women's rights and employment
I believe the womans place is in the home. I thought I'd just say that.
Now below is the topic of discussion.
The government of western countries supposedly "liberated" women by giving them employment rights. But what is the real reason for this "liberation"? I believe it was not to "liberate" women but to create more manpower. The more people that work for big companies the more money they make. It's basically a capitalist tactic.
What do you think?
That's most likely true.
But who cares? If a woman wants to work, why not let her?
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
You don’t think women can contribute? What of the women Doctors that save lives? What of the women teachers that educate children. Yes. Let’s send all of those women home to scrub toilets.
Women can contribute, but where better than the home. Looking after the kids (if there are any), looking after the home.
Let the men get out there, and the women support them.
Re: women's rights and employment
Edited for gayness.
ENTp
Women contribute the following:
Medicine, Literature, (some of my favorite authors our women) art, wit, curves, sandwiches, humor, love, evil, good, charm, life.
Women do everything that men do, and are pretty much share equal credit, because though humanity developed mainly under female oppression, oppression is the keyword. It's not their fault they weren't allowed to contribute as much as they could. Women nowadays, especially Ann Coulter, contribute plenty.
Now let me ruin the surprisingly compassionate and openminded nature of this post by stating that all women are whores.
This thread is just wrong.
I'm going to agree with Blake for a second, if you have kids you should stay home and take care of them and teach them unless you cannot.
whyOriginally Posted by Smilingeyes
True! But there are times when the male is the one who does this. It is rare, but happens.
Actually that's another good point - educating children as well.
And in that case, Peter is still just as useful for the child.
GIT YER ARSE DOWN HERE AMY!! THE WEE ONES NEED TO SUCK ON YER TITTIES!!!
Yes, rareTrue! But there are times when the male is the one who does this. It is rare, but happens.
But then you can say that about anything. There are always exceptions
*michael jackson voice*And in that case, Peter is still just as useful for the child.
I love children.
Yep, and these exceptions are real too.Yes, rareTrue! But there are times when the male is the one who does this. It is rare, but happens.
But then you can say that about anything. There are always exceptions
real, but rare
rare, but real
Women have always worked. At home, out of home, wherever needed. Women not working is an extravagance that has been possible only in some cultures. Even currently there exist cultures in which the woman in the family is traditionally the only one who works.
Starting points for further information:
http://www.afscme.org/otherlnk/whlinks.htm
http://www.homepages.indiana.edu/031...iewpoint.shtml
http://www.medievalsources.co.uk/portal_women.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/society..._work_01.shtml
The idea that employment is somehow a right that women at some point lacked is wrong. The idea that women need men to give them rights is wrong. The idea that every woman could possibly "belong at home" is so god damn impossible practically that there has never been a society that created such circumstances and there never will be.
1. You wouldn't want me being a housewife, I would be the worse housewife on the planet;
2. There is substantial archeological proof that women and men's roles were different but equal in the past and infact, women developed farming. There is also a theory that once this happened that the need for hunting lessoned (typically a male role) and when that happened, men took over farming and to make themselves feel better for doing "women's work" they demeaned the role women in the community. What you are seeing is not so much a precidental change in women's roles but rather a return to their role as an equal.
3. Women have every right to chose whether or not they work/don't work....so who cares what some man thinks.
I think whether a woman works or not it is her choice and/or maybe has to do with the financial choices that family has to make. I don't think any man should be able to make that choice for a woman. I can't make that choice for a man so its only fair.
P.S. My sister works full time and her husband stays home and takes care of their daughter. It was a sensible financial choice to make because she made more money and they both liked the thought of having one of them at home rather than a nanny.
Their choice isn't for everyone but that's the point it was THEIR choice.
Polly
ENTP
Go sistah!
Funny, I was actually at my ummm more than a friend, not quite boyfriend's place when I made that post and he noticed the first line and burst out laughing.
Basically, he agrees....I would make a terrible housewife. Him on the other hand, would make a wonderful one. He loves things neat and tidy and got that whole nagging thing down pat.
Polly
ENTP
I'm a housewife. It works for us. My husband makes enough money to support us easily, and I wouldn't make enough for it to be worthwhile for me to work outside the home. Also, I get stuff done around the house during the workday leaving our weekends and evenings free for fun.
I don't know if the stay-at-home dad thing is rare. It is statistically less prevelant but it's still common enough that I bet most people know at least one family that has that set-up. If most people know a family like that, then it doesn't meet my definition of rare anyway.
I wish the economy were set up so it were a true choice for people how to set up their families. I do have a choice but most women have to work simply because there won't be food and shelter if they don't. They also often choose substandard childcare because that's all they can afford.
Also, some women would go nuts at home all day. They shouldn't have to be miserable because some third party has ideas of how their family should be arranged.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
I had a stay-at-home mom and know I benefitted a lot from it. Financially I doubt I could make enough to be the sole income support, at least right now. But I think if I were in the situation and I could have it ideally the way I wanted it. I would work part-time from home with a nanny on those days so I could be near but still have the things in my life that make me happy too.
So yeah, I agree its a real challenge to do that for some people. I know life would be much easier on my sister financially if her husband worked but their daughter benefits so much from it. He's a great stay-at-home dad. OMG he even makes my sister's lunches for her.
Polly
ENTP
Re: women's rights and employment
.
Re: women's rights and employment
No, he isn't. That's just what he does regardless of the results. He's cute that way
What I think is that you're trying to stir up trouble. :wink:
I'm not trying to stir up trouble.
See?
I'm torn by this issue.
My head tells me that a woman must do what she perefers, obviously.
My heart tells me that the men should provide for everything, even someone who does the housework, while the woman educates and plays with the children.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
That's not the man in you talking, that's the ENTj
We happen to be blessed with the duals that will obviously stay home with children. You couldn't beat them away with a stick
Re: women's rights and employment
This "liberation" stuff is basically all about a fashionable trend in the world of thoughts and ideas. Basically the idea comes from the "egalite" (equality) slogan of the French revolution, which has also influenced the US founding documents ( " ... all men are created equal ...").
In the 1900s this idea of equality was carried to an extreme - everyone is thought to be "equal" in the sense of being in a sense identical. Alle races, all religions, and both sexes.
It one buys this idea, then it becomes a simple corollary that men and women should play identical roles in society.
The ideas of the French revolution again can be looked upon as a reaction to the prevailing ideology of the middle ages, where the social order was rather rigid and formal.
No human conspiracy is involved. Just the usual stupidity of the so called "intellectuals".
Greetings, Ragnar.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
-- Karl MARX (1818-1883)
Not all women are born with a maternal instinct. Not all men are born with an inclination to protect and defend. Let the parent who's better at looking after kids, look after the bloody kids - be they mother or father. Let the person better at building the car, build the goddamned car - be they man or woman. Let the person best suited to run the country be the motherfucking President ferChrisakes - be they ESTp or INFp.
The correct wording for this sentence should be:
"From each according to his abilty to satisfy the other's needs".
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Is that so... I shall keep that in mind, thank you.
Re: women's rights and employment
This kind of nonsense always tended to make my ex-wife rather angry. But hey, what did she know, she just wrote her master's thesis on the subject. Whereas you're always correct because you can beat up intellectuals and probably women too unless they're very large.
What kind of Virginian macho history book does your high school use anyway?
Re: women's rights and employment
Actually, in some senses I think ragnar has a point here. I think there is a difference between equality and fairness. In a fair system, equality kind of works itself out. Many systems that value "equality" underestimate the importance of diversity. They do actually equate equality with sameness.
This kind of nonsense always tended to make my ex-wife rather angry. But hey, what did she know, she just wrote her master's thesis on the subject. Whereas you're always correct because you can beat up intellectuals and probably women too unless they're very large.
What kind of Virginian macho history book does your high school use anyway?
I don't want to be treated the same as a man, I just want to be valued as a woman for those traits which I, as a woman, also deem important. I actually think men and women compliment each other nicely in the workforce. In a totally female environment, things are highly competitive and there are a lot of value judgments (not to mention passive aggressive behavior - Im sorry but its true). When you throw some men into the picture, these environments become far less catty.
I think women may add an empathetic spin to a man dominated environment that is very valuable as well.
But basically, I don't want to be judged in the work environment because of my gender. To me, its a non-issue in the workplace and I should be able to earn the same as any man doing the same job.
I neat little trick they do in some places is call some administrative clerical and others administrative technical. The technical make more money even though the administrative clerical is usually doing the same job plus has clerical duties put in on top of that as well. Guess which field is female dominated and which one male? Basically the difference is the education requirement for the job. The technical requires a technical background (usually an undergrad degree) and the clerical some kind of business/office management type program.
I think maybe some places, rather than addressing the issues by elevating the clerical side, they instead lower the benefits of the technical side. Making both unhappy. You have to love these fiscal solutions.
Polly
ENTP
Re: women's rights and employment
Harrison Bergeron, anybody?
Anyway, so long as we're on a Socionics forum... if we're going to value women for being women and men for being men, would it not make more sense to value NF's for being NF's and ST's for being ST's? There's representative of all types of both genders, and type itself is better representative of a person's contributions than some dubious sense of innate gender roles. And if we go a step further, would it not make more sense to value each person on the individual level? Even within the same type, there is a vast diversity of personalities and potentials.
Re: women's rights and employment
It's all about women not being dependent on their husbands. If he's beating her or cheating on her or whatever, she's not stuck with him.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote