Quote:
Originally posted by sugar and spice
I get what you're saying, but no, it's not their choice. She is still the one that has to carry the babies, and as the article pointed out, no matter how progressive her and Brad's relationship was or how much money she has, she will still end up doing more of the childcare than him. And so ultimately that is her choice.
|
H - lots of respect, stud, but this thinking is just as backwards as thinking the woman should, by design, do most of the child-rearing. Do you see why? (and it's not the uber-feminist view on child birth and the woman - I actually don't disagree with that)
Lots of 'seems like..' and 'I feel..' in this thread, as well as "well, usually.." - not really my style guys.
Quote:
Originally posted by sugar and spice
I think that their separation has brought out a lot of views that are pretty frightening to me. Plenty of people have insinuated that she should be subservient to him . . . . because he's HOT? How many steps away from "be subservient to him because he's the breadwinner" or "be subservient to him because he's male" are we? Or the idea that someone is obligated to have kids just because she once said she wanted them?
|
I think the second sentence here is the true point - that's a pretty f-ed up world view (weltanshauung?), and pretty disturbing to see on such a mass level.
As for the last sentence - I don't think anyone's really claiming that since she said it once, she's locked into it, but along the same lines, the deal isn't the same as the one Brad was making, so he's out. I can feel for that, I guess - makes sense, doesn't it?
Threaded Mode