Action Mike
All praise..
I think she was trying to imply that women were often (and perhaps unseen) catalysts for change within relationships and within other areas of society. Sometimes I don't understand the full weight of her little gems until I get more experience....so interpret that as you see fit
Along with women...men did not build and design every aspect of this modern world, despite their oppressive political legislation towards women...but it's somewhat beside the point right now
I agree. There are men who take the role and commitment seriously. I think the devauling language however only mirrors many people's experiences while in relationship (from either the male or female side) and that is quite sad that that's how things are for too many....the negative female/male relationships are very damaging for all involved and any subsequent offspring
Not "achievements" but "achieved rights". Was not society changed and forced to slowly change many years after blacks were freed? Or how about how society is evolving in the face of new gay marriage legislation or trans rights? The point is, whenever a major group obtains a freedom it once did not have - society and the families within must respond - once women fought and won the right to vote and work....the family was going to adjust....and this wasn't even that long ago that these rights were afforded actually.....
I think it's interesting that female "achievement" here is once again painted in a negative light IF her family unit suffers. My issue is the dynamic of the woman being devoted to her family first and herself second while the man is devoted to himself first and his family second (as a reality) while preaching a "family man" image/dream to women to aspire to is a false set-up (the sold belief). If women CHOOSE to forgoe financial independence and/or romantic faithfulness or any other number of choices/sacrifice to enter into a marraige where her primary responsibilities are child rearing and housework - great I support that choice! What I don't support is promising girls if they build themselves up in every way, physically, conversationally, sex appeal, etc. under the idea with these traits they will get this great guy (as long as they aren't a whore, too old, overweight,too needy and don't have any kids) who will love them and be devoted to their family and I just don't think that reflects the REALITY of male choices in family units or relationships as we experience them. Yes, its a generalization but I don't think its way off the mark. Many many many women are cheated on, abandoned later in life with children, abused, neglected, lied to and any other variety of emotional and physical pains that are deemed "part of the game" or "how men are".
Because men will always be the top right?lol
if achievements are pursued while the family suffers in the long term, she probably doesn't have a man in the first place because the attitude will be picked up on in the beginning
If you notice it's not men who promise girls that they can have it all...It's other women, who funny enough are in a major position to 'buy it all'.
And I'm not buying this great fear that a man will STILL leave you after acquiring all these great traits, as women still initiate the majority of divorces. That's just a hungover stereotype from the 90s media. It's primarily the attitude of entitlement that trips them, but no personal accountability is ever considered and I've given up expecting there to be (eg even the deflection on the coli I.e. but but men also/do it tooo).
Men and woman are not the same and that's were all this confusion comes from. It's not social constructs and even the most isolated societies still have male figure heads. I want women to achieve all they can be but even the CEO of Pepsi still wants to be lead by her man and would be naturally and completely miserable with a passive passenger...so therefore strong husband happy family.
women.
huh?
so yall dont have any faults?
