Wifely Duties by piratenews

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

C'mon! No comment?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 14, 2008 12:27 PM

FREMDFIRMA

I'm taking it as comedy there, Guy.

Not really on board with that whole philosopy, since...

A - I do the housewife gig better than any chick I've ever dated.
(Thus the alter-ego of Domestic Dynamo!)

B - I can do for my own damned self, and have no tolerance for anyone who can't within my life.

That's not to say there's not a lot of lies and bullshit goin on what with rabid feministas trying to demasculate men as revenge under the banner of "equality" - but I nailed one ex good and solid on that one when she brought it up.

"You want equality ? fine, change your own fucking spark plugs, here's a wrench."

Amazing how fast she abandoned that line of thought and offered to make dinner instead.

People are people, and in todays world gender matters as little as race, but goddamn that doesn't stop some folk from making an issue out of stupid shit like that, does it now ?

Really, I could care less - any girl in my life has to meet my criteria, not anyone elses, and vice-versa, not simpler than that.

Who gives a shit what other people think.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 14, 2008 1:24 PM

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Since disabled Im forced to do some of the househubby things. Parts of staying at home are pretty good, which is really underplayed by the media mafia. I can see why being a housewife is a highly soughtafter job these days, but very hard to find a husband who can afford it.

Instead girls and women are brainwashed to want to fight vampires, shoot bad guys, volunteer for military combat, go to college ($100,000 debt for the banksters), work a career (get a credit card at 39% plus late fees), dont get married (until its too late to make babies), ignore your biological clock (what clock?), be a lesbian (just buy an anonymous pervert felon sperm donor). "Sex in the City" has the ugliest Jewess on TV, so ugly that other Jewish comedians dedicate their monologues to her (in reality she's married to a rich Jewish guy and don't have to work, so he's probably investing some of his fortune on hos).

Women only have a short window of opportunity of sexual attractiveness to catch a husband and make babies, age 15 to 25-35. God and/or Evolution made it that way. Mad Doctors now put growth steroids in milk and plastics, causing girls to reach publerty before age 5, which results in early menopause, which reduces the opportunity to have babies. Birth hormone pills and other contraceptives cause sterility, breast cancer, cervical cancer and premature aging, making it harder to have babies.

Good Old Days of the 1950s versus Today:

1. Taxes were so low that women didn't have to work 5 months out of the year to pay 100% of their wages to Uncle Scam. Income tax only started for the middle class after WW2.

2. Since taxes were low women didn't have to work to survive and have a good standard of living.

3. Women could raise babies, instead of work until menopause, when it's too late. Not having kids results in extreme stress.

4. Now more kids are insane, raised by govt psyop babysitters in armed concentration camps. Govt skools force medicate millions of kids with drugs that cause brain damage. Sending kids to skool breaks the family bond, perhaps forever, and prevents kids from learning life skills that can only be learned at home.

5. Women in the workplace lowers wages for husbands, resulting in less income for families.

6. Stress on women in the workplace causes fights at home, divorces, car crashes, deaths, suicides, murders. Women must compete with men, who are more agressive. Travel splits up familes, allowing more time for affairs.

7. Women who work get less sex, which raises stress levels. Semen is a natural antidepressant (condoms not allowed - that's why they call it Gay?). Women who work get raped more.

8. Working women result in more burgleries since homes are abandoned during working hours.

9. Working women have more babies out of wedlock.

10. Any lawsuit for gender discrimination, sexual harassment or rape results in blacklisting FOREVER by companies with "human resource" depts, which use public court database searches for civil lawsuits. Win or lose, right or wrong don't matter.

Multi-trillionaire Rabbi David Rockefeller laughs at billions of goyim women who got suckered into paying him to work as his biatches. The Jew who made this video was assassinated by the Rockefellers, after founding the Libertarian and Constitution Parties.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1263677258215075609

I'd add that guys are brainwashed to look for working women, pimping out their girlfriends and/or wives for an extra paycheck (to pay the man's taxes).

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 14, 2008 2:43 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Not sayin ya don't have a point there in that last post - but the solution to it isn't to turn on each other over gender issues, that's just one more artificial divide (socially, it is) to keep us at each others throats so we don't gang up on THEM.

Motherhood oughta be a cherished, sacred and respected profession, and it always struck me as passing strange that it ain't.

Mine did a pretty good job, although it's never sat fully at rest the fact that she rather deliberately armed a laser guided tykebomb while doing so as an act of revenge against an unjust society.

Woulda been nice to have been *asked* first, and I still likely woulda done it, but the fact that I wasn't has always irked me just a little.

-Frem
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LaserGuidedTykebomb

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 14, 2008 3:28 PM

The secret that no one wants to let out is this is why Islam is so successful. It's not the men, it's the women. Society expects nothing of them, and in a multiple marriage, they only have to put up with their provider a small % of the time. Not Saudi burn them at the stake Islam, but normal Islam. The strongest defenders of it I have met have all been women. I agree with the free ride principle.

I think it's the biggest thing driving the drug market in this country: It's a free ride. Drug trades are easy money, and it's pretty easy to pump yourself up on amphetamines and opiates, let them withdraw from your system, and then check into the hospital as a schitzophrenic. There's a ring around here that does that in chain, they're all on disability for being hopeless schitzophrenics, a condition which they fake. Initially. Of course, long term use and they become real schitzophrenics, and those initially, they live the life of Riley, five or six junkies to an apt. all on public assistance, soon it devolves into spending it all on drugs when the candyman learns that they're easy money.

Eventually, the one here in town ended in AK47s, bodies burried in the forest, police hunts with dogs, some suicides, and of course, all charges against the candyman were dropped. The reason is simple: The cops are on the take.

The above is all true, and deeply disturbing from a social perspective. I think that we need to collectively recognize that the desire for personal free time is far greater than the freedome to wear sweatpants and drive cars, or even own property, that it's probably the principle driving force of our society. It probably helps provide our poor education: Terrible students have a lot more free time.

Just thought I'd lob this handgrenade into this sinking starhship

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 14, 2008 10:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I think that we need to collectively recognize that the desire for personal free time is far greater than the freedome to wear sweatpants and drive cars, or even own property, that it's probably the principle driving force of our society.

Amen to that.

As for free rides, house-wives, cherishing motherhood and the 1950's.. I think we can all agree that there are many good and complex reason things changed. They are not perfect now but neither were they necessarily better before.

Parenthood and earning the money to live decently are two things that are never easily combined without losses somehwere along the line. Be that loss of money, loss of equality, loss of experiences, loss of child bonding... Something is going to be cut back, always. We can only try, as parents, to be fair to one another and agree on an equal share of the burdens and joys. Whichever shape that may take.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 14, 2008 10:33 PM

FREMDFIRMA

I think free time wouldn't be so artificially inflated in value if folks didn't have to feed the fucking Governments voracious appetite before themselves, you ask me.

And ponder this, one reason I am dire pissed at GM right now - when you ponder the chunk of that

bailout that *I* am going to have to pay...

It's not a bit different than if the Gov sent some goons to my house, stuck a gun to my head and *forced* me to buy one of their overpriced, poor quality, gas guzzling SUVs, except I don't even GET the goddamn SUV now do I ?

GM is gonna rue the day, since I got a *lot* of contacts here within the auto industry, especially procurement, logistics and supply chain management - they're gonna have a hell of a time with their suppliers now if I have anythin to say about it, and damn straight that I will.

I want my fuckin money back, or the SUV, or an equivalent amount of revenge, which I tend to pay at 10-to-1, minimum.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 14, 2008 10:40 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Wow this thread is......unbelievable. Good old days huh! 'Leave it to Beaver Land' where everyone was happy?

Give me a frakking break. How big was valium use amongst housewives in the 50's and 60's? Just to get through the day.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 15, 2008 12:03 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

If a marriage certificate is a license to rape a woman, I firmly stand by my choice to never sign one.

No matter the relationship, and no matter which party is saying it, the word "no" is always to be respected.

The end.

[/sig]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 15, 2008 2:00 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"If a marriage certificate is a license to rape a woman, I firmly stand by my choice to never sign one."

Who said/believes that horseshit?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 15, 2008 2:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"If a marriage certificate is a license to rape a woman, I firmly stand by my choice to never sign one."

Who said/believes that horseshit?

I think it's fair to say that most people don't and PN was a bit more obvious than usual in his attempt to stir up entertaining outrage, so most people didn't bite.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 15, 2008 3:47 AM

ZZETTA13

The Scenario:

Jeff has been out of work due to a lay-off for a while. It isn’t to bad he and his spouse are still able to keep their head above the bill collectors because she puts in a full day at the office. The thing is…… Jeff, in order to mellow his depression takes some of that money and heads down to the local bar to drink his sorrow away with his friends. His buddies do help make him feel better. Jeff heads home feeling better about himself and meets Mary in the kitchen where she’s taking things out of the frig to prepare the nights dinner. The drunken man sashays up to his pretty wife on course for a romantic evening. So, Mary isn’t in the mood. She’s worked all day, is getting dinner ready and now has to deal with a liquored up mate?

“Wifely Duties?” I personally think she has the right to refuse.

Course it works both ways…but if my honey came home all boozed up ready for ….. I think I’d have to give in. But that’s just me

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 15, 2008 4:46 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Wow this thread is......unbelievable. Good old days huh! 'Leave it to Beaver Land' where everyone was happy?

Give me a frakking break. How big was valium use amongst housewives in the 50's and 60's? Just to get through the day.

Crime was virtually non-existant, the Second Amendment was not infringed, houses cost under 50 grand, cars and gas were likewise cheap....

People believed in things, and MADE their dreams a reality. Folks worked hard and had the things to show for it.

Children grew up with their Moms making them breakfast, lunch AND dinner. Families sat down together to eat.

If a kid got in trouble, he was punished by his parents. You could count on your neightbors.

Sounds like a slice of heaven to me,

Granted, I believe a woman should be allowed to work, if she wants to. NOT because she has to, tho.

Nor do I think there is anything wrong with a woman who is a stay-at-home mom.

Have you ever noticed that those folks/homes with a mother as a housewife, are usually spotless, always have food prepared, and the kids are generally better behaved?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 15, 2008 4:57 AM

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
If a marriage certificate is a license to rape a woman, I firmly stand by my choice to never sign one.

US military Status of Forces Agreement changes law to allow rapists to marry their victims to avoid arrest in Iraq
www.equalityiniraq.com

Many married folks learn the hard way to never sign a marriage contract with the govt, which literally marries them to the govt. If they get divorced, the govt judge will put one of them in jail for civil contempt, to extort all their family's wealth. Better to only get a church wedding, and no civil contract with the govt.

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Wow this thread is......unbelievable. Good old days huh! 'Leave it to Beaver Land' where everyone was happy?

Give me a frakking break. How big was valium use amongst housewives in the 50's and 60's? Just to get through the day.

Some friends of mine lived what I thought was the 1950s lifestyle in the 1970s. Their dad was an engineering director and their mom a housewife. Nice house, private schools, A+ students, sports stars yet geeky kids. One became an airline pilot the other an MD director. Ran into her 20 years later. She said the only way she survived college was by psych therapy. Seems she grew up with a crazy mom. By crazy I mean homicidal schizophrenic psychopath. Every day after school she had to rush home and "HIDE THE GUNS", "to keep her mom from shooting her dad". My theory is she had an adverse reaction to a medication, but failed to sue for malpractice damages. Speed also causes psychosis as a side effect. Beware Dexatrim non-prescription "diet" pills. And they weren't smart enough to buy a $200 gunsafe.

Quote:
Originally posted by zzetta13:
The Scenario:

Jeff has been out of work due to a lay-off for a while. It isn’t to bad he and his spouse are still able to keep their head above the bill collectors because she puts in a full day at the office. The thing is…… Jeff, in order to mellow his depression takes some of that money and heads down to the local bar to drink his sorrow away with his friends. His buddies do help make him feel better. Jeff heads home feeling better about himself and meets Mary in the kitchen where she’s taking things out of the frig to prepare the nights dinner. The drunken man sashays up to his pretty wife on course for a romantic evening. So, Mary isn’t in the mood. She’s worked all day, is getting dinner ready and now has to deal with a liquored up mate?

“Wifely Duties?” I personally think she has the right to refuse.

Course it works both ways…but if my honey came home all boozed up ready for ….. I think I’d have to give in. But that’s just me

Z

Scenario: Husband does not work, for whatever reason. Wife can't take the pressure of being The Man of the house, working in the cutthroat Mans World. Wife becomes an alcoholic pill-popper smoker to "cope", and because she begins to hate all men. Drinking a 6-pack or quart of liquor every day adds 150 pounds of flubber. Pills cause other medical and behavior problems. Celebacy is the safest form of birth contro, and intentional intimacy avoidance perhaps due to suppressed incest memories. Wifely duties no longer required results in more depression by ignoring a human need for human contact. Obeisity also destroys her ability to get promoted or make friends. Self image plummets. The downward spiral accellerates...

And somebody is responsible for brainwashing 100-million parents to murder 50-million of their own children in USA, for "financial reasons". Murder for hire was legalized by Roe v Wade. Jane Roe BTW did get to have her baby, which she loved very much. No nation has ever survived that failed to sustain its population.

Islam does not murder their next generation. Polygamy is a Christian value too, until the homosexual pagan Catholic pope kings genocided Europe to build their tax-exempt Vatican Nation. Mormons have been quite successful with polygamy. The Vatican also runs the illegal alien invasion of USA, and forbids birth control and abortion for their 50-million-man army already invading USA.

All Christians, Jews and atheists also practice polygamy - it's called divorce. Divorce was legalized by King Henry the VIII, so he could chop the heads off his wives and found the Royal Anglican Church of England (Episcopalian).

My main point of this thread is the suicidal taxation rate caused by socialism/communism/fascism to feed the private central banks that counterfeit all "money" and keep all income taxes. The same Babylonian (Iraqi Kurd) "Jews" who preach thet marriage includes beastiality and pedophilia, and requires rabbis to orally suck the penis of babies during circumcision ritual. This was proven by the Jewish Bankster Bailout Bill, which stole $8.5-Trillion in 7 weeks in 2008 under threat of martial law, exported offshore to the international banksters with zero accountability to Congress. Financial stress is the cause of most divorces, which is required by the Protocols of Zion, to intentionally destroy the families of their enemies and create a one-world "Jewish" utopia (non-Semitic Khazarian descendants of Genghis Kahn, a good "Jewish" mafiya name), with slavery and extinction for everyone else (the goyim cattle).

Women will tolerate anything so long as there's money coming in. Which explains prostitution. Which proves all women are prostitutes? Jews control the porn industry, and homosexual polygamist Hugh Hefner is George Bush's Jewish cousin, forcing all women to live up to airbrush whore lesbian standards, and all men to aspire to be perverts.

Discuss amongst yourselves...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 15, 2008 5:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

Crime was virtually non-existant, the Second Amendment was not infringed, houses cost under 50 grand, cars and gas were likewise cheap....

People believed in things, and MADE their dreams a reality. Folks worked hard and had the things to show for it.

And all of this because of housewives? Hmm. GOOD, attentive parenting plays a role in creating optimistic, law-abiding citizens, but neither do I think that the 1950's were thecrime-free, happy paradise you make it out to be, nor that women staying at home had ALL that much to do with it.

Try and look at this image you paint from the perspective of a 1950's woman. Even ignoring the blatant inequality before the law, and the blatant sexism in society alive in those days. Stay. At. Home. No job. No independent income. Your children HAVE to be your entire focus. The house HAS to be spotless. Your interaction with other adults is limited and as is your involvement in intellectual pursuits and current affairs. And it's the same thing day after day.

Yes, it has its rewarding aspects, but I think there is a big reason why not all women strive for this and it is just as valid a negative aspect of the 1950's as all those positive aspects you describe and should always be taken into account.

Quote:

Children grew up with their Moms making them breakfast, lunch AND dinner. Families sat down together to eat.

If a kid got in trouble, he was punished by his parents. You could count on your neightbors.

Sounds like a slice of heaven to me,

Yes, sounds like heaven if you're the kid or the husband. Try and view this image as the one making breakfast, lunch and dinner and doing the dishes, cleaning up afterwards, every time, every day. While the others do not. That home-y feeling the husband and children experience is not what a housewife necessarily experiences because she is surrounded by her job 24/7. She doesn't get to leave work and then relax.

Quote:

Granted, I believe a woman should be allowed to work, if she wants to. NOT because she has to, tho.

Nor do I think there is anything wrong with a woman who is a stay-at-home mom.

Neither do I have something against stay-at-home moms. If this is the life they want, more power to them, I'm sure they will have a beautiful family life.

BUT doesn't your argument contain an inherent blame toward working moms (who choose it and are not forced to do it) because their choice not to be at home negates all those positive things you ascribe to the existence of housewives? Or are you willing to cede that there are uniquely positive aspects to working mothers?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 15, 2008 5:55 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

Crime was virtually non-existant, the Second Amendment was not infringed, houses cost under 50 grand, cars and gas were likewise cheap....

People believed in things, and MADE their dreams a reality. Folks worked hard and had the things to show for it.

And all of this because of housewives? Hmm. GOOD, attentive parenting plays a role in creating optimistic, law-abiding citizens, but neither do I think that the 1950's were thecrime-free, happy paradise you make it out to be, nor that women staying at home had ALL that much to do with it.

Try and look at this image you paint from the perspective of a 1950's woman. Even ignoring the blatant inequality before the law, and the blatant sexism in society alive in those days. Stay. At. Home. No job. No independent income. Your children HAVE to be your entire focus. The house HAS to be spotless. Your interaction with other adults is limited and as is your involvement in intellectual pursuits and current affairs. And it's the same thing day after day.

Yes, it has its rewarding aspects, but I think there is a big reason why not all women strive for this and it is just as valid a negative aspect of the 1950's as all those positive aspects you describe and should always be taken into account.

Quote:

Children grew up with their Moms making them breakfast, lunch AND dinner. Families sat down together to eat.

If a kid got in trouble, he was punished by his parents. You could count on your neightbors.

Sounds like a slice of heaven to me,

Yes, sounds like heaven if you're the kid or the husband. Try and view this image as the one making breakfast, lunch and dinner and doing the dishes, cleaning up afterwards, every time, every day. While the others do not. That home-y feeling the husband and children experience is not what a housewife necessarily experiences because she is surrounded by her job 24/7. She doesn't get to leave work and then relax.

Quote:

Granted, I believe a woman should be allowed to work, if she wants to. NOT because she has to, tho.

Nor do I think there is anything wrong with a woman who is a stay-at-home mom.

Neither do I have something against stay-at-home moms. If this is the life they want, more power to them, I'm sure they will have a beautiful family life.

BUT doesn't your argument contain an inherent blame toward working moms (who choose it and are not forced to do it) because their choice not to be at home negates all those positive things you ascribe to the existence of housewives? Or are you willing to cede that there are uniquely positive aspects to working mothers?

Yes, I do blame "working" mothers, ESPECIALLY when they don't have to.

The lack of caring, loving parents, is where a LOT of the problems in our society come from.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 15, 2008 6:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:

BUT doesn't your argument contain an inherent blame toward working moms (who choose it and are not forced to do it) because their choice not to be at home negates all those positive things you ascribe to the existence of housewives? Or are you willing to cede that there are uniquely positive aspects to working mothers?

Yes, I do blame "working" mothers, ESPECIALLY when they don't have to.

The lack of caring, loving parents, is where a LOT of the problems in our society come from.

Then why not say so upfront? Why the "I think women should be allowed to work if they want to, not if they have to" line?

And why not blame working husbands? They don't have to make a choice between parenthood and self-fullfillment. Or do they? Why aren't you more mad at fathers that work away from home all day and then come home too tired to play with their kids, which is a LOT more common than working mothers doing so.

I find it very telling that the answer to working mothers is to tell them to stop instead of trying to involve men MORE in the act of childrearing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 15, 2008 6:20 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

If you say so.

I do think women should be allowed to work if they want.

Let me clarify. I believe that A parent should be home (to clean and take care of it).

ESPECIALLY if there are children.

It can be either parent. But someone NEEDS to be at home.

Hell, if the guy works at McDonalds, and the woman makes 100k a year, the guy should be at home.

But dont tell me that BOTH parents should work.

Its because there is noone home that kids grow up so fucked up today.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 15, 2008 6:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
If you say so.

I do think women should be allowed to work if they want.

Let me clarify. I believe that A parent should be home (to clean and take care of it).

ESPECIALLY if there are children.

I take it you really mean one spouse should be home at all times, especially if there are children?

Quote:

It can be either parent. But someone NEEDS to be at home.

Hell, if the guy works at McDonalds, and the woman makes 100k a year, the guy should be at home.

But dont tell me that BOTH parents should work.

Its because there is noone home that kids grow up so fucked up today.

This I find a more reasonable basis for debate.

(A personal question: Would you be willing to be the stay-at-home parent or house-keeper, incomes being more or less equal? How much do you like your job? What if you really LOVED your job?)

I agree that children should not be left alone unsupervised for long afternoons every day. I do not think that one parent staying home full time is the only solution to this.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 15, 2008 7:30 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

Crime was virtually non-existant, the Second Amendment was not infringed, houses cost under 50 grand, cars and gas were likewise cheap....

People believed in things, and MADE their dreams a reality. Folks worked hard and had the things to show for it.

And all of this because of housewives? Hmm. GOOD, attentive parenting plays a role in creating optimistic, law-abiding citizens, but neither do I think that the 1950's were thecrime-free, happy paradise you make it out to be, nor that women staying at home had ALL that much to do with it.

Try and look at this image you paint from the perspective of a 1950's woman. Even ignoring the blatant inequality before the law, and the blatant sexism in society alive in those days. Stay. At. Home. No job. No independent income. Your children HAVE to be your entire focus. The house HAS to be spotless. Your interaction with other adults is limited and as is your involvement in intellectual pursuits and current affairs. And it's the same thing day after day.

Yes, it has its rewarding aspects, but I think there is a big reason why not all women strive for this and it is just as valid a negative aspect of the 1950's as all those positive aspects you describe and should always be taken into account.

Quote:

Children grew up with their Moms making them breakfast, lunch AND dinner. Families sat down together to eat.

If a kid got in trouble, he was punished by his parents. You could count on your neightbors.

Sounds like a slice of heaven to me,

Yes, sounds like heaven if you're the kid or the husband. Try and view this image as the one making breakfast, lunch and dinner and doing the dishes, cleaning up afterwards, every time, every day. While the others do not. That home-y feeling the husband and children experience is not what a housewife necessarily experiences because she is surrounded by her job 24/7. She doesn't get to leave work and then relax.

Quote:

Granted, I believe a woman should be allowed to work, if she wants to. NOT because she has to, tho.

Nor do I think there is anything wrong with a woman who is a stay-at-home mom.

Neither do I have something against stay-at-home moms. If this is the life they want, more power to them, I'm sure they will have a beautiful family life.

BUT doesn't your argument contain an inherent blame toward working moms (who choose it and are not forced to do it) because their choice not to be at home negates all those positive things you ascribe to the existence of housewives? Or are you willing to cede that there are uniquely positive aspects to working mothers?

Yes, I do blame "working" mothers, ESPECIALLY when they don't have to.

The lack of caring, loving parents, is where a LOT of the problems in our society come from.

There is so much bullshit in this thread that the smell is sky high. But this has got to be the topper. In case you had not nticed WOMEN for the most part raise their kids......Men tend to have a nasty habit of forgetting that their 30 seconds of pleasure last a liftime, so don't give me any of this crap that working mothers are the root of the problem.

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Trolls Against McCain

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 15, 2008 1:09 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I can't believe the BS posted here.

Women have NEVER had a free ride, historically or during evolution.

Look at more primitive societies - you will find females provide roughly 80%+ of the food through gathering and primitive agriculture, males provide 20% or less through hunting.

It is common for women to do all the farming AND cooking AND child minding AND fetching - water, firewood, goods - women are often treated as beasts of burden.

Girls are treated as trade goods, sold into prostitution, often to fund the father's drug habits.

Islam is the driving force of female mutilation. Hey guys, how would you like to have YOUR parts dug out with a rusty razor blade in order to be considered 'clean' ?

As for Islam - the more restrictive it is - in say Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Morocco, Nigeria, Western Sahara - the higher the female suicide rates, mutilation rates, abuse rates. Uuhhm, yeah, women really must like that.

When it comes to childcare, in Fiji today (an egalitarian society) the older people look after the children, men fish, and women plant, harvest and cook taro and other vegetables. Food is too hard to come by to waste the time of able-bodied adults in looking after children.

The idea of the delicate flower staying at home is a recent Western notion, spawned in the late 1800's, and only for high class consumption, as women in lower classes still did the farming, worked in mills and sweatshops, as housemaids etc.

And y'all need to read the book 'Mother Love'. It's historically common (in Europe through the 1200's to currently, for which data is available) that when females have social opportunities other than child-bearing, they choose those things other than child-bearing.

Female choice is the driving force of the 'demographic transition' - the reliable change to smaller family size as overall prosperity goes up, education goes up, and people move to cities.

A male dominated society in which females are restricted has never been a good things for women. And given the choice, women choose otherwise.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 15, 2008 1:27 PM

SWISH

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Granted, I believe a woman should be allowed to work, if she wants to.

Ahhh, that's so big of you. I'm sure all the women of the world bow down and thank you for so condescendingly granting them permission to live their own lives!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 15, 2008 2:41 PM

Quote:
As for free rides, house-wives, cherishing motherhood and the 1950's.. I think we can all agree that there are many good and complex reason things changed. They are not perfect now but neither were they necessarily better before.

Aaron Russo said it was to increase the tax base. My analysis would be that it was to increase the labor pool, and thereby decrease the price of labor.

mindless hordes always follow their self-appointed representatives.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 15, 2008 9:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Quote:
As for free rides, house-wives, cherishing motherhood and the 1950's.. I think we can all agree that there are many good and complex reason things changed. They are not perfect now but neither were they necessarily better before.

Aaron Russo said it was to increase the tax base. My analysis would be that it was to increase the labor pool, and thereby decrease the price of labor.

mindless hordes always follow their self-appointed representatives.

So women chose to work in order to increase the tax base..? How could such a thing be dictated from above? If the 1950's were as golden as some of here claim, why would women willingly change this?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 5:17 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Swish,

Shut-up.

My point was not that women should be barefoot. pregnant, and in the kitchen.

But rather,

SOMEONE NEEDS TO BE HOME WITH THE CHILDREN.

Whether its the father, or the mother.... if you have kids, someone needs to be there for them.

Stop allowing schools, and expensive day-care to raise them.

The problem, as I see it, is that people have forgotten that it is a RESPONSIBILITY to have children. Not a right, or a status symbol.

You are responsible for bringing the child up to adult-hood.

NOT just by buying them the best toys. But by raising/teaching them to be GOOD people.

Fucking socialists think that the government can raise their kids for them. They forget that a kid needs more than a PS3 to grow up right. He/she needs loving PARENTS, to grow.

No wonder our society is so screwed up. You have a bunch of kids raised by the streets, or by schools, or just left to fend for themselves.

You fucking make them, you better fucking raise them right.

Dammit, why is this concept so hard for you lazy bastards?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 5:26 AM

And why are you not responding to the questions people ask you? (I.e., my question of whether you would be perfectly happy to be a housekeeper who cleans and guards the house all day and nothing else.)

And I think you would find a whole lot more common ground with people if you had not focused specifically on mothers before. That naturally drew some irritation from others and now you react aggressively to that irritation as if people are arguing against the concept of responsible parenting as a whole.

People asking about where you place the role of working fathers or shared responsibility, like both parents working part time, or possible alternatives to the housewife syndrome you can envision.. that's not an unjustified request.

Calm down, employ some benefit of doubt and you might be surprised that most people DO agree with your concept that parents should spend more time with their kids.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 6:36 AM

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Aaron Russo said it was to increase the tax base. My analysis would be that it was to increase the labor pool, and thereby decrease the price of labor.

The trillionaire NWO kingpins who own the private central banks, that keep all income taxes (thus owning all governments and taxslaves), pick and choose what they want their slaves to do. Their program has been in effect for over 200 years, according to their own published confessions.

This also doubles the labor pool to cut wages by over 50%, as Detroit is finding out this week as Congress nationalizes (Communizes) the automobile industry. Instead of raising wages of working folk to $30/hour, They want to cut everyone down to $5/hour. The Jap car plants in USA only ASSEMBLE with unskilled labor, they don't manufacture with machinists, fabricators, engineers and steelworkers, and even their office workers are in Japan.

Read what the Rockefellers and Rothschilds write, and you realize thay want to destroy our families. Communism and fascism were their creation to that endgame. They started World Wars 1 and 2, that genocided 100-million people.

When you have 300-Trillion in your private piggybank, you can pretty much buy whoever you want, which buys a lot of brainwashing from the media mafia whores.

For example, when they wanted to get women to get addicted to tobacco, they when to Jewish adman and CIA agent Edward Bernays, Sigmond Freud's nephew, who first brainwashed women to smoke, "by making them want a penis".
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=bbc+century+of+the+self#

Joe Camel is a penis/vagina

My grandmother died of throat cancer from smoking at age 32, so I never met her. Great genocide program that costs each tobacco addict over $100,000 in tobacco over their lifetime, plus $100,000 in medical bills, which the Rockefellers also profit from. Tobacco is a great tool to destroy families, when they can't even afford to buy houses due to tobacco expenses, which is more expensive than a gambling addiction.

Sheeple think their thoughts are their own, but in reality they're brainwashed by 10,000s hours of TeeVee and skoolin.

We've all been duped. Is it too late to fix it?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 6:53 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:
We've all been duped. Is it too late to fix it?

I feel pretty happy, but maybe it's the just my tap water. What do you mean by "fix it?" Maybe if you paint a picture of what you see life would be without these New World Order kingpins pulling all the levers we could understand what we're missing?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 7:43 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Stop it, my sides are splitting.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 7:49 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by zzetta13:
The Scenario:

Jeff has been out of work due to a lay-off for a while. It isn’t to bad he and his spouse are still able to keep their head above the bill collectors because she puts in a full day at the office. The thing is…… Jeff, in order to mellow his depression takes some of that money and heads down to the local bar to drink his sorrow away with his friends. His buddies do help make him feel better. Jeff heads home feeling better about himself and meets Mary in the kitchen where she’s taking things out of the frig to prepare the nights dinner. The drunken man sashays up to his pretty wife on course for a romantic evening. So, Mary isn’t in the mood. She’s worked all day, is getting dinner ready and now has to deal with a liquored up mate?

“Wifely Duties?” I personally think she has the right to refuse.

Course it works both ways…but if my honey came home all boozed up ready for ….. I think I’d have to give in. But that’s just me

Z

Is there really some question here that women don't have the right to refuse? I mean, do we even have to play out any scenario to understand that?

Good lord, this thread feels like it was written in about 1967. And some of it by insane people

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 7:54 AM

PN

So you've met my friends Rockefeller, Rothschild and Company. Yes, you are correct on their bottom line. No argument here.

It's not too late, but it's getting late... I think that the proper countermove would require a great deal more discretion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 7:58 AM

Magonsdaughter,

You missed the tactical tool of inflamatory rhetoric.

The point here is the very real threat to the human race posed by RR&Co. Far from being insane, we are very very informed. I can question PN's tactics, one of which is posting the most inflamatory thing possible to generate traffic, but I can't question his motives or understanding of the situation.

Also, bear in mind, the inflamatory topic tactic is well exploited by the media. Who hear did not read the story of the "Happy Birthday Adolph Hitler" story? The point of that story was to attack WalMart. Methhead Nazis are everywhere, that's not even news. But they used it to get almost everyone to read the story. So, I'll grant that it works.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 8:14 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
I can question PN's tactics, one of which is posting the most inflamatory thing possible to generate traffic, but I can't question his motives or understanding of the situation.

Actually, that whole "most inflammatory thing possible" part of his posts is EXACTLY what makes me question his motives and understanding of the situation.

Look, if I say I'm pissed because I ordered a Domino's pizza and it took them 45 minutes to deliver it, that's a legitimate gripe. If I post, however, that I ordered a Domino's pizza from those money-grubbing big-nosed Jews who run the World Pizza Order, and that they genocided 50 million Italians to get it to my door in 30 minutes and then demanded payment in the form of their FedNote scrip and wouldn't take my legal gold, which is the ONLY form of money that's real and legal, I just come across as batshit crazy.

It really is just that simple. Not EVERYBODY is out to get you. Conspiracies happen, but not EVERYTHING is a conspiracy, much less a part of a larger "uber-conspiracy".

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 8:17 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Yes, you are correct on their bottom line."

To go back to some earlier posts - the 1950's were all about getting women out of the factories and back into the home. That was to make room for returning GI's in the workplace. Increasing the tax base had nothing to do with it. Women NOT working - which WAS the goal - would decrease the tax base, not increase it.

Despite that, lower class women have always had to work, no matter what kind of low-paying 'female' jobs they were relegated to (domestic/ maid, waitress, retail sales etc). For them, the 1950s through 1970s were about 'help wanted, female' ads for book-keepers, and 'help wanted, male' ads for accountants, 'help wanted, female' ads for waitresses and 'help wanted, male' ads for bartenders. A 'trained' woman could be a secretary, not an executive assistant. An 'educated' woman could be a nurse but not a doctor, or teacher but not a professor, or librarian. Women did not get union apprenticeships, nor did they get admitted to medical school.

For better or worse, the 1960's 'women's liberation' movement was started by white, middle-class women who were unhappy with being trapped in the limited role of wife and mother. It did do some good things - though it took decades, in some cases - it opened up a few real opportunities for women.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 8:19 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Not everything is a conspiracy.

But, there are conspiracies.

Its only after the event happens, that we know what really was the truth.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 8:22 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Of COURSE rich people try to run things so as to make themselves even richer.

DUH !

But chasing after non-existant conspiracies when there are real ones to address doesn't help any.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 8:24 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

It opened up opportunities at the cost of the lives of the children that these women would abandon for their own wants.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 8:35 AM

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

For better or worse, the 1960's 'women's liberation' movement was started by white, middle-class women who were unhappy with being trapped in the limited role of wife and mother. It did do some good things - though it took decades, in some cases - it opened up a few real opportunities for women.

Women's Lib was started by Jewish CIA agent Gloria Steinham, as a nefarious plot to overthrow USA.

Just like CIA agent Timothy Leary gave CIA LSD to the sheeple.

And CIA agent E Howard Hunt helped blow JFK's head off.

And military killers landed on the "moon", as military killers genocided 2.5-million Vietnamese allies.

Now 17-year-old girls are getting their heads blown off as machinegunners for the US military in combat zones.

No one is more hopelessly enslaved as she who thinks she is free.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 8:38 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"It opened up opportunities at the cost of the lives of the children that these women would abandon for their own wants."

And all these women had those children without a man ?

Why are you saying the women HAS to be the one to give up personal opportunities and look after the kids - and the man doesn't have any responsibility to them at all ?

Wulf, what I get from you posts is that you have a serious problem with feeling entitled. And you are mad at the non-white-male-us-born world - at blacks, at women, at Polacks - b/c you didn't get those things to which you feel entitled.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 8:41 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Wrong.

I don't feel "entitled" to ANYTHING. I worked for what I have. Suffered, bled and killed part of my heart to gain what I have.

In THIS thread, I have issue with the idea that people can create a life, but then are so spoiled that they don't want to take care of it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 8:42 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Then don't go blaming women and not men.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 8:44 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

I don't blame women.

I blame the idea behind.

Rue,

You and I can go head-to-head on another thread, if you wish. I welcome the challenge.

But, in THIS thread, I am saying that men or women need to be home for the children they create.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 8:55 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"It opened up opportunities at the cost of the lives of the children that these women would abandon for their own wants."

It looks to me like you do blame women.

No, I have no interest in debating you. I find your thinking limited, and driven by assumptions and personal issues you don't even know are there. Digging through your demons seems like an unpleasant task.

In the strictly biological sense, women are only required to look after children for the first 6 months to a year, depending on weaning. Many societies - from the Fijiians to the Israelis - do perfectly well with communal child care. The idea that children need to be raised by parents in the home is a recent notion.

That's not to say that children don't need care - but the level of care and its providers are far more flexible than you think.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 9:11 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"It opened up opportunities at the cost of the lives of the children that these women would abandon for their own wants."

It looks to me like you do blame women.

No, I have no interest in debating you. I find your thinking limited, and driven by assumptions and personal issues you don't even know are there. Digging through your demons seems like an unpleasant task.

In the strictly biological sense, women are only required to look after children for the first 6 months to a year, depending on weaning. Many societies - from the Fijiians to the Israelis - do perfectly well with communal child care. The idea that children need to be raised by parents in the home is a recent notion.

That's not to say that children don't need care - but the level of care and its providers are far more flexible than you think.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

"No, I have no interest in debating you. I find your thinking limited, and driven by assumptions and personal issues you don't even know are there. Digging through your demons seems like an unpleasant task."

I can say the same to you.

But I have the balls to do it for you.

Whatever.

Level of care? Let me guess, Rue. You have no children, and you don't have any clue as to what you are speaking about.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 9:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
It opened up opportunities at the cost of the lives of the children that these women would abandon for their own wants.

You say you are in favor of equal responsibility between men and women yet then you post sentences like the one above.

WHY do you never argue in terms of how BOTH genders could have handled this rightful levelling of career and life opportunities better? You only blame women for rightfully wanting the options that men have always had!

You'd be a lot more credible if you for once focused on what men could have done or could still do better, to ensure this optimal child care you reasonable expect to be provided.

You ignore those opportunities for the purpose of repeating over an over again your anger at women. That's unproductive.

Are you seriously saying that it's the fault of 1960's/70's women only? SOMEtime it had to change. Do you ever even try to put yourself into the shoes of women back then?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 9:21 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

Fucking socialists think that the government can raise their kids for them. They forget that a kid needs more than a PS3 to grow up right. He/she needs loving PARENTS, to grow.

You fucking make them, you better fucking raise them right.

So, in your Einsteinian wizardry, how do you NOT have both parents working to financially support a household in this day & age? How about instead of having the government raise kids for peeps, they make it easier (possible) for one parent to be home with the kids? Uh-oh...socialism again. So, die out as a species in America then? Why do you hate women, kids & America, Wulf?

The sly Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 9:37 AM