Is the Catholic church a force for good in the world?

[Arrian]

As I see it, women face a choice something like this:

a) A successful career,
b) A home,
c) Personal contentment, happiness, and satisfaction

Choose any two.

It is the myth that all three are simultaneously possible ... [bunch more stuff pulled out of aneeshm's ass]

Silly little lady, tryin' to do all that man stuff. It would be easier on ya if you just stopped trying and did what you're meant to do. Really, it's for your own good.

edit: to be fair, there is some tension between the three things. Of course balancing a career and "a home" (by which I assume you mean kids) can be tough. But the same thing holds true for a man who wishes to be active in his child's upbringing. In fact, it may be worse for such a man, as it's not as "expected" by management.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Sorry

I'm not.

-Arrian

[Asher]

Don't sell aneeshm short, he's got all kinds of experience being lady-like as soon as those western sailors pull up to port in his quaint little country.

[Drake Tungsten]

I'm not.

You don't have to wear a brave-face. Every straight man on here who's ever been in a relationship knows the hell you must be going through, attempting to actually have rational discussions with a woman. We feel your pain.

[Arrian]

[aneeshm]

Silly little lady, tryin' to do all that man stuff. It would be easier on ya if you just stopped trying and did what you're meant to do. Really, it's for your own good.

-Arrian

Absolutely nothing of the sort. I've said in that post itself that I would have no problem with a woman choosing any of the options. If she wants to find her happiness in a career, that's fine by me. Really - I don't mind it. I merely want the woman to know that it is a choice that she is making, and what her options are.

Why do you get so hostile when I point that in life, hard choices exist? The time required to run a real household, and the time required to have a successful career, make these options mutually incompatible - at least if the woman does not want to sacrifice her own health, well-being, and happiness.

EDIT: In response to your edit, let me add that a home is much more than simply children. It's the management of the entire living space that the couple has, the introduction of stability and rhythm in their daily life, and the aesthetic upliftment of all the small things that make life worth living - changing the merely functional aspects of day-to-day existence into joyous ones.








This thread has reminded why I stopped posting - it's become impossible to have a civil discussion in here. Nobody seems capable of simply disagreeing, you have to attack the person or his character.

[Asher]

If you're going to express hostile ideas (sexism, racism, caste snobbery) then don't act surprised if people treat you with hostility. You seem to be oblivious to the meanings of the arguments you make. Like Ben, you think being polite and 'proper' in the debate is sufficient.

Most of us see through it and look through the core ideas being expressed. I find the opinions offensive, to be honest. Backwards and old-fashioned.

[Lorizael]

I find the concept of morality to be offensively stupid, but I don't (often) go around attacking everyone who claims some things are right and some things are wrong.

[Imran Siddiqui]

In response to your edit, let me add that a home is much more than simply children. It's the management of the entire living space that the couple has, the introduction of stability and rhythm in their daily life, and the aesthetic upliftment of all the small things that make life worth living - changing the merely functional aspects of day-to-day existence into joyous ones.

You mean like a MAN has to help out on as well?! Why is the woman the only one responsible for juggling her career and happiness with the "management of the entire living space" or the "introductrion of stability and rhythm"?

[aneeshm]

If you're going to express hostile ideas (sexism, racism, caste snobbery) then don't act surprised if people treat you with hostility.

I personally find many ideas expressed by many people here quite hostile - that is, I disagree with them. But I restrict my hostility to their ideas, not to them.

Secondly, I don't think I've expressed any of those ideas here, nor do I hold them. I don't subscribe to the idea of qualitative differences between races. Nor do I think that way with regard to castes. As for gender, this issue is more complex, but whether or not there are differences, I'm of the opinion that equality before the law is a principle of paramount importance.

[Arrian]

I merely want the woman to know that it is a choice that she is making, and what her options are

Why don't you let her worry her pretty little head about that, ok?

I "get hostile" (mocking, really) because I think your reasoning is poor, and reminiscent of sexist, ****e arguments that have been made historically. I'm attacking your positions, aneeshm.

Of course hard choices exist. My point, which apparently hasn't occurred to you, is that the (false, IMO) choice you presented for woman is specific to women because of (mostly artificial) gender roles. There are things a woman simply must do - carry the fetus, give birth, breast feed the child. Even the third one is a choice (formula exists, though it's inferior) and can be helped greatly by technology (breast pumps -> bottle feeding). Juggling those things can be done, and actually can be done with relative ease. Once the kid is off of milk and eating solids, there is literally NO REASON a woman cannot have a perfectly normal, successful career, be happy, and have a good home life. Why? Because her husband can, believe it or not, actually help with (or take over completely) childcare.

edit: all that other "home stuff" is solely the worry of the woman why?

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Damn, Imran beat me to it, and was more concise.

-Arrian

[aneeshm]

You mean like a MAN has to help out on as well?! Why is the woman the only one responsible for juggling her career and happiness with the "management of the entire living space" or the "introductrion of stability and rhythm"?

She doesn't. But this is a full-time job, and if the man wants to do it, he'll have to face the same choice. The achievement of this particular objective requires an indivisible commitment on the part of one of these two individuals. Two people can't "juggle" it between them - the nature of the task precludes that.

You're free, if you want, to sacrifice the home and its attendant benefits entirely, and that is the choice most couples have made today - both have careers, both "help out" a bit with taking care of the children, but there is no "home" in any meaningful sense of the term. There is a physical space where the family lives, and that's it. I personally have no problem with this arrangement - if that's what floats your boat, fine by me. But the choice should be an informed one, with both knowing that this is what they are giving up. It's difficult to convey this to people today, because they've almost never seen a well-run home, nor experienced it, so they have no idea what it entails.


EDIT: Arrian, I read your post on how modern contrivances have freed women from what they had to do earlier, and how it's possible for a woman to bear a child today and, with a bit of juggling around with her time, continue with her career as if nothing had happened.

I guess our definitions of home simply differ, so there can be very little argument here - we'll just continue to talk at cross-purposes. I conceive of it as something requiring, by its nature, the undivided and full-time attention of one dedicated person - maybe my vision of it simply encompasses more and grander things than yours does. That's not a judgement on you, by the way - if you're comfortable and happy with your way of doing things, I have no problem with it.

[Asher]

I find the concept of morality to be offensively stupid, but I don't (often) go around attacking everyone who claims some things are right and some things are wrong.

Yes, you have room for improvement.

[aneeshm]

If you're going to express hostile ideas (sexism, racism, caste snobbery) then don't act surprised if people treat you with hostility. You seem to be oblivious to the meanings of the arguments you make. Like Ben, you think being polite and 'proper' in the debate is sufficient.

If you had noticed, I paid great attention to the subtlest details of language, because I realise that when we're talking about things this sensitive, people can and do often get offended, so it's important not to be misunderstood. I am well aware of what the arguments I am making mean. By using language carefully, and not being deliberately offensive or rude, I think I can communicate more effectively. You're free to engage in impolite, disrespectful, and downright offensive behaviour if you want - if the mods don't stop it, there's nothing I can do.

Most of us see through it and look through the core ideas being expressed.

Again, instead of trying to fantasise about my motives, and attacking the objects of that fantasy based on ideological psychoanalysis, why not just talk to me directly, relating to things I've actually said, as opposed to things which you think I meant based on what you've been told people who say things like I do are supposed to think?

I find the opinions offensive, to be honest. Backwards and old-fashioned.

Backwardness and old-fashionedness do not automatically invalidate an opinion, nor make it offensive. Politically, I'm close to libertarianism. I think that people should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't violate the rights of other people. It's not possible to get much more pro-free-individual-choice. I'm saying that the Bennite way, along with all your other ways, are fine by me, as long as they're freely chosen.

What, exactly, is offensive about that?