womyn are tools?

According to many women’s rights advocates, female violence against men - if it exists at all - is purely a self defence response to male violence. Although in some instances, wives' initiation of violence may be described as a kind of presumptive self-defence, the data does not support the hypothesis that assaults by wives are primarily acts of self-defence or retaliation (Straus 1993). Professor Murray Straus in his 1993 article Physical Assaults by Wives: A Major Social Problem tells us that:

"research...shows that women initiate and carry out physical violence assaults on their partners as often as men do ...in the 1985 National Family Violence Survey for whom one or more assaultive incidents were reported by a women respondent, the husband was the only violent partner in 25.9% of the cases, the wife was the one to be violent in 25.5% of the cases and both were violent in 48.6% of the cases ...women respondents indicated that they had struck the first blow in 40% of the cases ... every study among the more than 30 describing some type of sample... has found a rate of assaults by women on male partners that is about the same as the rate of assault by men on female partners... Perhaps even more serious is the implied excusing of assaults by women because they result from frustration and anger at being dominated."

There is no question that since men are usually bigger and stronger than women, they can do more damage using their fists. However the average man's size and strength are neutralised by guns and knives, boiling water, bricks, fireplace pokers and baseball bats (McNeely & Mann 1990). This finding is supported by McLeod’s (1984) investigation of 6200 cases of domestic assault reported to law enforcement agencies in the United States.

The longitudinal study commenced by the U S Department of Justice in 1973 found that 82% of female-against-male violence involved weapons, while only 25% of male-against-female violence did. McLeod suggested that male victimisation is much higher in the general population than previously thought by law enforcement authorities, as men only report serious victimisation to the police and that most men are not willing to admit that they have been assaulted by wives or cohabiting females. Although 25% of all offences against women were classified as aggravated assaults, about 80% of all offences against men were classified as aggravated assaults. In fact, none of the men reported a serious victimisation in which no weapon was present. In noting that 73% of all male victims sustained injuries, McLeod estimated that corresponding figures for female victims are between 52% and 57%. She concluded that:

 

Hi Jack,

Since you seem to have a balanced and rational view then I will take the trouble to explain myself...

"you have your anger in the wrong place. why do we have to be so seperated by gender? we're a race. we're all human. not half male, half female, no, we're all human." - I agree except for the not half-male, half-female because I believe we can't judge anything by appearances.

"and there are female rapists out there, female pedophiles, female murderers, and just flat out nasty-people type chicks out there." - No one is implying that there are no nasty (dysfunctional females) - I have acknowledged that not all males are bad and not all females are good (check through my posts and you will see).

"the whole "male dominated world" thing, well, i can see that." - Good. That surprises me that another male is willing to acknowledge the situation. If you can acknowledge that then you can appreciate that women might be affected adversely by being born into such a world, yes? There are some males (irongoth for example) who look for any and every excuse to lay blame on women. And who resent the idea that women might actually be given a little more than men (no real evidence that this is so) by equal rights.

"but it doesnt mean you have to be so obsessed with gender that you instantly steriotype men as mean, wife beating rapists; and women, as gentle, loving mothers." - I don't instantly stereotype men as mean/dysfunctional. I have already stated previously that I fully acknowledge that not all men are bad and not all women are good.

If you are rational enough to understand that women exist in a male dominated world then that women overall are more peace loving and less violent. They often look for peaceful solutions in cases where men argue and fight. From a physiological point of view - men have more aggression as a result of higher levels of testosterone. I realise that there are some males here who will even seek to alter that truth but history generally shows women to be more loving than males. You only have to consider that men have designed the weapons and started the wars through countless centuries. That's not to imply that there were no women who also became involved in those wars (only an idiot would translate it that way) - but women exist in a male dominated and controlled world and of course they are affected by this.

"but it doesnt mean you have to be so obsessed with gender that you instantly steriotype men as mean" - Why do you assume I'm obsessed. You're making an assumption based on what? The words I've typed? The passion I put into the words? I acknowledge that not all men are the same and that's why I have other male friends.

It is quite valid and reasonable to take a wider view or collective average rather than always judging on an individual basis. Thus it's logical to look at the overall history of males or females in order to create an ACCURATE picture. This is GOOD scientific practice and we also see this same score keeping in sport. We don't simply look at the statistics of an individual player on only one particular game. We look at each player individually but then we also look at the track record of the entire team. When our focus is zeroed in on microscopic events then we miss the overall picture and our information is incomplete/inaccurate.

It's interesting to note that while your comments are rational and with a positive message - Your criticism/analysis doesn't extend to Irongoth's anger. That cannot really be excused no matter what reasons you may give.

"please, stop hating. you're doing nothing but making the world a worse off place. " - I suggest you look at each and every one of irongoth's posts in this thread. He enters the discussion and bullies the women here into accepting his view that men are victims. His view is clearly pro-men and anti-female. Where I have stated more than once that I don't regard all men as bad. Irongoth has nothing good to say about women.

While your overall message is good and valid. It is unfairly applied to just one person. I don't like unfairness whether it's directed at men or women.

I accept your overall positive message.

I would ask that you go through this thread and read Irongoth's statements and then see if his comments are equally deserving of:

"please, stop hating. you're doing nothing but making the world a worse off place. "

 

Oops sorry 79% not 81%. That was a misquote and I apologise. Still..

as for where I got it from...

Highlights of NIS-3:

Table 5-3 shows that children in mother-only households are three times more likely to be fatally abused [read: murdered] than children in father-only households.

Table 5-4 shows that children in mother-only households are 40% more likely to be sexually abused than children in father-only households.

Table 6-4 shows that females are 78% of the perpetrators of fatal child abuse [read: child murder], 81% of natural parents who seriously abuse their children, 72% of natural parents who moderately abuse their children, and 65% of natural parents who are inferred to have abused their children.

Table 6-3 shows that natural mothers are the perpetrators of 93% of physical neglect, 86% of educational neglect, 78% of emotional neglect, 60% of physical abuse, and 55% of emotional abuse.


What is NIS-3?

The Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS-3)

US Department of Health and Human Services, page 6-11, table 6-4

To get a copy of this vital report, call 800 FYI 3366 and ask for NIS-3


Want some more truths (the feministas are gonna hate this)

Fewer than 20 children were murdered by their fathers in 1996.

Children are 40% more likely to be abused in single-mother households than in single-father households.

Children are 50 times more likely to be physically abused in low income than high income households.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics provides statistical proof of anti-male bias in the justice system.

Overview:

NIS-3 is a comprehensive, credible nationwide study of the extent of child abuse and who the perpetrators are.

It reports that in 1993 children were 59 times more likely to be fatally abused [read: murdered] by natural mothers than by natural fathers.

It reports that women constitute 78% of the perpetrators of fatal child abuse.

The asterisk in Table 6-4 shows that the number of child murders committed by biological fathers was "fewer than 20 cases with which to calculate estimate" [read: less than 2% of children who are murdered are murdered by their natural fathers].

Excluded from this estimate are 3,100 children who are murdered each year by their mothers which are mis-reported as SIDS!

It illustrates that, compared to children in families, children in single-mother households are:

4 times more likely to be financially disadvantaged.

20 times more likely to be fatally abused.

22 times more likely to be seriously abused.

20 times more likely to be moderately abused.

27 times more likely to be emotionally neglected.

50 times more likely to be physically neglected.

55 times more likely to be educationally neglected.



It took 8 years for the mainstream media to finally get around to reporting the truth about mothers' role in fatal child abuse, which is a travesty to the children who might otherwise have been spared murder and serious abuse by mothers. No government internet source has yet presented the full story, which is available in hard copy at 800 394-3366. Casanet http://www.casanet.org/library/abuse/nis-study-93.htm barely gave the statistics in this study honorable mention and the DHHS web site is devoid of all the important related facts.

What they didn't want you to know is that 1,009,970 children are "maltreated" every year, 906,075 of them by natural mothers, which means that natural mothers abuse 63% more children than natural fathers and 8.4 times as many children as are abused by other men. The statistics for serious abuse are even worse: natural mothers seriously abuse 88% more children than natural fathers and 17 times more children than other men. There is no category in which natural fathers abuse more children than natural mothers. Even in moderate and inferred abuse, natural mothers abuse 50% and 44%, respectively, more children than natural fathers.

Natural mothers seriously abuse and moderately abuse 16 times more children than other men, they seriously abuse 38 times more children than other women, and overall they maltreat 48 times more children than other women.

If you carefully consider the consequences of the following comparison to other statistical sources, you will realize the role the federal government played with the media in demonizing the safest place in the world for America's children: with their biological fathers:

The higher accident rate of women kills 620 times as many men in traffic accidents as fathers kill children.

Mothers murder six times as many children as husbands murder wives.

Women murder 140 times as many men as fathers murder children.

Including mis-reported SIDS cases, mothers are 215 times as likely as biological fathers to kill their children [(1,200 children known to have been murdered by mothers + 3,100 mis-reported SIDS cases) / 20 children known to have been murdered by their fathers]


These aren't micro-facts or garbage ideas pulled out of my head, this is what's happening here. I don't care what happened 300 years ago or what's going on in the Sudan. Feministas here have NO RIGHT to claim boo hoo hoo I'm being oppressed, look at the Sudan. YOU DO NOT LIVE IN THE SUDAN.

 

Be quiet for a while and let Jack Straw respond.

Your view is totally pro-male and anti-female. That kind of shows that you have nothing but hatred and resentment for women. That's why youu entered this thread with nothing but anger towards the women here. When they wouldn't accept your view that men were victims of feminism then you responded with sarcastic stereotype anti-female jokes.

You have no balance. You have but one view - anti-female - pro-male. Hardly sane now is it?

Thus it's ultimately pointless to continue debating since it's like trying to persuade hitler to stop hating jews.

 

RE: But you're so selfish that you start to whine and complain that things are "going too far and men now face inequality". Even if that were true? So what? I don't give a toss. A few decades of equality for women doesn't been to compensate for countless centuries of oppression.

Nope, I'm sorry. If we're interested in a fair and equal society, sure. But I don't buy "we can discriminate against you because three hundred years ago boo hoo hoo" firstly two rights don't make a wrong and secondly inferring that a male today is somehow guilty of "oppression" caused by male decades or centuries ago is blaming the wrong people and unfairly to boot.

I dealt with a lot of assholes like you in college who thought me complicit in the African Slave Trade. Listen pal I was born in ninefuckingteen seventyfuckingty one, not in the 1700s and 1800s. I've never raped anyone, murdered anyone or assaulted anyone.

And while you bleat on about how women can't go around at 3 am cause they're 70% more likely to be assaulted by a meany old stalker. Well, sit and think about this. They can stay at home at 3am and be safe or go out with friends. However, many men worry about the fact that 79% of the time women beat their kids to death or reach for a weapon and damage their spouses. And don't give me any bullshit about "society made me do it". Women can be and are just as evil as men. Only difference is you're supposedly in your own home which is supposedly safe. Sleep tight. Hope your wife doesn't cut your dick off or superglue it to your leg cause she seems to feel slighted for some reason. Guess what the chances are of that kind of behaviour really being punished.

"Hey! You smashed your husband's head in with a rolling pin! You're going to jail"
"sniffle, bat eyelids... but... he beat me."
"Oh is that so? Poor dear, there there. Let me get you a cup of tea, we'll jail him."

Shall I start pulling up stats of incidence of falsely reported rape and abuse?

 

RE: Your view is totally pro-male and anti-female.

I wouldn't say that. Men are bastards in their own way. But unlike you, my dear Feathers, I'm not trying to get laid by coming into a forum and sweet talking the women saying they're all peace and light and men are all evil.

 

Unable to see underlying cause and it's effect.

It's like trying to play chess and only be able to see 1 move ahead!

Dissecting the unborn soul:

"I don't care what happened 300 years ago " - It's logical to look at the overall history of males or females in order to create an ACCURATE picture. This is GOOD scientific practice and we also see this same score keeping in sport.

"I've never raped anyone, murdered anyone or assaulted anyone" - Me me me, microfocus, one single view.

"inferring that a male today is somehow guilty of "oppression" caused by male decades or centuries ago is blaming the wrong people and unfairly to boot." - Unable to grasp cause and effect. Unable to think more than 1 move ahead on the chessboard.

"inferring that a male today is somehow guilty of "oppression" caused by male decades or centuries ago is blaming the wrong people and unfairly to boot." - The only one who is inferring that a male today is somehow guilty of the sins of his forefathers is: YOU.

If you were intelligent and educated enough to grasp the underlying messages then you would realise that the underlying message of:

"we cannot simply disregard the actions of men who have gone before us... We should be ready to share in the responsibility of male attitudes towards women"

The underlying message of the above statement is not that you should feel guilt for the actions of a rapist (if you were able to read you would have read my statement which went as follows: "this doesn't imply that irongoth should have to adopt the guilt of a rapist for example"). The above statement's underlying message is that while it would be UNFAIR to expect irongoth to accept responsibility for the actions of a rapist - Irongoth has a responsibility not to perpetuate anti-female stereotypes. Because (and here we get down to the final levels of cause and effect (chain reactions)): Men who perpetuate and spread negative views about women to other males help to sustain the violence towards women as well. If men are conditioned to accept such anti-female stereotypes then there are males down the line who will act on those negative stereotypes in the belief that women are inferior and should be abused.

This is what I mean about your inability to see cause and effect (consequences) and your inability to accurately read the overall (core) message of a sentence. And because YOU are unable to grasp the meaning of a sentence - YOU are reacting with anger towards me and anyone else who doesn't share your anti-female views.

 

RE: Irongoth has a responsibility not to perpetuate anti-female stereotypes.

Since when have I done that? Facts are facts, buddy, sorry you can't see em. Try and smooth it away oh IronGoth says that cause he's hitler hating Jews oh can't see cause and effect or whatever, but you can't escape facts by attacking me or going off on some tangent about cause and effect.

Here's cause and effect for you. I watched a man's career get destroyed in high school from a girl resentful she didn't get a certain part in a school play (naturally: "he touched me!") because other wiommiyn in the class decided to LIE (they admitted as such to me) and say yes he abused them too because she was a drug addicted mental case and they were worried she wouldn't be believed. Later the guy was vindicated but his marraige and career were already destroyed. All he managed to escape was jail. Five years from retirement, too.

I watched my best friend roped into enforced paternity by a girl who tampered with their condoms. At 15 he took on part time jobs and is STILL working two jobs 15 years later. Naturally within three months she was done with him, but she hasn't had to worry about her apartment or the kid's expenses being paid for. She did this twice more and is living very comfortably on three sets of enforced payments.

I was burned in effigy and threatened by a pack of rabid politically correct witches in University, the same pack of howling rabid monsters who had to be restrained by police from lynching a guy at a fraternity with scissors.

I was denied access to medical school for being white and male. The same anti-me bias extended to other good jobs like governmental ones and fire and police. That's no biggie, I retrained and carried on. But I loved watching smug women in beaded hats explain on TV that the reason we needed to deny young white men access to jobs and school is that for generations and decades, rant rant rant.... I don't mind an uneven playing field, but "no whites need apply" is no different from "coloreds in the back of the bus". These same women cheered when people were killed in the twin towers, saying Americans deserve to die and deserve everything they get.

Now then, since then I've actually looked into things like statistics and believe me, all the wonderful things we assume to be true (women never lie about being raped, women are peaceful creatures and males the abusive ones etc) are often patent bullshit. In fact in many ways it is far more unhealthy and dangerous to be male.

But it is very very acceptable to be pro-woomynn and dismiss anti-male bias, but if you have a problem with anti-male bias, and I can give you tons of examples, then you're some kind of whiny freak.

So you know what? I love bikes, sunshine, Goth, the Mission, organic food and generally kicking back. As for people, I have absolutely no time for em.

 

"Here's cause and effect for you. I watched a man's career get destroyed in high school from a girl resentful she didn't get a certain part in a school play (naturally: "he touched me!")" - Which prooves what? Again a micro event is used to suggest that all women are thus: evil?

I will now use my own micro-specific event to demonstrate the irrelevance of such examples:

I listened as a woman was being bullied and threatened by her boyfriend in my neighbourhood... He was warning her that he was very capable of knocking the shit our of her if necessary. I jumped over the wall and chased up the alleyway to confront him: His manner changed instantly to that of the innocent non-aggressive walking with his girlfriend.

It's another micro-specific event that (were I as poorly educated as you) would seek to suggest could then be applied to all men as final and conclusive proof of male dysfunction.

You are only able to rationalise in this very specific and narrow way. It is a mental dysfunction and it severly affects your ability to judge fairly.

You make all of your subjective statements as if they represented an absolute and universal truth. I know you have no clue what I'm saying but here is an example:

"Now then, since then I've actually looked into things like statistics and believe me, all the wonderful things we assume to be true (women never lie about being raped, women are peaceful creatures and males the abusive ones etc) are often patent bullshit."

In dissecting the unborn soul once again we see a number of fatal flaws in the above statement:

"since then I've actually looked into things like statistics " - Subjective but you seem to believe that it carries weight and validity. As if simply making the statement is proof that you have looked into statistics and that you have the mental capacity to decode said statistics.

"and believe me," - Implies that your findings are conclusive proof by virtue of your good nature and developed intellect.

"all the wonderful things we assume to be true " - "we" which implies that all men have assumed the same.

"(women never lie about being raped, women are peaceful creatures and males the abusive ones etc)" - These things were never assumed. It is another very subjective statement and it reflects your personal view. It is a view born of your mental dysfunction:

1: An inability to maintain a balanced and rational view.
2: The need to shift all guilt and responsibility from self to another target (women).
3: An inability to see consequences or cause and effect on anything but the most immediate level: i.e. that '*woman abused her children physically which prooves that overall - women are as bad or worse than men'.

*Is a micro-specific event. It fails to address the reason for that particular woman's dysfunction (contributing factors: such as possible abuse inflicted on her as a child, neglect etc.). Your dysfunction prevents you from making judgements only on the immediate outcome. You are incapable of considering that dysfunctional person's circumstances that may have led them to abuse children. A good analogy to make this clearer would be the following:

Imagine two policemen out on patrol... They are alerted to a vehicle with a crazed gunman tearing through the streets. The driver of the vehicle had apparently shot a man dead before driving away in his van. The two policemen catch up with his van and force him to stop. They order him out of the van and tell him to drop his weapon. He complies.

What do we have here? We have a crazed gunman who shot dead a man before trying to escape. By your inability to consider anything but the immediate event and outcome - you can say that this case is simple. A man killed another man therefore he is bad. The irongoth programming does not stop to consider anything beyond the immediate outcome. Following his philosophy of judging final outcome and then judging everyone else by this man's actions then we would conclude that: because this man shot and killed a man. This prooves that men are violent overall. End of story.

You could substitute the gunman for a gun-woman. Again by irongoth's logic you would then judge all women as violent based on this micro-specific event. It simply doesn't compute does it? It shows an inability to consider contributing factors/mitigating circumstances:

If we are to think in a clear and rational way then we obviously stop to question the circumstances BEHIND THE FINAL OUTCOME!

We would ask "why" the gunman shot a man dead?

Perhaps the gunman shot this man because he raped his sister?

Perhaps the dead-man had threatened or abused the man or his family in some way? This is what we call mitigating circumstances. We couldn't sanely judge all men as violent on the basis of a micro-specific incident. Irongoth's entire arguments are based around an inability to consider cause and effect. An inabilty to consider anything but the immediate outcome. Thus we see his arguments are always focused on specific events within our time-line.

His arguments can be clearly expressed as:

Lizzie Borden killed men. This prooves that women are as violent or more so than men.

Those female prison officers were far more creative in their violence than the men... This prooves that women are as violent or more so than men.

This utter focus on nothing but micro-specific events clearly suggests an inability to acknowledge contributing factors or mitigating circumstances. The problem is further compounded by the fact that he then believes he can judge all women by these micro-specific events.

It is a serious problem. This might simply be regarded as a harmless debate on a computer forum, but the problem is that this same kind of inability to think logically and clearly is the driving force behind those men who abuse/kill women and children and even those women who abuse/kill men and children. It doesn't matter whether you're male of female - this kind of inability to think beyond immediate outcome results in a very distorted picture of the world and of others.

You cannot sanely judge all women as violent on the basis of a micro-specific example. Nor can you judge all men on the same basis. You can and should step back and look at the overall ratio of violence through history between the sexes - that is certainly necessary to create an accurate picture.

You should stop to consider the circumstances which led to a specific event.

If a man shoots someone - what reason did he have? Violent women will have a story which led them to become violent and the same for violent males. I wouldn't judge all men as violent on the basis that a man in my town killed someone. Nor is it fair for irongoth to judge all women as violent on the basis of particular micro-events. Irongoth has stated numerous times that he sees no need to consider history. This is simply more indication of his particular type of dysfunction. Again it is clear to most rational people that we cannot ignore the past. We should learn from it.

If "Jack Straw" sees this post as another hate-filled attack then I would ask why it is that he doesn't recognise the hate and dysfunction that irongoth has for women?

 

Another facile assumption.

I'm married and have no interest in meeting women for sex on any forum.

 

RE: You are only able to rationalise in this very specific and narrow way. It is a mental dysfunction and it severly affects your ability to judge fairly.

Alright, listen. I've said at length there are ways in which women abuse men. Your response is to go at me, personally. Any evidence I provide becomes a "micro-event" in your world. I raise statistics and you make the ad hominem attack that I am either too unintelligent or irrational to understand them.

I'm done with being personally abused by you, so I will proceed to ignore you. You will probably interpret this as having "won" the argument, I couldn't care less either way.

But in your efforts to be so noble and whatnot, you've come very chivalrously "to the aid" of all these wounded and helpless females, afflicted as they are by this male collective against which they need defending. How absolutely and utterly chauvinistic and therefore sexist.

Might get you a couple of phone numbers though... good luck with this project, you gallant defender of the swooning, pedastaled mother of the race.

 

"Alright, listen. I've said at length there are ways in which women abuse men." - I wouldn't disagree. There are ways that women abuse men and ways that women are violent towards men. We shouldn't judge all women as being that way or the majority of. What we can do is consider the overal ratio of abuse/violence through history between both sexes.

"Any evidence I provide becomes a "micro-event" in your world. " - It doesn't become a micro-event. It either is or it isn't. If you quote specific examples/cases then that is a micro-event:

"I watched a man's career get destroyed in high school from a girl " - a specific event used to suggest that all women are thus as violent as men. I have explained in very clear terms why this does not work.

"I'm done with being personally abused by you, so I will proceed to ignore you. You will probably interpret this as having "won" the argument, I couldn't care less either way." - I wouldn't consider it a victory for you to continue with your hatred of women and your belief that quoting specific incidents is representitive of all females. I wouldn't consider it a victory if you suddenly developed an ability to think beyond final outcomes and consider that everyone has a set of circumstances which led them to behave the way they did. That applies equally to men and women. It is a separate argument from the question of whether men collectively are more violent than women.

I don't judge all men. I don't judge the majority of men. I judge male history. It sux. And our present-day actions also coincide with our past aggression as well. That's why the world is still such a violent place.

You seek to blame all women or get the message across that they are as violent as men based on specific instances. You have no regard for the circumstances which led to that specific event happening.

"But in your efforts to be so noble and whatnot, you've come very chivalrously "to the aid" of all these wounded and helpless females, afflicted as they are by this male collective against which they need defending. How absolutely and utterly chauvinistic and therefore sexist." - I imagine the women who post here are quite capable of defending themselves from your dysfunctional views. I personally have seen a lot of identical dysfunction on another forum recently and I am getting tired of it. Overall I tend to subscribe to Jack Straw's view that both sexes should be nice to each other. It's not a bad idea to step back therefore and consider our behaviour through history.

"How absolutely and utterly chauvinistic and therefore sexist." - I would speak out against anything I felt was wrong including the idea that every man is the same. Your arguments clearly aren't built on any functional logic or awareness of anything but immediate outcome. Therefore your calling me "sexist" can also be regarded as irrelevant/null and void.

 

This may be a little off the original topic but it fits in with the discussion:

Why doesn't anyone acknowledge the extreme value of a stay-at-home mom anymore. Although I think it is very wrong for a man to think that a woman's place is in the home and to serve him and do as she is told, I think providing for the family by focusing on raising kids and domestic duties is probably even more important to the mainstays of the family unit than the man working and bringing home the paycheck. I think it is much more heroic to be a good mother and "homemaker" than a merely making the money for the family. The former position is so much more dynamic and supportive of the moral workings of the family. I have some very good female friends (who are also very professionally capable) whose choose to be a stay at home mom, and I think this is wonderful and they shouldn't be pressured by a overly professionalistic society and feel of any less value if they choose this path. Also, their husbands are completely sensitive and would never try to tell them what to do. In-fact, from my point of view the women in these relationships are the matriarks of the family. In addition, I feel that my mother is a hero when I look back at what she provided to the family by staying home. Why do we so easily forget the value of this?

I also grew up with neighbors where the mother worked and the father stayed home and raised the family. My opinion is "to each their own". If you are not satisfied by the conditions of interactions between you and your partner you are stupid to stay in that relationship. I think women should have free choice to do what they wish and have the personality that they wish and men should either accept it as their partner and make a prosperios life around it or choose not to accept it and find someone else who they are personally more compatible with. And vice versa for the gender flip side.

I pretty much always believe in freedom of choice. Choose the professional path or the domestic path or a little of both and find a partner who is compatible with your choice. What is so difficult about that? *said with a little sarcasm*

 

FG - caring for children is a 24/7 job and those who do it, do it well and are awesome should be supported. I think if someone has the courage and tenacity to become a stay at home mom, more power to her. Or him! I fail to see why "guy forced to stay home and look after the kids" is a comedy vehicle. That does a gratuitous disservice.

 

My father stayed at home and raised my sisters and I while my mother was the breadwinner of the family. And I wouldn't have had it any other way.

I plan on doing the same, in fact my husband and I are already saving and planning for a child in the next two years, and have taken strategic moves in our careers so that I will be able to stay home full time, and my husband will be able to work from home a good part of the time. We also plan on home-schooling our child.

I think that families aren't there enough for eachother, and that raising a child is as important job as any person could have. The idea that stay at home moms or dads are a bad thing (or that they are lazy, or not working hard enough) is rediculous. Instead of a society that encourages all the adults in the household to have full time jobs, we should have a society that supports and encourages parents to put that kind of effort and time into raising their children. And it doesn't have to just be the woman that does it. Dad's make great stay-at-homers too.

 

The debate between Feathers and IronGoth has degenerated into personal attacks and bitterness, which means, unfortunately, in their case they are not likely to be listened to (I skipped over most of what they wrote) because of perceptions of bias.

But on whether women or men are more peaceful and loving, it is true that men are more violent. Studies have shown (as I recall) that boys tend to be more aggressive than girls. On the other hand, I have heard of a major study (reported by a good female writer!) that found women initiated as much domestic violence as men, if not more.

About men inventing weapons and initiating wars, that actually has as much to do with innovativeness as with brutality: obviously it took some clever mathematicians to build the nuclear bomb, for example. Likewise, it took someone very clever to invent gunpowder, and before then, iron weaponry.

But for Feathers to continue to insist on the generalization that men are more violent because of biology, specifically higher testosterone levels, can be somewhat dangerous, as one can likewise argue that Blacks are more prone to violence because as studies have found they have higher testosterone levels. I don't think Feathers realizes the full implications of her argument.

While I would agree that men are generally more violent, I have seen such viciousness by women against other women as to really wonder what motivates Feathers, who is not exactly wrong about all of her claims. Generalizations are well and good, especially when discussed in a political forum, but in real life I have seen enough nastiness by women against other women as to think: "what's the point?"

 

And this is why I only plan on making enough money to barely get by haha

Actually, I saved up 5,000 dollars specifically to go to Barista school because I want to open my own Café

 

I think I read something stating that women have larger aggression centers in their brain than men, but the female brain is in much more control of their aggression than the male brain. May have been something I saw on Discovery...


Edit:

Found an article on it, and I was a little off in my above statement. It seems that the sections of the brain that controls aggression and anger responses is larger in women then in men:

http://aolsvc.health.webmd.aol.com/content/Article/104/107367.htm?pagenumber=3

 

I agree entirely.

 

I agree here too.