What's with the phrase 'having it all'?

V

visceral_instinct

Monkey see, monkey denigrate
Valued Senior Member
Why is it seen as normal that a man should have a job and a family, but a woman who wants a job and a family is seen as wanting something for nothing, hence the phrase 'having it all'???

If you say it's because it's women who have the mothering instinct, I'll vomit. That's not an excuse for discrimination.
 
You can't have it all, women have long been told. The price of female achievement, goes the centuries-old conventional wisdom, is loneliness. And modern commentators have taken up the refrain. "The more successful the woman, the less likely it is she will find a husband or bear a child," argued economist Sylvia Ann Hewlett in 2002. Last year, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd claimed that America faces "an epidemic of professional women missing out on husbands and kids" because men remain unwilling to enter equal relationships with educated, high-powered women. And in the first two-thirds of the 20th century, as women gained greater access to higher education and professional work, such was indeed the case. Women who earned bachelor's degrees and PhDs were more likely to miss out on their "MRS" degrees than their less-educated sisters.

But for women born since 1960, there has been a revolutionary reversal of the historic pattern. As late as the 1980s, according to economist Elaina Rose, women with PhDs or the equivalent were less likely to marry than women with a high school degree. But the "marital penalty" for highly educated women has declined steadily since then, and by 2000 it had disappeared. Today, women with a college degree or higher are more likely to marry than women with less education and lower earnings potential.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/22/AR2006112201801.html
 
That isn't what women are supposed to do. They're supposed to stay home, take care of the kids, and give the man a good night.

Well, at least in my 1950's vision:)
 
Take care of the kids?
The foreman down the mines should do that...
 
Norsefire said:
That isn't what women are supposed to do. They're supposed to stay home, take care of the kids, and give the man a good night.

Well, at least in my 1950's vision:)
Click to expand...

You're damned if you do and damned if you don't. Many women who work feel guilty for leaving their children, but at the same time many women who stay at home feel guilty because they know that they could be giving their children more if they worked as well (aka better clothes, better school, better vacations...etc). At least that's what I've heard. Of course despite all of the guilt women feel their kids usually don't seem to mind either way. I know I didn't.
 
That's the man's job. If they unfortunately don't have a husband, and they're a bunch of prostitute sluts, they should jsut be executed and their children should be put up for adoption

If for some other reason, such as their husband died or divorced, then the state should provide help.
 
There isn't one man who doesn't want to have a wife that works and makes money. This is all a lie.
 
That's the man's job.
Click to expand...

Why is it right to work if you're a human with a penis, but wrong if you're a human with a vagina? Use reason for once instead of spitting out your fucking dummy.
 
VI, it's just the way things have always been. I'm not against woman having jobs, not at all (except police and military); it's just that traditionally, that's how a family is supposed to be.
 
Norsefire said:
VI, it's just the way things have always been.
Click to expand...
Yeah, like marrying girls off at 12 years old, floggings, witch burning, dying of old age at 30...
Bring back ALL of the good old days if we're gonna use that as an excuse.
 
Oli said:
Yeah, like marrying girls off at 12 years old, floggings, witch burning, dying of old age at 30...
Bring back ALL of the good old days if we're gonna use that as an excuse.
Click to expand...

Just the social structures.

visceral_instinct said:
Why not police and military?
Click to expand...

I don't know, I just don't think they should be allowed in to the forces. It's a personal bias, I s'pose. I grew up in an ultra-conservative, religious area in Syria, so that's why.
 
Norsefire said:
Just the social structures.



I don't know, I just don't think they should be allowed in to the forces. It's a personal bias, I s'pose. I grew up in an ultra-conservative, religious area in Syria, so that's why.
Click to expand...

What social structures exactly? Those days were not very egalitarian...

I don't know why I'd like to stab you, I just do. I guess it's just a personal bias. Should that be acted on?
 
visceral_instinct said:
What social structures exactly? Those days were not very egalitarian...

I don't know why I'd like to stab you, I just do. I guess it's just a personal bias. Should that be acted on?
Click to expand...

Egalitarianism is foolish.

No, it shouldn't be acted on and it isn't a social tradition or structure
 
Why is egalitarianism foolish?

Neither is your opinion that women should not join the military or police, unless you live somewhere extremely backward.
 
visceral_instinct said:
Why is egalitarianism foolish?

Neither is your opinion that women should not join the military or police, unless you live somewhere extremely backward.
Click to expand...

Because not all people are equal.


"Backward"? Opinion. I think lib'rals are backwards and stupid, but that's my opinion.
 
Not all people are strong or smart, yes. But everyone contributes to society.

Society needs people with PhDs, but it also needs toilet cleaners and people who work on supermarket tills.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top