Sorry, Molly, I misrepresented the point I was trying to make by writing "THE large amount of ..." instead of "A large amount of ..." immediately preceding the passage you quoted. I really should proof- read my posts more carefully. :-(
Of course I don't want to suggest that the choice a couple makes concerning a division of roles (homemaker/breadwinner) necessarily means old-style gender stereotyping and take your point that that there is much more to role-modelling than this basic division of tasks which takes place for all sorts of reasons. Nevertheless, I retain my position that even in western societies (and these are the context in which I was writing) emancipation, although formally/legally substantially achieved, still has a long way to go. Francis On 30 Jun., 16:13, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > "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 > > ... > > Erfahren Sie mehr » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
