Why Women Need Husbands

[Uncensored2008]

Children can HAVE a stable family and be in a one parent household.

As a man who raised three girls alone, I can only say "bullshit."

 

[WinterBorn]

I think it would be more accurate to say that some men need for women to need a husband.

Children NEED a stable family...

But who cares about them?

Children do better when there are two parents. But having a father that teaches his daughter that a woman's place is in the home (barefoot & pregnant) is teaching his daughter she is worth less. And he is teaching her a lie when he tells her she is too weak to live alone.

Its funny, it takes both parents to create the child, but only one of them has to give up all career aspirations when the child is born, and it is (according to many here) the woman's duty to do that.

 

[Uncensored2008]

If you want to go with the biological imperatives, men would try and impregnate as many women as possible, and the women would all want to be impregnated by the one most able to provide for them.

Marriage has no biological basis.

And the reason men were the breadwinners (from a biological viewpoint) has nothing to do with today's society. In todays world, a woman can provide for a family just aswel l as a man can.

Nonsense, and ignorant.

We fight millions of years of biology to further a culture of ignorance.

We evolved to create an environment where the stronger male, seeks out food and protects the weaker female. The female gives birth and is better suited for nurturing offspring - which the large mammary glands demonstrate.

As we have become technologically advanced, we have attempted to subvert biology - but 150 years of technology simply is not sufficient to alter 2 million years of biology.

 

[WinterBorn]

Children can HAVE a stable family and be in a one parent household.

As a man who raised three girls alone, I can only say "bullshit."

Your family was unstable? In what way?

 

[Diana1180]

Children can HAVE a stable family and be in a one parent household.

As a man who raised three girls alone, I can only say "bullshit."

My daughter is 14. After her father and I divorced, she has only met one man I dated in those 12 years. We have never had a man living with us. Maybe I am just lucky that I have a great support structure. My father, brother or cousins step in when needed with her. She has seen me work hard to provide for us and be independant. I would take that any day over her father and i still being married and miserable.

 

[WinterBorn]

If you want to go with the biological imperatives, men would try and impregnate as many women as possible, and the women would all want to be impregnated by the one most able to provide for them.

Marriage has no biological basis.

And the reason men were the breadwinners (from a biological viewpoint) has nothing to do with today's society. In todays world, a woman can provide for a family just aswel l as a man can.

Nonsense, and ignorant.

We fight millions of years of biology to further a culture of ignorance.

We evolved to create an environment where the stronger male, seeks out food and protects the weaker female. The female gives birth and is better suited for nurturing offspring - which the large mammary glands demonstrate.

As we have become technologically advanced, we have attempted to subvert biology - but 150 years of technology simply is not sufficient to alter 2 million years of biology.

And please enlighten us as to how a mans' physical strength makes him a better provider in todays world? Unless the only work is manual labor, your claim is bullshit. And if the man can only find a manual labor job, his wife will probably need to work anyway.

The large mammary glands are great for breast feeding. After that, they do nothing to nurture the child.

Trying to use biology as a reason to keep a woman at home is laughable. If the wife can make more money than the man, then she is the one who should work and the man should stay home. That will allow the family the most stability and safety.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Your family was unstable? In what way?

The lack of a female presence created many challenges. Just as the lack of a male presence does.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Children do better when there are two parents. But having a father that teaches his daughter that a woman's place is in the home (barefoot & pregnant) is teaching his daughter she is worth less.

Do you think a woman who chooses to be a stay at home mom and raise her children rather than have a big career like her husband might find it somewhat offensive that you think she is "worth less" than him?

Getting the children ready for school, feeding them, changing the baby, cleaning the house, doing the grocery shopping, and putting dinner on the table is hardly a cakewalk, I would imagine. It may not bring in a $100k salary to the family, but I'll bet it's just as stressful. Do you really think that makes her worth less than her husband?

 

[Uncensored2008]

And please enlighten us as to how a mans' physical strength makes him a better provider in todays world?

Biology doesn't care about todays world. We evolved over millions of years, a change in technology does not change that

Unless the only work is manual labor, your claim is bullshit. And if the man can only find a manual labor job, his wife will probably need to work anyway.

The large mammary glands are great for breast feeding. After that, they do nothing to nurture the child.

They developed in the female BECAUSE it is the female that nurtures the young.

Trying to use biology as a reason to keep a woman at home is laughable.

"keep women at home.."

LOL

Reality exists - even if it doesn't meet with your agenda. Hominids adapted to our environment in a specific way. Sorry if evolution failed to consult with you prior to the development of our species..

If the wife can make more money than the man, then she is the one who should work and the man should stay home. That will allow the family the most stability and safety.

Again, you consider only your social agenda, not biological reality. As a species, we are designed to have a two-parent structure. We have evolved this way in a harsh, natural world. Our technology shields us from that world, but our physical development is thousands of years lagging, regardless of what Cosmo tells you.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Marriage is a joke.

Perhaps to some!

 

[Diana1180]

Marriage is a joke.

Perhaps to some!

Marriage is only a joke if you treat it as such.

 

[WinterBorn]

And please enlighten us as to how a mans' physical strength makes him a better provider in todays world?

Biology doesn't care about todays world. We evolved over millions of years, a change in technology does not change that

Unless the only work is manual labor, your claim is bullshit. And if the man can only find a manual labor job, his wife will probably need to work anyway.

The large mammary glands are great for breast feeding. After that, they do nothing to nurture the child.

They developed in the female BECAUSE it is the female that nurtures the young.

Trying to use biology as a reason to keep a woman at home is laughable.

"keep women at home.."

LOL

Reality exists - even if it doesn't meet with your agenda. Hominids adapted to our environment in a specific way. Sorry if evolution failed to consult with you prior to the development of our species..

If the wife can make more money than the man, then she is the one who should work and the man should stay home. That will allow the family the most stability and safety.

Again, you consider only your social agenda, not biological reality. As a species, we are designed to have a two-parent structure. We have evolved this way in a harsh, natural world. Our technology shields us from that world, but our physical development is thousands of years lagging, regardless of what Cosmo tells you.

I am not the one with the agenda. I have said before, if a woman chooses to stay at home that is great. What I am arguing against is the idea that a woman needs a husband because she is weak or unable to take care of herself. I have also ridiculed the men who say that any woman who does not is some sort of feminist and causes men to "turn gay" (different thread, but touched on the same topic).

Our evolution created a human designed to live in a wilderness as hunter/gatherers. In that situation, the woman staying with the children while the man foraged or hunted was the best way. Unless you are still planning to provide for your family as a hunter/gatherer, those physical attributes are largely irrelevant.

If the woman has worked to develop skills that are worth more, why shouldn't the man stay home and take care of the kids and let her provide a better living for the family?

 

[Derideo_Te]

.. men want the damsel in distress.

Who told you that?

My awesome powers of deduction...and reading some of the posts on this board.

Not particularly this thread, but many posts from men complaining that woman are ruining the male species for one reason or another. Too Feminist, woman not needing men anymore, woman making the decisions, woman not being in the home taking care of the man and family, etc etc ad naseam.

The complainers are the ones who can't adapt. The old adage about marriages being doomed to fail because he doesn't want her to change and she expects him to change and they both end up being disappointed about their expectations of each other has some truth to it.

However for those who view marriage as a partnership of equals and consider themselves to be a team it is another story entirely. They leverage each other's strength and compensate for the weaknesses. Using that approach they develop a lasting relationship.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Yet another rightwing salvo in their "War on Women"!

So, as a radical leftist - you are openly stating that marriage is a "war on women?"

Looks to me like you are engaging in a "war on families."

Nope, I am stating that the writer of that article is waging a war on women.

 

[Unkotare]

.. men want the damsel in distress.

Who told you that?

My awesome powers of deduction...and reading some of the posts on this board.
.

You need more than that upon which to base sweeping generalizations.

 

[Unkotare]

Its funny, it takes both parents to create the child, but only one of them has to give up all career aspirations when the child is born, and it is (according to many here) the woman's duty to do that.

Who here has said that?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A provocative (perhaps) opinion piece, about which I imagine there are some opinions here.

Women, men, marriage, family, independence, technology, welfare, education.......it impacts many aspects of society.

Why women still need husbands | Fox News


"So why not let husbands bring home the bulk of the bacon so women can have the balanced lives they seek? There’s no way to be a wife, a mother and a full-time employee and still create balance. But you can have balance by depending on a husband who works full-time and year-round.

I know what you’re going to say. Where are these husbands on whom women can depend? And you’re right: there are fewer men these days who seem eager to be primary breadwinners.

But ask yourself why, and I bet you know the answer."

Yet another rightwing salvo in their "War on Women"!

True.

Motivated by the reactionary right’s fear of change, diversity, individual liberty, and the right to self-determination.

‘Round and ’round we go, asking how women can gain more control over their lives. How can they spend more time with their children? How can they make time for exercise or even a social life? How can they keep their houses in order and still have time to cook?

Where is it written that it’s solely the responsibility of a woman to keep the house in order and cook.

The 50s are long gone, thank goodness – the ‘little lady’ doesn’t stay at home and clean house in high heels and pearls anymore.

 

[WinterBorn]

a provocative (perhaps) opinion piece, about which i imagine there are some opinions here.

Women, men, marriage, family, independence, technology, welfare, education.......it impacts many aspects of society.

why women still need husbands | fox news


"so why not let husbands bring home the bulk of the bacon so women can have the balanced lives they seek? There’s no way to be a wife, a mother and a full-time employee and still create balance. But you can have balance by depending on a husband who works full-time and year-round.

I know what you’re going to say. Where are these husbands on whom women can depend? And you’re right: There are fewer men these days who seem eager to be primary breadwinners.

But ask yourself why, and i bet you know the answer."

yet another rightwing salvo in their "war on women"!

true.

Motivated by the reactionary right’s fear of change, diversity, individual liberty, and the right to self-determination.

‘round and ’round we go, asking how women can gain more control over their lives. How can they spend more time with their children? How can they make time for exercise or even a social life? How can they keep their houses in order and still have time to cook?

where is it written that it’s solely the responsibility of a woman to keep the house in order and cook.

The 50s are long gone, thank goodness – the ‘little lady’ doesn’t stay at home and clean house in high heels and pearls anymore.

this!

 

[Uncensored2008]

this!

The old saying is true, stupid is as leftist does....

This threads is simply "Why women need husbands."

It says nothing about "staying home," certainly nothing about "barefoot and pregnant."

But a stable marriage goes against the "war on families" that the left has waged since the 1960's. In America, the open warfare to destroy the family began with the culture wars, and obviously continues to this day. Of course the REAL root of the war you wage against the family goes back far longer than the hippies and their desire for societal collapse.

The war you and the rest of the left fight against the family has it's roots in the 1860's. Karl Marx wrote of the supremacy of the state, and those elements which challenged a supreme state. Religion and family are the top of the list. The concept that a man is responsible to an authority greater than the state made religion an obvious target.

But even more of an issue is the loyalty that men felt toward their families. Lenin spoke at length of the need to dissolve the family, to make children the property of the state at 5 years of age.

What you, Clayton, and the rest of the left advocate here is nothing new, just a rehash of the ongoing war the left wages on the family. Lenin dictated that "The Party is Mother, the Party is Father," illustrating that the only family that is recognized by the left, is loyalty to the state. While you seek only to expel men from the family structure, you continue the already well established foundation of children as property of the state, rather than as members of a foundational support system that abides and cares for one another.

 

[Diana1180]

Who told you that?

My awesome powers of deduction...and reading some of the posts on this board.
.

You need more than that upon which to base sweeping generalizations.

You're right, I did something I usually hate reading myself....generalizations.

How's this: With some of the men I know and have talked to in regards to dating/ relationships, and comments made on this board, it seems to me that men want a damsel in distress. Someone who needs their help, that they can go "save" or fix. Makes them feel all manly with taking charge and making the decisions.