It happened again.

[Hollandmichigan]

(04-23-2012 09:18 PM)Persnickety Polecat Wrote:  

(04-23-2012 09:11 PM)Hollandmichigan Wrote:  The religous aspect to marriage aside, culture in the 1920s was definitely much more centered around male dominance... A woman with a career would have been unheard of, let alone an unmarried woman living independently.

i

That's nonsense. You're buying into rewritten history. Why do you suppose so many women died in the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire (long before 1925, incidentally)? Do you think they were there -- what? -- shopping? No. They were working. Unmarried, young women, working. Maybe middle and upper-middle class women submitted to the patriarchy, but the average working class woman *worked*. It wasn't anywhere near as abnormal as the history books would have you believe.

Incidentally, my grandmother worked full-time as an editor of a newspaper -- and she was firmly in the middle class -- and married AND had children. But that was a bit past 1925.

Marriage was about children. Family. Property. Not providing for women. If it was only about providing for women, then only patriarchal cultures would have the institution, and that's not the case. Every culture has some form of marriage.

Wow it looks like i need to educate myself as well! Of course ive always known this (e.g. Amelia earhart) i just never made the connectiin in my mind. Thanks!

[Elijah Craig]

If women didn't naturally get pregnant from having sex this would be a different conversation. But that is actually what happens. Pregnancy is the natural outcome of sex; the overwhelming majority of human beings want to have sex; only women get pregnant: thus supporting women and providing for a family are one in the same thing. Only modern, middle class Western women have the luxury of pretending that isn't the case.

The use of the P word-- patriarchy gets old. And this isn't even a discussion where most people would see it as two sides having roughly equally valid points. If you think what I said and what this other guy said have any near moral equivalence then your moral barometer is broken. And I really don't care whether or not you agree with or like what I said. If you think he raised valid points, you're fucked in the head.

[Elijah Craig]

It is an embarassment to this website that I can post about the Avett Brothers and it devolves into a conversation about whether or not being morally opposed to prostitution makes one ignorant and patriarchal.

[Hollandmichigan]

(04-23-2012 11:04 PM)Elijah Craig Wrote:  If you think he raised valid points, you're fucked in the head.

Who's the blowhard again? I think you just vindicated everything i said about you. But of course youve blocked me so you cant even see my respinses now. What a loser

[Hollandmichigan]

(04-23-2012 11:28 PM)Elijah Craig Wrote:  It is an embarassment to this website that I can post about the Avett Brothers and it devolves into a conversation about whether or not being morally opposed to prostitution makes one ignorant and patriarchal.

The title of this thread is "it hapoend again", i think its safe to say that "it" is not refereing to the avett brothers. Youve been called out and you no defense, stop wallowing in denial.

[lucrezaborgia]

(04-23-2012 11:04 PM)Elijah Craig Wrote:  If women didn't naturally get pregnant from having sex this would be a different conversation. But that is actually what happens. Pregnancy is the natural outcome of sex; the overwhelming majority of human beings want to have sex; only women get pregnant: thus supporting women and providing for a family are one in the same thing.

The use of the P word-- patriarchy gets old.

Since only women can give birth and before DNA people had no clue as to who the father was without a doubt, why has inheritence and other rights in Western society been based on patrilineal descent? Why does it matter who the father is as long as the wife has a husband to support the children? Why was it important for wives to be sequestered virgins? It never was about supporting women or families...it was almost always about property and citizenship.

[Mommy2Kids]

Hello????

You two are never going to agree, and I don't even see you agreeing to disagree. So get over yourselves already. Dang. It's like watching two children stab each other.

Personally, I think the whole basis of this thread was for sad, immature attention - self-promotion and flaunting something that while you claim was repugnant, apparently was flattering to you. I remember being hit on - when I was younger and thinner. It was a little amusing, but I saw it for what it was and moved on.

Maybe you should go hang out at Cheddar's instead of some sleezy bar.

And new guy, GEEZ, lighten up just a little.


Sometimes I cannot turn off the elementary teacher/mom mode.

[Elijah Craig]

I apologize for dropping the F-bomb... that's not the kind of person I have been in life and it's not what I want to be.

I blocked Holland back when I said "You can have the last word." I haven't been responding to him.

Boymom, of course it's an immature post, it's in Inane Chat. It was foolish of me to make and probably somewhat attention seeking. But I was not bragging about getting hit on by a prostitute. That's nothing to brag about.

As for the rest of the conversation, seriously, I'm not dignifying it with further response.

[Persnickety Polecat]

(04-23-2012 11:04 PM)Elijah Craig Wrote:  If women didn't naturally get pregnant from having sex this would be a different conversation. But that is actually what happens. Pregnancy is the natural outcome of sex; the overwhelming majority of human beings want to have sex; only women get pregnant: thus supporting women and providing for a family are one in the same thing. Only modern, middle class Western women have the luxury of pretending that isn't the case.

It's not about pretending. It's fact: Marriage has long been about property and ensuring the safe transfer of that property. In some cases, families married to secure alliances or strengthen business or other ties.

On a side note, I'll add that studies have shown that married men are usually better off physically and psychologically than their unmarried peers, while married women are more stressed and less happy than their unmarried peers. If marriage was about "taking care of women," the institution is failing miserably.

[elfdream]

If more married women had a 'wife' (not talking gay marriage here) they would probably be a lot happier.