do you think the way of the world is all Wrong

[lost rolex]

do you think men and women have a place on earth, our roles are all wrong,

My wife says she is strong, i say i am strong, but we never use the word content, i had a traditional household i worked my wife stayed at home, we were content, it was mutual, but today with DINKY family's it looks that 5% of the women population in power during the 70's 80's buggered it up for 95% of the women who were content.


With all the added pressure of performing for the daily grind no wounder men are going under and women as well. it's generally not in our male makeup to be touchy feely  dealing with our feelings go out hunt gather and bring it home, equates to go to work earn a crust bring it home...or get called up and go to war, bascally men are more prone to depression when they are touchy feely,  

but when it's like role defined that is a simple arrangement that stood the test of time. choice has become a necessity.


i agree with everything the law says about right's for women and i agree they were on the receiving end of some rough justice and i agree with the way the world has moved forward.

but i think back to basics means just that, not 10 steps backwards into a sexist world,  back to basics are


men work, women are home makers,

think about it men and women still want a family but, keeping two jobs, kids running around dropping them hear there, some before 6.30am in a strange nursery, nobody likes it, blokes shopping not having a clue, dusting cleaning.


at school there has been a boom in baby's and all the mums are on maternity leave and they don't want to go back any of them, that answers something.

maybe all this depression and stress and panic would curtail if we had it like our grandparents,

i know there exceptions to the rule and a lot went on that was bad, but generally men don't want to fanny about with kids and washing machines the same women don't want to put bulbs in cars, and check Tyre pressures.

sorry if i have offended anyone, but basics sound so right. it was for us.

LR  

 

[Zaf]

No I'm not offended and I hope you're not offended when I say you are totally and utterly wrong!

[Got]

Modern society puts pressure on women to have careers. Some women are naturally career minded and want to succeed. They should be allowed to do so, and if they arn't able to, then they are oppressed. If women want to stay at home and be house wives, then they should be allowed to also.

Society was not forged by men or women, it was forged by human beings adapting to their environment, this evolution was not dominated by men, as some feminists claim. That is an absured suggestion with no scientific basis at all, and is offensive to women.

There are societies in which men go to work and women stay at home, and they are stable. The women don't feel oppressed and would not adopt the western style even if it was on offer, although a percentage of those women would change things and are possible opressed. The idea that all these women 'must be oppressed and need liberating' is born out of the thinking of westerners who try to imagine themselves in that position...and so it is idealogical imperialism....those country sould be left alone and in time the country will change one way or another.

Culture is culture, people are people, men and women alike we share a dymanic world and we all try to adapt in our own way. Say no to sexism and no to radical feminism...and yes to an equal world free from oppression. That includes allowing women to stay at home and be house wifes if they desire, and allowing islamic women to live stay at home lives because this is their cultural heritage. It will change naturally if it needs to, via the exhchange of ideas, and I think it will.

Simple. No complicated philosphy needed.

[Zaf]

100% spot on Steve

How are you?

[Got]

Yesterday I was a bit messy, ended up quite depressed....but I seem on the ball today.

Yesterday I didn't let it get to me, I did get down but I was able to confront the negativity, I used my Buddihst thought to fight.

[Zaf]

That sounds pretty positive Steve :)

[Ezel]

This is a good thread and certainly nothing offensive about it.

My sister didn't work for a few years because my brother in law wanted her to be with the children.  My sister wanted to work - not because of necessity - so they compromised.  When my youngest niece started nursery school my sister worked part time for several years then went to full time when the youngest was about 12.

However I do believe times are harder for families financially so there is a need for the wife to work.  I'm not saying it's right or wrong just the way life is today.

[Got]

'Margret Thatcher?! How can a bloody woman run the country?!'

My Grandads words, not mine.

[lost rolex]

Thanks Stevie  i think you summed up what my mind was trying to say, i try to edge boundary's and not fence sit on the boundary as i love to learn, so in amounts unknown we have family's who have to have a double income both want need to work, and family's which can allow one person to stay at home, but i still think a simple back to basics is required and this is how it will happen through financial evolution 

1, Money is tight(no jobs) young people can not move out as housing/renting is not available,
2, young people will still want to move on socially, forge a relationship/produce children.
3 nowhere for the new family to go.
4 new young family live with their parents (parents extend if possible)
5 grandparent looks after baby
6 all the family live's together
7 this is how it used to be.


dad mum kids,grandparents all living together.


LR



so lets put the Men Women aside, and look at the children what would they want, my guess is the majority would want Mum, now i know it's not for everyone but this must affect the children, our new population

[Got]

I dont really know.

We need food, clean water, health care and somewhere to live. These are basics which as a society we need to provide.

Ipods etc drive the current economy to an extent, but may be absent in the future. The apple dream will die the same way its leader did, by attemting to acheive the impossible (thought he could beat cancer using a special diet and refusing treatment), rather than dealing with liklyhoods. This analogy is important.

We are running out of oil, so our economy is going to shrink. Perhaps we can produce a percentage of our fuel using so called green energy, but it will not be the amount of energy that we currently consume. So our added extra luxuries will decrease.

The future is going to be a period of adusting to a lower fuel economy...and that is going to be tough. There will likely be greater disparity among haves and have nots, I doubt that there will be a fair sharing of the burden.

We may see an increase in more local production of commodities, with consumption of those commodities locally, rather than shipping luxuries around the world. There may well be more local production and consumption of fuel, such as biofuel from biomass, and also local production and consumption of food. There may still be global transport based goods, politics permitting.

An excellent case study would be Cuba.

We need to concentrate our efforts on food and fuel production, and how to do this as cheaply and efficiently as possible.

Perpetual growth has no known mathamatical existence. We are at the top of the population growth curve, we cant extend it futher.

[winter]

I think as a nation we have become greedy because we have it ok. and because of that the manners of society have gone a little off. But thats just what i think.
In this country there shouldnt be any confusion about certain things. 20 years ago even talking about being depressed would get you a shift march to the nearest mental home. But now there is that information 24/7 and there shouldnt be any sort of stigmata.

[lost rolex]

I dont really know.

We need food, clean water, health care and somewhere to live. These are basics which as a society we need to provide.

Ipods etc drive the current economy to an extent, but may be absent in the future. The apple dream will die the same way its leader did, by attemting to acheive the impossible (thought he could beat cancer using a special diet and refusing treatment), rather than dealing with liklyhoods. This analogy is important.

We are running out of oil, so our economy is going to shrink. Perhaps we can produce a percentage of our fuel using so called green energy, but it will not be the amount of energy that we currently consume. So our added extra luxuries will decrease.

The future is going to be a period of adusting to a lower fuel economy...and that is going to be tough. There will likely be greater disparity among haves and have nots, I doubt that there will be a fair sharing of the burden.

We may see an increase in more local production of commodities, with consumption of those commodities locally, rather than shipping luxuries around the world. There may well be more local production and consumption of fuel, such as biofuel from biomass, and also local production and consumption of food. There may still be global transport based goods, politics permitting.

An excellent case study would be Cuba.

We need to concentrate our efforts on food and fuel production, and how to do this as cheaply and efficiently as possible.

Perpetual growth has no known mathamatical existence. We are at the top of the population growth curve, we cant extend it futher.

So true and nothing could have proved that more than the Iraq War, Fuel to move the American war machine all the way round the globe to bring the Food home.


LR

[Got]

and there shouldnt be any sort of stigmata.

Ha ha.

Sorry to laugh, I am not being rude..but if you know what stigmata is, then you will understand. :)

[lost rolex]

That's fine Stevie, me as a christian  i find it very refreshing


LR

[Got]

You beleive stigmata is real...i.e.....not psychological?