"women who chose to remain at home and be full-time Mommies are responsible for the perseverance of chauvenistic gender models among many young people, particularly young men."
aren't you assuming alot about the environment that may or may not be true and would have to go along with a mother staying at home to care for the children instead of shipping them off to day care? Could a mother be a homemaker while the husband and wife share responsibilities and participate equally in the messages communicated to their children about life and living? Are there other ways to show children that women are creative, strong contributors to the community that don't include a profession outside the home? Can a father encourage the empowerment and independence of all family members and still be the breadwinner? Can he be loving and nurturing and be the breadwinner? Enquiring minds want to know. It takes a Chauvinist to model chauvinism to young men. This involves an attitude that women are inferior. This is not, as you imply, present in every household where the mother is a homemaker, choosing to be the primary caregiver for her children. On Jun 30, 3:02 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > I echo Slip on this one, rigsy. > > As someone who grew up in the sixties and seventies, I am frequently > amazed at the extent to which old role models, which many of us 30 > years ago assumed were on the way out, have persevered. > > Personally, I suspect that the large amount of women who chose to > remain at home and be full-time Mommies are responsible for the > perseverance of chauvenistic gender models among many young people, > particularly young men. These are the role models, the hands rocking > the cradle, who have taught their children that men are incapable of > cooking, cleaning and nurturing and that women must be dependent on > men for their material security. > > Even growing up in conservative Catholic Ireland, my experience and > rearing was different. My mother always worked (she was a music > teacher) and there were no distinctions made between boys and girls > when it came to household chores in our family. My father retired > seven years before my mother and took over the household completely > during this period. Today, at 75, my mother is the one who is in > contact with the world via internet, with an an active Facebook > presence, uploading photos from her mobile phone and sending them to > her grandchidren, enthusing about the updates in the composition > software which allows her to produce printed sheet music for the 4- > part chorales with orchestration, which she composes on the electric > piano patched into her PC. My father won't touch the thing! > > We all have our own stories, mostly resulting from the choices we made > - even if the consequences of those choices weren't always clear to us > at the time. We should be careful about generalising from our > particular personal experiences. > > Francis > > On 30 Jun., 05:16, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I personally don't see it as an unfortunate role. I see that some > > women see it as an unfortunate role. > > > I've always had the feeling that you, rigsy, were never all that > > thrilled with the marital/motherhood roles. Comments you have made in > > the past like........... > > > "The world belongs to men. Children are sandbags to a woman's dream." > > > It is your statement that labels it the unfortunate role. I would > > say it is an unfortunate role for those who are unhappy with it. The > > sandbags as you call them got in the way of your dreams. > > > You also stated; > > "I don't think men and women are equal. Men can move along. Women must > > be the good mother and nurture their children. Provide an example- > > blah-blah blah. It's > > biology or the lessons from lions. " > > > This again does not sound like you are overly joyed with it. I just > > get the impression that you are somewhat disgruntled with the whole > > picture and my post is a reflection of that. > > > I should revise my post as to indicate it's specific nature and not a > > gender generalization. > > My apology smology! > > > On Jun 29, 9:39 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Also religious channels. What noose? Some women do not get, want, > > > accept alimony and child support. Yes- we do have choices sometimes as > > > simple as saying "no" othertimes accepting the consequences of saying > > > "yes". And some beautiful women do not choose to use that beauty as a > > > weapon or allurement- like a marketing tool. It is no small > > > accomplishment to raise children to maturity and healthy adjustment as > > > their caretaker- if that's what you see as motherhood- it's about 24 > > > years per child by the time they can really fly on their own. I > > > enjoyed my motherhood years. Why do you see it as an "unfortunate > > > role"? > > > > On Jun 29, 3:29 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > No dear woman, women use their sexuality because women are sexual > > > > creatures capable of alluring the most formidable opponent. When > > > > women realize the power of their sexuality they are not nearly women > > > > but yet girls. It is a women's unfortunate role that leads to > > > > entrapment within a circle of the offspring caretaker, and you are > > > > right, we men can just move on, like lions we are free, like bears we > > > > give the seed that gives the birth with which you are eternally > > > > connected to. Don't blame us for our lot in life for we, no more than > > > > you, have choice. It is only through legal political channels that you > > > > have put a noose on our necks. When you submit you should be well > > > > informed of the ramifications and in that sense it takes one. > > > > > On Jun 29, 2:30 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I have been in those situations, as well, which are sincere friendly > > > > > gestures but I have also seen the corrupted routine both in business > > > > > and social relations which are basically a form of control. Women use > > > > > their sexuality because the culture has fostered its rewards. It takes > > > > > two. > > > > > > On Jun 29, 4:50 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > When I moved into my community the welcoming committee came by to > > > > > > drop > > > > > > off a basket full of gifts as a way of saying hello. We took the > > > > > > gifts and had a great time without feeling any need for > > > > > > reciprocation. I had a neighbor give me two tickets to the symphony > > > > > > because he and his wife could not go on that date, they were great > > > > > > seats. He never came by to ask any favors and a year later they > > > > > > moved > > > > > > away. I give away gifts all the time and think that giving begins a > > > > > > cycle of giving. Those that receive learn that giving can be as > > > > > > rewarding as receiving. I can see that in the business world buying > > > > > > lavish gifts for the management might be construed as a request for > > > > > > special treatment and I have seen some fine women climb the > > > > > > corporate > > > > > > ladder via their sexual prowess, if that can be considered a gift. > > > > > > > On Jun 29, 1:08 am, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I wonder why may I accept a ' gift ' from someone who I do not > > > > > > > even > > > > > > > know, to whom I myself have never offered one ( gift ) or ( left > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > myself ) would never desire to ! > > > > > > > > " Integrity does not have to be lost upon the receipt of a gift." > > > > > > > > Read the first para. Why else would one accept a gift ? Unless it > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > token, read ' costing next to nothing,' say, flowers. > > > > > > > > On Jun 29, 9:21 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Gifts are good, I like gifts, what's wrong with gifts? > > > > > > > > Integrity does > > > > > > > > not have to be lost upon the receipt of a gift. A gift should > > > > > > > > not be > > > > > > > > preconceived as a bribe. The corrupted have made it so because > > > > > > > > they > > > > > > > > took gifts in exchange for favor but this does not set a > > > > > > > > standard. We > > > > > > > > continually diminish our quality of life on the basis of those > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > are unethical, why let them ruin it for the rest of us? Give and > > > > > > > > Receive without strings! > > > > > > > > > On Jun 28, 10:56 pm, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > accepting business gifts should be > > > > > > > > > > > totally unacceptable behavior, both by the giver and the > > > > > > > > > > receiver. -iam > > > > > > > > > > I agree only in the public sector. I work for the State so > > > > > > > > > pretty > > > > > > > > > much the same thing applies to me. While people still accept > > > > > > > > > tickets > > > > > > > > > to sporting events and lunches and cases of booze on the > > > > > > > > > holidays and > > > > > > > > > complimentary fishing/hunting trips; it really is graft and > > > > > > > > > shouldn't > > > > > > > > > be done. However, in the private sector this is often how > > > > > > > > > things are > > > > > > > > > done. It's how the service provider buys access. Tax money > > > > > > > > > isn't > > > > > > > > > used to pay for the services so I don't have a problem with > > > > > > > > > it. If > > > > > > > > > large corporations didn't use this technique to gain access > > > > > > > > > to foreign > > > > > > > > > potential customers we would never get their business. > > > > > > > > > > I commend your wife on her integrity. It's a rare trait. > > > > > > > > > > dj > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 8:00 AM, iam > > > > > > > > > deheretic<[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Chomsky has my vote along with slipsky of course. > > > > > > > > > > > Well the Palestinian people elected one party and the US > > > > > > > > > > and Israel would > > > > > > > > > > only support the losers. Radical changes are going to need > > > > > > > > > > to be made,, but > > > > > > > > > > There is the lingering doubt that the will is there. I am > > > > > > > > > > hoping for health > > > > > > > > > > care, but as long as the politicians are exempt from the > > > > > > > > > > bribery laws it > > > > > > > > > > will never happen. > > > > > > > > > > > I am looking at the difference in countries. My wife is the > > > > > > > > > > officer in > > > > > > > > > > charge of quality control for the fire department.. and she > > > > > > > > > > was offered > > > > > > > > > > tickets for her and me to a polo match free. Well we had to > > > > > > > > > > turn them down > > > > > > > > > > and make a report of it. It has to do with honesty in > > > > > > > > > > government. > > > > > > > > > > > The truth is I am glad to see that there are people > > > > > > > > > > watching and much more > > > > > > > > > > of it needs to occur, every where ,, accepting business > > > > > > > > > > gifts should be > > > > > > > > > > totally unacceptable behavior, both by the giver and the > > > > > > > > > > receiver. > > > > > > > > > > Allan > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 10:57 PM, Molly Brogan > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> Here is Noam Chomsky's take on it: > > > > > > > > > > >>http://books.google.com/books?id=yDhGoR6yU8AC&dq=Noam+Chomsky+anarchy... > > > > > > > > > > >> On Jun 27, 4:27 pm, iam deheretic <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> > Collective anger is interesting . It leaves me wondering > > > > > > > > > >> > who is > > > > > > > > > >> > controlling > > > > > > > > > >> > it. In Red Handed discussion there is tremendous > > > > > > > > > >> > violence demonstrated > > > > > > > > > >> > and > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
