The Purloined Household

But one can then be a child for the rest of their life. My ex-husband for instance.

 

Basically, the change from one species into another.

 

I'm just gonna drop a *facepalm* here. It seems like a good place.

 

Citation please.

 

My kids are totally more likely to commit murder because I cook them lunch.

 

Shit! I made my kids lunch for school this morning. Fuck! I hope they don't go Columbine.

 

Woman's rights may have been the reason for the start of feminism but it has little to do with the current agenda of the feminist movement. A movement which has been absorbed into modern day liberalism.

I don't connect these effects to feminism per se, rather the agenda of the feminist movement/liberalism, which has torn down everything that gives stability to the household. And without a stable household you won't have stable children.

As I said earlier, I don't think freedom is the issue. The issue is the agenda of the movement and how it tears down the moral fabric of our society to the point of rampant dysfunction.

 

morality is subjective.

point me to a period of time where some supposed moral standard led to a peaceful society where dysfunction didn't exist. Show me where the church hasn't been the cause of numerous wars and death. Show me where the morality that you claim pervaded world society and humans were functional and civil in the highest regard. Show me these things.

and then cite your sources that immorality is the cause of all of the ills you listed earlier..as requested by Joniemack

 

You may think one thing, but the historical evidence points to another. Men participated in child care. They were not always hunting, making war or "worked" (still waiting on that definition). Tool making, for instance, is an important part of hunting and/or war (probably work too, but since you won't bother to define your term or are lazy with them, I can't tell). Tool making generally requires sitting in one spot for a while, which is *shocker* fantastic for child care. Obviously, while the women were off gathering/creating the basis for civilization, they had the infants with them, but pretty much the way biology works for nursing mothers.

So, yeah, Eddie, you clearly are pulling suppositions directly from you ass and calling them "facts". The good news is that I'm talking about agriculture, so those facts make for good fertilizer.

You have no data to support the following claims:

change in suicide rate
change in abortion rate
change in depression rate
change in child-on-child murder
change in immorality (whatever that means)

And even if you could plot those data points, to pin them all on one sole cause completely ignores any other influences, like economics, geopolitics and epidemics.

 

A morality based on truth is not subjective.

 

what is truth?

the bible? your god?

what makes your god different than the gods of other societies in which theirs are completely based in falsity and yours is a pure and honest truth. You have a lot of citations and proof to come up with. Chicago Manual Style if you please.

 

*snort*

You're so far away from truth on your claims in this thread that you might have acheived escape velocity.

 

I have to walk away from this for a few minutes. I'm tired of trying to explain why I'm laughing to producers when I'm working on a serious PR piece.

 

I never said they didn't. But in the cultures you mentioned, the women where the predominant childcare givers/cooks/ homemakers while the men where predominantly the ones who left the home during the day and hunted/worked/fought. In the cultures you mentioned, the men were not the ones who predominantly provided childcare/tended to the home/cooked. That was my initial point. Do you disagree with my point?

The economic and political trends are a result of the culture.
--- merged: Nov 8, 2011 8:03 PM ---

Maybe according to you, but then, who are you to say what's true and what's not? You're just a man, a fallible, imperfect man.

 

There is so much holy shit in this thread, my head can't process it. In fact, I can't even form a coherent statement about it, and I've been trying for about 5 minutes. I'll get my thoughts together and come back.

 

As a matter of fact, I do disagree. So does the historical record. And most anthropologists. Men and women in hunter/gatherer societies didn't have "homes" since most are at the very least semi-nomadic. You still haven't explained what you mean by "work", so I'm going to continue to ignore that aspect of your argument except to point out that apparently not even you know what you mean. But in order to gather, women, by the very definition, have to leave home to gather. That's why women are suspected of creating agriculture - so that they could stay closer to home.

And what the fuck is a "homemaker" when we're talking about nomadic and early cultures? That's a term existing entirely in your skull, Eddie. Did women do most of the cooking? Sure. I'll conceed that. Everything else in your claim is entirely of your own making and something that's been proven wrong by the historical record.

Ah, but that's not what you've said - nor is it in any way true. You've said that all those problems you listed are the sole result of the rise of feminism (I'm still waiting for you to tell me when that began). But to this latest claim, Friedman would be rolling in his grave if he heard you say that about politics. You're a free marketer, so to say that cultural trends affect markets in the ways you've claimed is kind of illogical. That's a Keynsian interpretation of economics. And I didn't say "political trends", I said "geopolitical". There's a big difference. Need me to explain it to you?