Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Housewifery is a gorgeous apiration

Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2015 10:01:06 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
As the toxins of Feminism and Progressivism stymie femininity, hordes of college girls are taught that there is shame in housewifery. "You don't want to be chained to a household, do you, Casssandra?" I'm told. "You could be independent and have a interesting career," they continue.

No. I want neither.

What I want is a beautiful family, wherein my husband loves and takes care of me, I love him and support him, and we procreate for lovely children. Sorry, but slaving in an office job for 15 years, only to realise that "Oh! Maybe I do want children after all! I'll attracted men with my 15 years, $100,000 a year Human Resources profession!", won't work. Not only is grueling work unpleasant, but I'll never attract a man like that, especially at that age.

Not that child-rearing is the easiest, but that's far more satisfying, to me than attempting to play the man's gender role, of which I'm not designed or inclined to follow.

Progressive/ Feminist families fall apart because a strong, independent wymyn leads her weakling, Atm-machine husband and the rest of the family, only to finally realise that such men aren't attractive, and then divorces because she is tired of being a man and tied-down to a pathetic loser.

Traditional families are strong because they follow the natural order: men lead women, and women support men -- there's nothing wrong with this.

So, excuse me whilst I prepare to be apart of a gorgeous family =)
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2015 10:23:34 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/22/2015 10:01:06 PM, Zarroette wrote:
As the toxins of Feminism and Progressivism stymie femininity, hordes of college girls are taught that there is shame in housewifery. "You don't want to be chained to a household, do you, Casssandra?" I'm told. "You could be independent and have a interesting career," they continue.

No. I want neither.

What I want is a beautiful family, wherein my husband loves and takes care of me, I love him and support him, and we procreate for lovely children. Sorry, but slaving in an office job for 15 years, only to realise that "Oh! Maybe I do want children after all! I'll attracted men with my 15 years, $100,000 a year Human Resources profession!", won't work. Not only is grueling work unpleasant, but I'll never attract a man like that, especially at that age.

I do think that there is something to this. As a general rule, this sort of thing is the case, and a militant attempt to roll it back has had several ill-effects. Coupled with things like a high divorce rate and children born out of wedlock, the abandonment of traditional motherhood has contributed in many ways to America's unhealthy relationship with food. Traditionally, the mother prepared food from actual ingredients, and this knowledge was passed down to her daughters (or sons in some cases). This is how culinary traditions, like those in Europe, are maintained and improved upon throughout history.

When that model is replaced by a 'warm up the premade pizza in the oven because I have to be at work tomorrow' one, then things start to slide into a situation where corporate advertising dictates tastes in food. The result has been an obsession with sugar and fats, the development of the unnuanced 'American palate', and a costly obesity epidemic. The problem, I think, is that the benefits of societal institutions like motherhood to society at large are sort of like the benefits of an endangered species to its local ecosystem: it may seem like a disposable luxury at first glance, but that is only because of the intricacy of the web of interactions which it is engaged in. Once it is gone, that absence is felt.

Another cost is the collapse of local communities, which were largely supported by stay-at-home mothers before they became an anachronism.

Not that child-rearing is the easiest, but that's far more satisfying, to me than attempting to play the man's gender role, of which I'm not designed or inclined to follow.

Progressive/ Feminist families fall apart because a strong, independent wymyn leads her weakling, Atm-machine husband and the rest of the family, only to finally realise that such men aren't attractive, and then divorces because she is tired of being a man and tied-down to a pathetic loser.

Traditional families are strong because they follow the natural order: men lead women, and women support men -- there's nothing wrong with this.

So, excuse me whilst I prepare to be apart of a gorgeous family =)

I think that there are exceptions to the rule; that some women are very much suited to the corporate lifestyle. There are people who, due to personality quirks, need the 24/7 scheduling, that work, work, work, and become dejected without it. I think that it's important to recognize the rule, but to also make a place for the exception. The problem is, in my opinion, the way that modern feminism stigmatizes motherhood and housewifery on a systemic level.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Geogeer
Posts: 4,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2015 10:53:34 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/22/2015 10:01:06 PM, Zarroette wrote:
As the toxins of Feminism and Progressivism stymie femininity, hordes of college girls are taught that there is shame in housewifery. "You don't want to be chained to a household, do you, Casssandra?" I'm told. "You could be independent and have a interesting career," they continue.

No. I want neither.

What I want is a beautiful family, wherein my husband loves and takes care of me, I love him and support him, and we procreate for lovely children. Sorry, but slaving in an office job for 15 years, only to realise that "Oh! Maybe I do want children after all! I'll attracted men with my 15 years, $100,000 a year Human Resources profession!", won't work. Not only is grueling work unpleasant, but I'll never attract a man like that, especially at that age.

Not that child-rearing is the easiest, but that's far more satisfying, to me than attempting to play the man's gender role, of which I'm not designed or inclined to follow.

Progressive/ Feminist families fall apart because a strong, independent wymyn leads her weakling, Atm-machine husband and the rest of the family, only to finally realise that such men aren't attractive, and then divorces because she is tired of being a man and tied-down to a pathetic loser.

Traditional families are strong because they follow the natural order: men lead women, and women support men -- there's nothing wrong with this.

So, excuse me whilst I prepare to be apart of a gorgeous family =)

+1

Your problem will be that modern society is set up for people with 2 incomes. The price of houses has gone up because there are now 2 incomes going into it.

My wife stays home with the kids - and doing so requires sacrifices. However, her biggest complaint isn't the financial sacrifices we have to make. It is the fact that she is the only woman on our street who stays home with the kids. There is nobody to share the days with. Add to that I work long hours to make it all possible and it is a frustration in her life.

It is much easier to put the kids in daycare and go back to work. You get a nice car, nice clothes, dinners out and office gossip. Staying at home is much more difficult. However there is an old saying: The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. And it is true!
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2015 11:21:13 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/22/2015 10:53:34 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 12/22/2015 10:01:06 PM, Zarroette wrote:
As the toxins of Feminism and Progressivism stymie femininity, hordes of college girls are taught that there is shame in housewifery. "You don't want to be chained to a household, do you, Casssandra?" I'm told. "You could be independent and have a interesting career," they continue.

No. I want neither.

What I want is a beautiful family, wherein my husband loves and takes care of me, I love him and support him, and we procreate for lovely children. Sorry, but slaving in an office job for 15 years, only to realise that "Oh! Maybe I do want children after all! I'll attracted men with my 15 years, $100,000 a year Human Resources profession!", won't work. Not only is grueling work unpleasant, but I'll never attract a man like that, especially at that age.

Not that child-rearing is the easiest, but that's far more satisfying, to me than attempting to play the man's gender role, of which I'm not designed or inclined to follow.

Progressive/ Feminist families fall apart because a strong, independent wymyn leads her weakling, Atm-machine husband and the rest of the family, only to finally realise that such men aren't attractive, and then divorces because she is tired of being a man and tied-down to a pathetic loser.

Traditional families are strong because they follow the natural order: men lead women, and women support men -- there's nothing wrong with this.

So, excuse me whilst I prepare to be apart of a gorgeous family =)

+1

Your problem will be that modern society is set up for people with 2 incomes. The price of houses has gone up because there are now 2 incomes going into it.


Only if you give in to the expectations, which are enticing.

My wife stays home with the kids - and doing so requires sacrifices. However, her biggest complaint isn't the financial sacrifices we have to make. It is the fact that she is the only woman on our street who stays home with the kids. There is nobody to share the days with. Add to that I work long hours to make it all possible and it is a frustration in her life.

It is much easier to put the kids in daycare and go back to work. You get a nice car, nice clothes, dinners out and office gossip. Staying at home is much more difficult. However there is an old saying: The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. And it is true!
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2015 11:40:38 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/22/2015 11:21:13 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 12/22/2015 10:53:34 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 12/22/2015 10:01:06 PM, Zarroette wrote:
As the toxins of Feminism and Progressivism stymie femininity, hordes of college girls are taught that there is shame in housewifery. "You don't want to be chained to a household, do you, Casssandra?" I'm told. "You could be independent and have a interesting career," they continue.

No. I want neither.

What I want is a beautiful family, wherein my husband loves and takes care of me, I love him and support him, and we procreate for lovely children. Sorry, but slaving in an office job for 15 years, only to realise that "Oh! Maybe I do want children after all! I'll attracted men with my 15 years, $100,000 a year Human Resources profession!", won't work. Not only is grueling work unpleasant, but I'll never attract a man like that, especially at that age.

Not that child-rearing is the easiest, but that's far more satisfying, to me than attempting to play the man's gender role, of which I'm not designed or inclined to follow.

Progressive/ Feminist families fall apart because a strong, independent wymyn leads her weakling, Atm-machine husband and the rest of the family, only to finally realise that such men aren't attractive, and then divorces because she is tired of being a man and tied-down to a pathetic loser.

Traditional families are strong because they follow the natural order: men lead women, and women support men -- there's nothing wrong with this.

So, excuse me whilst I prepare to be apart of a gorgeous family =)

+1

Your problem will be that modern society is set up for people with 2 incomes. The price of houses has gone up because there are now 2 incomes going into it.


Only if you give in to the expectations, which are enticing.

Well it is more about supply and demand. There is the cost of materials etc. - which are not going to change a great deal. However, there is the price of land which is very elastic. So take a city like mine. Until recently there was a lot of money due to the high price of oil. This pushed the price of housing up to an average price of $500,000. In older neighbourhoods homes were being bought for $600,000 to knock down and put up newer infills/duplexes that cost $1 million ea. (which were ridiculously over priced I might add).

They could do that because there were many families with 2 income earners each making $100,000 per year. 1 income earner making $100,000 a year will be forced outward into the deep suburbs or even into renting to make ends meet.

My wife stays home with the kids - and doing so requires sacrifices. However, her biggest complaint isn't the financial sacrifices we have to make. It is the fact that she is the only woman on our street who stays home with the kids. There is nobody to share the days with. Add to that I work long hours to make it all possible and it is a frustration in her life.

It is much easier to put the kids in daycare and go back to work. You get a nice car, nice clothes, dinners out and office gossip. Staying at home is much more difficult. However there is an old saying: The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. And it is true!
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 12:11:10 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/22/2015 10:01:06 PM, Zarroette wrote:
As the toxins of Feminism and Progressivism stymie femininity, hordes of college girls are taught that there is shame in housewifery. "You don't want to be chained to a household, do you, Casssandra?" I'm told. "You could be independent and have a interesting career," they continue.

No. I want neither.

What I want is a beautiful family, wherein my husband loves and takes care of me, I love him and support him, and we procreate for lovely children. Sorry, but slaving in an office job for 15 years, only to realise that "Oh! Maybe I do want children after all! I'll attracted men with my 15 years, $100,000 a year Human Resources profession!", won't work. Not only is grueling work unpleasant, but I'll never attract a man like that, especially at that age.

Not that child-rearing is the easiest, but that's far more satisfying, to me than attempting to play the man's gender role, of which I'm not designed or inclined to follow.

Progressive/ Feminist families fall apart because a strong, independent wymyn leads her weakling, Atm-machine husband and the rest of the family, only to finally realise that such men aren't attractive, and then divorces because she is tired of being a man and tied-down to a pathetic loser.

Traditional families are strong because they follow the natural order: men lead women, and women support men -- there's nothing wrong with this.

So, excuse me whilst I prepare to be apart of a gorgeous family =)

You're not built to be a housewife Cassie. Some women are, but it's not you. It is a good aspiration, but not one that you specifically would enjoy.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 5:02:28 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/22/2015 10:23:34 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 12/22/2015 10:01:06 PM, Zarroette wrote:
As the toxins of Feminism and Progressivism stymie femininity, hordes of college girls are taught that there is shame in housewifery. "You don't want to be chained to a household, do you, Casssandra?" I'm told. "You could be independent and have a interesting career," they continue.

No. I want neither.

What I want is a beautiful family, wherein my husband loves and takes care of me, I love him and support him, and we procreate for lovely children. Sorry, but slaving in an office job for 15 years, only to realise that "Oh! Maybe I do want children after all! I'll attracted men with my 15 years, $100,000 a year Human Resources profession!", won't work. Not only is grueling work unpleasant, but I'll never attract a man like that, especially at that age.

I do think that there is something to this. As a general rule, this sort of thing is the case, and a militant attempt to roll it back has had several ill-effects. Coupled with things like a high divorce rate and children born out of wedlock, the abandonment of traditional motherhood has contributed in many ways to America's unhealthy relationship with food. Traditionally, the mother prepared food from actual ingredients, and this knowledge was passed down to her daughters (or sons in some cases). This is how culinary traditions, like those in Europe, are maintained and improved upon throughout history.

100% agree.


When that model is replaced by a 'warm up the premade pizza in the oven because I have to be at work tomorrow' one, then things start to slide into a situation where corporate advertising dictates tastes in food. The result has been an obsession with sugar and fats, the development of the unnuanced 'American palate', and a costly obesity epidemic.

An interesting point which appears likely true.

The problem, I think, is that the benefits of societal institutions like motherhood to society at large are sort of like the benefits of an endangered species to its local ecosystem: it may seem like a disposable luxury at first glance, but that is only because of the intricacy of the web of interactions which it is engaged in. Once it is gone, that absence is felt.

Agreed.


Another cost is the collapse of local communities, which were largely supported by stay-at-home mothers before they became an anachronism.

Not that child-rearing is the easiest, but that's far more satisfying, to me than attempting to play the man's gender role, of which I'm not designed or inclined to follow.

Progressive/ Feminist families fall apart because a strong, independent wymyn leads her weakling, Atm-machine husband and the rest of the family, only to finally realise that such men aren't attractive, and then divorces because she is tired of being a man and tied-down to a pathetic loser.

Traditional families are strong because they follow the natural order: men lead women, and women support men -- there's nothing wrong with this.

So, excuse me whilst I prepare to be apart of a gorgeous family =)

I think that there are exceptions to the rule; that some women are very much suited to the corporate lifestyle. There are people who, due to personality quirks, need the 24/7 scheduling, that work, work, work, and become dejected without it. I think that it's important to recognize the rule, but to also make a place for the exception. The problem is, in my opinion, the way that modern feminism stigmatizes motherhood and housewifery on a systemic level.

I agree with this caveat, too.

With greater eloquence, your post is excellent and expands upon my somewhat emotional (lol) rant =)
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 5:03:57 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/22/2015 10:01:06 PM, Zarroette wrote:
As the toxins of Feminism and Progressivism stymie femininity, hordes of college girls are taught that there is shame in housewifery. "You don't want to be chained to a household, do you, Cassandra?" I'm told. "You could be independent and have a interesting career," they continue.

- It's suffocating. Move to a traditional Muslim country, you'd probably hear the opposite.

No. I want neither.

- You want to move to a traditional Muslim country.

What I want is a beautiful family, wherein my husband loves and takes care of me, I love him and support him, and we procreate for lovely children.

- Family > Loneliness. Humans are designed to socialise, couple & procreate. It would be unnatural to replace Family with Individualism, aka Loneliness.

Sorry, but slaving in an office job for 15 years, only to realise that "Oh! Maybe I do want children after all! I'll attracted men with my 15 years, $100,000 a year Human Resources profession!", won't work. Not only is grueling work unpleasant, but I'll never attract a man like that, especially at that age.

- Indoctrination makes this obvious realisation sound like an odd proposition. I was once talking to some people who hold mainstream views about Marriage in your parts of the World. My remark related to the closeness of marital age between males & females this recent century or so, as opposed to the almost general case in past & some present societies! That, females are designed to be beautiful creatures to attract males, & that beauty is manifested in youth. How is it reasonable that a society would squander such beauty & such youth, & for what? Males are being indoctrinated into being happy to marry "old hags" nearly their age, sometimes older, with remnants of youth & beauty. This, sounded to me, at the time, like a stupid society. Indians, in that regard, are ingenious. Most couples get married when the female is under 18, with all the youth & beauty intact. The counter-case seems at a disadvantage.

Not that child-rearing is the easiest,

- On the contrary. Birthing & Rearing future generations is the Legacy of human kind. No nobler duty there is.

but that's far more satisfying,

- That's only natural. If it wasn't satisfying, it wouldn't've have persevered in the human race in preserving life & making noble sacrifices.

to me than attempting to play the man's gender role, of which I'm not designed or inclined to follow.

- Traditionally, education was a very personal & inner journey, it had very little to do with carriers. Housewives were often more educated than influential women. Now that education became a simple tool for livelihood. An educated 'jobless' housewife, is not weighed by her inner education, her civility, her character, her intellect... she is weighed by her job & her social position!

Progressive/ Feminist families fall apart because a strong, independent wymyn leads her weakling, Atm-machine husband and the rest of the family, only to finally realise that such men aren't attractive, and then divorces because she is tired of being a man and tied-down to a pathetic loser.

- I've been brought up in a tradition that favours design & nature, so that's why most my arguments or positions stem from that. In this case, the strongest argument to be made is the one from design, that is, Family & Independence are, by design, two contradictory concepts. Therefore, valuing Independence leads, necessarily, to loss of Family, whilst valuing Family defeats, necessarily, Independence. You can't have one & the other.

- Another argument from design is children are, by design, supposed to be taken care of by their biological parents, particularly the mother. In a society where the normative standard is the absence of parents from children, you certainly have a faulty social design.

Traditional families are strong because they follow the natural order: men lead women, and women support men -- there's nothing wrong with this.

- & most of all, because they, essentially, value Family itself, & none of that Independence crap.

So, excuse me whilst I prepare to be apart of a gorgeous family =)

- In a traditional Muslim country. =)
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 5:10:23 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/22/2015 10:53:34 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 12/22/2015 10:01:06 PM, Zarroette wrote:
As the toxins of Feminism and Progressivism stymie femininity, hordes of college girls are taught that there is shame in housewifery. "You don't want to be chained to a household, do you, Casssandra?" I'm told. "You could be independent and have a interesting career," they continue.

No. I want neither.

What I want is a beautiful family, wherein my husband loves and takes care of me, I love him and support him, and we procreate for lovely children. Sorry, but slaving in an office job for 15 years, only to realise that "Oh! Maybe I do want children after all! I'll attracted men with my 15 years, $100,000 a year Human Resources profession!", won't work. Not only is grueling work unpleasant, but I'll never attract a man like that, especially at that age.

Not that child-rearing is the easiest, but that's far more satisfying, to me than attempting to play the man's gender role, of which I'm not designed or inclined to follow.

Progressive/ Feminist families fall apart because a strong, independent wymyn leads her weakling, Atm-machine husband and the rest of the family, only to finally realise that such men aren't attractive, and then divorces because she is tired of being a man and tied-down to a pathetic loser.

Traditional families are strong because they follow the natural order: men lead women, and women support men -- there's nothing wrong with this.

So, excuse me whilst I prepare to be apart of a gorgeous family =)

+1

Your problem will be that modern society is set up for people with 2 incomes. The price of houses has gone up because there are now 2 incomes going into it.

Yes. Although, I'm happy to live away from expensive cities. However, housing has certainly "gone up", due to the reason you listed.


My wife stays home with the kids - and doing so requires sacrifices. However, her biggest complaint isn't the financial sacrifices we have to make. It is the fact that she is the only woman on our street who stays home with the kids. There is nobody to share the days with. Add to that I work long hours to make it all possible and it is a frustration in her life.

Consider letting her find other mothers in other neighborhoods, so that she can converse and mind the children with them (after the housework is completed, of course). Perhaps some swimming lessons for the children. Also consider extended family.

I think that when the husband is working and house-duties are complete, wives should be allowed to take their children to a variety of gatherings. It helps the child's social development, and women love talking to each other =)


It is much easier to put the kids in daycare and go back to work. You get a nice car, nice clothes, dinners out and office gossip. Staying at home is much more difficult. However there is an old saying: The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. And it is true!

It is true =)
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 5:11:58 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/23/2015 12:11:10 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/22/2015 10:01:06 PM, Zarroette wrote:
As the toxins of Feminism and Progressivism stymie femininity, hordes of college girls are taught that there is shame in housewifery. "You don't want to be chained to a household, do you, Casssandra?" I'm told. "You could be independent and have a interesting career," they continue.

No. I want neither.

What I want is a beautiful family, wherein my husband loves and takes care of me, I love him and support him, and we procreate for lovely children. Sorry, but slaving in an office job for 15 years, only to realise that "Oh! Maybe I do want children after all! I'll attracted men with my 15 years, $100,000 a year Human Resources profession!", won't work. Not only is grueling work unpleasant, but I'll never attract a man like that, especially at that age.

Not that child-rearing is the easiest, but that's far more satisfying, to me than attempting to play the man's gender role, of which I'm not designed or inclined to follow.

Progressive/ Feminist families fall apart because a strong, independent wymyn leads her weakling, Atm-machine husband and the rest of the family, only to finally realise that such men aren't attractive, and then divorces because she is tired of being a man and tied-down to a pathetic loser.

Traditional families are strong because they follow the natural order: men lead women, and women support men -- there's nothing wrong with this.

So, excuse me whilst I prepare to be apart of a gorgeous family =)

You're not built to be a housewife Cassie. Some women are, but it's not you. It is a good aspiration, but not one that you specifically would enjoy.

I don't want a career and I want to raise lots of children -- I can't agree with you, sorry.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 5:21:08 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/23/2015 5:03:57 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 12/22/2015 10:01:06 PM, Zarroette wrote:
As the toxins of Feminism and Progressivism stymie femininity, hordes of college girls are taught that there is shame in housewifery. "You don't want to be chained to a household, do you, Cassandra?" I'm told. "You could be independent and have a interesting career," they continue.

- It's suffocating. Move to a traditional Muslim country, you'd probably hear the opposite.

Maybe I should. Do you have to be a Muslim to far-ware in such a country?


No. I want neither.

- You want to move to a traditional Muslim country.

What I want is a beautiful family, wherein my husband loves and takes care of me, I love him and support him, and we procreate for lovely children.

- Family > Loneliness. Humans are designed to socialise, couple & procreate. It would be unnatural to replace Family with Individualism, aka Loneliness.

Agreed.


Sorry, but slaving in an office job for 15 years, only to realise that "Oh! Maybe I do want children after all! I'll attracted men with my 15 years, $100,000 a year Human Resources profession!", won't work. Not only is grueling work unpleasant, but I'll never attract a man like that, especially at that age.

- Indoctrination makes this obvious realisation sound like an odd proposition. I was once talking to some people who hold mainstream views about Marriage in your parts of the World. My remark related to the closeness of marital age between males & females this recent century or so, as opposed to the almost general case in past & some present societies! That, females are designed to be beautiful creatures to attract males, & that beauty is manifested in youth. How is it reasonable that a society would squander such beauty & such youth, & for what? Males are being indoctrinated into being happy to marry "old hags" nearly their age, sometimes older, with remnants of youth & beauty. This, sounded to me, at the time, like a stupid society. Indians, in that regard, are ingenious. Most couples get married when the female is under 18, with all the youth & beauty intact. The counter-case seems at a disadvantage.

I couldn't agree more -- 100% agree.


Not that child-rearing is the easiest,

- On the contrary. Birthing & Rearing future generations is the Legacy of human kind. No nobler duty there is.

Of course; the struggle and sacrifice is worth it =)


but that's far more satisfying,

- That's only natural. If it wasn't satisfying, it wouldn't've have persevered in the human race in preserving life & making noble sacrifices.

to me than attempting to play the man's gender role, of which I'm not designed or inclined to follow.

- Traditionally, education was a very personal & inner journey, it had very little to do with carriers. Housewives were often more educated than influential women. Now that education became a simple tool for livelihood. An educated 'jobless' housewife, is not weighed by her inner education, her civility, her character, her intellect... she is weighed by her job & her social position!

She is essentially attempting to be a man! Disgusting!!


Progressive/ Feminist families fall apart because a strong, independent wymyn leads her weakling, Atm-machine husband and the rest of the family, only to finally realise that such men aren't attractive, and then divorces because she is tired of being a man and tied-down to a pathetic loser.

- I've been brought up in a tradition that favours design & nature, so that's why most my arguments or positions stem from that. In this case, the strongest argument to be made is the one from design, that is, Family & Independence are, by design, two contradictory concepts. Therefore, valuing Independence leads, necessarily, to loss of Family, whilst valuing Family defeats, necessarily, Independence. You can't have one & the other.

That's a dichotomy I didn't think of previously. I think it's right, too.


- Another argument from design is children are, by design, supposed to be taken care of by their biological parents, particularly the mother. In a society where the normative standard is the absence of parents from children, you certainly have a faulty social design.

Yes, oh, yes!! Biological parental absence damages children.


Traditional families are strong because they follow the natural order: men lead women, and women support men -- there's nothing wrong with this.

- & most of all, because they, essentially, value Family itself, & none of that Independence crap.

=)


So, excuse me whilst I prepare to be apart of a gorgeous family =)

- In a traditional Muslim country. =)

I'll ask my boyfriend about it and see what he says. Australia is such a degenerate, Progressive wasteland, at least where I live.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 5:31:52 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/22/2015 10:01:06 PM, Zarroette wrote:

Traditional families are strong because they follow the natural order: men lead women, and women support men -- there's nothing wrong with this.

So, excuse me whilst I prepare to be apart of a gorgeous family =)

Do you argue that women should be housewives? Do you think it is wrong for women to partake in what you perceive to be men's natural roles?
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 5:33:50 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/23/2015 5:31:52 AM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 12/22/2015 10:01:06 PM, Zarroette wrote:

Traditional families are strong because they follow the natural order: men lead women, and women support men -- there's nothing wrong with this.

So, excuse me whilst I prepare to be apart of a gorgeous family =)

Do you argue that women should be housewives?

Not all women, but the vast majority should, yes.

Do you think it is wrong for women to partake in what you perceive to be men's natural roles?

I think some women have no interest in raising children, are genetically unfit or would simply be poor parents. So, I don't think it's "wrong", rather, I think it's frequently undesirable, but there will be exceptions.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 5:39:58 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/23/2015 5:33:50 AM, Zarroette wrote:

Not all women, but the vast majority should, yes.

I see. You may have already addressed these issues in another thread or a debate (if so, a link would be appreciated), but what reasoning do you use to conclude that the vast majority should be housewives? Allow me to elaborate - what arguments do you use to demonstrate that the natural role of women is that of housewives? I would assume you look at the gender roles assumed in virtually every society in history as a piece of your argument, but I am not entirely sure.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 5:48:13 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/23/2015 5:21:08 AM, Zarroette wrote:

Maybe I should. Do you have to be a Muslim to far-ware in such a country?

- Only with the exception of Saudi Arabia, in which if you're not Muslim you can't get a permanent residency. The rest are totally cool & very hospitable people. But they have so much culture, it may be too much to handle for foreigners.

I couldn't agree more -- 100% agree.

- That's what my friends said. It changed their entire worldview of things. One of them decided he is never marrying a girl older than 20. It's like what I said reached into his soul, & cast a spell into it. Which gave the strong impression that it had some merit, & the past societies knew what they were doing ;) .

Of course; the struggle and sacrifice is worth it =)

- Mothers are the symbol of unconditional love, you'd be fine.

She is essentially attempting to be a man! Disgusting!!

- That's certainly one way to look at it. One of the principal of jurisprudence in Shari'a reads: "equating two different entities, is necessarily, unjust to at least one of both". In that sense, Men & Women may share the human kind between them, but they don't share the human gender. They're thus different entities. Equating them, necessarily, means exacting injustice to at least one of them. In this case, Women, unfortunately, got the short end of the stick, for they have been put in Men's scale & been pushed to equal Men in Men's world! If the situation was reversed, Men would be complaining why couldn't they getting pregnant, & be looking to biologically remedy that 'deficiency'. Instead, we see Women complaining why are they forced to bear children, & be looking for biological impossible way to get rid of their own identity. When you think about it, Women got some rights they probably deserved, but in exchange lost the battle they thought they were fighting before it even begin! Now, both Men & Women are inconvenienced.

That's a dichotomy I didn't think of previously. I think it's right, too.

- It's just a more intelligent way of saying Individualism vs. Collectivism.

Yes, oh, yes!! Biological parental absence damages children.

- I've seen you probably make that argument in a debate somewhere.

I'll ask my boyfriend about it and see what he says. Australia is such a degenerate, Progressive wasteland, at least where I live.

- I lost it at "wasteland"!
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 1:01:42 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/23/2015 5:11:58 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 12/23/2015 12:11:10 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/22/2015 10:01:06 PM, Zarroette wrote:
As the toxins of Feminism and Progressivism stymie femininity, hordes of college girls are taught that there is shame in housewifery. "You don't want to be chained to a household, do you, Casssandra?" I'm told. "You could be independent and have a interesting career," they continue.

No. I want neither.

What I want is a beautiful family, wherein my husband loves and takes care of me, I love him and support him, and we procreate for lovely children. Sorry, but slaving in an office job for 15 years, only to realise that "Oh! Maybe I do want children after all! I'll attracted men with my 15 years, $100,000 a year Human Resources profession!", won't work. Not only is grueling work unpleasant, but I'll never attract a man like that, especially at that age.

Not that child-rearing is the easiest, but that's far more satisfying, to me than attempting to play the man's gender role, of which I'm not designed or inclined to follow.

Progressive/ Feminist families fall apart because a strong, independent wymyn leads her weakling, Atm-machine husband and the rest of the family, only to finally realise that such men aren't attractive, and then divorces because she is tired of being a man and tied-down to a pathetic loser.

Traditional families are strong because they follow the natural order: men lead women, and women support men -- there's nothing wrong with this.

So, excuse me whilst I prepare to be apart of a gorgeous family =)

You're not built to be a housewife Cassie. Some women are, but it's not you. It is a good aspiration, but not one that you specifically would enjoy.

I don't want a career and I want to raise lots of children -- I can't agree with you, sorry.

I'm sure you do want it. You're just not suited to it. You have to be able to maintain a certain level of contentment, something somebody with your intense drive is not capable of.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 6:50:08 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/22/2015 10:01:06 PM, Zarroette wrote:
As the toxins of Feminism and Progressivism stymie femininity, hordes of college girls are taught that there is shame in housewifery. "You don't want to be chained to a household, do you, Casssandra?" I'm told. "You could be independent and have a interesting career," they continue.

No. I want neither.

What I want is a beautiful family, wherein my husband loves and takes care of me, I love him and support him, and we procreate for lovely children. Sorry, but slaving in an office job for 15 years, only to realise that "Oh! Maybe I do want children after all! I'll attracted men with my 15 years, $100,000 a year Human Resources profession!", won't work. Not only is grueling work unpleasant, but I'll never attract a man like that, especially at that age.

Not that child-rearing is the easiest, but that's far more satisfying, to me than attempting to play the man's gender role, of which I'm not designed or inclined to follow.

Progressive/ Feminist families fall apart because a strong, independent wymyn leads her weakling, Atm-machine husband and the rest of the family, only to finally realise that such men aren't attractive, and then divorces because she is tired of being a man and tied-down to a pathetic loser.

Traditional families are strong because they follow the natural order: men lead women, and women support men -- there's nothing wrong with this.

So, excuse me whilst I prepare to be apart of a gorgeous family =)

Being a housewife sounds like the right call for you. I hope that works out.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2015 7:38:51 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
Enjoy your life.

Though, in my opinion, the gender of the person doesn't play a huge role (being a "housewife" or a "house-husband" doesn't make a difference).
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2015 5:59:13 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/22/2015 10:01:06 PM, Zarroette wrote:
As the toxins of Feminism and Progressivism stymie femininity, hordes of college girls are taught that there is shame in housewifery. "You don't want to be chained to a household, do you, Casssandra?" I'm told. "You could be independent and have a interesting career," they continue.

No. I want neither.

What I want is a beautiful family, wherein my husband loves and takes care of me, I love him and support him, and we procreate for lovely children. Sorry, but slaving in an office job for 15 years, only to realise that "Oh! Maybe I do want children after all! I'll attracted men with my 15 years, $100,000 a year Human Resources profession!", won't work. Not only is grueling work unpleasant, but I'll never attract a man like that, especially at that age.

Not that child-rearing is the easiest, but that's far more satisfying, to me than attempting to play the man's gender role, of which I'm not designed or inclined to follow.

Progressive/ Feminist families fall apart because a strong, independent wymyn leads her weakling, Atm-machine husband and the rest of the family, only to finally realise that such men aren't attractive, and then divorces because she is tired of being a man and tied-down to a pathetic loser.

Traditional families are strong because they follow the natural order: men lead women, and women support men -- there's nothing wrong with this.

So, excuse me whilst I prepare to be apart of a gorgeous family =)

My wife will be a stay-at-home-mother. I won't marry a woman if she doesn't desire to do that. Luckily, I'm attractive enough to the point where I don't have to settle on the first girl that gives me attention, and I can actually be extremely selective. I don't really care about the qualms others have about this either, as at the end of the day it's my life and my family.

A serious factor in all this will be my income and my ability to provide my family with a comfortable lifestyle without needing a second income. I believe I'll be able to do so with the career I'll be in.

Once our children are at an age where they can generally care for themselves, then I'd have no issue with her doing whatever job or career she wants, but raising the children comes first - no matter what. If the girl I'm with doesn't agree, then I pay the bill for our dinner date, explain why we are incompatible, and move on to the next.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2015 9:35:25 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/22/2015 10:01:06 PM, Zarroette wrote:
As the toxins of Feminism and Progressivism stymie femininity, hordes of college girls are taught that there is shame in housewifery. "You don't want to be chained to a household, do you, Casssandra?" I'm told. "You could be independent and have a interesting career," they continue.

No. I want neither.

What I want is a beautiful family, wherein my husband loves and takes care of me, I love him and support him, and we procreate for lovely children. Sorry, but slaving in an office job for 15 years, only to realise that "Oh! Maybe I do want children after all! I'll attracted men with my 15 years, $100,000 a year Human Resources profession!", won't work. Not only is grueling work unpleasant, but I'll never attract a man like that, especially at that age.

Not that child-rearing is the easiest, but that's far more satisfying, to me than attempting to play the man's gender role, of which I'm not designed or inclined to follow.

Progressive/ Feminist families fall apart because a strong, independent wymyn leads her weakling, Atm-machine husband and the rest of the family, only to finally realise that such men aren't attractive, and then divorces because she is tired of being a man and tied-down to a pathetic loser.

Traditional families are strong because they follow the natural order: men lead women, and women support men -- there's nothing wrong with this.

So, excuse me whilst I prepare to be apart of a gorgeous family =)

If that is your aspiration great, there is no shame in it whatsover. Many people frequently dismiss housewives as unintelligent and lazy which is completely wrong. It is a challenging role that should be considered as a job as looking after children, cooking, cleaning etc is a considerable task that requires daily work. I appreciate my mother staying at home to look after me when I was a child, it definately improves the relationship between a mother and a child when this is the case.

However not all women like the idea of being a stay at home housewife nor are they suited to it. Although personally I would prefer a future wife to take on this role but it is not right to force people to do something they do not want too. It should be up to individual people and their partners to decide. Everybody is different and if we dont want others to force their views down our throats we should not do it to them either.