100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Please educate me ladies | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I doubt we'll agree there. Women didn't have positions back then... What roles were men forced into? Being the hunters? Being straight? Being straight is one of them, but don't you think that being the sole breadwinner with your wife and childrens survival resting on your shoulders carried a great deal of stress to accompany your position. Maybe there were some men who wanted to stay home with the babies and clean house, but even to this day that would be considered immasculine. What's acceptable for a woman has changed dramatically while what's acceptable for a man hasn't so much. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's a good point except; some women don't want or need a man to support them so they're not marrying to be taken care of.... Some women want men that stay home or are ok with it... Some men and women don't mind if the woman makes more money...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You have a point about today... BUT back then women did not have a voice, they didn't own anything, they lost their children if they got divorced, the money from their family trust went to their husbands, they could be beat and no one cared b/c the man ruled the house and that was that... There is something to be said about testosterone rather than men being forced into these roles.. I don't believe they were forced to be bread winners they chose those roles, they were in charge... Men didn't want to stay home with the kids, do laundry, cook, sew, etc. I won't argue that men had far more rights than women did, but let's try to remember that men were simply born into those roles. They lived up to them because there was no alternative. I don't think anyone can say for sure that not a single man wanted to spend as much time as he could with his children. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
some may how but I doubt the majority did and you're still forgetting testosterone, it played a huge role.. to some extent it still does but not like it did.. Think about history and fighting, wars, duels.. Women were expected to bear children not fight in wars, they had to keep the human race going if the men died... Let's not forget the difference in the "strength" of the two genders.. I can't really see a small woman dragging home dinner in most cases.. I think it was as it should be with some of the role expectations.. Not stripping women of everything of course but a lot of the other stuff...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You have a point about today... BUT back then women did not have a voice, they didn't own anything, they lost their children if they got divorced, the money from their family trust went to their husbands, they could be beat and no one cared b/c the man ruled the house and that was that... There is something to be said about testosterone rather than men being forced into these roles.. I don't believe they were forced to be bread winners they chose those roles, they were in charge... Men didn't want to stay home with the kids, do laundry, cook, sew, etc. I won't argue that men had far more rights than women did, but let's try to remember that men were simply born into those roles. They lived up to them because there was no alternative. I don't think anyone can say for sure that not a single man wanted to spend as much time as he could with his children. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
some may how but I doubt the majority did and you're still forgetting testosterone, it played a huge role.. to some extent it still does but not like it did.. Think about history and fighting, wars, duels.. Women were expected to bear children not fight in wars, they had to keep the human race going if the men died... Let's not forget the difference in the "strength" of the two genders.. I can't really see a small woman dragging home dinner in most cases.. I think it was as it should be with some of the role expectations.. Not stripping women of everything of course but a lot of the other stuff... I would much rather keep the human race going than to die in some war. Sounds like there was an advantage or two in being a woman, although given, there were a lot of injustices to go along with it as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You have a point about today... BUT back then women did not have a voice, they didn't own anything, they lost their children if they got divorced, the money from their family trust went to their husbands, they could be beat and no one cared b/c the man ruled the house and that was that... There is something to be said about testosterone rather than men being forced into these roles.. I don't believe they were forced to be bread winners they chose those roles, they were in charge... Men didn't want to stay home with the kids, do laundry, cook, sew, etc. I won't argue that men had far more rights than women did, but let's try to remember that men were simply born into those roles. They lived up to them because there was no alternative. I don't think anyone can say for sure that not a single man wanted to spend as much time as he could with his children. That too, I was going with the "strength"... Women weren't really allowed those careers either.... Snuff you can't bear children so you wouldn't be chosen to stay home in those days... Yes, there were a lot of injustices... Now the playing field is more level, you should be happy about that... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You have a point about today... BUT back then women did not have a voice, they didn't own anything, they lost their children if they got divorced, the money from their family trust went to their husbands, they could be beat and no one cared b/c the man ruled the house and that was that... There is something to be said about testosterone rather than men being forced into these roles.. I don't believe they were forced to be bread winners they chose those roles, they were in charge... Men didn't want to stay home with the kids, do laundry, cook, sew, etc. I won't argue that men had far more rights than women did, but let's try to remember that men were simply born into those roles. They lived up to them because there was no alternative. I don't think anyone can say for sure that not a single man wanted to spend as much time as he could with his children. That too, I was going with the "strength"... Women weren't really allowed those careers either.... Snuff you can't bear children so you wouldn't be chosen to stay home in those days... Yes, there were a lot of injustices... Now the playing field is more level, you should be happy about that... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You have a point about today... BUT back then women did not have a voice, they didn't own anything, they lost their children if they got divorced, the money from their family trust went to their husbands, they could be beat and no one cared b/c the man ruled the house and that was that... There is something to be said about testosterone rather than men being forced into these roles.. I don't believe they were forced to be bread winners they chose those roles, they were in charge... Men didn't want to stay home with the kids, do laundry, cook, sew, etc. I won't argue that men had far more rights than women did, but let's try to remember that men were simply born into those roles. They lived up to them because there was no alternative. I don't think anyone can say for sure that not a single man wanted to spend as much time as he could with his children. That too, I was going with the "strength"... Women weren't really allowed those careers either.... Snuff you can't bear children so you wouldn't be chosen to stay home in those days... Yes, there were a lot of injustices... Now the playing field is more level, you should be happy about that... Oh duh  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You have a point about today... BUT back then women did not have a voice, they didn't own anything, they lost their children if they got divorced, the money from their family trust went to their husbands, they could be beat and no one cared b/c the man ruled the house and that was that... There is something to be said about testosterone rather than men being forced into these roles.. I don't believe they were forced to be bread winners they chose those roles, they were in charge... Men didn't want to stay home with the kids, do laundry, cook, sew, etc. I won't argue that men had far more rights than women did, but let's try to remember that men were simply born into those roles. They lived up to them because there was no alternative. I don't think anyone can say for sure that not a single man wanted to spend as much time as he could with his children. That too, I was going with the "strength"... Women weren't really allowed those careers either.... Snuff you can't bear children so you wouldn't be chosen to stay home in those days... Yes, there were a lot of injustices... Now the playing field is more level, you should be happy about that... Oh duh 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You have a point about today... BUT back then women did not have a voice, they didn't own anything, they lost their children if they got divorced, the money from their family trust went to their husbands, they could be beat and no one cared b/c the man ruled the house and that was that... There is something to be said about testosterone rather than men being forced into these roles.. I don't believe they were forced to be bread winners they chose those roles, they were in charge... Men didn't want to stay home with the kids, do laundry, cook, sew, etc. I won't argue that men had far more rights than women did, but let's try to remember that men were simply born into those roles. They lived up to them because there was no alternative. I don't think anyone can say for sure that not a single man wanted to spend as much time as he could with his children. That too, I was going with the "strength"... Women weren't really allowed those careers either.... Snuff you can't bear children so you wouldn't be chosen to stay home in those days... Yes, there were a lot of injustices... Now the playing field is more level, you should be happy about that... I am happy about that. But there were women writers at least. They may have been few, but if Francis Mary Shelley, and her mother before her could do it, anywoman could have If they had taken the time to hone thier craft to a publishable level they could have been published too. Granted white women as a rule got less of an education than white men, but black men got even less education than white women. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm back to diggin that hole again !I'll just stop at center earth !
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You have a point about today... BUT back then women did not have a voice, they didn't own anything, they lost their children if they got divorced, the money from their family trust went to their husbands, they could be beat and no one cared b/c the man ruled the house and that was that... There is something to be said about testosterone rather than men being forced into these roles.. I don't believe they were forced to be bread winners they chose those roles, they were in charge... Men didn't want to stay home with the kids, do laundry, cook, sew, etc. I won't argue that men had far more rights than women did, but let's try to remember that men were simply born into those roles. They lived up to them because there was no alternative. I don't think anyone can say for sure that not a single man wanted to spend as much time as he could with his children. That too, I was going with the "strength"... Women weren't really allowed those careers either.... Snuff you can't bear children so you wouldn't be chosen to stay home in those days... Yes, there were a lot of injustices... Now the playing field is more level, you should be happy about that... I am happy about that. But there were women writers at least. They may have been few, but if Francis Mary Shelley, and her mother before her could do it, anywoman could have If they had taken the time to hone thier craft to a publishable level they could have been published too. Granted white women as a rule got less of an education than white men, but black men got even less education than white women. You didn't read that book very well did you? SOME women could/were allowed.. MOST were not... Just b/c a couple of women were allowed to and could, does not mean all the others didn't b/c they weren't capable.. THAT is closed minded and only says that you do/did not empathize with the plight of women.. You just think it's wrong that guys couldn't stay home... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You want to know about women....here you go...treat us with respet, speak to us as you would have others speak to your mother, don't get down on us when we call you on your screw ups, don't put us in a box and expect us all to be the same, and don't make generalizations about us; we are unique individuals and should be treaeted as such. Enough said here I think....
Hi Prncs! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(((DAW))) how are ya girl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(((DAW))) how are ya girl Doing well, thanks...I guess I missed the party...lol 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You have a point about today... BUT back then women did not have a voice, they didn't own anything, they lost their children if they got divorced, the money from their family trust went to their husbands, they could be beat and no one cared b/c the man ruled the house and that was that... There is something to be said about testosterone rather than men being forced into these roles.. I don't believe they were forced to be bread winners they chose those roles, they were in charge... Men didn't want to stay home with the kids, do laundry, cook, sew, etc. I won't argue that men had far more rights than women did, but let's try to remember that men were simply born into those roles. They lived up to them because there was no alternative. I don't think anyone can say for sure that not a single man wanted to spend as much time as he could with his children. That too, I was going with the "strength"... Women weren't really allowed those careers either.... Snuff you can't bear children so you wouldn't be chosen to stay home in those days... Yes, there were a lot of injustices... Now the playing field is more level, you should be happy about that... I am happy about that. But there were women writers at least. They may have been few, but if Francis Mary Shelley, and her mother before her could do it, anywoman could have If they had taken the time to hone thier craft to a publishable level they could have been published too. Granted white women as a rule got less of an education than white men, but black men got even less education than white women. You didn't read that book very well did you? SOME women could/were allowed.. MOST were not... Just b/c a couple of women were allowed to and could, does not mean all the others didn't b/c they weren't capable.. THAT is closed minded and only says that you do/did not empathize with the plight of women.. You just think it's wrong that guys couldn't stay home... I'm not saying that. But Mark Twain wasn't well educated and that didn't stop him. Nowdays he's considered the quintessential American author. And while I sympathize with anyone born into a role they didn't want, man or woman, I have to admit that the stuff I read in those classes, the texts that the teacher claimed were looked over because it was written by a woman, honestly wasn't that great. I'm not being sexist, but, what is called literature today is called that not because it was written by a man, but because it stood the test of time. Frakenstien is considered a classic, and it doesn't matter whether it was written by a woman or not, it's just that good. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Snuff and I are debating whether men or women got a raw deal in how our roles were setup up from the beginning and how they've changed in recent times...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can do anything a man can do except piss my name in the snow. However, give me enough time to practise an I'm sure I could
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daw I'm just here to cover the hole after Princes is done with him !
|
|
|
|
|
