All male Fox News panel freak out over the numbers of women providing the main income in households

[Imp_Emissary]

It wasn't very mature, but I still find the sentiment very insulting. That you consider it our "expected" role in life, that somehow by not choosing that I am abnormal and am not fully using my capabilities as a woman. That one is lesser for it, and also that men are somehow ill-equipped to do so. Trying to think of it that way just makes me feel even less like having children. If there's any shame in it, it's the shame of putting myself in a situation similar to those who feel a woman has any sort of inherent duty to give up on everything she desires to raise a kid, and that men do not have a similar duty, and that for some arbitrary reason the two aren't allowed to trade roles. The very thought of such a thing makes me resentful of a possible future with children.

I am in no means trying to make you feel abnormal by not having the opinion of women are the primary caregiver and therefore should have children. If you do not want to have children then fair play-- you will probably have a bit more money in your pocket and a lot less hassle because of it.

I do not believe all women should give up their dreams and ambitions in the name of a child. I would without a shadow of the doubt if my circumstances allowed it. I don't expect to marry and have kids until I am into my 30s anyway -- I like being single and having money in my pocket at the moment.

But I was raised in a family with two brothers who were raised to have a good work ethic. Whereas my brothers were never expected to do their laundry, make their beds or clean their bedrooms: I was. And yes it was because I was a woman. My mother told me at some point in life I would marry and the man would work all week, like my own dad, and someone would have to look after him and whatever kids came along. Like I sad, I was raised in a strict Conservatory family.

I went to college and then got a job. This job is turning into a career and I will do my best to meet all my aspirations but once a baby is brought into the world, I have to make that decision. I would quit work if I could. If money was tight then I would work part-time and still try to do my best for the child. I wouldn't depend solely on my spouse if he could not afford it.

I've always believed that without woman there is no man.
Men remain young boys all their life whereas women have to take responsibility and grow up.

I don't feel any issue accepting the role as a housewife. As long as it was not forced on me then I would gladly become the housewife and look after my family.

"Men remain young boys all their life whereas women have to take responsibility and grow up."

x( Well I'm taking my ball and going home then! xp

Ha ha, but really now.
What you said reminded me of this.

I'd say the issue here is not so much the role(or roles), but rather the pressure put on women(and men) to be in these roles. Those who don't, "get in their place", do often face unjustified criticism.
That said, sometimes women also face such criticism for deciding to take "traditional" roles, and that is bad too.

 

[Geo Da Sponge]

*OP snip*

--- What's wrong with saying "When you look at biology, look at the natural world, the roles of a male and a female in society, and other animals, the male typically is the dominant role. The female, it's not antithesis, or it's not competing, it's a complementary role. We as people in a smart society have lost the ability to have complementary relationships in nuclear families, and it's tearing us apart?" He's saying that human beings are built to function in certain roles. That's not discriminatory, that's just a fact. I can't walk with my hands, eat with my ears, think with my knee, or see with my armpit.

But apparently you're managing to talk out of your arsehole.

 

[Erttheking]

I'm just pointing out that they didn't feel the need to bring in a woman to these gender based matter.

It's probably just the normal panel that would have said any number of other retarded, archaic nonsense.

Calling them out on their sex is just pointless flagellation.

They said something incredibly stupid, they're Fox. That goes with the territory.

Who gives a shit?

"Shrugs" it was a detail I thought was worth mentioning and no one else seems to have a problem with it.

 

[Mike Fang]

Are there a lot of problems these days with family structures and social order? Yes, family bonds seem to becoming less and less relevant to a lot of people, gender roles are becoming less defined which might have the benefit of giving people more choice in their lifestyles but at the same time also creates more confusion, uncertainty, anxiety and argument over appropriate behavior and parental responsibility is being increasingly shirked and dismissed in the name of personal convenience dressed up as freedom.

But is having a significant percentage of the income-earning population be women a sign of these problems?

FUCK. NO.

 

[Callate]

The cynical part of my mind says: well, yeah, when your economy takes an enormous down-turn, those corporate wizards Fox News loves to idolize start doing massive lay-offs- and since women are frequently paid less than men in similar jobs, if all you look at is a balance sheet and knock off the highest-paid people in a division... If you find the situation untenable, maybe you shouldn't have been so ready to champion those so-called "engines of our economy". But Fox's talking heads have never been strong on the old cause-and-effect.

More personally, I'm not the highest wage earner in my home, and frankly it pisses me off that chuckleheads like Fox's panel think that warrants this kind of bullshit. I'm not the one who went to medical school; I am the one who supported a medical student through years of student loan-financed stipends and underpaid residency. That makes you want to point fingers? Point 'em at me, and I'll break 'em off.

 

[Lilani]

But I was raised in a family with two brothers who were raised to have a good work ethic. Whereas my brothers were never expected to do their laundry, make their beds or clean their bedrooms: I was. And yes it was because I was a woman. My mother told me at some point in life I would marry and the man would work all week, like my own dad, and someone would have to look after him and whatever kids came along. Like I sad, I was raised in a strict Conservatory family.

That sounds terrible to me, cruel even. I was raised in a family where if you made a mess, you cleaned it up. What you did you were responsible for. We were all expected to share the work, and all expected to help each other. We operated on a system of respect and responsibility, not on hierarchy and "duties." If there was any duty it was to do whatever needed to be done. Nobody was too high or low for any job, and every job that needed to be done was within everyone's jurisdiction.

I mean, what did your brothers do when they moved out? Did they know how to make beds? Did they leave them unmade all the time? Or do they not move out until they've got a wife to do that? I hope this doesn't sound too insulting, but I don't get how you can raise someone to be a functioning human being that way. It doesn't make sense. You can't function in the real world properly if you don't know how to live without someone to make your bed. I have a friend who's a nurse who's been working with a lot of old people, and she says that's actually a big problem with old men. They get in that "you do this and I do that" lifestyle and if their wife dies first they don't know what to do with themselves. Their family put them in nursing homes because they don't know how to cook a nutritious meal, or they just stop cleaning and doing their wash.

My mom and dad both worked, and both still work, and I have no idea how we would have made it if they hadn't. I don't even understand how that's financially possible, especially these days, at least without giving up a lot of my current standard of living. I feel like that sort of a lifestyle would only be living half a life, and not even the half that belongs to me. I know I shouldn't, but I do feel sorry for you. I promise I'm usually not this pejorative, but this is something I was raised with and one of the few things I simply cannot understand the opposite of. There are so many things I understand. I can understand some people enjoy polyamorous relationships, I understand some people like a drink to unwind, I understand some people enjoy recreational drugs. But I simply cannot understand this. There is no upside to living like that, living to be half a human requiring another half just so you can function properly. If there's any approach to life I would call unnatural and upsetting, it would be that.

 

[bz316]

I am going to be controversial now and say... why is it that women are now making more money than men? Don't get me wrong -- it's marvellous and as a woman I hope to do the same.

That is... until I get married.

Perhaps it's because of the strict conservatism I was raised in but I do believe that a woman's role is to look after the children. If the mother wants to work then she gets a part-time job because that way she can still be there for the children. It's the man who is out 40 hours a week putting food on the table and supporting the family.

I know everybody will disagree with me but that's my opinion.

And that's fine for you. If you want to follow that particular path, that is a perfectly valid personal choice and more power to you. The problem is the sheer volume of people who are trying to impose an order of behavior or inhibit the choices of other people who choose a path different than the one you described simply because it fits into their bullshit view of what an "ideal" society should be.

 

[Lilani]

Like most things used to attack Fox News, this is taken out of context. Clearly, before this particular segment aired, they were talking about the degradation of certain aspects of society, such as men not being able to find jobs, increased divorce rates, more children born out of wedlock, etc. Some of these things may not seem like such a big deal to some of you, but when this statistic is used in this particular context, it can bring up some interesting questions.

No one's upset that women are getting more jobs. People are upset about the context behind women getting those jobs. It's not as if, according to these people, that women are moving up on the social ladder, replacing their husbands white collar jobs with white collar jobs of their own. This is like a woman working a minimum wage job, only to have her husband leave her and then being forced to take on a second minimum wage job while raising her kids on her own.

Juan Williams in particular is VERY progressive and VERY Liberal. you can be sure he would not have said what he said unless contextually it makes sense. And it only makes sense from the perspective I've just outlined.

But this doesn't relate to the guy who said that BS about men being dominant biologically or whatever. He's just crazy.

"You look at biology, you look at the natural roles of a male and a female in society. You look at other animals, the male is the dominant role, the female is not the antithesis, it's not competing it's a complimentary role. We as the people of a smart society have lost the ability to have a complimentary relationship."

You may be convinced they aren't trying to say women are inferior to men and shouldn't be choosing to have jobs, but I'm afraid the panel itself disagrees.

Did you...... did you not bother to read my entire post?

I got to that "No one's upset that women are getting more jobs" paragraph and glimpsed at what you said about Juan Williams. "No one" is a pretty absolute phrase, if you were going to add a qualifier you should have put it with that.

 

[shootthebandit]

Heres my take on things. for years women have been gold digging but know its our turn as men. Im not ashamed to admit id love a rich older woman who made all the money while i sat at home sleeping and playing video games

Its about time we had it our way

 

[Imp_Emissary]

I'm just pointing out that they didn't feel the need to bring in a woman to these gender based matter.

It's probably just the normal panel that would have said any number of other retarded, archaic nonsense.

Calling them out on their sex is just pointless flagellation.

They said something incredibly stupid, they're Fox. That goes with the territory.

Who gives a shit?

What's that slogan Fox gave itself? "Fair and Balanced", right?

Well, you would think when they talk about women they would have some women there to talk about the issues.

It's not like they haven't before.
:/ I wonder how much is "too much" for her?

 

[Worgen]

Oh wow, that was hilarious, I love how they managed to bring abortion into this also. "And its hurting our children." "And those are the children who survive, 54 million abortions." Fucken wow, all that's missing is they bitching about immigration and how Obama is hitler and this would be the perfect fox piece.

 

[Vegosiux]

Well, all the income in my household is brought in by males!

Incidentally, I'm the only member of my household.

Incidentally as well, if there were more members in my household I'd not be cranky if females contributed more. It's a household, it's a collective thing, what matters is it gets through the month comfortably, no matter who the bread winner is.

So, more general useless drivel from FOX I suppose.

 

[Bluestorm83]

snip because too much rage.

And biologically the weak would die young, and anyone with an illness would be left in the corner to die.

What matters isn't what would occur naturally, but what we can accomplish within society.

There's nothing stopping a woman from being the primary breadwinner anymore, and as everyone should already know by now. Biology isn't binary. Plenty of females would be more suited to take on high stress roles than most men. Just like plenty of males can be more empathetic and affectionate than most women and would fill parental roles much better as a result.

The beautiful thing about culture is that it fills in the cracks that nature left us with.

You're wrong. Society is a product of Human Nature. Biologically, we protect our young, no matter how weak they are. Biologically, we protect the young of our FRIENDS, because they will do the same for us. We protect the sick because they are a part of our kind as well. That's the biology of the brain. And yes, there is nothing STOPPING a woman from being the primary breadwinner. I'm not saying we should STOP them. I'm SAYING that men have the basic functional nature of protector and provider, and to disobey that basic nature is to be a parasite.

There are plenty of women more suited to do a high stress role. Hell, I'd say that the vast majority of women are more suited for high stress roles; what's more stressful than growing a human life within you? But as far as the physical world goes, men and women are not the same exact thing. That's why we have two different words for them. And Men are more suited to be a hammer, and Women more suited to be a screwdriver. As I said in an earlier post that around 99% of people ignored, if a woman CAN do a job that usually demands a Man, then sure, let her do it. But don't pull this BS where you make the requirements easier to hire more women to fill a quota. I work in Horticulture, carrying sacks of dirt and rocks and trees and shrubs all day long. Most women can't do that. In fact, I haven't met even one who was capable of it among the many, many female applicants we've had. When the bosses DO try hiring a woman, I'm suddenly doing double labor because the woman who IS my equal but who is NOT the same as me simple can't lift a 120 pound tree into someone's pickup truck. By the same token, I absolutely 100% BLOW at doing mathematical things; anyone who would hire me instead of a smart woman is an IDIOT.

Nobody faults a screwdriver for not being able to hammer in nails, and nobody faults a hammer for being unable to twist screws. Why do people CONSTANTLY belittle women for not being men, and constantly mock men for not being women? We are different things, we have different possibilities, why not do them well together and form something that would never arise if we were all just named "Human Person" with gray skin, gray eyes, no hair, and no genitals?

Equal doesn't mean Same. 100 dollars of gold ore, a 100 dollar bill, 400 quarters, and 4 cups of Starbucks' nasty burned coffee (HA!) all have equal monetary value. But they're not the same. One's a metal, one paper and ink and a small magnetic strip, one's tin and copper with nickel plating in 400 separate discs with a man's head on them, and the last is hot bean water. But you can exchange them all for equivalent items in the right places. I am not you, you are not me. We're 100% equal. If in some way I'm better than you, I'm sure there's a deficit that I have that you excel in. Balance.