What are they so afraid of?

Cassi wrote: I hope that the men who visit this site will recognise your [named womens'] astuteness, your intelligence, your sensitivity, your projection into a future world where we all can win.

In response, Colin wrote: If any men reading this in any way feel threatened by these words, then perhaps they need to reappraise their take on what they think women are all about.

Lord Colin, I am quite disappointed to see that you are apparently unable to mount a more convincing defense of the burqa than this. 

Serv 

If you don't mind me commenting on the issue privately, as I barely came across what you wrote. A couple things I wanted to comment on based on what you wrote. First, I wanted to say that isn't it possible that your idea on women staying home is the result of a religious belief (subjective) rather than something objective and isolated from your own intellect? If Yes then the next obvious criticism would be that the fact that YOU think what is right based on your religious background (or social) may not apply to every woman?

My responses will be in Blue.  First off, I spent many years as a non religious feminist.  My experiences are derived from my family life (I had the stay at home Mother and my youngest Sibling did not, there is a huge difference in our success and education) and from my travels around the world.

For instance let's examine what you wrote my responses are in Red.

You Said:

"The cost of living and wages should be such that one member of the family can support the unit.  Western women have been forced by mounting national debt, personal debt and societal pressure to acquire things to enter the workplace and stay there."

Allow me to comment on the later portion of your comment. What makes you think that just western women alone are forced in the job market? Men too are also "forced" to work. Also I think your idea of one being forced to work is quite skewed since, high prices and high cost are dependent on your geographical location rather than something that is clear across the board. Someone who works in Atlanta will not have the same housing cost as someone who lives in California. In California we pay property taxes (Approximately $2,000 per/month.... depending) as well as high taxes in other areas. Housing in the L.A area runs approximately between $500k-800k but this is not including location within the L.A area.

Some areas are cheaper some a re lot higher and because of this if you are in a middle class you cannot possibly have one person just footing all the expenses. Also keep in mind that the houses that ran in those approximates are luxury these are decent housing. Just women in California are pressured to work but men as well. You are singling out men in the later portion of your paragraph as if women are the only ones because it effects both.

In the beginning part of you paragraph you said that the cost of living should be such that one member of a family can be able to support the unit. Even if this were the case you'd still be opposed to that "person" being a woman? It's obvious based on your religious background that women should stay home and Cook and clean and do all those things. So that "person" which you didn't specify in gender is obviously that man you believe should work and support the family.

First off your argument that location is key is false.  I grew up in a small town where property values are far less than California and the cost of living is such that a man making $30K a year could support his family comfortable.  But, guess what.  There are almost no jobs that pay enough for one parent (man or woman) to support the family.  There are even less opportunities for women as many of the major employers are factories and heavy construction.  The only jobs available to women are retail, food service and clerical (which in that area pays nothing).  Therefore, moving to a cheaper area does not free up one of the parents from having to work. 

Secondly, yes, I am singling out the woman as the one who should not be "FORCED" to work.  Studies have shown that children who have a stay at home mother are healthier, happier and better adjusted.  However, I do feel its the MAN'S responsibility to care for his family.  Now, if the man is uneducated, disabled or otherwise unable to provide for his family, then I have no issue with the wife leaving the home to work.  Ideally, if the cost of living was reasonable and only one income was needed, then in those cases, the father should remain at home and take over the domestic duties.  Giving the young children the stability of their home.  If the children are of school age and are not at home during the day, then also there is no problem with the woman or man (whoever is the domestic) stepping out and getting a job to help the family if its needed. 

You seem to have this misconception that a domestic is somehow unemployed and sits around doing nothing?  Have you ever wrangled three toddlers and tried to maintain a household?  I have SIX god children and I can tell you, the times I had the three toddlers were a nightmare to get things done around the house.  I understand why their working mother and father were never able to keep on top of everything.  And as for team work, yes, working parents can make it work, but hey, you've just worked 8-10 hours.  Wouldn't it be nice to have family dinner and spend time with the kids before you went to bed.  But no, dishes need done, laundry, vacuuming, dusting, homework.  By the time everything is done, the kids are off to bed and the parents are so tired they don't even have the energy for intimacy (also from a study).

You Also said:

"However, equally sad is a state where a woman could not leave the home and go to work in circumstances that prevent any other form of income."

True, I agree

"I remember having to care for an injured husband and being the only income.  What needs to happen for women of all nations and faiths is a fundamental respect for their abilities and choices