Matt Kroc Transitions to Janae Kroc

[EmilyQ]

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
but against all people who dare to imagine that being a woman is easy or knowable unless you are one, and have suffered.

[/quote]

I’m just going to come out and say, without question, being a woman is more difficult, generally speaking, than being a man.

Yes some women will have a much easier time, than some men, but painting with a broad brush, much easier being a man.

Even just trivial shit:
We have to shave much less surface area, or not at all
Makeup? lol
We can piss anyfuckingwhere and it won’t run down our leg.
Periods? I honestly and truly feel bad for women with this, that shit has to be a pain in the ass.
Hair dye, lol
eyebrows? lol again
The fact I can wear the same 3 pare of pants for 6 years and no one bats an eye, and women have 386,419 outfits…

I don’t know, I’m being flippant at this point, but I still contend, just on the pissing anywhere factor it’s easier being a man. [/quote]

Na…

As long as you are held responsible for shit and need to pay for sex and are taxed like a motherfucker so that you have to pay even more for sex…

Na![/quote]

Oh, stop. I pay taxes, too.

Numbers (US): 57.7% of women in labor force, 70.2% men. Women are still earning 80% of what men do (with both working full time, year round) but this may be because 70% of working women have children under 18. Still, at this point close to 30% of wives out earn their husbands in families with both partners working (not sure full time here). (Bureau of Labor Statistics)

Lotta taxes being paid by the other side!

[EmilyQ]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Why not talk about what it feels like to have a man you love moving inside of you? What it feels like to know that it’s okay and welcome for that movement to become a child? What it feels like when that child kicks for the first time? How about what it feels like when the man who gave you that child is willing to support you so you can stay home and sing with it?

Why does it have to be “my tired eyes”? [/quote]

Because all the world’s wonders in art, literature, invention came from need. It all came from a desperate place, maybe not always pain and suffering, but it came from some place where fulfillment wasn’t.

It’s the same reason people love to do drugs… Why people cry about how bad America is, even though, due to her influence, the world is a better and more prosperous place than it’s ever been in the history of human civilization. (No that doesn’t mean it’s perfect, and yes, plenty still suffer, but sheer number wise, it’s exponentially better than even 150 year ago.)

Humanity has a hard time enjoying the good parts of life without knowing, and almost celebrating the bad. Shit, some people never move out of bad town even though they have the good surrounding them.
[/quote]

I quite disagree! Much of it originates in need or suffering, sure, but I would say love accounts for even more of it. Beethoven’s Ode to Joy, Van Gogh’s many sunlit paintings, Gone With the Wind, which while encompassing the horrors of war is even more about love of place and people.

Yes, human beings are built to strive for more, but I don’t think that means that they only seek to alleviate suffering. I would call the curiosity that has prompted many of our greatest inventions and accomplishments a love of sorts. Ben Franklin watching the lightening and wondering, wondering. . .Edison noodling around in his shop, touching this to that to see what happens. Do you think he bemoaned the dark (“GodDAMN these greasy oil lamps”) or simply felt driven to explore the possibility of light? Myself, I believe the latter.

The America haters irritate me for the same reason the woman telling us what female is irritates me - because they’re negative and whiny. Negativity and whininess do not account for man’s great accomplishments. Whiny people don’t dream of building pyramids, and then actually, miraculously, see it through.

Though I can agree to some extent with your last statement. You can’t fully appreciate leisure without having worked. I have little respect for people who have no capacity to enjoy their leisure and other blessings.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
We would never want to forget patriarchal suffering and all of its manifestations in the western world int he past century–child raising, running a household, cleaning, cooking, all that married and family life entails–now would we? [/quote]

Let’s assume that picture portrays the late 1940s/early 1950s. It will still be another 15 years before women are admitted to Harvard, nearly 20 before they’re admitted to Yale. They weren’t allowed to run the Boston Marathon until 1967, and it would be another 30 years before a woman served on the USSC. It would be another 50 years until we got a female Sec of State or CEO of a F50 company (Carly, coincidentally).

For every woman who didn’t think pushing out babies, wiping snotty noses, and taking care of a husband is the pinnacle of fulfillment, the suffering under patriarchy in the US was very real.
[/quote]

Yeah, and so many things are better now as a result? Hmmmm…let’s think that through for a bit.[/quote]

I don’t think that the goal was necessarily “better” so much as “more equality in freedom of choice.” [/quote]

The person I see most as denying that freedom in this conversation is Pangloss. His statement is increadably demeaning to many strong determined, hard working women who choose to accomplish the immensely difficult task of raising good human beings and running a household. That was/is the biggest problem with the feminist movement, it became anti-choice as much as the patriarchy was. Instead of being required to raise a family, it became a sin to.

[BrickHead]

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
We would never want to forget patriarchal suffering and all of its manifestations in the western world int he past century–child raising, running a household, cleaning, cooking, all that married and family life entails–now would we? [/quote]

Let’s assume that picture portrays the late 1940s/early 1950s. It will still be another 15 years before women are admitted to Harvard, nearly 20 before they’re admitted to Yale. They weren’t allowed to run the Boston Marathon until 1967, and it would be another 30 years before a woman served on the USSC. It would be another 50 years until we got a female Sec of State or CEO of a F50 company (Carly, coincidentally).

For every woman who didn’t think pushing out babies, wiping snotty noses, and taking care of a husband is the pinnacle of fulfillment, the suffering under patriarchy in the US was very real.
[/quote]

These women weren’t suffering, they were just wrong. Motherhood is the pinnacle of fulfillment for women because they have an insurmountable biological advantage in this task. Notable exceptions would be the father taking over full time stay at home dad duties after infancy. 2 parents working and abandoning your child to a babysitter is bad for everyone. Since women are infinitely more capable of bearing and nourishing children than men, women being the overwhelming majority of stay at home parents is a biologically motivated phenomena. Of course never marrying and never having children isn’t immoral, but the idea of the working(obviously being a mother a stay at home mother is incredibly hard work unto itself) mom in the vast majority of circumstances is bad for society.[/quote]

I’m going to guess that most of the moms you’ve met were on television. Many women are poor housekeepers and disinterested mothers at best. Children run feral while mother plays the Facebook game du jour.

I would say, based on my observed experience, that it shakes out similarly to the numbers found everywhere else. How many McDonald’s workers greet you with the cheery “Hi there! What would you like today?” and instead say a bored “Next?”

I will also say that having grown up in the time of working mothers, my smart, dedicated mother friends seem to have mixed reviews of work vs stay-at-home moms. Mine worked, and I felt neglected. But then, my mother chose to wait until I started kindergarten to return to work - and then worked the hours I was home (3-11). She left the family altogether when I was 12, and died when I was 21.

Friends with SAHMs often say that they felt suffocated by their bright, energetic mothers. Perhaps that would have been different back when there was more to running a household and a school, and more women were available for friendship, more opportunities for volunteer work, etc.

I’m not against staying home with kids - just the opposite, though I find it finically risky. But let’s not pretend that women are stellar mothers by nature. Many kids are better off in daycare, where at least there are structured meals and someone is likely to expose them to the ABCs.

Some dads suck, too, by the way. In case anyone is assuming they all play catch and give humorous-but-on-point talks about decency and the miracle of compound interest.[/quote]

So because there are some neglectful parents and dead beat dads we should dismiss a whole way of life that worked well for most and for society in general?

Kids better off in daycare? Yeah, if they have neglectful parents or don’t have the financial means or familial or community to support to raise them full time on their own perhaps. But no stranger is going to take the place of parents.

Suffocated by a mother? How? Oh, so some kids are being deprived of seeking fulfillment and are not being allowed to do as they damn please and being reminded that their parents are not their pals at all times?

I get some of your points but I believe using neglectful parents–which are not desirable in the first place!–are bad examples of proving a point to dismiss way of living for a family unit.

I know myself… because I have an utterly negligent father. I’ve also seen the outcome of kids who indeed had parents that let them do whatever they damn pleased and let the seek such enriching “fulfillment”.

You use yourself for examples in many cases–which is fine–but we have experienced and observed countless of other examples that run contrary to what you say.

[anon50325502]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
We would never want to forget patriarchal suffering and all of its manifestations in the western world int he past century–child raising, running a household, cleaning, cooking, all that married and family life entails–now would we? [/quote]

Let’s assume that picture portrays the late 1940s/early 1950s. It will still be another 15 years before women are admitted to Harvard, nearly 20 before they’re admitted to Yale. They weren’t allowed to run the Boston Marathon until 1967, and it would be another 30 years before a woman served on the USSC. It would be another 50 years until we got a female Sec of State or CEO of a F50 company (Carly, coincidentally).

For every woman who didn’t think pushing out babies, wiping snotty noses, and taking care of a husband is the pinnacle of fulfillment, the suffering under patriarchy in the US was very real.
[/quote]

These women weren’t suffering, they were just wrong. Motherhood is the pinnacle of fulfillment for women because they have an insurmountable biological advantage in this task. Notable exceptions would be the father taking over full time stay at home dad duties after infancy. 2 parents working and abandoning your child to a babysitter is bad for everyone. Since women are infinitely more capable of bearing and nourishing children than men, women being the overwhelming majority of stay at home parents is a biologically motivated phenomena. Of course never marrying and never having children isn’t immoral, but the idea of the working(obviously being a mother a stay at home mother is incredibly hard work unto itself) mom in the vast majority of circumstances is bad for society.[/quote]

Well, howdy-doody, me and ol’ Uncle TH agree![/quote]

Really? It sounds like utter horseshit to me.

[BrickHead]

We wouldn’t want to forget some good ol’ privilege either.

#livingthedream

[anon50325502]

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
We wouldn’t want to forget some good ol’ privilege either.

#livingthedream [/quote]

I don’t follow. Some men worked lousy jobs because they lacked the skills to work elsewhere or the drive to improve their skill set to move forward. Women, in general, stayed at home because that was the societal norm at the time or they literally were not allowed to do what they aspired to do.

How are those two situation comparable?

[BrickHead]

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
We wouldn’t want to forget some good ol’ privilege either.

#livingthedream [/quote]

I don’t follow. Some men worked lousy jobs because they lacked the skills to work elsewhere or the drive to improve their skill set to move forward. Women, in general, stayed at home because that was the societal norm at the time or they literally were not allowed to do what they aspired to do.

How are those two situation comparable? [/quote]

The situations are totally different and I was not posting them to compare.

Maybe before people liberally use asinine terms like white privilege and speak about how easy men have it and how rough women have it, they should THINK just a little bit.

There’s manual labor and dirty work to be done as there always has been and there was a time where not every Tom, Dick, and Harry was trying to “up the skill set” and “build the resume” or was dreaming of working in a posh office shuffling papers and info to and fro, working for the government, or in some other position in which they can rant and rave about social injustice. Their position in life was respected and they weren’t looked at as “lacking drive”. There’s no ambition or “fulfillment” in some jobs, and that’s FINE, because they are unneeded and the job still needs to get done! Applying negative attributes, as if some guy working in a mine or on a threshing crew, is “beneath” is disingenuous in my opinion. Maybe that’s not where you were going with your statement, but this is the type of sentiment some express, I believe, when speaking of “upping the skill set”.

[anon50325502]

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
We wouldn’t want to forget some good ol’ privilege either.

#livingthedream [/quote]

I don’t follow. Some men worked lousy jobs because they lacked the skills to work elsewhere or the drive to improve their skill set to move forward. Women, in general, stayed at home because that was the societal norm at the time or they literally were not allowed to do what they aspired to do.

How are those two situation comparable? [/quote]

The situations are totally different and I was not posting them to compare. [/quote]

Okay, thanks for clearing that up.

[quote]
Maybe before people liberally use asinine terms like white privilege and speak about how easy men have it and how rough women have it, they should THINK just a little bit.[/quote]

Agreed. Did someone do that here?

[quote]
There’s manual labor and dirty work to be done as there always has been and there was a time where not every Tom, Dick, and Harry was trying to “up the skill set” and “build the resume” or was dreaming of working in a posh office shuffling papers and info to and fro, working for the government, or in some other position in which they can rant and rave about social injustice. Their position in life was respected and they weren’t looked at as “lacking drive”. There’s no ambition or “fulfillment” in some jobs, and that’s FINE, because they are unneeded and the job still needs to get done! Applying negative attributes, as if some guy working in a mine or on a threshing crew, is “beneath” is disingenuous in my opinion. Maybe that’s not where you were going with your statement, but this is the type of sentiment some express, I believe, when speaking of “upping the skill set”. [/quote]

I agree; however, the opportunity to pursue a career that was fulfilling to the individual man existed even back then and, if they so desired, a man had the opportunity to achieve upwards mobility. The same can not be said for women during the same time period and the same did not exist for women for some time. Upwards mobility did not exist. Jobs were closed to women.

The idea that:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:
These women weren’t suffering, they were just wrong. Motherhood is the pinnacle of fulfillment for women because they have an insurmountable biological advantage in this task. [/quote]

Is utterly ludicrous. It’s just as absurd as the notion of white privilege.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
We wouldn’t want to forget some good ol’ privilege either.

#livingthedream [/quote]

I don’t follow. Some men worked lousy jobs because they lacked the skills to work elsewhere or the drive to improve their skill set to move forward. Women, in general, stayed at home because that was the societal norm at the time or they literally were not allowed to do what they aspired to do.

How are those two situation comparable? [/quote]

Really hard coal jobs still exist FTR. And they make a ton of money. We fight with them over labor and lose most of the time. And it’s still a really hard job that slowly kills you. But people choose to go underground rather than having a solid manufacturing job.

[BrickHead]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Really hard coal jobs still exist FTR. And they make a ton of money. We fight with them over labor and lose most of the time. And it’s still a really hard job that slowly kills you. But people choose to go underground rather than having a solid manufacturing job. [/quote]

Yup! There are some guys doing very well in the trades and labor these days.

[kpsnap]

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Many kids are better off in daycare.[/quote]
While this statement may be true, I find it very sad. When I look at that fact that the salary of the average daycare worker is less than $10 per hour, I can’t imagine that the profession draws the brightest and best. And I would also think the turnover would be high, minimizing bonding opportunities for the kids. I’m not saying there aren’t good daycare centers or phenomenal daycare workers; certainly there are. I just wouldn’t think too many kids would really be better off in daycare if the option exists for a stay-at-home parent.

[countingbeans]

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Why not talk about what it feels like to have a man you love moving inside of you? What it feels like to know that it’s okay and welcome for that movement to become a child? What it feels like when that child kicks for the first time? How about what it feels like when the man who gave you that child is willing to support you so you can stay home and sing with it?

Why does it have to be “my tired eyes”? [/quote]

Because all the world’s wonders in art, literature, invention came from need. It all came from a desperate place, maybe not always pain and suffering, but it came from some place where fulfillment wasn’t.

It’s the same reason people love to do drugs… Why people cry about how bad America is, even though, due to her influence, the world is a better and more prosperous place than it’s ever been in the history of human civilization. (No that doesn’t mean it’s perfect, and yes, plenty still suffer, but sheer number wise, it’s exponentially better than even 150 year ago.)

Humanity has a hard time enjoying the good parts of life without knowing, and almost celebrating the bad. Shit, some people never move out of bad town even though they have the good surrounding them.
[/quote]

I quite disagree! Much of it originates in need or suffering, sure, but I would say love accounts for even more of it. Beethoven’s Ode to Joy, Van Gogh’s many sunlit paintings, Gone With the Wind, which while encompassing the horrors of war is even more about love of place and people.

Yes, human beings are built to strive for more, but I don’t think that means that they only seek to alleviate suffering. I would call the curiosity that has prompted many of our greatest inventions and accomplishments a love of sorts. Ben Franklin watching the lightening and wondering, wondering. . .Edison noodling around in his shop, touching this to that to see what happens. Do you think he bemoaned the dark (“GodDAMN these greasy oil lamps”) or simply felt driven to explore the possibility of light? Myself, I believe the latter.

The America haters irritate me for the same reason the woman telling us what female is irritates me - because they’re negative and whiny. Negativity and whininess do not account for man’s great accomplishments. Whiny people don’t dream of building pyramids, and then actually, miraculously, see it through.

Though I can agree to some extent with your last statement. You can’t fully appreciate leisure without having worked. I have little respect for people who have no capacity to enjoy their leisure and other blessings. [/quote]

I think you’re injecting romance after the fact here quite a bit. And I think you doing it is natural, necessary and ultimately enhances the greatness of humanity, particularly art.

But that said, I wouldn’t use dude who cut off his own ear as an example of someone who created out of love or curiosity, and not the NEED for that love and curiosity, who’s lacking crushed him.

And I’m pretty sure everyone bemoaned the dark, and saw a whole lot of dollar signs in a light bulb.

I guess you could be right, and I’m just a lot more jaded about life, but yeah, we’re at opposite ends on this one.

[countingbeans]

[quote]kpsnap wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Many kids are better off in daycare.[/quote]
While this statement may be true, I find it very sad. When I look at that fact that the salary of the average daycare worker is less than $10 per hour, I can’t imagine that the profession draws the brightest and best. And I would also think the turnover would be high, minimizing bonding opportunities for the kids. I’m not saying there aren’t good daycare centers or phenomenal daycare workers; certainly there are. I just wouldn’t think too many kids would really be better off in daycare if the option exists for a stay-at-home parent. [/quote]

My wife works part time, and my daughter goes to an in-home preschool. Pretty much the best of both worlds, IMO. Baby girl gets to see her friends a lot and learns, the Woman who watches her is a wonderful person, grandmother, and cares deeply for the kids, and there is only a handful of them there (in-home) so she gets a lot of individual attention too. Plus home with us 4 days out of 7.

[anon50325502]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Is utterly ludicrous. It’s just as absurd as the notion of white privilege.[/quote]

I disagree. Generally speaking, there can be no higher calling for a woman than raising her children by being with them from birth to teen. [/quote]

There’s a difference between saying, “there can be no higher calling for a woman than raising her children by being with them from birth to teen.,” (which is still just your opinion) and saying, “These women weren’t suffering, they were just wrong. Motherhood is the pinnacle of fulfillment for women…”

[quote]
My ex-wife did it and I/we would do it all over again.

It has worked well for thousands of years yet like…men that want to wear dresses and act like girls…we think in our progressive zeal that we can force it to work better a different way? Nah, I don’t think so.

Carly Fiorina has NOTHING on June Cleaver in the big scheme of things.[/quote]

I didn’t say it could work better a different way or that being a stay at home mom was a bad thing. I’ve taken issue with the fact that some guy thinks motherhood is the pinnacle of fulfillment for all women and if a woman thinks otherwise she’s wrong. That’s ridiculous.

[TooHuman]

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
We would never want to forget patriarchal suffering and all of its manifestations in the western world int he past century–child raising, running a household, cleaning, cooking, all that married and family life entails–now would we? [/quote]

Let’s assume that picture portrays the late 1940s/early 1950s. It will still be another 15 years before women are admitted to Harvard, nearly 20 before they’re admitted to Yale. They weren’t allowed to run the Boston Marathon until 1967, and it would be another 30 years before a woman served on the USSC. It would be another 50 years until we got a female Sec of State or CEO of a F50 company (Carly, coincidentally).

For every woman who didn’t think pushing out babies, wiping snotty noses, and taking care of a husband is the pinnacle of fulfillment, the suffering under patriarchy in the US was very real.
[/quote]

These women weren’t suffering, they were just wrong. Motherhood is the pinnacle of fulfillment for women because they have an insurmountable biological advantage in this task. Notable exceptions would be the father taking over full time stay at home dad duties after infancy. 2 parents working and abandoning your child to a babysitter is bad for everyone. Since women are infinitely more capable of bearing and nourishing children than men, women being the overwhelming majority of stay at home parents is a biologically motivated phenomena. Of course never marrying and never having children isn’t immoral, but the idea of the working(obviously being a mother a stay at home mother is incredibly hard work unto itself) mom in the vast majority of circumstances is bad for society.[/quote]

I’m going to guess that most of the moms you’ve met were on television. Many women are poor housekeepers and disinterested mothers at best. Children run feral while mother plays the Facebook game du jour.

I would say, based on my observed experience, that it shakes out similarly to the numbers found everywhere else. How many McDonald’s workers greet you with the cheery “Hi there! What would you like today?” and instead say a bored “Next?”

I will also say that having grown up in the time of working mothers, my smart, dedicated mother friends seem to have mixed reviews of work vs stay-at-home moms. Mine worked, and I felt neglected. But then, my mother chose to wait until I started kindergarten to return to work - and then worked the hours I was home (3-11). She left the family altogether when I was 12, and died when I was 21.

Friends with SAHMs often say that they felt suffocated by their bright, energetic mothers. Perhaps that would have been different back when there was more to running a household and a school, and more women were available for friendship, more opportunities for volunteer work, etc.

I’m not against staying home with kids - just the opposite, though I find it finically risky. But let’s not pretend that women are stellar mothers by nature. Many kids are better off in daycare, where at least there are structured meals and someone is likely to expose them to the ABCs.

Some dads suck, too, by the way. In case anyone is assuming they all play catch and give humorous-but-on-point talks about decency and the miracle of compound interest.[/quote]

Are you really so stupid that you cannot distinguish the difference between being good at something and having a biological advantage? There are plenty of shitty mothers and plenty of shitty fathers, but that has literally nothing to do with the biological advantages women have in aggregate over men.

Your anecdotes aren’t arguments that address anything that I said about women in general.

Your claims about children being treated better in some cases in daycare also has nothing to do with the fact that toddlers that are away from their parents for more than 20 hours a week experience symptoms of parental abandonment.
The fact that some shitty(read: abusive and negligent) parents are worse than having kids in day care says nothing about the negative effects of parental abandonment that children experience by being away from their parents regularly.

[TooHuman]

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
We would never want to forget patriarchal suffering and all of its manifestations in the western world int he past century–child raising, running a household, cleaning, cooking, all that married and family life entails–now would we? [/quote]

Let’s assume that picture portrays the late 1940s/early 1950s. It will still be another 15 years before women are admitted to Harvard, nearly 20 before they’re admitted to Yale. They weren’t allowed to run the Boston Marathon until 1967, and it would be another 30 years before a woman served on the USSC. It would be another 50 years until we got a female Sec of State or CEO of a F50 company (Carly, coincidentally).

For every woman who didn’t think pushing out babies, wiping snotty noses, and taking care of a husband is the pinnacle of fulfillment, the suffering under patriarchy in the US was very real.
[/quote]

Yeah, and so many things are better now as a result? Hmmmm…let’s think that through for a bit.[/quote]

I don’t think that the goal was necessarily “better” so much as “more equality in freedom of choice.” [/quote]

Women didn’t “choose” to enter the workforce in general. The fact that their husbands’ real wages have collapsed forced them into the workplace. Household wages have been stagnant despite women entering the workforce alongside their husbands and that is catastrophic for society.

Even worse is that a huge and increasing number of women, particularly black women have abandoned fathers altogether starting in the 1960’s due to the subsidies they receive which are being leached from the husbands of responsible women further compounding the problem.

Without the massive welfare subsidies single mothers receive and the incredible amount of feminist propaganda in the past 50 years, the collapse in wage growth would result in a large population of never married childless women like you see in the family oriented conservative culture in Japan. If you want to argue about the evils of a far more patriarchal society and the shaming of sexually irresponsible women, you need only look at the low violent crime rates and incredibly low child abuse rates in Japan and other similar SE Asian countries.

[TooHuman]

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
We wouldn’t want to forget some good ol’ privilege either.

#livingthedream [/quote]

I don’t follow. Some men worked lousy jobs because they lacked the skills to work elsewhere or the drive to improve their skill set to move forward. Women, in general, stayed at home because that was the societal norm at the time or they literally were not allowed to do what they aspired to do.

How are those two situation comparable? [/quote]

The situations are totally different and I was not posting them to compare. [/quote]

Okay, thanks for clearing that up.

[quote]
Maybe before people liberally use asinine terms like white privilege and speak about how easy men have it and how rough women have it, they should THINK just a little bit.[/quote]

Agreed. Did someone do that here?

[quote]
There’s manual labor and dirty work to be done as there always has been and there was a time where not every Tom, Dick, and Harry was trying to “up the skill set” and “build the resume” or was dreaming of working in a posh office shuffling papers and info to and fro, working for the government, or in some other position in which they can rant and rave about social injustice. Their position in life was respected and they weren’t looked at as “lacking drive”. There’s no ambition or “fulfillment” in some jobs, and that’s FINE, because they are unneeded and the job still needs to get done! Applying negative attributes, as if some guy working in a mine or on a threshing crew, is “beneath” is disingenuous in my opinion. Maybe that’s not where you were going with your statement, but this is the type of sentiment some express, I believe, when speaking of “upping the skill set”. [/quote]

I agree; however, the opportunity to pursue a career that was fulfilling to the individual man existed even back then and, if they so desired, a man had the opportunity to achieve upwards mobility. The same can not be said for women during the same time period and the same did not exist for women for some time. Upwards mobility did not exist. Jobs were closed to women.

The idea that:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:
These women weren’t suffering, they were just wrong. Motherhood is the pinnacle of fulfillment for women because they have an insurmountable biological advantage in this task. [/quote]

Is utterly ludicrous. It’s just as absurd as the notion of white privilege.[/quote]

Jobs were never closed to women. Employers simply recognized the reality that men in aggregate were far more productive in most professions, while women were infinitely more capable at child-bearing and related tasks.

Women in the workforce today who never marry and don’t have kids make as much as men do and the idea that women are capable of the immense task of child-bearing and are still as productive as men despite the resources required to bear and nourish a child is sexist bullshit.
Women aren’t better or worse than men, they simply have vastly divergent biological advantages.

[TooHuman]

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Is utterly ludicrous. It’s just as absurd as the notion of white privilege.[/quote]

I disagree. Generally speaking, there can be no higher calling for a woman than raising her children by being with them from birth to teen. [/quote]

There’s a difference between saying, “there can be no higher calling for a woman than raising her children by being with them from birth to teen.,” (which is still just your opinion) and saying, “These women weren’t suffering, they were just wrong. Motherhood is the pinnacle of fulfillment for women…”

[quote]
My ex-wife did it and I/we would do it all over again.

It has worked well for thousands of years yet like…men that want to wear dresses and act like girls…we think in our progressive zeal that we can force it to work better a different way? Nah, I don’t think so.

Carly Fiorina has NOTHING on June Cleaver in the big scheme of things.[/quote]

I didn’t say it could work better a different way or that being a stay at home mom was a bad thing. I’ve taken issue with the fact that some guy thinks motherhood is the pinnacle of fulfillment for all women and if a woman thinks otherwise she’s wrong. That’s ridiculous. [/quote]

I never said “all” women. I said women in general(in aggregate) and even noted exceptions.

There’s nothing wrong with a woman choosing to abandon the biological advantage she has in being able to bear and nourish children in order to pursue other occupations.
It is however absolutely wrong to claim that women on average can be as productive as men in other occupations and still bearing children.