I get the impression that feminists think that a housewife wastes her education, or that anti-feminists such as I are against women being educated.

I'm not against education at all. I'm just against feminist indoctrination.

They seem to think we housewives are a stupid, uneducated lot.

What do you all think?

The state wants women in work, that way they get more tax revenue and they can persue their agenda for their idea of "progress" in society..

Also, an historic central plank of the radfems is to make the state responsible for child raising..

By breaking the parent/child bond they can achieve this and hence they want to discourage parents spending much time with their kids..

They just want parents to spend their money..

taxed as they earn, taxed as they spend...

I agree with Drex.

But want to add that women cannot rely on their husbands no more than husbands can rely on their wives in this day. If women choose to be a housewife they are putting themselves in a position of having limited choices if the marriage breaks down.

The above would be what a con feminists will tell you.

What an honest feminists will tell you is that the ideology wants marriage banned completely and women choosing to be housewives are making it tougher and holding back the shift.

It is not you who is the dumb one. It is the ones who are married and at the same time trying to destroy the Patriarchy.

I see contradictory views on this forum from some.

On one hand, we seem to want to advance the cause of the traditional housewife, esp. since feminism hates housewives so much. We seem to want women to stay home with their children, which is good.

Yet OTOH, I see those who say if the marriage breaks down, the traditional housewife should get no alimony or even child support....even though she gave up her career to stay home with their children, thereby taking herself out of the workforce for many years (which makes it very difficult for her to find work if she needs to if the marriage falls apart.)

You can't have it both ways!

(Incidentally Alexandra, I for one am not against higher education for women...I'm sort of against it for everyone because I feel it has been highly overrated. If someone needs college for a given career goal, that's one thing. But I see more and more parents ASSUMING ALL children MUST go to college, and I find that idea very incorrect.)

I dont see the problem, if a man wants to do the decent thing and pay his loyal wife off or whatever then he is free to do so.. I think the likely hood of divorce will be far less for the "stay at home" wife.. But, ultimately the choices are made by the couple concerned and it should be down to them and their own families..
I think Annette you are refusing to recognise that "giving up a career" and spending the time supporting a family is its own reward enjoyed as it goes and hopefully (and more likely) for the duration of the lives of those who have decided upon this course..
Dont forget how much the mans career and earnings potential etc may be increased by the wife performing her homely duties well, its a very good thing to have a woman at home doing whatis needed!

"behind every great man.. "...

But what if the man "chooses" not to give his wife alimony for her years of service? What is there to assure he WILL?

I know of cases where men have refused to support their children, and I know of women who have refused also (like my older sister)...there is nothing to insure these people will do the right thing otherwise.

As for the job of childrearing being its own reward...sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Same goes for any other "job".

There are days when my husband loves going to work....and days when he doesn't. Same for me.

So, because he does enjoy his job half the time, does that mean if he were laid off, his employer should not give him severance pay?

That's the position Betty Freidan took. Feminists both dislike housewives on an emotional level and need to undermine the institution of marriage for their political agenda.

I think feminists see "traditional" women as dim-witted because there's simply so much cash to be made by adopting the feminist lifestyle and exploiting feminist laws.

If you are a woman and a feminist, you can basically never lose, no matter how unjust and corrupt you become.

Nothing. Other than the usual pressures etc. What does a man get off the woman in exchange for years of having to work everyday and leave his home and family behind. How is it regarded as "service" for a woman to look after her own home and her own family? Its what folk would naturally want to do, obviously. or they would not have done it..
Its perhaps more like service when someone has to go out everyday and leave behind the pleasures that one pays for to be enjoyed by the stay at home partner.. Lots depends of course on why the couple are divorcing, ist far too easy, but its always their private concern and not something the state should be interfereing in.. To do otherwise would be to create perverse incentives, as is already the case?

The right thing is a matter of opinion and its, again, down to the couple concerned.. The state is well able to support children and mothers cast off cruelly into the void.. after all, the state is the net recipient of the kids, not the parents! They dont need much to survive.. and perhaps they would set an example to other women who dont behave themselves and cant support themselves!! Obey the master or be gone!!

Well, I think be able to raise you own kids and craft their minds etc is a bit more rewarding than most shite jobs out there.. If folk would rather there kids are raise by others then why have kids?

Married couples do not "employ each other" and if they end up getting divorced then its down to them to sort things out..

There are probably ways and means, prenups etc if folk are really that untrusting these days but incentivising divorce leads to the sort of stupid shit that Paul Macartney is going through now..

Its simple really, one person is not responsible for another persons inability to make a living for themselves or judge who would make a good wedding prospect..

And to make the state responsible for protecting womens interests is a central plank of feminism and when it comes to alimony and child support probably the biggest reason why there is so much divorce!

Folk would get along if they realised the importance of it!

Its called "recalibrating your best interests" I have heard it said!

The problem is, Drex, the government VIEWS marriage as an economic partnership. We can say all we want that it is a romantic relationship, commitment, etc., and it IS. But the government doesn't see it that way. To them its a business contract.