Do you as a Muslim believe in women's equality?

[dawny0826]

Not all countries bomb people they don't like. What is the difference? Because there not Muslim? Muslims are being demonised. Now we hear that the office Je Suis Charlie is going to publish another cartoon to do with Islam. You have probably heard already. Great idea!! That will go down well.

I've not spoken ill of anyone in this thread save for those who abuse, oppress and harm others. I've stated that I know good and well that not all Muslims treat women, treat others in such a way. I don't hate Muslims. I don't wish for Muslims to be persecuted for their beliefs.

I don't believe that a cartoon that offends can be remotely compared to murdering people as well. Though, I personally, find such expression (the cartoon) to be of poor taste and not at all comical, I don't believe that merely offending people warrants murder.

I know that not all Muslims identify with and support such actions. Further, I reject the notion that peaceful Muslims should be held accountable for the actions of terrorists.

 

[dawny0826]

Just because a women values (as she should) bringing up the human race as being important for EVERYONE, so that we have less antisocial attitudes and gangs, does not make her less than men. Other than putting food on the table and a roof over someone's head, tell me what else is more important?

Succinctly, I don't believe it my place to dictate to peaceful, consenting adults who aren't harming others, how they should live their lives.

Though I agree with anyone who believes that there's a certain type of strength and stability to be found within traditional family systems, I do not believe that there isn't good and stability to be found within nontraditional settings - at least not in blanket label terms.

These aren't black and white issues, not when it comes to people and their individual personalities and capabilities.

That is unlikely. They will probably do it because if they don't they would be in toruble with the law, and being women, they will assume you will be less militant, and if men hire you, it is someone to flirt with, and stop a man getting a job also (win win for a male) and if a woman, it is another way of taking power from men. Long story. i shall explain it all if you wish.

Perhaps in certain situations. Surely, this does happen. But, not always.

Men and women are different. Period. Men have to basically live a lie to accomodate you as women, so that you can fit into the world we have created. Men will do it to save the nagging or just to curry favour. We follow our primorial past, did you not know? It is all about procreation.

I don't understand this at all. If men have to live a lie to work with me and interact with me, there's a problem there that extends far beyond me. If a man can't control his primitive urges and coexist with women - there's a problem and the problem is far beyond anything that I can understand.

Perhaps you are too young to understand it. Perhaps this is just part of what you consider to be normal. But the change has come over the last few decades and it has had marked effect on families, or the lack of them. There are many single parent families now.

I wholly agree with you, actually. I'm just not willing to dictate to others how they need to live their lives. (Not implying you are.) In my line of work, I work with many people who have foregone responsible family planning and struggle unnecessary. I agree that this does have a direct impact on poverty, crime, and a plethora of other problems.

The interesting one is the rape. If I recall correctly, the full statement was: 'rape with misplaced anger'. Who, I wonder might be the anger be really meant for? The mother perhaps because the father is not there? But hey, we can't assault women, so let's bottle it up and then fight a man or take it out on an innocent woman.

I don't wish to speculate as it relates to rape. Regardless as to why an individual rapes, there's no acceptable excuse for it. The only person deserving of blame for rape...is the rapist.

Do you think as wome that you ar invisible perhaps? Do you think that what you do does not effect society, does not effect men? Do you assume that men have 'doormat' written on their foreheads?
You as women are half the population of the world. As it is, instead of valueing you true contribution, you value your contribution the same way men do. Why? The reason is becasue you feel insecure around me, so you only value your own efforts when it is in line with mens. Wrong approach. Detrimental to the human race. Greed orientation.

I'm just me. I'm doing the best that I can in this life, understanding that the only contributions that are most worthwhile are those that have touched others, those selfless actions made from love. I'm far from perfect, but, my decisions are made prayerfully. You're free to judge me as you see fit for working outside of the household, for existing as an equal with my husband and for expressing myself freely.

What's most important to me in my life is my relationship with my God and love. In my faith, when we love, we fulfill God's law to the fullest.

You use the term ''partner'' because you don't want to be see as HIS ''wife''. That is an insecurity in you, not a problem with men.

No, sir. I use the term "partner" because he is my best friend. I am HIS wife and it's my most treasured station in life, save for my station of mother. I am delighted to be referred to as his wife because I love him and he loves me. We handle our household as partners, friends, a duo, a pair, etc. We make decisions together. We're there for each other. We take care of each other. We contribute to our household as equally as possible and we both parent our girls.

I'm still me. I haven't lost my identity within my marriage.

So you would lift the heavy weight and clean the drains out and fight the burglar who had just brokedn in then would you?

Depends on the day, really.

Let me ask you this, if society was not as it is now, with all its modern convieniences, would women be crying out 'equality''? (meaning give me more money and power)

I believe so, yes. Patriarchy, even within well-meaning constructs holds a brand of oppression. It just takes one woman who doesn't fit within that construct to acknowledge her unhappiness and hopes for something else.

No one is supposed to abuse anyone. Though it is interesting that you assume that is what it means, if a man says perhaps, stay at home and bring up the human race.

I've no problem with this as long as she isn't being forced to do this against her will.

You seem to have two thoughts. One you are free to do what you want, or if not, you are being abused. Presumably you have difficulty at work then when you are told what to do.

It's not a binary thought process.

I don't know your circumstances, but I can only say, that a woman who is working and a mother, is not a mother.

Think of me what you will. I know what kind of mother I am. I work both of our desire and necessity. I'm fortunate that I'm able to do something that I enjoy that allows me to be accessible for my children as well. It's rather unfair to accuse me of bashing men, when you've just bashed me and any other woman who works.

The woman is better suited for the role of rearing children, they are more interactive and less aggressive. This might not be so true nowadays with this modern day way of women being more aggressive everywhere. To put a man in charge of kids is not wise. Most men are okay, but it is still not wise.

Women are biologically suited for carrying and birthing children and require a man to make this happen. That doesn't mean that all women are suited for motherhood or that all men are suited for fatherhood. I believe that women are deserving of opportunity and should not be forced or pressured to live a life of housewife if that's not what makes them happy. I don't believe that men are only deserving of happiness.

Muslims and others may have their subscribed concept of what happiness entails, but, this doesn't apply to everyone. You can't force others to accept such views. I believe mankind to have free will.

 

[Parsimony]

I don't know your circumstances, but I can only say, that a woman who is working and a mother, is not a mother.

What a bunch of bull. Both my mother and my father worked jobs when I was a child and they did an excellent job making sure I was taken care of physically and emotionally. They took turns being home with my brothers and I. If they both had to be out at the same time for some reason, they would get our grandparents to look after us. They were quite responsible.

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

I am not Muslim. The aforementioned makes little sense to me.

Okay-.
We speak of Islamic ideology.
Islamic ideology says-
Men inparadise his nymphs
Godgive shim every day-
Even practiced with sex
But not talking about Muslim women in paradise??
Do women have theright to sex with malenym phs too?!?
That question-
So you know the mythsof Islam

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Okay-
1. you believe in that man has the freedom to practice their religious beliefs, this is good
2. condition the exercise of religious belief to be spiritual only
3. an overview of Islam to women are the teachings of unfair
4. Islam will not secure freedom of women
5. I speak of religious thought
6. speak for some women because they are the exception

 

[Robert.Evans]

I've not spoken ill of anyone in this thread save for those who abuse, oppress and harm others. I've stated that I know good and well that not all Muslims treat women, treat others in such a way. I don't hate Muslims. I don't wish for Muslims to be persecuted for their beliefs.

Then you should make it clear from the off. I agree. But why jump on the band wagon of let's attack Muslims without a balanced view, when you could just as easily attack the 15 year old girl in UK who forced other girls to commit indecent acts. It is very easy to show one side, and then have it look as though that is all they are, and they are not.
If you are saying that you don't like people who bully, abuse, kill, then I agree, but why single out Muslims. Now you will say because it is the thread, but then you have to make sure your comments are balanced. This is not a subject to be taken lightly, lest we forget what has happened in France, and will happen again because they have been daft enough to print more!

I don't believe that a cartoon that offends can be remotely compared to murdering people as well. Though, I personally, find such expression (the cartoon) to be of poor taste and not at all comical, I don't believe that merely offending people warrants murder.

I agree. We are not supposed to kill at all. So that means no armies. What say you? Probably you are all for your army killing. Begs the question, what is the difference? Dropping a b-mb on people kills everyone, not just the terrorist. B-mbs don't discriminate.
Yet it shows one thing, does it not, people do not respect people and when that is taken to its extreme and dialogue has broken down, the only answer left is the physical side. That is why the police carry weapons.

I know that not all Muslims identify with and support such actions. Further, I reject the notion that peaceful Muslims should be held accountable for the actions of terrorists.

Quite right.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Succinctly, I don't believe it my place to dictate to peaceful, consenting adults who aren't harming others, how they should live their lives.

Though I agree with anyone who believes that there's a certain type of strength and stability to be found within traditional family systems, I do not believe that there isn't good and stability to be found within nontraditional settings - at least not in blanket label terms.

These aren't black and white issues, not when it comes to people and their individual personalities and capabilities.

Firstly, my last post #187 was probably rubbish, but I can't be bothered to correct it.

We move from what is right once we move from the traditional role, it effects everything. It also snowballs onto other things. I don't think it is a small issue here.

Perhaps in certain situations. Surely, this does happen. But, not always.

Human nature is primordial... that is what we follow, like it or not. It is always nice to fool oneself into thinking other things though, eh.

I don't understand this at all. If men have to live a lie to work with me and interact with me, there's a problem there that extends far beyond me. If a man can't control his primitive urges and coexist with women - there's a problem and the problem is far beyond anything that I can understand.

You misunderstand. Men live a lie when women say they can do anything a man can do, which the can't. It is patently absurd to say they can, and a lie. But we say nothing to keep the peace and pretend that you can. Largely now you can however, as the world in the west is false and therefore easier. This is part of the fractal print of God. The masculine went out first then the feminine. I have no problem with that, I have a problem with the constant lies we have to accept just to make it all work because of militant aggressive vocal women. Even that statement would be frowned upon just because I say something negative against women. So where is the free speech and he equality?

I wholly agree with you, actually. I'm just not willing to dictate to others how they need to live their lives. (Not implying you are.) In my line of work, I work with many people who have foregone responsible family planning and struggle unnecessary. I agree that this does have a direct impact on poverty, crime, and a plethora of other problems.

Steady, you just said you agreed with me... do you want me to edit

I don't wish to speculate as it relates to rape. Regardless as to why an individual rapes, there's no acceptable excuse for it. The only person deserving of blame for rape...is the rapist.

Yet another subject we will not agree on, because there is always provocation. I agree with you, don't get me wrong, but that just sounds like the standard woman's response of, I will do what the heck I want and never mind the consequences. You are half of the world. Your actions and dress and words are important. That is what happen with Je suis Charlie, is it not? Provocation? I am not saying they are right for killing, but, but, but, we have to look at provocation!
When you are little, can you not recall your mother or father saying, Who started it? According to you, that would not matter, it would matter who retaliated to that provocation. Only seems to work in that one topic though, rape. Though I still agree with you.

I'm just me. I'm doing the best that I can in this life, understanding that the only contributions that are most worthwhile are those that have touched others, those selfless actions made from love. I'm far from perfect, but, my decisions are made prayerfully. You're free to judge me as you see fit for working outside of the household, for existing as an equal with my husband and for expressing myself freely.

What's most important to me in my life is my relationship with my God and love. In my faith, when we love, we fulfill God's law to the fullest.

If you are speaking of the NT, then I doubt you are keeping it, and certainly not the OT. So what is this love? You want to debate this via scripture? (or should it have been discuss)

No, sir. I use the term "partner" because he is my best friend. I am HIS wife and it's my most treasured station in life, save for my station of mother. I am delighted to be referred to as his wife because I love him and he loves me. We handle our household as partners, friends, a duo, a pair, etc. We make decisions together. We're there for each other. We take care of each other. We contribute to our household as equally as possible and we both parent our girls.

I'm still me. I haven't lost my identity within my marriage.

But you would not be his wife is you had to ''obey'' as the old marriage contract? Presumably you didn't say that. So the wife is fine because it has a caveat with it.

Depends on the day, really.

So let us all change roles then. You do the dirty jobs and we shall stay home with the kids with out feet on the coffee table. After all, you have had long enough at that, right? You're all for equality, right? So when someone breaks up, let the man have the kids, and the woman can go mental instead, in the interest of equality, right?

I believe so, yes. Patriarchy, even within well-meaning constructs holds a brand of oppression. It just takes one woman who doesn't fit within that construct to acknowledge her unhappiness and hopes for something else.

I don't think you would. Go back to our savage past. I don't think it would be even a thought then.

I've no problem with this as long as she isn't being forced to do this against her will.



It's not a binary thought process.



Think of me what you will. I know what kind of mother I am. I work both of our desire and necessity. I'm fortunate that I'm able to do something that I enjoy that allows me to be accessible for my children as well. It's rather unfair to accuse me of bashing men, when you've just bashed me and any other woman who works.

I don't bash you at all. I am speaking about situations that exist. Women do work and it has broke up the family. The one that used to be thought as the centre of the family, is now the family wrecker. It has effected relationships and has broke them up. This means that there is then more adultery about. Perhaps this is just too big a topic to discuss or perhaps you just think of your own end, women generally do.

Women are biologically suited for carrying and birthing children and require a man to make this happen. That doesn't mean that all women are suited for motherhood or that all men are suited for fatherhood. I believe that women are deserving of opportunity and should not be forced or pressured to live a life of housewife if that's not what makes them happy. I don't believe that men are only deserving of happiness.

Do you not see how you view it? You think that men are happy because they are out of the house, out of the ''Temple'' so therefore, free. You see the position you immediatly take?

Muslims and others may have their subscribed concept of what happiness entails, but, this doesn't apply to everyone. You can't force others to accept such views. I believe mankind to have free will.

Free to do what? If all men, with their supposed ''happiness'' say they are not working anymore, what do you think would happen. The army, police, industry.... you think everything would be okay? So where is this freedom and ''happiness'' that you speak of? You wish to be free. I don't see a man with that. I see men having to do things to provide for his family, and then step aside for that same family when the women decides she doesn't want him anymore, but would like his job, the job he has made.

Either way, as I have already stated (I think) a woman does not have to have a child, but she can help out other women, other mothers to bring up children with far greater social skills. On our local radio, they are jsut talkign about children who turn up hungry, and have to be taught how to brush their teeth! Why? Because women are working so dump their problems onto someone else. It is not acceptable.
We must consider especially, those of the lower classes who do not have the social skills instiinctely within them, and have less ability and less opportunity. That is why women working together as mothers in a 'house-school' would alleviate this. It is the west that has this attitude of being 'free'.

 

[Robert.Evans]

What a bunch of bull. Both my mother and my father worked jobs when I was a child and they did an excellent job making sure I was taken care of physically and emotionally. They took turns being home with my brothers and I. If they both had to be out at the same time for some reason, they would get our grandparents to look after us. They were quite responsible.

If a mother is working she is not a mother.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I'm just me.

That is just it though, you are not 'just me', you are part of a society of God, you are part of a collective. We do not bother it seems nowadays with such community spirit. That is why kids and old people get dumped in nurseries and homes.

 

[SomeRandom]

If a mother is working she is not a mother.

What an absurd notion. When a woman goes into the workforce to support her child financially she does not spontaneously lose any and all maternal instincts, nor distinction of "motherhood." Many women (and men) work from home in fact. Besides not even kids stay home 24/7. They have school, they have friends, they have their own little lives which gradually becomes more and more independent as they age. Should a woman focus on her career if she has kids? Depends on her situation.
Maybe she's a widow, maybe her husband was made redundant, maybe he left before the kid was born, maybe her husband is unable to work, maybe her husband is a good for nothing **** weak lazy coward etc etc. What's she supposed to do then? Eh? Live off her own housework? Feed her kids by doing her house chores? Provide the kids clothes through cooking at home?
Like it or not, people with kids, particularly single parents, often have no choice but to work. In this economy often both parents have to work if they want their kid to, you know, survive.
Well, I suppose they could let themselves and their kids languish in poverty. At least then the woman would keep her proper place. I mean the kids would probably be dead on the street, or left raped in an alley way dying of starvation, but nah. They're all good honest sacrifices to ensure a woman is not "acting like a man." Am I right?

Seriously, what economy, nay what world do you live in that does not require people to actually work for a living and support their family? Do you pay your bills with sunshine and lollypops? Because it sounds like a wondrous place indeed, sir!

 

[dawny0826]

Then you should make it clear from the off. I agree. But why jump on the band wagon of let's attack Muslims without a balanced view, when you could just as easily attack the 15 year old girl in UK who forced other girls to commit indecent acts. It is very easy to show one side, and then have it look as though that is all they are, and they are not.

If you are saying that you don't like people who bully, abuse, kill, then I agree, but why single out Muslims.Now you will say because it is the thread, but then you have to make sure your comments are balanced. This is not a subject to be taken lightly, lest we forget what has happened in France, and will happen again because they have been daft enough to print more!

I thought that I had presented balanced and consistent views. If I didn't, hopefully, we better understand each other at this juncture.Yes, this thread is about Muslim men and their perceptions of equality as it relates to women. hence emphasis on Muslims. As I've explained,my concerns regarding gender inequality spans genders, walks & religious views.

I don't take such subjects lightly as they're important.

I agree. We are not supposed to kill at all. So that means no armies. What say you? Probably you are all for your army killing. Begs the question, what is the difference? Dropping a b-mb on people kills everyone, not just the terrorist. B-mbs don't discriminate.

I believe that a nation's armed forces should be sufficient enough in size and capability to protect its people. My support primarily extends to protective & reactive measures to secure safety. The exception is when our armed forces' support is needed to assist with a large-scale situation somewhere in the world that violates human dignity and safety on a large scale. Otherwise, I don't consider it the responsibility of my country's armed forces to police the world.

Human nature is primordial... that is what we follow, like it or not. It is always nice to fool oneself into thinking other things though, eh.

You misunderstand. Men live a lie when women say they can do anything a man can do, which the can't. It is patently absurd to say they can, and a lie. But we say nothing to keep the peace and pretend that you can. Largely now you can however, as the world in the west is false and therefore easier. This is part of the fractal print of God. The masculine went out first then the feminine. I have no problem with that, I have a problem with the constant lies we have to accept just to make it all work because of militant aggressive vocal women. Even that statement would be frowned upon just because I say something negative against women. So where is the free speech and he equality?

I don't really disagree with you here. Naturally, my husband and I are not equal in terms of what we're capable of doing. I don't think that there's anything wrong with acknowledging that. In terms of equality, I've been speaking moreso to equal right to human dignity and opportunity without discrimination towards gender or a forceful push into a predefined gender role.

I know very well that there do exist people who are quite hypocritical in their pursuit for equality. I know that not all feminists agree with my own brand of feminism. I'm a libertarian and personal freedom in my opinion, comes with great personal responsibility. Though, I have no interest in restricting the rights of anyone - I understand that we cannot control the minds and actions of other people in this world no matter how much we wish we can. Therefore, our choices do have a direct impact on society and sometimes our own safety, happiness, forward progression, etc. This never translates however to a woman being accountable when a man beats her or rapes her, mind you. I don't condone victim blaming or shaming.

If you are speaking of the NT, then I doubt you are keeping it, and certainly not the OT. So what is this love? You want to debate this via scripture? (or should it have been discuss)

Sure. But this thread doesn't yield the appropriate venue for doing so.

But you would not be his wife is you had to ''obey'' as the old marriage contract? Presumably you didn't say that. So the wife is fine because it has a caveat with it.

I'm content because I married the man that I'm in love with. We work as partners in our marriage. We honor each other.

So let us all change roles then. You do the dirty jobs and we shall stay home with the kids with out feet on the coffee table. After all, you have had long enough at that, right? You're all for equality, right? So when someone breaks up, let the man have the kids, and the woman can go mental instead, in the interest of equality, right?

We can both do dirty jobs. We can both work. We can both manage the household and rear children. If we break up, we both have the means to re-establish ourselves.

I don't bash you at all. I am speaking about situations that exist. Women do work and it has broke up the family. The one that used to be thought as the centre of the family, is now the family wrecker. It has effected relationships and has broke them up. This means that there is then more adultery about. Perhaps this is just too big a topic to discuss or perhaps you just think of your own end, women generally do.

When you make a statement that a mother is no mother if she works outside the home, you are at mininum, criticizing me, as I'm a mother who works outside of the home.

I simply choose not to view these types of situations in black and white. Sure - some women damage their families because they're overtly committed to their jobs and neglect their relationships and responsibilities at home. But, the same could be said about men. I contend that not ALL men or ALL women damage their home lives and families by pursuing careers out of necessity or by choice.

Do you not see how you view it? You think that men are happy because they are out of the house, out of the ''Temple'' so therefore, free. You see the position you immediatly take?

Free to do what? If all men, with their supposed ''happiness'' say they are not working anymore, what do you think would happen. The army, police, industry.... you think everything would be okay? So where is this freedom and ''happiness'' that you speak of? You wish to be free. I don't see a man with that. I see men having to do things to provide for his family, and then step aside for that same family when the women decides she doesn't want him anymore, but would like his job, the job he has made.

I live in a country where it's common place for women to work outside of the home, partially out of necessity and partially because they want to. I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm not asking you to like this. Further, I can't speak to the level of contentment within other households. I can only speak to the level of contentment within my own. My husband and I work outside of the home and we're happy.

Either way, as I have already stated (I think) a woman does not have to have a child, but she can help out other women, other mothers to bring up children with far greater social skills. On our local radio, they are jsut talkign about children who turn up hungry, and have to be taught how to brush their teeth! Why? Because women are working so dump their problems onto someone else. It is not acceptable.

Not ALL women dump their problems on others. Some women do this. There are many women in the US who are fantastic mothers - some work outside of the home. Some stay at home. There are many women in the US who are horrible mothers - some work outside of the home. Some stay at home. And there's a plethora of variances in between.

The same can be said about fathers. Many variances to consider.

We must consider especially, those of the lower classes who do not have the social skills instiinctely within them, and have less ability and less opportunity. That is why women working together as mothers in a 'house-school' would alleviate this. It is the west that has this attitude of being 'free'.

This type of system is not at all practical for the majority of American families, whether a novel idea or not.

 

[dawny0826]

That is just it though, you are not 'just me', you are part of a society of God, you are part of a collective. We do not bother it seems nowadays with such community spirit. That is why kids and old people get dumped in nurseries and homes.

What I meant by that statement is that I'm an individual - a part of a larger piece.

 

[Parsimony]

If a mother is working she is not a mother.

Based on what reasoning? What makes you think a mother cannot both work and raise children (mine did so quite effectively)?

 

[Robert.Evans]

This type of system is not at all practical for the majority of American families, whether a novel idea or not.

Nothing is practical at first. It takes time. I speak now of the UK as I don't know about the US, but we might add was it practical that women have the vote and come out into the male workplace? No. But it happened. It takes time. What you mean is, you don't want it to happen.

I recall seeing a black woman somewhere in Africa who had her child tied to her that went with her wherever she went. The woman she spoke to was a scientist[ess] who also had a baby, but not with her. You should have seen the look on the African woman's face that she was not with her. Pure disbelief. The response to that from the western woman was, You're making me feel guilty now. Says a lot I think. Even monkeys look after their offspring don't they?

 

[Robert.Evans]

What I meant by that statement is that I'm an individual - a part of a larger piece.

If you an individual and you see yourself as that, as you do, then you are not part of a group are you? If you were, you would be looking after those closest to you, children and women, your closest group.

Now, may be you can tell me, seeing as the conversation has calmed down a bit: there is a group in america (not the Amish) who live lives free from the world, dress old style, but still embrace certain parts of it, like farming practices. They work as a group there, looking after one another. Western women might see it as control, but they are not. They are watching each other to make sure they don't fall. They keep the genders separate. As they are part of a small community, they all eat together, men on one table women on the other. They have their roles. Is it not as exiting? Perhaps. But that is not the point, is it?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Based on what reasoning? What makes you think a mother cannot both work and raise children (mine did so quite effectively)?

A women at work is not bringing up children, I would have thought that was obvious. You may give whatever excuses you will, but it that is fact.

 

[Parsimony]

A women at work is not bringing up children, I would have thought that was obvious. You may give whatever excuses you will, but it that is fact.

You do realize that a woman is not going to be at work 24-7, right?

 

[Shad]

A women at work is not bringing up children, I would have thought that was obvious. You may give whatever excuses you will, but it that is fact.

This is a slap in the face of every single parent and pure naivety of many family situations.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I'd like somebody to answer my previous question regarding Islam basing gender equality upon a construct of hetero normative procreation marital models.

Is Islam as a religion a proponent of this particular sexual economy? That woman provides gestation while man provides shelter, food, and protection? And in so doing, does this assume equal contribution to civilization as a whole from both genders?

If so, how does this address gender equality for infertility, post-menopausal women, queer men and women, and trans men and women?

Still waiting...

 

[Robert.Evans]

You do realize that a woman is not going to be at work 24-7, right?

So what? Is the child not a child for part of the day?

This is a slap in the face of every single parent and pure naivety of many family situations.

No this shows some mothers for what they are.

Still waiting...

If anyone understood what the heck you were saying, they might answer it. Try plain English, somewhere down at my level.... you know, near the floor