We all agree that the extreme feminazis are wrong. But you know what is great about feminism? Women now being able to CHOOSE what kind of life they wish to have. They can choose to be a submissive housewife if they want, or they can choose another lifestyle. They have that choice now, thanks to feminism.

The extremes on the other end are just as wrong. To say women should never have been able to have a choice in what kind of life to live. Never been able to vote, or support themselves, or have any choices.

And since abortion was thrown in there too, I’ll comment on that. I’m pro-choice… I would never want my wife to have an abortion, nor will we ever abort a baby - but as much as I am against abortion, who the hell am I to tell some other woman that she HAS TO have her baby?

But hey, I’m not a Christian. If you believe God will punish you for something like abortion, then fine, don’t do it, I don’t have a problem with that. But why in hell do you insist that someone else WHO DOESN’T BELIEVE IN YOUR GOD to have to live the same way? No one is trying to force you to have abortions, why are you trying to force others to live by your theocratic oppressions?

And what if my wife has a miscarriage, eh? Isn’t that ‘God’ aborting the baby? But murdering unborn children, that’s God’s will, eh? So it’s ok then, huh? Now, what about for someone who doesn’t believe in your God?

It’s like Eric Schwartz said, ” Anti-Choice Agnostics? I can count them on one hand.” It’s religious intolerance that is the problem, and that is MY absolute. Saying that other people have to live a certain way, because you believe that YOUR God wants everyone to live that way.

I have a lot of anger on the subject… can you tell? But I have some compassion, I used to be a Christian too, until I read the bible. (so many people quote Ecclesiastes… how many of them have ever actually READ it?)

While I am on the subject of God, let me close with - if anyone claims to tell you they KNOW what God thinks or feels about ANYTHING… run.

Your post is based on assumption that as a homemaker and wife I have no use for math, science or any other “intelligent” pursuit; that I’m staying home because I excel at cleaning toilets and mopping floors. Cloaking your judgment in phrases like “if you want to…that’s fine” also seems to me to be taking the easy way out. The rest of your post makes your true feelings obvious.

I don’t think anyone has taken the position that a child playing with dolls would not have the ability to earn a college degree - any more than a child playing with guns was destined to become a soldier or a criminal. The point was that we as females tend to gravitate towards more nurturing activities. These are generalizations, not absolute statements about all mankind.

My sister, incidentally, played with dolls and toy kitchen things when she was little, yet now she has applied to several universities as well. (My favourite toy was a walrus plushie of all things, and I don’t want to be a marine biologist!)

I’m not saying women should abandon their children; these days it is much easier to fit work around your domestic life. But I want to be self-sufficient. We can’t rely completely on our husbands for our income because they could lose their jobs, fall ill, die or divorce us. Otherwise, what else are we to do if our husbands suddenly can’t provide for us? Sponge off government welfare? Desperately try to find another man to marry, like some kind of glorified hooker?

I don’t see staying at home as being a waste of talents in general, since homemaking is certainly useful and indeed necessary, but it is a waste if women’s skills lie in different areas. Sure, I can do Maths, but I’ll be damned if I can clean a house properly. Why should I try to do something I’m terrible at and don’t enjoy, and ignore something I love and I’m brilliant at? And how would it help the country and its economy if a competent, enthusiastic mathematician were replaced with an incompetent, bored housewife?

A lot of posters here are describing what works for them and trying to apply it to all women and all families. I’ll admit, I’m trying hard not to do it myself and I still have.
This just goes to show that the reality is all women are different, and so are our partners and families, and so different domestic situations suit different people.

If you have good domestic skills and want to be a stay-at-home wife/mother, that’s fine. I personally believe it’s only good sense to at least keep any work-oriented skills you have up to date as a “safety net” in case you suddenly have to find work.
If you want to depend utterly on your husband, that’s fine as well, but only if you (and your children, if applicable) are happy with taking that risk.
I’m very grateful that I live in a society where we’re all free to make these choices. I just hope that soon there won’t be such stigma surrounding any one of them.

A few points here Catherine, if I may:
1. I have a degree in mathematics. I was pushed/encouraged to do this by my misguided, egalitarian, liberal east coast parents rather than pursue a family as a young woman. I later (but luckily not too late) saw that this was a misuse of my talents and would be ultimately unfulfilling to me, and about 99% of the women in the world as a way of life. The 1% or so of women who prefer the hard-driving career life really ought to not marry or have kids. They lack the proper submissive temperament and ability to be content with mundane tasks. Their husbands and kids would be unhappy because these women would see to it.

2. Throughout history, most men have not had a career. They have had monotonous, dangerous jobs that paid the bills to sustain a much loved (as opposed to oppressed) wife and kids. They were by and large doing this without complaint or abuse of their power(except in rare circumstances) because their was an organic culture that discourged doing otherwise. They were certainly not thinking “we have to keep those women in the kitchen and away from this fun coal mine, sewer, office, bridge, etc…” but rather “can’t wait to go home to my sweet warm wife and laughing kids”

3. Women historically had to do jobs either around the house or if they were urban outside the home to help take care of the house. During the industrial revolution lower class women usually worked alongside their husbands. It was the wealthy, fortunate women who were allowed to stay home. These women, who have worked as waitresses, cleaning ladies, etc are still looked down upon by feminists as not reaching their full potential.

4. Why all this rabble rousing about pushing your way into the exciting corporate world? This always was an world of the elite few, historically they were nearly all white men. But most white men were not in that world. They were on the streets, in the coal mines, sewers, on railroads, in the army etc. If women and men are truly equal in mind, body, ability and desire then for every women in a CEO, astro-physics, high paying cushy job there ought to be 50,000 women in terrible, dangerous, tedious work. That would reflect that reality of the time when men “oppressed” instead of protected women by taking on these “careers” for themselves

5. The feminist movement has never had the best interests of non-college degreed, working class women in mind. It has always been about pushing the philosophy and desire of the ivory tower elites down the throats of the “little people” as if it were a gift from heaven.

6. No, roles should not be reversed for men to take on child care during the early years. That is retarded and ignores the very real, and evident to logical people, difference between the male and female psyche and ability.

7. Inequalities are a natural part of life. As Tom pointed out, intelligence is given to a few by virtue of genetic luck. Why everyone needs a college degree is beyond me, let alone the people who are most like to spend their days caring for small children. We need working class laborers and getting a college degree would interfere with starting a career .Not to mention filling their heads with this liberal, egalitarian nonsense. Liberal arts departments have become nothing more than propaganda mills.

Johanna, I breastfed all of my many kids and will do so for any more I have. Breastfeeding is an important reason for women to be home with the little ones.

First of all, this assumes that if I am a mother who stays at home, I do NOTHING else but stay in my home and take care of my kids. The reality is that this ‘job’ enables me to have MORE time to contribute to other things - volunteering with organizations (mainly my church) which make valuable contributions to society and help others in a practical way.

One more person in the workforce adding taxable income to a family’s bank account isn’t going to matter much in the grand scheme of things. But one more person volunteering time at a homeless shelter, pregnancy crisis center, or church can change people’s lives for the better. Which is more profitable?

The second assumption is that staying at home and raising children is not a valuable pursuit. It is somehow ‘wasting’ resources. By, as the cliche goes, ‘the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world’ - my kids will be the next voters, the next doctors, the next pastors and policy-shapers in this country. Am I not making a contribution nurturing them and enabling them to reach their full potential?

My intention is not to say that if a woman chooses to work outside the home, she is condemned forever. I am just wondering if society doesn’t need to reorder it’s priorities and look more toward the future (our children) than the present and our comfort and the ‘what-I-want-to-do’ mentality.

* Women have tried careers and many find them less fulfilling than children and domestic life. For most people in these days of outsourcing and downsizing, work sucks. Raising children is preferable to working in a cube in a faceless organization.

* Due to the entrance of women into the workforce, wages have been deflated due to increased supply, which means it takes two incomes now for most people to survive. Thus, staying at home is now a luxury, and a hard-to-fake one at that. The stay-at-home mom is becoming a status symbol differentiating the true middle class from the lower middle class.

* People who have no or fewer children have less of a stake in the future. Whatever their traits as individuals, their genes and their group will suffer because they did not pass on their heritage to the next generation, either at all or to a lesser degree. Similarly, people who believe in overpopulation (i.e. who tend to be those with a genetically hypertrophied sense of conscientiousness and altruism) only hurt themselves.

People who don’t have children because of overpopulation (I think this is mostly a red herring to cover over their selfishness of not wanting to change diapers and live a sacrificial life of raising children) yield the spots of their descendants to people who don’t care as much about overpopulation, thus ensuring overpopulation in the long run.

While I disagree with his environmentalist bent, his anti-human overpopulation theories, or his implied endorsement of “population control”, Garrett Hardin explored the consequences of altruism to general humanity, in his famous Lifeboat Analogy:

http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_lifeboat_ethics_case_against_helping_poor.html

It all depends on your perspective- I see my individual life as ultimately having little meaning independent of the accomplishments of the various groups I am loyal to- primarily my blood descendants.

I have a son, a husband, and two jobs. I’m an Airman in the Air Force Reserves(originally Active Duty) and I love that job, I’m more than proud to serve my country and protect others. Protecting others is a trait that I’ve had since birth, I have always felt the need to protect others, no matter the cost. I also work as a child care aide at one of the local schools, because working with kids is also something I like to do. It gives me time away from the husband and the baby to be just a person, not a mom, not a wife, just me. Is it wrong for a woman to glory in just being herself, not being tied to someone else, but being her own very capable person? Last time I checked we are all human, no one being any better or any worse then the next.

And letting a boy run around in a dress in not something bad, its silly and funny. Get over yourself.

Johanna is particularly representative of the emotion-driven irrationality of feminism.

It’s funny. Many of us straddle a line without the same agenda. I would never use God as a tool to beat my children, and in fact, stand in shock and horror at those who twist the words of the bible to push their physical domination of their children. It is a wise person who can overcome the weakness of brutality, and give of themselves completely to a helpless infant.

I stay home with my children. I guide their education from home. I will not allow my children to be exposed to mindless drivel such as that promoted by Christianazis. I will never spank my children, nor give them juice, breastmilk substitutes, highly processed foods as I’m sure many of you do. You judge, yet you know not what you judge…

My son LOVES the PBK kitchen set. He looks darn good in a Cinderella dress. And, my daughter is into trains, planes and automobiles. For them, there is no gender associated with either. They do tend to play more with their “gender associated” toys, but they are merely mimicing adults. Not submissive women. Please…

As for your analogy to murder, the natural instinct I am appealing to here is that of survival- a problem our people are having a serious problem with right now, with below-replacement birthrates throughout Europe, the US, and the Anglosphere- much of it driven by feminism, among other causes. Survival IS a natural instinct, but must also be a positive good- this is a postulate most people don’t have a problem with. But you’re welcome to debate the merits of survival if you wish.

I’ve already decided that my progeny and civilization’s survival is a preferred moral outcome.

Thus, by artificially (largely through guilt and peer pressure on women, and appeals to vice and irresponsibility for men) suppressing most women’s desire to be a wife and mother, feminism threatens the survival of the group. It’s evil because it threatens survival, not merely because it is unnatural.