General/Off-topic |
|
|
|
|
|
Two pennies for your thoughts ....!!
|
| 2400. |
13 Jun 2008 Fri 01:38 pm |
|
Quoting Daydreamer: What's freedom of choice if your country's natural growth index is in danger? |
I think your free choice should be to patriotically raise more of your own kind! Russians, Turks... etc. Doesn't matter that 90% of the 6 billion polluting the Earth doesn't have enough food to eat, the real world problem is that we don't have enough Turks/Russians/etc...!!!
|
|
| 2401. |
14 Jun 2008 Sat 04:50 pm |
|
Quoting Daydreamer: Yes, unfortunately they did..all because of this ridiculous idea that women should be free to choose a career instead of motherhood. Too bad the weak western men cannot force them into having 6 children! I say - don't let women into universities. Cynicmistic's idea was not bad - compulsory army service for men, compulsory
breeding for women. The corrupt west could learn something from extended Muslim families!
Long live compulsory procreation
What's freedom of choice if your country's natural growth index is in danger? |
I do think it's odd that the instinct to reproduce (said by many to be the strongest instinct in all creatures) is in decline in humans, particularly in the places mentioned.
In all things there is an inner and an outer. There are things that have a price and those that are priceless.
I don't see anything wrong with being a mother or home maker. In fact what is more valuable in the long run? A career that is really just a way to earn a few pieces of silver so you can afford a better home? but you give up making a home to get it?
I find it interesting that women who present themselves as feminists seem to have such little respect for motherhood and what women have been doing for thousands of years. Have you ever heard the saying, "The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world"?
Is it better to have prepared food from exploited hands in the factory, with who knows what ingredients in it, or food prepared with care to sustain and nourish one's loved ones?
Is it better to send children off to be taken care of those who's motivation is to earn money? I've seen those blank eyed children being pushed around by their sad eyed nannies (whose own children are not being cared for because they have to make a living), while their mothers pursue their "careers"....and I must say it's tragic sight.
Career? What career? 90% of the time you are talking about wage earning employment. You know, making a better widget.. Most women are fitting themselves into a male model, instead of really looking at themselves and making their own model. Many young women now are taking another look at how they manage their careers and being mothers and homemakers and working on redesigning it. My own grandmother had her own business that did quite well. She designed it so she could stay home to be there for her family.
Now I expect to be flammed....how dare I?
|
|
| 2402. |
14 Jun 2008 Sat 05:17 pm |
|
Quoting alameda: Quoting Daydreamer: Yes, unfortunately they did..all because of this ridiculous idea that women should be free to choose a career instead of motherhood. Too bad the weak western men cannot force them into having 6 children! I say - don't let women into universities. Cynicmistic's idea was not bad - compulsory army service for men, compulsory
breeding for women. The corrupt west could learn something from extended Muslim families!
Long live compulsory procreation
What's freedom of choice if your country's natural growth index is in danger? |
I do think it's odd that the instinct to reproduce (said by many to be the strongest instinct in all creatures) is in decline in humans, particularly in the places mentioned.
In all things there is an inner and an outer. There are things that have a price and those that are priceless.
I don't see anything wrong with being a mother or home maker. In fact what is more valuable in the long run? A career that is really just a way to earn a few pieces of silver so you can afford a better home? but you give up making a home to get it?
I find it interesting that women who present themselves as feminists seem to have such little respect for motherhood and what women have been doing for thousands of years. Have you ever heard the saying, "The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world"?
Is it better to have prepared food from exploited hands in the factory, with who knows what ingredients in it, or food prepared with care to sustain and nourish one's loved ones?
Is it better to send children off to be taken care of those who's motivation is to earn money? I've seen those blank eyed children being pushed around by their sad eyed nannies (whose own children are not being cared for because they have to make a living), while their mothers pursue their "careers"....and I must say it's tragic sight.
Career? What career? 90% of the time you are talking about wage earning employment. You know, making a better widget.. Most women are fitting themselves into a male model, instead of really looking at themselves and making their own model. Many young women now are taking another look at how they manage their careers and being mothers and homemakers and working on redesigning it. My own grandmother had her own business that did quite well. She designed it so she could stay home to be there for her family.
Now I expect to be flammed....how dare I? |
Not from me, I agree with you 100%! I am a little "old fashioned" when it comes to children and motherhood and juggling careers etc. My opinion is you can only do one well! And one has an effect on the other. Problems at work cause problems at home and vice versa.
I believe that lack of values in family life and family breakdowns has had detrimental effects on our social structure. But that does not mean to say that every woman has to have 2.4 chilren. Some people would be better if they never had children. Especialy those who treat their children like an accessory :-S
|
|
| 2403. |
14 Jun 2008 Sat 05:37 pm |
|
Quoting libralady: Not from me, I agree with you 100%! I am a little "old fashioned" when it comes to children and motherhood and juggling careers etc. My opinion is you can only do one well! And one has an effect on the other. Problems at work cause problems at home and vice versa.
I believe that lack of values in family life and family breakdowns has had detrimental effects on our social structure. But that does not mean to say that every woman has to have 2.4 chilren. Some people would be better if they never had children. Especialy those who treat their children like an accessory :-S |
Hasn't it been said that the family is the heart of civilization?
|
|
| 2404. |
15 Jun 2008 Sun 12:44 am |
|
Quoting libralady: Quoting alameda: Quoting Daydreamer: Yes, unfortunately they did..all because of this ridiculous idea that women should be free to choose a career instead of motherhood. Too bad the weak western men cannot force them into having 6 children! I say - don't let women into universities. Cynicmistic's idea was not bad - compulsory army service for men, compulsory
breeding for women. The corrupt west could learn something from extended Muslim families!
Long live compulsory procreation
What's freedom of choice if your country's natural growth index is in danger? |
I do think it's odd that the instinct to reproduce (said by many to be the strongest instinct in all creatures) is in decline in humans, particularly in the places mentioned.
In all things there is an inner and an outer. There are things that have a price and those that are priceless.
I don't see anything wrong with being a mother or home maker. In fact what is more valuable in the long run? A career that is really just a way to earn a few pieces of silver so you can afford a better home? but you give up making a home to get it?
I find it interesting that women who present themselves as feminists seem to have such little respect for motherhood and what women have been doing for thousands of years. Have you ever heard the saying, "The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world"?
Is it better to have prepared food from exploited hands in the factory, with who knows what ingredients in it, or food prepared with care to sustain and nourish one's loved ones?
Is it better to send children off to be taken care of those who's motivation is to earn money? I've seen those blank eyed children being pushed around by their sad eyed nannies (whose own children are not being cared for because they have to make a living), while their mothers pursue their "careers"....and I must say it's tragic sight.
Career? What career? 90% of the time you are talking about wage earning employment. You know, making a better widget.. Most women are fitting themselves into a male model, instead of really looking at themselves and making their own model. Many young women now are taking another look at how they manage their careers and being mothers and homemakers and working on redesigning it. My own grandmother had her own business that did quite well. She designed it so she could stay home to be there for her family.
Now I expect to be flammed....how dare I? |
Not from me, I agree with you 100%! I am a little "old fashioned" when it comes to children and motherhood and juggling careers etc. My opinion is you can only do one well! And one has an effect on the other. Problems at work cause problems at home and vice versa.
I believe that lack of values in family life and family breakdowns has had detrimental effects on our social structure. But that does not mean to say that every woman has to have 2.4 chilren. Some people would be better if they never had children. Especialy those who treat their children like an accessory :-S |
And not from me either,i agree %100.
|
|
| 2405. |
15 Jun 2008 Sun 04:58 am |
|
Quoting alameda: I do think it's odd that the instinct to reproduce (said by many to be the strongest instinct in all creatures) is in decline in humans, particularly in the places mentioned.
In all things there is an inner and an outer. There are things that have a price and those that are priceless.
I don't see anything wrong with being a mother or home maker. In fact what is more valuable in the long run? A career that is really just a way to earn a few pieces of silver so you can afford a better home? but you give up making a home to get it?
I find it interesting that women who present themselves as feminists seem to have such little respect for motherhood and what women have been doing for thousands of years. Have you ever heard the saying, "The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world"?
Is it better to have prepared food from exploited hands in the factory, with who knows what ingredients in it, or food prepared with care to sustain and nourish one's loved ones?
Is it better to send children off to be taken care of those who's motivation is to earn money? I've seen those blank eyed children being pushed around by their sad eyed nannies (whose own children are not being cared for because they have to make a living), while their mothers pursue their "careers"....and I must say it's tragic sight.
Career? What career? 90% of the time you are talking about wage earning employment. You know, making a better widget.. Most women are fitting themselves into a male model, instead of really looking at themselves and making their own model. Many young women now are taking another look at how they manage their careers and being mothers and homemakers and working on redesigning it. My own grandmother had her own business that did quite well. She designed it so she could stay home to be there for her family.
Now I expect to be flammed....how dare I? |
I think it is you, alameda, who disrespect working women/working mothers. It is a much more complicated issue then you present it to be (and feminists don't disrespect stay-at-home moms, they just say that women should always try to be independent of their husbands/boyfriends... etc, to be self-sustainable and not dependent on others, for what they do need their own source of income). It is great to be a full time mom, it is equally great to be a working mom, and it would be really great if men would share the burden of child rearing, maybe then women wouldn't have to give up their personal goals completely - don't you think that's actually how it should be? Why does the entire burden of raising children always fall on the shoulders of women? I expect that you will start going on now about 'nature', 'biology'... etc. Please don't, I find this simplistic biologic determinism of yours rather unsophisticated and uninsightful. Some women don't have the luxury of staying at home with kids, maybe you could respect them a little bit as well, what do you think?
|
|
| 2406. |
15 Jun 2008 Sun 08:50 am |
|
Every human being has his/her own dreams and they deserve to follow them. If for a couple that dream involves having children, then as a couple you plan it and help each other for this dream to happen.
|
|
| 2407. |
15 Jun 2008 Sun 09:12 am |
|
Aside from the fact that women should have a choice (and alameda I don’t know where you get the idea that feminist disrespect stay-at-home moms  ) there is a major issue here that had not been mentioned.
Many working women have no choice these days. Dual incomes are essential to many families if they want to feed and clothe their children and have a roof over their heads. It is not simply a matter of wanting “pieces of silver“. That statement is completely disrespectful to those women who do not have the luxury of staying home.
|
|
| 2408. |
15 Jun 2008 Sun 10:04 am |
|
Quoting girleegirl: Aside from the fact that women should have a choice (and alameda I don’t know where you get the idea that feminist disrespect stay-at-home moms )
|
Alameda knows - she observes the rotten American society and comments! GG adit it - how many children did you breed? If less than 3 then you're worth nothing. And don't start complaining about not being able to afford them! Marry any guy that has an income and breed!
I'm sure Alameda has at least 6 children and thus works fine populating the Earth.
Yet, my enlightened ideas make me believe that having a choice is an important thing. Although I am currently pregnant, I see nothing wrong about those women who decide not to have children. Still, I deeply respect those who decide to stay at home and bring them up. It's not about what they choose - being a working mother, staying at home or not having children - but about having a choice.
|
|
| 2409. |
15 Jun 2008 Sun 10:33 am |
|
Quoting Daydreamer:
Alameda knows - she observes the rotten American society and comments! |
Oh dear! I forgot that alameda is the authority on everything she speaks about! How could I be so stupid as to question anything that comes from her fingertips?!?!? 
|
|
| 2410. |
15 Jun 2008 Sun 12:38 pm |
|
Quoting catwoman: It is great to be a full time mom, it is equally great to be a working mom, and it would be really great if men would share the burden of child rearing, maybe then women wouldn't have to give up their personal goals completely - don't you think that's actually how it should be? Why does the entire burden of raising children always fall on the shoulders of women? |
My daughter-in-law has just gone back to work on slightly reduced hours now the baby is seven months' old - partly from desire, partly from necessity. She is a good mum and my son is a very good dad - he does as much, if not more, than my daughter-in-law. When they visited us recently he was feeding the baby in a restaurant and the Turkish lads were laughing at him saying 'Are you a woman?' They couldn't believe it when I said he also changes nappies, baths the baby and does a great deal of the cooking. I'm not sure he's much help with the cleaning - but then he was always a very untidy child!! 
I was a stay-at-home mum - that was what I chose to do and luckily it wasn't essential for me to be earning too. I liked being able to spend a lot of time with my boys (I have 3 so that makes me 'worthy' DD ) and I think they benefited from it. My husband didn't help in the same way my son does but then I accepted at that time that my job was looking after the kids and the house and his was earning the money. Our way worked for us all those years ago and my son's way works for them now.
|
|
|
