Wifely Duties
POSTED BY: piratenews
UPDATED: Saturday, January 9, 2010 04:47
VIEWED: 62964
PAGE 2 of 19
"If a marriage certificate is a license to rape a woman, I firmly stand by my choice to never sign one."
Who said/believes that horseshit?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"If a marriage certificate is a license to rape a woman, I firmly stand by my choice to never sign one."
Who said/believes that horseshit?
I think it's fair to say that most people don't and PN was a bit more obvious than usual in his attempt to stir up entertaining outrage, so most people didn't bite.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Scenario:
Jeff has been out of work due to a lay-off for a while. It isn’t to bad he and his spouse are still able to keep their head above the bill collectors because she puts in a full day at the office. The thing is…… Jeff, in order to mellow his depression takes some of that money and heads down to the local bar to drink his sorrow away with his friends. His buddies do help make him feel better. Jeff heads home feeling better about himself and meets Mary in the kitchen where she’s taking things out of the frig to prepare the nights dinner. The drunken man sashays up to his pretty wife on course for a romantic evening. So, Mary isn’t in the mood. She’s worked all day, is getting dinner ready and now has to deal with a liquored up mate?
“Wifely Duties?” I personally think she has the right to refuse.
Course it works both ways…but if my honey came home all boozed up ready for ….. I think I’d have to give in. But that’s just me 
Z
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Wow this thread is......unbelievable. Good old days huh! 'Leave it to Beaver Land' where everyone was happy?
Give me a frakking break. How big was valium use amongst housewives in the 50's and 60's? Just to get through the day.
Crime was virtually non-existant, the Second Amendment was not infringed, houses cost under 50 grand, cars and gas were likewise cheap....
People believed in things, and MADE their dreams a reality. Folks worked hard and had the things to show for it.
Children grew up with their Moms making them breakfast, lunch AND dinner. Families sat down together to eat.
If a kid got in trouble, he was punished by his parents. You could count on your neightbors.
Sounds like a slice of heaven to me,
Granted, I believe a woman should be allowed to work, if she wants to. NOT because she has to, tho.
Nor do I think there is anything wrong with a woman who is a stay-at-home mom.
Have you ever noticed that those folks/homes with a mother as a housewife, are usually spotless, always have food prepared, and the kids are generally better behaved?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
If a marriage certificate is a license to rape a woman, I firmly stand by my choice to never sign one.
US military Status of Forces Agreement changes law to allow rapists to marry their victims to avoid arrest in Iraq
www.equalityiniraq.com
Many married folks learn the hard way to never sign a marriage contract with the govt, which literally marries them to the govt. If they get divorced, the govt judge will put one of them in jail for civil contempt, to extort all their family's wealth. Better to only get a church wedding, and no civil contract with the govt.
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Wow this thread is......unbelievable. Good old days huh! 'Leave it to Beaver Land' where everyone was happy?
Give me a frakking break. How big was valium use amongst housewives in the 50's and 60's? Just to get through the day.
Some friends of mine lived what I thought was the 1950s lifestyle in the 1970s. Their dad was an engineering director and their mom a housewife. Nice house, private schools, A+ students, sports stars yet geeky kids. One became an airline pilot the other an MD director. Ran into her 20 years later. She said the only way she survived college was by psych therapy. Seems she grew up with a crazy mom. By crazy I mean homicidal schizophrenic psychopath. Every day after school she had to rush home and "HIDE THE GUNS", "to keep her mom from shooting her dad". My theory is she had an adverse reaction to a medication, but failed to sue for malpractice damages. Speed also causes psychosis as a side effect. Beware Dexatrim non-prescription "diet" pills. And they weren't smart enough to buy a $200 gunsafe.
Quote:
Originally posted by zzetta13:
The Scenario:
Jeff has been out of work due to a lay-off for a while. It isn’t to bad he and his spouse are still able to keep their head above the bill collectors because she puts in a full day at the office. The thing is…… Jeff, in order to mellow his depression takes some of that money and heads down to the local bar to drink his sorrow away with his friends. His buddies do help make him feel better. Jeff heads home feeling better about himself and meets Mary in the kitchen where she’s taking things out of the frig to prepare the nights dinner. The drunken man sashays up to his pretty wife on course for a romantic evening. So, Mary isn’t in the mood. She’s worked all day, is getting dinner ready and now has to deal with a liquored up mate?
“Wifely Duties?” I personally think she has the right to refuse.
Course it works both ways…but if my honey came home all boozed up ready for ….. I think I’d have to give in. But that’s just me
Z
Scenario: Husband does not work, for whatever reason. Wife can't take the pressure of being The Man of the house, working in the cutthroat Mans World. Wife becomes an alcoholic pill-popper smoker to "cope", and because she begins to hate all men. Drinking a 6-pack or quart of liquor every day adds 150 pounds of flubber. Pills cause other medical and behavior problems. Celebacy is the safest form of birth contro, and intentional intimacy avoidance perhaps due to suppressed incest memories. Wifely duties no longer required results in more depression by ignoring a human need for human contact. Obeisity also destroys her ability to get promoted or make friends. Self image plummets. The downward spiral accellerates...
And somebody is responsible for brainwashing 100-million parents to murder 50-million of their own children in USA, for "financial reasons". Murder for hire was legalized by Roe v Wade. Jane Roe BTW did get to have her baby, which she loved very much. No nation has ever survived that failed to sustain its population.
Islam does not murder their next generation. Polygamy is a Christian value too, until the homosexual pagan Catholic pope kings genocided Europe to build their tax-exempt Vatican Nation. Mormons have been quite successful with polygamy. The Vatican also runs the illegal alien invasion of USA, and f
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Crime was virtually non-existant, the Second Amendment was not infringed, houses cost under 50 grand, cars and gas were likewise cheap....
People believed in things, and MADE their dreams a reality. Folks worked hard and had the things to show for it.
And all of this because of housewives? Hmm. GOOD, attentive parenting plays a role in creating optimistic, law-abiding citizens, but neither do I think that the 1950's were thecrime-free, happy paradise you make it out to be, nor that women staying at home had ALL that much to do with it.
Try and look at this image you paint from the perspective of a 1950's woman. Even ignoring the blatant inequality before the law, and the blatant sexism in society alive in those days. Stay. At. Home. No job. No independent income. Your children HAVE to be your entire focus. The house HAS to be spotless. Your interaction with other adults is limited and as is your involvement in intellectual pursuits and current affairs. And it's the same thing day after day.
Yes, it has its rewarding aspects, but I think there is a big reason why not all women strive for this and it is just as valid a negative aspect of the 1950's as all those positive aspects you describe and should always be taken into account.
Quote:
Children grew up with their Moms making them breakfast, lunch AND dinner. Families sat down together to eat.
If a kid got in trouble, he was punished by his parents. You could count on your neightbors.
Sounds like a slice of heaven to me,
Yes, sounds like heaven if you're the kid or the husband. Try and view this image as the one making breakfast, lunch and dinner and doing the dishes, cleaning up afterwards, every time, every day. While the others do not. That home-y feeling the husband and children experience is not what a housewife necessarily experiences because she is surrounded by her job 24/7. She doesn't get to leave work and then relax.
Quote:
Granted, I believe a woman should be allowed to work, if she wants to. NOT because she has to, tho.
Nor do I think there is anything wrong with a woman who is a stay-at-home mom.
Neither do I have something against stay-at-home moms. If this is the life they want, more power to them, I'm sure they will have a beautiful family life.
BUT doesn't your argument contain an inherent blame toward working moms (who choose it and are not forced to do it) because their choice not to be at home negates all those positive things you ascribe to the existence of housewives? Or are you willing to cede that there are uniquely positive aspects to working mothers?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Crime was virtually non-existant, the Second Amendment was not infringed, houses cost under 50 grand, cars and gas were likewise cheap....
People believed in things, and MADE their dreams a reality. Folks worked hard and had the things to show for it.
And all of this because of housewives? Hmm. GOOD, attentive parenting plays a role in creating optimistic, law-abiding citizens, but neither do I think that the 1950's were thecrime-free, happy paradise you make it out to be, nor that women staying at home had ALL that much to do with it.
Try and look at this image you paint from the perspective of a 1950's woman. Even ignoring the blatant inequality before the law, and the blatant sexism in society alive in those days. Stay. At. Home. No job. No independent income. Your children HAVE to be your entire focus. The house HAS to be spotless. Your interaction with other adults is limited and as is your involvement in intellectual pursuits and current affairs. And it's the same thing day after day.
Yes, it has its rewarding aspects, but I think there is a big reason why not all women strive for this and it is just as valid a negative aspect of the 1950's as all those positive aspects you describe and should always be taken into account.Quote:
Children grew up with their Moms making them breakfast, lunch AND dinner. Families sat down together to eat.
If a kid got in trouble, he was punished by his parents. You could count on your neightbors.
Sounds like a slice of heaven to me,
Yes, sounds like heaven if you're the kid or the husband. Try and view this image as the one making breakfast, lunch and dinner and doing the dishes, cleaning up afterwards, every time, every day. While the others do not. That home-y feeling the husband and children experience is not what a housewife necessarily experiences because she is surrounded by her job 24/7. She doesn't get to leave work and then relax.Quote:
Granted, I believe a woman should be allowed to work, if she wants to. NOT because she has to, tho.
Nor do I think there is anything wrong with a woman who is a stay-at-home mom.
Neither do I have something against stay-at-home moms. If this is the life they want, more power to them, I'm sure they will have a beautiful family life.
BUT doesn't your argument contain an inherent blame toward working moms (who choose it and are not forced to do it) because their choice not to be at home negates all those positive things you ascribe to the existence of housewives? Or are you willing to cede that there are uniquely positive aspects to working mothers?
Yes, I do blame "working" mothers, ESPECIALLY when they don't have to.
The lack of caring, loving parents, is where a LOT of the problems in our society come from.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
BUT doesn't your argument contain an inherent blame toward working moms (who choose it and are not forced to do it) because their choice not to be at home negates all those positive things you ascribe to the existence of housewives? Or are you willing to cede that there are uniquely positive aspects to working mothers?
Yes, I do blame "working" mothers, ESPECIALLY when they don't have to.
The lack of caring, loving parents, is where a LOT of the problems in our society come from.
Then why not say so upfront? Why the "I think women should be allowed to work if they want to, not if they have to" line?
And why not blame working husbands? They don't have to make a choice between parenthood and self-fullfillment. Or do they? Why aren't you more mad at fathers that work away from home all day and then come home too tired to play with their kids, which is a LOT more common than working mothers doing so.
I find it very telling that the answer to working mothers is to tell them to stop instead of trying to involve men MORE in the act of childrearing.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If you say so.
I do think women should be allowed to work if they want.
Let me clarify. I believe that A parent should be home (to clean and take care of it).
ESPECIALLY if there are children.
It can be either parent. But someone NEEDS to be at home.
Hell, if the guy works at McDonalds, and the woman makes 100k a year, the guy should be at home.
But dont tell me that BOTH parents should work.
Its because there is noone home that kids grow up so fucked up today.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
If you say so.
I do think women should be allowed to work if they want.
Let me clarify. I believe that A parent should be home (to clean and take care of it).
ESPECIALLY if there are children.
I take it you really mean one spouse should be home at all times, especially if there are children?
Quote:
It can be either parent. But someone NEEDS to be at home.
Hell, if the guy works at McDonalds, and the woman makes 100k a year, the guy should be at home.
But dont tell me that BOTH parents should work.
Its because there is noone home that kids grow up so fucked up today.
This I find a more reasonable basis for debate.
(A personal question: Would you be willing to be the stay-at-home parent or house-keeper, incomes being more or less equal? How much do you like your job? What if you really LOVED your job?)
I agree that children should not be left alone unsupervised for long afternoons every day. I do not think that one parent staying home full time is the only solution to this.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME