Why is it this way?

Why does feminism consider it liberation for a lady to slave away for a capitalist who will replace her the second she keels over, but oppression for her to serve and love a husband who serves and loves her in return?

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

Northwest · M

If she doesn't like a job, and she skills/education, she can look for a better job.

If she has no skills/education, and is totally reliant on a man, whose children she's pumping out, what are her options when he gets a mistress?

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

Northwest · M

@TheEmperor How's your model been working for the Taliban? Surprisingly, men claim they love their wives, and think they have a great marriage, but still cheat.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

Northwest · M

@TheEmperor

the taliban tend to not serve their wives in return…

How do you define serving your supposed wife? The Taliban provide food, shelter, and protection and their religion says they also have to perform sexually, otherwise it's grounds for divorce, that's one version of serving their wives.

So how does your version differ from the Taliban?

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

Northwest · M

@TheEmperor

probably the part where the wife (or the husband) doesn’t ‘have’ to do anything. It’s all voluntary and 50:50 effort.

Gee, that's not exactly "serving", but I guess it could be serving from her perspective, because she's serving you, but you're not obligated to serve her.

I’d do what I can to best protect and satisfy my wife in whatever way is practical and comfortable for me, and I hope my wife would do the same.

Still really does not explain why your model is any different from the Taliban's.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

Northwest · M

@TheEmperor

Well, if you can’t figure out the difference, good day to you.

It's more like you can't present a scenario where it's different.

If she's home, waiting on you to provide and her doing all the child pumping-out, cooking, cleaning, etc. how does she have a choice? You're going to come home, cook, clean, have kids and nurse them, if she's not in the mood?

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

Northwest · M

@TheEmperor

it’s more of a case of you are going to say it’s the same regardless of what I say and if you can’t process the whole ‘voluntary’, ‘50:50’ and ‘serving’ thing then there isn’t anything else to say.

You should present a case, where I'm not poking holes in your flawed logic. 50:50 means someone has a choice, and in a scenario where the woman surrenders her future to her husband, she's robbed of the choice to go 50:50. Something you don't seem to be able to wrap your brain around.

I know you're a regular Ghandi, and you're going to put your partner on a pedestal, serve, protect, feed, clothe, and think on her behalf, but not too many people are like you, and not too many women enjoy being stripped of their will to make decisions on their own.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

Northwest · M

@TheEmperor So you want her 100% dependent on you. Cool. That's still the Taliban model.

What happens if, 9 years down the road, you got hit by a bus? Will she polish up her non-existing resume, and apply to McDonalds, so she can feed the 3 kids she pumped out for you, and herself?

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

Northwest · M

@TheEmperor All of it is incompatible with you NOT wanting her to work. But when you say:

I like people being dependent.

It explains it all

This comment is hidden. Show Comment