Moderator: Community Team
Phatscotty wrote:Overall, this 'woman!' stuff is hardcore PC. Yes women have been an continue to be important, but it doesn't mean that we change the world and it's nature at the time of our founders. Changing our past and where we come from even as part of humanity as a whole is to lose sight of the very reasons and purpose for our existence.
Phatscotty wrote:Jackson seems to garner the most negativity, and I think Hamilton is such an integral figure in America's history no way should he be taken off the 10$ bill. If anything, like Mets said about Jefferson and the 2$ bill, we could do that. The 2$ bill is kind of a novelty, but the iconography on the 2$ is also very important.
Metsfanmax wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Overall, this 'woman!' stuff is hardcore PC. Yes women have been an continue to be important, but it doesn't mean that we change the world and it's nature at the time of our founders. Changing our past and where we come from even as part of humanity as a whole is to lose sight of the very reasons and purpose for our existence.
You know, the reason why none of the Founding Fathers are women isn't that women were stupid in the 1780s, it is that women weren't allowed to participate in politics (by men). Being reminded of this status by a slate of men on our money should be an embarrassment, not something to be proud of; we should never revel in the fact that there was a time when women were expected to be nothing more than housewives.
I mean, if you think that the purpose for our existence includes men doing great things and women cleaning up after them, I suppose at least you're being consistent. But if you believe that in principle a woman who has the same set of skills and talents as a man should be permitted to do anything the man is permitted to do, then we should not glorify this aspect of the past. The alternative is to argue that it was a good thing that, once upon a time, men forcibly restricted women from doing things they were perfectly capable of doing, purely because of social norms. Are you taking the position that it was a good thing, because if we didn't do that, we might not have developed as a society?
targetman377 wrote:i think that greenbacks will always be used as there more of a convenice to use if i agree abigial adams is under aprecated as a founding person. I really just want Jackson gone good for him being presdient thats about where his accomplishments stop. he created the trail of tears in definace to the courts. also the 2 dollar bill is not used enough to keep everyone happy it would be like the 2 coins you posted above.. they just where not used. Jackson needs to go
Phatscotty wrote:Who said women were stupid? Oh, you implied that. Anyways, I think there is more to it than 'men banned women!' There is also the fact that more families had more children back then. I believe John Adams had at least 5 children. Mothers mostly stayed home to raise their children, but they did far more than just be a 'housewife' They educated their children, not only in the schoolbook sense but also about agriculture and firearms and the Bible as well as many more thousands of things. There is also the fact that 2 working parents were not regularly needed to make ends meet, and usually 1 working person could sustain a large family.
riskllama wrote:Koolbak wins this thread.
mrswdk wrote:I like the countries whose money has stuff like fruit and animals on it.
mrswdk wrote:I like the countries whose money has stuff like fruit on it.
saxitoxin wrote:mrswdk wrote:I like the countries whose money has stuff like fruit on it.
Are you talking about Sweden?
I guess it's possible he's gay, I just assumed it was the style or something.
mrswdk wrote:
Army of GOD wrote:This thread is now about my large penis
mrswdk wrote:
Army of GOD wrote:This thread is now about my large penis
Metsfanmax wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Who said women were stupid? Oh, you implied that. Anyways, I think there is more to it than 'men banned women!' There is also the fact that more families had more children back then. I believe John Adams had at least 5 children. Mothers mostly stayed home to raise their children, but they did far more than just be a 'housewife' They educated their children, not only in the schoolbook sense but also about agriculture and firearms and the Bible as well as many more thousands of things. There is also the fact that 2 working parents were not regularly needed to make ends meet, and usually 1 working person could sustain a large family.
And the reason that the person who stayed home and educated the children had to be the woman was...? We're not talking about Stone Age circumstances here. We're talking about women whose husbands were in many cases themselves politicians, or accountants, or lawyers -- not exactly jobs that require a lot of he-man strength. Why couldn't some men have stayed home and raised the kids, and some women have been the breadwinners at jobs whose titles weren't "seamstress?" Rhetorical question: the answer is because they weren't allowed to. Even if both people in the marriage wanted that, it wouldn't have been condoned by the society of the time; and most of the time, they didn't both want that, because they had been trained to think that women did one thing and men did another thing.
Your response is that both things were important to helping society advance. My response is, what if you are born a woman who doesn't want to help society advance in the way that society tells you that you have to? Doesn't freedom have any meaning? And why did it have to be women who always did one thing and men who did the other, as long as it got done? By the late 1700s, there were plenty of ways to be gainfully employed that didn't involve chopping down trees.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users