"Stay-at-home dilemma"

Cathy Weeks wrote:
wrote:
Cathy Weeks wrote:
wrote:


When are you going to open of your eyes to the problem's
associated
with a Patriarchy, and the role it played in the decay of many
societies?

I'm sorry, what society has diminished because of patriarchy?

Because the patriarchy has been the norm for all of recorded history
(there might be occasional minor exceptions) - ANY fall of that society
must be the fault of the patriarchy. Remember Truman's "The buck stops
here."

The fall of the Roman empire. The fall of the ancient greeks,
Afganistan if you will, Nazi Germany, The confederate states and
slavery, etc. The list goes on.

Hahaha! Great logic!

Why thank, you! I thought it was pretty good. I'm guessing that you
are expressing sarcasm. However if you think it was bad logic, then
you should refute it, rather than making fun of me.

I'm sorry, you are correct.

On a basic scale, the examples listed above didn't diminish because of
patriarchy. There were factors that led to their demise, whether it was
political corruption (such as the Romans) or of the threat that they
had on another nation (such as Nazi Germany, Afganistan, etc.). Hell,
even the North and South were equal in patriarchal beliefs.

Here's an example stolen from a website to further explain that
oppression of women not to be possible:
"Imagine two competing social groups, the Oppressors and the
Equalitarians. Each group consists of 100 people, 50 men and 50 women.

In the Equalitarian group, everyone feels that they are being treated
well and they are happy. In the Oppressor group, the 50 men treat their
50 women in a manner which displeases them.

Surely it is the case that when these groups mingle, fight, or interact
in any way (even if only through the exchange of ideas) the 50 men in
the Oppressor group will be opposed by 150 others!

The odds are therefore continuously very heavily stacked against any
male oppressors of women.

And the only way that the men of any Oppressor group could avoid being
deposed is by isolating their group from any Equalitarian group." EOQ

Now on a deeper scale in regards to your logic, you have to understand
that one thing doesn't necessarily associate with another. Just because
societies have fought in war or cease to exists, doesn't mean that it
was the result of patriarchy. Don't forget, the Balkan wars of 1984 was
under the supervision of a woman.

Hope that helps.

Why support an idealogy in which has such hatred towards men?

It doesn't.

What??? Ever take a "Woman's studies" course in college? By the way,
why aren't there a "Man's studies" course?

Feminism hates men and blames them for "oppression" women feel. We are
wife beaters, rapists, we even make more than you in the job market.
You staying at home and taking care of the house and kids is considered
oppression and frowned upon by feminist.

As I said before, there are a few bad apples in every
bunch. A feminist might espouse hatred toward men, but that doesn't
mean that FEMINISM espouses it.

Feminism was based on the hatred of men. Who was it that just died,
Dorkian? Did you ever read any of her stuff?

And you are, by choice, self-identified as a member of a group that
promotes hatred towards men. You might as well say "Sure I'm a Nazi,
but I don't personally hate Jews."


It's great that you and I think that men and women should have
equal opportunity and responsibility, but you don't see me wearing a
button that says "I love my penis".

I didn't follow what you meant here. Could you rephrase it?

Maybe this will help:
http://www.intellectualconservative....ticle4154.html

I hope you meant to say "And I would do the same for him."

Well, I actually said what I meant. I could also say "I *hope* I would
do the same for him." The truth is that I've never been in that
situation, and who the heck knows how I'd react? Hopefully I'd act
with courage and honor.

Why are you so sure that your husband will defend you, even at the risk
of his own life? And what prevents you from doing the same for him?

Another man, usually your older brother-in-law, would have provided for
you.

No man can guarantee the safety of a woman at all times.

Although a true statement, it was the responsibility of men to do so.
Men were looked down upon and even punished if we failed to do so.

When you
remove the right of a woman to protect herself, her safety is
automatically dropped by 50%. Now, I know that no one is suggesting
that is what we should do. However, if traditionally a patriarchy
suggests that women must be protected, and must rely on men to care for
them, then their safety and future well-being drops to whatever
percentage of the population is made up of "real" men.

It was in great numbers. Sadly, all one has to do is to look around
their local area to see the destruction of what was once, called
patriarchy.

Wake me up when we're equal, until then, I'm going to oppress my poor
wife. Just like her father oppressed her mother, and her grandfather
oppressed her grandmother and so on...

Cathy Weeks

Regards...