A woman's place is in the home...

Look people my wording in this thread title was meant to be inflammatory.

But the fact is men and woman have their place.

I am not going to tell you who's place is where. Well actually I am becase I am a real man.

If you have a powerful provider and merge that energy with receptivity, intuition and nurturing energy you have a powerful vertex going.

That energy can move the world.

If the woman takes care of the man, sexually, physically and spiritually, the man will go to the ends of the world to please her.

That is the facts.

 

I wouldnt call her a woman

 

Fair point

 

Well, you just think you have me figured out as a mysogynist and so it's very easy for you to understand everything I say better than I do myself. Knock yourself out.

It's a very common problem I have with the PC-liberal crowd. Honestly, I think they are more mysogynistic than I am.

Anyone who believes women should be treated gently is, in my estimation, a mysogynist.

 

Unfortunately, you seem to consider them being treated as equals to be treating them 'gently'.

But thats okay, because you have me figured out as a pc-liberal and so it's very easy for you to understand everything I say better then I do myself. Knock yourself out.

 

what they show in movies and what is shown in the media generally is and was hardly the reality. and please, forget this bullshit about the attitude spreading all over the world from america... i suggest you inform yourself a bit about 17th, 18th, 19th century in europe...

fact is, in europe, when the upper-middle class way of live was on its peak, still 48 % of all women were working outside their homes, and that percentage hasnt changed much since then.

the fiew you have on that matter is strongly influenced by media and the slef-fiew of a society trasported via media, but it has nothing to do with the sozial reality.

 

Perhaps you should stop being influenced by the smell of where you have your head shoved.

If you don't see the spread of Americanization, I would have to guess that you have already been through it.

I'm not sure what 'fiew' you think I have on the subject, or what 'slef-fiew' society has of it or how it is 'trasported', or even what the 'sozial' reality even fucking is.. but it sure sounds serious...

Perhaps some fresh oxygen would help.....

 

maybe you can accept that the concept of women "staying at home" was born in imperial europe starting with the early 18 hundreds? americanisation is a pheanomenon post WW II.

 

In the 18 hundreds?

Do you know what those women who stayed home then did at the time?

Do you understand what class of people they came from?

Do you understand how little those women had in common with the majority of women at the time?

Even if you skip those questions, answer this... Where did I say that the concept was born in America? I said it was spread by Americanism.

Perhaps you should go to your local library, and after reading some spelling primer books, actually read some history instead of guessing you know what happened?

 

i think i wrote that a few paragraphs back, maybe you didnt read it?

i wrote that too a few paragraphs bevore, and also my reasoning (which is backed up by university level studies btw).

and i tried to make it clear to you that it wasnt, but it was a simple idealised fiew on gender roles, that was never really true after all - and again, the demographics i was given tell a different story to what you claim. especially in europe... which makes a certain sense as well if you think about it for a moment (i mean, do you have an idea how many million men died in WW II? who do you think had to work to have a living?)

yeah, i am really rusty with english, but hey, i am pretty sure you can speak german better than i do english, so lets write german, ok? failing that, i suggest you just accept that not everyone speaks englsih 24/7. oh yeah, and i suggest you take a few courses in gender history at university.

 

it'd be more accurate to say the concept happened with the rise of the industrial revolution and became a reality during the end of the victorian era (along with modern ideas of children, the family and how to raise them)

look at any modern pre-industrial society.. the women stay at home sure, so do the men because Home is usually all their is (excluding nomads of course) ... but women in those societies do FAR more than just sit and raise children and cook for their spouse

having the luxury of time to stay at home, without spending a good part of your life working to provide resources, and to nurture and to provide for children well into their teens is still incredibly modern and certainly not available to everyone... only to those lucky enough to live in countries with enough wealth to support such societies

is a woman's place in the home? of course it's not, a woman's place is wherever she wants it to be... but it's only for the last few centuries that it's been an option

 

I'm just going to ignore the first part of this, seems it is a perfect demonstration of someone (you) trying to argue two opposite sides of an issue and then trying to claim otherwise... on that I am done with you.

As for the english vs german... I don't go to sites where the majority of people speak german and try to type.

IF I did however, I would at least have the sense to turn on the spell checker.

 

well, the term "reality" is not absolute. it became the publically transported picture and the "ideal" of how a family should look like, and it was in fact copied even in the less earning layers the middle classes. however, by far the most part of the population during that age could simply not support this family form, and beside working women also working children were very common for a long time, existing parallel to the ideal picture of the woman being at home and the father supporting his family. i have got concrete numbers on the habsburgian empire in the 1890s, showing that 47% of all women were working outside the familiy - realm... for those interested: in germany roughly 45% of all women have a job (2008), in the DDR of the 1960 it was roughly 43% ( and rising towards 50% until 1989), in the BRD of 1950 roughly 44%, rising to 55% until 1989.

i agree that the "classic" fiew on family was the 1-supporter model, up until roughly the middle 1990s. however, statistics of the times in question show that there is a difference between the public view on family and the popular family models transported by all sorts of media (check out newspapers of the 1800eds and especially movies and comercials in TV and cinema). i agree, the US american film industry transported and showed in fact that well known family model, however, as i said multiple times already, the social reality is and was a different one.

you are welcome to bring statistical numbers and historical sources that prove me wrong.

 

I didn't have you figured out until you had me figured out, if you notice.

And your sentence in bold continues the trend. There's nothing I've desired more in my life than relationships of equality with women.

That's changing a little bit, because now I realize other things have to be in place for them to occur. Namely, the conditions for friendship through productive activity, and not just idle socialization, etc.

But, historically speaking I've always pursued equality with women. And I've always been punished for it by women and men alike.

 

I wish I had a better memory and could point to what it was that has led me to my conclusions about your opinion on women. Seems I don't though, and I can't find the posts at the moment, I will apologize.

If you truly do believe men and women are equal, then I apologize for suggesting otherwise.

 

Yes. But that means equality; not "gentleman equality."

Do you know what I mean?

When women fuck up I will treat them exactly as I would men who fuck up.

And that's why people confuse me for a misogynist. I am not a gentleman.

I think hookers are more honest than most women who have men pay for dates, and most housewives who insist on a man earning more than them, or women who feign disinterest in sex in order to be pursued, etc.

Equality is equality.

Edit: I also wish that women and men dressed alike.

 

Thanks for the reminder... that was the exact issue where I got the impression. I will now stand by it and go back to my original opinion of you.

Your opinion of women is what did it. You may not believe that you see them as inferior, but that statement SCREAMS that you DO...

Specifically, to you MOST women are taking advantage of MOST men...

The difference between what you say and what someone who truly believes they are equal is that someone who does (like me) will say that most people are a waste of flesh, and see no need to single out any specific gender to target that at, because there are just as many men who do nothing but go around taking advantage of women, as there are women who do it to men.

 

ACTUALLY, the difference between you and someone who truly believes in equality is one who's able to criticize both genders and not only one, instead of pretending that collective social roles don't exist.

I am the first to say that gender-manipulation is symbiotic and codependent.

What I'm talking about is myself. Not "most men." I offer women the freedom to be my equals and most refuse. Most want me to play "the dad" in relationships.

In fact, they go running after the guys who see them as little fragile things, to be cared for under lock and key, and paraded like trophies, and thrown money at like strippers under the rubric of "love", all the while holding some hypocritical view of prostitution as a profession (when that is exactly what they practice).

I'm fully able to criticize men on those grounds, and frequently do.

But if I also criticize your little favorite gender, you freak. Thanks for putting words in my mouth again, asshole. But I do not have any sympathy for "most men." I do not practice codependent social roles like "most men" do. I've spent countless hours yelling at men in favor of women's right to sexual and socioeconomic freedom (as I have in this very thread while you were busy filtering my posts based on some historical prejudice of me).

I'm not defending a gender. I'm defending myself. And attacking both genders.

Edit: You must be one of those people who believe mentioning socioeconomic differences between whites and blacks is racism. Or, criticizing Israel is anti-semitic.

 

Just because you have extremely poor taste in women, does not mean that 'most' women, are any different then 'most' men. The fact that you keep trying to point out differences is why I have the opinion of you that I do.

You think I'm a freak and an asshole because I value people based on what they do, as opposed to what they were born as? That says more about you then me.

 

Just because I point out that people are economically pressured into playing social roles, does not mean that I think those social roles are intrinsic.

I do not think that most women are inferior to most men. I do think that they play opposing, and complementing socioeconomic roles.

I.e., man pays, women put up with abuse, etc.

If I had poor taste in women I would indulge these social roles, wouldn't I? Yet, I have never had a single relationship with your typical daddy-seeking woman. In fact, all of them were tremendously independent.

Edit: I think the whole problem with your value-judgment is that you're failing to make a distinction between my experience, and some abstract "most men" category. I have difficulty meeting women who do not play gender roles. That does not mean that I am claiming "most men" to be undeserving victims of the same ordeal. In fact, I think "most men" are half the reason why I have to go through that ordeal.