how in the sweet mother of fuck is being 'successful' working in a company and climbing a corporate ladder more enriching than raising and nurturing a child?
how exactly did women get tricked into persuing 'career goals'?
i am going to answer my own question and say that men shouldnt have disrespected women throughout the years because that seems to be the only root cause i can imagine
-- escape oppression by becoming as/more 'powerful' than the oppressor
but this shit is ridiculous
now there is men who still disrespect women
women who seem to be attempting to grow a johnson
and a whole army of children with approximately 0 foundation
who won?
:mittens:
And the thought of a stay-at-home dad isn't quite yet accepted.
Quote from: LHX on June 24, 2007, 05:50:59 PM
how in the sweet mother of fuck is being 'successful' working in a company and climbing a corporate ladder more enriching than raising and nurturing a child?
Maybe some women don't WANT to have kids.
Maybe they have personal drives and opinions that don't fit the June Cleaver image of women that good folks like PaT Robertson keep shoving at us.
I think he's refering to the types that get jobs because of the pressure to be a "liberated woman."
Choice is still tops.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 24, 2007, 06:57:22 PM
Quote from: LHX on June 24, 2007, 05:50:59 PM
how in the sweet mother of fuck is being 'successful' working in a company and climbing a corporate ladder more enriching than raising and nurturing a child?
Maybe some women don't WANT to have kids.
Maybe they have personal drives and opinions that don't fit the June Cleaver image of women that good folks like PaT Robertson keep shoving at us.
i respect a woman not wanting kids
but not wanting kids because they have been duped into pursuing some 'dynamic corporate business achievement' is one of the biggest wrong-turns in the history of this 'civilization'
plus
i dont really see this June Cleaver image being promoted too much these days
but
it could be a regional thing
where im at - its all about power suits and 'success'
Nannies and nursery schools to all the raising.
Then, some parents wonder why they don't know their kids.
Quote from: LHX on June 24, 2007, 07:00:55 PM
i respect a woman not wanting kids
Could have fooled me. Just saying.
Quote from: LHX on June 24, 2007, 07:00:55 PM
but not wanting kids because they have been duped into pursuing some 'dynamic corporate business achievement' is one of the biggest wrong-turns in the history of this 'civilization'
So women don't know what their REAL motivations are?
No
can somebody who has been tricked into pursuing some illusory goal know what their real motivations are?
i question mine on a daily basis
i would say a self-respecting woman might be in tune with what her motivations are
Quote from: keeper entropic on June 24, 2007, 07:19:07 PM
No
I see. Well, it's a good thing they have good Christian/Muslim men to tell them what they really want and need.
Break out the burkhas, people! Daddy has a brand new bag!
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 24, 2007, 07:20:26 PM
Quote from: keeper entropic on June 24, 2007, 07:19:07 PM
No
I see. Well, it's a good thing they have good Christian/Muslim men to tell them what they really want and need.
Break out the burkhas, people! Daddy has a brand new bag!
the art of creative writing ITT
Quote from: LHX on June 24, 2007, 07:20:06 PM
can somebody who has been tricked into pursuing some illusory goal know what their real motivations are?
Why is it a given that their goals are illusionary?
Quote from: LHX on June 24, 2007, 07:20:06 PM
i would say a self-respecting woman might be in tune with what her motivations are
Oh, really? And just what motivations would a self-respecting woman have?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 24, 2007, 07:22:03 PM
Quote from: LHX on June 24, 2007, 07:20:06 PM
can somebody who has been tricked into pursuing some illusory goal know what their real motivations are?
Why is it a given that their goals are illusionary?
its not a given
it depends on what the goals are
fulfillment thru corporate achievement doesnt seem too legit
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 24, 2007, 07:22:03 PM
Quote from: LHX on June 24, 2007, 07:20:06 PM
i would say a self-respecting woman might be in tune with what her motivations are
Oh, really? And just what motivations would a self-respecting woman have?
am i a self-respecting woman?
also:
if i had to make a guess - i would say that it would involve doing more good than bad
and ending suffering on the planet
also:
if i had to make a guess - i would say that it would involve doing more good than bad
and ending suffering on the planet
Quote from: LHX on June 24, 2007, 07:25:00 PM
its not a given
it depends on what the goals are
fulfillment thru corporate achievement doesnt seem too legit
To whom? You? Me? Does that invalidate it for everyone? Are we the arbiters of all that is good and right?
Fact: There is nothing wrong with playing the corporate game,
if that is really what you like to do. Without these bastards, you and I would not even be having this conversation. Slack,Ñ¢ is not about not having a JOB, it's about not WORKING, where "work" = doing something that makes you miserable, for a paycheck. If a woman chooses to get her Slack,Ñ¢ by racking up "points" in the corporate game, rather than raising kids, good on her.
She'd be LOSING Slack,Ñ¢ if she stayed at home to raise kids she never wanted, just to keep you happy. And hell, even if she HAD those kids, are they better off living with a mother who - however unjustifiably - blames them for the end of their career, or with a nanny?
Quote from: LHX on June 24, 2007, 07:26:56 PM
also:
if i had to make a guess - i would say that it would involve doing more good than bad
and ending suffering on the planet
Yeah, and while we're tossing pixie dust around, let's stop all wars and human greed.
This reminds me of lamanite's argument with Rog about koreans and the vietnam.
I don't think women have been "tricked" into pursuing corporate jobs any more than men have. Those who do aspire for high ranking corporate jobs would be doing something else if those jobs weren't there. Probably not making kids though, most women have there minds made about that already.
Quote from: keeper entropic on June 24, 2007, 07:37:22 PM
.
I don't think women have been "tricked" into pursuing corporate jobs any more than men have.
Touche'. :lulz:
i think i sort of understand where you're coming from, X. but you phrase it a littlebit odd and hence what-Roger-said.
seeing your new replies, actually i think you're phrasing it a whole big kind of odd.
the woman's goal was equality, not "fulfillment thru corporate achievement". but indeed, if the woman's goal would have been "fulfillment thru corporate achievement" it's very possible that she has been tricked into following it illusorious , but the same thing holds for a man that chases that goal
my take on this matter: it usually takes me about an hour of heated discussion before a feminist and i agree that it's not "women should climb the corporate ladder" but "women should have equal choice to climb the corporate ladder".
also it really depends on where you are. in some places, things are already pretty equal and still moving towards more equilibrium. these things have some sort of momentum, so even if the will is there, it takes a while before change happens.
problem is, momentum also has another side, a delay to put a brake on things set in motion. having been raised by a very feminist woman (who has done an awesome job at climbing the corporate ladder next to raising her kids, btw), i'm particularly wary of that last one. but that's just because it has hit me in the head so often.
but then, in other places, things are not equal at all, and things just plain and simple need to change, not because women should climb the corporate ladder, but because it's not fair that they don't have the choice to climb the corporate ladder.
looking at it from yet another side:
- it used to be that the woman cared for the kids and the man worked earning money all day.
- now the woman works earning money as well.
- problem: who's gonna take care of the kids?
- so what we have now is on the one hand Progress (more equality), but on the other hand we encounter a very practical problem that is caused by this Progress.
- the most obvious solution seems to be to throw more equality at the problem: both take care of the kids, part-time
- but if you're poor then that's not much an option
- somewhere somehow society expects people to all be working their asses off
(what'd you expect, no i dont have any answers)
i agree with everything yall are saying
but
unless youve suddenly given up your role as a prophet of apocalypse
im sure youll agree that a lot of choices people make are contributing to the decline we appear to be in the thick of
and man - you need to get outta that tendency of accusing people of saying things they didnt say
its too easy to deflect that
and i dont really understand why you do it in the first place
Aren't we a non-prophet organization?
And there is no coming apocalypse or armageddon; it's ongoing.
Quote from: triple zero on June 24, 2007, 07:40:18 PM
i think i sort of understand where you're coming from, X. but you phrase it a littlebit odd and hence what-Roger-said.
seeing your new replies, actually i think you're phrasing it a whole big kind of odd.
the woman's goal was equality, not "fulfillment thru corporate achievement". but indeed, if the woman's goal would have been "fulfillment thru corporate achievement" it's very possible that she has been tricked into following it illusorious , but the same thing holds for a man that chases that goal
my take on this matter: it usually takes me about an hour of heated discussion before a feminist and i agree that it's not "women should climb the corporate ladder" but "women should have equal choice to climb the corporate ladder".
also it really depends on where you are. in some places, things are already pretty equal and still moving towards more equilibrium. these things have some sort of momentum, so even if the will is there, it takes a while before change happens.
problem is, momentum also has another side, a delay to put a brake on things set in motion. having been raised by a very feminist woman (who has done an awesome job at climbing the corporate ladder next to raising her kids, btw), i'm particularly wary of that last one. but that's just because it has hit me in the head so often.
but then, in other places, things are not equal at all, and things just plain and simple need to change, not because women should climb the corporate ladder, but because it's not fair that they don't have the choice to climb the corporate ladder.
looking at it from yet another side:
- it used to be that the woman cared for the kids and the man worked earning money all day.
- now the woman works earning money as well.
- problem: who's gonna take care of the kids?
- so what we have now is on the one hand Progress (more equality), but on the other hand we encounter a very practical problem that is caused by this Progress.
- the most obvious solution seems to be to throw more equality at the problem: both take care of the kids, part-time
- but if you're poor then that's not much an option
- somewhere somehow society expects people to all be working their asses off
(what'd you expect, no i dont have any answers)
i agree
of course choice reigns supreme
but since when did 'equality' become 'homogenous'?
obviously men fucked the whole shit up in the first place
but im sayin
the state of woman these days is far from good
Quote from: keeper entropic on June 24, 2007, 07:47:23 PM
Aren't we a non-prophet organization?
And there is no coming apocalypse or armageddon; it's ongoing.
or it already happened right?
yeah i can dig it
even after resolving and accepting that - it isnt enjoyable to see the foul shit going down
> but since when did 'equality' become 'homogenous'?
it doesn't.
"equality of choice" has nothing to do with homogeneous.
> obviously men fucked the whole shit up in the first place
fuck that shit.
i'm a man, and i have no more fault in the fuckedupness of this place than any woman.
and you too, can spend your time better than blaming gender (either of them)
> im sure youll agree that a lot of choices people make are contributing to the decline we appear
> to be in the thick of
yeah there are choices made very poorly
especially when people are tricked into playing the corporate game (and losing), while they actually inside don't really want to.
the thing is, this doesn't have much to do with whether the people are male or female.
ok, so the women got tricked into playing later than the men. i suppose you're saying because they haven't been playing (against their will, some of them at least) for very long, perhaps we can save them easier?
it's a nice idea, but it's not gonna work
they need the equality just as bad as they need to stop making poor choices
unless you say they don't. but i'm afraid you're not going to make much friends with that, because, mostly, who are you to decide, their messiah? ;-)
> and man - you need to get outta that tendency of accusing people of saying things they didnt say
annoying as hell isn't it? what bugs me most about it is that he usually turns out to be right :x
Raising a child is an important duty. I think putting your "career success" higher in priority than not churning out spoiled asswipes from your dysfunctional home is a failure.
The gender of the parent in question isn't the point. Traditionally it has been women, but there is no reason it can't be the father's job. Or the other mother's, depending on your persuasion.
Choosing not to have children is a virtuous choice. Choosing to have children and raise them responsibly is also a virtuous choice. Choosing to have children and then end up raising them poorly because you're too busy proving to somebody (even if it's yourself) that you can have it all and be just like TV, is one of the most disgusting behavior patterns our modern society encourages.
Even more disgusting than tubgirl.
our modern society encourages tubgirl??? :eek:
Quote from: triple zero on June 24, 2007, 07:53:10 PM
> but since when did 'equality' become 'homogenous'?
it doesn't.
"equality of choice" has nothing to do with homogeneous.
we will see as the results continue to roll in
Quote from: triple zero on June 24, 2007, 07:53:10 PM
> obviously men fucked the whole shit up in the first place
fuck that shit.
i'm a man, and i have no more fault in the fuckedupness of this place than any woman.
and you too, can spend your time better than blaming gender (either of them)
who is blaming what?
the chicken came before the egg
Quote from: triple zero on June 24, 2007, 07:53:10 PM
> im sure youll agree that a lot of choices people make are contributing to the decline we appear
> to be in the thick of
yeah there are choices made very poorly
especially when people are tricked into playing the corporate game (and losing), while they actually inside don't really want to.
the thing is, this doesn't have much to do with whether the people are male or female.
ok, so the women got tricked into playing later than the men. i suppose you're saying because they haven't been playing (against their will, some of them at least) for very long, perhaps we can save them easier?
it's a nice idea, but it's not gonna work
they need the equality just as bad as they need to stop making poor choices
unless you say they don't. but i'm afraid you're not going to make much friends with that, because, mostly, who are you to decide, their messiah? ;-)
'equality' to do what exactly?
'save' who from what?
Quote from: triple zero on June 24, 2007, 07:53:10 PM
> and man - you need to get outta that tendency of accusing people of saying things they didnt say
annoying as hell isn't it? what bugs me most about it is that he usually turns out to be right :x
that bugs you?
Quote from: triple zero on June 24, 2007, 08:00:33 PM
our modern society encourages tubgirl??? :eek:
obviously
and if it doesnt encourage it - then it takes the inverse approach of encouraging not holding back materializing any situation you can imagine and then broadcasting it to the world just for kicks
which would be fine if not for the legacy of taboo and deprivation that has caused people to be intensely fascinated with such basic shit
an exaggeration of importance
Quote from: LHX on June 24, 2007, 07:43:54 PM
but
unless youve suddenly given up your role as a prophet of apocalypse
im sure youll agree that a lot of choices people make are contributing to the decline we appear to be in the thick of
False dichotomy. The decisions we are discussing have nothing to do with the apocalypse which is indeed coming.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 24, 2007, 08:05:01 PM
Quote from: LHX on June 24, 2007, 07:43:54 PM
but
unless youve suddenly given up your role as a prophet of apocalypse
im sure youll agree that a lot of choices people make are contributing to the decline we appear to be in the thick of
False dichotomy. The decisions we are discussing have nothing to do with the apocalypse which is indeed coming.
are you sure?
Quote from: LHX on June 24, 2007, 08:05:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 24, 2007, 08:05:01 PM
Quote from: LHX on June 24, 2007, 07:43:54 PM
but
unless youve suddenly given up your role as a prophet of apocalypse
im sure youll agree that a lot of choices people make are contributing to the decline we appear to be in the thick of
False dichotomy. The decisions we are discussing have nothing to do with the apocalypse which is indeed coming.
are you sure?
OF COURSE I'M SURE! THAT'S WHAT BEING A FUCKING PROPHET IS ALL ABOUT!
DON'T MAKE ME SUMMON SOME BEARS DOWN HERE TO EAT THE CHILDREN!
TGRR,
Chomping on Elijah's style since the 60s.
> 'save' who from what?
save them from pursuing the illusory goal of corporate whatchamacallit
i was trying to work with you there, at least that's what i thought you were trying to get at?
QuoteQuote from: triple zero on June 24, 2007, 07:53:10 PM
> and man - you need to get outta that tendency of accusing people of saying things they didnt say
annoying as hell isn't it? what bugs me most about it is that he usually turns out to be right :x
that bugs you?
maybe "bugging" is not the right word ...
Quote from: keeper entropic on June 24, 2007, 07:47:23 PM
And there is no coming apocalypse or armageddon; it's ongoing.
Shhhhh! You're gonna spoil the joke :lulz:
Quote from: keeper entropic on June 24, 2007, 07:47:23 PM
Aren't we a non-prophet organization?
Maybe for you lesser Discordian types. We superior mutant Subgenii are ALL prophets.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 24, 2007, 08:06:41 PM
Quote from: LHX on June 24, 2007, 08:05:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 24, 2007, 08:05:01 PM
Quote from: LHX on June 24, 2007, 07:43:54 PM
but
unless youve suddenly given up your role as a prophet of apocalypse
im sure youll agree that a lot of choices people make are contributing to the decline we appear to be in the thick of
False dichotomy. The decisions we are discussing have nothing to do with the apocalypse which is indeed coming.
are you sure?
OF COURSE I'M SURE! THAT'S WHAT BEING A FUCKING PROPHET IS ALL ABOUT!
DON'T MAKE ME SUMMON SOME BEARS DOWN HERE TO EAT THE CHILDREN!
TGRR,
Chomping on Elijah's style since the 60s.
see - somebody needs to be around to save the kids from the bears descending to the planet
Quote from: SillyCybin on June 24, 2007, 08:07:59 PM
Quote from: keeper entropic on June 24, 2007, 07:47:23 PM
And there is no coming apocalypse or armageddon; it's ongoing.
Shhhhh! You're gonna spoil the joke :lulz:
What joke? I thought that was self-evident.
However, there are DEGREES of being fucked by the Gods...if you think the ONGOING portion of the apocalypse is bad, well, SHIT-HOWDY BOYS, HAVE WE GOT NEWS FOR YOU!
Quote from: LHX on June 24, 2007, 08:09:36 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 24, 2007, 08:06:41 PM
Quote from: LHX on June 24, 2007, 08:05:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 24, 2007, 08:05:01 PM
Quote from: LHX on June 24, 2007, 07:43:54 PM
but
unless youve suddenly given up your role as a prophet of apocalypse
im sure youll agree that a lot of choices people make are contributing to the decline we appear to be in the thick of
False dichotomy. The decisions we are discussing have nothing to do with the apocalypse which is indeed coming.
are you sure?
OF COURSE I'M SURE! THAT'S WHAT BEING A FUCKING PROPHET IS ALL ABOUT!
DON'T MAKE ME SUMMON SOME BEARS DOWN HERE TO EAT THE CHILDREN!
TGRR,
Chomping on Elijah's style since the 60s.
see - somebody needs to be around to save the kids from the bears descending to the planet
Beta males. That's why we allow them to live.
Quote from: triple zero on June 24, 2007, 08:07:28 PM
> 'save' who from what?
save them from pursuing the illusory goal of corporate whatchamacallit
i was trying to work with you there, at least that's what i thought you were trying to get at?
QuoteQuote from: triple zero on June 24, 2007, 07:53:10 PM
> and man - you need to get outta that tendency of accusing people of saying things they didnt say
annoying as hell isn't it? what bugs me most about it is that he usually turns out to be right :x
that bugs you?
maybe "bugging" is not the right word ...
Who are you talking about? I lost track.
Quote from: triple zero on June 24, 2007, 08:07:28 PM
> 'save' who from what?
save them from pursuing the illusory goal of corporate whatchamacallit
i was trying to work with you there, at least that's what i thought you were trying to get at?
hells naw
the time for 'saving' is long gone
the word of the day now is 'enduring'
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 24, 2007, 08:09:42 PM
Quote from: SillyCybin on June 24, 2007, 08:07:59 PM
Quote from: keeper entropic on June 24, 2007, 07:47:23 PM
And there is no coming apocalypse or armageddon; it's ongoing.
Shhhhh! You're gonna spoil the joke :lulz:
What joke? I thought that was self-evident.
However, there are DEGREES of being fucked by the Gods...if you think the ONGOING portion of the apocalypse is bad, well, SHIT-HOWDY BOYS, HAVE WE GOT NEWS FOR YOU!
see - now i really dont understand your point of contention with the OP
unless you were just doing it for exercise
Quote from: LHX on June 24, 2007, 08:11:31 PM
Quote from: triple zero on June 24, 2007, 08:07:28 PM
> 'save' who from what?
save them from pursuing the illusory goal of corporate whatchamacallit
i was trying to work with you there, at least that's what i thought you were trying to get at?
hells naw
the time for 'saving' is long gone
the word of the day now is 'enduring'
If by "enduring" you mean "eating popcorn and tormenting humans", then yeah.
I've been looking forward to the coming weird times my entire fucking life.
Boo yah!
If we're talking about enduring, then why are we limiting it to women? We're all fucked, really.
Quote from: LHX on June 24, 2007, 08:12:51 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 24, 2007, 08:09:42 PM
Quote from: SillyCybin on June 24, 2007, 08:07:59 PM
Quote from: keeper entropic on June 24, 2007, 07:47:23 PM
And there is no coming apocalypse or armageddon; it's ongoing.
Shhhhh! You're gonna spoil the joke :lulz:
What joke? I thought that was self-evident.
However, there are DEGREES of being fucked by the Gods...if you think the ONGOING portion of the apocalypse is bad, well, SHIT-HOWDY BOYS, HAVE WE GOT NEWS FOR YOU!
see - now i really dont understand your point of contention with the OP
unless you were just doing it for exercise
Look, a superior mutant doesn't worry about whether his or her actions are helping the situation or hurting it. We scratch where it itches. If "where it itches" happens to mean "I want lackeys and a corner office", then so be it.
Let the monkeys pretend they care what happens to monkeys.
Quote from: keeper entropic on June 24, 2007, 08:14:21 PM
If we're talking about enduring, then why are we limiting it to women? We're all fucked, really.
This is exactly the wimp attitude that separates the Discordians from the Yetsini.
it's safe to say this thread has only taught me that TGRR would be a terrible mother.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 24, 2007, 08:12:59 PM
Quote from: LHX on June 24, 2007, 08:11:31 PM
Quote from: triple zero on June 24, 2007, 08:07:28 PM
> 'save' who from what?
save them from pursuing the illusory goal of corporate whatchamacallit
i was trying to work with you there, at least that's what i thought you were trying to get at?
hells naw
the time for 'saving' is long gone
the word of the day now is 'enduring'
If by "enduring" you mean "eating popcorn and tormenting humans", then yeah.
I've been looking forward to the coming weird times my entire fucking life.
Boo yah!
climax is thrilling
Quote from: keeper entropic on June 24, 2007, 08:14:21 PM
If we're talking about enduring, then why are we limiting it to women? We're all fucked, really.
wasnt that understanding included on the Terms for joining this forum?
Quote from: vexati0n on June 24, 2007, 08:15:28 PM
it's safe to say this thread has only taught me that TGRR would be a terrible mother.
:cry:
Quote from: LHX on June 24, 2007, 08:15:49 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 24, 2007, 08:12:59 PM
Quote from: LHX on June 24, 2007, 08:11:31 PM
Quote from: triple zero on June 24, 2007, 08:07:28 PM
> 'save' who from what?
save them from pursuing the illusory goal of corporate whatchamacallit
i was trying to work with you there, at least that's what i thought you were trying to get at?
hells naw
the time for 'saving' is long gone
the word of the day now is 'enduring'
If by "enduring" you mean "eating popcorn and tormenting humans", then yeah.
I've been looking forward to the coming weird times my entire fucking life.
Boo yah!
climax is thrilling
Fuck, the FOREPLAY is thrilling!
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 24, 2007, 08:10:30 PM
Quote from: triple zero on June 24, 2007, 08:07:28 PM
QuoteQuote from: triple zero on June 24, 2007, 07:53:10 PM
> and man - you need to get outta that tendency of accusing people of saying things they didnt say
annoying as hell isn't it? what bugs me most about it is that he usually turns out to be right :x
that bugs you?
maybe "bugging" is not the right word ...
Who are you talking about? I lost track.
yeah i was talking about you
you have the annoying tendency to say something that makes me go "aahh that's jumping to conclusions real fast"
.. and then turn out to be right
more sort of a learning experience than bugging actually.
though it does lead to me jumping to conclusions even less fast.
Quote from: triple zero on June 24, 2007, 08:19:46 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 24, 2007, 08:10:30 PM
Quote from: triple zero on June 24, 2007, 08:07:28 PM
QuoteQuote from: triple zero on June 24, 2007, 07:53:10 PM
> and man - you need to get outta that tendency of accusing people of saying things they didnt say
annoying as hell isn't it? what bugs me most about it is that he usually turns out to be right :x
that bugs you?
maybe "bugging" is not the right word ...
Who are you talking about? I lost track.
yeah i was talking about you
you have the annoying tendency to say something that makes me go "aahh that's jumping to conclusions real fast"
.. and then turn out to be right
more sort of a learning experience than bugging actually.
though it does lead to me jumping to conclusions even less fast.
Anyone can do it. You just need to:
1. Pay atttention
2. Look for trends, and
3. Assume the stupid humans will do the worst possible thing in any given scenario.
I think we all know the real problem.
(http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/4425/antidolphinxa2.jpg)
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 24, 2007, 08:15:13 PM
Quote from: keeper entropic on June 24, 2007, 08:14:21 PM
If we're talking about enduring, then why are we limiting it to women? We're all fucked, really.
This is exactly the wimp attitude that separates the Discordians from the Yetsini.
What I meant to say is that they are after us all, not that we are all doomed.
Quote from: keeper entropic on June 24, 2007, 08:41:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 24, 2007, 08:15:13 PM
Quote from: keeper entropic on June 24, 2007, 08:14:21 PM
If we're talking about enduring, then why are we limiting it to women? We're all fucked, really.
This is exactly the wimp attitude that separates the Discordians from the Yetsini.
What I meant to say is that they are after us all, not that we are all doomed.
Who's "they"?
the dolphins, obviously.
Quote from: keeper entropic on June 24, 2007, 08:50:09 PM
the dolphins, obviously.
BIP, dude. Save the dadaism for Apple Talk.
TGRR,
Protocol Nazi.
Where the hell did LHX go?
Quote from: LHX on June 24, 2007, 05:50:59 PM
how in the sweet mother of fuck is being 'successful' working in a company and climbing a corporate ladder more enriching than raising and nurturing a child?
how exactly did women get tricked into persuing 'career goals'?
i am going to answer my own question and say that men shouldnt have disrespected women throughout the years because that seems to be the only root cause i can imagine
-- escape oppression by becoming as/more 'powerful' than the oppressor
but this shit is ridiculous
now there is men who still disrespect women
women who seem to be attempting to grow a johnson
and a whole army of children with approximately 0 foundation
who won?
I dissagree.
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on June 24, 2007, 11:00:25 PM
Quote from: LHX on June 24, 2007, 05:50:59 PM
how in the sweet mother of fuck is being 'successful' working in a company and climbing a corporate ladder more enriching than raising and nurturing a child?
how exactly did women get tricked into persuing 'career goals'?
i am going to answer my own question and say that men shouldnt have disrespected women throughout the years because that seems to be the only root cause i can imagine
-- escape oppression by becoming as/more 'powerful' than the oppressor
but this shit is ridiculous
now there is men who still disrespect women
women who seem to be attempting to grow a johnson
and a whole army of children with approximately 0 foundation
who won?
I dissagree.
Likewise.
To keep this short because it is hot as balls out so I will start getting seriously belligerent if I don't...
"how in the sweet mother of fuck is being 'successful' working in a company and climbing a corporate ladder more enriching than raising and nurturing a child?"
Good question. Why DON'T more men stay home to raise and nurture children?
Quote from: Darth Cupcake on June 24, 2007, 11:54:04 PM
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on June 24, 2007, 11:00:25 PM
Quote from: LHX on June 24, 2007, 05:50:59 PM
how in the sweet mother of fuck is being 'successful' working in a company and climbing a corporate ladder more enriching than raising and nurturing a child?
how exactly did women get tricked into persuing 'career goals'?
i am going to answer my own question and say that men shouldnt have disrespected women throughout the years because that seems to be the only root cause i can imagine
-- escape oppression by becoming as/more 'powerful' than the oppressor
but this shit is ridiculous
now there is men who still disrespect women
women who seem to be attempting to grow a johnson
and a whole army of children with approximately 0 foundation
who won?
I dissagree.
Likewise.
To keep this short because it is hot as balls out so I will start getting seriously belligerent if I don't...
"how in the sweet mother of fuck is being 'successful' working in a company and climbing a corporate ladder more enriching than raising and nurturing a child?"
Good question. Why DON'T more men stay home to raise and nurture children?
Yes.
Sorry X, you're my bro and all, but this has nothing to do with gender.
if anybody is reading into this that one gender is somehow less culpable than the other - it has nothing to do with anything i typed
i think a careful re-read might be the recipe
i dont know how to defend myself for something i didnt say nor intend to imply
why DONT more men stay home and nurture kids?
it is a valid question
but not within the scope of my original post
maybe i should put together a part 2 to this thread
prolly be redundant at this point
Quote from: LHX on June 25, 2007, 05:11:39 AM
if anybody is reading into this that one gender is somehow less culpable than the other - it has nothing to do with anything i typed
why DONT more men stay home and nurture kids?
it is a valid question
but not within the scope of my original post
So it IS about women.
the title of the thread is motherhood
Quote from: LHX on June 25, 2007, 05:15:46 AM
the title of the thread is motherhood
So it is de facto about one gender.
But you just said it wasn't.
I am confused.
it is about gender
it is not exaggerating the blame for foul shit in the world on one gender or the other
i will make a note never to start a thread about any one particular topic without starting a partner thread to balance the scales
Quote from: LHX on June 25, 2007, 05:22:30 AM
it is about gender
it is not exaggerating the blame for foul shit in the world on one gender or the other
Well, the motherhood thread says "why don't they stay home with the kids", and the fatherhood thread says "support your offspring."
Leave It To Beaver family values ITT.
Quote from: LHX on June 25, 2007, 05:22:30 AM
i will make a note never to start a thread about any one particular topic without starting a partner thread to balance the scales
What? You expected an easy room? Why didn't you say so? I can do that. Lemme go get some mittens.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 25, 2007, 05:39:29 AM
Quote from: LHX on June 25, 2007, 05:22:30 AM
it is about gender
it is not exaggerating the blame for foul shit in the world on one gender or the other
Well, the motherhood thread says "why don't they stay home with the kids", and the fatherhood thread says "support your offspring."
Leave It To Beaver family values ITT.
Quote from: LHX on June 25, 2007, 05:22:30 AM
i will make a note never to start a thread about any one particular topic without starting a partner thread to balance the scales
What? You expected an easy room? Why didn't you say so? I can do that. Lemme go get some mittens.
children suffer neglect and lack of nurturing
the corporate paper chase does not seem as fulfilling in the long run as raising a strong seed
these are the last days
men are becoming women
women are becoming men
its a shame that the most prevalent skill on forums these days is the ability to bend peoples words at will and selectively input some points that had been previously non-existant
heads been watching too much law and order
matlock and perry mason up in this mud
why doesnt anybody want to quote the points in the original post that do NOT support this fun gender-bias escapade?
Quote from: LHX on June 25, 2007, 05:51:49 AM
children suffer neglect and lack of nurturing
Welcome to the last 10,000 years. Nuturing, shit. Starting 30 years ago, and going back to prehistory, the most they got was a kick in the ass, when dad AND mom weren't too busy tending Sir Fuckalot's fields for him.
Quote from: LHX on June 25, 2007, 05:51:49 AM
the corporate paper chase does not seem as fulfilling in the long run as raising a strong seed
In one person's opinion. Well, two. You and Phyllis Schafly. What if a woman realizes she would be a shitty mother? Unable to "nurture"? Should she still forget what she WANTS to do, so she can do what YOU want her to do?
Quote from: LHX on June 25, 2007, 05:51:49 AM
these are the last days
Heard THAT song before.
Quote from: LHX on June 25, 2007, 05:51:49 AM
men are becoming women
Oh, now you're on Ru Paul's ass?
Quote from: LHX on June 25, 2007, 05:51:49 AM
women are becoming men
I feel a Falwell moment coming on...
Quote from: LHX on June 25, 2007, 05:51:49 AM
its a shame that the most prevalent skill on forums these days is the ability to bend peoples words at will and selectively input some points that had been previously non-existant
Bullshit is always on a buyers market.
Quote from: LHX on June 25, 2007, 05:51:49 AM
heads been watching too much law and order
Now you're mad at Michael Moriarity?
Quote from: LHX on June 25, 2007, 05:51:49 AM
matlock and perry mason up in this mud
Not sure where this is going.
Quote from: LHX on June 25, 2007, 05:51:49 AM
why doesnt anybody want to quote the points in the original post that do NOT support this fun gender-bias escapade?
Well, okay, I'll go get some mittens.
TGRR,
Will avoid questioning things in the future.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 25, 2007, 06:16:40 AM
TGRR,
Will avoid questioning things in the future.
see man - this is what i dont understand
why do you even bother saying things like that?
as tho i have some desire for you to not question things
if it was between me and you - that would be fine, but when you say shit like that in a forum, it may make a onlooker think that i actually DO see some reason for women to be oppressed
and since that isnt the case - that turns you into nothing more than a elaborate slanderer with the gift of effectively using the english language so as not to appear as such
the man provides the sperm
the woman provides the egg
the sperm provides the spark
the egg becomes the womb that nurtures
do what you want to with that
you call humans a bunch of monkeys
but
the way shit is shaking down is a long way from monkey-dom
but im not gonna bust your balls on that
i wont use mittens - but i consider you a ally
if you notice - i generally augment your arguments rather than make it sound like you are saying the opposite
Quote from: LHX on June 25, 2007, 06:27:39 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 25, 2007, 06:16:40 AM
TGRR,
Will avoid questioning things in the future.
see man - this is what i dont understand
why do you even bother saying things like that?
as tho i have some desire for you to not question things
if it was between me and you - that would be fine, but when you say shit like that in a forum, it may make a onlooker think that i actually DO see some reason for women to be oppressed
and since that isnt the case - that turns you into nothing more than a elaborate slanderer with the gift of effectively using the english language so as not to appear as such
the man provides the sperm
the woman provides the egg
the sperm provides the spark
the egg becomes the womb that nurtures
do what you want to with that
you call humans a bunch of monkeys
but
the way shit is shaking down is a long way from monkey-dom
but im not gonna bust your balls on that
i wont use mittens - but i consider you a ally
if you notice - i generally augment your arguments rather than make it sound like you are saying the opposite
Look, LHX, why don't you point out ONE (1) thing I have said concerning your post that does not reflect what you actually posted?
TGRR,
Is getting a little tired of having his intellectual honesty called into question.
And what the fuck is up with this hippie "nurture" shit, any fucking way?
what in the hell is wrong with nurturing?
its nurturing vs exploiting
you take your pick
Quote from: LHX on June 25, 2007, 06:33:02 AM
what in the hell is wrong with nurturing?
its nurturing vs exploiting
you take your pick
False dichotomy.
There's also "neglect". :lulz:
TGRR,
Is off to bathe in some patchouli.
here is a list of things i didnt say
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 24, 2007, 07:35:31 PM
She'd be LOSING Slack,Ñ¢ if she stayed at home to raise kids she never wanted, just to keep you happy. And hell, even if she HAD those kids, are they better off living with a mother who - however unjustifiably - blames them for the end of their career, or with a nanny?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 24, 2007, 07:10:32 PM
Quote from: LHX on June 24, 2007, 07:00:55 PM
i respect a woman not wanting kids
Could have fooled me. Just saying.
Quote from: LHX on June 24, 2007, 07:00:55 PM
but not wanting kids because they have been duped into pursuing some 'dynamic corporate business achievement' is one of the biggest wrong-turns in the history of this 'civilization'
So women don't know what their REAL motivations are?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 24, 2007, 07:20:26 PM
Quote from: keeper entropic on June 24, 2007, 07:19:07 PM
No
I see. Well, it's a good thing they have good Christian/Muslim men to tell them what they really want and need.
Break out the burkhas, people! Daddy has a brand new bag!
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 24, 2007, 06:57:22 PM
Maybe they have personal drives and opinions that don't fit the June Cleaver image of women that good folks like PaT Robertson keep shoving at us.
i dont even know what a Pat Robertson is
or a Pathouli
neglect sounds like it could be indirect exploitation
just because you ignore a tooth ache doesnt mean you arent decaying
dont mistake my superhero delusions with your vendetta against hippies
Quote from: LHX on June 25, 2007, 06:39:38 AM
here is a list of things i didnt say
Oh, you bloody well did. Not in so many words, but the meaning was there. Take a look at responses other than mine. I'm not the only one that took things that way.
Quote from: LHX on June 25, 2007, 06:39:38 AM
i dont even know what a Pat Robertson is
How is that possible?
Quote from: LHX on June 25, 2007, 06:39:38 AM
or a Pathouli
"Patchouli". Hippie perfume.
Quote from: LHX on June 25, 2007, 06:39:38 AM
neglect sounds like it could be indirect exploitation
HUH?
1. Have child.
2. Neglect child.
3. ?
4. Profit!
Quote from: LHX on June 25, 2007, 06:39:38 AM
just because you ignore a tooth ache doesnt mean you arent decaying
Just because you have a toothache doesn't mean everyone else does
if only they'd be honest enough to admit it.Quote from: LHX on June 25, 2007, 06:39:38 AM
dont mistake my superhero delusions with your vendetta against hippies
No, I'm just mistaking your desire for women to return to the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant with your desire for women to return to the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. Apparently.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 25, 2007, 06:45:26 AM
No, I'm just mistaking your desire for women to return to the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant with your desire for women to return to the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. Apparently.
so what is the point of posting in this forum exactly?
if you are drawing something that retarded from my original post?
thats slander
nothing more, nothing less
Quote from: LHX on June 25, 2007, 06:59:49 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 25, 2007, 06:45:26 AM
No, I'm just mistaking your desire for women to return to the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant with your desire for women to return to the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. Apparently.
so what is the point of posting in this forum exactly?
if you are drawing something that retarded from my original post?
thats slander
nothing more, nothing less
Well, LHX, if you're going to call me a liar, I guess we're pretty much done here.
Remind me not to engage in debate with you in the future, because I'm about sick and tired of people deciding to piss me off for cheap kicks.
TGRR,
Isn't falling for it. Find another sucker.
geez
this is fucked up
i make a post to get some discussion
get accused of saying something or implying something that i didnt say or mean to imply
and then my refusal to defend myself for the things i didnt say (wtf) result in somebody getting pissed off
fall for what?
fall for me not falling for your bait?
how can i argue in favor of my "desire for women to return to the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant" when i have no desire for any such thing?
who even wanted to engage in a debate in the first place?
i dont post in this forum for sport
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 24, 2007, 08:09:42 PM
Quote from: SillyCybin on June 24, 2007, 08:07:59 PM
Quote from: keeper entropic on June 24, 2007, 07:47:23 PM
And there is no coming apocalypse or armageddon; it's ongoing.
Shhhhh! You're gonna spoil the joke :lulz:
What joke? I thought that was self-evident.
However, there are DEGREES of being fucked by the Gods...if you think the ONGOING portion of the apocalypse is bad, well, SHIT-HOWDY BOYS, HAVE WE GOT NEWS FOR YOU!
Personally I think it's fucking brilliant.
Made even more so by the people who don't get it.
Quote from: SillyCybin on June 25, 2007, 07:09:39 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 24, 2007, 08:09:42 PM
Quote from: SillyCybin on June 24, 2007, 08:07:59 PM
Quote from: keeper entropic on June 24, 2007, 07:47:23 PM
And there is no coming apocalypse or armageddon; it's ongoing.
Shhhhh! You're gonna spoil the joke :lulz:
What joke? I thought that was self-evident.
However, there are DEGREES of being fucked by the Gods...if you think the ONGOING portion of the apocalypse is bad, well, SHIT-HOWDY BOYS, HAVE WE GOT NEWS FOR YOU!
Personally I think it's fucking brilliant.
Made even more so by the people who don't get it.
Almost makes you feel bad for the Baptists.
Don't let your guard down.
Quote from: LHX on June 24, 2007, 05:50:59 PM
how in the sweet mother of fuck is being 'successful' working in a company and climbing a corporate ladder more enriching than raising and nurturing a child?
how exactly did women get tricked into persuing 'career goals'?
i am going to answer my own question and say that men shouldnt have disrespected women throughout the years because that seems to be the only root cause i can imagine
-- escape oppression by becoming as/more 'powerful' than the oppressor
but this shit is ridiculous
now there is men who still disrespect women
women who seem to be attempting to grow a johnson
and a whole army of children with approximately 0 foundation
who won?
This is true actually. Kids are spending more time in someone's care other than their parents. My daughter is either at a daycare of my mother-in-laws from 8 to 5, Monday through Friday. This IS different from how it was from even when I was a child. And the situation before this situation was one in which more women stayed at home with children.
I think there is some merit in what LHX is talking about. I think there has been a certain drive to 'Corporate Success' that has been cheered on by society, whether you wanna call it feminism or whatever. I mean, logically, what other option would there be? If many women WERE staying at home, if that were going to change it would seem likely that the new situation would be fewer staying at home.
Another part of this, however, is also economics. The economics is partly tied in with the 'Corporate Success' drive. But there's more to it than that. For those lower in the socio-economic status it's out of necessity. In many of your more rural settings the prime employers are manufacturing and natural resource-based industries. Through competition and technological innovation, those sectors have shrunk and/or closed up shop. So papa was getting 60 or 70k at the mill, which then shuts down. Now he's gotta go work at the grocery store where he'll start out at 30k if he's lucky, that mean mama's gotta go out and pick up the slack, or papa's gotta get a graveyard shift at the local Wal-Mart.
Which means the kid is either going to have Zero father and lots of Mother, or some decreased percentage of both.
I think it is true that in some, heck many cases, the both parents having to work, does impact a childs' development and upbringing. Though, I think if the parents are proactive they can work it out to make the situation work. I think my wife and I have done that. When we are together we make the most out of our time so that it is rewarding and nurturing for our daughter.
The idea of a "stay at home mom" is a fairly recent one, except in the very upper classes.
Both parents were working and the kids went to school or stayed at home and took care of themselves from an early age, or were taken care of by older siblings. By the early teen years, the kids were off working in factories or on farms and generally not even receiving a middle or high school level education. I do not see at all how that is preferrable to the current culture of educational day-cares, schooling, after-school educational and/or sports activities, and nannies who make an entire career out of nurturing children.
Meanwhile, it continues to be that having a stay at home parent of either gender is still a luxury commodity. For a woman or man to stay at home, the other family member must be making pretty damn good money in order to support an entire family that isn't contributing to the financial side of the equation. The majority of working mothers do so because there is no other choice. You want your kid to have health insurance? Get the fuck into the work force. You want to send your kid to a good college? Get the fuck into the work force. You want to be able to afford a nice car with safety features to protect your kid? Get the fuck into the work force. You want to be able to put food on the table, and have that table be in a house or apartment that's in a neighborhood where your kid can play outside and be safe? Get the fuck into the work force.
Furthermore, the "stay at home mom" so celebrated in the 40s and 50s was secure--divorce did not happen. It was okay to make your entire job being a mother, because you had a safety net and a retirement plan: your husband. Nowadays however, with something along the lines of half of all marriages ending in divorce, it's just plain STUPID to not get a job and have savings. My mother was a stay at home mom for my older sister and me, so when she and my dad got divorced, she had NOTHING. She's now almost sixty and makes the same annual salary as her twenty-something daughter, plus she STILL has no health insurance because she just doesn't have the qualifications to get a job that will provide for her. She hadn't worked in nineteen years when she tried to return to the work force, so she had no references, no recent skills, no current job experience, NOTHING. She just can't compete in today's job market. And while she found being a mother incredibly fulfilling, and I'm glad that she was stay at home for the first eleven years of my life, I wish she had been working so that when the bottom fell out of her marriage, she didn't get fucked over. There is no retirement visible in her future because she has next to nothing to retire with. She at least got child support payments from my dad. I know of a lot of women who got fucked over a hell of a lot worse than she did.
It's just plain stupid to put that much faith into one's marriage in the way society is these days. Being a stay at home mom is a luxury commodity for only the upper classes, and even then only the upper classes with enough marital stability and/or income enough that when the divorce happens the alimoney and child support can make up for what the woman can't do for herself.
For that matter, independence is pleasant. It is nice to have one's own income so that you can do what you want with it. You wanna buy a pair of shoes? Fine. It's your fucking money. You wanna buy several hundred dollars worth of books? Fine. It's your fucking money. No asshole is going to step in and start yelling at you for spending his hard-earned money and then blaming you for the financial problems in the family and calling you irresponsible.
Families with two working parents can conceivably, in fact, treat their children BETTER. Those kids can afford to stay after school for exciting, fun programs (a lot of my friends in elementary school took language classes, art classes, horseback riding, etc) which means they aren't even missing out on time with their parents. If both parents are working, they can afford to go on vacations. They can provide their children with good schooling, or tutors as needed. They can provide clothes for their children, and snacks for snack time. They can provide books and toys.
No, money cannot buy happiness.
But it can buy stability, safety, and a strong foundation. And you absolutely cannot ever overlook how essential those things are to nurturing a child.
A good parent can raise a loved, healthy, happy child, through spending only small amounts of time a day with that child, but making that time count.
A stay at home mom can still be a piece of shit mom. The same applies to stay at home fathers.
This is not about whether or not there is a parent at home. This is about the quality of the providing, both financial and emotional.
nice
those last parts fit in well w/ what RWHN was sayin
working because of a child makes a lot of sense
working rather than having children makes a lot of sense if that is the preference
having children and neglecting them once you have them is the fail
I think with having children you've got two motivations.
One is selfishness/keeping up with the joneses. "I wanna have 2.5 kids like everyone else living on Amurrican Dream Blvd."
Another is self-enriching. "I want to have a child or two to share the wonders of music, nature, etc., etc."
Of course, both can boil down to nature and self-preservation.
Anyway, I think A LOT (not all) in the first category are the sort to neglect children. They don't spend quality time engaging with the children, or they are being dropped off at sitters every other night. Their nanny is a Television, an IPOD, an XBOX, etc., etc.,
I think A LOT (not all) in the second category will tend to live in a more nurturing or enriching environment. Or at least, the best that the parents can provide. The parents may have to out of necessity both work jobs. But, when they come home, they make a point of playing with the child, engaging with the child. Creating music, creating stories, etc. Quality vs. Quantity.
I think this is a key. If more parents could understand this, to maximize their world for their children, more would be starting on better feet. I think it's when you have the double whammy of both parents working and not giving a fuck about engagin the child, you've got (potential) trouble. Of course, if the child, by nature, has a strong sense of individuality and self-preservation, they may turn out okay. One has to wonder, however, how often this is the case.
Quote from: LHX on June 25, 2007, 03:42:20 PM
having children and neglecting them once you have them is the fail
I wholeheartedly concur.
Too many women have children for the wrong reasons and then end up neglecting them. I read some interesting studies for a few classes back in school about how in lower class/working class areas, women will have children because it is "a way out." You get government aid, sometimes you can get child support or marriage... Or because if they have a baby, their boyfriend/husband won't beat them while they're pregnant. So they have lots of babies.
It breaks my heart that there are people in situations where they see childbearing as their only way to escape.
Naturally, in relation to this, more men need to be responsible about what they do when they stick their dick in someone. Wrap it up, boys, wrap it up! And if something happens, as you said in the fatherhood thread, take some responsibility for it. It takes two to tango, as it were, so if you knock a lady up, don't leave her hanging.
In general, I feel the state of parenting is horribly bleak. It depresses me. But I have trouble imagining how it could change without having some sort of major social overhaul.
-DC
Has turned her uterus into a nearly impregnable fortress for a reason!
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on June 25, 2007, 03:50:57 PM
One is selfishness/keeping up with the joneses. "I wanna have 2.5 kids like everyone else living on Amurrican Dream Blvd."
Another is self-enriching. "I want to have a child or two to share the wonders of music, nature, etc., etc."
I partially agree with this.
But it leaves out a lot of other reasons as well. I do not want to sound snobby, but those are rather middle-to-upper-class reasons.
Some people have babies because it's a "way out" of a poverty (which in fact it isn't, but it looks like it). They have babies because it will make their boyfriend/husband stop beating them (which in fact rarely works). They have babies because they got raped. They have babies because the condom broke. They have babies because they didn't really think it through. They have babies because God wants them to. They have babies because their parents want them to. They have babies because they are searching for something to make them happy. Etc etc etc.
I do, however, agree that the second reason you gave is the best reason. My personal preference, however, is toward adoption rather than moar babiez. But that is because I am a dirty liberal. :p
http://www.vhemt.org/biobreed.htm#reasons (http://www.vhemt.org/biobreed.htm#reasons)
They added a big image, which kinda bugs me, but scroll down a touch and there's a chart there full of the lulz. I think it makes a pretty good case for how much people tend toward not thinking through the decision to have a child.
As a side note, lest I offend anyone, I am not criticizing the decision to have a child. I have no intention of making that decision, but if someone else wants to make it and does so after having thought it through, that's fine. I just think most people have children very irresponsibly.
I have a story about this, which I'm not entirely sure is relevent to the rest of the thread.
My ex became pregnant after she stopped taking the contraceptive pill (without telling me). Don't get me wrong, I was quite willing to use condoms, but she had told me that just using the pill would be O.K.
She concealed the pregnancy, and I didn't know anything about it until about 4 hours or so after she had the baby. (this is a long story, and it sounds like I'm being an emo fuck when i tell it, so i'll refrain from doing so at this point.)
After the baby was born, I did all that is expected of a new father, getting a new and better job, living a cleaner lifestyle etc.
I planned on getting a home together with us all, and was all set up for it, having bought new furniture, kitchen appliances and all the rest, out of my own pocket, for the most part.
Then she dumped me, took all the stuff and moved to a place on her own, without letting me know where she and my daughter were.
Motherhood obviously suits her well, so well that she doesn't even want/need a father around.
Please forgive any emo vibes around this post, they are entirely un-intentional.
Quote from: Darth Cupcake on June 25, 2007, 04:05:22 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on June 25, 2007, 03:50:57 PM
One is selfishness/keeping up with the joneses. "I wanna have 2.5 kids like everyone else living on Amurrican Dream Blvd."
Another is self-enriching. "I want to have a child or two to share the wonders of music, nature, etc., etc."
I partially agree with this.
But it leaves out a lot of other reasons as well. I do not want to sound snobby, but those are rather middle-to-upper-class reasons.
Some people have babies because it's a "way out" of a poverty (which in fact it isn't, but it looks like it). They have babies because it will make their boyfriend/husband stop beating them (which in fact rarely works). They have babies because they got raped. They have babies because the condom broke. They have babies because they didn't really think it through. They have babies because God wants them to. They have babies because their parents want them to. They have babies because they are searching for something to make them happy. Etc etc etc.
yeah, I suppose I was being a bit simplistic with that. I was just trying to get at the basic contrast of parents who want to have a child for the child versus the parents who want to have a child for them. Because the former will invest more directly in the child while the latter more superficially.
But you're right, there are lots of different scenarios going on.
Pessimistically, I don't think there is anything that can really be done to change it. I believe it to be human nature. Different humans have different motivations and they manifest in different aspects of life, including child-rearing. It's just sad that in this aspect of life, it seems to have the most dire and direct consequences. Or the most profound and benefitting ones.
And it cuts through classes. I know there are parents who have great means at their disposal who use those means to give their family the most enriching life they can. Just as I know there are parents living in a trailer park somewhere who aren't trying to be innovative with what they have to give their child or children the best shot at happiness. There is no silver bullet here.
Quote from: Payne on June 25, 2007, 04:19:27 PM
I have a story about this, which I'm not entirely sure is relevent to the rest of the thread.
My ex became pregnant after she stopped taking the contraceptive pill (without telling me). Don't get me wrong, I was quite willing to use condoms, but she had told me that just using the pill would be O.K.
She concealed the pregnancy, and I didn't know anything about it until about 4 hours or so after she had the baby. (this is a long story, and it sounds like I'm being an emo fuck when i tell it, so i'll refrain from doing so at this point.)
After the baby was born, I did all that is expected of a new father, getting a new and better job, living a cleaner lifestyle etc.
I planned on getting a home together with us all, and was all set up for it, having bought new furniture, kitchen appliances and all the rest, out of my own pocket, for the most part.
Then she dumped me, took all the stuff and moved to a place on her own, without letting me know where she and my daughter were.
Motherhood obviously suits her well, so well that she doesn't even want/need a father around.
Please forgive any emo vibes around this post, they are entirely un-intentional.
Um.
How to say this.
She went through an entire pregnancy, and
you didn't notice?
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2007, 04:25:36 PM
Um.
How to say this.
She went through an entire pregnancy, and you didn't notice?
No, she went through an entire pregnancy and
NOBODY noticed.
She didn't have the "great with child" look, though she did appear to be putting on weight. She was always emotionally unstable and she alwayshad weird eating habits.
I know, it sounds like something from a soap opera, but that's the way it happened dude.
Quote from: LHX on June 25, 2007, 05:51:49 AM
men are becoming women
women are becoming men
...
There is a problem with this?
Quote from: Payne on June 25, 2007, 04:19:27 PM
Then she dumped me, took all the stuff and moved to a place on her own, without letting me know where she and my daughter were.
court
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on June 25, 2007, 06:37:16 PM
Quote from: LHX on June 25, 2007, 05:51:49 AM
men are becoming women
women are becoming men
...
There is a problem with this?
IT DENFIES CONVENTION
/
/
:mullet:
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on June 25, 2007, 06:39:06 PM
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on June 25, 2007, 06:37:16 PM
Quote from: LHX on June 25, 2007, 05:51:49 AM
men are becoming women
women are becoming men
...
There is a problem with this?
IT DENFIES CONVENTION
/
/
:mullet:
We are all (pseudo)discordians here.
So, again, there is a problem with this?
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on June 25, 2007, 06:44:24 PM
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on June 25, 2007, 06:41:37 PM
We are all (pseudo)discordians here.
thats sort of my point
That still doesn't answer my question of why any of this is a problem.
that probably cause your question has no answer
each person has differnt goals, lack of, or aspirations when it comes to parenthood, therefore, at least in my mind, coming up with any sort of convention or norm is futile, just as questions of right or wrong
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on June 25, 2007, 06:37:31 PM
Quote from: Payne on June 25, 2007, 04:19:27 PM
Then she dumped me, took all the stuff and moved to a place on her own, without letting me know where she and my daughter were.
court
Meh, It's a past tense thing. I don't actually give a fuck either way.
Quote from: LHX on June 25, 2007, 05:51:49 AM
men are becoming women
women are becoming men
IF MEN ARE WOMEN
AND WOMEN ARE MEN
HOW WILL KNOW WHOS HTE GHEY?
/
/
/
:mullet:
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on June 25, 2007, 06:55:41 PM
Quote from: LHX on June 25, 2007, 05:51:49 AM
men are becoming women
women are becoming men
IF MEN ARE WOMEN
AND WOMEN ARE MEN
HOW WILL KNOW WHOS HTE GHEY?
/
/
/
:mullet:
look for the freddy mercury stash
I'm not sure I find the concept of a woman with a Freddy Mercury 'stache to be aesthetically pleasing.
depends how big her breast are
Also depends if the 'tache is a cramulus special, or really real.
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2007, 07:06:54 PM
I'm not sure I find the concept of a woman with a Freddy Mercury 'stache to be aesthetically pleasing.
true. but you could get that tickle sensation AND not have to worry about mom thinking you're ghey.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on June 25, 2007, 07:10:48 PM
depends how big her breast are
seconded
Mom already thinks I'm gay.
Or she did, before I got married.
It might have had something to do with introducing her to my boyfriend.
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2007, 07:19:59 PM
Mom already thinks I'm gay.
Or she did, before I got married.
It might have had something to do with introducing her to my boyfriend.
:eek: :lol:
ahh the subtle approach. ;)
as far as the moustache goes...for me it was something like .... "NO, mom, i'm NOT gay, my girl is just italian!"
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on June 25, 2007, 06:37:16 PM
Quote from: LHX on June 25, 2007, 05:51:49 AM
men are becoming women
women are becoming men
...
There is a problem with this?
I'd say no.
Gender is largely learned, via gender roles. So all that the above statement says to me is that gender roles are being broken down and destroyed. I'm okay with that. I fully endorse that in fact.
BMW, you are a biologist type, yes? I would be interested to hear your take on how much biology influences differences between men and women. As a fairly die-hard feminist, I tend to stand by "our biological differences are a lot smaller than people make them out to be." I do not believe that biology impacts personality (women are nurturing, men are violent kind of stereotypes; women love monogamy whereas men want to fuck everything that moves cause HEY IT'S BIOLOGY BABY); I think that's mostly social programming. I have a friend who is firmly the opposite though, and he has yet to impress me with any of the sources he can bring up to prove that kind of claim. I would be interested to hear what you have to say on the subject, if you in fact have a stance and would be willing to throw in your two cents.
Quote from: burnstoupee on June 25, 2007, 07:24:24 PM
as far as the moustache goes...for me it was something like .... "NO, mom, i'm NOT gay, my girl is just italian!"
You've been hanging out with too many post-op Italian trannies!
-DC
'stache free, along with the rest of her family and Italian ladyfriends
I agree with DC that gender roles have WAY more to do with how one is conditioned than his or her biology. This is one of those topics that I've had way too much education about, but for the moment suffice it to say
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/orbital%20occipital/moustachegtfo.jpg)
Quote from: Darth Cupcake on June 25, 2007, 07:31:56 PM
You've been hanging out with too many post-op Italian trannies!
-DC
'stache free, along with the rest of her family and Italian ladyfriends
oh fuck....i married her.
i think fully identifying with any role can be a mistake. allowing oneself a particular flexiblity in roles can help one adapt to any situation.
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on June 25, 2007, 06:37:16 PM
Quote from: LHX on June 25, 2007, 05:51:49 AM
men are becoming women
women are becoming men
...
There is a problem with this?
theres no problem with it
im saying it was predicted to be one of the features of these times
Quote from: Darth Cupcake on June 25, 2007, 07:31:56 PM
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on June 25, 2007, 06:37:16 PM
Quote from: LHX on June 25, 2007, 05:51:49 AM
men are becoming women
women are becoming men
...
There is a problem with this?
I'd say no.
Gender is largely learned, via gender roles. So all that the above statement says to me is that gender roles are being broken down and destroyed. I'm okay with that. I fully endorse that in fact.
BMW, you are a biologist type, yes? I would be interested to hear your take on how much biology influences differences between men and women. As a fairly die-hard feminist, I tend to stand by "our biological differences are a lot smaller than people make them out to be." I do not believe that biology impacts personality (women are nurturing, men are violent kind of stereotypes; women love monogamy whereas men want to fuck everything that moves cause HEY IT'S BIOLOGY BABY); I think that's mostly social programming. I have a friend who is firmly the opposite though, and he has yet to impress me with any of the sources he can bring up to prove that kind of claim. I would be interested to hear what you have to say on the subject, if you in fact have a stance and would be willing to throw in your two cents.
Um....
PM incoming.
I just figured out what your orginal question meant BMW
I thought you meant it in terms of parenthood, relating to the op
oops.. im an idiot
:?
so your actual answer...
not only is there is no problem with it
i encourage anything that gets people tearing down the stupid classifications we construct in order to understand ourselves
hope that makes sense
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on June 25, 2007, 10:15:05 PM
I just figured out what your orginal question meant BMW
I thought you meant it in terms of parenthood, relating to the op
oops.. im an idiot
:?
so your actual answer...
not only is there is no problem with it
i encourage anything that gets people tearing down the stupid classifications we construct in order to understand ourselves
hope that makes sense
Thanks. I really apreciate it.
But I'm still looking for X's answer. You see, I don't see how transgender individuals being "a sign of the times" has anything to do with poor parenting. And I'd like an explanation. Its really not asking much. I'd just like clarification.
Quote from: LHX on June 25, 2007, 08:38:43 PM
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on June 25, 2007, 06:37:16 PM
Quote from: LHX on June 25, 2007, 05:51:49 AM
men are becoming women
women are becoming men
...
There is a problem with this?
theres no problem with it
im saying it was predicted to be one of the features of these times
And what does that have to do with poor parenting, may I ask?
Quote from: Darth Cupcake on June 25, 2007, 07:31:56 PM
As a fairly die-hard feminist, I tend to stand by "our biological differences are a lot smaller than people make them out to be." I do not believe that biology impacts personality (women are nurturing, men are violent kind of stereotypes; women love monogamy whereas men want to fuck everything that moves cause HEY IT'S BIOLOGY BABY); I think that's mostly social programming. I have a friend who is firmly the opposite though, and he has yet to impress me with any of the sources he can bring up to prove that kind of claim. I would be interested to hear what you have to say on the subject, if you in fact have a stance and would be willing to throw in your two cents.
I disagree with something in this.
But I can't go into in right now.
Just sayin'.
Darth Cupcake, would you be willing to yield to the statement, "Biology impacts personality.
But no where near as much as culture, nurture, and society."
?
Because thats where I sum it up. Even coming from where I am.
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on June 25, 2007, 11:48:54 PM
Quote from: LHX on June 25, 2007, 08:38:43 PM
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on June 25, 2007, 06:37:16 PM
Quote from: LHX on June 25, 2007, 05:51:49 AM
men are becoming women
women are becoming men
...
There is a problem with this?
theres no problem with it
im saying it was predicted to be one of the features of these times
And what does that have to do with poor parenting, may I ask?
because in the process of this occurring, nobody seems to be looking after the kids
ill send my staff out to compile some numbers
and what in the blazes is a 'transgender' individual?
another label for 'human'?
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2007, 07:19:59 PM
Mom already thinks I'm gay.
Or she did, before I got married.
It might have had something to do with introducing her to my boyfriend.
You live in MA, you could have married your boyfriend.
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on June 25, 2007, 06:37:16 PM
Quote from: LHX on June 25, 2007, 05:51:49 AM
men are becoming women
women are becoming men
...
There is a problem with this?
In only so far as I do not know the first thing about being a lesbian.
For one, is there a secret handshake?
Quote from: Payne on June 25, 2007, 04:28:40 PM
she went through an entire pregnancy and NOBODY noticed.
She didn't have the "great with child" look, though she did appear to be putting on weight. She was always emotionally unstable and she alwayshad weird eating habits.
I know, it sounds like something from a soap opera, but that's the way it happened dude.
this sort of scenario is seriously one of my worst nightmares evar.
i'd feel the ground crumbling away under my feet if i ever got news like that.
worse story even, sister of a friend of mine didn't even quit taking the pill (freak chance). didn't notice she stopped menstruating because of the pill. got a slightly bigger belly, and pain in her belly. got pregnancy tests, which turned out negative (due to the pill, and freak chance). doctor found out about halfway the pregnancy (or after the point were it's not okay to have an abortion anymore, i forgot), exploded into "great with child" only a few days after she acknowledged the pregnancy to herself and stopped taking the pill.
baby is -despite the pill- healthy as fuck, almost creepily healthy even.
(i probably got some of the facts wrong in this story, so don't get me on biological accuracy or anything)
oh and definitely not trying to trivialize your story here, Payne. i just had to think of it. the possibility still scares the fuck out of me (though i'm single now, so there's not much to worry about)
Quote from: triple zero on June 26, 2007, 12:05:47 PM
Quote from: Payne on June 25, 2007, 04:28:40 PM
she went through an entire pregnancy and NOBODY noticed.
She didn't have the "great with child" look, though she did appear to be putting on weight. She was always emotionally unstable and she alwayshad weird eating habits.
I know, it sounds like something from a soap opera, but that's the way it happened dude.
this sort of scenario is seriously one of my worst nightmares evar.
i'd feel the ground crumbling away under my feet if i ever got news like that.
worse story even, sister of a friend of mine didn't even quit taking the pill (freak chance). didn't notice she stopped menstruating because of the pill. got a slightly bigger belly, and pain in her belly. got pregnancy tests, which turned out negative (due to the pill, and freak chance). doctor found out about halfway the pregnancy (or after the point were it's not okay to have an abortion anymore, i forgot), exploded into "great with child" only a few days after she acknowledged the pregnancy to herself and stopped taking the pill.
baby is -despite the pill- healthy as fuck, almost creepily healthy even.
(i probably got some of the facts wrong in this story, so don't get me on biological accuracy or anything)
oh and definitely not trying to trivialize your story here, Payne. i just had to think of it. the possibility still scares the fuck out of me (though i'm single now, so there's not much to worry about)
Not possible. Pregnancy tests check for a different hormone that has to do with the fetus (cant remember the name of it right now), and not with leves of estrogen or progesterone. Its one of those myths that people continue to think, but isn't true. I thought it was, until my physiology professor made a point of killing it for the whole class.
Quote from: LHX on June 26, 2007, 04:03:42 AM
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on June 25, 2007, 11:48:54 PM
Quote from: LHX on June 25, 2007, 08:38:43 PM
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on June 25, 2007, 06:37:16 PM
Quote from: LHX on June 25, 2007, 05:51:49 AM
men are becoming women
women are becoming men
...
There is a problem with this?
theres no problem with it
im saying it was predicted to be one of the features of these times
And what does that have to do with poor parenting, may I ask?
because in the process of this occurring, nobody seems to be looking after the kids
ill send my staff out to compile some numbers
and what in the blazes is a 'transgender' individual?
another label for 'human'?
It seems to me that you were talking about individuals whos gender identitys don't match their physical sex, thus transgender. And the line of thought seemed to be drawn between greater occurences of these, joined with poor parenting.
And even if this is only about gender roles (like who works and who stays home), I think these fatherhood and motherhood threads are ridiculously sexist as hell. Like I said, this had nothing to do with gender, but you seem to be making it this way.
I'm thinking LHX was trying to say the following:
(LHX - IF I'M PUTTING WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH, I APOLOGIZE)
"There are some social games that men play that are detrimental to self and family, which many call 'men's roles'.
"There are some social games that women play that are detrimental to self and family, which many call 'women's roles'.
"In a screwed up sense of 'fairness', some women are adopting the detrimental 'men's roles', and some men are adopting the detrimental 'women's roles'.
"But nowhere in this is the child considered a factor."
I'm not sure I can argue this point, but that's what I got out of LHX's piece.
2 years of posting and suddenly i become a ignorant sexist idiot overnight
another sign of the times i guess
thanks family
here is another 3 scenarios:
1. i suck at communicating
2. a bunch of people need to go back and check their old Speak and Spells to brush up on their reading comprehension
3. it doesnt matter what got posted here - but the fact that 'gender' was even brought up was the equivalent of me putting the infra-red cross hairs on my own forehead (aka - you read whatever you want to read)
funny how yall got on Lamanite when he called everybody a racist for no apparent reason
now yall are doing the same thing in here
maybe there is a short-term memory plight going on
http://www.mind-mapping.co.uk/ (http://www.mind-mapping.co.uk/)
check out Tony Buzan's mind-mapping - maybe it can help
classic movie line of the moment:
JEFF GOLDBLUM: "I guess we both turned out to be shitty husbands. At least I have an excuse. I'm part gay."
BILL MURRAY: "Supposedly we all are."
- Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
I have to agree with LHX. I think talking about him being a sexist is way off the mark. I think LHX is probably one of the more thoughtful contributors to this community. And I think he is asking as many questions in this and the other thread as he is making statements and/or opinions. And as I stated earlier, he has some valid points. I don't think he is arguing that our society should go back to Leave it to Beaver era of Daddy going to work and Mommy staying home with the kids. He's acknowledged that economics these days makes that prohibitive in some cases.
What he is talking about, as I read it, is motivations. He's talking about motivations for success and corporate success that don't figure the child into the scenario. By default this involves women because men have ALWAYS been breadwinners. Meanwhile there were times when the woman was the homekeeper. If there was going to be a change, by definition, it would involve more women then men. Do the math. However, as he has also mentioned, it doesn't mean that the man can't stay at home and the woman become the breadwinner. But even there, you have another societal-norm can-of-worms to deal with.
Anyway, I personally don't view X's threads or posts as sexist. It isn't a cut and dry issue and it involves many ingrained societal norms. If we can't discuss those sort of things here without people being labeled then where the hell is it going to be discussed. Or, do we just keep it in the broom closet?
In Japan:
The majority of the women are career driven.
They're having kids when they reach their 30's, or not at all.
As a result, there aren't enough people to take care of their elderly.
The poulation scale is tipped. More elderly than there are children.
What's wrong with this picture, I don't know i'm just an idiot.
Quote from: The Lamanite on June 26, 2007, 02:43:35 PM
I don't know i'm just an idiot.
That was all you needed to write.
Quote from: The Lamanite on June 26, 2007, 02:43:35 PM
In Japan:
The majority of the women are career driven.
They're having kids when they reach their 30's, or not at all.
As a result, there aren't enough people to take care of their elderly.
The poulation scale is tipped. More elderly than there are children.
What's wrong with this picture, I don't know i'm just an idiot.
Well, the same is happening in America as well. Though the aging population will have more to do with Baby Boomers retiring. And it's not realistic to expect a rising birthrate to catch up with that population. In Japan it may be the same thing, I'm not sure. Did they experience a Baby Boom after WWII?
Quote from: LHX on June 26, 2007, 01:32:47 PM
2 years of posting and suddenly i become a ignorant sexist idiot overnight
another sign of the times i guess
thanks family
here is another 3 scenarios:
1. i suck at communicating
2. a bunch of people need to go back and check their old Speak and Spells to brush up on their reading comprehension
3. it doesnt matter what got posted here - but the fact that 'gender' was even brought up was the equivalent of me putting the infra-red cross hairs on my own forehead (aka - you read whatever you want to read)
funny how yall got on Lamanite when he called everybody a racist for no apparent reason
now yall are doing the same thing in here
maybe there is a short-term memory plight going on
http://www.mind-mapping.co.uk/ (http://www.mind-mapping.co.uk/)
check out Tony Buzan's mind-mapping - maybe it can help
classic movie line of the moment:
JEFF GOLDBLUM: "I guess we both turned out to be shitty husbands. At least I have an excuse. I'm part gay."
BILL MURRAY: "Supposedly we all are."
- Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
I'm not calling you an ignorant sexist idiot. All I wanted was clarification. And I got it. Thank you.
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on June 26, 2007, 12:52:22 PM
Quote from: triple zero on June 26, 2007, 12:05:47 PM
Quote from: Payne on June 25, 2007, 04:28:40 PM
she went through an entire pregnancy and NOBODY noticed.
She didn't have the "great with child" look, though she did appear to be putting on weight. She was always emotionally unstable and she alwayshad weird eating habits.
I know, it sounds like something from a soap opera, but that's the way it happened dude.
this sort of scenario is seriously one of my worst nightmares evar.
i'd feel the ground crumbling away under my feet if i ever got news like that.
worse story even, sister of a friend of mine didn't even quit taking the pill (freak chance). didn't notice she stopped menstruating because of the pill. got a slightly bigger belly, and pain in her belly. got pregnancy tests, which turned out negative (due to the pill, and freak chance). doctor found out about halfway the pregnancy (or after the point were it's not okay to have an abortion anymore, i forgot), exploded into "great with child" only a few days after she acknowledged the pregnancy to herself and stopped taking the pill.
baby is -despite the pill- healthy as fuck, almost creepily healthy even.
(i probably got some of the facts wrong in this story, so don't get me on biological accuracy or anything)
oh and definitely not trying to trivialize your story here, Payne. i just had to think of it. the possibility still scares the fuck out of me (though i'm single now, so there's not much to worry about)
Not possible. Pregnancy tests check for a different hormone that has to do with the fetus (cant remember the name of it right now), and not with leves of estrogen or progesterone. Its one of those myths that people continue to think, but isn't true. I thought it was, until my physiology professor made a point of killing it for the whole class.
yah I heard that as well
but I always wonder what creates false negatives, even personally know someone who got a false possitive
is it just the test defected, or one of those mysteries of life?
Heads up, this is a long post, as I am trying to catch up with everything I missed. Sorry!
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on June 25, 2007, 11:56:46 PM
Darth Cupcake, would you be willing to yield to the statement, "Biology impacts personality.
But no where near as much as culture, nurture, and society."
?
Because thats where I sum it up. Even coming from where I am.
I will agree on this. Because I'm sure to a small extent it does.
What I don't like is when gender is used to lump people together in large groups instead of taking into account the individual. My gender has had an impact on who I am, just as my race and socio-economic class and nationality have. But these are pieces of a whole, and it is naive to think that "all women are the same" anymore that we'd say "all Americans are the same" or "all middle class white girls are the same." When we start discounting the individual in favor of labels, everyone loses.
Quote from: LMNO on June 26, 2007, 01:03:32 PM
I'm thinking LHX was trying to say the following:
(LHX - IF I'M PUTTING WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH, I APOLOGIZE)
"There are some social games that men play that are detrimental to self and family, which many call 'men's roles'.
"There are some social games that women play that are detrimental to self and family, which many call 'women's roles'.
"In a screwed up sense of 'fairness', some women are adopting the detrimental 'men's roles', and some men are adopting the detrimental 'women's roles'.
"But nowhere in this is the child considered a factor."
I think this is a good interpretation. I like it.
LHX, as I've covered, I don't think you're a sexist idiot. I think the initial post could've been written more clearly because it does sound almost like an attack on "women's lib" or whatever we want to call it. I do not think that was your goal, though.
Gender is a loaded issue. It's hard to talk about. Particularly with as diverse of a crowd as we have here. We've got all genders, I imagine we've got all sexualities, we've got a huge spread of ages, some parents, some future parents, some never-parents... I think this thread is doing pretty well at keeping it civil and bringing the rational debate. I hope it stays that way.
That said, motherhood is a knee-jerk issue. People think of mothers as the natural caretakers of children. Even in this allegedly more enlightened age, JUST TRY to get custody of a child in a divorce as a man. My dad tried to get custody of me when my parents got divorced and he arguably had a pretty good case for it. But my mum was the one who carried me in her womb so there was just no chance. There are lots of fathers out there who were more qualified than their ex-wives to raise the kid(s) but couldn't get custody on account of being a man. It is a knee-jerk reaction to think that mothers are the more "involved" parent.
I was shopping for a mother's day card for my mum back in April and I saw a cute card that on the front was all "My mother--she knows all my hopes and dreams, my crushes, my failures, my successes, etc etc etc." And on the inside said, "My father is vaguely aware of some short people living in his house." Maybe it was really silly for me to actually feel slightly angry about that, but I did. That's the kind of stupid gender/parenting assumptions that only forward these stereotypes. There's no good reason to keep promoting them.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on June 26, 2007, 02:40:09 PM
Anyway, I personally don't view X's threads or posts as sexist. It isn't a cut and dry issue and it involves many ingrained societal norms. If we can't discuss those sort of things here without people being labeled then where the hell is it going to be discussed. Or, do we just keep it in the broom closet?
Again, I agree. We have a lot of intelligent people on this board and if we can all keep our heads level I think some really good discussion can come out of this.
On the other hand, I think we also have some very non-normal people here, if you will. I certainly can't "speak for women" because I am, for starters, a far more radical feminist than most women, so a lot of them might be a bit peeved at my stance. I'm also coming from a fairly liberal view on sexuality, gender roles, what makes a good family, etc. I don't doubt that there are plenty of others on this board who are the same way--that we're here at all kind of indicates that we're not exactly mainstream, if you will. So my ideas of what the solutions of parenting dilemmas are most likely would not actually work in practical application.
That was a really complicated way of saying "take what I say with a grain of salt." :wink:
Quote from: The Lamanite on June 26, 2007, 02:43:35 PM
In Japan:
The majority of the women are career driven.
They're having kids when they reach their 30's, or not at all.
As a result, there aren't enough people to take care of their elderly.
The poulation scale is tipped. More elderly than there are children.
What's wrong with this picture, I don't know i'm just an idiot.
Honestly, I don't see anything wrong with this picture. I don't feel that we need to be consistently increasing our population at all times. It's okay to stabilize and/or decrease population size. I'm all for decreasing it, actually.
We should not have children simply because "we need more bricks to hold up the structure that already exists" or something like that. What is to say that the structure we have should not be allowed to crumble a bit?
Quote from: PopeTom on June 26, 2007, 04:37:57 AM
In only so far as I do not know the first thing about being a lesbian.
For one, is there a secret handshake?
Yes.
Everything else is classified. For dykey eyes only. Rawr!
Quote from: PopeTom on June 26, 2007, 04:37:57 AM
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on June 25, 2007, 06:37:16 PM
Quote from: LHX on June 25, 2007, 05:51:49 AM
men are becoming women
women are becoming men
...
There is a problem with this?
In only so far as I do not know the first thing about being a lesbian.
For one, is there a secret handshake?
i asked my lesbian friend...she says its more of a fistshake.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on June 26, 2007, 03:26:30 PM
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on June 26, 2007, 12:52:22 PM
Quote from: triple zero on June 26, 2007, 12:05:47 PM
Quote from: Payne on June 25, 2007, 04:28:40 PM
she went through an entire pregnancy and NOBODY noticed.
She didn't have the "great with child" look, though she did appear to be putting on weight. She was always emotionally unstable and she alwayshad weird eating habits.
I know, it sounds like something from a soap opera, but that's the way it happened dude.
this sort of scenario is seriously one of my worst nightmares evar.
i'd feel the ground crumbling away under my feet if i ever got news like that.
worse story even, sister of a friend of mine didn't even quit taking the pill (freak chance). didn't notice she stopped menstruating because of the pill. got a slightly bigger belly, and pain in her belly. got pregnancy tests, which turned out negative (due to the pill, and freak chance). doctor found out about halfway the pregnancy (or after the point were it's not okay to have an abortion anymore, i forgot), exploded into "great with child" only a few days after she acknowledged the pregnancy to herself and stopped taking the pill.
baby is -despite the pill- healthy as fuck, almost creepily healthy even.
(i probably got some of the facts wrong in this story, so don't get me on biological accuracy or anything)
oh and definitely not trying to trivialize your story here, Payne. i just had to think of it. the possibility still scares the fuck out of me (though i'm single now, so there's not much to worry about)
Not possible. Pregnancy tests check for a different hormone that has to do with the fetus (cant remember the name of it right now), and not with leves of estrogen or progesterone. Its one of those myths that people continue to think, but isn't true. I thought it was, until my physiology professor made a point of killing it for the whole class.
yah I heard that as well
but I always wonder what creates false negatives, even personally know someone who got a false possitive
is it just the test defected, or one of those mysteries of life?
False positives would be very rare, and yes, would be a faulty test. To be positive, the test has to detect the hormone, and theres no way it could be detected if its not present, so the test itself has to be screwy. A false negative would just be that the hormone wasn't picked up by the test, and would occur much more often than a false positive. Makes sense?
no it makes perfect sense
I remember at the time telling her it was probably cause the product was just junk, but I didn't really know enough how pregnancy tests actually work to give any real quality feedback
Quote from: Darth Cupcake on June 26, 2007, 03:29:05 PM
Heads up, this is a long post, as I am trying to catch up with everything I missed. Sorry!
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on June 25, 2007, 11:56:46 PM
Darth Cupcake, would you be willing to yield to the statement, "Biology impacts personality.
But no where near as much as culture, nurture, and society."
?
Because thats where I sum it up. Even coming from where I am.
I will agree on this. Because I'm sure to a small extent it does.
What I don't like is when gender is used to lump people together in large groups instead of taking into account the individual. My gender has had an impact on who I am, just as my race and socio-economic class and nationality have. But these are pieces of a whole, and it is naive to think that "all women are the same" anymore that we'd say "all Americans are the same" or "all middle class white girls are the same." When we start discounting the individual in favor of labels, everyone loses.
This is the correct motorcycle.
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on June 26, 2007, 05:42:18 PMQuote
Not possible. Pregnancy tests check for a different hormone that has to do with the fetus (cant remember the name of it right now), and not with leves of estrogen or progesterone. Its one of those myths that people continue to think, but isn't true. I thought it was, until my physiology professor made a point of killing it for the whole class.
(snip)
False positives would be very rare, and yes, would be a faulty test. To be positive, the test has to detect the hormone, and theres no way it could be detected if its not present, so the test itself has to be screwy. A false negative would just be that the hormone wasn't picked up by the test, and would occur much more often than a false positive. Makes sense?
okay then it was probably some freak chance occurance.
either way, the story is true, because my friend's an uncle now, and they didn't find out about the pregnancy before it was too late.
and that possibility really freaks me out.
i need to sort out a LOT of shit before i think i'm ready to be a father.
Quote from: triple zero on June 26, 2007, 06:05:25 PM
either way, the story is true, because my friend's an uncle now, and they didn't find out about the pregnancy before it was too late.
and that possibility really freaks me out.
i need to sort out a LOT of shit before i think i'm ready to be a father.
Yeah, you are on the list of people that that possibility is really seriously freaky to.
-DC
Uses the most hardcore birth control ever, plus rubbers, but there's always that margin of potential failure... :eek:
Quote from: triple zero on June 26, 2007, 06:05:25 PM
i need to sort out a LOT of shit before i think i'm ready to be a father.
let alone facing your own mortality.
bt, still workin on that one :|
Quote from: Darth Cupcake on June 26, 2007, 06:17:35 PM
Uses the most hardcore birth control ever, plus rubbers, but there's always that margin of potential failure... :eek:
Please note that the most hardcore form of birth control is a hysterectomy.
That is all.
Quote from: LMNO on June 26, 2007, 06:55:24 PM
Quote from: Darth Cupcake on June 26, 2007, 06:17:35 PM
Uses the most hardcore birth control ever, plus rubbers, but there's always that margin of potential failure... :eek:
Please note that the most hardcore form of birth control is a hysterectomy.
That is all.
Trust me, I would if I could.
Instead I have a device INSIDE my uterus. It is pretty insane. But good until 2011!
-DC
Babyfree till 2011 hopefully!
Quote from: Darth Cupcake on June 26, 2007, 06:17:35 PM
Yeah, you are on the list of people that that possibility is really seriously freaky to.
what do you mean with that? i don't quite understand it.
Quote from: triple zero on June 26, 2007, 07:28:38 PM
Quote from: Darth Cupcake on June 26, 2007, 06:17:35 PM
Yeah, you are on the list of people that that possibility is really seriously freaky to.
what do you mean with that? i don't quite understand it.
Sorry. That was a really poorly worded sentence.
What I meant is "I feel the same way!" There is a list of people who are scared of the possibility of the stealth pregnancy. You are on it, and so am I.
Sorry. Me talk good. :oops:
ah ok, i thought it was something like that, but it kinda sounded like "yea it would freak me out as well if you were to reproduce" ;-) so i was making sure :)
Quote from: Darth Cupcake on June 26, 2007, 07:00:17 PM
Quote from: LMNO on June 26, 2007, 06:55:24 PM
Quote from: Darth Cupcake on June 26, 2007, 06:17:35 PM
Uses the most hardcore birth control ever, plus rubbers, but there's always that margin of potential failure... :eek:
Please note that the most hardcore form of birth control is a hysterectomy.
That is all.
Trust me, I would if I could.
Instead I have a device INSIDE my uterus. It is pretty insane. But good until 2011!
-DC
Babyfree till 2011 hopefully!
By device you mean 'sperm hunting robot' I hope.
Quote from: PopeTom on June 26, 2007, 09:16:29 PM
Quote from: Darth Cupcake on June 26, 2007, 07:00:17 PM
Quote from: LMNO on June 26, 2007, 06:55:24 PM
Quote from: Darth Cupcake on June 26, 2007, 06:17:35 PM
Uses the most hardcore birth control ever, plus rubbers, but there's always that margin of potential failure... :eek:
Please note that the most hardcore form of birth control is a hysterectomy.
That is all.
Trust me, I would if I could.
Instead I have a device INSIDE my uterus. It is pretty insane. But good until 2011!
-DC
Babyfree till 2011 hopefully!
By device you mean 'sperm hunting robot' I hope.
That is in fact exactly what I meant.
It has lasers!
AWESOME!
like this (http://img160.imageshack.us/img160/7693/giantrobotvaginalaserthrm6.jpg)? (NSFW, but not gross)
More or less, yes. :lulz:
I think I've perfected the delivery mechanism for such a device. However, it is only compatible with the WHN Adult Female model.
giant robot vagina lasers?
Quote from: Darth Cupcake on June 26, 2007, 09:34:59 PM
Quote from: PopeTom on June 26, 2007, 09:16:29 PM
By device you mean 'sperm hunting robot' I hope.
That is in fact exactly what I meant.
It has lasers!
Sweet, so I imagine sexing you up is like watching Star Wars for the very first time then? ;)
Quote from: PopeTom on June 26, 2007, 11:09:04 PM
Quote from: Darth Cupcake on June 26, 2007, 09:34:59 PM
Quote from: PopeTom on June 26, 2007, 09:16:29 PM
By device you mean 'sperm hunting robot' I hope.
That is in fact exactly what I meant.
It has lasers!
Sweet, so I imagine sexing you up is like watching Star Wars for the very first time then? ;)
Pretty much. There's drama, there's lasers, there's splosions, there is
edge of your fucking seat excitement!
There is also a $10.25 admission charge, and refreshments are horrifically overpriced. :lol:
Quote from: Darth Cupcake on June 27, 2007, 04:59:04 AM
Quote from: PopeTom on June 26, 2007, 11:09:04 PM
Quote from: Darth Cupcake on June 26, 2007, 09:34:59 PM
Quote from: PopeTom on June 26, 2007, 09:16:29 PM
By device you mean 'sperm hunting robot' I hope.
That is in fact exactly what I meant.
It has lasers!
Sweet, so I imagine sexing you up is like watching Star Wars for the very first time then? ;)
Pretty much. There's drama, there's lasers, there's splosions, there is edge of your fucking seat excitement!
There is also a $10.25 admission charge, and refreshments are horrifically overpriced. :lol:
Is it only $6.50 if you start before 6pm and/or all day Sunday?
Quote from: PopeTom on June 27, 2007, 05:32:23 AM
Quote from: Darth Cupcake on June 27, 2007, 04:59:04 AM
Quote from: PopeTom on June 26, 2007, 11:09:04 PM
Quote from: Darth Cupcake on June 26, 2007, 09:34:59 PM
Quote from: PopeTom on June 26, 2007, 09:16:29 PM
By device you mean 'sperm hunting robot' I hope.
That is in fact exactly what I meant.
It has lasers!
Sweet, so I imagine sexing you up is like watching Star Wars for the very first time then? ;)
Pretty much. There's drama, there's lasers, there's splosions, there is edge of your fucking seat excitement!
There is also a $10.25 admission charge, and refreshments are horrifically overpriced. :lol:
Is it only $6.50 if you start before 6pm and/or all day Sunday?
You mean a matinee?
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on June 27, 2007, 12:46:59 PM
Quote from: PopeTom on June 27, 2007, 05:32:23 AM
Quote from: Darth Cupcake on June 27, 2007, 04:59:04 AM
Quote from: PopeTom on June 26, 2007, 11:09:04 PM
Quote from: Darth Cupcake on June 26, 2007, 09:34:59 PM
Quote from: PopeTom on June 26, 2007, 09:16:29 PM
By device you mean 'sperm hunting robot' I hope.
That is in fact exactly what I meant.
It has lasers!
Sweet, so I imagine sexing you up is like watching Star Wars for the very first time then? ;)
Pretty much. There's drama, there's lasers, there's splosions, there is edge of your fucking seat excitement!
There is also a $10.25 admission charge, and refreshments are horrifically overpriced. :lol:
Is it only $6.50 if you start before 6pm and/or all day Sunday?
You mean a matinee?
I definitely misread that as "You mean a manatee?" and I was all, "wtf does this have to do with anything? But okay, my vagina could conceivably be a funny-looking and endangered species..."
Dear LHX -
I am sorry for stabbing your fread to stabbity stab jack-death. :oops:
xoxo,
-DC
Quote from: Darth Cupcake on June 27, 2007, 02:18:43 PM
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on June 27, 2007, 12:46:59 PM
Quote from: PopeTom on June 27, 2007, 05:32:23 AM
Quote from: Darth Cupcake on June 27, 2007, 04:59:04 AM
Quote from: PopeTom on June 26, 2007, 11:09:04 PM
Quote from: Darth Cupcake on June 26, 2007, 09:34:59 PM
Quote from: PopeTom on June 26, 2007, 09:16:29 PM
By device you mean 'sperm hunting robot' I hope.
That is in fact exactly what I meant.
It has lasers!
Sweet, so I imagine sexing you up is like watching Star Wars for the very first time then? ;)
Pretty much. There's drama, there's lasers, there's splosions, there is edge of your fucking seat excitement!
There is also a $10.25 admission charge, and refreshments are horrifically overpriced. :lol:
Is it only $6.50 if you start before 6pm and/or all day Sunday?
You mean a matinee?
I definitely misread that as "You mean a manatee?" and I was all, "wtf does this have to do with anything? But okay, my vagina could conceivably be a funny-looking and endangered species..."
:lulz: