, 2006 at 1:35 am - IP Man-Hash: 19105c7fbb7a4
Dakota Smith said:
That is a far cry from what the feminists claim. According to them, if women don’t get jobs it is because it is men that are holding them back. Talk about encouraging a lack of accountability. If a woman fails it is someone else’s fault - it has nothing to do with the fact she doesn’t suit the job or that there is a better candidate that happens to be a man in that situation…
As a woman I find the quota system an insult. It is an insult because the idea of the quota system implies that women are not capable of getting jobs based upon their own merits. It is a condesending pat on the head that feminists unknowingly give to women - a kind of hand-out - a sickly ‘here you go love - that’s it, here’s the job you deserve’ message. Any sensible woman who wants to be acknowledged for her abilites instead of her gender knows that quotas damages this concept of ‘equality’ from the outset. Of coures, feminists claim that men are trying to hold women back - as you so rightly stated - I don’t think this is the case, in general. There are cases where this happens, but not as common as they make it out to be.
I agree. Although, I tend to think that both jobs are important, for we would be nowhere without either.
Actually I have some personal experience of this effect upon my female friends. I am part of quite a young generation ( I am in my early twenties) so this trend concerns me a big deal especially as looking to consequences in the future for women.
When I asked my university friends what they would like to do in the future I came across quite a few women that told me they would love to become a housewife and have children someday. This is a good thing - this does not bother me in the slightest. What bothered me was the fact that immediately after they said it, they started saying something to the effect of “I know that is kind of lame” or “I know that it is a silly ambition to have” - it was like they were expecting me to look down on their ambitions somehow.
Thinking back, I was really shocked. At the time I told them that there is nothing wrong with wanting to do that. I asked myself why on earth would they think having children or being a housewife was a lame ambition? I think I am starting to realise why - feminists have put such a taboo on the concept of being a housewife to such a degree that women who do just want to raise a family feel as if they have to justify themselves somehow, for not wanting to be ‘independent career women’. Why can’t women just be allowed to be who they want to be, rather than what they are expected to be.
I guess men can complain of the same problem in some respects - why can’t men just be men? Why do they have to find their ‘feminine side’? Why do they have to be in touch with their feelings? Why do they have to feel bad about enjoying sex or looking at women? Why can’t each gender be accepted for what they are? (I guess this sparks up a completely different debate which would not fit here!)
Yup. You hit a nail on the head there. Given my experience of talking to women about parenting - I agree totally with what you are saying here.
It is a common misconception of feminists and women in general to assume that men do not enjoy children - this must come from feminist propaganda, but I cannot be sure…
I don’t know if you have heard of the ‘Fathers for Justice’ campaign- I remember my father telling me that he watched an interview with the leader of the group fighting to get to see his children - apparently this man just broke down on TV, this guy was absolutely destroyed that he couldn’t see his children. I don’t think women realise how much children mean to men, and how some women use the children as tools for revenge (selfish and nasty behaviour if you ask me). There will be only few scenarios where a man should not see his children - if he has been violent towards them and could be in the future -being one such scenario.
Yup. Although naming and blaming gets few people anywhere. I think all we can do is try to unravel some of the ideas - which (to your credit) you are trying to achieve by being a part of this site. I think there is an increasing awareness of the fallacies of feminist ideas - among women and men - maybe this awareness will turn things around in the future. All I know is, I don’t like this gender war - it is damaging us.
May 19th, 2006 at 1:40 am - IP Man-Hash: 19105c7fbb7a4
Abaddon, I would answer your post but I am stuck for time just now - I will go over your points in a later post, if you don’t mind.
I wanted to say that although some harsh words and personal attacks have been fired on this site, I have noted how there are gentlemen here willing to have a decent conversation with a woman - this is not something I have discovered on feminist websites. In their case they write me and my comments off as being that of a ‘brain-washed woman controlled by men’ or that I am the oppressor - such comments are pathetic in my view. At least here you do look at my points on a sensible level. I have enjoyed discussing these issues with you all (however frustrating it has been at times ;-P)
May 19th, 2006 at 5:06 am - IP Man-Hash: 794fefffe1145
Okay……So what your point ?