Are there any women that believe in traditional values anymore?

Hello Adam, yes, there are women of traditional value, however they are best suited for the traditional men. The traditional woman's responsibility is often to maintain an orderly home and social life while taking care of the family. At the same time, she has the right to work outside of the home if she chooses to and is to be treated with the most kindness and respect by her husband and children at all times. This is because women are naturally more nurturing while men are more dominant. As a result, the traditional man's primary responsibility is to provide a financially stable environment along with proper guidance and leadership to the family. He has a right to feel respected, which definitely requires a level of obedience and trust from his wife and children.

However, in this generation women want to feel more in control by comparing themselves to the males. Most of us fail to see that gender equality does not mean doing what the other gender can do but that it is about respecting the rights and roles of each individual. As a result, a lot of our priorities have changed and we become impatient with ourselves.

I have no doubt that you will find yourself a traditional woman. However do not be fooled by the one who is insecure or lives in the past. Often traditional women are educated and know what they want. She will feel secure enough to let a man take the lead for her. A traditional man deserves a confident woman. At the same time all of us should remember that if we want our rights to be respected, we must respect the rights and roles of our counterparts as well.

Uh, no, Denmark is not as egalitarian as Progressives would have us believe:
http://www.humanityinaction.o... - Cached

The Danish Illusion: The Gap Between Principle and Practice in the Danish Welfare System

by Alexandra Lu, Lisa Sig Olesen

In his 2001 article “The Social Construction of an Imperative: Why Welfare Reform Happened in Denmark and the Netherlands but Not in Germany”, political scientist Robert Henry Cox suggests how such a shift in mindset took hold of Danish society almost unnoticed. In 1993, the government-established Social Commission justified limits on unemployment benefits and a higher qualifying retirement age by pointing to articles in the Constitution providing for a reciprocal obligation between state and citizen. According to this obligation, the state will provide public support, but the citizen is obliged to work if able to do so. As Cox notes, “By framing the issue in this way, the Social Commission tried to make the proposal appear less radical than it was perceived to be by its critics.” Although the retrenchment of welfare provisions and reframing of underlying values has amounted to a fundamental change in the nature of the welfare system, many do not recognize it as such, due to the fact that politicians and the media have framed the discourse in such a way as to present the new language as consistent with Danish values.


This emphasis on reciprocal obligations has evidently become ingrained in the discourse on welfare in Danish society. Although reciprocity has arguably always undergirded the Danish Model, the obligation for people to work seems to have begun to take priority over society’s obligation to provide for the needy. One can see evidence for this change in discussions about welfare policies such as the “Start-Help” program, under which people who have not been living in Denmark for the past ten years (read: immigrants) will receive lower social benefits. Although this policy effectively targets immigrants and discourages them from coming to Denmark, it is framed not as a policy for limiting immigration, but rather a policy for inspiring people to find jobs. As such, published research on the Start-Help policy selectively reports that more people find jobs when they are given the lower Start-Help benefit than when given the normal level of benefits. What remains unreported, lurking in the fine print of those articles, is the percentage of people who remain dependent on benefits and must live on lower-than-average benefit allowances. The benefits under the normal system have been calculated to enable recipients to live “a reasonable life”; those people relegated to the Start-Help benefit receive substantially less―3,000 DKK/month lower for an individual without children. By strategically focusing on the statistical success of the policy, this kind of analysis overshadows—even ignores—the thousands of people who are effectively rejected by Danish society and must struggle to get by on substantially lower benefits.

“People don’t want to look poverty in the eyes”: Assigning responsibility

The disconnect between notional welfare and substantive welfare, compounded by the change in discourse described above, serves to create a fundamentally new type of welfare system in Denmark. This, in turn, gives rise to yet another kind of disconnect: people still believe that the system operates in accordance with its founding values of solidarity and universal welfare, and thus continue to leave all responsibility to the state when it comes to providing for the needy. Since people are not aware of these systemic changes, they fail to recognize that caring for the needy no longer fall under the sole purview of the state. Thus, people speak about the importance of solidarity and welfare while simultaneously enrolling in private health insurance and private pension plans, not realizing that those private plans further undercut an already faltering public welfare system.


For example, consider the effect of private pensions. Today, Denmark has a growing population of poor elderly people—a development that would be unthinkable according to the purported values of the Danish welfare system. As more and more people obtain private insurance for old-age pensions, those who depend solely on welfare pensions increasingly suffer. The first group often fails to recognize that not everyone has a private pension, and overlook the severe consequences of lower taxes for those public pension benefits. One consequence of society’s recent embracing of the individualistic idea that those who contribute more should also receive more, is that those most in need of public benefits are increasingly snubbed by the system. Although the state still provides a common pension for everyone, these benefits have not kept pace with the increase in prices. As a result, some elderly people today receive old-age pensions without any additional pension from private plans, yet are prevented by law from seeking necessary extra income if they wish to continue receiving any sort of public pension. Society tacitly accepts this state of affairs because of the increasing number of people who have private pensions and thus do not feel the impact of the failing welfare system.