Don’t Call Me a ‘Housewife’…OK! (ツ)

maybe im in the wrong discussion>>>but u get my point

No, in fact i don't. Stereotypes are for people who are either too goddamned lazy to inform themselves, or too ignorant to realize that people are not easily categorized based on the prejudices of the observer.

Not every generalization is a stereotype, though the accusation of stererotping is a core element of "discussion" among the believers of the contemporary orthodoxy.

I have two married daughters, both successful professionals and moms. It can be a very stressful and harried life for them, and the social supports and protections for those who undertake to raise the next generation are relatively far inferior to those of a generation ago. There are positive tradeoffs here to be sure, but it is not all roses for them.

the mere fact that sterotypes exist says something. They are mathematically correct. Even you stereotype with out knowing it. But in fact if a majority of anything exist in your life you will stereotype it

bottom line is the handful of women in the 60s and 70s who wanted "equal rights" screwed it up for the women now who are born inherent with motherly characteristics and they now have no choice but to get a job to compete economically

Dont tell him that man, his brain will go "TILT!"...he cant handle the truth.

thanks hawkeye10 but im here to cause trouble

I'll walk with anyone who is going my way....we know how brains work, but some people (SET *cough*) prefer to live in their fantasies. I'll leave you to your fun though....

You are seriously deluded, but i don't see that as any problem for me.

Stereotyping is a core element of those who are too intellectually lazy to see that not all individuals fit the cookie cutter mold of the propagandist, or too dishonest to acknowledge the that the world constantly changes, and the old "orthodoxies" don't apply any longer.

The support systems to which you refer were torpedoed by the economic policies of clowns like your boy Ray-gun, which have forced women to work outside the home, like it or not. The days in which a typcial family would be a husband working outside the home and a wife staying home to raise the children are gone--probably for good. I'm not at all surprised to see you indulging partisan invective rather than facing up to that reality.

Hey, everybody else has received upgraded job titles over recent years. Cashiers are now "customer associates," car salesmen are "client advisors," and even pedophiles aren't pedophiles, they're "priests."

That being said, let's give the gals any title they want. "Estate Executive?" Just as long as they keep the laundry folded and the beers cold, let them have a little bump in the job title department.

a tad on the ignorant masculine side>>but i like it

Those happy days of men supporting the family and the mom staying home to feed the children from her biologically fit body were stolen away from those few women with there voices in the past. All the women i know and have grown up with side by side want nothing more but to stay home and raise the kids and take care of the home front. There is nothing wrong with that scenario. The women of my generation 21-30 are going to school with huge ambitions of lawyers and politicians and what not. But the unfortunate truth is you can only get far in fields like that by either sleeping with the right men or being masculine yourself. As for the "regular" women, I speak for them. They want what nature handed them

Young women are well fucked on that front, as we talk about on the following thread young men are doing extremely poorly economically, in large part because we are doing extremely poorly in the competition for education.

http://able2know.org/topic/179752-1

Women are graduating at high rates from university and are doing very well in the job market compared to young men, but because the men are doing so poorly if a woman wants to stay home with any kids for more than a few months (and thus let her career wither) she often does not have the ability....her man can not support the family. It does not help that the american job market in general is pretty craptacular, that it tends to lower all boats. If she were a European woman she would have at least child care support and maybe even a small check each year to help with other child raising costs, but because the american feminists have spent the bulk of their time partnering with the government and rewriting sex law in the effort to bash men instead of trying to help women with day to day problems (read childcare) American women get squat. American women can have everything they want, so long as what they want is NOT to have kids and spend time with them, and also for all but the most well off is NOT have kids without the stress and the guilt of putting them in shoddy care.

At the end of the day bashing men turns out to be not particularly helpful to most women, it tends to rob them of many of the joys of motherhood. Becoming a lesbian does solve some of the problems though, bringing to fruition the feminist mantra " a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" ...

You are delusional. Not surprising to me, considering the absolute drivel you customarily post.

I think you are making a grossly unwarranted stretch here. What did President Reagan do to force women to work outside the home? The simple fact is that the women' s movement and laws passed in Democrat Administrations had already extablished nominal equality in the workplace and the new "norm" of the independent working women and mothers long before Reagan became president. That thus "liberating women" and thereby doubling the workforce had the side effect of nearly halving the value of labor was merely an entirely predictable side effect of a movement launched chiefly by liberals. I'm not suggesting it was all bad, only that it had predictable adverse side effects.

A second factor was in the demise of well-paying manufacturing jobs resulting from the abandonment of the socialist policies that had formerly held back the nations of Asia and South America. The resulting new competition they offered our manufacturing industry with their one competitive advantage - cheap labor - enabled their escape from their previous poverty. The stubborn intransigence of American labor unions in resisting automation and productivity enhancing (and job eliminating) investments by corporations ensured that they and their employers would lose everything rather than continuing to compete on a value basis. Germany took a different path and still has a substantial manufacturing export industry.

Jesus H. Christ... When did you fools wake up and think the universe was made up in the USA alone. Women have always been a part of the working class. Women have always had jobs outside of the home. The dewey eyed view of 1950's housewife only ever existed in a precious few places and times in history, mostly on the silver screen. If your 60' and 70's feminists thought they changed the world by bringing women employment, they are as deluded as this stupid stereotype. Women have never only been mothers. Read a book..

Ray-gun's economic policies, rightfully called "voodoo economics" by Pappy Bush in the nominating campaign of 1980, made any number of families homeless in the worst cases, and required two income families in the other cases. I didn't refer to liberating women, i was referring to the reality of effect of Ray-gun's policies.

Ceili, take a nerve pill, 'K?

I'm cool.

you got nerve pills, and you aren't sharing?

BillRM needs a handful. yesterday...