From reality shows like the badly misnamed Real Housewives to the acerbic reviews on the new movie Mom’s Night Out, leftists prove daily that they hate real real housewives and everything they stand for.
While it is perfectly acceptable for Hollywood to portray housewives as miserable, gossipy, hateful, backbiting, empty-headed trophy wives barely surpassing the role of concubine in a modern marriage paradigm that looks increasingly like legalized prostitution, the idea that there might be strong, intelligent women who are actually fulfilled by being keepers at home … well, that idea is verboten.
An article in Inquisitr considers some of the reviews on Mom’s Night Out, a clean Christian comedy that supports the traditional definition of marriage and affirms that “domestic” bliss is possible, if difficult to maintain:
The choice of millions of moms who choose to stay at home with their children is attacked and belittled by critics in an unprecedented display of hostility. The Wrap demeans all stay-at home moms in one fell swoop: “Allison’s lack of a profession consigns the character into Eisenhower-esque irrelevance.”
The New York Times insults stay-at-home moms, especially those with toddlers, and minimizes the tremendous emotional and physical toll that being “on” takes on a person, one who takes care of children round the clock, with no time-outs, no down time, no breaks at the spa or gym, just the constant task of taking care of children, day-in and day-out, with only the rarest of nights out. The critic obviously has no frame of reference from which to speak when he slams Allyson, played by Grey’s Anatomy’s Sarah Drew, saying that her “character, frankly, is an insult to the millions of women who have much more to deal with.”
Wow. Could he BE more insulting?
Probably. Feminists are much less forgiving of housewives than liberal men. Liberal men have some sort of an unspoken vow of silence on women’s issues—they always defer to their female shills (it makes them look so sensitive). But the female mouthpieces of the liberal agenda have traditionally declared that being a housewife was a copout—a surrendering of female power to a chauvinist system designed to keep women down. So Lilith forbid that any woman should actually find fulfillment in being a housewife. That’s just not possible. Or, the feminists will say, these “happy” Stepford housewives must be brain-washed. Or just stupid. Or something.
And all the while, this very small sliver of women (who cannot find fulfillment in any other professions than ones that men are already doing well) insult the majority of women while abdicating the only roles that men can’t do at all. And who are the real feminists?
They hate housewives because they have kid’s.
Liberals thought they could control the world by making us fear overpopulation. When science found out how to feed masses the liberals needed another way to control people so they came up with Global (cooling, warming, changing, chaos, whatever). It is all about control.
Yes, I agree. It’s all about the control and the money to be made off of the new restrictions that could be made and the requiring of all of the people to get onboard for this to make a few of the rich liberals even richer!
They hate housewives staying at home because they don’t want them teaching the kids responsibility, which counteracts the alternative lifestyle and how to get free lunches training they have planned for the kids at the Lib schools.
Liberal housewives stay at home if the husband makes good money. Liberal housewives also home-school their kids. Liberal housewives DO teach their kids responsibility.
There is no political monopoly on family values.
In the California state capital where I live all of the Stay at Home Mothers, Home schoolers and housewives I know and have met are of a conservative point of view. Furthermore they are proud of being called Domestic which their more Liberal sisters use as an Insult.
It is Just a Lifestyle Choice.
LOl!
I know liberals in Calif. home school and send their kids to religious private school. They also vote for Democrats. The difference is that they don’t flaunt their religion or force it on anyone else.
I know evangelicals who wouldn’t dream of getting political and cast stones on others.
I stay at home because we decided long ago I would when my husband was still in college and before our first child was born….before my husband made any money at all. We home educate our children and we DO teach our kids to love God with all their hearts, soul, mind and strength, and we teach them responsibility. We are very conservative, always have been. Liberal/regressives do NOT have the same values.
Thank you for your service.
I know that this statement is usually reserved for people in the armed forces, but then I think motherhood and domestic duties kind of fit that bill, eh? 🙂
It is a fact that most mom’s HAVE to work to pay for the inflation and other stupidity enacted by liberal ideology. I commend you for you and your husband’s dedication to raising a godly family – the most important job there is!
As soon as you said Liberal housewives home school their kids it was obvious you were a lying Obama moocher.
Not true. I know a lot of “liberal” housewives that homeschool their kids.
Because housewives don’t pay taxes!
There hard working spouses do!
They work their behinds off at home and nobody pays them.
For gods sake people, I didn’t mean this bad towards housewives. My wife is one. THEY don’t like them because they, housewives, don’t pay taxes. I don’t have a problem with them being at home and not paying taxes. That’s why my wife is at home. Fuss at the damn dems, not me!
We are fussing at woonsocket.
It sure looks like it.
Nobody pays them? You are a fool. The love for and from my children and husband is worth more that ALL the money in the world. Seeing my children grow into responsible, God fearing, morally grounded people is more satisfying than anything money can buy. I am paid with eternal awards, which is something liberal, God hating fools forfeit.
Apparently, Richard doesn’t value them because they don’t pay taxes. You missed the point.
We get paid, just not monetarily. We get paid in spending time with our kids, sharing their thoughts, dream and projects. We get paid in satisfaction of cooking good, wholesome, healthy meals for our families that don’t contain tons of preservatives and who knows what else in them. We get paid in gratitude and love from our families because we are able to spend time with them instead of having to do housework after working a full day at work.
Also, a penny saved is a penny earned. All that money we save our families because we have the time to do the housework, mend the clothes, cook from scratch, etc. that women with an outside job don’t have time to do – that adds up to a LOT of money!
The stay-at-home wife and mother is the last bastion against the Re-Education Cadre that wants to see all American children raised under State supervision and “guidance.” As more American families realize that the “two-income family” is a losing proposition — especially for the kids — the war against the stay-at-home wife will intensify.
The only real question is whether the Left has enough brass to try to make it illegal to raise your own kids.
They want the village to raise all children. That way the children will be indoctrinated to think the way of the left.
Exactly. “The village” was never more than a nearly transparent veneer over The State.
All good points above ! the children are being brainwashed from the get go.
*LOL* *LOL* If you want to talk about indoctrination, talk about The Catholic Church. If you really, really want to talk about indoctrination, talk about the Koch brothers. They’ve spent hundreds of million of dollars against everyone except the 1%.
Right, I don’t think the 1% use the hospitals and charities that they have donated hundreds of millions to. I’ve been in the Tea Party for 5 years and have not seen any relationship to the Koch brothers. Don’t believe all the stuff our opponents put out about us.
David Koch has contributed hundreds of millions to tea party candidate. The problem is that he’s funds Nova, a PBS SCIENCE series that includes topics like global warming.
The Koch brothers contributed $100 million in ads against Obamacare.
Wish it had been $200 MILLION.
Point taken about the RCC, however, let’s talk about the one and only, George Soros.
*LOL* *LOL*
So they counter saint SOROS.
The Koch Brothers can’t hold a candle to the corrupt dealings of Soros and his cronies. It is a joke to compare the two. The Koch Brothers want our country to succeed but Soros and his ilk want to destroy and be in charge.
Not even close. Republicans in Congress are giddy with joy. All they need is a billionaire in the 1% to sponsor them and they won’t have to campaign for money anymore. In return, that politician has to do everything that their donors tell them to do.
You failed to mention, Dirty Harry has received contributions from the Koch Bros. or did you purposely leave that little detail out?
What is the deal with the hatred of the Koch bros.?
Soros spends just as much or more. The Koch Bros. spent 122 million dollars last election and we still have a dem Pres and majority of the Senate.
The Koch brothers are angry about candidates from the GOP losing in 2012. The Kochs want their money’s worth. Their ideology is $$$$$$. They’re really angry with Republicans in Nebraska because landowners don’t want the oil pipeline & the Kochs do.
WOW! Those of us who live in the area don’t know nearly as much as you do!! Where do you get your information??
How about George Soros he takes center front in indoctrinations by building and college to brainwash the students to be liberal looneys. George Soros is one of the 1% and wants to teach everyone how to collapse our economy. Now that is something to cry about but not laugh about.
George Soros is chump change compared to the trillions in cash that the 1% has. There are a minority in the 1% who oppose greed in the GOP. If you get in the way of the Kochs, they will bury you.
Watch Kansas very closely. Yes, the deep red Kansas. The Kochs are into oil and gas and they’ve told the state to stop wind power. Most GOP in Kansas won’t. The Kochs have the opportunity to spend millions on ads claiming that the GOP legislature is in bed with climate change communists.
You’ve got to be kidding me? You think Soros is chump change? That comment alone diminishes all of your other entries as you obviously don’t know all of the organizations owned by Soros. And don’t forget who has the funding from the other huge money sources such as unions, the majority of Hollywood, etc… It’s the liberals. Do you know what Soros’ purpose is? Probably not, but do some research. He wants to take us down and has laughingly said that was his biggest goal. The MSM is feeding you the Soros-backed propaganda and you’re buying into it, making you one of their biggest pawns to be discarded once the agenda has been fulfilled.
Koch bros are number 58 in political donors. Top 40 or so of whom are Democrats. As for the Catholic Church, since Catholics are VERY diverse in thought and action, you might want to look closer to home. Like the well loved (by liberals) Islamists. Or the fundamentals like Westboro Baptist.
Bill, I’ve got no argument with your statement, but I would like to encourage you and everyone else not to slander the town of Westboro or the Baptist denominations by using their names when referring to Phelps & Co. Just a thought.
Not slandering Westboro as a town, and not slandering Baptists as a group. Just slapping (hard I hope) a specific group called Westboro Baptist. (Woonsocket was doing some serio0us slapping of my church, and Patricia didn’t seem to have any problem with that.)
Any church that wants to slap me will get slapped back.
Bill- And I down flagged Woonsocket’s comments against the RCC. It’s just that I recently crossed paths with someone from Topeka and she was ashamed to say where she was from because of their negative association. Also I don’t believe that Phelps & Co. are actually a church. They are actually a bunch of lawyers looking to sue people, that’s all.
You may be right about Phelps & Co. They are not much of what I would consider a real church either.
The Koch Bros. is just a diversion, so that the commies can hide their donor’s, that are 50 times bigger.
Bill, Don’t confuse people like woonsocket with facts, for heaven’s sake. They can understand real facts. Only rumor & liberal agenda make sense to them.
You left out George Soros. How much has he spent to move the USA as far left as possible?
The Koch brothers pale when it comes to spending millions of dollars against everyone except the 1%, look at the muslim that thinks he is the KING and his wife that thinks she is the QUEEN.
No, they want the village idiots to raise the children.
EXcept the Villiage Idiots don’t know how to raise children…all they know how to do is live off tax payer money. They are the Administration/Senate/House and rest of Ovomits gov. Just look what the “Would be King and his moochelle wife” are teacjhing their 2 kids…..Live ans vacation off the tax payers.
That is my point.
I see parent licencing in the future, they will make you take a P.C. test and if you fail, sterilization for you,….
Well said!
The “women’s rights” movement took hold during the 60’s. Bra burning became fashionable during the “Great Society” regime of Lyndon Johnson coincidental with the formation of many new bureaucracies during that time. Initially, these bureaucracies were being financed by the social security fund which was approved for general use during the Kennedy “New Frontier” administration. The problem was that more tax money would be needed in the future if these bureaucracies were to grow as planned. Households having only one breadwinner would be taxed to such an extreme that people would rebel. However, if each family could be convinced to have two breadwinners and accepted that as normal then taxes could be raised and the folks would be okay with it. If a married couple (both of whom are employed) does the math and adds up how much they jointly pay for federal income tax, social security tax, medicare tax, sales tax, property tax, state income tax, capital gains tax, gasoline tax, and miscellaneous taxes and fees in their utility bills they will find that one of them is working to support the family and the other is working to support the government. Communism, socialism, fascism or any other dictatorial form of government requires that ALL citizens contribute financially to the bureaucrats. Anyone that isn’t working to support the government is considered to be useless and expendable. Women that want to be at home with their children are not doing their fair share to support the state and must be criticized and shamed for their actions. Liberals also hate retirees because they may become a burden to the state. However, they just solved that problem with Obamacare.
Also, if the family would add up how much money it costs in car maintenance, childcare, clothes for work, presents for co-workers (for birthdays, baby showers, retirements, etc.), meals out or convenience foods because Mom doesn’t have time to cook from scratch, more new clothes bought because Mom doesn’t have time to mend the clothes, perhaps hiring a maid to come in once or twice a week because Mom doesn’t have enough time to do housework, and on and on. After adding up all these expenses plus the extra tax expenses incurred because of the second income, it becomes obvious that the second job is, at best, not gaining the family any extra money. At worst, the second job is costing the family money.
Good points. I have seen many people who are now finding themselves in the predicament that you describe. Six or seven years ago both spouses may have each had a good paying job that was utilizing their college degrees or their vocational skills. Many have lost those jobs and have been forced to take lower paying jobs that are not related to their education. High corporate taxes and excessive government regulations have caused many corporations to build their factories and administrative facilities in countries that are more business friendly thus causing job loses for American citizens. Excessive government spending does nothing but lower our standard of living and reduce our opportunities for the future.
Perfectly and so accurately stated
The left hated anything that has to do with the biblical family.
Probably because they’re honest about what they are, what they are doing, and don’t put their kids in the care of strangers who might abuse them or fill their little heads with God knows what. Women have always been the backbone of the human family. Sure, we guys went out and clubbed the meat, hurled boulders at our enemies but in reality women, in my view, have always been the backbone.
Can I drop by for dinner when you club your next deer? I haven’t had venison since I was a kid.
LOL
Anytime, Hon!
It’s true, so many women feel pressured to go to work, too. All too often from husbands who have friends whose wives work. I wish all men appreciated the value of a stay-at-home mother and wife. It really is worth it, many times over.
If it speaks of traditional family values the libs don’t want to hear it. They are all warped. They love perversion and despise all that is wholesome and good. The only ones they want at home raising the kids are the welfare recipients who are only too happy to leave the biggest part of the raising to government schools.
The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. And they want that hand to belong to a nice little liberal baby sitter. If it belongs to the mother then it could just mean one or two less little mindless robots.
Let the Liberal hacks cook for themselves then.
They hate motherhood because feminists are Marxists (godless) and hate Natural Laws (which founded the US Constitution and Western Civilization and Science and was absorbed by Catholic Theology (St. Thomas A. (Reason and Faith)) and so is part of all Christian belief.
Christianity is foundational to Western culture (US Constitutution and Individual Natural Rights from God, NOT the State) and so the Marxists are out to destroy not only Christianity, but the Natural Family to create emotionally crippled children who are “group” conditioned to believe sodomy is a Virtue. They are flipping Christian Ethics to Satanism/paganism.
Individuality takes place in the Natural Family with both a male and female to emulate and understand the interaction of all human beings. It creates Logic and Reason and relationship ability. Without the Natural Family raising children (daycares, etc) children are conditioned to be worried about the collective, what others “think” about them and to “fit in” and think they are helpless. They are conditioned to group think.
The New Atheists hate hierarchy–which is Natural and creates unity and efficiency with natural roles (in all animal life) which create a flourishing, happiest, most effective life, and determines the ultimate survival of culture. All our Founders hated hierarchy (monarchy), but recognized Patriarchy—which is necessary for efficiency, and understanding the natural roles for efficiency and Reason and Logic in children, which allows children to be guided by a loving biologically connected person (the safest), and the Natural design (God’s) can never be improved upon. The design of food for baby and the necessity of bonding for Trust is essential for Maturity in all adults. With that breaking of the bonds of motherhood and no connection to biological fathers, emotional damage always occurs and a lack of understanding. Care and nurture (TIME) actually creates “human” beings. Without mothers, true nurture is really hard–and that biological connection, bonding by nursing/holding is basic to understanding past and future and feeling interest in it; Meaning in Life and understanding (logic) is lost without biological connections….that is why homosexual marriage is pushed, to make it normal to buy little children—have the State raise them—destroy maternal instincts by promotion of abortion in children, by conditioning little girls (and boys) to think it is a Natural Right to kill one’s own genetic offspring.
Without a nurturing mother, babies will not be “humanized”. The State wants to be parent and the loyalty ONLY given to the State–never biological connections. People have to be interchangeable and all individual identity erased (even gender) which destroys Reason and Christianity–and will create a totalitarian State. People will be emotional cripples, druggies, or worse; they will be incapable of growing into autonomous, emotionally healthy adults and forming long term relationships which stable children always need.
Marxists want motherhood eliminated so the State becomes mother and father, and little boys without a loving mother are narcissists and worse…just immoral and easily controlled by the State—never like a Gen. Patton.
Founders knew as the Ancient Greeks that Virtue is habituated in early childhood, and with the institutionalized child (collectivization) individuality is destroyed and that “thinking” outside the box which created America. All Framers knew that without Virtue, there is no Freedom. All Cultural Marxists knew to destroy Virtue in children, will collapse culture so NWO can take place and slavery is freedom. Sodomy promotion (homosexual “marriage”) destroys Reason (Natural Law) and Logic and Virtue in children. It normalizes paganism/occultism/Satanism; or the worldview of Afghanis where boy harems are “good” and hating women is normal (sexism which is what homosexuality is/immaturity/narcissism).
I beg to differ with your thought that there needs to be a nurturing mother. My grandchild has been cared for by the father primarily as in he did all the feeding, nurturing and loving since the day the child was born. That child is awesome at 6 years old, and at the top of the class. I am amazed at the fantastic things they do together and the sheer amount of outside activities learning about nature and observing the animal world. She is reading at a second grade level and is doing really well in all her other subjects as well. She can stitch up a tear or replace a button. I have taught her a few things to cook and her father also continues this. Children are such wonderful little people, who can and will learn exactly what they are exposed to – so you better make it all positive.
What Susan was getting at, I believe, is that there needs to be nurturing in the child(ren)’s home… which is ONLY obtained by having parents involved in their lives. That’s where the State fails, as a nanny state. If there is only a single parent (through divorce, death, whatever), and the parent that remains disassociates him/herself from the child, the child suffers.
But that’s not what she said, Rhonda.
In fact she made it very clear she was talking about a biological mother.
I’m adopted and that lady has no idea what she’s talking about.
Adopted children are the answers to prayers for their parents. You can nurture a child just as well with bottle feeding. We can’t always do things as perfectly as we would like, but that doesn’t mean that women should not feel that they are doing something important, which is nurturing children. Usually women do it best, but some dads are very good nurturers too. A child is blessed to have two loving parents raising them in this messed-up world.
Males and females are designed differently. Most males–and I have know those with more “nurturing” instincts, are still not even close to good nurturing mothers. They are different and add different qualities to the life of a child—essential for the child to understand himself in relationship to the opposite sex. It is essential that young children are able to see the interaction of males and females for their future relationships. If the relationship is healthy, the child will be able to have healthy future relationships (long term). If they are dysfunctional, the child will most likely have severe problems with relationships.
There is no equivalent to biological connection in the life of a child. Biology is what connects children to the past and to the future in very meaningful ways. It helps with understanding oneself and creates a natural Worldview. Children spend entire lives hunting for their lost relations….and the joy at finding them is beyond understanding. They create movies on this.
Not all adoptive parents are good…..people are naturally selfish and adopt for wrong reasons, also. Your “utopia” idea about adoptive parents doesn’t fit reality–read the news sometime. Are their great adoptive parents? Absolutely!!! But then you will read about homosexuals who adopt a black baby boys and sell him on the internet for sex. God’s Design is best….always is if the parents are “good”. But Christian Charity is the next best thing when translated to an adoptive mom and dad. Isn’t it sad that Catholic Charities had to close because they refused to put children in warped environments like “two mommies” where children would not be exposed to both male and female interaction, or have a role model.
Yes, Terrie… the bottle can be as comforting as breastfeeding and it is solely dependent on the parents. I have a mother and father and several siblings (both adopted and biological). We were all raised as devout Christians with an at-home mom. I get along great with all my siblings, relatives and parents and am just stupefied at the idea that someone thinks there is some imperfection with an adoptive relationship. I have never heard such a goofy comment, which makes me wonder how credible a person stating that really is.
I know adopted people who had horrible adoptive parents who made them feel unwanted. What about those two MA white homosexuals who adopted a little black boy and sold him on the internet for sex and were molesting him and “sad” when he could “talk”. Adoption is just as imperfect as biological motherhood….I am just saying that Natural Law insists that it is a Natural Duty to raise and nurture any biological offspring.
Christians know the world is imperfect and that is why Christians invented the orphanages. They also knew that foster parents were better than an institution, unless they were abusive. You should watch the documentaries on the “Orphan Train”.
Our culture teaches young girls it is a “right” (from God no less) to kill their own genetic offspring in public schools and that there is no Natural Laws–that males and females are interchangeable. It is Marxism to “think” that a biological mother and biological father is not essential for emotional health and connection to the past and future. I know a woman (adopted) who has no idea of her past ancestors—and it leaves a huge whole in her heart. It is like the “sperm” babies who grow up and spend thousands of dollars and years to find their biological parent. Children are designed to “Know” and have a yearning for those biological connections. You are very defensive about your adoption for some reason.
BTW, I do know great adoptive parents, also. They are saints and will be greatly rewarded by God. You are extremely lucky, but it is sad that you never had biological parents to love you, but, you had the next best thing.
So Susan… I’m irrational, eh?
You chose the wrong person to pick a fight with.
This article was about the left hating housewives and you turned it into some referendum on biological motherhood. You must be an evangelical Christian who pushes your idea of right and wrong onto us “pagans”. You’re the perfect Christian on the yellow-brick road to Heaven, huh? Well, I assure you’re not so perfect.
You need to review the meaning if Natural Law. It has nothing to do with your incredibly ridiculous preface that the best maternal relationship comes from a biological mother. Tell me what Nazi manual you were studying. I suppose it required the extermination of every non-aryan, too, eh?
Natural Law is simply the moral authority defining the 3 norms of human behavior. Any thought of biological, maternal preference came to you in a dream.
Not sure what your motivation is, but you really should think before you spew such crap. You got lots of upvotes, so I’m sure that makes you happy. That’s the kind if validation you need, right?
But, where substitutes like adoptive parents can happen with “good” results…..God’s design of a woman nursing her own biological child for the first few years of life, with eye to eye contact and skin contact, is more nurturing and comforting and Natural, than drinking out of a bottle or with clothes hitting the cheek. The understanding of female and male is also altered in an unnatural way, embedded in the conscious with no nursing, loving mother. This can be warping–for children surrounded by males or boys acting like girls, is not normal (natural) and will determine her emotions about “motherhood” and selflessness.
Take any baby animal removed from the mother before their weaning occurs. They will never be as God designed, although they may be able to function pretty well…they will not be “normal”. You can make anything “normal” to babies—it doesn’t make it the “best” for them. God’s Design is always the best. That is my argument. Not that other situations can’t be efficient or good—but it will not be the same.
My point is that God’s Design is there for a most important reason and should be the Design of culture—to promote that ….but with death and real life, I understand that 2nd best possibilities can work—they just aren’t as effective or efficient or natural.
I’m with WitchWay on this, Susan.
A nurturing mother IS important.
However, when you qualify an adoptive mother as not quite as good as the real thing, you’re not going to get away with throwing me a bone! In most cases, an adoptive mother is actually better than a birth mother. An adoptive mother has made some big decisions before the baby arrives, whereas a birth mother often is dealing with a surprise.
You really don’t have any idea what the role of a true mother is (biological or adoptive), do you?
I have five children.
You miss my point…..I am talking about “God’s Design”, the basis of Natural Law. Are you actually telling me that human beings were not designed to have a biological loving mother and father?????
That is all I am stating–the Truth. Adoptive parents can’t nurse, can they? They are NOT as effective as a biological mother can be (in a perfect world where there is no need for adoption). Fact is the biological mother’s body is naturally designed to supply the best physiological and emotionally healthy environment for the infant, and her body is more loving and humanizing than using a bottle (don’t you agree?).
Touching skin is important and bonds. In cultures where babies are nursed longer, the culture is far less violent. The studies in Attachment Theory has proven the humanizing effects on attachment and the damage done to any infant who bonds and is torn away from that first person.
Just saying—yes, you are absolutely right about adoptive parents being better than some birth mothers. Absolutely. BUT—-isn’t that evil, that human mothers should not love and nurture their very own offspring–It is their Natural Duty!
That human beings are not perfect or moral is another story. I am just stating Natural Law Theory. It used to be thought “horrible” when a child became an orphan…..why? If the parents were evil….then, of course, it is a good thing—but the child will still be damaged by that loss.
No, she doesn’t. There are even children who are better off with their grandparents. We aren’t able to pass family values and love through our genes.
There was this one couple who weren’t in a hurry to get married. She was pregnant. If it was a boy, the boy would have the father’s last name. If it were a girl, the girl would have her mom’s last name. What’s that about? Children live with their names for the rest of their lives. When do the interests of the child count?
Susan might be saying what conservatives like to hear… the importance and value of a good family structure… but she is
OUT OF LINE with her comments about adoptive mothers. I have no idea what her experience with adoption is, but that lady made some pretty wacko comments and I am extremely offended.
Out of Line????? You are irrational and can’t even absorb what I posted. (the truth). Natural Law Theory states that there is a Natural Duty of human beings to raise their own biological offspring. Got that??????? Do you “think” God designed the human life to be raised by any Tom, Dick or Harry?????? No!!!! The biological connections are supposed to ADD concern for the young, so they can survive—so the male stays and supports the wife, so she will be able to survive in Life and raise her young to adulthood.
Adoption is good if the adoptive parents are moral (and loving), but can be as evil as any biological parent who dumps the kid. Having a male/female adopt a baby is the next best thing—but it is not as “natural” as biological children. Just a fact. Don’t get all upset over it……must be anger at God.
There is sometimes no other choice, as when the mother has died or is incapacitated. Such cases are the exception, not the norm, and not the way it was designed to be under normal circumstances. Yes, children are such wonderful little people. Under normal circumstances, it is the mother that nurtures the children just as it was designed to be. However, if the mother is perfectly capable yet abdicates her role, that is wrong and not the way it was designed to be under normal circumstances. Fathers taking the place of nurturing mothers for illegitimate reasons should never be the norm.
There is no “norm” when you’re talking about human beings.
I noticed you never used the words “natural mom” “real mom” “birth mom” “legitimate mom”… although you did say that life without the “real” mom is “not the norm, not the way it was designed to be.”
What is up with some of you people? Do you have ANY idea how offensive it is to state that an adoptee’s life, while not perfect, is doable. Really? Not the way it was designed to be? Really? So God gave you some insight to His plans for all you normal people and us adoptees, huh? You know what He designed life to be for everyone, huh?
I’m thinking my life is pretty near perfect and I am appalled that some people can sit on a blogsite and make such asinine statements about adoption
Oh my goodness, you really misunderstood. I never said a thing about adopted children. I was strictly speaking of the roles of moms and dads. See? How in the world did you make the leap from parental roles to adopting children? Btw, we are adoptive parents to the greatest child. You have made a huge mistake. Try rereading this entire thread, and you should then see your mistake.
This isn’t about you, Jessica. Most babies are raised by their biological mothers, and that is the norm. You can be as offended as you want to be, but that is the fact.
YEAH, I GET IT.
Mind your own business and stay out of mine.
(How could I be so lucky as for you to allow me to be offended… Your life must be pretty boring to butt into someone else’s comment)
Sorry if I misunderstood you. It’s late and this is an emotional topic. I think I need sleep.
No problem. Just understand, I meant nothing against adoption. I couldn’t possibly since we are strong proponents of it, and we love our adopted child to pieces. All of his siblings never remember a time before we adopted him, some of them were too young when we got him, and the others came later so to them, he is their biological brother. Sorry this is an emotional topic for you. Have a good nights sleep.
Hmm- I was a housewife, who also was a partner with my husband in business. I did all the work at home and did everything I could for as long as I could to make my spouse happy and successful. I got no thanks, very few rewards as in kindness or thanks, and I finally went screaming out the door. Many men seem to take their status for granted. They do not consider the important part that women play as the incubator’s of their offspring and the ones who are the nurturers, nurses and all around keepers of the home fires. I am a conservative, not a liberal, but I want equal status for my accomplishments and my sacrifices and that will not happen in this current two party system.
At the very least, someone who appreciates everything you do for the household and relationship. I worked outside the home, from the time I was a teenager, until the last few years (I’ll be 57 in August). My first 3 long-term relationships, I was unappreciated for the effort, of working outside the home, and maintaining the home (two full-time jobs, in essence, along with motherhood and raising two daughters). The first one ended in divorce, because of his alcoholism (the state was on the verge of taking our daughters away from us, because while I was at work, he’d sit at home, drink a six-pack of beer, pass out, and the girls would be unattended, and ran the neighborhood that the ages of 6-1/2 and 1-1/2… I forbade any alcohol in the house as a result, and during spring cleaning, found his stash. That was the end of that relationship), after 8 years. The second relationship, we were never married, but he helped raise my two daughters, lasted 21 years. That one ended, after helping him with his business, running the household, raising the girls, working outside the home at a full-time job, when he decided that he didn’t want to be with me (especially after I became a born-again Christian). I left him behind while he went overseas for the third time, looking for his future wife. The third one was a loser, period. Domestic violence/abuser. That marriage lasted 4 years, and I divorced him. Now, I’m on my third marriage, and fourth relationship. I no longer work outside the home, but I run the household, taking care of him and everything, but we are very happy and content with each other, and accept the traditional roles of our marriage, with Yahweh being the centermost focal point of our relationship. And that, my dear, is what makes our marriage successful. Yahweh.
Congrats and good luck! You worked hard
to get where you are today.
That is great! Too many working women are taken for granted and do all the housework and kids care,etc.also. How is that “equality”? Thanks for your sharing your marriage success. I agree.
Good for you. There is a difference between the 2 parties. Democrats have more respect for women. They want women to have an equal voice in our country. This article is designed to pit women against each other. That’s not healthy.
Again…..you are a fool of the largest kind.
The irony is that these “Feminists” are actually wannabe men! They hate being females and want to be guys! So maybe we should call them “Masculinists” instead! These Masculinists and their lapdogs in media fail to realize the very thing that most men have always known, that women have always HAD the power! They imprint and literally create the next generation. They have been the power behind almost every throne. AND therefore I might remind them that if they don’t like how men behave, they have only themselves to blame because every man was socially-imprinted first by his mother!
…and lets not forget that by “liberating” women they simply doubled the tax slaves!
*LOL* *LOL* Feminists come in every shape and size.
Your description makes them out to have huge hairy armpits, pointed heads & bushy eyebrows. Then they grunt loudly, grow horns, steam comes out of their ears and they snort like a pig during sex.
Sounds about right. It’s the males who get the Brazilian waxes and shave everything else.
They do in the movies! In the 1950’s actors who did not wear shirts for one scene or another had to get shaved. Today, male models do it all of the time. Today, men shave their heads if they’re bald on top.
Who besides Johnny Weissmuller from the ’50s? When you mention male models, we really are on the same page as they also shave or wax their legs too, don’t they? Now I know that you may say that pro cyclists shave their legs, but that’s to reduce wind resistance, not to make a fashion statement. I can see where a male might also shave and wax his head to overcome wind resistance were he to make his living by being shot out of a cannon in a circus, but I can’t see them wanting to limit their opportunity to use the latest “product” on their hair.
Not quite. That may be your imagination running wild, but all the Lesbos and hardcore feminists I’ve ever met hated being women and wanted to be guys…which i should take as a compliment, I suppose.
Well . . . that a woman would assume a roll not in competition with a man . . . how horrible!
My wonderful mother, my wonderful wife, both were “housewives,” (though my mother preferred homemaker). They both raised wonderful broods of children – all have succeeded in their chosen fields of endeavor – and all are well adjusted to the lives they live. OK, so some women wish to have a career, OK I say. My three daughters have chosen careers (airline pilot, opera singer, and – well, the third is a housewife, but with a PHD in English Literature – Poetic anthology in the future? What’s all the fuss. It is those confused feminists who don’t know who they are, who seem to need to be victims. You need help, girl. (My three girls know full well that they are . . . GIRLS)!
Thank you, Michael… your last paragraph states it all.
Leftist females are mostly harpy trolls and Leftist guys are mostly passive aggressive metrosexual pu$$ies, not men. Being a man has very little to do with seeming macho, but everything to do with assuming responsibility, holding to ones convictions, at least trying to do “the right thing”, being gentle with those who are weaker, showing the respect to others that one thinks he deserves and so much more that the Left lacks.
My wife is a stay-at-home mom, and she homeschools our kids. She is doubly hated by the leftists.
There’s a liberal in my family and she home schools her children too.
What is so pathetic about this whole conversation is the idea that somehow conservatives THINK they know how and what liberals believe. This sanctimonious righteous belief that ONLY conservatives are good, God fearing people is just plain nuts. The irony is their own GOP has implemented economic policies that make it almost impossible to support a family on 1 income. I hear this crap about if you cut back and live on a tight budget you can stay home. BS! That WAS possible in the 50’s,60’s and some 70s. My Mom stayed home and my Dad was a carpenter, but today there is no way we could have made it without a 2nd income. Why? Trickle down economics and the age of “Government is bad” and privatize everything we can. My Dad had health insurance from work that covered everything (non profit insurance), There were strong unions and CEO’s made 30 times their average employee, not 300 times. The age of corporate greed took over and ANYTHING for the people was considered socialism. Then the GOP used religion to manipulate the masses. As a Christian, I could not possibly vote for the current GOP. To claim to be pro life and then once the baby is born your on your own. To be against sex ed and contraception (which reduces abortion rates dramatically) is NOT pro life. It is PRO-CONTROL. Even though I am a Christian, I do not want the Government to be a Christian Theocracy. I pray that people will wake up to this mass manipulation and recognize what the GOP is really doing. We need a Govt of, by and for the people, but since the GOP is owned by the banks, fossil fuel industry, big pharma, war profiteers and other wealthy powerful entities we have a govt of, by and for the wealthy and powerful. That is an Oligarchy/ Plutocracy.
The women who slam the “Stay at home Mom” are just feeling really guilty because they could not measure up to staying home with the children. They think that having a job to escape to is noble and oh, so hard!!! These women love to hear the phrase….How do you do it all. They are a bunch of sanctimonious witches.
Could it be that the age-old adage “The hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world” is absolutely terrifying to liberals who seem to have the belief system that only
the genderless State knows how to lead humankind to bliss and bounty?
Very well said!
A conservative told me that whoever “mothers” a child in his/her early years, has the biggest impression on that child. That is true in my family.
The tacky film remake, of the popular 60’s TV series Bewitched, is a classic example. At the
heart of the show, it was all about a couple, & trying comdically to cope with severe differences
in their backgrounds & families. She was willing to make a big sacrifice for love. Starting off as a
housewife, she eventually becomes a mother. The film makers obviously could not bring themselves
to recapture that beloved domestic scenario. Instead, they had to make a film about actors & their
egos. The new witch Isabel, had to be a career woman, who resists utilizing her witch powers for (?)
no reason that made any sense. There is no marriage involved, only a “relationship,” & a shakey one
at best, with a shallow self-serving actor, where no one could fathom the attraction. The result was
a painful, humorless film, with an all star cast trying too hard, apparently to lecture it’s audience that
modern culture is better than the old. The pilot episode of the series reveals a very different world,
where couples got married pretty quickly when they fell in love, they didn’t just have sex & resist
commitment. Then they made sacrifices for that love, & dealt with the inevitable problems afterward.
Many amazon reviewers were disappointed in the film, if not downright angry at the betrayal of
expectations. But the message sent by hollywood was clear…. No admiration of housewives allowed!
This article is hogwash. Most of the middle class families have 2-income households. Unless the woman has a great career, most of those women would rather raise their kids at home. When the children are old enough, the woman might want to go to work.
Feminism is confusing to conservatives. Feminism is about choices not a stereotype. It’s OK to work. It’s OK to stay at home.
Basically if you’re as far left as many of these politicians was being portrayed when it comes to housewives from their point of view is true.
Everything else the left seems to do is screwed up..
Medicare?
Screwed up.
Same reason the Left hates Sarah Palin. She could do all the above and Liberal Women, ain’t equipped for it. Sarah Palin could juggle a household, be a Governor, take care of a Down Syndrome Child and help Her Husband run the Family Business. Liberal Women? Why all they do is sleep there way up the ladder of success. A bit muck? I don’t think so, but, I’ll take the heat.
Is that why Sarah quit being governor? To take care of her youngest child? Didn’t she go on the road a lot and give speeches? You can’t make millions on tour and change diapers at the same time.
Get over your Liberal self. She had a great reason for her resignation. You Liberals scorched earth her entire Family and hit the State with millions in lawsuits.
woonsocket,
Just because you can’t make millions on tour and change diapers at the same time, don’t project your inadequacies onto someone who is competent.
You conveniently forgot to mention that thanks to Sarah oil companies must pay into the Alaskan Permanent Fund which gives Alaskans millions every year. Where were you when she was attacked as well as her family in some of the most vile ways possible. I would have expected some defense of her by womens’ rights groups even if they do disagree politically. Instead they played the hypocrite role.
Newt Gingrich slept his way through 3 marriages. He left one wife who was going through cancer. He was Speaker in the 90’s and in 2012 Sheldon Adelson spent millions on his (Newt) campaign. Newt’s for sale to highest bidder but he never had sex with them.
woonsocket,
Newt and his first wife, Jackie Battley were already separated and Newt had filed for divorce when he visited her in the hospital where she was recovering from a second surgery to remove a tumor that —
according to one of the couple’s daughters — was benign. Don’t let facts stop your propaganda though.
….OMG….So, by your logic his behavior was fine because the tumor was benign?????
David Vitter paying for prostitutes or Mark Foley going after young boys ARE facts. What propaganda was used by the evil dems with these 2 righteous conservatives?
That’s not the point. The point is that, he didn’t show up in the hospital where she was dying from cancer and surprise her by saying, “Hi, honey, how are you feeling? By the way, I want a divorce” as was the party line of the Left and their propaganda organ, the mainstream media. As far as David Vitter paying for prostitutes and Mark Foley going after young boys, I’ll see you and raise you an Eliot Spitzer, Barney Frank and Kevin Jennings just for a start. Let’s just sweeten the pot with David Axelrod’s smear campaign against Herman Cain.
You missed the point Miss holier than thou. Democrats don’t go around saying how righteous they are and assume they know what conservatives think. We realize that all of us make mistakes. Rush Limbaugh, the famous lobbyist for the corporations constantly talks about what the “libs” believe or what they think and the man is so far off the mark. Talk about “casting the first stone”. Sadly, millions believe that manipulation and go out and vote against themselves.
All conservatives do is cast generalized judgements on democrats and really have no clue as to what we believe or think. It is not my job or yours to do. That , my dear, is the point.
PS Is it Axelrod’s fault that Cain went after women that were not his wife? and BTW Spitzer resigned, but Vitter is still in office. I wish Barney and his partner a long happy life. What did they do?
On Axelrod and Cain, see above. On what did Frank, he admitted a lengthy relationship with a male hooker who
ran a bisexual prostitution service out of Frank’s apartment. I’m sure he did it with the best of intentions to promote homosexual rights though so it’s laudable in the eyes of the Left, isn’t it?
No, it is not laudible in the eyes of the left. It is freedom to love a person of the same sex. Sadly, conservative friends of mine seem to understand only when they find out their friend, partner at work, relative etc is gay. I am from a huge family (My Mom had 12 siblings) and 2 of my cousins are gay. It is still very much a stigma for some.The reason many on the right THINK it is on the left because of the talk radio and Fox hosts who tell their audiences that.
Sort of like the propaganda they spew that libs hate the 2nd amendment and want to take guns away. Nothing is further from the truth. My Dad and all my uncles were vets. Some hunted, some had guns for protection and some just like them. Trying to stop criminals and mentally ill from guns has nothing to do with not believing in our 2nd Amendment. If I knew how to use one properly, I would have one now that I live alone.
It’s not freedom when homosexuals are given special rights and their lifestyles are crammed down everyone elses throats. Letting children select their own gender is beyond the pale. One might as well let their cat decide she wants to be a dog. That being said, I don’t have a problem with peoples sexual orientation and identity when it’s just that, but I do have a problem when it’s a cause célèbre and anyone who doesn’t agree with it is labeled a homophobe. I honestly don’t really mind being labeled or being called names, but would always prefer it face to face to see if my accuser has the courage of his/her/its malice or if they are just typical passive-aggressive bullies.
Leftists don’t have a problem with the 2nd Amendment as long as it doesn’t interfere with their ownership of firearms, or employing armed bodyguards while they try to disarm law abiding citizens who don’t agree with their agenda to “fundamentally transform the United States of America” from a “shining city on a hill” to another failed Socialist Utopian third world cesspool. If you’d like, I can post the names and quotes from prominent Leftist politicians who have said that their goal is confiscation, but it will take a little while to search for them. I’ll just give you two to start, Michael Bloomberg and Rep. Jan Schakowsky.
You should learn how to use a firearm properly and buy, own and train with it if for no other reason than to have your loved ones mourn needlessly if you get mugged, hospitalized and, possibly die by the hand of a miscreant. It’s better to spend a few hundred dollars on something you may never have to use than to not have it and be a victim. They’re not that hard to use, just point the end with the hole in it at your attacker, get a sight picture and press the button until it stops going “bang” and starts going “click” at which point you reload, rinse and repeat until the threat is a former threat. Then call 911.
“Lord, make me fast and accurate.
Let my aim be true and my hand be faster than those who would seek to destroy me.
Grant me victory over my foes and those that wish to do harm to me and mine.
Let not my last thought be, if I only had a gun.
And Lord, if today is truly the day that you call me home, let me die in a pile of empty brass.”
Hare Krishna
When I read your words I sort of feel pity. It is strange how we all see things from a different lense. Allowing gay people to marry, not be discriminated etc to me IS giving them the same rights I have. No more, no less. You see it as “special rights”. Bringing animals into the discussion is juvenile, but I hear it often on Fox and talk radio so I know the party line.
Neither Bloomberg or Schakowsky have ever wanted to take the 2nd amendment right to own a gun away from all citizens. Even if you find some obtuse quote from some fool I am telling you the truth. Even discussions about magazines or closing loopholes at gun shows makes the right and NRA jump to the conclusion that the left is against the 2nd amendment. W
Sadly, I believe a lot of republicans want as much firepower as possible because they talk so much about revolting or hating the Government (when a democrat is President) That is the only logical conclusion for the complete over reaction to sensible gun laws. Maybe when a president is a republican we can have a more reasonable debate on that issue.
I plan to go to a local range and shoot and learn how to handle, clean and whatever else I need to know before I buy my gun.I live in NC and almost daily you read about an accidental shooting or family members fighting and it escalates to guns. My son’s friend picked up a gun at a party and shot himself in the head by mistake and died. Why a loaded gun was on the table I do not know. Have a good night.
When accusing certain groups of “…hating the Government”, does that mean you know people, individually or collectively who love their government? Considering the approval rating of Congress and the current occupant of the Oval Office, I think you’d be hard pressed to find too many people who get a warm, fuzzy feeling from thinking about our out of control, lawless, government, the size and and majority of activities of which are not authorized by the Constitution. Democrat or Republican, there’s barely an electron’s difference between them and all Federal level politicians have more in common with each other than with any of their constituencies.
There is only one sensible gun law and it’s only twenty-seven words long written in clear, unambiguous language and supported by the Supreme Court in McDonald v. Chicago and District of Columbia v. Heller. It reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.”
Since you’ve never been under sustained, or even occasional hostile fire, you can’t possibly understand the desirability to be able to reach out more than arms length with great power to interfere with the plans of someone trying to kill you. Even a cornered bunny will fight with all its might to survive.
I’m sorry about your son’s friend, but don’t understand how anyone “accidentally” shoots themself in the head. I do remember a time, back in the Southeast Asian War Games when a security guard in a detail that was formed up to be relieved, cleared his weapon (Colt 1911.45) put the pistol under his chin, pulled the trigger and blew the back of his head all over the front of a building. His last words were, “That hurt”. He had been a joker and at the end of his watch, would drop the magazine from the weapon, rack the slide, eject the round that was in the chamber, put the pistol under his chin, pull the trigger and then laugh. This time he reversed the process, racked the slide which resulted in chambering a round, dropped the magazine and ended up killing himself with an accidentally loaded weapon. That’s wasn’t an accident, it was sheer stupidity. One of the first rules of gun handling is NEVER to point a gun, loaded or empty, at anything which one doesn’t want to kill. Additionally, one should keep ones finger off the trigger until ready to shoot. Period! Those rules are like gravity, they are not negotiable.
All that being said, I note by your avatar that you must be a cat lover so I believe we have a tiny toehold on common ground.
Bringing animals into the discussion is as relevant as encouraging elementary school children decide whether they’re boys, girls or other. If you believe a boy can decide to be a girl and legally use girls restrooms, then what’s to stop him from deciding to be a cat, or even a Prius? Aristotle said, and I haven’t found cause to dispute, that “A=A”. Given that irrefutable logic, how can you say, with a straight face and your fingers not crossed, that a boy can be a girl?
This is just the tip of the iceberg, you’re welcome to hunt the target rich environment on the search engine of your choice for more:
Mike Martinez
“Democrat Official Admits Plan To Confiscate Guns”
http://www.infowars.com/democrat-official-admits-plan-to-confiscate-guns/
New Jersey state Sen. Loretta Weinberg
Shocking Hot-Mic Gun Comments From New Jersey Senate: ‘Confiscate, Confiscate, Confiscate’
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/10/anti-gun-dems-shocking-hot-mic-comments-confiscate-confiscate-confiscate/
California Attorney General Kamala Harris
California Seizes Guns as Owners Lose Right to Keep Arms
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-12/california-seizes-guns-as-owners-lose-right-to-bear-arms.html
Bloomberg Gun Control Group Wants To Confiscate All Guns, Former Member Claims
http://www.inquisitr.com/1132257/bloomberg-gun-control-group-wants-to-confiscate-all-guns-former-member-claims/
This is the “Biggest Act of Civil Disobedience in Recent Memory”
http://www.capitalisminstitute.org/connecticut-gun-owners-rebel/
When you’re done with that you can go over to http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm#chart and check out the Genocide chart.
“Democrats don’t go around saying how righteous they are…”? Puh-leeze, the Left reeks of pseudo moral righteousness and “doing good” no matter how misguided be it climate, immigration, civil rights, education, defense or the economy.
Rush Limbaugh doesn’t speak for me and calling the Left “libs” gives them a false air of legitimacy. True liberals like Daniel Patrick Moynihan believed in and defended the Constitution. The current crop of Neo-Leftists are current evolution of the Progressive movement which has been infiltrating and sabotaging our country for a century.
The Herman Cain smear campaign, orchestrated by David Axelrod, was built on baseless and racist allegations of his philandering with one of Axelrod’s neighbors who was a doughy, bleached blonde divorcee. I assure you, if Mr. Cain did engage in that kind of activity, it would hardly be the worn out cliché of going for a pasty, over used, pasty bleached blond.
By your accusation that I “cast generalized judgements on democrats”, I would hope you’re not making a thinly veiled request for the prurient titillation of more specific details about Elliot Spitzer, Barney Frank and Kevin Jennings. You’re not are you Miss Thing?
As expected, the usual insults spew from the holy conservative when they cannot respond to the actual point. I said that democrats do not constantly claim to know what and how republicans think. I never said anything about what WE believe in.
Yeah and there was lying-assed democrat John “beyond sleazy” Edwards who tried running for president. Dragging out one person just doesn’t make your case.
This is one .of the more ridiculous articles I have read in a while. As a Democrat with 4 children I know that raising children is a very difficult and demanding job. I was lucky to have an office at home and someone there to look over them, but always be there for them. The vast majority of Americans (left,right and center) know the value and the hard job it is to be a full time homemaker and the great rewards are not monetary. Since Reaganomics and the idea of Government I the bad guy and privatization of anything is better the vast majority HAVE NO CHOICE but to have 2 working parents. Thanks to the terrible policies, deregulations, union busting, outsourcing, tax dodging corporations staying at home, as my Mom did, is rarely an option. Any Bill that helps families or maternity leave or ANYTHING to make life a bit easier for families is voted down by the GOP as being socialist and yet somehow you want to blame liberals??? Hellooooo
You mean since Obama and the terrible economy.
Actual facts 1. Clinton left a large surplus 2. Bush left a huge deficit/debt and an economy collapsing. He offered the banks the TARP bail out with no strings attached and a stock market crashing AND 2 Wars 3..We were losing 500-700,000 jobs per MONTH when he left office. (please look it up)
Thankfully, Obama stopped the downward spiral. Now we have job growth (not as much as it could be if Congress allowed a bigger stimulus and infrastructure jobs program) A stock market at record highs (not great for many Americans, but a healthy sign) The GOP has not offered 1 jobs plan, but rejected the President’s. From day 1 they decided to obstruct this President even when this country was left in a mess. Which Party fights against decent wages, is against unions, supports fossil fuels but attacks alternative clean energy growth, is against Medicaid expansion that is paid for by the Feds which will cause close to 6,000 deaths of American citizens each year (21 states with GOP Governors). The other 29 states cover their citizens healthcare. Voted 49 times to stop Obamacare (their own plan from the 90’s written by the Heritage foundation and used in MA under Romney) Please look it up.
Waste time, money on made up scandals like Benghazi (there were 13 attacks on American Embassies during the Bush Admin, but democrats did not play politics and made up scandals to “investigate” these attacks for over 2 yrs Which Party refused the funding for Embassy security before Benghazi occurred? The GOP. THAT, if anything, should be he supposed scandal. Even the families of the Ambassador and 1 of the marines that were killed have asked the GOP to stop using this tragedy for political purposes. I wish it was different. I used to vote GOP, but there is to much evidence that they only represent the big wealthy special interest groups and have changed from the Party they once were
All parents have a choice. What many struggle with (especially leftist regressives) is deciding whether or not they want to downsize and budget in order to live on one income. Of course, many decide that ‘stuff’ is more important than their own children…..sick. If we can do it, ANYONE can do it.
With lefties, the obvious answer is the operative one, they hate their MOTHERS!
Possibly due to sexual dysfunction, chronic guilt, etc. so very sad. Also lefties are trying to assimilate the world into THE BORG, hive thinking and behavior, house wives and mothers don;t fit.
They would rather that our children be raised by a nanny and the wife go out snf whore around with them. Democrats are sooo shallow. They wouldn’t know what a true marriage is or recognize a real family.
Hey, what the heck. Let’s let the kids raise themselves, run amok on the streets, become gang-bangers, don’t even think about going to school. And when the chickens come home to roost, blame someone else for your failures. My hat is off to stay-at-home Moms as they are indeed the backbone of the family unit.
One simple reason – they are ** STUPID is as STUPID does **.
Why do leftists hate housewives? Because they see no value in them.
First of all this is just more BS from the right Liberals leftist or whatever you want to call them/us do not hate housewives but believe that women should have choice in what they want to do a be in life that marriage and raising children is not the only option
Based on admittedly “non-profreshional” observations of the children of various friends and families over the years, I will say that those raised in homes with stay at home moms, on the whole turned out better adjusted, more accomplished, self confident, and generally happier with their lives than those with “career-driven” mothers. Certainly, there were occasional exceptions to that, but not many. The two career family kids generally had more financial advantages and “stuff”, but always gave the impression that they looked at the parents as existing primarily as a source to provide whatever they wanted, without real feelings of actually loving or respecting them. They also tended to be more rebellious, causing their parents concern and anxiety.
The divorce rate among the two career families seemed more frequent, with the expected impact on the kids. On a couple of occasions, divorce was prompted when Mom’s career and income started surpassing Dad’s. Again, I emphasize that these are based on my personal associations, and not meant as sweeping judgements. but are certainly worth considering.
Leftist, Socialists and Liberal Democrats hate “real housewife” because they represent the “TRUE foundation of our Familly”, and have more balls, and character, than these born losers will ever have…
Remember, small minds, equals, “small everything else”…!
GOD BLESS ALL AMERICAN HOUSEWIVES, AND THE MAGNIFICENT ANTI-LEFT WORK THEY DO!
Housewife would indicate marriage, mother or mom a parent (not necessarily so, & good or bad could have different meanings or be judged differently.) I have a college degree, I’ve had good jobs & horrible jobs. I’ve fought in the last 2 wars, unfortunately my career took a wrong turn & it ended abruptly. Unfortunately it ended my civilian career as well. In my wildest nightmares “house husband” never occurred, but sometimes it’s not up to us. Without a doubt parenting & managing a household is by far the hardest “job” ever. I apologize to my mother often, I don’t know how she had the strength & stamina to “work” 24 / 7. I think that love (tough at times) discipline, family unity & a lot of praying were key. Work may have been 12 or 14 hours a day & then you took a breather. As the housewife or husband you’re never off. There aren’t enough hours in a day to accomplish what needs to be done, it just never ends. You can’t call off sick, you can’t put things off until tomorrow, there’s no pay check, no bonus, no pat on the back, no recognition, no medals, no glory. There’s a lot of “what the hell is wrong with these kids” “what is their problem” & of course, “I think I’m clueless” God I wish I was at work. But then little things start to mean a lot. There’s no better feeling than your children running off the school bus to give you a big hug & tell you that “You’re the best dad ever & I love you” Yesterday I went with my 6 year old on a field trip to a science museum. On the way back on the bus my son gave me a big hug & a kiss & thanked me. He said, “dad I’m so glad that you came with me I love doing things with you-you’re the best” I thanked him for being so good & being so much fun. He smiled, said I love you. PAYDAY, nothing beats the feeling that your child is happy & healthy. It is a royal pain at times, my wife & I have to “steal time” to be together. If we’re not happy & together on things, the kids just know. It’s a tough job but the rewards are great. Those that berate stay at home parents have missed the boat & just don’t get it. Thanks mom, I love you
How would you feel if the husband/dad stayed home with the kids while the wife/mom went off to work? I bet you righties would have a huge hissy fit!
This rightie would be just fine – don’t you work those things out when the time comes?
We should allow parents to raise kids the way they see fit, whether it’s both parents working or one staying home. Unless the situation is abusive society shouldn’t step in. THAT sounds like what the conservative position should be.
I don’t know if conservatives have an agenda for stay-at-home moms.
Being a parent is the most blessed thing in life. Raising a child both humbles you and fulfills you in ways that nothing else can. It teaches you to be selfless and the gratification you get from seeing your kid develop is worth living life in itself. I don’t care who you are, if your child does something to make you proud there is no better feeling in the world. It’s not always easy, that is for sure and it can be heartbreaking, but to have a family who loves you no matter what is a true gift from God.
The left is out to destroy the very essence of life. The family. Because THEY want to control what your kids think, do and say. To put down a woman for wanting to be a housewife is sick and distorted evil coming from selfish distorted leftists.
Another push in the direction of “the government owns your children” crowd. Bound to fail. Tell them in no uncertain terms to F-off.
I stay with mine until they started school, but we needed the money and I started working. Then my elderly parents, living with me, helped me taking care of them, by picking them up from school and helping them with homework. I was very lucky.
Liberal newspeak for Oppression.
State sponnsored doublethink and newspeak sponsored by liberals.
IT’S NORMAL AND WE LIKE IT ! SO GO TO HELL.
Liberal leaders are psychopaths who are as addicted to controlling others as pedophiles are addicted to molesting children.
Stay at home moms enable children to develop a sense of independence that keeps them from being another worker-bee for the liberal leader. This represents a clear danger to the ability of liberal leaders to try and sate their addictions.
My mom is a stay at home mother. She did get a job once when I and my 2 sisters were in Elementary. My older sister hated it. We were left to be watched by someone else while waiting for the bus. This was not a good thing because 1, they had the TV on a channel that wasn’t appropriate for children, and 2, we had to wait for our mom to return from work. She quit after 2 weeks of work to be with her kids. My dad already worked. He made enough money to support us without my mom needing to work. Why work when you can cook meals that are healthy and more filling than a frozen TV dinner? Why work when you can spend time with your kids, raising them how YOU want them to turn out. Why work when you can manage things around the house, and it gives you free time to read books, take up a hobby, fix things and learn to fix them independently without needing help.
Pretty good article Mr. Minkoff except for one point: it is not the leftists, it is the LGBT community that hates real housewives. There are a lot of leftists that are married and/or in monogamous man/woman relationships. And this same group also has a dim view of homosexuals being familiar with the nasty aspects of their perversion. So please get it right: LGBT-ers hate real housewives, not leftists.