• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

High school commencement speaker tells females: stay at home, don’t be CEOs

If you think that is the reason why people are pissed off at this guy then you just don't get it.

A woman's role is whatever she wants it to be, there is nothing wrong with equality in the work force, there is nothing wrong with women being CEO's, and there is nothing wrong with not having kids, or getting married if you don't want too.

Women should be free to choose, and have the same opportunities as men, not be pigeonholed into a life they may not want.

And don't forget - there's nothing wrong with stay-at-home fathers and/or men/fathers being the care-takers of the children while mom/ladies are off being the bread-winners and financial providers of the family.

Parents HAVE to be better parents. It's not the female's job alone. A great stay-at-home mother combined with a totally disconnected and absent father isn't going to "save society".

If the moron speech-giver wanted to present an idea about priorities for those having children, he should have addressed everyone, both male and female.
 
Liked because that's the most amazingly bone-headed thing I've seen anyone say to Maggie since someone accused her of being a Democrat.

I didn't "say" anything to her. :roll: I was asking for clarification. See the many question marks in my comment? They are there for a reason.

I was shocked at her initial response and was asking for a better answer. She obviously understood since she then provided a much clearer and more concise answer.
 
I think you could give a crap about gender stereotypes. I think because you are all about the gays that you are upset because you see it as a backhanded way of telling gays they do not matter as much because most of them will never have kids.
LOL, wut?
 
I think that's your view, your interpretation of his words, because you come from a certain perspective in life and that's fair - I see it differently, as I've stated before - I see him challenging young women not to accept today's stereotype that a stay at home wife and mom is a lesser person than a business woman or CEO and I see him saying to young men that success in business, making more money than you actually need in life, isn't as important as being there for your wife and family, protecting them and providing for them.

Some people see that is being a devolution to the troglodytes - I see it as a clarion call to young people to forego some of the materialistic aspects of 21st century life and get back to what's important in a person's development and contribution to society.

Is a lack of stay at home moms and family invested dads the only problem in western society today - hell no - but it damn well sure is one of the problems with society today. I'm old enough to know that in my youth, teens killing teens was unheard of - teens having no appreciation or sense of value for life was unheard of - teens disrespecting older people was rare but virtually unheard of - and in my view one of the biggest contributors to this is young people and teens not having role models in their homes who mold and teach their children how to be productive, contributing, respected members of society.
If it was merely an example of someone advising people to forego materialism and value the importance of family, then he would have told the young men in the audience that they ought to value being stay at home dads and he would have told young women that they ought to consider being the provider and protector of the family. He did not do that. He encouraged both men and women in the audience to occupy their traditional gender roles: woman as caretaker and man as protector/provider. Those are stereotypical gender roles. They are rooted in traditional ideas of what male and female roles are and they completely ignore the reality that men can be caretakers while women can be protectors and providers.

If someone wants to argue that motherhood and fatherhood are more important than work and business, then that's fine. In that case, tell women and men that they have the choice between staying at home with their children or being the providers and protectors of their children. Once you limit men to the role of provider/protector and women to the role of stay at home mom, you're doing more than encouraging people to value their roles as parents, you're perpetuating gender stereotypes. That isn't something I just see because "I come from a certain perspective." That's what is happening.
 
And don't forget - there's nothing wrong with stay-at-home fathers and/or men/fathers being the care-takers of the children while mom/ladies are off being the bread-winners and financial providers of the family.

I have to respectfully disagree with you as completely as possible. While Men do play a vital role in raising children, it is not as the primary care-giver and attendant. It is much more as the Authority Figure and the Disciplinarian.

Parents HAVE to be better parents. It's not the female's job alone. A great stay-at-home mother combined with a totally disconnected and absent father isn't going to "save society".

We are 100% in agreement on this. Both parents play critical roles in the development and education of children. Where we seem to disagree is on the idea that the roles of Nurturer and Authority Figure are interchangeable between the mother and Father.

If the moron speech-giver wanted to present an idea about priorities for those having children, he should have addressed everyone, both male and female.

It would seem that he did, at least to some degree. Probably not as clearly defined as might have been desired, but at least it seems they were both mentioned.
 
Never read so many pages of absolute tripe before. To some of the male posters on this thread, my wife is smarter than most of you on here, she has a more important job than most of you on here and she is still a great mother so get over yourselves. To some of the female posters on here, there is nothing wrong with being a stay at home mum but don't throw other women under the bus just because they have more ambition than you and don't feel the need to be supported by their male counterpart. The whole notion of a mother staying at home was great back in the day but we live in a world with high inflation and low wages and of course the whole women are equal thing happened, as much as some of you on here would love to come home and have your wife greet you with a cigar and a martini those days are over.
 
Last edited:
I didn't "say" anything to her. :roll: I was asking for clarification. See the many question marks in my comment?

Ah. So you're the sort of fella who likes to rape the children before you kill them?


(there now, see how the question was both insulting and completely failed whatsoever to follow naturally from your post?)
 
The whole notion of a mother staying at home was great back in the day but we live in a world with high inflation and low wages and of course the whole women are equal thing happened,....

If that is true, and too some degree I agree it is tough to live in a single income home; but in my mind it would be significantly better for us to restrain our spending and moderate our standard of living rather than sending that second parent off to work. Now, if there are no children and no desire from either person for children, then that's a different thing. I still do not believe that women should be in the workforce to the same degree as men, but that situation is more understandable in my mind.... so long as she is still able to take care of her homemaking responsibilities. If it's a choice of her staying home and not having 4 flat screen tv's and three cars in the driveway or her going to work just to get those things, I'll choose the former, thank you very much.

....as much as some of you on here would love to come home and have your wife greet you with a cigar and a martini those days are over.

Not entirely. It's not a cigar and martini (neither of which I partake of), but I get greeted quite pleasantly at the door every evening by my fiance. I haven't had to cook a meal since she moved in back in late April, nor do the dishes. I have offered to do these things, and she has very politely told me she will take care of them. My only remaining domestic duties are.... cleaning the bathroom, taking out the trash/recycling, and shoveling our parking spot in the winter. This type of woman DOES still exist. You just have to dig a little deeper to find them with all the feces that society has tossed on top of them these days.
 
If that is true, and too some degree I agree it is tough to live in a single income home; but in my mind it would be significantly better for us to restrain our spending and moderate our standard of living rather than sending that second parent off to work. Now, if there are no children and no desire from either person for children, then that's a different thing. I still do not believe that women should be in the workforce to the same degree as men, but that situation is more understandable in my mind.... so long as she is still able to take care of her homemaking responsibilities. If it's a choice of her staying home and not having 4 flat screen tv's and three cars in the driveway or her going to work just to get those things, I'll choose the former, thank you very much.



Not entirely. It's not a cigar and martini (neither of which I partake of), but I get greeted quite pleasantly at the door every evening by my fiance. I haven't had to cook a meal since she moved in back in late April, nor do the dishes. I have offered to do these things, and she has very politely told me she will take care of them. My only remaining domestic duties are.... cleaning the bathroom, taking out the trash/recycling, and shoveling our parking spot in the winter. This type of woman DOES still exist. You just have to dig a little deeper to find them with all the feces that society has tossed on top of them these days.

"You just have to dig a little deeper to find them with all the feces that society has tossed on top of them these days."


and when you say feces you mean woman with ambition, education, drive etc.
 
Every family is different.

First of all, I agree there can be great value in having a stay at home parent. I disagree that it has to be the mom.

Second of all the guy is a bit out of touch if he thinks many families do not need to work.

A lot of times it is a question of priorities. Buying a home means long term security. A family may decide that the long term security is a better payoff for the family. A second income may be needed to acquire such security.

Every family is different.

But I think his statement negates the possibility of that the stay at home parent could be a the dad. I think that alone makes me wanna give guy a Bronx cheer.
 
and when you say feces you mean woman with ambition, education, drive etc.

In part. I also mean the derision and scorn heaped upon those women who choose a more traditional lifestyle and life-path by career women and the metrosexual/*****-whipped males who seem to be making up more and more of our population these days.
 
I have to respectfully disagree with you as completely as possible. While Men do play a vital role in raising children, it is not as the primary care-giver and attendant. It is much more as the Authority Figure and the Disciplinarian.

I'm not surprised. We differ immensely when it comes to what we each think females can and/or "should" do.

Perhaps one day you'll have a daughter, and maybe then you'll see the light.

My oldest daughter's dream is to become a Physicians Assistant. She's got a 3.94+ gpa heading into her senior year of college and will be applying for grad/med schools over the next few months. I don't want ANYONE ever trying to tell her she shouldn't be working hard to achieve her goal.
 
I'm not surprised. We differ immensely when it comes to what we each think females can and/or "should" do.

Perhaps one day you'll have a daughter, and maybe then you'll see the light.

Yes, we do differ immensely on the idea of what both Men and women Can and Should do in life.

Perhaps one day I will have a daughter, but I will never "see the light" on her taking a non-traditional role any more than I would "see the light" if a son of mine wanted to be a stay-at-home father.
 
Whatever - what's the point of existing at all, then? Seriously - why bother even living when all people expect of you is to wipe asses and runny noses? :roll:

There certainly isn't a point in going to Kindergarten through High school and graduating if you're going to do nothing with your life other than have kids - just crawl out of beds and do nothing but clean **** from the time you're one.

You know - and then what do you do when you're husband becomes an abusive asshole?
Or falls and breaks his back and can't work?

...Do I sound pretentious and immature? My reality is that being a stay at home mom has been the worst thing for this family - it's overrated and screwed me, my husband and the kids over big time.

Men can't be mommies.
 
You are demeaning women with this statement. You are also insulting me because I don't agree with you and I am certainly not a moron.

A lot of women who have had a much huge impact on this world never had a child.

You need to open up your mind and let a little reality seep in.

Not so much, no. As I've explained numerous times, there are any number of career paths women can have that will result in her having a much larger impact on the world than she would by raising children.



Biology won't necessarily win here, but a career in biology (or chemistry, or physics) might:

Tell you what - why don't you take your argument back to the 1950's where it belongs, and let the rest of us enjoy the modern world, m'kay?

Feel free to explain a world where woman don't have children. How long does that world have humans? 70 years?
 
Men can't be mommies.

That's right apdst, men become daddies. Very good.

Feel free to explain a world where woman don't have children. How long does that world have humans? 70 years?

He said *raising* children - referring to the concept of being the stay at home parent. . . .which is a true point.

But to your thought: A lot of successful businessmen don't have children in general - no one cries foul. No one accuses them of possibly annihilating the species. Trust me, people will always have sex and quite a large number will always have children - more than one, in fact. No matter what happens, a lot of women will still be stay at home mothers, even to the detriment of their own livelihoods and the reliance of them on the government and abusive spouses for continued support.

The most rigorous women will successfully do it all - only, she'll be hated for it while successful men who work full time while raising kids without a partner will be laude with praise for being a good father figure for their children. 'it was hard - but he made it work' . . . yeah.

And God bless the stay at home father's - which are spited for their choice as well and considered lesser men for it (by other men)

All in all: men need to lighten up.
 
Last edited:
Good, Lord, this was a social studies teacher in a town that has a whopping population of around 2,500 people in Indiana. I don't even remember my school graduation speakers' messages, and I didn't the day after it was over either. People need to have a little perspective and stop being so freaking thin-skinned. Every day somebody somewhere is saying something you don't like. BFD. It isn't like this guy was someone who actually has a say in how affairs of state are run or has their own TV show or something.
 
Last edited:
That's right apdst, men become daddies. Very good.



He said *raising* children - referring to the concept of being the stay at home parent. . . .which is a true point.

But to your thought: A lot of successful businessmen don't have children in general - no one cries foul. No one accuses them of possibly annihilating the species. Trust me, people will always have sex and quite a large number will always have children - more than one, in fact. No matter what happens, a lot of women will still be stay at home mothers, even to the detriment of their own livelihoods and the reliance of them on the government and abusive spouses for continued support.

The most rigorous women will successfully do it all - only, she'll be hated for it while successful men who work full time while kids without a partner will be laude with praise for being a good father figure for their children. 'it was hard - but he made it work' . . . yeah.

And God bless the stay at home father's - which are spited for their choice as well and considered lesser men for it.

That might be what he said, but its not what I said. Only a woman can affect the world by having children. Nobody stated that woman *must* have children, and nobody stated that the only way a woman can be successful is to have children either.

I worked full time raising my three children until I met my wife, and now she would prefer to not work and stay home with the kids. I think its admirable and something that should be applauded, not derided as a job of wiping asses and runny noses, as you put it.
 
That might be what he said, but its now what I said. Nobody stated that woman *must* have children, and nobody stated that the only way a woman can be successful is to have children either.

I worked full time raising my three children until I met my wife, and now she would prefer to not work and stay home with the kids. I think its admirable and something that should be applauded, not derided as a job of wiping asses and runny noses, as you put it.

I can only hope that the kids will be better off for my decisions - and maybe they'll come to understand that all the ailments their father suffers from was to put food on the table. I see his suffering as needless - and a result of my selfish laziness. . .and selfish laziness is not something to revere.
 
I can only hope that the kids will be better off for my decisions - and maybe they'll come to understand that all the ailments their father suffers from was to put food on the table. I see his suffering as needless - and a result of my selfish laziness. . .and selfish laziness is not something to revere.

While I can't tell you that your opinion is wrong, I can disagree with it, and I do.

My father worked two jobs while my mother stayed home, we were dressed from Goodwill, and were barely considered middle class. I appreciate the jobs both my parents had, and I adore both of them for how they raised me.

I would hope that your children would see the same.

Edit: And more to the point, my children's mother decided that her career was more important than her children and moved 500 miles away in pursuit of that career. If you want to talk about selfish, that is an actual example of selfishness, not you. And of course, now that the wiping of asses and cleaning of running noses is over(youngest is 6), she wants to be more involved.
 
Last edited:
While I can't tell you that your opinion is wrong, I can disagree with it, and I do.

My father worked two jobs while my mother stayed home, we were dressed from Goodwill, and were barely considered middle class. I appreciate the jobs both my parents had, and I adore both of them for how they raised me.

I would hope that your children would see the same.

Ok - snide quips and silly jokes aside ... all due honesty. I look back at my choices and see everything I did wrong which ultimately lead to the situation we're in. He joined the military long before we married - but when his opportunity came to slide out like he intended on, I ended up being a stay at home mother because I was too sick while pregnant to work. He had to re-up . . . and while I suffered from countless ailments and physical setbacks during pregnancy #3 and #4 - he felt he had no choice but to put in for promotion. He took a dicey position because it paid more, then busted his ass pulling overnight duty, oversea missions, drug raids, etc etc . . . all so I could fall apart, physically - and not work.

Stress and physical injury led to his heart, neurological, breathing and circulatory problems . . . we were supposed to have a long and happy life together and he has - what - ten years?

I'd give anything to give him his life back. . . I'd go back in time if I could and work, take care of the kids, and trump my way through my health issues at the same time if it would take any of it away. Then he won't have a spinal injury, cyclothymia and an executive disorder related to brain scarring from his tbi, panic attacks and night terrors. . .none of that existed before and would not have if he didn't re-up.

He was sucked into the pro-war sentiment. He was 'doing his part' for the family. The country 'needed him.' So on - so forth. We discussed it countless times, he was disillusioned with the idea that he would be seen as less of a man if he didn't stay in and huff it. Less of a man, imperfect, weak, inferior - all these things drove him to his decision. He was sucked into the testosterone machine like too many men are.

Sorry - but the hammed up, drum beating pro-war masculine side is a foul string of bull**** that only destroys what it claims to need and revere leaving a string of fatherless children and heartbroken families behind and nothing more.

These issue aren't just sexist and demeaning toward women - they're sexist and demeaning toward men . . . how can someone be a good parent if they're never home? But that's exactly what millions of military men are - gone . . . and many won't come back the same. My husband went from being able to play with the kids - to getting migraines when they play too loud. His interaction with them is null even when he is *home*

My worst fear: though he has all these issues I still hope he'll pull through - he's 45 . . . another 20 years would be above and beyond the Dr's opinions. I have hopes. . . but what will happen when he medically retires (finally) - that's what he's gone for right now, to ease out of hte military due to his health issues . . . what happens then?

The broken man who's only trudged through this **** life with his health issues - won't have a reason to trudge through anymore.

Post early retirement - my worst fear is he'll go to sleep and have no reason to wake up. Simply being a father isn't enough.

So: my husband's death VS me working a crappy job at Dollar General . . . I think the Dollar General **** job sounds like heaven, too bad employers don't see it the same way. Now that I've been a sahm for 10 years - things have shifted in the job market and I'll be damned if I can't even get a single job interview . . .the kids are all in school - and what am I doing?

Writing books about sex online and hacking away at college and a business plan - whoopie.
 
Last edited:
If it was merely an example of someone advising people to forego materialism and value the importance of family, then he would have told the young men in the audience that they ought to value being stay at home dads and he would have told young women that they ought to consider being the provider and protector of the family. He did not do that. He encouraged both men and women in the audience to occupy their traditional gender roles: woman as caretaker and man as protector/provider. Those are stereotypical gender roles. They are rooted in traditional ideas of what male and female roles are and they completely ignore the reality that men can be caretakers while women can be protectors and providers.

If someone wants to argue that motherhood and fatherhood are more important than work and business, then that's fine. In that case, tell women and men that they have the choice between staying at home with their children or being the providers and protectors of their children. Once you limit men to the role of provider/protector and women to the role of stay at home mom, you're doing more than encouraging people to value their roles as parents, you're perpetuating gender stereotypes. That isn't something I just see because "I come from a certain perspective." That's what is happening.

The fact that you continue to perpetuate a misrepresentation of his comments suggests that you do indeed see this from a certain perspective. That's fine. Perhaps you see what you call stereotypical roles as evil or wrong - that's exactly what the speaker is trying to tell these young people to reject - to encourage them, to dare them to embrace what you reject because they are roles that are important, perhaps most important, for the survival of society.

You see something sinister and evil - I see it differently.

Have a good day.
 
Never read so many pages of absolute tripe before. To some of the male posters on this thread, my wife is smarter than most of you on here, she has a more important job than most of you on here and she is still a great mother so get over yourselves. To some of the female posters on here, there is nothing wrong with being a stay at home mum but don't throw other women under the bus just because they have more ambition than you and don't feel the need to be supported by their male counterpart. The whole notion of a mother staying at home was great back in the day but we live in a world with high inflation and low wages and of course the whole women are equal thing happened, as much as some of you on here would love to come home and have your wife greet you with a cigar and a martini those days are over.

Talk about tripe - that misses the point of the speaker's comments entirely.
 
Back
Top Bottom