A little sanity in an insane world...
- Thread starter Gato_Solo
- Start date
I'm speechless, so much so that I can't come up with a cohesive reply. 
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
I just posted the article to show how far some folks will stoop to get their way, and how others have to come along and fix what the first group destroyed...The article is basically about the true meaning of the word equality, and if you haven't read the source, then shame on you...
Shadowfax
<b>mod cow</b>
I think it's really OK when a husband decides to stay at home for a few days per week to watch the baby + do some housekeeping stuff. It's gives his wife a good opportunity to have her own job too.
It's definately something I would do if the future Mrs. Shadowfax would want to do that
It's definately something I would do if the future Mrs. Shadowfax would want to do that
I stayed home and took care of the household for about three months. Not really by choice, I was laid off, and couldn't find a job. Ok, probably could have looked a little harder than I did, but I actually enjoyed staying home. I definitly got alot more respect for 'housewifes'. My wife and I both work now, and it's tough getting all the stuff done around the house. Wish we could go back to the days when a family could live on one income.
Ardsgaine
Active Member
Gato_Solo said:
Read the article, and agree with most of the points made. While I was a graduate student in the Philosophy Dept at FSU, I was TA for a course on the Philosophy of Feminism, so I have a passing familiarity with the subject. The only quibble I have with her is that she somewhat misrepresented Engels. Not that I want to help Engels out, but the way she presents the Marxist position one might think he believed that patriarchy began with the rise of capitalism. That's not the case-- not exactly. He traces it back much further. In fact, the idyllic era when women held a central role in society would have been in pre-historic times, although there were isolated primitive societies which remained in that state (such as the matriarchal societies of certain Pacific islands). As I recall, Engels argued that patriarchy began with the invention of private property and the need to secure the line of inheritance through the male line. To do that, a woman's fidelity had to be ensured by the marriage contract.
If I am remembering correctly, Engels actually considered capitalism to be a corrosive element on the family. He thought that family life was being destroyed by capitalism and that something different would take its place with the evolution of the communist state and the dictatorship of the proletariat. That's about all I can dredge up from memory and I'm too lazy to go get the book out. (Or rather, I'm too lazy to put the book back up once I get it out, and if I leave it on the computer desk Jan will beat me with her scourge again.)
The major disagreement I would have with this person doesn't show up in the article. I visited her homepage and apparently Individualist Feminism is a brand of Anarchism. I won't go into my disagreements with Anarchism except to say 'it sux.'
PuterTutor said:
Do not even get me started on that. Ugh, ohhhhh, too late.
I live in a one income household. After the birth of my son nearly 9 years ago, in Los Angeles, we had to have two incomes. So, before his 1st birthday we made a CHOICE to move to an area that required a ittle less income to live on.
It is not easy. It is not exciting. It is a CHOICE. No Hummers & Beemers in my drive. No lavish summer villas in the French Riviera. No 5,000 sqft houses in our immediate future.
There are however some benefits.
Mom knows where our son is, 24/7. Mom volunteers at school. Mom has time to go to the local public pool, realizing it is overcrowded, she also has time to go to the non-local public pool. Mom has every kid on the block thinking she's God because she actually appears interested in our child. Our kid is polite & well mannered (when he's away from home). Our kid isn't wondering about drugs, illicit sex, gangs, mayhem or where his next meal comes from. He is an average 1950's kid. Because we made a CHOICE. It's not his job to take care of himself. It is ours to care for his needs. He's a bratty little whinebag with too many toys & too much time on his hands. Thats good because he has no real worries. His job is to clean his room (after getting yelled at incessantly) & to get good grades in school.
My job is to provide a tolerable wage in which to support our middle class lifestyle. To be a strong father & willing accomplise in his goofiness. How to treat a woman. How to take care of business before taking care of personal needs & wants. In other words: To show him how to be a man & not just another swinging dick.
The only thing stopping one income households is greed. That, and not having a clear line of sight to the end result. No kids, no problem. Live large. See the world. Sleep until 3pm every weekend. Enjoy life. It is short. We had a life, my wife & I. It was actually a fairly decent & lavish one. Then we had a kid. Then we made a CHOICE. and, boy does it suck. I wouldn't trade it for anything either.
Well said Gonz, and I agree with most of what you said, however, in some areas of our great country, there is a need for both parents to work outside of the home. And no, our children are not growing up to be gang members, drug dealers, or prostitutes because of it.
The problem children are coming from problem homes, just because one parent stays home does not mean that one parent will raise the children in a meaningful way. Good parenting can be done in a few hours an evening and on weekends, it does not have to be a full time job, and in my opinion, knowing where your child is 24/7 is great, but at what point are you going to make your child responsible for his or her own actions? I don't know how old your child is, but I've got a 14 y/o, and I do know where she is going, who she is hanging out with, who her boyfriend of the week is, and I know her friends as well. Because I demand it. I do not however follow her around to see where she is going, and who she is going with, I trust her, and in return, she does not want to betray that trust. She knows the consequences of betraying that trust.
My point is, don't put down the parents that have to work outside of the home, it is not greed, but necessity, and just because our children are not with a parent 24/7 does not mean they are going to grow up to be criminals. If the parents do a good job in the time they have, these children have as much opportunity as the next.
Edit: Sorry, just reread your post, you've got a 9 year old, any others?
The problem children are coming from problem homes, just because one parent stays home does not mean that one parent will raise the children in a meaningful way. Good parenting can be done in a few hours an evening and on weekends, it does not have to be a full time job, and in my opinion, knowing where your child is 24/7 is great, but at what point are you going to make your child responsible for his or her own actions? I don't know how old your child is, but I've got a 14 y/o, and I do know where she is going, who she is hanging out with, who her boyfriend of the week is, and I know her friends as well. Because I demand it. I do not however follow her around to see where she is going, and who she is going with, I trust her, and in return, she does not want to betray that trust. She knows the consequences of betraying that trust.
My point is, don't put down the parents that have to work outside of the home, it is not greed, but necessity, and just because our children are not with a parent 24/7 does not mean they are going to grow up to be criminals. If the parents do a good job in the time they have, these children have as much opportunity as the next.
Edit: Sorry, just reread your post, you've got a 9 year old, any others?