Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#354 - jakeattack (01/14/2013) [-]
and thats the way it was supposed to be, the way we were designed, not that a smart women should be not allowed to do what she wants. but still the good old days.
User avatar #374 to #354 - themisstophat (01/14/2013) [-]
Yeah because we don't evolve or anything xD
#404 to #374 - jakeattack (01/14/2013) [-]
no we have, but im talking about within the human species itself. the women took care of the kids etc. that is how we evolved, women can do whatever they want, but they evolved with a purpose
#379 to #374 - bluejupiter (01/14/2013) [-]
We do evolve, but females will always have a motherly urge that will pull them towards the home to raise their child. We lose that, well then it's just a matter of time before we all die off. That or we have super babies that can survive anything... Hmmmmmm
Pic unrelated.
User avatar #388 to #379 - themisstophat (01/14/2013) [-]
That is true, the primary function off all life is to replicate.
Don't forget we're also made to adapt better than males, as we need to be able do anything to keep our offspring alive.. Maybe the need to work and not be at home is due to raise in single mothers, could be a contribution or that the world is overpopulate; so less women have come to not want kids - Of cause this could be a debate of nature vs nurture.
Could be a thesis to look into...
User avatar #389 to #388 - themisstophat (01/14/2013) [-]
*Over populated
User avatar #405 to #389 - bluejupiter (01/14/2013) [-]
True enough, but if a mother is gone to much for work there can be an effect on the child. Usually they have issue trusting because the person they are supposed to trust the most wasn't there, along with the fact that a mother (in the early years) is the biggest influence and without that influence children may miss crucial parts of development. I am not saying that a woman shouldn't work, but I do think that during the first 2 years, a mother should be given less hours at work so that they can spend time with their child so that the child will develop as it should.
User avatar #410 to #405 - themisstophat (01/15/2013) [-]
I do agree, if you want children you should be there to look after them; not leave them with a Nanny.
If formulated milk wasn't invented women would have no choice to stay at home, its only logical that like you said, at least stay with the child for the first two years.
However this doesn't happen as often anymore and less women want kids and more of a career, seems that "motherly urge" is less present.
User avatar #411 to #410 - bluejupiter (01/15/2013) [-]
Well, all we have to look at is the current generation of teenagers. Teen pregnancy is up, nobody has the respect that they should have, they don't have a lot of motivation, and the amount of alcohol and drug use is on the rise. I dunno, I just believe that parents should do what is best for their child. And at least one parent being with the child all the time (like mom works days, dad works nights). This has been quite a mental exercise.
User avatar #412 to #411 - themisstophat (01/15/2013) [-]
Its nice to have general discussion, and not be told to get back into the kitchen - Thanks for that.

Yes, but teens are getting pregnant so they don't have to work.. Not for a motherly urge; that why most are on drugs and drinking and being the way they are. Which is a contribution to the fact that every "bad kid has ADHD" and they never get repercussions for their behavior and the parents just generally don't care.
The world is ****** anyways basically haha.

User avatar #413 to #412 - bluejupiter (01/15/2013) [-]
Well if parents could punish their kids with a slap or a spanking without being ****** over for child abuse, maybe we wouldn't have problems lol
User avatar #414 to #413 - themisstophat (01/15/2013) [-]
Haha true, but some kicks need a hammer to the head and, well... That's a prison sentence.
User avatar #415 to #414 - themisstophat (01/15/2013) [-]
 Friends (0)