142 replies to this topic

[Arbenol68]

Mr Walker, on 18 December 2012 - 02:30 AM, said:

They do not believe the truths I tell them about how we lived  without crime, graffiti, violence or abuse.

That's because it's not true.

[Beany]

Mr. Walker, for clarification, are you correlating gender equality (women's changing roles) and disintegration of society as having a causal relationship? If so, that makes the man's role peripheral and having little or no influence in society, which is not true, since we live in male-dominated societies. And by virtue of the fact that society is male dominated, and men hold the power in virtually all of our institutions, couldn't one reasonably speculate that men's behaviors have more to do with societal disintegration and female sexualization than gender equality?

And if conditions are worse for kids these days, and I'm not sure they are, shouldn't some of the culpability be shared between moms & dads?  Don't father have an equal responsibility for parenting? Many of them opt out of assuming parental duties, abandoning familial responsibilities, failing to provide financial or emotional support for their children, which surely contributes to their children's lack of well-being, at least as much as women expanding their gender roles. As for social well-being, there are numerous social factors at play here, one of which may be the changing roles of women, but that I don't think there's any evidence that it is a factor, let alone a major factor, at least, I haven't found any, and I've been out on the net looking. If you could point me to any studies or papers on this subject, I'd be happy to read them & further my education. I've found that in a meaningful discussion it's helpful if all parties have the same information and I'm always ready to learn.

[Mr Walker]

Arbenol68, on 18 December 2012 - 04:23 AM, said:

That's because it's not true.

LOL please provide evidence.

i lived in a town without any visible evidence of such things. There was no graffitti people left their doors open and their cars withte jkeys in them if someone found lost property it was returned to the owner. The commuity enforced the good behaviour of all, and especially the young, and i could not have got away with  something without someone telling my parents. For example onceaged about 17. I drove a few miles over the speed limit within the town. When i got home  10 minutes later,my dad told me he had had a phone call informing him, and i lost the use of the car for a couple of months. Every crime and criminal was recorded in the local paper under court news, and those columns were slim.  Yes there were probably a few dishonest people around but the chances of being caught and severly punished generally kept them from acting dishonestly There were no house breakins or therts from vehicles for example and shop lifting was unheard of.

There was some violence but far less than today and limited and contextual. eg i was bullied at school and beaten up by two boys who went on to be police officers but that was very rare and they had a rationale for their behaviour.

And some would argue that my parents giving me a good caning when i misbehaved was abuse or violence, yet it was not, it was very loving discipline which helped me become  self disciplined, loving, honest, and a model citizen.

I see more violence abuse sexism and offensive language  etc in one day at the school where i  teach than i saw in my entire childhood among young people. And mine is one of the best schools in the, state behaviour wise.

[Mr Walker]

Beany, on 18 December 2012 - 05:48 AM, said:

Mr. Walker, for clarification, are you correlating gender equality (women's changing roles) and disintegration of society as having a causal relationship? If so, that makes the man's role peripheral and having little or no influence in society, which is not true, since we live in male-dominated societies. And by virtue of the fact that society is male dominated, and men hold the power in virtually all of our institutions, couldn't one reasonably speculate that men's behaviors have more to do with societal disintegration and female sexualization than gender equality?

And if conditions are worse for kids these days, and I'm not sure they are, shouldn't some of the culpability be shared between moms & dads?  Don't father have an equal responsibility for parenting? Many of them opt out of assuming parental duties, abandoning familial responsibilities, failing to provide financial or emotional support for their children, which surely contributes to their children's lack of well-being, at least as much as women expanding their gender roles. As for social well-being, there are numerous social factors at play here, one of which may be the changing roles of women, but that I don't think there's any evidence that it is a factor, let alone a major factor, at least, I haven't found any, and I've been out on the net looking. If you could point me to any studies or papers on this subject, I'd be happy to read them & further my education. I've found that in a meaningful discussion it's helpful if all parties have the same information and I'm always ready to learn.

First your first paragraph is dead wrong, at least in the society i live in.  Men haveve no more power than wmen and probably less. For example when i bought a house, the land agent the conveyancer and the bank manager were all females (and all ex students of mine) At my school the great majority of teachers, including leadership are women.
Most (about 90%) of the businessess are owned and run by women. Most of the employers and employess in the town are women. Men are concentrated in the agriculture mining and industrial work forces but those too have incresinng numbers of women in them. The two hotels are run by family partnerships of husband and wife.
Certainly past historical forces have limited the role of women in the top echelons of corporations and govt and slightly lowered their superannuations etc but that is changing. Today women run the world i live in. Our PM is a woman our finance minister a woman and a lesbian. And that is not a bad thing.

This is not a blame game it is about realistic appreciation of how socai, changes in one area influence society in other areas.If i have time i wil do some research for you. I have read quite a lot on the issue over the years including the rise of gang culture and ghetto- isation in america, as family structures break down, in part, due to the changing roles of women. Many women in these areas are returning to traditional roles and becoming authority figures in attempt to restabilise their society and reduce the effects of gang culture.

You cant separate the changes in men's roles and social position from that of women, any more than you can separate other social changes from the changing equality and roles of women.

Edited by Mr Walker, 18 December 2012 - 10:05 AM.

[Mr Walker]

Double post

Edited by Mr Walker, 18 December 2012 - 10:10 AM.

[Beany]

I'm somewhat envious of you idyllic childhood. Mine was filled with alcoholism, mental illness, and poverty. Some of my friends were from single-parent households who grew up on welfare & the food commodity program and considered fried chicken backs & necks a gourmet dinner when they got it, which wasn't often. We poured cereal out of the box along with a few roaches. So as always, our past shapes us. However, I have always believed that each human being has a right to determine their own destiny, without coercion, and sometimes this means risking the disapproval of society at large, which is often more comfortable with the status quo.

[Arbenol68]

Mr Walker, on 18 December 2012 - 08:49 AM, said:

LOL please provide evidence.
There was some violence but far less than today and limited and contextual. eg i was bullied at school and beaten up by two boys who went on to be police officers but that was very rare and they had a rationale for their behaviour.

And some would argue that my parents giving me a good caning when i misbehaved was abuse or violence, yet it was not, it was very loving discipline which helped me become  self disciplined, loving, honest, and a model citizen.

It's tempting to look at the past through our rose-tinted glasses but it gives a false view. You say there was less violence, but then speak fondly of getting "a good caning". Using weapons to inflict violence on children is now illegal. It's also illegal to rape and beat up your wife. It never used to be. And racism was not only condoned by the government, but was indeed encouraged - segregation in the US, the 'whites only' immigration policy in Australia along with the genocide of aboriginal people, as a couple of examples.

The rights revolution has sought to redress these inequalities and still has a way to go. But no-one could rationally argue that we did those things better back then. Not unless you're a white bloke who feels disadvantaged by granting others the rights that you have always taken for granted.

Mr Walker, on 18 December 2012 - 10:00 AM, said:

First your first paragraph is dead wrong, at least in the society i live in.  Men haveve no more power than wmen and probably less. For example when i bought a house, the land agent the conveyancer and the bank manager were all females (and all ex students of mine) At my school the great majority of teachers, including leadership are women.
Most (about 90%) of the businessess are owned and run by women. Most of the employers and employess in the town are women. Men are concentrated in the agriculture mining and industrial work forces but those too have incresinng numbers of women in them. The two hotels are run by family partnerships of husband and wife.
Certainly past historical forces have limited the role of women in the top echelons of corporations and govt and slightly lowered their superannuations etc but that is changing. Today women run the world i live in. Our PM is a woman our finance minister a woman and a lesbian. And that is not a bad thing.

This is not a blame game it is about realistic appreciation of how socai, changes in one area influence society in other areas.If i have time i wil do some research for you. I have read quite a lot on the issue over the years including the rise of gang culture and ghetto- isation in america, as family structures break down, in part, due to the changing roles of women. Many women in these areas are returning to traditional roles and becoming authority figures in attempt to restabilise their society and reduce the effects of gang culture.

You cant separate the changes in men's roles and social position from that of women, any more than you can separate other social changes from the changing equality and roles of women.

So, there's not a lot of disagreement  between us. You wouldn't have a woman PM (or a lesbian finance minister) if  equality for others hadn't been pursued so vigorously. You say it's not a bad thing - we agree. It seems that your sole objection to womens' equality is that they can now go to work. I don't disagree that two parents working can have significant impacts on families. But this is a separate issue from their rights. It's what we do with those rights that really counts. Withholding them because we don't trust people to use them responsibly is ridiculous.

And why do so many women have to work? If other families are anything like mine we would work as little as we can get away with. There are a myriad of reasons for this, but none of it has anything to do with increased equality for women. It's given women the rights to have careers, and rights to stay at home if they wish. To have children or not. To be protected from abuse within marriage, etc....

Are there negative effects? If you insist - but these are outweighed by the positive effects on society of giving everybody the same opportunities. How many great female politicians, scientists, etc has society missed out on because they were expected to know their place.

[Mr Walker]

Beany, on 18 December 2012 - 02:48 PM, said:

I'm somewhat envious of you idyllic childhood. Mine was filled with alcoholism, mental illness, and poverty. Some of my friends were from single-parent households who grew up on welfare & the food commodity program and considered fried chicken backs & necks a gourmet dinner when they got it, which wasn't often. We poured cereal out of the box along with a few roaches. So as always, our past shapes us. However, I have always believed that each human being has a right to determine their own destiny, without coercion, and sometimes this means risking the disapproval of society at large, which is often more comfortable with the status quo.

Yes I was lucky. Mind you while my parents went without shoes during the depression, we also had it tough in the fifties which was a time of economic depression. Dad had a regular, secure, but low paying government job with the railways  and worked nights in his garage fixing cars for people to make enough to support a family of six. We were lucky to live in my grandma's house and have another small but regular income from her war widows pension..

I never owned new clothes and was give new toys twice a year on my birthday and christmas.These were often wondrous contraptions my father built for us, and sometimes  bought toys he made from overtime earned by working away from home for a month or two. I was the oldest child, so the others had hand me downs. I often took bread and dripping sandwiches to school with nasturtium leaves for a bit of flavour. But  money wasn't then, and isn't now, an indicator of the success of a society or a family.

There were unlimited free books from the library and we grew most of our fresh fruit, vegetables, eggs, chooks ducks etc on our house block. My parents loved and disciplined us and taught us ethical and moral behaviour. They stressed the importance of education as a liberating and empowering force, and reading as a way to know the world, society and enjoyment. I am now the poorest of my siblings, who range from millionaires to multi millionaires.  I have a job I love, a wife of nearly 40 years who loves me, a good reputation in my community and a sense of personal worth, integrity and honour;  all of which makes me the richest man on earth, despite possessing today (the day before pay day)  a total of 12 dollars in cash, and debts of  $150000.

All my family are good citizens, as are their own families . None have ever divorced, had affairs, or been in trouble with the police or their society, neighbours   etc., carrying on a family "tradition" going back a least to the late 1700s

None have ever been unemployed or on govt benefits, except for the old age pension or equivalent. So yes I am biased by my upbringing, but the objective facts as available confirm my own world views.

[Mr Walker]

Arbenol68, on 18 December 2012 - 10:44 PM, said:

It's tempting to look at the past through our rose-tinted glasses but it gives a false view. You say there was less violence, but then speak fondly of getting "a good caning". Using weapons to inflict violence on children is now illegal. It's also illegal to rape and beat up your wife. It never used to be. And racism was not only condoned by the government, but was indeed encouraged - segregation in the US, the 'whites only' immigration policy in Australia along with the genocide of aboriginal people, as a couple of examples.

The rights revolution has sought to redress these inequalities and still has a way to go. But no-one could rationally argue that we did those things better back then. Not unless you're a white bloke who feels disadvantaged by granting others the rights that you have always taken for granted.




So, there's not a lot of disagreement  between us. You wouldn't have a woman PM (or a lesbian finance minister) if  equality for others hadn't been pursued so vigorously. You say it's not a bad thing - we agree. It seems that your sole objection to womens' equality is that they can now go to work. I don't disagree that two parents working can have significant impacts on families. But this is a separate issue from their rights. It's what we do with those rights that really counts. Withholding them because we don't trust people to use them responsibly is ridiculous.

And why do so many women have to work? If other families are anything like mine we would work as little as we can get away with. There are a myriad of reasons for this, but none of it has anything to do with increased equality for women. It's given women the rights to have careers, and rights to stay at home if they wish. To have children or not. To be protected from abuse within marriage, etc....

Are there negative effects? If you insist - but these are outweighed by the positive effects on society of giving everybody the same opportunities. How many great female politicians, scientists, etc has society missed out on because they were expected to know their place.

We will have to agree to disagree. I dont look at the past through rose tinted glasses. I logically and rationaly argue that society as a social structure was perhaps better then, although it limited the equality of women.

The role of women evolved to meet the economic imperatives of a changed society. They did not win a battle for equality.
They were forced into becoming like men; wage slaves,   economic producers and consumers etc.  Like  the abolition of slavery, the change came about from external forces, mostly economic.  I do not accept that a material, throw away, consumer- based economy, driven by the premise that continued expansion and growth is an economic necessity, is worth the  negative social changes, values, attitudes,  ethics and moralities for humans.

It might be inevitable, given the linkages between economic and other social forces, but it is not necessarily good.

But then I think that parents who do not physically discipline their children  because they love them, are not only guilty of abusing their child but of inflicting great future problems and dangers on their  society. I lived with children as a child and I
I live with then now. One of the most common mantras from a child  (anyone under the age of adulthood) today is " I can do as I please. No one has the right to control me, and I will not let them  do so"

Much as i love children and young people, I know society will continue to deteriorate even more before it self corrects. If the abolition of corporal punishment theoretically reduces violence and the propensity for violencein a society why are our societies and especially the young so much more violent today than  for any time in my life. Once certain segments of society had a propensity for violence Now it is widespread among most segments of youth.

Humans tend to be violent unless they have learned self control and discipline Today parents teachers and police etc lack the power or authority to impose discipline on the young, which is the first step in allowing a person to understand how to control them selves..

[Arbenol68]

Mr Walker, on 18 December 2012 - 11:49 PM, said:

We will have to agree to disagree. I dont look at the past through rose tinted glasses. I logically and rationaly argue that society as a social structure was perhaps better then, although it limited the equality of women.

The role of women evolved to meet the economic imperatives of a changed society. They did not win a battle for equality.
They were forced into becoming like men; wage slaves,   economic producers and consumers etc. Like  the abolition of slavery, the change came about from external forces, mostly economic.  I do not accept that a material, throw away, consumer- based economy, driven by the premise that continued expansion and growth is an economic necessity, is worth the  negative social changes, values, attitudes,  ethics and moralities for humans.

They did win a battle for equality. To be able to vote, for a start.

I'm not even sure what you're arguing about, now. If more women in the workforce is not a result of a drive for equality but more the result of economic pressures, then that is irrelevant to our discussion (as I pointed out to you in a earlier post).

Mr Walker, on 18 December 2012 - 11:49 PM, said:

It might be inevitable, given the linkages between economic and other social forces, but it is not necessarily good.

But then I think that parents who do not physically discipline their children  because they love them, are not only guilty of abusing their child but of inflicting great future problems and dangers on their  society. I lived with children as a child and I
I live with then now. One of the most common mantras from a child  (anyone under the age of adulthood) today is " I can do as I please. No one has the right to control me, and I will not let them  do so"

Much as i love children and young people, I know society will continue to deteriorate even more before it self corrects. If the abolition of corporal punishment theoretically reduces violence and the propensity for violencein a society why are our societies and especially the young so much more violent today than  for any time in my life. Once certain segments of society had a propensity for violence Now it is widespread among most segments of youth.

Humans tend to be violent unless they have learned self control and discipline Today parents teachers and police etc lack the power or authority to impose discipline on the young, which is the first step in allowing a person to understand how to control them selves..

So, let me get this right:

Not violently assaulting your children is child abuse.
Inflicting violence on children will teach them that violence is wrong. Will stealing from them teach them that stealing is wrong? How about rape and murder?

I agree that we are living in a society which has a growing sense of entitlement. The "me me me" philosophy is particularly virulent. Obviously this is about parenting, and kids will generally absorb this attitude from their families and society at large.

But, a couple of things. I frequently help out at my childrens' schools and their scout troops. I spend plenty of time around other people's kids and don't find too many of them with the attitude of "I can do as I please. No one has the right to control me, and I will not let them  do so". Sure, there are a few, but I find the majority to be well disciplined and respectful (and not a belt mark on any of them). This is a parenting issue and has nothing whatsoever to do with women's rights.

[Beany]

Mr Walker, on 18 December 2012 - 11:49 PM, said:

We will have to agree to disagree. I dont look at the past through rose tinted glasses. I logically and rationaly argue that society as a social structure was perhaps better then, although it limited the equality of women.

The role of women evolved to meet the economic imperatives of a changed society. They did not win a battle for equality.
They were forced into becoming like men; wage slaves,   economic producers and consumers etc.  Like  the abolition of slavery, the change came about from external forces, mostly economic.  I do not accept that a material, throw away, consumer- based economy, driven by the premise that continued expansion and growth is an economic necessity, is worth the  negative social changes, values, attitudes,  ethics and moralities for humans.

It might be inevitable, given the linkages between economic and other social forces, but it is not necessarily good.

But then I think that parents who do not physically discipline their children  because they love them, are not only guilty of abusing their child but of inflicting great future problems and dangers on their  society. I lived with children as a child and I
I live with then now. One of the most common mantras from a child  (anyone under the age of adulthood) today is " I can do as I please. No one has the right to control me, and I will not let them  do so"

Much as i love children and young people, I know society will continue to deteriorate even more before it self corrects. If the abolition of corporal punishment theoretically reduces violence and the propensity for violencein a society why are our societies and especially the young so much more violent today than  for any time in my life. Once certain segments of society had a propensity for violence Now it is widespread among most segments of youth.

Humans tend to be violent unless they have learned self control and discipline Today parents teachers and police etc lack the power or authority to impose discipline on the young, which is the first step in allowing a person to understand how to control them selves..

It's funny you use the term "wage slave" and I use the term wage opportunities. Difference in perspective, I guess. I'm single and have been for years, and close to retirement age, so I am pleased that I've had the opportunity to support myself independently, that there were jobs available to me, and happy to pay into social security & pension. I know women who stay in abusive relationships solely because of economics, while I was able to leave an abusive relationship because of my ability to support myself, and I have never felt like a wage slave. Or any other kind of slave, for that matter. OK, I may be a slave to dark chocolate. I honestly don't see any harm coming from me or any other woman having the ability to be self supporting and determining the course of their lives.

I'm an optimist, I guess. I would rather live right now than at any other time in history. I believe we have more than ever the opportunity to achieve great & wonderful things both as individuals and as a society, and am doing my best to participate in effecting a positive future.

Edited by Beany, 19 December 2012 - 02:26 AM.

[Mr Walker]

Arbenol68, on 19 December 2012 - 12:12 AM, said:

They did win a battle for equality. To be able to vote, for a start.

I'm not even sure what you're arguing about, now. If more women in the workforce is not a result of a drive for equality but more the result of economic pressures, then that is irrelevant to our discussion (as I pointed out to you in a earlier post).




So, let me get this right:

Not violently assaulting your children is child abuse.
Inflicting violence on children will teach them that violence is wrong. Will stealing from them teach them that stealing is wrong? How about rape and murder?

I agree that we are living in a society which has a growing sense of entitlement. The "me me me" philosophy is particularly virulent. Obviously this is about parenting, and kids will generally absorb this attitude from their families and society at large.

But, a couple of things. I frequently help out at my childrens' schools and their scout troops. I spend plenty of time around other people's kids and don't find too many of them with the attitude of "I can do as I please. No one has the right to control me, and I will not let them  do so". Sure, there are a few, but I find the majority to be well disciplined and respectful (and not a belt mark on any of them). This is a parenting issue and has nothing whatsoever to do with women's rights.

Women gained rights, as did slaves, NOT basically as a result of any movement for those rights, but because economies changed and required a change in social structure. That is a common acknowledged historical truth.especail yin revoutionary studies. Now as womens roles changed and social structures changed there are advantages and disadvantages costs and benefits All are interwoven I would argue strongly that the society i live in now is deteriorated from the one i lived in fifty years ago Staristics of all sorts bear this out.  i would argue that, while womens positions may have improved they are now living in a society which is worse, and th t impacts on them and outweighs many of the specific advantages they gained. For example how many women in a western counrty are now free NOT to do paid work if they do not want to. Society is increasngly structured so that very few have this choice.
How many young women (and the not so young) are safe walking the streets late at night or even in their own homes. How many women are treated with respect, as women, compared with a generation ago. Eqaulity with men has brought women  down to the same level as men and subject to the same  treatment and expectations and outcomes That can be good, but it can also be very bad. How many young women 50 years ago used to go out and get completely drunk and die from choking on their own vomit or be raped, assaulted etc  while unconscious or semi conscious. Very very few.

Not teaching your children self discipline and control is a very serious form of child abuse. Not teaching them to think of others rahter than themselves is not only a form of abuse but anti social. Some parents succed in bringing up wel behaved children without physicl  punishmnets but it is rare

As i said i live in a good conservative well behaved neighbourhood and even here many children and teenagers are totally out of control Some remain well behaved by choice and common sense, but mos tknow they can get away with anything if they want to. If that is not the case where you live then there may be a reason for that,  Here  social and legal pressures make effective parenting almost imposible.  A parent cant stop a 13 year old girl from walking out of the house at midnight and staying away all night, or for days. Or from throwing rocks at the house, breaking walls, windows and possessions.

A friend stopped his 16 year old step son from hitting his 12 year old daughter by restraining him, and had a visit from the police warning that he could not do that without risking a charge of assault. As a teacher I cannot touch a child other than to stop them harming themsleves or another and even that is problematica.l Theoreticaly i should try and remove the class and lock the violent child away from the others and let them do what they want.

And I see this behaviour in children, boys and girls, at primary school as young as 6 or 7 on a daily basis.

  Another friend called the police to restrain his violent 13 year old daughter. They took her to the hospital, where the doctor basically said to let her do as she pleased. The girl returned home and continued smashing up her room.

We were caring for her  as an alternative to her being put into care, and she tried the same sort of behaviour. One smack, a bit of loving comfort and explanation about house rules and behaviour, and she was as good as gold. Another younger aunty did the same thing and the girl was perfect.
And yes it is all connected, both directly in the lack of time and effective loving parenting, working parents can offer, but also less directly with many other factors such as the size of families, the lack of availabilty of other family carers, and particulalrly the increasing break up of biologicla families.

So many kids today live with one or both adults who are not their biological parents, and do not have the form of loving investment that most biologicla parents have in their children. Many are cut off from their biological grandparents. ANd like it or not, the break up of family units is, in large part, a direct result of the economic freedom of women, but also of their changing role in society from being primarily nurturers and care givers to primarily just another wage earner.

That change is accompanied by changing expectations (another aspect of revolutionary theory) and thus a sense of dissatisfaction in many aspects of life, whichdid not exist in women 50  years, or so, ago.

In a sense women have been displaced from their primary biological purpose in life, and forced into a substitute purpose, and such a displacement always comes at a cost.

We see that cost, and its effects, in the displacement of men from their evolved role in the species, as well.

Edited by Mr Walker, 19 December 2012 - 12:28 PM.

[Mr Walker]

Beany, on 19 December 2012 - 02:14 AM, said:

It's funny you use the term "wage slave" and I use the term wage opportunities. Difference in perspective, I guess. I'm single and have been for years, and close to retirement age, so I am pleased that I've had the opportunity to support myself independently, that there were jobs available to me, and happy to pay into social security & pension. I know women who stay in abusive relationships solely because of economics, while I was able to leave an abusive relationship because of my ability to support myself, and I have never felt like a wage slave. Or any other kind of slave, for that matter. OK, I may be a slave to dark chocolate. I honestly don't see any harm coming from me or any other woman having the ability to be self supporting and determining the course of their lives.

I'm an optimist, I guess. I would rather live right now than at any other time in history. I believe we have more than ever the opportunity to achieve great & wonderful things both as individuals and as a society, and am doing my best to participate in effecting a positive future.

Let me put it this way. How free were you not to work. If you have that fredom you are not a slave, but slavery comes when we are compelled to do something. And for women today most do not have a choice. they are forced into work because of the way society and our economy  has evoved around them. And tha t evolution, especialy the economic evolution, is in large part a product of the huge increase in the percentage of women who now work. Further economic progress/growth is predicated on increasing the percentage of  women who work even further and society will build in drivers to ensure tha thapens leaving most women with no choice. As i said earlier, my wifes decision not to work for the 37 years of our marriage cost us, so far, over a million dollars. Not many couples can afford to pass up that sort of money, given the expectations on people in a modern society.


Also she was abused by women in the seventies, when we were married and she stopped working, who told her as a woman she had a duty and a responsibilty to go to work, so she could be socialised into modern attitudes and values by the women in the work force.
Being very independent, my wife told them politely but firmly where they could go, and where to stick it.

[Beany]

Mr Walker, on 19 December 2012 - 12:39 PM, said:

Let me put it this way. How free were you not to work. If you have that fredom you are not a slave, but slavery comes when we are compelled to do something. And for women today most do not have a choice. they are forced into work because of the way society and our economy  has evoved around them. And tha t evolution, especialy the economic evolution, is in large part a product of the huge increase in the percentage of women who now work. Further economic progress/growth is predicated on increasing the percentage of  women who work even further and society will build in drivers to ensure tha thapens leaving most women with no choice. As i said earlier, my wifes decision not to work for the 37 years of our marriage cost us, so far, over a million dollars. Not many couples can afford to pass up that sort of money, given the expectations on people in a modern society.


Also she was abused by women in the seventies, when we were married and she stopped working, who told her as a woman she had a duty and a responsibilty to go to work, so she could be socialised into modern attitudes and values by the women in the work force.
Being very independent, my wife told them politely but firmly where they could go, and where to stick it.

We all have a choice to work or not, it's whether we're prepared for the consequences of either choice, and I know families who have decided having mom home is more important than any economic benefit derived from her working. The point is, there are choices. While you may define me as a wage slave, I don't, and it's my perspective that matters most to me; how I participate in shaping my own life & future is at least as important as the societal forces around me.

Edited by Beany, 19 December 2012 - 02:05 PM.

[ChloeB]

Mr Walker, on 18 December 2012 - 02:30 AM, said:

Women are increasingly abused and increasingly exposed to domestic and social violence sin e the 19 70s, and the statistics bear this out.

And do you honestly think that those statistics went up because women were gaining equality in that time period got them abused more OR that gains in that area for women created an environment where abuse was much more reported?  People kept that stuff quiet back in the old days.  I highly doubt the abuse escalated, but you see the rise in numbers because women were making progress in standing up for the rights in many areas, this being one of them.