• 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

Aderleth said:
How else can you possibly interpret the phrase "greatest impact?" The clear implication is that anything else a woman (and just a woman) can possibly do is of lesser importance. That's ten different kinds of misogynistic, and demonstrably false.
Click to expand...

Not at all - as I said previously, being great at raising a family is indeed the one thing with the greatest impact on society, without a doubt - the only thing he missed out on was imploring the male students to also devote themselves to being great husbands and fathers. He isn't saying that any other pursuit isn't worthy or irrelevant, just not as important to society and to mankind.

It's a perfectly legitimate view to have irrespective of your attempts to make it seem perverted.
 
Dragonfly said:
The title of the thread is the title or the article linked. None of it is my words.

The way I presented what?
Click to expand...

That's fine - my apologies - wouldn't be the first time the media misrepresented someone in order to make a political point.
 
clownboy said:
On that last I agree and never implied or inferred it was. I don't think that's what the OP says either.
Click to expand...

i guess my main problem with it is that a commencement speech isn't really the appropriate place for that kind of stuff. he promoted the idea that the best thing a woman can do to contribute to society is to be is a mom.
 
lizzie said:
I don't think you're understanding his point. It's not that the woman's worth is a function of her children. It's that the childrens' worth, as future healthy functioning adults, is a result, in part, of what kind of mother they had. Mothers are highly important in the development of children.
Click to expand...

If the central contention is that the most important/impactful thing a woman (and only a woman) can do is to be a mother (which is exactly what it says in the OP quote), then you cannot reasonably suggest that you're not also viewing a woman's role as primarily being about producing children. By extension, you're suggesting that a woman's worth is primarily about her influence over her children. :shrug:
 
Helix said:
i guess my main problem with it is that a commencement speech isn't really the appropriate place for that kind of stuff. he promoted the idea that the best thing a woman can do to contribute to society is to be is a mom.
Click to expand...

Commencement speeches revolve around the current milieu. Right now we have gone through social changes that have brought us to a place where increasingly motherhood is taking a backseat to the other aspects of life.
 
Gina said:
My mom didn't have a choice, she had to work. She didn't become a CFO until a few years after I left home, but while I was still there, she was running her department (keeping a financially struggling company solvent) and helping my dad start a business. I did not suffer for it and she was a great example for me, not only of what women are capable of, but of a great work ethic. All that and she still had time for parent club, attending performances and weekend fund raisers.
Click to expand...

I think that's terrific - however, with what is going on with society and a lot of young people today, I don't think you could argue that's the norm rather than the exception and deserving of at least one mother-of-the-year award.
 
Aderleth said:
If the central contention is that the most important/impactful thing a woman (and only a woman) can do is to be a mother (which is exactly what it says in the OP quote), then you cannot reasonably suggest that you're not also viewing a woman's role as primarily being about producing children. By extension, you're suggesting that a woman's worth is primarily about her influence over her children. :shrug:
Click to expand...

NOT just "producing children", but raising them, nuturing them, prioritising them and teaching them the ten million little life lessons that will carry them successfully forward. That's a pretty darn worthy thing.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Not at all - as I said previously, being great at raising a family is indeed the one thing with the greatest impact on society, without a doubt - the only thing he missed out on was imploring the male students to also devote themselves to being great husbands and fathers. He isn't saying that any other pursuit isn't worthy or irrelevant, just not as important to society and to mankind.
Click to expand...

And as I said, if that's the most important thing, anything else is, by definition, less important (specifically with respect to women's contributions to the world). So you've essentially just re-stated exactly what I'm taking issue with. And you're correct, the speaker's failure to include the men in the audience is exactly why this whole line of thinking is problematic. As I've already pointed out, there are numerous ways for women to have enormous amounts of impact on the world - far greater impact than by raising kids - just like it's possible for men. To suggest anything else is extremely misogynistic.

CanadaJohn said:
It's a perfectly legitimate view to have irrespective of your attempts to make it seem perverted.
Click to expand...

It's not perverted. It's antiquated and misogynistic.
 
clownboy said:
NOT just "producing children", but raising them, nuturing them, prioritising them and teaching them the ten million little life lessons that will carry them successfully forward. That's a pretty darn worthy thing.
Click to expand...

So is brain surgery. So is running the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation (which is what Melinda does with her time). See my point?
 
Here is the major problem with the melding of the feminist movement with the PC movement. You know at one time a few decades ago the script read, "women and men think alike, are the same". We taught it, we repeated it back constantly, but in the end it just didn't comport with reality. Men and women think differently and are not the same.

Now we have thoroughly bought the "you can have it all" nonsense. That again does not comport with reality. Sure, you can have it all, but part or the whole is going to suffer from it. I know that reality sounds insulting, but that's only because you've learned to expect to be able to have it all. In reality, under the old model, men didn't "have it all" either. The qualities and dedication it takes to be a CEO preclude ceding attention to anything else in a major way.

Cetainly there are exceptions. It falls on a bell curve like virtually every other distibution model, with exceptions on the light sides of the bell and the main body falling within the body of the bell itself.

bell-curve.gif
 
CanadaJohn said:
I think that's terrific - however, with what is going on with society and a lot of young people today, I don't think you could argue that's the norm rather than the exception and deserving of at least one mother-of-the-year award.
Click to expand...

Nonsense

The high # of children born into single parent households proved you wrong.
 
Aderleth said:
If the central contention is that the most important/impactful thing a woman (and only a woman) can do is to be a mother (which is exactly what it says in the OP quote), then you cannot reasonably suggest that you're not also viewing a woman's role as primarily being about producing children. By extension, you're suggesting that a woman's worth is primarily about her influence over her children. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Imo, whe she is having children, rearing them is the most important thing she can do. When she's past or pre- childbearing, then other things take priority. Are our children not the most important things in the world? Do they not determine the future of our civilization? There is no more critical role than the rearing of children. They are our future. If they can't function well, and be prepared to carry on, then that does not bode well for us.
 
Figures it's a yahoo news link.

Trying to pull in the huffington compost ignoramuses.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Wow - that's just depressing as hell.

He wouldn't have had to put himself through the rigors of the military life as he has done if I was gainfully employed all this time. He wouldn't have been injured and now dealing with a large plethora of health issues because we chased the idealized lifestyles of the gender minded modern couple.

And what - some health insurance is going to compensate for the children not having a father?

I don't think so.
Click to expand...

i wasnt trying to be insensitive....i was an Army brat...my dad did 30 years with viet nam in the mix...and my mom didnt work out side the home until i got my drivers license and looking back i am glad for it, she was mom, always there, never tied up in meetings or leaving having to messages when i needed something, no baby sitters or after school care...I went home....i as well did a stint and my wife didnt work while i was in.....and of course an insurance policy doesnt compensate for a father...that was never implied, but it does compensate for incmome replacement as it is intended...i think its a necessity for all families, and if both parents work theres no reason not to have it...its cheap when you are young...............my wifes cousin lost her husband to suicide leaving her with a 14 year old son and a brand new mortgage, at least she was covered with a good policy and luckliy the 2 year suicide clause had expired
 
lizzie said:
Imo, whe she is having children, rearing them is the most important thing she can do. When she's past or pre- childbearing, then other things take priority. Are our children not the most important things in the world? Do they not determine the future of our civilization? There is no more critical role than the rearing of children. They are our future. If they can't function well, and be prepared to carry on, then that does not bode well for us.
Click to expand...

Several things:

1) The fact that children are important emphatically does not mean that, as the quote in the OP suggests, the most important thing a woman can do is raise a child. As I've pointed out - with specific examples - there are several career paths that are substantially more important, even if child welfare is the only thing you're considering.

2) There's an implicit assumption in the argument that you and others are making in this thread that a woman and only a woman can properly care for a child. This is quite simply false, and the studies tend to bear that out. You could also look to Scandanavia to see examples of fathers taking on a more robust role in the home. They have the highest standards of living in the world.

3) There are plenty of people producing children in the world. We are increasingly facing population related problems in the world. Given that, why is producing more children more important than, say, finding a renewable source of clean energy?
 
Aderleth said:
Several things:

1) The fact that children are important emphatically does not mean that, as the quote in the OP suggests, the most important thing a woman can do is raise a child. As I've pointed out - with specific examples - there are several career paths that are substantially more important, even if child welfare is the only thing you're considering.

2) There's an implicit assumption in the argument that you and others are making in this thread that a woman and only a woman can properly care for a child. This is quite simply false, and the studies tend to bear that out. You could also look to Scandanavia to see examples of fathers taking on a more robust role in the home. They have the highest standards of living in the world.

3) There are plenty of people producing children in the world. We are increasingly facing population related problems in the world. Given that, why is producing more children more important than, say, finding a renewable source of clean energy?
Click to expand...

Then we will have to agree to disagree. To me, my children were the most important people in the world, and my priority was to raise them to the best of my ability.
 
fishinRod said:
i wasnt trying to be insensitive....i was an Army brat...my dad did 30 years with viet nam in the mix...and my mom didnt work out side the home until i got my drivers license and looking back i am glad for it, she was mom, always there, never tied up in meetings or leaving having to messages when i needed something, no baby sitters or after school care...I went home....i as well did a stint and my wife didnt work while i was in.....and of course an insurance policy doesnt compensate for a father...that was never implied, but it does compensate for incmome replacement as it is intended...i think its a necessity for all families, and if both parents work theres no reason not to have it...its cheap when you are young...............my wifes cousin lost her husband to suicide leaving her with a 14 year old son and a brand new mortgage, at least she was covered with a good policy and luckliy the 2 year suicide clause had expired
Click to expand...

No - you weren't being insensitive . . . I was just saying it like it is. . . as were you.

In a nice, awesome world the choice to be a stay at home mother ends with nothing but positive results.

That is not the world I'm living in.
 
Aderleth said:
No, he said:

"The greatest impact you could ever contribute to our world is a loving investment in the lives of your precious children. To solve the problems plaguing our society, we don’t need more women CEOs. We need more women as invested mothers.”

So yes, he is in fact telling young woman that they should stay at home. More importantly, he's telling them that their contributions to the world are best achieved through staying at home and squeezing out babies.
Click to expand...

No he's not.
 
lizzie said:
Then we will have to agree to disagree. To me, my children were the most important people in the world, and my priority was to raise them to the best of my ability.
Click to expand...


And that's perfectly fine. What I'm taking issue with is the notion that the most important way for a woman to impact the world (and only a woman) is to raise children. There are many, many other paths open to women. The quote in the OP is suggesting otherwise. Obviously your children are important to you, but do you think you couldn't have made your mark on the world in some completely different way if you'd never had kids at all? Just because you're a woman?
 
Aderleth said:
There are many, many other paths open to women. The quote in the OP is suggesting otherwise. Obviously your children are important to you, but do you think you couldn't have made your mark on the world in some completely different way if you'd never had kids at all? Just because you're a woman?
Click to expand...

Of course I could have. I've worked as an RN for most of my adult life, after I had children, and raised them to the point that their socialization was good for them. My point is that if you don't want to make your children priority one, then don't have them. We already have enough ****ed up kids in the world as it is.
 
lizzie said:
Of course I could have. I've worked as an RN for most of my adult life, after I had children, and raised them to the point that their socialization was good for them. My point is that if you don't want to make your children priority one, then don't have them. We already have enough ****ed up kids in the world as it is.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. It's not what the quote in the OP is saying at all.
 
Dragonfly said:
High school commencement speaker tells females: stay at home, don




I'm gonna guess a few people here at DP think this train of thought hits a big nail squarely on the head. :shock:
Click to expand...





I am not one of those people.

I see that address as a major failure.

Changing dirty diapers is not my idea of a great job (I've changed plenty and washed them.).

Whoever picked that social studies teacher to give the commencement address failed.

Who made the rule that women have to do all of the tough jobs?

I'm not buying that idea, this is the 21st Century. We need to share the tough work.







Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll
 
Aderleth said:
And that's perfectly fine. What I'm taking issue with is the notion that the most important way for a woman to impact the world (and only a woman) is to raise children. There are many, many other paths open to women. The quote in the OP is suggesting otherwise. Obviously your children are important to you, but do you think you couldn't have made your mark on the world in some completely different way if you'd never had kids at all? Just because you're a woman?
Click to expand...

Do you think that had lizzie not made her children the most important people in the world, their mark on the world would be completely different?

Everyone gets the choice of how to raise their children, or to have children at all, and how important those children will be to their lives.

A woman's biggest impact on the world is their ability to have children, to suggest otherwise would be moronic. You can argue the societal points all you want, but biology will win.

I would love to stay home and raise my children, but my wife prefers to do it.
 
Samhain said:
A woman's biggest impact on the world is their ability to have children, to suggest otherwise would be moronic.
Click to expand...

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.

Samhain said:
You can argue the societal points all you want, but biology will win.
Click to expand...

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

Marie Curie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom