DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: 73109 on August 05, 2010, 03:29:20 PM
-
I was watching something on TV today and I found it completely absurd that people, both men and women, believe that the woman is the weaker sex, and belong at home taking care of the kids while the man goes out and makes money. These people actually look down on women making a living for their family and see men as emasuculated if their are Mister Mom. Maybe I am wrong. Do any of you believe this structure should still hold merit?
And I put this in P&R because, if I am not mistaken, this idea comes from the biblical ideal of a woman being her man's "help mate"
-
No. Sure, there are some biological and social leanings toward those things, but it can all change easily.
-
Does TDoL own a whip, by any chance?
Generally not. It's hard not to notice that the genders are built for different roles. However, I don't think there's any reason that people should be pigeon-holed into assigned roles because of silly societal expectations.
-
Nope. No whip. :P
I just get pissed when I hear idiot men say that women are the weeker sex and should take care of the kids while he should go out and make money. I know a family where the mother makes 100+ thousand dollars a year and the dad stays home and takes care of...um...4 kids. The worse part is, there are women out there who believe this shit. I don't know, it just pisses me off. I could go further but...I, uh...better not.
-
Double post. Yeah, I know. Just to even out my opinion here. Feminists are just as annoying. Yeah, they can do anything a man can, but you don't need to form clubs and have rallies and just shove it in the face of everyone. Just stick with everyone is equal...is that so fuckin hard? On both sides?
-
Depends on the man and the woman. But you are blending so many different issues together that I don't even know where to begin.
-
Well, technically, the Man is physically stronger. It's science, not opinion.
However, I think a woman can do anything a man can do just as well.
-
Kind of what bosky said.
I mean, in general terms, I think that the traditional male/female roles unnecessarily gender-based. There is nothing wrong with the wife being the "breadwinner" and the husband being a "househusband" (in fact, this is my dream and - hopefully- someday will be a reality).
However, these roles are not specific to America; they are found in virtually every society I've ever heard of. I will also say that of all the men and women I've ever known (or even read about), the women are overwhelmingly better suited at running a household than the men are.
Of course, those gender-based roles seem less and less important as divorce rates continue to climb. It doesn't really matter what role a family member plays if there is no entire family.
-
I would love for my wife to make more money than me. Then we could afford more things. For my wife and I, we are in it together.
-
I'd love to meet a girl who makes tons of money. I'd be fine staying home and sitting on my couch.
-
'The fuck's a breadwinner?
-
'The fuck's a breadwinner?
Someone who wins bread.
-
OH! :facepalm: How dumb of me.
-
'The fuck's a breadwinner?
Someone who wins bread.
That's groovie man, groovie.
-
Real men aren't Breadwinners, cause who cares about bread? Real men bring home the bacon, real men are Bacon Rapers.
-
real men are Bacon Rapers.
Or BR, for short.
...unless, of course, they're Jews.
-
Or muslims. We jews are Matzah Men.
-
Well, as you know, I renounced Judaism, so I can do whatever I please with my bacon.
-
Well, as you know, I renounced Judaism, so I can do whatever I please with my bacon.
I'm glad you let a known terrorist like myself create your new....whatever that is under your name.
-
I love being the bread winner and my wife loves being the homemaker...that is all I know
-
Considering if the man is the breadwinner, he is bringing home the money to keep up the home, and if the woman is the homemaker, she is the one who is cooking most often......shouldn't the man be the homewinner and the woman be the breadmaker?
-
I think, in general, women are better suited to taking care of the children and maintaining the home. This is not the case in every circumstance, however, and I see no problem with anyone bucking the trend.
-
I have no problem with men and women rejecting traditional gender roles. If cooking and cleaning meant dealing with fewer people as means to make a living, I would certainly make that trade off without hesitation. However, I think efforts to cast the traditional family as something negative are monumentally stupid attempts at social engineering.
-
woman is the weaker sex, and belong at home taking care of the kids
I do not agree at all with the idea that the woman should be at home taking care of the kids. In reality, she should be in the kitchen, taking care of my dinner. :neverusethis:
-
I believe individuals of each sex should do what each individual is better suited to. I am not confident in my abilities as a homemaker or in my child-rearing skills. Therefore I personally would not be a very good stay-at-home dad. On the other hand, lots of girls I'm friends with are very motivated and career-oriented, and others can't wait to have and raise kids (my girlfriend is one of the latter).
-
woman is the weaker sex, and belong at home taking care of the kids
I do not agree at all with the idea that the woman should be at home taking care of the kids. In reality, she should be in the kitchen, taking care of my dinner. :neverusethis:
Took the words out of my fingers.
-
In todays economy and society, what family can afford to have only one spouse work?
-
However, I think efforts to cast the traditional family as something negative are monumentally stupid attempts at social engineering.
I think it's an inevitable outcome when people try to overcome unjust paradigms that they overshoot a bit. There's no grand scheme of "social engineering" going on.
rumborak
-
However, I think efforts to cast the traditional family as something negative are monumentally stupid attempts at social engineering.
I think it's an inevitable outcome when people try to overcome unjust paradigms that they overshoot a bit. There's no grand scheme of "social engineering" going on.
rumborak
I'm not suggesting a grand scheme. But there are people intentionally trying to eliminate traditional gender roles from our culture.
-
You mean feminists and the like. Yeah, but they always run against a brick wall in the end because the general public knows the value of certain gender roles.
rumborak
-
I believe individuals of each sex should do what each individual is better suited to. I am not confident in my abilities as a homemaker or in my child-rearing skills. Therefore I personally would not be a very good stay-at-home dad. On the other hand, lots of girls I'm friends with are very motivated and career-oriented, and others can't wait to have and raise kids (my girlfriend is one of the latter).
Where to begin...where to begin...I know!!
Call him Cole!
-
I believe you go with whatever works best. I truly don't think it makes a difference. If you love someone, your a team, and you just make it work.
-
However, I think a woman can do anything a man can do just as well.
Not true! She can't pee her name in the snow as easily as a man can. :biggrin:
To the original post~ I would say that most men have some crazy hang up about being the primary wage earner in their home. I know men who really freak out at the thought of their spouse possibly earning more money. It would really surprise you to know who some of them are. Personally, I never valued myself on my net worth. I enjoy earning money, and have earned and still earn quite a bit- but it's just money. Last time I checked, my portrait wasn't on any of it. I would have no qualms if my wife earned more than I did. She earns quite a bit herself, and I believe she has the ability to earn more than me. If she did it would not bother me in the least. But most men are disturbed by this prospect because of social mores and exaggerated expectations placed on them.
-
I told my wife it'd be great if she had a nice job so I could quit my PhD and just do nothing. Unfortunately, we just know if she got a job I'd still be stupid enough to keep at it. We grad students really are the idiots of the world, why do people think we're smart?
-
In todays economy and society, what family can afford to have only one spouse work?
It is definitely more challenging nowadays than in at least the recent past, and for a lot of people, it just isn't possible no matter how hard they try. But I believe that if you have children, it is best for the children if one spouse works in the home (notice I used the term "work" because being a "stay-at-home mom/dad" is anything but a free ride if you are doing it right) as opposed to having outside employment. We've done that, and it hasn't been easy, but I think it is much better for our children and our family as a whole than having day care/the schools/etc. raise our children instead of us taking the responsibility to be actively involved. That means we don't have as big a house as a lot of people. It means we always buy used cars instead of new, and not even remotely anything fancy. It means less vacations, and cheaper ones. It means that to earn the kind of money we need as a family to stay ahead on the bills with only one income, I have to work a job that requires a ton of hours and high stress instead of any easiler job that allows me to be home more. Basically, it entails a lot of sacrifice. But we do it because we've chosen a particular goal that is not easy to achieve without sacrifice, so we do it.
-
There is good and bad to both ways
-
No. Sure, there are some biological and social leanings toward those things, but it can all change easily.
Does TDoL own a whip, by any chance?
Generally not. It's hard not to notice that the genders are built for different roles. However, I don't think there's any reason that people should be pigeon-holed into assigned roles because of silly societal expectations.
Those.
However, I think a woman can do anything a man can do just as well.
I don't think this (or the reverse) is necessarily true. Like others have said, it depends on the individuals. It's probably best that each "play to their strengths", so to speak, and often those strengths are partially sculpted by biology and socialization.
My wife (got married Thursday) and I are currently both breadlosers. Tough to get by in this situation, let me tell you.
-J
-
Well, technically, the Man is physically stronger. It's science, not opinion.
What if the couple consists of a physically weak male and a physically strong female? It happens sometimes.
-
Well, technically, the Man is physically stronger. It's science, not opinion.
What if the couple consists of a physically weak male and a physically strong female? It happens sometimes.
That's what I'm saying. I'm not saying in two individuals they are both equal and can do the same things each other can do. I'm making a generalization that the female population can do most if not all what a man can do, and same with the reverse.
-
I do believe the man should be "the man" (aka breadwinner, head of the household, etc.) and the woman should be his supporter, homemaker. Yes, it's based off my faith.
So, before I get flamed (I assume), I'm NOT saying women are inferior to men. I believe what I do because I believe it's what God intended. It's not an issue of physical proportions so much as it is knowing your role in this life as a man or woman. I know many won't agree with this, but I know a lot of Christians who do agree with this.
There are some Bible verses to back up some of what I am saying, and I want to reexamine them because it's been a while since I've looked at that part of Scripture.
-
I know many won't agree with this, but I know a lot of Christians who do agree with this.
I know a lot of Christians who don't.
-
I know many won't agree with this, but I know a lot of Christians who do agree with this.
I know a lot of Christians who don't.
There are many discussions of the bible here, and in them there are certain points of view held by some that some say are supported by the bible. Things dealing with homosexuality for example, and here regarding the role of women. It is positions like these that do not allow me to consider the bible as divine, or divinely inspired. They simply go against what I feel in my heart is true, right, equal, and just.
-
There are many discussions of the bible here, and in them there are certain points of view held by some that some say are supported by the bible. Things dealing with homosexuality for example, and here regarding the role of women. It is positions like these that do not allow me to consider the bible as divine, or divinely inspired. They simply go against what I feel in my heart is true, right, equal, and just.
This. Oh so this.
-
There are many discussions of the bible here, and in them there are certain points of view held by some that some say are supported by the bible. Things dealing with homosexuality for example, and here regarding the role of women. It is positions like these that do not allow me to consider the bible as divine, or divinely inspired. They simply go against what I feel in my heart is true, right, equal, and just.
This. Oh so this.
without touching on the questions you highlighted, if the bible is really the creators message to us, how I 'feel in my heart" is beside the point. I have wrong feelings all the time. I would encourage you to reject the divine message on evidence rather than on feelings.
-
I need to stop posting in threads that I won't care about later.
-
There are many discussions of the bible here, and in them there are certain points of view held by some that some say are supported by the bible. Things dealing with homosexuality for example, and here regarding the role of women. It is positions like these that do not allow me to consider the bible as divine, or divinely inspired. They simply go against what I feel in my heart is true, right, equal, and just.
This. Oh so this.
without touching on the questions you highlighted, if the bible is really the creators message to us, how I 'feel in my heart" is beside the point. I have wrong feelings all the time. I would encourage you to reject the divine message on evidence rather than on feelings.
Lets go stone gays because god tells us to.
Yeah...no.
-
There are many discussions of the bible here, and in them there are certain points of view held by some that some say are supported by the bible. Things dealing with homosexuality for example, and here regarding the role of women. It is positions like these that do not allow me to consider the bible as divine, or divinely inspired. They simply go against what I feel in my heart is true, right, equal, and just.
This. Oh so this.
without touching on the questions you highlighted, if the bible is really the creators message to us, how I 'feel in my heart" is beside the point. I have wrong feelings all the time. I would encourage you to reject the divine message on evidence rather than on feelings.
I have never seen "evidence" for or against it being divine, so I cant take that into consideration
EDIT: And they arent just "feelings"...they are basic principles on which I live my life. Love and Equality to name a few. A god that doesnt have those as a cornerstone of his "word" is not something I want to be a part of. It is moot wether or not the bible is divine, as it isnt something I want to be associated with, divine or not, if it goes against my principles.
-
thanks for the clarification, eric...principles are more reliable than feelings IMO
-
thanks for the clarification, eric...principles are more reliable than feelings IMO
Are you saying that we should decide how to live our lives based off of evidence? Or that unless we can prove god doesn't exist, we should live by the bibles laws, no matter how little sense they make?
-
I wasn't referring to either in my response to Eric...
I am saying that we should accept/reject the scriptures based on evidence.
Because I am convinced that the scriptures are the words of the creator, I live by them despite how little sense they make. In reality, though, the more I study them and experience life, I find that the things that "feel" like they don't make sense are actually perfectly clear.
-
I wasn't referring to either in my response to Eric...
I am saying that we should accept/reject the scriptures based on evidence.
Because I am convinced that the scriptures are the words of the creator, I live by them despite how little sense they make. In reality, though, the more I study them and experience life, I find that the things that "feel" like they don't make sense are actually perfectly clear.
Oh I know, sorry, I just quoted the most recent quote by you. Anyway, are you saying this on a case by case basis? Or an all or nothing deal?
-
sorry, still not sure what you are referring to/asking
-
I wasn't referring to either in my response to Eric...
I am saying that we should accept/reject the scriptures based on evidence.
Because I am convinced that the scriptures are the words of the creator, I live by them despite how little sense they make. In reality, though, the more I study them and experience life, I find that the things that "feel" like they don't make sense are actually perfectly clear.
How is treating your women like shit, stoning your kids when they are drunkards, and stoning men who had sex with other men "clear" and moral?
-
sorry, still not sure what you are referring to/asking
I'm not sure how I could make it more clear, but I'll try.
Let's veiw the bible as a collection of laws and morals (obviously amongst other things). Are you saying that we should examine each of these independently and decide if we will or will not live by them based on evidence found in life? Or is it an all or nothing deal, meaning that if you can't disprove all of them, you have to follow all of them.
-
oh, gotcha now :P
yes and no.
the tanach is for the nation of Israel. it was a theocracy that God designed specifically to usher in the messianic promise he made to abraham in Gen 12. while there are principles of that covenant of Israel that are universal (ie. do not murder, covet, commit adultery, etc), that covenant was not for anyone except the nation of Israel. it is full of sacrificial laws, judicial laws that related to their economy, etc. while I love the tanach and learn many things from it, there is nothing in it that I live by except as it is demonstrated in the covenant of the messiah.
so, no, there are no laws in that covenant for me because I am not of the nation of Israel and because I believe they have already been fulfilled in the messiah.
as for the covenant of the Messiah, yes. everything in it is for me as a follower of the messiah. If I don't understand it, I still need to follow it. In reality, the covenant of the Messiah is distinctly different from the covenant of Israel because one is based on rules for a nation and the other is based on principles for an individual.
-
Yes, I know the standard view. But I don't see how what you just said has anything at all to do with what you were talking about before.
-
I would be a far worse person had my mom not been a stay at home mom. I think it should be that way, but, I don't think the women are the "weaker" sex, or their role is any less important. I think raising children is equally as hard as a good amount of jobs.
-
Yes, I know the standard view. But I don't see how what you just said has anything at all to do with what you were talking about before.
if you are talking about feelings being a standard to determine truth, that is just what I have learned in my life. many things felt like they were good or bad, but it did not necessarily reflect reality. evidence is what reflects reality. a good murder mystery leads you to "feel" like everyone in the story is a suspect, but in the end you learn the evidence and find out it was the last guy you would've expected
-
Again I quote:
How is treating your women like shit, stoning your kids when they are drunkards, and stoning men who had sex with other men "clear" and moral?
-
Yes, I know the standard view. But I don't see how what you just said has anything at all to do with what you were talking about before.
if you are talking about feelings being a standard to determine truth, that is just what I have learned in my life. many things felt like they were good or bad, but it did not necessarily reflect reality. evidence is what reflects reality. a good murder mystery leads you to "feel" like everyone in the story is a suspect, but in the end you learn the evidence and find out it was the last guy you would've expected
So if I have evidence of one thing, but the bible says the opposite, I should trust the evidence over the bible?
Sorry, I'm just trying to follow you.
-
good question...
can you give me an example of evidence that defies the covenant of the messiah?
-
good question...
can you give me an example of evidence that defies the covenant of the messiah?
Well, I am not extremely familiar with the specific laws jesus spoke about. I consider paul to be worthless, so I have no desire to argue about anything he preached. But since I'm a jew, I guess I could use the tanach for this one.
I don't see anything wrong with homosexuality. I see evidence that they generally lead fine healthy life styles and are fine people and thus have no reason to think it's bad in the slightest bit.
-
Again I quote:
How is treating your women like shit, stoning your kids when they are drunkards, and stoning men who had sex with other men "clear" and moral?
-
Again I quote:
How is treating your women like shit, stoning your kids when they are drunkards, and stoning men who had sex with other men "clear" and moral?
Just so you can stop quoting yourself, no one here believes the laws of the tanach should be upheld. If you want to replace those with instances from Jesus or ....eh....paullll.....then that would make more sense here. All of the christians abandoned that, and none of the jews are that insane.
-
I know many won't agree with this, but I know a lot of Christians who do agree with this.
I know a lot of Christians who don't.
I'm not a Christian and I don't agree with it. I won't lie here, I'm not exactly the words biggest risk taker. I don't care to be one. I usually "play it safe" if you will. I'm just not the type of person to dive head-first into things without thinking. Call it a lack of balls if you want, idgaf
That being said, I like being around people like that. I just don't care to be that type of person myself. So a female partner like that would be ideal for me, personally. And I have no interest in having children either, so the whole "who takes care of the kids thing" won't ever come up! :)
-
I do believe the man should be "the man" (aka breadwinner, head of the household, etc.) and the woman should be his supporter, homemaker. Yes, it's based off my faith.
So, before I get flamed (I assume), I'm NOT saying women are inferior to men. I believe what I do because I believe it's what God intended. It's not an issue of physical proportions so much as it is knowing your role in this life as a man or woman. I know many won't agree with this, but I know a lot of Christians who do agree with this.
There are some Bible verses to back up some of what I am saying, and I want to reexamine them because it's been a while since I've looked at that part of Scripture.
Can I ask you something personal here? In this specific case, do you really have the impression the Bible is making you a better person? I mean, I take it you know there are strong women, and there are weak men, who would live a life or misery in your scheme.
rumborak
-
I've been reading so much in the media lately about how gender roles are gradually being reversed. Girls are doing so much better in school than boys, and, as stated in the article linked to below, women are more successful than men in the new knowledge-based economy. I don't for a minute think that a complete reversal of roles will happen, as is suggested in this article as a possibility, but it's interesting to contemplate.
https://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Economics+drives+revolution+roles+Will+able+handle/3265407/story.html
-
I do believe the man should be "the man" (aka breadwinner, head of the household, etc.) and the woman should be his supporter, homemaker. Yes, it's based off my faith.
So, before I get flamed (I assume), I'm NOT saying women are inferior to men. I believe what I do because I believe it's what God intended. It's not an issue of physical proportions so much as it is knowing your role in this life as a man or woman. I know many won't agree with this, but I know a lot of Christians who do agree with this.
There are some Bible verses to back up some of what I am saying, and I want to reexamine them because it's been a while since I've looked at that part of Scripture.
Can I ask you something personal here? In this specific case, do you really have the impression the Bible is making you a better person? I mean, I take it you know there are strong women, and there are weak men, who would live a life or misery in your scheme.
rumborak
Do you mean strong/ weak physically?
-
I do believe the man should be "the man" (aka breadwinner, head of the household, etc.) and the woman should be his supporter, homemaker. Yes, it's based off my faith.
So, before I get flamed (I assume), I'm NOT saying women are inferior to men. I believe what I do because I believe it's what God intended. It's not an issue of physical proportions so much as it is knowing your role in this life as a man or woman. I know many won't agree with this, but I know a lot of Christians who do agree with this.
There are some Bible verses to back up some of what I am saying, and I want to reexamine them because it's been a while since I've looked at that part of Scripture.
Can I ask you something personal here? In this specific case, do you really have the impression the Bible is making you a better person? I mean, I take it you know there are strong women, and there are weak men, who would live a life or misery in your scheme.
rumborak
Do you mean strong/ weak physically?
Don't mean to interject; but what would it matter? If you are doing a task that you are weak at in anyway and it is making you miserable than is there really a difference? Not really.
-
I'm just going to ignore everything said thus far and say this:
When I'm married, it's not my home, it's OUR home.
It's not my children, it's OUR children.
It's not my dinner, it's OUR dinner.
As far as I'm concerned, how those things become OURS is not really relevant to me (except the children of course :neverusethis:).
-
I'm just going to ignore everything said thus far and say this:
When I'm married, it's not my home, it's OUR home.
It's not my children, it's OUR children.
It's not my dinner, it's OUR dinner.
As far as I'm concerned, how those things become OURS is not really relevant to me (except the children of course :neverusethis:).
Yes, some adoption agencies are more lenient than others. :neverusethis:
-
lol