Matt Kroc Transitions to Janae Kroc

Off Topic
365

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[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. [/quote]

It’s like you’re reading my posts with no thought but to refute them. Do I not say that I believe in mothers home, raising kids? Did I not say it in a previous post as well, when talking about the brighter side of what “being a woman” is?

My examples using myself are just that, but when we’re talking about children and families we’re talking about something in which I hold a master’s degree. Until two years ago I worked exclusively with kids, so I see what shitty parenting does. I’m also keenly curious about the topic of family functioning and dynamics, so when I 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” I mean that I have listened with an open mind and no agenda to what they have to say about their upbringings. Because they’re dedicated mothers in a confusing era I have to imagine that they are, like me, trying to understand wtf is going on and what is best for their children. The women whose SAH mothers were left unprepared to support themselves comfortably in the wake of a divorce, as opposed to living on child support crumbs, spousal support, or welfare, will probably feel safest working - for their own benefit and their children’s.

When I say others report feeling “suffocated” I don’t imagine they mean that they couldn’t do whatever they damn well pleased, I believe they meant that their mothers were emotionally over-reliant. As I stated, as I am not after making political points here, so I acknowledge that this may well have to do with the relative isolation of SAHMs in my lifetime. Once upon a time neighborhoods were bursting with mothers needing companionship, and they provided it to one another. Now their children may be forced to provide for their social needs. This isn’t necessarily healthy. Some women are good with it - they don’t look for BFFs in their teen daughters - others don’t handle it well.

My takeaway has been that good parenting is good parenting regardless of work or home, and bad parenting is bad parenting regardless of that choice as well.

366

[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]

I agree that it’s sad, but then so is molestation and I encounter that shit every week, if not every day. Thoughtful, healthy parents either stay home with their kids or find positive, nurturing child care. Damaged parents either stay home and ignore their dirty kids unless they’re whining or crying or make the kind of lousy accommodations for them that you fear.

Good parents = good, bad parents = bad. This is why the state increasingly steps in with programs like Head Start. Which can suck, but in many cases not as much as the alternative.

367

1920×1200 643 KB

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[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]

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.

[/quote]

I believe he finally cut off his ear because he couldn’t stand listening to whatever equivalent he had to online forum posters crying doom. I can imagine him saying “Do you not SEE these sunflowers? They’re fucking beautiful! And look at that hay, piled so cheerfully! Jesus Christ, it’s LOVELY.”

Tell me the attached wasn’t painted from a place of warmth and affection!

368

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

Are you really just going to vomit words out of your ass with no attempt whatsoever to back them up or make them seem even vaguely based in fact?

369

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

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.

[/quote]

I believe he finally cut off his ear because he couldn’t stand listening to whatever equivalent he had to online forum posters crying doom. I can imagine him saying “Do you not SEE these sunflowers? They’re fucking beautiful! And look at that hay, piled so cheerfully! Jesus Christ, it’s LOVELY.”

Tell me the attached wasn’t painted from a place of warmth and affection!

[/quote]

I can see the strange relevance to the original topic of this thread with the whole ear cutting thing.

I can’t tell you it didn’t come the place you described, sure it did if I had to say so myself. But that doesn’t mean he had it, instead it says to me, what he wants and needs, what he sees as the ideal, in his heart and mind, that he doesn’t have.

I’m not gong to pretend to know enough about art to try and tie the snakes into my argument. Shit maybe they aren’t snakes.

EDIT: aren’t snakes, lol. Just goes to show you the way I see things, and how it’s different than others.

370

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

Are you really just going to vomit words out of your ass with no attempt whatsoever to back them up or make them seem even vaguely based in fact?[/quote]

You can see why his parents were fond of spanking :smiley:

371

400×527 58.8 KB

[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]

Look at the piece of work we got from it.

372

[quote]debraD wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

Are you really just going to vomit words out of your ass with no attempt whatsoever to back them up or make them seem even vaguely based in fact?[/quote]

You can see why his parents were fond of spanking :D[/quote]

It really does make sense!

373

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

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.

[/quote]

I believe he finally cut off his ear because he couldn’t stand listening to whatever equivalent he had to online forum posters crying doom. I can imagine him saying “Do you not SEE these sunflowers? They’re fucking beautiful! And look at that hay, piled so cheerfully! Jesus Christ, it’s LOVELY.”

Tell me the attached wasn’t painted from a place of warmth and affection!

[/quote]

I can see the strange relevance to the original topic of this thread with the whole ear cutting thing.

I can’t tell you it didn’t come the place you described, sure it did if I had to say so myself. But that doesn’t mean he had it, instead it says to me, what he wants and needs, what he sees as the ideal, in his heart and mind, that he doesn’t have.

I’m not gong to pretend to know enough about art to try and tie the snakes into my argument. Shit maybe they aren’t snakes. [/quote]

I know absolutely nothing about art as well, so I’m speaking from a position of utter weakness. I do believe Van Gogh’s paintings to reflect joy in small, mundane things, however. Not all of them, but many.

But it’s really just opinion and nothing more.

376

Hmm… This thread has taken a turn.

To argue that either gender has it harder than the other seems a bit ridiculous to me. Thinking back to my great grandparents, on one side grandad got up every day early enough to make sure he had time to serve grandma toast and tea in bed every morning before he walked 2 miles to the factory where he shovelled coal for 12 hours before walking 2 miles home. 6 days a week. Holidays were when the factory shut down on Christmas day.

Grandma kept house and looked after the kids (a perfectly valid and commendable occupation, IMHO). Her girlhood dreams of being a neurosurgeon (or a bullfighter, an astronaut or whatever) went unfulfilled, sure enough. However, I’m not sure I’d want to place much money on who had the “easier” life.

On the other side of the family, I understand that grandad was a loveless, violent drunk and a tyrant who brooked no shit from anyone. The patriarchy was not so rosy for grandma on that side.

In my experience I go to work Mon-Fri killing things (trees) that are fully capable of killing me right back. This profession is definitely male dominated. Thus far we have yet to hire a woman who can actually start a chainsaw, which is something of an impediment in our line of work (over half the dudes we hire can’t start the saws either, this is not a sexist comment, just observation).

On weekends I work with drunks, drug addicts, criminals and the mentally ill. Sometimes we wrestle around on the floor. I don’t need to agonize about my outfits, I suppose. I have a uniform for each job. I don’t feel sorry for myself in the least. That would be silly. But to argue that, by virtue of being a man, I have it easier than, say, my boss’ wife who is a very effective and fulfilled SAHM seems a bit silly too.

What I am certain of is that the fact that it is generally no longer economically viable for women to be SAHM’s if they so choose sucks for a number of reasons. The fact that my daughter will have the opportunity to pursue and career path she chooses makes me very happy. The fact that if she chooses to be “just” a mom, it may well prove to be impossible breaks my heart. And the fact that having both spouses in the workforce as the norm has not increased household disposable income/buying power relative to when one income was the norm is just bloody tragic.

/rant

377

It’s not about suffering and it never has been. That’s moronic. It’s about freedom. If someone doesn’t get that then it’s a waste of breath trying to convince whatever fucknut thinks he knows is the pinnacle of my existence. LOL seriously are you guys high when you come up with this shit?

Carry on with your doomsaying. I’m going to pop bonbons that I bought with my own hard earned money.

378

[quote]batman730 wrote:
Hmm… This thread has taken a turn.

To argue that either gender has it harder than the other seems a bit ridiculous to me. Thinking back to my great grandparents, on one side grandad got up every day early enough to make sure he had time to serve grandma toast and tea in bed every morning before he walked 2 miles to the factory where he shovelled coal for 12 hours before walking 2 miles home. 6 days a week. Holidays were when the factory shut down on Christmas day.

Grandma kept house and looked after the kids (a perfectly valid and commendable occupation, IMHO). Her girlhood dreams of being a neurosurgeon (or a bullfighter, an astronaut or whatever) went unfulfilled, sure enough. However, I’m not sure I’d want to place much money on who had the “easier” life.

On the other side of the family, I understand that grandad was a loveless, violent drunk and a tyrant who brooked no shit from anyone. The patriarchy was not so rosy for grandma on that side.

In my experience I go to work Mon-Fri killing things (trees) that are fully capable of killing me right back. This profession is definitely male dominated. Thus far we have yet to hire a woman who can actually start a chainsaw, which is something of an impediment in our line of work (over half the dudes we hire can’t start the saws either, this is not a sexist comment, just observation).

On weekends I work with drunks, drug addicts, criminals and the mentally ill. Sometimes we wrestle around on the floor. I don’t need to agonize about my outfits, I suppose. I have a uniform for each job. I don’t feel sorry for myself in the least. That would be silly. But to argue that, by virtue of being a man, I have it easier than, say, my boss’ wife who is a very effective and fulfilled SAHM seems a bit silly too.

What I am certain of is that the fact that it is generally no longer economically viable for women to be SAHM’s if they so choose sucks for a number of reasons. The fact that my daughter will have the opportunity to pursue and career path she chooses makes me very happy. The fact that if she chooses to be “just” a mom, it may well prove to be impossible breaks my heart. And the fact that having both spouses in the workforce as the norm has not increased household disposable income/buying power relative to when one income was the norm is just bloody tragic.

/rant[/quote]

I can’t find one single thing to disagree with in here.

379

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[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.[/quote]

You have an amazing ability to be a stellar know-it-all about things you clearly know little about.[/quote]

He’s actually spot on.

380

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[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. [/quote]

Laughably absurd.

Who said anything about wages? Who said anything about men and women being the same? I sure didn’t.

381

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Sure you did.

[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]

Pinnacle of fulfillment for [all] women and if you don’t agree you’re wrong. That’s exactly what you wrote.

Who said that?

You act as if men take zero part in child rearing.

382

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

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.

[/quote]

I believe he finally cut off his ear because he couldn’t stand listening to whatever equivalent he had to online forum posters crying doom. I can imagine him saying “Do you not SEE these sunflowers? They’re fucking beautiful! And look at that hay, piled so cheerfully! Jesus Christ, it’s LOVELY.”

Tell me the attached wasn’t painted from a place of warmth and affection!

[/quote]

I can see the strange relevance to the original topic of this thread with the whole ear cutting thing.

I can’t tell you it didn’t come the place you described, sure it did if I had to say so myself. But that doesn’t mean he had it, instead it says to me, what he wants and needs, what he sees as the ideal, in his heart and mind, that he doesn’t have.

I’m not gong to pretend to know enough about art to try and tie the snakes into my argument. Shit maybe they aren’t snakes. [/quote]

I know absolutely nothing about art as well, so I’m speaking from a position of utter weakness. I do believe Van Gogh’s paintings to reflect joy in small, mundane things, however. Not all of them, but many.

But it’s really just opinion and nothing more.[/quote]

FTR I think you’re right about the art (even most music) comes from a place of love within the artist. I guess my contention is the drive to create that expression of love and joy comes from suffering or want and desire.

383

M-T lets Matt go.

384

^The media is gonna have a field day with this.