Motherhood

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.

i dont even know what a Pat Robertson is

How is that possible?

or a Pathouli

"Patchouli".  Hippie perfume.

neglect sounds like it could be indirect exploitation

HUH? 

1.  Have child.
2.  Neglect child.
3.  ?
4.  Profit!

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.

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.

[LHX]

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

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.

[LHX]

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

[P3nT4gR4m]

And there is no coming apocalypse or armageddon; it's ongoing.

Shhhhh! You're gonna spoil the joke 

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.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

And there is no coming apocalypse or armageddon; it's ongoing.

Shhhhh! You're gonna spoil the joke 

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.

[Chairman Risus]

Don't let your guard down.

[AFK]

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.

[Darth Cupcake]

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.

[LHX]

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

[AFK]

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. 

[Darth Cupcake]

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!

[Darth Cupcake]

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.

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.

[Payne]

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.

[AFK]

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.