Stung Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 Yessir! Feminism was a movement for realistic changes, and rights. Misandrists want men and women to be equal in every sense of the word, and that it just never going to happen starting with the fact that we were not created equal. Time to let that go Misandrists! To be a misandrist means to hate men. Why would a woman want to be equal in every sense of the word to a man, if she was a misandrist? You're not even making sense.
Woggle Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 He doesn't make much sense either. Misandrists want men to be the new oppressed class instead of equal. They are the flip side of misogynists but the genders are switched.
musemaj11 Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 I honestly cannot respect anyone whose ambition in life is staying at home doing nothing and expect someone else to support her through life. Come on, lets be honest. With the invention of microwave, gas stove, laundry machine, dishwasher and vacuum cleaner, these days what a housewife does all day is practically doing nothing. Even with children taken into the equation, I have never heard of a single single dad who looks for a woman who will take care of him and his kids. Some people say that women are predisposed to look for someone to depend on because they bear children. But I personally disagree. Even if men were the ones bearing babies like seahorses, I dont think they would expect others to take care of them. I think its more social conditioning than biology. For eons men have been taught that they are supposed to take care of their wives and children while women have been taught that they are supposed to find husbands who will take care of them and their children. There's an excellent book called Passages: Predictable Crises of Adult Life (originally published in 1976, but still quite relevant) that discusses broad trends in modern Western societies, including the fact that in the 1950s era, when this arrangement was the norm, an unexpected consequence was that a majority of men reported that they lost respect for a wife who did nothing but care for the family and home. Her diminishing ability to communicate with him about adult problems, current events, and so on had a negative effect on their relationship. With the power (earning power) tilted so strongly in their favor, men began to see themselves as caretaker figures, rather than partners. Even though these men thought they wanted the traditional setup, once they had it, they couldn't understand why it let them down. The analysis goes much deeper than I can describe here, of course. Back in the days and even today in traditional societies, men dont marry thinking that the woman they are marrying is an equal partner. They marry simply personal achievement of owning a wife, to have sexual access and to have children who will continue the family line. The concept of marrying a 'partner' is a modern concept.
lenny Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 I would be the worst to slam the feminist movement - domestically I really suck and am completely into my career however I must say after raising kids in today's society and thinking of the issues they have faced .... I am really beginning to believe the difference between the more recent generations and older generations is the stay at home parent. From what I have seen, the main consistent trait of a large proportion of kids these days is a lack of respect. Even being the working mom I have tried to instill this in my kids. In some ways I have witnessed some success but in others I only hope.
musemaj11 Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 I would be the worst to slam the feminist movement - domestically I really suck and am completely into my career however I must say after raising kids in today's society and thinking of the issues they have faced .... I am really beginning to believe the difference between the more recent generations and older generations is the stay at home parent. From what I have seen, the main consistent trait of a large proportion of kids these days is a lack of respect. Even being the working mom I have tried to instill this in my kids. In some ways I have witnessed some success but in others I only hope. Both parents spending some time with their kids is very important. I read an article that said that during nursing period, the mother is the most important parent. However, once the kid has gone past toddler period, the influence of the father is far more important than the mother.
carhill Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 With the invention of microwave, gas stove, laundry machine, dishwasher and vacuum cleaner, these days what a housewife does all day is practically doing nothing.When I was born, in 1959, there were laundry machines, dishwashers, color TV, gas/electric ranges, electric coffeepots and other small kitchen appliances, refrigerators, central air conditioning/heating, reliable cars and local shopping centers to purchase goods from. Milk, cream and cheese were delivered to the door if one desired, three days a week. We had all of the above, save for the dishwasher. Mom thought that to be a waste of money and hard on dishes. Telephones were still dial & pulse (we had a party line), there were no microwaves (at least at our house) and the internet was unknown to us. Our 'copy machine' was a manual typewriter and carbon paper. Back then, we were lucky to have a 'lawn man' who charged six dollars a month to keep the yard up once a week. I remember many a day helping mom can fruits, vegetables, and sauces and make homemade sausage and other family recipes. Eating out was reserved for special occasions like a birthday or holiday. Eating in was the norm and everything was made from ingredients, every day. We actually ate at a table with real dishes, silverware, and table dressings *every* day. Linens (for tables, beds, etc) were all ironed, as were dad's business clothes, with the suits being dry cleaned. Dusting, vacuuming (yes, there were real vacuums, sold door to door), and polishing went on daily. I still use the same ironing board and iron today my mom used 50 years ago. Products back then were built to *last* and were *repairable* and were made in the *USA*. Anyway, that's a taste of what life was like back then in an 'average' family. Mortgage was eighty bucks a month @ 3% interest and dad's salary was around 500 a month. It cost 63.00 for me to be born and dad paid cash. Those were the days
musemaj11 Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) When I was born, in 1959, there were laundry machines, dishwashers, color TV, gas/electric ranges, electric coffeepots and other small kitchen appliances, refrigerators, central air conditioning/heating, reliable cars and local shopping centers to purchase goods from. Milk, cream and cheese were delivered to the door if one desired, three days a week. We had all of the above, save for the dishwasher. Mom thought that to be a waste of money and hard on dishes. Telephones were still dial & pulse (we had a party line), there were no microwaves (at least at our house) and the internet was unknown to us. Our 'copy machine' was a manual typewriter and carbon paper. Back then, we were lucky to have a 'lawn man' who charged six dollars a month to keep the yard up once a week. I remember many a day helping mom can fruits, vegetables, and sauces and make homemade sausage and other family recipes. Eating out was reserved for special occasions like a birthday or holiday. Eating in was the norm and everything was made from ingredients, every day. We actually ate at a table with real dishes, silverware, and table dressings *every* day. Linens (for tables, beds, etc) were all ironed, as were dad's business clothes, with the suits being dry cleaned. Dusting, vacuuming (yes, there were real vacuums, sold door to door), and polishing went on daily. I still use the same ironing board and iron today my mom used 50 years ago. Products back then were built to *last* and were *repairable* and were made in the *USA*. Anyway, that's a taste of what life was like back then in an 'average' family. Mortgage was eighty bucks a month @ 3% interest and dad's salary was around 500 a month. It cost 63.00 for me to be born and dad paid cash. Those were the days Its good to be a woman in America. I don't know that I'd want to go back to the '50s, though, this time in history is incredibly liberating for women because our futures are wide open ... options are not as limited as they were back then. Thats why it speaks volume about someone's character for having the ambition to spend the rest of her life at home doing nothing when she lives in a place where she is entitled to endless opportunities, something that is not available for women in many other parts of the world. Edited February 3, 2011 by musemaj11
sweetjasmine Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 My mother raised 4 children and kept house for 6 people in total for all of her life. It wasn't "easy," but I'm sure as heck not surprised you would think it is. You've never had to do laundry for 4 grown men while cooking lunch and dinner every single day and scrubbing all of the bathrooms and driving around like crazy to make sure everyone's where they're supposed to be only to hear criticisms about what you cooked and where's my stuff and how come my laundry's not done yet. Be a housewife in a large family for 40 years with no one lending you a hand, and then get back to me about how "easy" it is. 1
zengirl Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 Oh please, lets get real. Most women wont see a guy again if he told her that he wanted to be a househusband. And plenty of men don't want housewives either. That's their right. But some women, and men, have arrangements where the man does not work, or the woman does not work. Both exist, is my point. Obviously, a woman staying home is still more common, both because it goes along with the way we're socialized (it's always been more common, so there's less social dissonance against it) and partially because the kid came out of her body, and she had to take some time off for that anyway. The great thing about today is that each family/household can CHOOSE independently what they want to do in this matter. Why does anyone else care what the neighbors choose? Find someone whose values are compatible with yours in this, and other important areas, and that's all you need.
sally4sara Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 You can't even claim a SAH spouse as a dependent on your taxes anymore.... How feasible it is for a married person to choose to stay at home and take care of kids is ultimately down to the cost of living where you live. We could pull it off in my home state if we wanted but not here - no way. I am home about half the week now but I work out of my home and bring in money with design work. I still have to freelance to suppliment this and couldn't do it if not for having worked outside of the home and made good contacts. And this is pretty much the exact reverse of how it was when my husband and I first moved in together. It could change back. It could not. Couldn't care less one way or the other.
zengirl Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 You can't even claim a SAH spouse as a dependent on your taxes anymore.... You cannot claim a spouse as a dependent, BUT there is an allowance on the W4 for if you are married and your spouse doesn't work (or works less than a certain number of hours) and it does impact certain tax credits and such, to where it favorably affects taxes, generally. But, yes, it's not as feasible to have a SAH spouse as it was in past times.
sally4sara Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 You cannot claim a spouse as a dependent, BUT there is an allowance on the W4 for if you are married and your spouse doesn't work (or works less than a certain number of hours) and it does impact certain tax credits and such, to where it favorably affects taxes, generally. But, yes, it's not as feasible to have a SAH spouse as it was in past times. A couple we are friends with (where one is a SAH) were stunned over this. Yes, their combined income being lower for two with one not working kept them in a lower tax bracket than if both were working but that allowance on the W4 was much less than his father (retired accountant who did their taxes) was use to seeing from back in his day. Lots of mumbling about "our governments agenda against families" has ensued. I wonder if its a reflection of SAH being a choice for either parent now rather than the standard or if it was put into effect back when it was still a fair standard and I just never knew it because I've never qualified to have looked into it?
Scottdmw Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 The question of whether we need two income households or not is a little more complicated I think. It really comes down to lifestyle. I read a study once that we could have the 1950s material lifestyle right now working 20 hour work weeks. That is, we would not have computers, Internet, cell phones, DVDs, cars with airbags and GPS, air-conditioning, and all the other stuff that has been invented or adopted since the 1950s. We would have good housing, cars, plenty of food, clothing, and all those things that did exist in the 1950s. The size of housing is also an issue here. Our houses now have substantially more square footage and volume on average per person than the houses of the 1950s. Further, they are located substantially farther away on average from our places of work. The main reason we are working more than 20 hours a week now is to pay for all that other stuff. If we were willing to live relatively simple lives by modern standards, it would not be a problem to support on a single income of 40 hours a week. So, it comes down to a decision about lifestyle. People have decided that they would rather have both partners work in order to buy those other things, eat out a lot, have a bigger house, and do a lot of traveling. One significant cost of a two-income household is the necessity to provide transportation for both partners and allow for commuting to separate places of work. If a couple made the decision to have one partner stay at home, they could have only one car, and definitely live close to the place of work of the one partner. This would save substantial amounts of gas. When you specifically bring children into the picture there are further complications. Day care is a significant cost. I have heard of couples where the second partner's income largely goes to pay for the day care. It's hard to see how that is necessarily a good decision from a purely financial point of view. Again what it comes down to is a lifestyle choice, the couple has decided that the intangible benefits of both people working have substantial value. I think when it comes down to it there are major advantages to a single earner household when raising children. When raising children is not an issue then of course the two-income household makes sense. I do think that feminism has caused us to get a little too wrapped up in questions of making men and women the same as each other, to the point where we have made some decisions that are not really in the best interests of either ourselves or our children in order to prove political points. Scott
jenifer1972 Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 I will admit up front I am very biased on this issue, but I think it is generally very unwise for women in this day and age to take such a stance, unless they are independently wealthy and have their own trust fund. I think every adult should have a career safety net for themselves. We all like to assume we will live to 80, with the same spouse, and have enough money to retire. This is not a given. Spouses can die suddenly, leaving you alone with not enough money, or just leave, period, and if you leave the workforce for a long time, you are TOAST. I would never personally let myself be so dependent on any other person. I want to always be able to make my own way in this world.
Woggle Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 I also think this is a backlash in general to feminism which is brewing. Not all feminists are radical manhaters but I think that element of feminist movement has turned off decent people so much that they are pushing back. I don't think these women want to return to the 1950s but some are just sick of the ugliness and bitterness in gender relations today that just seems to get nastier and nastier.
musemaj11 Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 My mother raised 4 children and kept house for 6 people in total for all of her life. It wasn't "easy," but I'm sure as heck not surprised you would think it is. You've never had to do laundry for 4 grown men while cooking lunch and dinner every single day and scrubbing all of the bathrooms and driving around like crazy to make sure everyone's where they're supposed to be only to hear criticisms about what you cooked and where's my stuff and how come my laundry's not done yet. Be a housewife in a large family for 40 years with no one lending you a hand, and then get back to me about how "easy" it is. Today most families only have no more than two kids.
zengirl Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 I will admit up front I am very biased on this issue, but I think it is generally very unwise for women in this day and age to take such a stance, unless they are independently wealthy and have their own trust fund. I think every adult should have a career safety net for themselves. We all like to assume we will live to 80, with the same spouse, and have enough money to retire. This is not a given. Spouses can die suddenly, leaving you alone with not enough money, or just leave, period, and if you leave the workforce for a long time, you are TOAST. I would never personally let myself be so dependent on any other person. I want to always be able to make my own way in this world. Completely agree. Though I've no issues with what other people do. I'd take a year or two off with a baby at home, or work part-time for a bit, if it was the only way to find work/life balance and it worked for both me and my SO, but I'd never take an extended time out of the workforce. Too risky.
Mme. Chaucer Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 I also think this is a backlash in general to feminism which is brewing. Not all feminists are radical manhaters but I think that element of feminist movement has turned off decent people so much that they are pushing back. I don't think these women want to return to the 1950s but some are just sick of the ugliness and bitterness in gender relations today that just seems to get nastier and nastier. You seem to be veering into dangerous territory with this talk of "gender relations these days." As I have before, I assure you that there are giant chunks of American society where these issues are a non-issue. And some of us who are happily getting along with the other gender are self-identified as "feminists." And, some of the self-identified feminists are men!
Woggle Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 You seem to be veering into dangerous territory with this talk of "gender relations these days." As I have before, I assure you that there are giant chunks of American society where these issues are a non-issue. And some of us who are happily getting along with the other gender are self-identified as "feminists." And, some of the self-identified feminists are men! I have been following this discussion on the Daily Mail forums that just has me in such a pissy mood lately. There is a woman who flat out says that misandry is okay because it is now payback time. How am I supposed to stop being so bitter when I read stuff like that?
jenifer1972 Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 Try this experiment. Concentrate on white SUVs. Look for them everywhere and whenever you drive...Seriously. Do this. Soon, this is all you will see around you, and you will become convinced it is one big conspiracy of the white SUV to take over the country and all the roads..
Ay Diesel T Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 To be a misandrist means to hate men. Why would a woman want to be equal in every sense of the word to a man, if she was a misandrist? You're not even making sense. Misandrists hate men because we're not equal lol. And because they're misandrists.
zengirl Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 I have been following this discussion on the Daily Mail forums that just has me in such a pissy mood lately. There is a woman who flat out says that misandry is okay because it is now payback time. How am I supposed to stop being so bitter when I read stuff like that? I don't have any problem with you being bitter towards THAT woman. She's demonstrated a flawed viewpoint. The issue is when you project it onto all women. There isn't some magical pathway via our vaginas that makes us all agree.
sfl Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 Wish my girlfriend was like this, says she's unhappy because she feels obliged to keep the house clean while she's out of work. I don't even care that much, I've never asked her to keep it tidy, but I don't think it's that much to ask you know? I'd be quite happy if it was the other way around - her doing 50 hours a week and me keeping the house tidy. Don't think there's anything bad about her feeling that way by the way, plenty of guys would probably be happy if the roles were reversed too.
Els Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 Seriously, if your gf wants to be a housewife that badly, she doesn't have to go back in time.. she just needs to find a guy that wants it. It isn't that difficult, especially if she's willing to put up with the stuff that many women in the 1950s didn't have any choice but to put up with (husband having affairs and no option of divorce, abuse, lack of decision power, sex being an obligation, etc).
zengirl Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 Wish my girlfriend was like this, says she's unhappy because she feels obliged to keep the house clean while she's out of work. I don't even care that much, I've never asked her to keep it tidy, but I don't think it's that much to ask you know? I'd be quite happy if it was the other way around - her doing 50 hours a week and me keeping the house tidy. Don't think there's anything bad about her feeling that way by the way, plenty of guys would probably be happy if the roles were reversed too. Was she laid off? I'm curious. I supported a SO who was laid off for a time, and he wasn't particularly helpful about the house (no more than usual, I mean; he always did his share when we both worked). I didn't really encourage him to do more around the house, because I didn't want him to feel beholden on top of the ego slash from the layoff. But he was actively looking for new work and then starting up a new business, so he could pull himself out of the hole (he did, in just a few months; I'm not sure how he or I would have dealt with a long-term layoff).
Recommended Posts