Should anyone care about historical hate speech by senior Church leadership?

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Then I guess by this definition Calm is a misogynist and sexist, too. 

Now you are just lying about what I said

[Calm]

55 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Calm, I assume you're using follow as a form of wordplay for the end question. I take follow at the beginning of your paragraph to mean more "stand with, partner with, walk with, counsel with, work with" etc as opposed to a more literal definition such as "act according to" my husband or "do as my husband says/does as leader." Is that something you'd agree with?

Follow in righteousness to me is something I would try to do for anyone who was acting in righteousness and essentially means here to sustain to the best of my ability. It would require learning for myself what righteousness is for that particular situation and then judging a person’s action/choices if they were righteous.

When my husband makes righteous choices, I follow him by supporting him in his actions. If he makes mistakes, is close minded about something or more commonly for him, is focused for a good, but not the best reason on what I believe in my soul is the wrong thing, then where appropriate we will discuss the issue and we will try and reach positions the other can see as also see as righteous and reasonable.  He does the reverse for me.  If we are both seeking righteousness, we are walking towards it mostly together, though sometimes not as in step as we should be all the time,

If we don’t come to a place we can support each other (pretty much only in politics these days), we do choose to act independently. He would be very uncomfortable if I were to change my opinion to match his just because it was his opinion, especially if I believed his choice was not a righteous one. 

—-

The last question of leaving the Church to be obedient to a family patriarch, I am using “follow” as it appears teddy thinks a wife should act, which is as far as I can tell to submit in obedience to what her husband asks of her/thinks is the right thing to do…which logically would mean if a husband/patriarch of the family left the church and wanted his wife/family to do so, all would follow him out the door.

I find that type of following contrary to the gospel teaching and not just because the action is to leave the Church.  I would find it wrong for family members to be baptized members simply because the father wanted them to be baptized, ignoring that his responsibility as a leader of the family is not to order family around, but to guide and teach or in the case of baptism, attempt to help them be converted by the Spirit, not force action upon them. 

Edited February 2, 2023 by Calm

[Peacefully]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What is this “traditional” you are talking about. We are hunters and gatherers by nature. Once agriculture hit, families worked farms together. Even at the start of the Industrial Revolution women worked in mills and mines even. 
 

 

The fetish some men have here about the domestic house wife, with a male bread winner existed in a relatively small fraction of the worlds population over an extremely short period of time - a blip even. 

I’m out of rep points but two thumbs up for this. 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What is this “traditional” you are talking about.

I suspect he is referencing what is often called the "nuclear family."  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Family formation shapes many aspects of our daily lives—who we work, eat and sleep with, who we share with, whether we live in large extended or conjugal families, and the time males and females, adults and children, spend in the company of each other. The ways families are structured also affect where we live after marriage, who we inherit our name and property from, who is included in our kin group and who is excluded, whether we marry one or multiple partners, how disagreements and authority are brokered, whether both females and males can instigate divorce and the extent to which gender equality prevails. The family expresses a wide array of forms across cultures and ecologies, and within any one society. While the nuclear family is the norm today in developed economies, it is the exception historically and in many other cultural contexts. Indeed, if there is any way to characterize the human family, it would be its diversity and flexibility.
...
In behavioral ecology, the topic of this Special Issue on the family, small-scale societies, particularly hunter-gatherers, have been central to study because their demographic and subsistence conditions, and hence social lives, encompass more diverse forms of the family than are often evident in industrialized societies.1 Family life has substantially changed in recent centuries with urbanization and industrialization and is novel in many regards. In industrialized societies, conjugal families (spouse(s) and their dependent children; also called the nuclear family) are the norm. The reduction in fertility in most of the developed world means that children live in small families with few siblings. Families are not only smaller because of the multigenerational effects of the demographic transition and longer generational times, they are also composed of fewer collateral kin (aunts, uncles and cousins). Because of high rates of divorce, remarriage, and geographic dispersion, nuclear families are often isolated from grandparents and other relatives. On an evolutionary time scale, this trend toward atomization into small conjugal groups is quite recent; for most of human history, society was seldom organized as such (Van den Berghe 1990).

And here:

Quote

Murdock’s Four Functions of the Nuclear Family

The nuclear family is a family that consists of 2 generations; a parental married couple and their kin. In 1949, the sociologist George Murdock conducted a survey of 250 societies and determined that there are four universal residual functions of the nuclear family: sexual, reproductive, educational, and economic. 

1. Sexual

Murdock considered the family to regulate sexual relations between adults, ensuring that they are controlled and socially acceptable. While Murdock did not deny the existence of sexual relationships outside of marriage, he considered family to be the socially legitimate sexual outlet for adults. Murdock believed that stable satisfaction of the sex drive within monogamous heterosexual relationships would prevent sexual jealousy (Murdock, 1949). 

2. Reproduction

This sexual function of the family gives way to reproduction, which, Murdock argues, is necessary for ensuring the survival of society. 

3. Socialization

The family plays a vital role in training children for adult life. The family, as a primary agent of socialization and enculturation, teaches young children ways of thinking and behaving that follow social and cultural norms, values, beliefs, and attitudes. Parents, through teaching their children manners and civility, reflect themselves in their offspring (Murdock, 1949).

4. Economic Needs

Additionally, parents teach children gender roles. Murdock argued that these gender roles are an important part of the economic function of the family.

Murdock thought of each family as having a division of labor that consists of instrumental and expressive roles. Instrumental roles are those that provide financial support and establish family status, which Murdock purported were taken on by men. Expressive roles typically involve work inside of the family, providing emotional support and physical care for children.

Functionalists considered this gender differentiation of roles to be an essential part of the family, because they ensure that the family is well balanced and coordinated. When family members move outside of these roles, Murdock believes that the family is thrown out of balance and at risk of collapse if not recalibrated.

For example, if a father decides to quit his job in favor of caring for children during the daytime, the mother must take on an instrumental role, such as getting paid employment, in order for the family to maintain balance and function (Murdock, 1949). 

That said, the "nuclear family" is only a very small part of the broader tapestry of what "family" means and will be in the eternities.  The Abrahamic Covenant makes no sense in a purely "Nuclear Family" context, but makes perfect sense when extended into generations.  The broad impetus of family history and proxy work, particularly sealings, extends way beyond the "Nuclear Family."  Consider this statement by Brigham Young:

Quote

And we will have revelations to know our forefathers clear back to Father Adam and Mother Eve, and we will enter into the temples of God and officiate for them. Then man will be sealed to man until the chain is made perfect back to Adam, so that there will be a perfect chain of Priesthood from Adam to the winding-up scene. This will be the work of the Latter-day Saints in the Millennium. (Discourses of Brigham Young, p.116)

Latter-day Saints believe that "{t}he family is ordained of God," so it's more than just a commonly-observed strategy to respond to circumstances and stimuli.

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

We are hunters and gatherers by nature.

"By nature?"  Not sure about that.  I think in the distant past humans were nomadic hunter-gatherers by necessity.  See, e.g., this article from National Geographic:

Quote

Hunter-gatherer cultures forage or hunt food from their environment. Often nomadic, this was the only way of life for humans until about 12,000 years ago when archaeologic studies show evidence of the emergence of agriculture. Human lifestyles began to change as groups formed permanent settlements and tended crops. 

"{T}his was only way of life for humans..."

A lot of these seems to be speculative anyway, as we are not well-situated to assess familial structure as it existed thousands of years ago in illiterate nomadic groups.  That said, it appears that differentiating hunter-gatherer organizational structure from the "nuclear family" may not be totally correct.  See, e.g., this 2008 Science article:

Quote

The nuclear family is not only as American as apple pie but also the cultural norm in most societies across the world. New genetic and chemical analyses of 4600-year-old burials in Germany suggests that family togetherness has deep roots, going back at least as far the beginnings of agriculture in Europe.

Before humans settled down and began to farm, they lived as nomadic hunters and gatherers. Many anthropologists have assumed, based on observations of sometimes polygamous modern-day hunter-gatherers, that the basic social unit of early humans was the band or tribe rather than the family. Figuring out when the nuclear family became central to human social organization has been difficult. Archaeologists have dug up thousands of skeletons at early farming sites across the Near East and Europe, and many of them are buried together in ways that might suggest family ties. For example, at the 9500-year-old early farming site of Çatalhöyük in Turkey, excavators have uncovered two skulls with their foreheads touching and the skull of a man cradled in the arms of a woman. But without DNA evidence, researchers are reluctant to ascribe modern-day interpretations to ancient burials.

Now, a team led by Wolfgang Haak, a geneticist at the Australian Centre for Ancient DNA in Adelaide, claims to have worked out some family relationships in a remarkable series of burials uncovered in central Germany in 2005. At the early farming site of Eulau, German archaeologists found four graves containing 13 individuals who had apparently met a violent death. Two graves were particularly well-preserved: In one, an adult male and female had been placed on their sides, face to face and arms intertwined with two boys; in the other, an adult woman was buried facing away from two girls and a boy. Working with the German team, Haak and colleagues were able to extract enough mitochondrial and nuclear DNA from the skeletons in the first grave to conclude that the two adults were the parents of the two boys. In the second grave, the team concluded that the three children were probably brothers and sisters, although the adult female was not their mother. Rather, the researchers suggest, she might have been an aunt or a step-mother.

"We have established the presence of the classic nuclear family in a prehistoric context," Haak and his co-workers declare online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. In further work, the team analyzed the strontium isotope content of the 13 skeletons' teeth, which varies according to the chemistry of the soil where an individual spends his or her childhood. The researchers found that the children and the adult men grew up in the Eulau area, whereas the adult women came from at least 60 kilometers away--an indication that nuclear families in this region were organized around local men who mated with outside women.

"This is a great piece of work," says Alexander Bentley, an anthropologist at Durham University in the U.K. Bentley adds that the new findings, including the signs of violence on the skeletons--such as multiple skull fractures--are consistent with other archaeological evidence from Central Europe that men raided outside communities and captured their women. Still, Marek Zvelebil, an archaeologist at the University of Sheffield in the U.K., says that the authors' claims to have worked out the biological relationships between the skeletons may be a stretch. The genetic markers the team used are "very widespread in Europe," he notes, meaning that they cannot be used to work out exact family relations without a broader study of prehistoric skeletons from the region.

I also think it may be worth considering the interplay between the concepts of "nuclear family" and the "sexual division of labor."  Consider, for the example, this article discussing contemporary anthropological study of "hunter–gatherer nuclear families" in South America:

Quote

Ache foragers inhabited the tropical forests of Eastern Paraguay, making first peaceful contact with outsiders in the mid-1970s, shortly before we began our study. During the past 30 years they have lived part-time on reservation settlements, returning frequently to the forest for extended time periods (McMillan 2001; Hill & Kintigh 2009). Foraging-dependent Ache live mainly on mammalian game, honey and extracted palm starch, with fruits and other collected resources accounting for less than 5 per cent of the diet (Kaplan et al. 2000). Sexual division of labour is pronounced, with men foraging over 6 h daily while women care for children and transport household items, foraging less than 2 h daily (Hill et al. 1985; Hurtado et al. 1985). Women forage even less when married to a high-producing husband (Hurtado et al. 1992). Cooperation in all realms of food acquisition and daily life is extensive (Hill 2002). Analyses of quantitative data on food sharing demonstrates band-wide division of game with no kin bias, and extensive, but slightly kin-biased, sharing of vegetable and invertebrate foods (Kaplan et al. 1984; Kaplan & Hill 1985a,b). Both contingent reciprocity and need-based provisioning are typical of collected foods and meat sharing at reservations (Gurven et al. 2002; Allen-Arave et al. 2008). Ache demographic patterns include high fertility, long lifespans and measured positive effects on survivorship and fertility associated with the presence of some kin categories and for some age and sex classes (Hill & Hurtado 1996). 

Overall, I'm not sure what value there is is assessing such things in the context of "traditional family."  Just because hunter-gatherers did X does not necessarily make X preferable or superior to Y.

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Once agriculture hit, families worked farms together. Even at the start of the Industrial Revolution women worked in mills and mines even. 

The fetish some men have here about the domestic house wife, with a male bread winner existed in a relatively small fraction of the worlds population over an extremely short period of time - a blip even. 

That's a pretty tight and restricted definition.  The "sexual division of labor" is typically not that stringent. See, e.g., here:

Quote

To misquote John Donne ‘no woman is an island’, able to raise children alone. In evolutionary anthropology, it is now widely accepted that we are a species that practises cooperative reproduction: throughout human history, children have been raised by cooperative networks of individuals [1,2]. In Western contexts, this idea does not yet appear to be particularly widespread much beyond anthropology, either in academia, in popular culture or among policy-makers. Instead, the ‘traditional’ family is widely regarded to be a nuclear family, where the husband–wife unit is assumed to be economically autonomous and responsible for raising children with little help, with an extreme sexual division of labour in which men are solely responsible for ‘breadwinning’ and women ‘homemaking’. In reality, across most societies, the husband–wife unit is rarely autonomous, but is instead engaged in extensive cooperative relationships with other individuals, particularly other family members. These include extensive help with raising children. The male breadwinner–female homemaker division of labour is also unusual. While there is often a sexual division of labour, such that women and men do not have exactly the same roles (for example, women do typically spend more time in childcare), childcare is not the exclusive preserve of women in most societies and, even more so, productive labour is not the exclusive preserve of men.
...
Returning to the catalyst of industrialization, this allowed not only sufficient income for a male breadwinner strategy to become more feasible, but also a clear public/private divide, as productive work increasingly took place outside the home. This meant a separation of ‘breadwinner’ and ‘homemaker’ roles, whereas in subsistence economies, work and home lives are typically more blurred [68]. This illustrates an important point about the ‘traditional male breadwinner nuclear family’ norm: it is associated not just with a particular division of labour within the household, but also with rigid gender roles [75,76].

And here:

Quote

The economy of scale model, a classic economic and evolutionary model of the sexual division of economic and childcare labour, assumes that the basic function of a division of labour between men and women is to enhance the efficiency of household production through complementary time allocations by mother and father (Hurtado et al., Reference Hurdado, Hill, Kaplan and Hurtado1992; Kaplan et al., Reference Kaplan, Hill, Lancaster and Hurdado2000; Gurven, Reference Gurven2004; Murdock, Reference Murdock1949). According to this model, women hold a ‘comparative advantage’ in childcare activities based on their biological abilities to gestate and lactate (Becker, Reference Becker1985) and this advantage explains why women in most human societies do the majority of childcare (Konner, Reference Konner, Hewlett and Lamb2005). These ‘advantages’ both increase opportunity costs associated with other types of tasks (Gurven & Hill, Reference Gurven and Hill2009) and may also directly motivate women to pursue economic activities that are compatible with childcare (Brown, Reference Brown1970; Gurven et al., Reference Gurven, Winking, Kaplan, von Rueden and McAllister2009; Murdock and Provost, Reference Murdock and Provost1973). In the interest of household efficiency, men respond to women's subsistence and childcare strategies in a complementary manner. They are free to engage in strategies that are incompatible with childcare, often pursuing resources that are associated with high levels of economic risk (e.g. Codding et al., Reference Codding, Bliege Bird and Bird2011a, though see Koster, Reference Koster2011 and Codding et al., Reference Codding, Bliege Bird and Bird2011b for a discussion regarding this finding), require long periods of learning and skill acquisition (Kaplan et al., Reference Kaplan, Hill, Lancaster and Hurdado2000) and provide complementary macronutrients important for child growth (Gurven et al., Reference Gurven, Winking, Kaplan, von Rueden and McAllister2009).
...
Other models of the division of labour suggest different mechanisms by which gendered divisions of labour may have evolved. For instance, in the risk model, economic risk is a strategy employed by men in order to gain social status and future mating opportunities (Bliege Bird and Bird, Reference Bliege Bird and Bird2008). Based on our findings, we suggest that in societies in which monogamous marriage is the overwhelming social norm, probably as a functional response to socioecology (e.g. Schacht and Borgerhoff Mulder, Reference Schacht and Borgerhoff Mulder2015; Schacht and Kramer, Reference Schacht and Kramer2016), and childcare and household economics are largely concentrated within the nuclear family...

Nor is this stringent definition particularly accurate or apt a Latter-day Saint context.  Again from the Proclamation:

Quote

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

I appreciate it when men show up here and indicate some level of understanding regarding the issues that affect womens’ self worth. The compassion and support is noted.  ❤️

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Abrahamic Covenant makes no sense in a purely "Nuclear Family" context, but makes perfect sense when extended into generations.

Exactly.

Quote

Then man will be sealed to man until the chain is made perfect back to Adam, so that there will be a perfect chain of Priesthood from Adam to the winding-up scene. 

And when one includes how sealings extend out to the sides as well through siblings sharing in family sealings, it becomes horizontal as well as vertical chains or an analogy I prefer, a celestial web or net.

Edited February 2, 2023 by Calm

[Grug the Neanderthal]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Now you are just lying about what I said

Not at all. Just pointing out how ridiculous it is to claim that someone is a misogynist for suggesting that there is ever "any degree of harm" in women leaving the home to go to work. If that's the best she can do, she proved my point that she can't show a single misogynistic thing I said. 

Edited February 2, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[Buckwheat]

13 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

You hurt me.  You stated your opinion that equality for women is regrettable. It pokes at a regular experience that I have had throughout my life being expected to play second fiddle to men for the benefit of everyone else but me. 

What would equality look like? 

Do you enjoy seafood? 92% of the people who go out on boats to fish for us are men.

Do you enjoy beef? 84% of people in the cattle industry are men.

Do you enjoy electricity?? 97% of coal miners are men, 93% of dam builders are men, 96% of nuclear reactor operators are men.

Do you enjoy paved roads? 90% of road builders are men.

Have you rode around most of your life in a car with a combustible engine? Thank a man because 96% of oil workers are men. Oh, and a man invented the automobile. 

Do you enjoy indoor plumbing that works? Thank a man because 98% of plumbers and pipe layers are men.

Do you enjoy a climate controlled environment inside your house? Thank a man because 98% of hvac workers are men.

Do you enjoy an automobile that operates correctly? Thank a man because 97% of mechanics are men. 

Do you enjoy curbside garbage pick up? Thank a man because 96% of garbage picker uppers are men. 

Do you enjoy cell service? Thank a man because 97% of cell tower technicians are men.

If women want to be seen as "equals" then women need to prove they're capable of doing what men have been doing for many many years. We live a cushy life style here in North America because of what men do on a daily basis. 

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Buckwheat said:

We live a cushy life style here in North America because of what men do on a daily basis. 

Do you believe if one were to remove what women typically do on a daily basis you would still have a cushy lifestyle?  Serious question, not a challenge.

[MustardSeed]

27 minutes ago, Buckwheat said:

What would equality look like? 

Do you enjoy seafood? 92% of the people who go out on boats to fish for us are men.

Do you enjoy beef? 84% of people in the cattle industry are men.

Do you enjoy electricity?? 97% of coal miners are men, 93% of dam builders are men, 96% of nuclear reactor operators are men.

Do you enjoy paved roads? 90% of road builders are men.

Have you rode around most of your life in a car with a combustible engine? Thank a man because 96% of oil workers are men. Oh, and a man invented the automobile. 

Do you enjoy indoor plumbing that works? Thank a man because 98% of plumbers and pipe layers are men.

Do you enjoy a climate controlled environment inside your house? Thank a man because 98% of hvac workers are men.

Do you enjoy an automobile that operates correctly? Thank a man because 97% of mechanics are men. 

Do you enjoy curbside garbage pick up? Thank a man because 96% of garbage picker uppers are men. 

Do you enjoy cell service? Thank a man because 97% of cell tower technicians are men.

If women want to be seen as "equals" then women need to prove they're capable of doing what men have been doing for many many years. We live a cushy life style here in North America because of what men do on a daily basis. 

You’re insulting me.  
Equality in this scenario doesn’t mean sameness.  It means respect and power equality. 

[MustardSeed]

30 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

ever "any degree of harm"

Interesting. I was under the impression that you had been saying all along that all of the harm of the was due to women having jobs outside the home, And in fact that you were unkindly insinuating that people like blue may even Experience family degradation due to her employment if she waits long enough. 

[MustardSeed]

32 minutes ago, Buckwheat said:

women want to be seen as "equals" then women need to prove they're capable of doing what men have been doing for many many years. We live a cushy life style here in North America because of what men do on a daily basis. 

I certainly hope that your definition of equal is different than mine. I would hate to think that you are telling me that because men take out the trash , Lay the pipe, etc.,that we are not equals.  

[Buckwheat]

3 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

You’re insulting me.  
Equality in this scenario doesn’t mean sameness.  It means respect and power equality. 

I'm not insulting you or anyone else. My point is everything we enjoy on a daily basis is because a man probably invented it and men maintain it. When you wake up and turn on the light, it's because a man invented electricity and 97% of people in the electrical field are men and they do all the maintenance. Same for plumbing, your cell phone, your house, the roads you drive on, the car you drive, MEN. I respect women and most men do also. Please explain power equality. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

9 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Interesting. I was under the impression that you had been saying all along that all of the harm of the was due to women having jobs outside the home

I find it interesting that you are under this impression when I have consistently and repeatedly stated that this is NOT what I’m saying. 

I think that most of the backlash I have received is because people are seeing what they want to see instead of sticking to what I’m actually saying, which is not at all prejudiced or demeaning towards women.

[Buckwheat]

9 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I certainly hope that your definition of equal is different than mine. I would hate to think that you are telling me that because men take out the trash , Lay the pipe, etc.,that we are not equals.  

I gave atleast a dozen examples of different professions that are very important to how we live on a daily basis and showed that they're dominated by men 95 to 98%. Are you able to explain why in the year 2023 women won't step up and help men do the difficult work that keeps this society running smoothly? 

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, Buckwheat said:

I'm not insulting you or anyone else. My point is everything we enjoy on a daily basis is because a man probably invented it and men maintain it. When you wake up and turn on the light, it's because a man invented electricity and 97% of people in the electrical field are men and they do all the maintenance. Same for plumbing, your cell phone, your house, the roads you drive on, the car you drive, MEN. I respect women and most men do also. Please explain power equality. 

This is an interesting take, especially considering that the inventor of the lightbulb was always very vocal about how he was only ever able to do everything that he did because of a woman (his mother).

There’s a reason that men do all those things, and it’s not because women refuse. It’s generally a combination of sexism in the workplace, sexism in society, and the disempowerment of women.

I worked in the oil field in Wyoming for two years in my 20s, and then worked for a natural gas company later for another few years. Some departments in the natural gas company were comprised completely up women.

We have a poster here, who wanted to be an engineer, and attempted to go to college to become one, and was dissuaded from doing so based solely on her being a woman.

Edited February 2, 2023 by bluebell

[Buckwheat]

44 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you believe if one were to remove what women typically do on a daily basis you would still have a cushy lifestyle?  Serious question, not a challenge.

What are you referring to when you say "women typically do on a daily basis?" What profession or task?

[Raingirl]

According to men in this thread:

1. Women have destroyed the family by working outside the home. 
 

2. Women have no worth if they don’t work outside the home because they aren’t doing the really important stuff that men do.
🙄

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

According to men in this thread:

1. Women have destroyed the family by working outside the home. 
 

2. Women have no worth if they don’t work outside the home because they aren’t doing the really important stuff that men do.
🙄

That is a masterful recap.  We are damned if we do, and damned if we don’t.

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, Buckwheat said:

I gave atleast a dozen examples of different professions that are very important to how we live on a daily basis and showed that they're dominated by men 95 to 98%. Are you able to explain why in the year 2023 women won't step up and help men do the difficult work that keeps this society running smoothly? 

My husband works in the oil and gas industry, and we frequently discuss how the women are treated.  They are not treated well, for the most part. There are some good bosses, but they are still surprisingly few and far between considering that it’s 2023.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

13 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

According to men in this thread:

1. Women have destroyed the family by working outside the home. 

This is a mischaracterization of what I have said. I said that the increase of women working outside of the home unnecessarily when there are still children in the home and the increased divorce rate that has been associated with this, has being one of the factors that has led to the decay (not destruction) of the family. I was also very clear that I hold men, women, and society at large responsible for this.

Edited February 2, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I said that the increase of women working outside of the home unnecessarily when there are still children in the home and the increased divorce rate that has been associated with this, 

You keep saying this but you haven't been able to show yet that the bolded is true.

The divorce rate has been going down for decades, even as the number of women in the workforce has increased.

[Raingirl]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

My husband works in the oil and gas industry, and we frequently discuss how the women are treated.  They are not treated well, for the most part. There are some good bosses, but they are still surprisingly few and far between considering that it’s 2023.

I work in construction contracting. Obviously, I am not involved in performing the actual construction work, but I could tell you a few stories. 

Edited February 2, 2023 by Raingirl

[MustardSeed]

37 minutes ago, Buckwheat said:

My point is everything we enjoy on a daily basis is because a man probably invented it and men maintain it.

Everything we enjoy?  Ok.  I wholeheartedly disagree, and your delivery is demeaning to me. 
 

I love men and appreciate what they bring to the table.  I cannot imagine a world without men and their contributions.  
 

Do I misunderstand you? It appears you are accusing me of not appreciating men and all they have and do accomplish, and that if I cannot do the same things they do that I should not want equal regard, power, rights, say, opportunity, and freedoms as men.  Please correct me if I’m wrong.  

 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You keep saying this but you haven't been able to show yet that the bolded is true

Did you forget the source I shared with you where several studies had shown this to be the case?