I really hate that they bring in (mostly) unrelated crap like abortion statistics, but the core of their argument here is correct.

Yes, correct, in my opinion.

I've been thinking about this topic a lot lately, and if you are rejecting what they say about female breadwinners out of hand, you are not thinking deeply on the subject.

Certainly, every woman should have the right to do with her life as she pleases. Whether that is career, family, or some combination of the two. But I think in the coming years there will be more and more people realizing that the average woman can NOT have it all. While there will be a few exceptions, most women will not be good mothers to their children while working 40+ hours per week, and ANYBODY who doesn't give 110% to their career will not reach the highest levels of that career.

Women need to be taught young that they need to make a choice and prioritize. If you look at young girls, you will see them fantasizing from a very young age about being a mother. You will see women of all ages fantasizing about marriage. And you will see feminists telling them that they are wrong for doing that. You will see society pushing and pushing and pushing for women to choose career over family while giving nothing but lip service to the importance of family. And if you look at the statistics, you will see this is beginning to have an effect on society. More women are postponing starting a family, and some are even working through the height of their childbearing years to the point where they can no longer find a suitable mate to have children with at all.

And if they do have children, the women are not at home to raise them. Sure, they are home for the first few months to a year, then they're back to work and the children are being raised by strangers. Mom comes home in the evening and asks how everybody's day was, exactly the way dad does (assuming dad is still in the family core).

This is not a popular sentiment yet, but I believe that gender roles existed for a reason. Just looking at male and female biology, it is plain to see that (in general) men are equipped for the tasks that require strength, and women are equipped to raise children. And for most of recorded history, gender roles followed biology. I believe we are beginning to see a reckoning. It won't happen in every relationship. And of course I think we should be very careful about judging others. I think you should take this information and apply it to your own life. What kind of a family do you want? Do you want to have two working parents and kids in day care, or do you want one parent to stay home? Are you going to feel more satisfied staying home with the kids, or leaving every day to earn a paycheck? These are questions that nobody can answer but you. I think that absent a serious internal drive, women should gravitate to careers that will give the maximum flexibility so that they can spend all the needed time with their children. I think that we should be teaching our children that they can do anything, but there are certain traditional roles that tend to bring people the greatest amount of life satisfaction. And I think we need to keep doing research and watching the statistics to verify or debunk everything I have just said, because I am fully aware that it is mostly speculation and gut instinct on my part.

@rottenseed
I think that's somewhat debatable. Etymology doesn't tell the whole story of the inception of a word or phrase. I at least can find some sources that suggest the opposite is true: http://ebookbrowse.com/caliban-and-the-witch-pdf-d19978416

"Several authors have also uncovered the fact that there was a definite queer element to many of the sects concerned. Almost one thousand years ago, these people were expressing a unity of struggle which survives in broken form even today, no matter how much assimilated queers, career women and left-wing defenders of heterosexuality may insist otherwise."

This author adds the following notation for the source as well: "10 While not a scholarly work, Arthur Evans’ Witchcraft and the Gay Counterculture: A Radical View of Western Civilization and Some of the People It Has Tried to Destroy (Fag Rag Books, 1978) is the earliest sympathetic formulation of this argument that I know of; more recent and more scholarly works include John Boswell’s Christianity, social tolerance, and homosexuality : gay people in Western Europe from the beginning of the Christian era to the fourteenth century (University of Chicago Press, c1980) and Jeffrey Richards’ Sex, dissidence, and damnation : minority groups in the Middle Ages (Routledge 1991)."

----------

Solid evidence? Hardly. But it does seem, based on what I'm seeing in the research, that the connection is at least a possibility.

>> ^peggedbea:
mycroftholmes - i can respect that
pprt - i demand you give examples. and that the examples not be cases of mentally ill women neglecting and endangering their families.
i would never say my role is not different than any mans role. but my role is also different from my friends that are married mothers. or my friends that are married without kids. or my friends that are single and plan to stay that way. we ALL fill different roles. and at different times in our lives.


Sorry, I indeed misspoke. What I meant is that feminism is largely responsible for enabling mothers to neglect their roles.

It's indisputable that there's a sizable portion of the female population that considers their professional career as important as their family. While this statement seems benign and commonplace, I take issue with the comparative.

Even if career women publicly maintain that their family is their priority, the way they spend their time indicates otherwise. I'd sooner respect and admire a woman that says her family is the most important aspect of her life and dedicated herself accordingly.

While it's easy to say that the cost of living has risen that that a single revenue can't adequately provide for a family, it's just an excuse.. a justification.. all but an acknowledgement that women (read mothers) today are all but forced to enter the marketplace and find employ.

Meanwhile, children still in diapers are frequently dumped in the hands of poorly educated, minimum-age earning babysitters. This is a tragic start-of-life event for a child. While Northeners admire the "strong family values" of Hispanics, Asiatics, Dravidians et al., we seem to ignore that those mothers are traditionally totally involved in their children's lives from birth until they leave home. This creates a bond not usually found in European-based societies.

While, as you say, single women without children are certainly free to pursue whatever endeavor (it'd be medieval otherwise). I find sympathy in the concept that when a woman becomes a mother, her role in society changes. Then again, people are entitled to do anything they like with their lives.

I am standing by the observation, however, that feminism has ruptured the core of the traditional family. Not to mention other social turbulence.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'insulting, swearing, income, wage, careerwomen, equal pay commercial' to 'insulting, swearing, income, wage, career women, equal pay, colleague, work, dutch, 00s' - edited by Eklek

Totally agree, KaiEr (re: there being nothing wrong with "stay-at-home moms", same as "career women").

deathcow, your comment about television is bizarre ... most people, I'd wager, know about G.S. from books, actually. you don't *have* to know about her, but you shouldn't belittle her when you clearly don't know what the ---- you're talking about.