PDA

View Full Version : What Do Women Really Want?



friedrich braun
Monday, December 20th, 2004, 04:31 PM
Winter 2005

What Do Women Really Want?
By Neil Gilbert


With journalists as well as social scientists continually on the lookout for new trends, the public is regularly treated to the discovery of social "revolutions." One of the latest concerns women and work. In October 2003, Lisa Belkin detected an "opt-out revolution" in her New York Times Magazine article about accomplished women leaving high-powered jobs to stay home with their kids. Six months later, reports on the revolution were still going strong. For example, the March 22, 2004 cover of Time showed a young child clinging to his mother's leg alongside the headline, "The Case for Staying Home: Why More Young Moms Are Opting Out of the Rat Race." But the evidence on this score is thin. Both the New York Times and Time stories are based mainly on evocative anecdotes. Princeton college graduates with law degrees from Harvard staying home to change diapers may be absorbing as a human-interest story. But as the saying goes, the plural of anecdote is not data.

The limited empirical evidence offered in support of the opt-out revolution draws upon facts such as these: 22 percent of mothers with graduate degrees are at home with their children, one in three women with an MBA does not work full time, and 26 percent of women approaching the most senior levels of management do not want to be promoted. However, with information of this sort one needs a ouija board to detect a social trend, let alone a revolution. The fact that 57 percent of mothers from the Stanford University class of 1981 stayed home with their young children for at least a year gives no indication of whether the percentage of Stanford graduates remaining at home with their children has increased, decreased, or remained the same over time.

But we know that some things have changed over time. The main difference between women in the 1970s and today is that a substantially higher percentage are currently receiving degrees in law or medicine, or obtaining graduate education in general. Between 1970 and 1997 the proportion of degrees awarded to women soared by almost 500 percent in medicine, 800 percent in law, and 1000 percent in business. Even if one-third of all the women currently receiving these degrees opt out of professional life, the remaining two-thirds amount to a significant increase in women's employment in these areas over the last three decades.

At the moment, women opting out of high-powered careers to stay home with their children are a minor element in a profound life-style trend that has extended over the last several decades—a development deftly portrayed, some might say celebrated, in the media. After a six-year run, the popular HBO series "Sex and the City" ended in 2004 with what was widely reported as a happy ending. Each of the four heroines, in their late thirties and early forties, found partners and commitment, while also pursuing gratifying careers. The series finale was a paean to love and individual fulfillment. But as for family life, these four vibrant, successful women approaching the terminus of their childbearing years ended up with only two marriages and one child between them. As a mirror of society, the media shift from kids bouncing off the walls in the "Brady Bunch" to the .25 fertility rate in "Sex and the City" several decades later clearly reflects the cultural and demographic trends over this period.

Today, a little over one in five women in their early forties are childless. That is close to double the proportion of childless women in 1976. Compared to a relatively few Ivy-League law graduates who have traded the bar for rocking the cradle, the abdication of motherhood poses an alternative and somewhat more compelling answer to the question: Who is opting out of what? Women are increasingly having fewer children and a growing proportion are choosing not to have any children at all. And those who have children are delegating their care to others. If there has been an "opt-out revolution," the dramatic increase in childlessness—from one in ten to almost one in five women—and the rise in out-of-home care for young kids would probably qualify more than the shift of a relatively small group of professional-class women from high-powered careers to childrearing activities. <


The choices women make
Talk of social revolutions conveys a sense of fundamental change in people's values—a new awakening that is compelling women to substitute one type of life for another. The "opt-out revolution" implies that whatever it is women really want, they all pretty much want the same thing when it comes to career and family. It may have looked that way in earlier times. Although the question of what women want has plagued men for ages, it became a serious issue for women only in modern times in the advanced industrialized countries. Before the contraceptive revolution of the mid 1960s, biology may not have been destiny, but it certainly contributed to the childbearing fate of women who engaged in sexual activity. Most women needed men for their economic survival before the equal-opportunity movement in the 1960s, which opened access to most all careers. Moreover, the expansion of white-collar jobs and jobs for secondary earners since the 1960s has presented women with a viable range of employment alternatives to traditional domestic life. Taken together, these advances in contraceptive technology and civil rights along with labor market changes have transformed women's opportunities to control and shape their personal lives. As Catherine Hakim, a senior research fellow at the London School of Economics, has pointed out, this historic shift allows modern women to exercise work and family choices that were heretofore unknown to all but a privileged few.

And what are these preferences? Taking family size as a powerful indicator of life-style choice, we can distinguish at least four general categories that form a continuum of work-family preferences among women in the United States. At one end of the continuum are women with three or more children. Most of these women derive most of their sense of personal identity and achievement from the traditional childrearing responsibilities and from practicing the domestic arts. While all mothers tend to love their children, these women also enjoy being around kids on a daily basis. In 1976, about 59 percent of women over 40 years of age had three or more children. But as women gained control over procreation and employment opportunities opened, fewer of them took this traditional route. Today, only 29 percent of the women over 40 years of age have three or more children.

At the other end of the continuum are women who are childless—often by choice. Here personal success tends to be measured by achievements in business, political, intellectual, and artistic life rather than in the traditional realms of motherhood and childrearing. This is a highly individualistic, work-centered group engaged in what might be called the "postmodern" life style. As already noted, since 1976 the proportion of childless women over the age of 40 has almost doubled, representing 18 percent of all the women in that age cohort today.

In the middle of the life-style continuum, about 52 percent of women currently over 40 have either one or two children. These women are interested in paid work, but not so vigorously committed to a career that they would forego motherhood. Although a bare majority, this group is often seen as representative of all women—and of the women "who want it all." In balancing the demands of employment and family, women with one child normally tip the scales in favor of their careers, while the group with two children leans more toward domestic life. Thus the women clustered around the center of the continuum can be divided into two basic categories—"neo-traditional" and "modern"—that vary in degrees from the traditional and the postmodern life styles.

The neo-traditional group contains families with two children whose working mothers are physically and emotionally invested more in their home life than their jobs, which are often part-time. Since 1976 the proportion of women over age 40 with two children has increased by 75 percent and currently amounts to about 35 percent of the women in that cohort. The modern family usually involves a working mother with one child; these women are more career-oriented and devote greater time and energy to their paid employment than neo-traditional women. The proportion of women over 40 with one child has climbed by almost 90 percent since 1976, and currently amounts to 17 percent of the women in that cohort.

As general types, the traditional, neo-traditional, modern, and postmodern categories help draw attention to both the diversity of work and family choices and to how the size of these groups has shifted over the last three decades. Needless to say, in each group there are women who do not fit the ideal-type—childless women who do not work and women employed full-time with three or more children at home. Also, there are women in each group who would have preferred to have more or fewer children than they ended up with. And certainly some women who would prefer not to work and to have additional children are compelled out of economic necessity to participate in the labor force and have fewer children. However, for most people in the advanced industrial countries what is often considered economic "necessity" amounts to a preferred level of material comfort—home ownership, automobiles, vacations, cell phones, DVDs, and the like. The trade-off between higher levels of material consumption and a more traditional domestic life is largely a matter of individual choice. Health has also not played much of a role in these changing family patterns. There is no strong indication that the physical status of the U.S. population has deteriorated over the last three decades in any way that would systematically account for the increasing proportion of women with only one or two children.

Many feminists like to portray women as a monolithic group whose shared interests are dominated by the common struggle to surmount biological determinism, patriarchal socialization, financial dependence on men, and workplace discrimination. And they would like public policies to reflect this supposed reality. However, in the course of exercising preferences about how to balance the demands of work and family, the heterogeneity of women's choices has become increasingly evident. This substantial variance has great importance for social policy. For it compels us to ask which groups of women—traditional, neo-traditional, modern, and postmodern—are really best served by today's so-called family-friendly policies.


Family policy in the United States
The conventional package of "family-friendly" public policies involves benefits designed to reduce the tensions between work and family life, such as parental leave, family services, and day care. For the most part these policies address the needs of women in the neo-traditional and modern categories—those trying to balance work and family obligations. The costs of publicly subsidized day care are born by all taxpayers, but the programs offer no benefits to childless women who prefer the postmodern life style and are of little use to traditional stay-at-home mothers. Indeed, with few exceptions, childless women in full-time careers and those who remain at home to care for children are not the subjects of family-related policy deliberations.

Among the advanced industrial democracies the United States is considered a laggard in dispensing parental leave, day care, and other public subsidies to reduce the friction between raising a family and holding a job. The right to take 12 weeks of job-protected family leave was initiated in 1993. But the scope of coverage is limited to companies with 50 employees or more—and the leave is unpaid. Needless to say, unpaid leave is not a serious option for many low-income families. However, low-income families have benefited from the considerable rise in public spending for child care during the 1990s. Testifying before Congress in 2002, American Enterprise Institute scholar Douglas Besharov estimated that between 1994 and 1999 federal and state expenditures on child care programs climbed by almost 60 percent, from $8.9 billion to $14.1 billion, most of which served low-income families. About $2 billion of additional support was delivered to mainly middle- and upper-income families through the child-care tax credit. Although $16 billion in publicly subsidized care is no trivial sum, it amounts to less than $900 for each child under five years of age.

The United States has moved slowly toward expanding conventional family-friendly arrangements in part because of ideological ambivalence in this area. Public sympathy for welfare programs that pay unmarried women to stay home and care for their children evaporated as the labor- force participation of married women with children younger than six years of age multiplied threefold, from under 20 percent in 1960 to over 60 percent in 2000. The increased public spending on day care is largely related to making it possible for welfare mothers to enter the labor force. Conservatives have long argued for strengthening work requirements in welfare programs. At the same time, many conservatives also support the idea of "putting less emphasis on policies that free up parents to be better workers, and more emphasis on policies that free up workers to be better parents"—a view expressed in the Report to the Nation from the Commission on Children at Risk. Liberals have traditionally resisted demands that welfare recipients should work for their benefits. But this position softens when feminists on the Left push for universal day care and other policies that encourage all mothers to enter the paid workplace.

...

http://www.thepublicinterest.com/current/article2.html

Northern Paladin
Tuesday, December 21st, 2004, 08:50 PM
It was better for White society. When women knew their place and stayed home with the kids.

Blood_Axis
Tuesday, December 21st, 2004, 09:12 PM
It was better for White society. When women knew their place and stayed home with the kids.I agree!

The healthiest family is the one where the father provides and the mother takes care of the children and housekeeps. This recipy has never failed in the past.

Nowadays women have become neurotic, trying to compete with men, which is impossible (a man will always be prefered for a man's job:icon_razz ).
Women do not belong in the work industry, the workplace competition is too harsh for them and the "independence" scenario usually backfires of them, since they wake up one day to find themselves alone, after their "career" has absorbed all of their youth and energy.

I see this scenario everyday in my workplace, women in their 30s and 40s desparately seeking for men after realizing that "their clock is ticking".
Of course, nobody wants them by that time.

Feminism is probably on top of the list of the reasons as to why white children birth rates are declining faster and faster :mad:

Gentlemen, get your ladies to realize that we need to be having more mommies and less business women!! ;)

Carrigan
Sunday, December 26th, 2004, 04:00 PM
The healthiest family is the one where the father provides and the mother takes care of the children and housekeeps. This recipy has never failed in the past.
:rofl: Do not attempt to idealize this far-from-ideal scenario.


Nowadays women have become neurotic, trying to compete with men, which is impossible (a man will always be prefered for a man's job:icon_razz ).
Define 'a man's job'. As a female, my interests lie within traditionally 'male' fields and I am more capable of doing many 'male jobs' than most men -- similarly, I am quite incompetent at 'female jobs' (childcare, et al.) as I have not a nurturing bone in my body. It would be quite a loss for society if I and other 'masculine' women were coerced into doing 'female' jobs -- in the same vein, it would be a loss to discourage men who prefer occupations not conventionally associated with their gender. As the Reverend Mother on The Sound of Music said, "we must live the lives we are born to live" -- and, for myself and many others, this does not entail forcing ourselves to do things we are not inclined to do simply because it is what people of our gender 'should' do.


Women do not belong in the work industry, the workplace competition is too harsh for them . . .
So all women are cooperative (rather than competitive) 'gentle souls' who need close, personal relationships in order to be happy? Sounds like a 'feminist' to me.

The claims of some 'feminists' who believe slight differences in personality to be 'sociopathic':
http://www.backlash.com/content/disab/2004/bronvanderwal042904.html


. . .and the "independence" scenario usually backfires of them, since they wake up one day to find themselves alone, after their "career" has absorbed all of their youth and energy.
Plenty of men do this as well. Does this mean that no men should work, either?


Of course, nobody wants them by that time.
That isn't their problem [hint, hint].


Feminism is probably on top of the list of the reasons as to why white children birth rates are declining faster and faster :mad:
Heh. This very feminism claims all women to be irreconcilably different from all men; it is also a cause of modern 'women are from Venus and men are from Mars'-style belief in gender polarization.


Gentlemen, get your ladies to realize that we need to be having more mommies and less business women!! ;)
Right. Having a child after 2010 will, if the course of human activities is not drastically reversed, likely equate to damning it from birth.

celticlove
Sunday, December 26th, 2004, 11:41 PM
Maybe I'm the only person who wants a domestic life, but career women bother me. I watched the Stepford wives--their subservience and constant need for perfection so mirrored mine that I wondered what was wrong with me--because, of course, they are supposed to be robots. It just occoured to me that perhaps everyone elses values are terribly flawed and my need for 4+ little ones and a household to take care of are perfectly wonderful aspirations.

DreamWalker
Monday, December 27th, 2004, 01:09 AM
my need for 4+ little ones and a household to take care of are perfectly wonderful aspirations.

Celticlove - If I were still young and cute :rolleyes:, I would probably propose ;)

celticlove
Monday, December 27th, 2004, 01:32 AM
If only I didnt blush so easily........

Northern Paladin
Monday, December 27th, 2004, 05:39 AM
Maybe I'm the only person who wants a domestic life, but career women bother me. I watched the Stepford wives--their subservience and constant need for perfection so mirrored mine that I wondered what was wrong with me--because, of course, they are supposed to be robots. It just occoured to me that perhaps everyone elses values are terribly flawed and my need for 4+ little ones and a household to take care of are perfectly wonderful aspirations.

If all Nordish women were like you half the problems facing Nordish preservation would be solved. :)

cosmocreator
Monday, December 27th, 2004, 05:45 AM
Maybe I'm the only person who wants a domestic life, but career women bother me. I watched the Stepford wives--their subservience and constant need for perfection so mirrored mine that I wondered what was wrong with me--because, of course, they are supposed to be robots. It just occoured to me that perhaps everyone elses values are terribly flawed and my need for 4+ little ones and a household to take care of are perfectly wonderful aspirations.


There is nothing wrong with your view. Many of the women here probably share it. I predict Carrigan will have a short life here.

Carrigan
Monday, December 27th, 2004, 08:11 AM
There is nothing wrong with your view. Many of the women here probably share it. I predict Carrigan will have a short life here.
Guess again, o unwise Cosmostradamus. Loki has instructed the staff not to ban me -- I plan to post a few pictures of some 'Nordish' relatives.

celticlove
Monday, December 27th, 2004, 01:58 PM
If all Nordish women were like you half the problems facing Nordish preservation would be solved. :)

That is quite a compliment. Blushing again!!!

cosmocreator
Monday, December 27th, 2004, 06:21 PM
Guess again, o unwise Cosmostradamus. Loki has instructed the staff not to ban me -- I plan to post a few pictures of some 'Nordish' relatives.


Your rants won't be tolerated here. Behave as you did at Skadi or The Phora and you will be banned.

Briar's Luck
Wednesday, December 29th, 2004, 11:46 AM
Maybe I'm the only person who wants a domestic life, but career women bother me. I watched the Stepford wives--their subservience and constant need for perfection so mirrored mine that I wondered what was wrong with me--because, of course, they are supposed to be robots. It just occoured to me that perhaps everyone elses values are terribly flawed and my need for 4+ little ones and a household to take care of are perfectly wonderful aspirations.

No, you're not the only one who has such aspirations. I've often been ridiculed by friends who see me as the Molly Home-maker of the group... and I suppose it's true I have an ingrained desire to serve and make everyone happy. I often hear so called "Dr. Phil's" say that I can't possibly find that fulfilling, that it's my right to compete with a man, and deprive myself of a family. I saw my own Mother at times admit, almost embarrassed, to other "working women", when asked what she did for a living, that she was "just" a housewife... like it was something to turn your nose up at, and sadly, most of these women did just that. It's always been easy for me to say that I loathe feminists.

NSFreja
Wednesday, December 29th, 2004, 01:04 PM
No, you're not the only one who has such aspirations. I've often been ridiculed by friends who see me as the Molly Home-maker of the group... and I suppose it's true I have an ingrained desire to serve and make everyone happy. I often hear so called "Dr. Phil's" say that I can't possibly find that fulfilling, that it's my right to compete with a man, and deprive myself of a family. I saw my own Mother at times admit, almost embarrassed, to other "working women", when asked what she did for a living, that she was "just" a housewife... like it was something to turn your nose up at, and sadly, most of these women did just that. It's always been easy for me to say that I loathe feminists.I can just speak for my self in this matter, can't talk for others.

I am both a business woman (i have my own business at home), involved in politics and a fulltime mother of 4.

I find it quite easy to do both now when my kids are in the age 7 to 16.

When they were younger, i was a fulltime mother and student (archaeology, history and culturegeography), good combination too, at least for me.

What i do want is a caring husband, a good family life and a work i enjoy and i almost have it all...almost.

/Maria

celticlove
Wednesday, December 29th, 2004, 04:02 PM
No, you're not the only one who has such aspirations. I've often been ridiculed by friends who see me as the Molly Home-maker of the group... and I suppose it's true I have an ingrained desire to serve and make everyone happy. I often hear so called "Dr. Phil's" say that I can't possibly find that fulfilling, that it's my right to compete with a man, and deprive myself of a family. I saw my own Mother at times admit, almost embarrassed, to other "working women", when asked what she did for a living, that she was "just" a housewife... like it was something to turn your nose up at, and sadly, most of these women did just that. It's always been easy for me to say that I loathe feminists.


I think that people loose sight, sometimes, of the fact that those of us who wish to stay at home are not simpletons, nor are we doormats. We have a drive to nurture, but that does not mean that we sell short our intellectual persuits. Maria, for example, who is politically involved, a mum of four and working from home is someone I admire greatly, for her versitility and many obvious talents. :icon_smil Feminists, however, manage to both discredit the most important job a woman can have and repel men with their corporate ball busting attitude--two things that turn my stomach. Give me an apron, Mein Kampf, and someone to cook and wait up for any day. In fact, hurry up!

Guest
Tuesday, January 4th, 2005, 11:48 AM
Wow, this was great reading! It's great to know that there are women like Celticlove, Briar's Luck and Maria - knowing that women like you still exist gives me hope for the future of our people and is very inspirering for carying on the struggle for the same. A pitty though that you are so rare and far in between... but as with everything good that is rare one just value and appreciate it that much more when one comes across it! ;)

friedrich braun
Thursday, January 6th, 2005, 04:42 AM
pitty though that you are so rare and far in between

Perhaps in the notoriously feminist Sweden. Such women are the norm in most of the world. Unfortunately, most of the world isn't White...

Freja
Friday, January 7th, 2005, 11:55 AM
I think some of you are seeing only black and white here.
Some of us are actually capable of multitasking to the extreme, like for example Guest who studied at the same time as being a full time mom.
Not all of us can cope with a life of merely simple tasks around the house, I for one have tried and failed at that. I need more, I need a bigger challenge, being a housewife made me depressed.
That said, it´s a long step from that to having a full time career and leaving the kids in kindergarten all day. Even though we are merely females, we do have the mental capacity to figure out a way to have our cake and eat it too.

I have started my own business, working from home. I work parttime, and my kids are in kindergarten a few days a week. The rest of the time, I´m a very happy housewife.
I´m also planning on going back to university, mostly because I need the mental challenge, but also because it gives me a solid foundation should I ever find myself alone.
My kids are the most important part of my life, which is why I´ll never work or study full time.

In this modern world, a woman depending 100% on being supported in every way, is a very stupid woman indeed. Marriage isn´t a sacred union anymore, and people give up too easily. This leaves single mothers lacking an education and work experience out in the cold, without much of a future.

Of course, the core family is a nice ideal, but keep your feet on the ground and face reality as it is.

NSFreja
Friday, January 7th, 2005, 12:20 PM
I think some of you are seeing only black and white here.
Some of us are actually capable of multitasking to the extreme, like for example Guest who studied at the same time as being a full time mom.
Not all of us can cope with a life of merely simple tasks around the house, I for one have tried and failed at that. I need more, I need a bigger challenge, being a housewife made me depressed.
That said, it´s a long step from that to having a full time career and leaving the kids in kindergarten all day. Even though we are merely females, we do have the mental capacity to figure out a way to have our cake and eat it too.Tha'ts exactly what i mean.


I have started my own business, working from home. I work parttime, and my kids are in kindergarten a few days a week. The rest of the time, I´m a very happy housewife. That's good :)
It's good to see a woman that can manage to do things by her own and not just depend on the man in the house to support it all.
We women need to feel that we are doing good things too, not only good things like raising kids.


I´m also planning on going back to university, mostly because I need the mental challenge, but also because it gives me a solid foundation should I ever find myself alone.
My kids are the most important part of my life, which is why I´ll never work or study full time.
You can maybe do as i did, study on distance courses?
Then you can have your children home with you all the time as i did and still be a student.
My kids have just been in Kindergarten for about a year, 3 days a week and only for 5 hours a day and it's just the 2 youngest that have been there. The other 2 have never been taken care of by "strangers".

Now they are to old for Kindergarten and they are in school for about 6 hours a day instead.
During that 6 hours, i do my job.

So, i really think that a working mother can be sometimes better than just a bored housewife with no other life than taking care of the family.

My kids keep telling me that they have it better than most of their friends because when they come home from school, there is always someone home, meeting them.

/M

Freja
Friday, January 7th, 2005, 12:34 PM
My kids keep telling me that they have it better than most of their friends because when they come home from school, there is always someone home, meeting them.

/M

That´s what I want, too.
Both my sons have very adventourous and exploring personalities, and thrive in the busy kindergarten. But on our days off, they love the peace and quiet at home. As my oldest son said today after lunch; "this was a very nice and cozy mealtime" (he´s only 4 1/2). Knowing that our meals together is going to be part of what he remembers from his childhood warms my heart.
It´s good to know that working parttime, whilst keeping me mentally occupied and happy, will also enable me to make their kindergarten days shorter, I can go get them a few hours early and together we find fun things to do.

cosmocreator
Saturday, January 8th, 2005, 07:39 AM
I´m also planning on going back to university, mostly because I need the mental challenge, but also because it gives me a solid foundation should I ever find myself alone.


I doubt you'd be alone for long except by choice. :love:

Carrigan
Saturday, February 12th, 2005, 02:10 PM
I think that people loose sight, sometimes, of the fact that those of us who wish to stay at home are not simpletons, nor are we doormats. We have a drive to nurture, but that does not mean that we sell short our intellectual persuits. Maria, for example, who is politically involved, a mum of four and working from home is someone I admire greatly, for her versitility and many obvious talents. :icon_smil Feminists, however, manage to both discredit the most important job a woman can have and repel men with their corporate ball busting attitude--two things that turn my stomach. Give me an apron, Mein Kampf, and someone to cook and wait up for any day. In fact, hurry up!
Notice a contradiction? ;)

NorwegianFury
Saturday, February 12th, 2005, 05:06 PM
I do not believe women should necessarily be forced to stay at home. If they choose to do so then great, but if they somehow feel alienated by a "simple" existence then they should have the opportunity to study or work. That is, as long as the family still is the main focus in their lives. Being a guy I would probably look for a woman that seemed family-oriented and caring, mind you that does not equal her being my doormat or anything like that. I realize that in the family unit the man/father has an immense responsibility as well. Women that however strive at all times to advance their career with none of the "housewife-values" are usually not very attractive to a guy (at least not to me that is).

Guest
Saturday, February 12th, 2005, 06:27 PM
I do not believe women should necessarily be forced to stay at home. If they choose to do so then great, but if they somehow feel alienated by a "simple" existence then they should have the opportunity to study or work. That is, as long as the family still is the main focus in their lives. Being a guy I would probably look for a woman that seemed family-oriented and caring, mind you that does not equal her being my doormat or anything like that. I realize that in the family unit the man/father has an immense responsibility as well. Women that however strive at all times to advance their career with none of the "housewife-values" are usually not very attractive to a guy (at least not to me that is).
I couldn't have formulated it better myself! I feel the exact same way.

Just like men appreciate female virtues in a woman, I can't imagine anything else than women also prefer men to be men, and not like those feminized metrosexuals that the mass media now tries to portray as the "modern" Western ideal.
This is not to say that in my opinion women need to be like Barbie-dolls, or that men need to be extreme macho types, but I believe it's the complementative differences between the sexes that creates/stimulates the attraction between them, and not some kind of perverted egalitaristic sameness that is being promoted at the present time.

I must admit though that I'm very curious about what more of the females in here think about all this; how do you percieve and value "traditionalism" versus "modernism"? And why?

celticlove
Sunday, February 13th, 2005, 03:29 AM
Notice a contradiction? ;)

Not that I should even be adressing someone who is banned; But what I meant when I said that I wanted someone to wait up for (my boyfriend of course) was that I would do so because it is my choice to, because I care for him; I associate doormats with airheads, women who never voice opinions (Which I am so very clearly doing now); and since your obviously brilliant mind contains such a plethera of vocabulary words, perhaps someone with such an intellectual expanse might make note of the fact that there are different interpretations of the word doormat (I love sarcasm). There is one, however, interpretation of the word banned.

Gustavus Magnus
Thursday, February 24th, 2005, 06:18 PM
pitty though that you are so rare and far in between

Perhaps in the notoriously feminist Sweden. Such women are the norm in most of the world. Unfortunately, most of the world isn't White...

:scratch:

Huh?

Gustavus Magnus
Thursday, February 24th, 2005, 06:28 PM
What women want is what media tells them to want. This is what I think, but I refuse to believe it.

Graviton
Thursday, February 24th, 2005, 06:59 PM
:scratch:

Huh?

He meant to say "Females like hare are rare, so few and far between" (That's the common formulation of the expression in English).

Rare says it all. The number of females like are are few, but not only is there a very small number but they are infrequent.


What women want is what media tells them to want. This is what I think, but I refuse to believe it.

You refuse to believe what you think? Are you sure about that? I refuse to believe that, but surely, you meant something else. ;)

Anyway. Your first sentence is dead on for most women; Apologies to the women here that think differently, you are the smart(er?) minority which I must applaud.
Would have a guess as to why women are more susceptible to the media?

Gustavus Magnus
Thursday, February 24th, 2005, 07:05 PM
You refuse to believe what you think? Are you sure about that? I refuse to believe that, but surely, you meant something else. ;)

I know it, but I can't accept it, I refuse to believe it is so, but in my heart I know it is like that.

Draugr
Friday, March 11th, 2005, 09:18 AM
Why ask "what do women want?" When the answer is oh so obvious, that they, most don't even know. I say give up now, save yourself the trouble and money, and just sit back and watch the Circus to into a slaughter.

The Horned God
Friday, March 11th, 2005, 10:15 AM
They want a mighty warrior who has vanquished many enemies be they ancient or modern, or at least someone who can boast convincingly. Thats what they have always wanted in the past.
Ask yourself what kind of man you would most like to resemble, if you can get to be like that man women will like you and if they don't at that point it shouldn't matter to you in the slightest.
Btw, expressions of negative emotions are largely for women and children it is ok for them to endulge in them and go sniveling and crying at the drop of a hat but in a man it is despicable in almost all cases, and women think so to, and small children freak out.

Todesritter
Friday, March 11th, 2005, 10:29 AM
Hugs & flowers & remembering their birthday and stuff does not hurt either, or so I have heard. :)

Draugr
Friday, March 11th, 2005, 10:34 AM
Hugs & flowers & remembering their birthday and stuff does not hurt either, or so I have heard. :)

Only if you fit the criterea of: being submissive, from a rich family, and a sloppering idiot who will do anything for them.

C'mon birthdays, I can't even remember my own, besides why bother another year closer to the grave, another ten pounds fatter and that much uglier, and that much more in debt. Save the money and energy for drinking and fighting.

Todesritter
Friday, March 11th, 2005, 10:40 AM
Only if you fit the criterea of: being submissive, from a rich family, and a sloppering idiot who will do anything for them.

I get the impression you may have been associating with the wrong sorts of women. I have met some who are like this, so I know what you are talking about, but these people are really more like smarter hookers who want you and the family money as a retirement plan. They don’t bear further consideration, spend your energy on honorable women.

So long as you are not incredibly insecure about money, most nice women really won’t care a lot about how much money you or your family has, so long as you are mentally stable, work, and pay your bills.

Draugr
Friday, March 11th, 2005, 11:36 AM
I get the impression you may have been associating with the wrong sorts of women.
Wrong I haven't been associating with any type of woman, just a long standing relationship with a bottle of Vlad and Rolling Rock.


I have met some who are like this, so I know what you are talking about, but these people are really more like smarter hookers who want you and the family money as a retirement plan. They don’t bear further consideration, spend your energy on honorable women.

It goes like this some people say "whore" I say "American Woman" that her nature today and that is what she aspires to be. I am in College.


So long as you are not incredibly insecure about money, most nice women really won’t care a lot about how much money you or your family has, so long as you are mentally stable, work, and pay your bills.

Oh I am incredibly insecure about money because I have none! Whenever I get some, there's always another American a$$h*le ready to set his scheme to take it away. And the question of my mental stability flew away with my mind long ago.

Freja
Friday, March 11th, 2005, 12:59 PM
You sound like a very insecure person, Draugr. A selfconfident man does not talk about women like this.

There is usually something wrong with guys disrespect women to such an extent, without even once having had a relationship.
Freud would probably have a field day analyzing you... :rofl: Or maybe you just haven`t got what it takes to get yourself a good girl.
If you act IRL like you do here on TNP, it`s no wonder noone wants to get to know you.

Zyklop
Friday, March 11th, 2005, 01:03 PM
Freud would probably have a field day analyzing you... :rofl: I hope you are not really into Jewish pseudo-science á la Freud who only projected his own perversity upon his study objects. :annoysigr

Freja
Friday, March 11th, 2005, 01:09 PM
I hope you are not really into Jewish pseudo-science á la Freud who only projected his own perversity upon his study objects. :annoysigr

Absolutely not, that was meant as a joke... :icon12:
Freud would probably say Draugr has issues with his mom - well, you know how Freuds theories go.

Zyklop
Friday, March 11th, 2005, 01:11 PM
Absoultely not, that was meant as a joke... :icon12:
Freud would probably say Draugr has issues with his mom - well, you know how Freuds theories go.
Indeed. Modern sociobiology offers much better explanations than those psychoanalysts. :gay:

Todesritter
Friday, March 11th, 2005, 09:48 PM
Indeed. Modern sociobiology offers much better explanations than those psychoanalysts. :gay:
Agreed: Mind-rapists = therapists (therapists). :icon_wink

It is however a cognitive error to discount these ideas, and remain ignorant of them because of their author being a Jew, rather the idea is independent of its progenitor, and should be judged on its usefulness. Though this stuff should not be taken very seriously, it seems many Americans are terribly addicted to this stuff, particularly in New York – I wonder why? If a person really wants to debunk and idea or school of thought they think is bogus, it is best to learn about it, and take it apart from the inside out – taking the few useful parts and leaving the rest for the ditto-heads.

Death and the Sun
Monday, July 11th, 2005, 08:23 PM
Thread split.

lei.talk
Thursday, July 28th, 2005, 08:49 AM
Some of us are actually capable of multitasking to the extreme, like for example Guest who studied at the same time as being a full time mom. Not all of us can cope with a life of merely simple tasks around the house, I for one have tried and failed at that. I need more, I need a bigger challenge, being a housewife made me depressed.Even though we are merely females, we do have the mental capacity to figure out a way to have our cake and eat it too.i have no idea how some one can raise two or four children
and work or go to school, at the same time.

it was a full-time job for me to raise my son
and his mother was helping the entire time.

we had all of the equipment prepared,
everything went according to plan,
he was very easy to get along with
- how did one child take up so much of our time?

we could not have done the same thing
with two or four children or working
or going to school.

i have never done any thing
that required so much constant attention
and thought to accomplish.

none of it was "simple".
there has been no "bigger challenge" in my life.

NSFreja
Thursday, July 28th, 2005, 05:19 PM
i have no idea how some one can raise two or four children
and work or go to school, at the same time.
Well, it's not that very hard you know. My 4 children are very happy, with the situation that i have always been here, at home and still been working/studying and being able to support them in whatever they needed.


it was a full-time job for me to raise my son
and his mother was helping the entire time.
Well, lucky you that you and your wife, both helped to raise your son.
I have a bf but, well, he is kind of old fashioned, thinks that it's the woman alone that will raise the kids while the man works and "need" to have some free time whenever he is not working.


we had all of the equipment prepared,
everything went according to plan,
he was very easy to get along with
- how did one child take up so much of our time?
To be honest, 1 kid or 4...or 10, don't need to take more time than what it takes to raise one kid. It depends on how you plan your day.


we could not have done the same thing
with two or four children or working
or going to school.
Never say never...
I'm sure you could, and im almost certain that if you have had more than one child, you would have done just the same as you did with the only child you got.
There is not much more work, as i said above, with 1 or 10 children, it all depends on how you are as a person and how you plan your day.


i have never done any thing
that required so much constant attention
and thought to accomplish.

none of it was "simple".
there has been no "bigger challenge" in my life.
It is never simple to raise a kid and there is nothing that are more important for us then to raise them well and i think i can say that my children, all 4, will be wellbehaved and grow up to be good persons and knowing that i was always there for them, and i hope they one day can do the same for their children.

lei.talk
Friday, August 5th, 2005, 03:05 AM
Well, it's not that very hard you know.it was not hard to raise one child,
but it did require constant attentiveness.
fulfilling his infantile, childish and pubertal emotional-needs
required our undivided attention.
once that is accomplished,
progeny are invulnerable to "external validation"
and that prevents any manipulation of them.


Well, lucky you
that you and your wife, both helped to raise your son.you bring up an very important point.

luck has little to do with such success.
i researched the requirements of parenthood,
acquired the requisite resources,
sought women that possessed the attributes
and made a knowledgeable choice.

persons that are "unlucky"
did not engage in such a process.


...I'm almost certain that if you have had more than one child,
you would have done just the same
as you did with the only child you got.how would i sub-ordinate the simultaneous needs
of one child over an other?
when i diagram the conflicted behavioral-repertoire of others,
most often, the origins arise from that parental dilemma.