Gene Simmons says moos can't have it both ways
Posted by cfdavep
|
Re: Gene Simmons says moos can't have it both ways November 13, 2017 |
Once again, a man says children are a woman's obligation. Why doesn't he argue for men to stay at home, or take on a greater share of childcare?
Just sexist drivel from a duh of two.
He then goes on to suggest women should use sex appeal to get ahead in work.
Instead of developing skills and expecting companies to use non-discriminatory hiring practices, we should all just sleep our way as high as we can, until we're too old to be considered beautiful, in which case we may as well just die in a fire, ammirit? Because that's the way for women to challenge sexism: by completely validating it.
Just sexist drivel from a duh of two.
He then goes on to suggest women should use sex appeal to get ahead in work.
Instead of developing skills and expecting companies to use non-discriminatory hiring practices, we should all just sleep our way as high as we can, until we're too old to be considered beautiful, in which case we may as well just die in a fire, ammirit? Because that's the way for women to challenge sexism: by completely validating it.|
Re: Gene Simmons says moos can't have it both ways November 29, 2017 |
Quote
freya
I only know a handful of stay at home dads. Their wives earn lots of money and do almost all of the child-rearing and housework. The men are the types who hang out in the garage with their friends and drink beer. No Mr. Mom in these cases. I'd guess there are single dads who have no choice being the primary caregiver but the odds of a man voluntarily staying home while his wife works and being Mr. Mom seem to be very low in reality.
I had a relative who was this way, spent his time hunting and fishing and living on his wife's paycheck. His wife's terminal cancer didn't put a dent in his "lifestyle" either. He had retired from the work force prematurely with some excuse once their house was paid off.
Speaking generally and broadly, women do not find men who cannot or do not earn a salary at least comparable to theirs, to be attractive.
Ladies, I'll let you be the judge... think about your ideal man. Think about his ideal physique, build, personality, etc. If he wrote this, what would your impression of him be?
Before I get flamed, understand that I have no skin in this game. People should date whomever they want, and for whatever reasons they want. This is in no way an indictment of SAHDs. If someone wants to voluntarily work their ass off and pay their rent, so be it.
Oh... and one more thing... I don't need to hear the story of your beer-swigging, couch-surfing husband whom you work your ass off for 50 hours per week to provide for. I am writing in the vein of what most people desire... think broad generalities here.
|
Re: Gene Simmons says moos can't have it both ways December 07, 2017 |
Quote
StudioFiftyFour
His point, however, is not entirely invalid. People have choices in life. Women have choices. If you want to make serious advances in the corporate world, you're going to have to work many hours, and time is finite. It may not be possible to be the greatest parent and a serious corporate executive. There are only 24 hours in a day. If you want the gigantic salary and a high-powered job, kids will likely be an impediment to that.
The problem is that basically everyone in the corporate world assumes that a woman will have kids sooner or later, and she is going to be the primary caregiver. It affects our career opportunities, our chances to advance, our salaries. Since it's illegal to ask during a job interview, employers are just going to assume we all want kids. Every time a woman chooses to have a kid and be a lazy ass worker, she's not only choosing a life for herself, she's also choosing a life for me, since her choices confirm that women are unreliable workers. It's easy for you to say "women have choices", but many women don't have the choice to explain they're childfree (the employer would most probably think she's lying to get the job).
Quote
StudioFiftyFour
As far as men taking charge of more duties related to the home and child rearing.... bwahahahaha! That's not going to happen! You know it, I know it, everybody knows it.
Well apparently my boyfriend doesn't know, since we share housework (no kids, obviously)
|
Re: Gene Simmons says moos can't have it both ways December 07, 2017 |
Quote
tea princess
.Quote
StudioFiftyFour
As far as men taking charge of more duties related to the home and child rearing.... bwahahahaha! That's not going to happen! You know it, I know it, everybody knows it.
Well apparently my boyfriend doesn't know, since we share housework (no kids, obviously)
To be fair, I see this younger generation of men being WAY WAY WAY more involved in child-rearing....and actually looking more comfortable in it that the decades before where men were "trying" (forced) to be more involved and fair to the females in the relationship. I actually see more men pushing strollers around my 'hood (and it isn't a hipster trendy 'hood either) than I see women. I see more men taking toddlers shopping and running errands than ever before, and they seem to be cool w/ it, not put upon like the old days.
Drawback....I notice these dads now talk about breeding just as much as women. Therefore, going to lunches and parties, there's no where to hide from the baby talk that ensues in the women's group. Many CFs on this board and others said they used to go in the room w/ the men at parties to escape the breeder talk. Now there is no refuge.
|
Re: Gene Simmons says moos can't have it both ways December 07, 2017 |
Quote
tea princess
Quote
StudioFiftyFour
His point, however, is not entirely invalid. People have choices in life. Women have choices. If you want to make serious advances in the corporate world, you're going to have to work many hours, and time is finite. It may not be possible to be the greatest parent and a serious corporate executive. There are only 24 hours in a day. If you want the gigantic salary and a high-powered job, kids will likely be an impediment to that.
The problem is that basically everyone in the corporate world assumes that a woman will have kids sooner or later, and she is going to be the primary caregiver. It affects our career opportunities, our chances to advance, our salaries. Since it's illegal to ask during a job interview, employers are just going to assume we all want kids. Every time a woman chooses to have a kid and be a lazy ass worker, she's not only choosing a life for herself, she's also choosing a life for me, since her choices confirm that women are unreliable workers. It's easy for you to say "women have choices", but many women don't have the choice to explain they're childfree (the employer would most probably think she's lying to get the job).Quote
StudioFiftyFour
As far as men taking charge of more duties related to the home and child rearing.... bwahahahaha! That's not going to happen! You know it, I know it, everybody knows it.
Well apparently my boyfriend doesn't know, since we share housework (no kids, obviously)
The question can't be asked, but a childfree answer can be revealed voluntarily by the person being interviewed. You're assuming that an employer would think that a person being interviewed would lie about such a fact. I'm not sure that is true.
As far as the housework goes... that's fine. I'm okay with any couple doing whatever they want as far as housework goes. It can be split 50/50, 60/40, 75/25, 100/0... anything! It makes no difference to me.
What I find annoying is when people complain about their significant other's lack of contribution to the house work, to the finances, to the child-rearing, whatever.
My question to them is pretty consistent across the board and goes something along the lines of "Wow, he sure does sound lazy. Who picked that man?!?"
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.