Posted on 06/01/2013 3:16:00 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
'On his show Thursday, anchor Lou Dobbs highlighted a new study showing that four in 10 households now have female, rather than male, breadwinners. One of Dobbs' guests, Erick Erickson, called it "anti-science" and said women should not be competing for a "dominant role" in a family. "Having moms as the primary breadwinner is bad for kids and bad for marriage," Erickson continued'
(Excerpt) Read more at tvguide.com ...
Fox News sluts for satan... going to try to get my keyboard taken away girls??? FU liberal concubines!
LLS
Of course. The problem now is that while most churches a teaching the man’s responsibility they’re too scared of the women’s reaction to touch that. All we hear is some version of “lead by doing what your wife tells you”.
I feel bad for your husband. My only advice would be for him to work out everyday and stay in shape. He does not have the luxury of letting himself go.
Megyn looks good, but attitude is what sustains a marriage.
Megyn is on # 2 so something didn’t work the first time....
P.S. Megyn
Just because you can read on TV and discuss pre planned segments doesn’t
mean I have to believe everything you say
You are taking care of business with your garden work!! Goats love to raid gardens....chose one or the other:)
Dittos for your husband
What works for one doesn’t work for all.
Certainly there are a lot of women today who are bread winners. Mostly because there are a lot of men today who have become pussified.
It’s going to get worse.
That is because most "parents" don't parent today. They free range, Especially in white middle class "single parent" homes. The modern day "parent" tries to be the child's friend not their teacher.
And the modern day white, suburban, "middle class" single mom often trashes dad in front of the children as well as slap them on meds when parenting gets too difficult. In minority "single parent" households, they usually let the children run wild then beat them within an inch of their life when the child's misbehavior runs in direct conflict with mommykin's good time.
Child Protective will not touch minority abuse cases with a ten foot pole for fear of being labeled "racist" and because it is dangerous to the caseworker. They would much rather be used as a tool by a vindictive ex-wife from a suburban middle class neighborhood to criticize dad's style of parenting. It's all fun and games until the children become teens and start reporting the "BFF" single mom to CPS when she attempts to discipline them a day late and a dollar short.
The children know this and play it for all it's worth.
I was thinking of keeping the goat on a leash away from the garden and using her for milk (I am of French origin and love goat cheese!)
I never got a chance to hear what Dobbs and Erickson were trying to say—Megyn got on her soapbox and shut down any debate.
And the comment about Obama being a success?
Megyn, I would never describe the worst President and worst Commander in Chief in my lifetime as a “success”.
All Erickson was trying to say that the “Mr Mom” model wasn’t the optimum scenario. Kelly was trying to say (and perhaps convince herself) that the stay at home father could be just as nurturing as the mother would be. Ms Kelly came across as out of control and defensive several times resorting to hyperbole and straw men arguments accusing Mr. Erickson of implying she was a bad mother or was ruining her children. Frankly not Ms Kelly’s finest hour.
I agree with your assessment. To me,the whole segment was a waste of time.
When you see women acting this way, it starts getting easier to understand why Muslim men treat them like crap, almost to the point of slavery.
Don’t forget, it wasn’t always that way in their culture. Look at pictures from Egypt and Iran in the 1960s, BEFORE FEMINISM, and you had women dressed in Western clothing.
This is why women should not be leaders in our world.
“Can you imagine being a roofer and having to work until you drop?”
Heh, heh!
My wife & I have been retired two years now. We love it.
I’ve been married twice and both my Ex and my current wife have complained hundreds of times that the kids don’t listen to them but the kids listen to me. I’m the referee when it comes to the kids and wife arguing and don’t see a single parent situation being any good. Both wives have told me to take the kids and give her time to herself.
I’m retired now and my wife is much younger and still working. She loves her job and I’m a stay-at-home dad. If the man and his wife are proud of his accomplishments, there will be no problem.
Circumstances have changed. With affirmative action, quotas, and the replacement of American men with illegal aliens it is much harder for a man to hold down any good paying job that doesn’t require you to sit at a desk.
I’m in Los Angeles and all the manufacturing, engineering jobs are gone. The construction, gardening, maintenance jobs have all gone to the illegal aliens, and with them, there is no such thing as hiring a white or black guy.
“But did not Galatians also say that in Christ there is “no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female?””
You are misapplying scripture. The Galatians quote is in the context of salvation and not role distinction.
True biblical Christianity demonstrates the understanding of God’s desire for order established at creation (see Genesis). Order is not a “ruling over”/domination but a sensible, loving plan for living and for the gathering of His church. Paul speaks to the New Testament believers in various places to remind them of this to remind them/us that we stray from God’s desire for order at our own peril. So, women keeping silent in the church (God’s words) is not to diminish women (as women would construe this), but to establish God’s order for church gatherings. God does not look any more favorably on the man’s role in church-gathering than He does on the women who gather there. The preacher who preaches and the the listener who receives are both serving God.
Paul says, “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” He is not diminishing the woman (is He diminishing Christ?). He is establishing His order. So, when talk of the headcovering is mentioned, it is not a cultural thing as many would suggest, but it is part of God’s desire for order (and for ensuring that Christ receives all the glory—and not man...and not woman.) And the scripture goes on to say this: “For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.” God’s order is looked down on from glory. The angels observe it and marvel. The obedience shown by regenerate sinners causes the angels to wonder at the glory of Christ. Yet, men and women engage in petty arguing over their biblically defined roles that indicate a “less-than-regenerate” spirit within them. It has always amused me that the little human bickerings regarding men and women’s roles in the church always come down to human understanding—and men and women do not realize it! We are not following some man-crafted set of conventions, but God’s plan for the Church of His Dear Son! And we sit and quibble, like the disciples on the road to Jerusalem over who shall be greatest in the kingdom! There is only One who is the Greatest and that is Christ. We either serve Him or we don’t. So, Paul, mentioning roles/silence/headcoverings is bringing up Godly order, not male-centered dominance. He made them male and female. They are distinct. They have differences. They have different roles. But they (male and female) all worship and serve the same Lord.
Paul concludes his rebukes of the errors in the Corinthian meeting with this: “Let all things be done decently and in order.” God is, after all, a God of order. Why would it be any different when it comes to the roles of men and women?
Interpreting God’s will for men and women in any other way is to add to the scriptures and, thus, be in error biblically.
Megyn Kelly needs to learn her place is in the kitchen...er...I mean bedroom. MINE!
Life can be hard... but, you're living proof that good people find a way.
So many messed up things in your posts.... Divorce laws, and child support laws are a SICK JOKE.
It's NOT OK when you make $100k either.... I have a good friend who earns ~ $180k, but... $60 K goes to state, local and Federal taxes.... $75k goes to his ex-wife for his two sons. That leaves $45k for him to live on...
OK, I guess... he lives in a rented shack and drives an 11 year old car.
Meanwhile, his WITCH of a wife, who initially left because she was addicted to diet pills and was having a lesbian affair... now LIVES WITH (not married) a multi-millionaire in a 10k sq ft house..... when they're not off cruising on his giant boat.
My friend has been to court several times TRYING to get the child support reduced.... no luck. Disgusting.
Ex-wife is constantly going on vaca with her husband; I personally haven't had a vaca since 1984. I drive a 13 year old PAID FOR beater. Hubby has a company work truck. The child support being paid includes add ons such as childcare (she hasn't had childcare expenses for four years now) but we don't dare go back to court to get it lowered--she'll find someway to RAISE it up.
The irony is that I never received child support, had two children who did well in school and never trashed dad.
She and her family, on the other hand, have alienated the children from my hubby, and all three are super sonic failing school, on meds and she had them labeled "learning disabled" due to her unwillingness to parent or let dad parent them, and her preference to "friend." Then sending them to fancy therapists regularly; she has truly projected her anger over the divorce to the children.
If the shoe fits....
By the way Megyn:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.