I wish you could talk to her also. I have a feeling you could "bend her ear" as my mother used to say.
She insulted both men and women.
Annsni, yes, I thought of women who support their husbands while the husband is in college.
Also there are wives whose husbands are disabled. They have to work also.
Prominent Republican: Women Need To Be Paid Less So They Can Find Husbands
Discussion in 'News & Current Events' started by Crabtownboy, Apr 19, 2014.
Page 2 of 3
-
Crabtownboy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
“Men should stop treating feminists like ladies, and instead treat them like the men they say they want to be.”
“Sexual harassment on the job is not a problem for virtuous women”
"Putting women in military combat is the cutting edge of the feminist goal to force us into an androgynous society.” -
But none of you bothered to read the editorial, did you? You just read the media's spin and took it as "gospel."
Y'all need to get your heads out of dark places and find out what is really being said. Most of you need to repent for leaping to conclusions based on biased information.
And if you're going to disparage Schlafly for a correct analysis, you might want to take CNN and ABC to task while you're at it.
CNN: Why marrying for money isn't a bad idea
ABC News: Smart Women Marry Rich, Says New Book -
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
"Suppose the pay gap between men and women were magically eliminated. If that happened, simple arithmetic suggests that half of women would be unable to find what they regard as a suitable mate.
Obviously, I'm not saying women won't date or marry a lower-earning men, only that they probably prefer not to. If a higher-earning man is not available, many women are more likely not to marry at all."
http://m.christianpost.com/news/facts-and-fallacies-about-paycheck-fairness--117959/
This idea that half of all women (or is it many women, hard to tell) will not get married because they make the same or make more money than a potential mate is poppycock. That's just a dumb statement. It ignores other motivations for getting married like the desire to have children, wanting to be loved, companionship, etc. There is no spin being made on her statements, they are right there where any one can see them.
-
Crabtownboy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
- I wonder how she thinks men should treat men?
- So it is the woman's fault that a man harasses her sexually as automatically this means she invited the harassment. Shads of, it is her fault she was raped. Rather like in Paskistan where women are executed because they were raped.
- So far out it is flabbergasting .
-
Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>Site Supporter
The O/P is grossly mis-titled. She is not a prominent republican. The rest of the info in this thread has to be taken with the title in mind, that this is a pretty dishonest attack on republicans.
-
Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>Site Supporter
-
-
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Too funny a conservative woman telling other woman not to do the same thing she did. Oh well.
-
Yeah, yeah, yeah, whatever ... -
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
The best hope for a stable and satisfying marriage is one where both husband and wife share the bread-winning, child care and housework, according to Coontz.
"Women mostly say it is less important to have a man earn a lot of money than a man who can communicate and share his feelings," she said. "And that doesn't mean they want to marry a deadbeat."
The book's authors agree that economic equality is important.
Epic Fail. -
That's the "epic fail" here. Bloggers don't write of things which no one will read.
If you want statistics, though, I can provide those, too, proving Schlafly is just writing about confirmed trends, and it isn't just women who are looking for love in a cash drawer or a checking account.
Sometimes I don't know why I bother ... -
I'm wondering if any of these detractors understand that Schlafly is merely making DESCRIPTIVE statements, not PRESCRIPTIVE statements....and she is dealing with the choices that women themselves are making.
Nothing in the article is offensive. Her larger point is about how "equal-pay" trends are deceptive.....She's right, they are. -
-
Inspector Javert said: ↑:thumbsup::thumbsup:
I'm wondering if any of these detractors understand that Schlafly is merely making DESCRIPTIVE statements, not PRESCRIPTIVE statements....and she is dealing with the choices that women themselves are making.Click to expand...Inspector Javert said: ↑Nothing in the article is offensive. Her larger point is about how "equal-pay" trends are deceptive.....She's right, they are.Click to expand... -
"The survey polled 1,134 people nationwide with incomes ranging between $30,000 to $60,000 (squarely in the median range for nationwide incomes). The survey asked: "How willing are you to marry an average-looking person that you liked, if they had money?"
See, I don't see this question as being "would you marry for money?" I would answer the opposite question the same: How willing are you to marry an average-looking person that you liked, if they had no money?" I'd say that I would be very willing for this question as much as the other question. I would marry any looking person with any amount of money if they loved the Lord, we got along well and we had a plan for the future. It's not the money and it's not the looks that are important to me. So I'd say that a survey with that question would not be honest because the question is not written well. -
Whatever you want to believe about Eagle Forum and Phyllis is fine.
But the virtuous woman comment is so ignorant and akin to blaming the woman for being sexually harassed. Not very bright statement. -
Sure, I've no doubt that you think that way Ann. And there's nothing wrong with that. But, the general trend is that women themselves tend to prefer (and this is their choice) a mate which makes more than they do/ can be a provider.
As a young man who had no money....I used to call that "gold-digging".
Now that I'm older (and have a little) I realize that being a provider is inherently Scriptural, it is a critical part of my duties as a husband and father, and the practical considerations of a man who is financially capable and stable is something women SHOULD look for. (We even insisted on that being included in my wedding vows). A man has a BIBLICAL mandate to do all he can to shoulder the burden of providing for his family. Granted, in our Western Romantic outlook; we want Romantic Love to be an integral part of marriage, and that's fine. But, that shouldn't mitigate men's responsibilities.
But Schlaflys point isn't to make a commentary about marriage, it's to dispel myths about the supposed "un-fairness" of un-equal pay by sexes. Women, on average do make less....but her point is that it is BY CHOICE.
Her point about women preferring men who make more money is that if men AREN'T BEING the providers that these women prefer, and we aren't focusing on helping them do better and make more, than women will be less likely to find what they consider to be IDEAL mates. You'll notice she ends the column carping about high-paying blue-collar jobs that men traditionally take. This is the important point she concludes with:
Just a coincidence? I think not. The best way to improve economic prospects for women is to improve job prospects for the men in their lives, even if that means increasing the so-called pay gap.
The real economic story of the past 30 years is that women's pay has effectively risen to virtual parity, but men's pay has stagnated and thousands of well-paid blue-collar jobs have been shipped to low-wage countries. Nobody should be surprised that the marriage rate has fallen, the age of first marriage has risen, and marriage, in general, has become unstable.Click to expand... -
go2church said: ↑Whatever you want to believe about Eagle Forum and Phyllis is fine.
But the virtuous woman comment is so ignorant and akin to blaming the woman for being sexually harassed. Not very bright statement.Click to expand...
Don't you tell your daughters, "If it isn't for sale, don't advertise"?
Why?
Women who have the demeanor or appearance of being more "loose" WILL be targeted for "sexual harassment" more than women who dress and act modestly and virtuous. It helps protect women.
You are not doing women any favours nor truly caring to protect them from such harassment if you refuse to tell them the truth and encourage them to dress or act any kind of way.
That is a coward move.
Any man who TRULY CARES will encourage them to help themselves by dressing and acting virtuously and modestly.
Ask yourself HONESTLY...
Setting aside any celebrity status:
Put Miley Cyrus and Katherine Hepburn in the same working environment....
which one is MORE LIKELY to suffer from sexual harassment???
If you answered Miley, you are correct
If you answered neither, than you are deceiving yourself, and buying into relativist thinking.
If you answered Katherine....you are deranged.
Phyllis is right. There are exceptions of course.....any thinking person already will know that.
Page 2 of 3