Fear.
Such a simple and humble answer, isn't it?
Seriously, I've promised myself to never nag...and the fact that I'm marrying a guy who strongly enjoys saying things simply for my reaction is not going to help me keep that promise.
He's a very social guy. Previously, he's stated he wants to entertain friends in his home when he buys a house (Football parties, cook-offs, etc). Of course, ALL of this sounds like fun to me, as well, and I'm looking forward to getting to play hostess and throw on my new NY Giants jersey (I must tell him that I want that for my birthday) and waddle around with a growing tummy, replenishing popcorn bowl, ice bowl, and enjoying the Super Bowl on our giant TV Screen (that he absolutely wants) with all our friends.
Or experimenting with my cooking skills and inviting friends over for a friendly poker game, serving stuffed shrimp or home-made mini quiche...
When I mentioned to him today that I want to get addresses to start inviting people to an engagement/bridal party and so that I have them for a HOUSEWARMING party, he said "Absolutely Not!" He didn't want all those people in his new house making a mess (that he will have to help clean...). I found myself wondering if I really knew him...
The need to keep him in the category that he was in when I agreed to marry him is strong...its not that I won't love him any less...its not that I don't think I'll love him if he changes...its that I like who is right now... I already KNOW this is easy for me to love... Its like the song by Sara Groves called "Painting Pictures of Egypt" - we want to go back to where we've been, even with its faults and all, because the future feels so scary...simply because its unknown. We don't know what to expect, we don't know what we'll find. It could be amazing and SO much better than anything we could have imagined...but it could also be painful, scary, and dark. And we all know its going to be a little bit of both...
So, I find myself insisting (strongly) on him letting us throw parties in our new home... not nagging...not yet... but somehow it felt wrong.
Even though it turns out he was just messing with my head...
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Saturday, September 20, 2008
The History of Women
First of all, I am NOT a feminist. Just because I actually studied history and (whether they were written by feminists or not) I happen to go with what has been presented to me until I or someone else provides me evidence contrary to what I've found doesn't make me a feminist. It makes me a student. If someone reading this has other resources for me, give them to me.
I'm writing this because someone accused me of being a feminist because I dared voice something along these lines on a comment that he failed to publish. Lets not even dare mention that he posts comments that he can come up with a rebuttal for and not the ones he can't. He just published a comment and responded to it, claiming that I had no rebuttal for him because I have no point. To protect my intellectual honesty, this is my response to him.
Where do I start, its a bit long to cover all of history, but where the hell does one start?
There have been periods of time that I'm 100% certain of that had a prevalence of feministic thought - The Etruscans were largely (as Elusive Wapiti would say) matrifocal. They weren't a strong civilization, so I won't call it a matriarchy. They were, though, egalitarian with a strong leaning towards matriarchy. They are the forerunners of the Romans - who, at first, were incredibly patriarchal and the women didn't have much place in society - much like parts of Greece. However, there is a period of time in Roman history where the women became much more extraverted - lesbianism became more prevalent, abortion - both in-utero and infanticide - became more common... strangely, right before the fall - and i wonder how many of those insane and corrupt emperors had feminist mothers?
Another civilization, Greece, has an interesting history of feminist thought. The Spartans were LARGELY patriarchal, where women had absolutely no role in society except raising kids to the ripe old age of 4...which is when their sons were removed from them and put through military training. Athens, at first of course, SO devalued women that they weren't allowed out of the homes. Women were not allowed to be seen in public. If her husband were entertaining guests, she was seen and not heard...if seen at all. Male company was considered more honorable than that of female company (and you wonder where homosexuals came from...). Even at the deathbed, a close male friend was preferred over the wife. Why? Because the wife's only role was to provide heirs. That was what they did.
Of course, then you have the island of lesbos, where a certain poet praised the beauty of the female form, glorified female companionship, and provided a haven where women could feel worthy. I'm fairly certain that her brand of thought didn't remain on that island for long, and began infiltrating Athenian culture...and eventually making its way into Roman culture.
Yes, feminism has definitly been around for a LONG while. And it has done some horrific things to American (and British and any other culture that embraces it) culture.
However, to deny that misogyny did not exist, did not have a prevalent foothold in society at ANY one time is as much a lie as women claiming that women were "oh so trampled" until the 1960's.
You have chinese culture, clearly patriarchal, where women have no ability to support themselves outside of the men in their lives. If there are no men, then they are destitute. They have been physically abused to gain a perception of beauty - foot wrapping. They were not allowed to look a man in the eyes - at ANY time. They wore clothes that wrapped tightly around their legs and hips so they would shuffle - and unable to run away from their husbands...why?
Of course, there will always be the husband that treats his wife respectfully, but power has this unusual affect of corrupting people - and it DOES corrupt. And to think that 100% of all men were immune to such corruption when they held all the power over the female members of their society, do you really think they treated them well 100% of the time? Fairly certain that wasn't the case.
This isn't about the work that men and women had to do, though have you ever had to make lye soap? Both men's and women's labor was significantly harder in centuries past - it was not by any means a picnic for either, but that was by no means my point.
My point was that there were points in history where children were forcibly removed from their mothers, when women were beaten just for the heck of it, where women relied solely on the good will of their corruptible men-folk to provide for them.
Where the only way a father could secure the future of his daughters was to *hopefully* marry them off to good men (assuming, of course, the father cared about his daughters) - money or my daughter's well being?
I'm not trying to excuse feminism - absolutely NOT. I think feminism has taken their cause to new heights at the expense of men, completely reversing the problems. But the darling little wounded man does not have an innocent history. And if they are SO opposed to what feminism has done, then they need to evaluate what the best way to go about getting their freedoms back is going to be.
And it won't be doing what the feminists have done, meaning elevating men at the expense of women. If they really want things to be better for themselves, they're going to have to come up with ways that elevate them and still provide necessary protection to the female. Without that, it'll be a lost cause - and with that, I can't see how respect would be lost for them...just don't expect women to be the one's to change the tide ... it won't happen.
I'm writing this because someone accused me of being a feminist because I dared voice something along these lines on a comment that he failed to publish. Lets not even dare mention that he posts comments that he can come up with a rebuttal for and not the ones he can't. He just published a comment and responded to it, claiming that I had no rebuttal for him because I have no point. To protect my intellectual honesty, this is my response to him.
Where do I start, its a bit long to cover all of history, but where the hell does one start?
There have been periods of time that I'm 100% certain of that had a prevalence of feministic thought - The Etruscans were largely (as Elusive Wapiti would say) matrifocal. They weren't a strong civilization, so I won't call it a matriarchy. They were, though, egalitarian with a strong leaning towards matriarchy. They are the forerunners of the Romans - who, at first, were incredibly patriarchal and the women didn't have much place in society - much like parts of Greece. However, there is a period of time in Roman history where the women became much more extraverted - lesbianism became more prevalent, abortion - both in-utero and infanticide - became more common... strangely, right before the fall - and i wonder how many of those insane and corrupt emperors had feminist mothers?
Another civilization, Greece, has an interesting history of feminist thought. The Spartans were LARGELY patriarchal, where women had absolutely no role in society except raising kids to the ripe old age of 4...which is when their sons were removed from them and put through military training. Athens, at first of course, SO devalued women that they weren't allowed out of the homes. Women were not allowed to be seen in public. If her husband were entertaining guests, she was seen and not heard...if seen at all. Male company was considered more honorable than that of female company (and you wonder where homosexuals came from...). Even at the deathbed, a close male friend was preferred over the wife. Why? Because the wife's only role was to provide heirs. That was what they did.
Of course, then you have the island of lesbos, where a certain poet praised the beauty of the female form, glorified female companionship, and provided a haven where women could feel worthy. I'm fairly certain that her brand of thought didn't remain on that island for long, and began infiltrating Athenian culture...and eventually making its way into Roman culture.
Yes, feminism has definitly been around for a LONG while. And it has done some horrific things to American (and British and any other culture that embraces it) culture.
However, to deny that misogyny did not exist, did not have a prevalent foothold in society at ANY one time is as much a lie as women claiming that women were "oh so trampled" until the 1960's.
You have chinese culture, clearly patriarchal, where women have no ability to support themselves outside of the men in their lives. If there are no men, then they are destitute. They have been physically abused to gain a perception of beauty - foot wrapping. They were not allowed to look a man in the eyes - at ANY time. They wore clothes that wrapped tightly around their legs and hips so they would shuffle - and unable to run away from their husbands...why?
Of course, there will always be the husband that treats his wife respectfully, but power has this unusual affect of corrupting people - and it DOES corrupt. And to think that 100% of all men were immune to such corruption when they held all the power over the female members of their society, do you really think they treated them well 100% of the time? Fairly certain that wasn't the case.
This isn't about the work that men and women had to do, though have you ever had to make lye soap? Both men's and women's labor was significantly harder in centuries past - it was not by any means a picnic for either, but that was by no means my point.
My point was that there were points in history where children were forcibly removed from their mothers, when women were beaten just for the heck of it, where women relied solely on the good will of their corruptible men-folk to provide for them.
Where the only way a father could secure the future of his daughters was to *hopefully* marry them off to good men (assuming, of course, the father cared about his daughters) - money or my daughter's well being?
I'm not trying to excuse feminism - absolutely NOT. I think feminism has taken their cause to new heights at the expense of men, completely reversing the problems. But the darling little wounded man does not have an innocent history. And if they are SO opposed to what feminism has done, then they need to evaluate what the best way to go about getting their freedoms back is going to be.
And it won't be doing what the feminists have done, meaning elevating men at the expense of women. If they really want things to be better for themselves, they're going to have to come up with ways that elevate them and still provide necessary protection to the female. Without that, it'll be a lost cause - and with that, I can't see how respect would be lost for them...just don't expect women to be the one's to change the tide ... it won't happen.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Obama's "Equal Wages" Campaign Ad
Now that I've gotten my anger out of the way, I can do what I originally logged on to do.
I saw this commercial for the first time tonight. I find it frustrating, for a couple reasons.
I recently found something out about myself that is a FEMALE problem - it is ONLY a female problem, no MALE can ever have this issue.
I'm one of those few "lucky" women who works in a corporation that pays equal wages in spite of not being forced to. Let me tell you, it really ain't that lucky.
Because my "problem" is inherrently normal to the female body, I'm not allowed to use "sick" time - even though, technically, I really am sick. Because its normal, I can't justify getting off that list of employees required to put in mandatory overtime - which are mostly men and menopausal women on my team (I'm one of two pre-menopausal women on my team of 20).
Do you want to know why? BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT JUSTIFY MY BEING PAID THE SAME AMOUNT AS MEN TO TREAT MY BODY IN THE UNIQUE WAY THAT IT NEEDS. I run the risk of termination - because I'm not working NEARLY as much as my peers and haven't earned my salary...problem is, they run the risk of a law suit if they terminate me because of my female "problems".
For the companies that actually DON'T give equal pay, the jobs are usually those where paternity leave is not offered, or in hourly wage jobs where the risk of hiring a pre-menopausal woman means internalizing the risk of her getting pregnant or periodically not being able to perform her job affectively.
IF women were paid the same rate as men, the men that have families to support lose their potential earning capacity, limiting how much they can support their families and locking their wives (who could get pregnant at any time) into their career to help support the family - and it simply is not THAT healthy to carry a baby for 9 months, have it, and be back into work in 6 weeks (standard maternity leave).
So, for the women who actually WANT to work, by demanding this "Equal Pay" when the chances are, it won't be "Equal Work", it hurts the women who have chosen to NOT be feminists and stay home raising their kids and caring for their husbands and homes.
To bad McCain would get even more black-balled then he already is if he were to argue for this instead of claiming women just aren't smart enough.
I saw this commercial for the first time tonight. I find it frustrating, for a couple reasons.
I recently found something out about myself that is a FEMALE problem - it is ONLY a female problem, no MALE can ever have this issue.
I'm one of those few "lucky" women who works in a corporation that pays equal wages in spite of not being forced to. Let me tell you, it really ain't that lucky.
Because my "problem" is inherrently normal to the female body, I'm not allowed to use "sick" time - even though, technically, I really am sick. Because its normal, I can't justify getting off that list of employees required to put in mandatory overtime - which are mostly men and menopausal women on my team (I'm one of two pre-menopausal women on my team of 20).
Do you want to know why? BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT JUSTIFY MY BEING PAID THE SAME AMOUNT AS MEN TO TREAT MY BODY IN THE UNIQUE WAY THAT IT NEEDS. I run the risk of termination - because I'm not working NEARLY as much as my peers and haven't earned my salary...problem is, they run the risk of a law suit if they terminate me because of my female "problems".
For the companies that actually DON'T give equal pay, the jobs are usually those where paternity leave is not offered, or in hourly wage jobs where the risk of hiring a pre-menopausal woman means internalizing the risk of her getting pregnant or periodically not being able to perform her job affectively.
IF women were paid the same rate as men, the men that have families to support lose their potential earning capacity, limiting how much they can support their families and locking their wives (who could get pregnant at any time) into their career to help support the family - and it simply is not THAT healthy to carry a baby for 9 months, have it, and be back into work in 6 weeks (standard maternity leave).
So, for the women who actually WANT to work, by demanding this "Equal Pay" when the chances are, it won't be "Equal Work", it hurts the women who have chosen to NOT be feminists and stay home raising their kids and caring for their husbands and homes.
To bad McCain would get even more black-balled then he already is if he were to argue for this instead of claiming women just aren't smart enough.
The One Thing I Hate About MRAs
A very wonderful man that goes by MarkyMark has this little thing.
It's flawed logic, really, but he holds to it nonetheless.
You see, in his opinion, anyone who even ATTEMPTS to claim that women really aren't that well off - or ever were not well off - is accused of Feministic Brainwashing, or of being a feminist.
You know that little post I wrote about "I Hate Feminists" and it's follow-up? He's done the EXACT SAME THING.
When him or any other MRA (or anyone PERIOD) makes that assumption, I'm going to start lumping them in the Feminist group.
Sure, they probably don't care that I've black-balled them on my list, but they need to get their head out of their little whiney asses and grow up.
This was written by someone who I usually strongly disagree with on BiblicalManhood:
She is 100% right on that one.
It's flawed logic, really, but he holds to it nonetheless.
You see, in his opinion, anyone who even ATTEMPTS to claim that women really aren't that well off - or ever were not well off - is accused of Feministic Brainwashing, or of being a feminist.
You know that little post I wrote about "I Hate Feminists" and it's follow-up? He's done the EXACT SAME THING.
When him or any other MRA (or anyone PERIOD) makes that assumption, I'm going to start lumping them in the Feminist group.
Sure, they probably don't care that I've black-balled them on my list, but they need to get their head out of their little whiney asses and grow up.
This was written by someone who I usually strongly disagree with on BiblicalManhood:
You cannot have a "balance" to what you identify as "man bashing" by calling everyone who dares to mention any hardship for women as "feminist".
She is 100% right on that one.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Exception to Every Rule
I wonder, sometimes, what God's plans are for me.
What exactly does God want me to be doing to further his kingdom? It seems to me that I've screwed up in my walk with him so many times that I can't possibly be a viable witness, anymore...
Especially right now.
What would you say if I told you the secret that I'm hold close to my heart as a mother holds her infant to her bosom? That I'm a disappointment and a hypocrit?
Trust me, I know just how much of a hypocrit I am...and EVERY Christian is... I mean, we're a people that believe in a God that saves us from sin in the past and future that look down on anyone (other than ourselves) who sin. We're a people that believe no matter how hard we try, we're all sinners, but we try our damndest not to sin. We're a people who believe we are all sinners and in need of a savior, but reaching out to sinners to tell them about our savior is against every fiber in our being...
And yet, as I've lived, God has used me as the perfect witness in every situation he's placed me in....whether I was aware of it or not.
An example of genuine belief, genuine desire to do right, inclinations to do wrong, and never perfect... An example of progressive work. I really hope that the grace and gifts God has shown me are enough to convince people that he still loves me when they find out my secret.
What exactly does God want me to be doing to further his kingdom? It seems to me that I've screwed up in my walk with him so many times that I can't possibly be a viable witness, anymore...
Especially right now.
What would you say if I told you the secret that I'm hold close to my heart as a mother holds her infant to her bosom? That I'm a disappointment and a hypocrit?
Trust me, I know just how much of a hypocrit I am...and EVERY Christian is... I mean, we're a people that believe in a God that saves us from sin in the past and future that look down on anyone (other than ourselves) who sin. We're a people that believe no matter how hard we try, we're all sinners, but we try our damndest not to sin. We're a people who believe we are all sinners and in need of a savior, but reaching out to sinners to tell them about our savior is against every fiber in our being...
And yet, as I've lived, God has used me as the perfect witness in every situation he's placed me in....whether I was aware of it or not.
An example of genuine belief, genuine desire to do right, inclinations to do wrong, and never perfect... An example of progressive work. I really hope that the grace and gifts God has shown me are enough to convince people that he still loves me when they find out my secret.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Topic for discussion:
Is the sentiment that women don't need a husband to be "complete" truly a biblical sentiment or a consequence of feminist thought?
And is the sentiment that men don't need a wife an indirect consequence of such thought?
**Disclaimer: I am not saying that celibacy is not a worthy calling. Because I'm usually interested in the aspect of marriage, celibacy doesn't come into play around here much, but I recognize it as a worthy gift.**
And is the sentiment that men don't need a wife an indirect consequence of such thought?
**Disclaimer: I am not saying that celibacy is not a worthy calling. Because I'm usually interested in the aspect of marriage, celibacy doesn't come into play around here much, but I recognize it as a worthy gift.**
Sunday, September 14, 2008
They Say...
They say that when a girl dreams about getting married from a young age and makes that her chief aim in life, that she idolizes the wedding day and forgets the marriage.
But what if its possible that she dreams about that day and plans for that day, not as simply a moment in time, but as the beginning of an entirely new life, what does that do for the marriage?
I've been dreaming of marriage since I was 5 years old. I've been planning my wedding since I was 13. Though everything is not as I envisioned it in teenage innocence (lawl at that seeming oxymoron, but it's true I was as innocent as can be), my future day is much much more.
You see, I could never have imagined a better suited man for myself. I could never have picked out all the window dressings that would set my heart ablaze and make me blush just from looking at him. I never could have furnished his heart and soul with all the values that would've made him believe in RIGHT over wrong but with the tender mercy of forgiveness. I never could have wired his mind in such a way that he would score as my exact opposite in a personality test, know how to make me smile when I'm too serious, and know when to talk serious with me.
I never could have come up with a man that makes me yearn for my wedding day more and more and more everyday - not because of the sex, not because of the social status, not because of the companionship...but because on that day and forever after, we get to be TOGETHER.
And I'm willing to fight through this so-called temper he has (which I have yet to evidence). I'm willing to serve him as my husband. I'm willing to keep his home the way he wants it. I'm willing to give him children. I'm willing to raise them the way he sees fit. I'm willing to spend all the time he needs to be with me with him.
And I look forward, not simply to the wedding day, but to the life that we're going to build together.
And I could never have asked for anything better.
But what if its possible that she dreams about that day and plans for that day, not as simply a moment in time, but as the beginning of an entirely new life, what does that do for the marriage?
I've been dreaming of marriage since I was 5 years old. I've been planning my wedding since I was 13. Though everything is not as I envisioned it in teenage innocence (lawl at that seeming oxymoron, but it's true I was as innocent as can be), my future day is much much more.
You see, I could never have imagined a better suited man for myself. I could never have picked out all the window dressings that would set my heart ablaze and make me blush just from looking at him. I never could have furnished his heart and soul with all the values that would've made him believe in RIGHT over wrong but with the tender mercy of forgiveness. I never could have wired his mind in such a way that he would score as my exact opposite in a personality test, know how to make me smile when I'm too serious, and know when to talk serious with me.
I never could have come up with a man that makes me yearn for my wedding day more and more and more everyday - not because of the sex, not because of the social status, not because of the companionship...but because on that day and forever after, we get to be TOGETHER.
And I'm willing to fight through this so-called temper he has (which I have yet to evidence). I'm willing to serve him as my husband. I'm willing to keep his home the way he wants it. I'm willing to give him children. I'm willing to raise them the way he sees fit. I'm willing to spend all the time he needs to be with me with him.
And I look forward, not simply to the wedding day, but to the life that we're going to build together.
And I could never have asked for anything better.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
One more thing about Feminism
They stand by the theory that following taditional female roles of caring for the family, having and raising children, and keeping the household clean is a culturally and socially influenced trait.
They stand by the theory that anyone who follows those roles do so, not because they WANT to, but because they were "raised to believe that way".
They nullify an individual's ability to think for oneself, mitigating a woman's choice to follow that role as one of "brainwashing".
Feminity becomes stupid and inferior.
However, the "intelligent" women are the ones that "throw off the shackals of slavehood and become liberated", finding fulfillment in being powerful CEO's and VP's.
I want to laugh when they shout "I am woman, hear me roar!" because they've thrown away everything female about them. Their Ovaries, their hair, their vaginas...all to be more like MEN.
Maybe they should change their rant...and leave the women who embrace their identity as female to be proud of their biolgoical traits.
They stand by the theory that anyone who follows those roles do so, not because they WANT to, but because they were "raised to believe that way".
They nullify an individual's ability to think for oneself, mitigating a woman's choice to follow that role as one of "brainwashing".
Feminity becomes stupid and inferior.
However, the "intelligent" women are the ones that "throw off the shackals of slavehood and become liberated", finding fulfillment in being powerful CEO's and VP's.
I want to laugh when they shout "I am woman, hear me roar!" because they've thrown away everything female about them. Their Ovaries, their hair, their vaginas...all to be more like MEN.
Maybe they should change their rant...and leave the women who embrace their identity as female to be proud of their biolgoical traits.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
I Hate Feminists
There are few things in this world that I truly hate. Feminists have the #2 slot, right behind Satan.
Do you know why? Because they push their agenda down everyone's throat, claiming that ALL women are in ONE category. What category is that? Oh...the one that claims that the only place to find fulfillment is in the middle of a career. The one that claims that being a "good little housewife" is dull, boring, and lacks intelligence. The one that claims children are parasites on women and all women are happy to be rid of them.
They make me Sick. With a capital "S".
I wish they'd pull their $100.00 colored, permed, and styled no-hair-out-of-place heads out of their perfectly shaped derriers and look around at the real world.
First of all, women who choose staying at home over working are not "afraid of the big bad world". In fact, their probably a lot braver than any feminist around. Why? Because a woman willing to stay at home has to trust that her man will support her and come home to her every night. To a feminist, that's the impossible. Stay at home mothers also have to deal with the atrocities of raising teenagers in this day and age...which is no small feat. From fielding abuse of drugs and alcohol, to dealing head on with a teenager who just lost 5 of their best friends in a brutal car accident, to educating their children enough to know better to stay away from sex - and if the kids still don't learn, handling the mess of STD's and teenage pregnancies. Raising kids is NOT a walk in the park.
Second of all, unintelligent work? Say what? Did you know that staying at home requires good management skills, financial skills, and scheduling management skills? Did you know that learning how spices work and how they can affect health can be interesting and...*gasp* intelligent? Oh...and if the hubby really feels like coming home to an interesting conversation, I suggest you discover the joy of popping a load of laundry in the washer and dryer, folding quickly, putting a pot of pasta on the stove to boil, and grabbing the latest Wallstreet Journal or DrudgeReport. Or if hubby is more into philosophy, grab that classic by Thomas More that goes by the title of Utopia...or how about Brave New World by Aldous Huxley and take note how feminist agenda has made what used to be a fantastic horror world into a reality? Oh...and if hubby is into video games, you could play a round of Soul Caliber IV before he gets home and then show off your gaming skills to your awed hubby when you beat him at one of his favorite games (zomg...a girl that playz games!!!). Did you know that spending hours and hours and hours micromanaging a program at work is going to provide for much less satisfying discussion than discussing current events, philosophy, religion, or playing video games?
Oh...but the feminist doesn't even stop to consider that there are MANY different types of men and women out there. Instead, she disrespects men and women by putting us all in the same stereotypical category.
Well guess what, Feminism? I don't buy it. I never will buy it. I'm intelligent, sophisticated, fun, AND a good housekeeper. And I'm gonna keep it that way.
Do you know why? Because they push their agenda down everyone's throat, claiming that ALL women are in ONE category. What category is that? Oh...the one that claims that the only place to find fulfillment is in the middle of a career. The one that claims that being a "good little housewife" is dull, boring, and lacks intelligence. The one that claims children are parasites on women and all women are happy to be rid of them.
They make me Sick. With a capital "S".
I wish they'd pull their $100.00 colored, permed, and styled no-hair-out-of-place heads out of their perfectly shaped derriers and look around at the real world.
First of all, women who choose staying at home over working are not "afraid of the big bad world". In fact, their probably a lot braver than any feminist around. Why? Because a woman willing to stay at home has to trust that her man will support her and come home to her every night. To a feminist, that's the impossible. Stay at home mothers also have to deal with the atrocities of raising teenagers in this day and age...which is no small feat. From fielding abuse of drugs and alcohol, to dealing head on with a teenager who just lost 5 of their best friends in a brutal car accident, to educating their children enough to know better to stay away from sex - and if the kids still don't learn, handling the mess of STD's and teenage pregnancies. Raising kids is NOT a walk in the park.
Second of all, unintelligent work? Say what? Did you know that staying at home requires good management skills, financial skills, and scheduling management skills? Did you know that learning how spices work and how they can affect health can be interesting and...*gasp* intelligent? Oh...and if the hubby really feels like coming home to an interesting conversation, I suggest you discover the joy of popping a load of laundry in the washer and dryer, folding quickly, putting a pot of pasta on the stove to boil, and grabbing the latest Wallstreet Journal or DrudgeReport. Or if hubby is more into philosophy, grab that classic by Thomas More that goes by the title of Utopia...or how about Brave New World by Aldous Huxley and take note how feminist agenda has made what used to be a fantastic horror world into a reality? Oh...and if hubby is into video games, you could play a round of Soul Caliber IV before he gets home and then show off your gaming skills to your awed hubby when you beat him at one of his favorite games (zomg...a girl that playz games!!!). Did you know that spending hours and hours and hours micromanaging a program at work is going to provide for much less satisfying discussion than discussing current events, philosophy, religion, or playing video games?
Oh...but the feminist doesn't even stop to consider that there are MANY different types of men and women out there. Instead, she disrespects men and women by putting us all in the same stereotypical category.
Well guess what, Feminism? I don't buy it. I never will buy it. I'm intelligent, sophisticated, fun, AND a good housekeeper. And I'm gonna keep it that way.
Pre-Disposition to Statehood
I hear a lot (a LOT) about how the Constitution of the US was written to give more authority to states than to the federal government.
I don't usually argue against this...because I believe it is true. But apparently, it has NEVER been very clear which gets more power - state or nation?
I've been to Washington DC like 2x a year for the last 3 years. I love it there...I enjoy it immensely. My sister recently bought a house all the way out in Warrenton, VA, SW of DC. I went to visit this last weekend. You take I-66 all the way out to SR-29... The traffic was SOOO bad when we headed out there, though, that we got off an exit early (Exit 44) and as I was directing my boyfriend down roads and consulting my map, one of my glances out the window afforded me the view of an ancient blue (lead?) cannon sitting at the top of a hill. I squealed and searched the map. Sure enough, we were in the middle of the National Bull Run/Battle of Manassas Park. I don't know WHY I never thought to look for Civil War stuff while visiting DC, but you usually think Revolutionary War...and stick with Smithsonians, the Capitol, and White House tours (I got a tour of my sister's White House this year). But out in the outskirts of DC, in the countryside of VA, you will find Civil War (and Revolutionary War) parks.
So, I scheduled a day out there :) It was wonderful. And I was reading one of the plaques in the little museum visitor center...
Essentially, that little sign said that since the beginning of the nation, the country has debated who gets more authority - state or nation? Up until the Civil War, the primary authority was given to States. But upon secession, and Abe Lincoln's unwillingness for this country to be divided ("A divided house can not stand"), he fought for the country's wholeness. By the end of the war, I'm going to take a wild guess and say that a lot of the states' authority was removed from them...one being the ability to secede.
So...is it worth giving states the authority that they used to have if they can secede at any time? Will that help keep our nation's leaders more accountable? Or will it be another monster waiting in the wings, abiding its time to devour unsuspecting trustees of the "original" purpose of the Constitution of the United States of America?
I don't usually argue against this...because I believe it is true. But apparently, it has NEVER been very clear which gets more power - state or nation?
I've been to Washington DC like 2x a year for the last 3 years. I love it there...I enjoy it immensely. My sister recently bought a house all the way out in Warrenton, VA, SW of DC. I went to visit this last weekend. You take I-66 all the way out to SR-29... The traffic was SOOO bad when we headed out there, though, that we got off an exit early (Exit 44) and as I was directing my boyfriend down roads and consulting my map, one of my glances out the window afforded me the view of an ancient blue (lead?) cannon sitting at the top of a hill. I squealed and searched the map. Sure enough, we were in the middle of the National Bull Run/Battle of Manassas Park. I don't know WHY I never thought to look for Civil War stuff while visiting DC, but you usually think Revolutionary War...and stick with Smithsonians, the Capitol, and White House tours (I got a tour of my sister's White House this year). But out in the outskirts of DC, in the countryside of VA, you will find Civil War (and Revolutionary War) parks.
So, I scheduled a day out there :) It was wonderful. And I was reading one of the plaques in the little museum visitor center...
Essentially, that little sign said that since the beginning of the nation, the country has debated who gets more authority - state or nation? Up until the Civil War, the primary authority was given to States. But upon secession, and Abe Lincoln's unwillingness for this country to be divided ("A divided house can not stand"), he fought for the country's wholeness. By the end of the war, I'm going to take a wild guess and say that a lot of the states' authority was removed from them...one being the ability to secede.
So...is it worth giving states the authority that they used to have if they can secede at any time? Will that help keep our nation's leaders more accountable? Or will it be another monster waiting in the wings, abiding its time to devour unsuspecting trustees of the "original" purpose of the Constitution of the United States of America?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)