SmokeAndMirrors
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 20, 2011
- Messages
- 18,282
- Reaction score
- 16,154
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Other
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?
And your statements about women are incorrect, and based upon the idea that for women to be self-hating and prevented from achieving what they want to is somehow "natural."
Women can have it all, but not if they have to do everything. That's the problem with America, and it's the reason your precious fertility rates are falling.
Women try to not only work, but also do pretty much 100% of house and child care because most men still simply refuse to do any of it. And no, that is absolutely not sustainable.
However, there are places where men are beginning to share that work. And guess what? The fertility rate is climbing.
At the end of the day, most women are not like me -- I will grant you that much. They would have children, or have more children, if it weren't for the fact that they damn well know their partner will just dump everything on them, and they will either lose what might be an enjoyable career or simply wind up killing themselves trying to do everything virtually alone.
So unless she just wants to stay home from the outset, why the hell would a woman settle down? Why would she trade a lifestyle where she's treating equally, for one where she knows she won't be?
If you want to save your precious fertility rates, you're going to have to let go of this idea of a woman's "place." You could maintain that when women were very isolated and just didn't have any access to any other facets of life, but now that they are not, you are not going to be able to convince them, on a larger social level, to take the back seat. You're going to have to share.
Again, I get the suspicion that you are not bothering to read what you are responding to, vice simply projecting a cartoonish, 2-dimensional meme onto your opposition. Neither Thomas or myself are saying that men should be out there making sure that women are submissive to them; both of us have claimed that - generally - women want[/i] men to lead. We aren't making a statement about men (outside generally of the commentary that men will often remain boys as long as they are able), we are making a statement about women.
So. No. You don't bother to pay attention to what you are responding to. I have pretty much always gone with "generally", because most of these rules are, well, generalities. There are a few things I won't go with Generally because I believe in them as a moral code - saving sex for marriage, for example, the destructiveness of divorce for another. But when talking about which personality is dominant inside a relationship or which member in a household is the driving force in most decisions?
That is incorrect - you can't have it all, as many prominent, well-credentialed women are starting to point out. Women, like men, have to make choices and to choose one thing is often to choose not another. Nor have I ever claimed that women are unable to support themselves. I will claim that women with children usually face difficulties supporting themselves, which is why so many of them replace a husband with the State, who fulfills all of the financial obligations, but never wants to have sex when they have a headache. :lol:
You are attempting to project onto us arguments we aren't making, and disputing those without evidence. You are smarter than strawmen, Smoke.
And your statements about women are incorrect, and based upon the idea that for women to be self-hating and prevented from achieving what they want to is somehow "natural."
Women can have it all, but not if they have to do everything. That's the problem with America, and it's the reason your precious fertility rates are falling.
Women try to not only work, but also do pretty much 100% of house and child care because most men still simply refuse to do any of it. And no, that is absolutely not sustainable.
However, there are places where men are beginning to share that work. And guess what? The fertility rate is climbing.
At the end of the day, most women are not like me -- I will grant you that much. They would have children, or have more children, if it weren't for the fact that they damn well know their partner will just dump everything on them, and they will either lose what might be an enjoyable career or simply wind up killing themselves trying to do everything virtually alone.
So unless she just wants to stay home from the outset, why the hell would a woman settle down? Why would she trade a lifestyle where she's treating equally, for one where she knows she won't be?
If you want to save your precious fertility rates, you're going to have to let go of this idea of a woman's "place." You could maintain that when women were very isolated and just didn't have any access to any other facets of life, but now that they are not, you are not going to be able to convince them, on a larger social level, to take the back seat. You're going to have to share.