Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
CA renter
Participant[quote=Blogstar][quote=CA renter][quote=Blogstar]O.k. Good argument on the family staying together. Well put together.
I agree about the appearance of dog piling but CaRentter is debating pretty badly too. Has yet to admit where she has been wrong anywhere. And she has been plenty, maybe you could call it hyperbole but she is completely sincere in her claims that sociology proves men are worse than women and that other crap. Two wrongs don’t make a right. I know.[/quote]
Please clearly point out where I am wrong. Please explain — very clearly, and without utter nonsense like “you’re being whiny,” which proves nothing — which points I am missing. And please do not do what UCGal did, where she claimed that I said something that was neither stated nor implied.
As for the notion that “men are worse than women,” I’ve never said that; what I have said is that men have oppressed women throughout history…which is why, IMHO, “women’s work” doesn’t carry the same status as “men’s work,” and why people insist (even to this day!) that it has little/no value, either monetary value, or value to their families or society. If you have some evidence to share with us that shows otherwise, I’d love to see it.[/quote]
I have showed you how male privilege and power isn’t, I have shown you how what you call abandonment is expulsion. All your errors of perception and wrong conclusions are where your “oppression” comes from. Men and women built culture together with the animal differences we have. We either grow together or we don’t grow together, but holistically speaking there is no catching up to do.
You lie about what you want to see. That gets old.[/quote]
1. Where? Please show us how men have not owned and oppressed women throughout history. Please explain how the division of labor and gender roles that are based on a patriarchal system of values don’t affect the way we value a person’s contributions to society.
2. As for that expulsion thing…I had mentioned that my DH and his mother were abandoned (he left when she was pregnant). By coincidence, I happened to know my DH’s biological father, and since my MIL was such a b-word to me in the beginning of our marriage, I thought it would be helpful to inquire about the “real” reason for the abandonment. Surely, it must have been my MIL who didn’t want to “share” her son with the father, right? Guess what? He couldn’t even come up with any reason, whatsoever. He essentially said, “I honestly can’t think of anything that [my MIL] did to cause me to leave.” Just one anecdote, but this was a college professor, not some bum off the street. I think you give the SOBs who abandon their families too much credit.
3. Please show me an example of my “errors of perception” and “wrong conclusions.” BACK IT UP with some kind of evidence. It can be historical, logical, statistical, etc. Just bring SOMETHING to the table here other than personal attacks and childish antics.
4. Women have had almost no say in defining our culture. The only way a woman could have any influence, historically, was if she had the ear of a more powerful man. Our laws, religions, social norms, etc. were all created by men for men. Even the way our economy works was/is designed in a way that favors men over women, as “men’s work” can be monetized, but “women’s work” cannot, at least not in a politically correct way, as seen in this thread. For much of human history, almost all caretaking was done by women, and they were expected to do it for “free,” out of the kindness of their hearts — nurses, teachers, mothers…have all been expected to do their work for non-monetary remuneration (you know, the joy of caring for others), and even after we finally managed to pay them for their work, they are paid relatively little when compared to males in positions that have similar educational requirements and responsibility levels. And is there any job dominated by men where the workers are as maligned and picked apart, personally, as teachers are?
5. Where have I lied? Quote me telling a single lie.
Participant[quote=UCGal][quote=CA renter]The feminists are trying to paint a picture of SAHPs as parasites who deserve nothing in return for their services. They are actively undermining the protections for SAHPs that many have worked so hard for over the years. [/quote]
Examples please.
Show that there is a feminist agenda to paint a picture of SAHPs as parasites. I’ve seen the exact opposite from groups I consider feminist. (Women’s professional societies, NOW, Ms Magazine, etc.)And you still don’t get my point that working parents are still contributing to the household in a non-financially compensated way during non-work hours – you don’t get to claim the 24/7 hours for SAHP and not allow working parents to claim the off-hours as well. This refusal to see this point is incredibly frustrating.
Here- maybe this will make you feel better.
CAR – you are a wonderful parent, wife, homemaker, and you are worth billions of dollars to your family!!!! Far more than any other mother anywhere.[/quote]It’s frustrating because I’ve posted **multiple times** that this work has the SAME value, whether it’s done by a SAHP, a wage-earning parent, or a third party (all else being equal).
I’m honestly bewildered about your posts. I have NEVER said that the contributions of wage earners, SAHPs, or some combination of both were in any way less valuable than another’s. And that’s really my point; the work of a SAHP is no less valuable than the work of a wage-earner. We’re apparently talking past each other for some reason.
And if you can’t see where BG has been trying to paint SAHPs as parasites, then I can’t help you. It’s all over this thread, as well as many others.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]Then why not just go back tot he old religious laws? Forbid divorce.
Women were protected in that only the first wife’s kids were legitimate and could inherit the dad’s estate.
Parents and matchmakers would make sure the marriage was suitable.[/quote]
At the very least, we should eliminate “no-fault” divorce laws. If both spouses want the divorce for some rather benign reason (“outgrew” each other, paths diverged, or something like that), then they should come up with some kind of agreement to present to a divorce court, and that divorce should be facilitated in a fairly quick and painless way.
By eliminating “no-fault” divorce, we would give the “victim” spouse (of adultery, abuse, or addiction) more power in the divorce. It would favor the spouse who was more willing to make the marriage work, in most cases, and that would probably result in a somewhat lower divorce rate.
I’ve posted some info before on other threads, but most people who work through rough patches instead of getting divorced end up happier than their divorced counterparts many years down the road. I think a lot of people get divorced for reasons that can be overcome. Society is better in almost every way when marriages remain intact and children are reared by both of their biological/adoptive parents.
Participant[quote=Blogstar]O.k. Good argument on the family staying together. Well put together.
I agree about the appearance of dog piling but CaRentter is debating pretty badly too. Has yet to admit where she has been wrong anywhere. And she has been plenty, maybe you could call it hyperbole but she is completely sincere in her claims that sociology proves men are worse than women and that other crap. Two wrongs don’t make a right. I know.[/quote]
Please clearly point out where I am wrong. Please explain — very clearly, and without utter nonsense like “you’re being whiny,” which proves nothing — which points I am missing. And please do not do what UCGal did, where she claimed that I said something that was neither stated nor implied.
As for the notion that “men are worse than women,” I’ve never said that; what I have said is that men have oppressed women throughout history…which is why, IMHO, “women’s work” doesn’t carry the same status as “men’s work,” and why people insist (even to this day!) that it has little/no value, either monetary value, or value to their families or society. If you have some evidence to share with us that shows otherwise, I’d love to see it.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]Interesting. The French family I au paired for was divorced. He lived on the top floor madame and daughter on 2nd floor me in the basement.
I remember going out for drinks with him and some girl I’d met and him hitting really desperately on the girl. I was freaked out cause I didn’t realize they weren’t together at that time!
Vive LA france!
The parents liked me but the girl didnt. She was a focused achiever and I was practically a hobo.[/quote]
IMHO, the ideal situation would be a duplex where the kids and mom or dad would live on one side, and the other parent on the other side. The kids should have full freedom to go back and forth as they like. Of course, this might lead to problems where the kids gravitate to a more lenient parent who lets them drink soda and eat chips for dinner in front of the TV, and where homework and other chores are optional. Of course, these problems still exist for divorced couples, and the anger and resentment are still there, but I think that this would still be best for the kids.
—————–
Correction to my previous post…I meant “estate planning,” not “family planning.”
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=Blogstar]My youngest blogstar jr. Is going to be 8 in dec.
My kids do not need a two parent household let alone a sahp. It has nothing to do with them. They get zero benefit out of my wife and I sharing a bedroom and little out of us sharing the rest of the house day after day.What they need,
More and better mentoring. More quality time with peers and to continue to know both biological untts are crazy about them and will always be there.
What they need from their mom and I they could get with us living in separate households if we didn’t break up in a melodramatic fool fashion and play stupid hate games and victim games for years on end.That’s not to say I am anti-family but at this point where reasonableness and respect would be involved anyway , it’s not that important.[/quote]
You are 100% wrong. EVERY study shows that children suffer when their parents split up, with the possible exception of very abusive households or where severe addictions are involved.
When parents split up, the “family pie” is split up. A child’s physical and financial security is almost always made more vulnerable, and they will often shift to a lower SES as a result. They would also have to deal with having mom and dad show up at “joint” birthday parties, holiday events, school plays, etc. with their new mates/spouses, and while I think there are **a very few** parents who can make this work (we know some families where the ex and new wives and/or husbands hang out together, along with all of the various in-laws), the kids will always feel a bit awkward, especially if one of the parents doesn’t have a mate while the other one does.
And then, there’s the issue of family planning, where the children will almost always have a worse outcome if the parents remarry after divorce, not to mention if they have more kids.
Again, you really need to do some research instead of pulling your opinions out of your behind.[/quote]
Adding to this (and there is SO much more!), as parents age, children will possibly have to care for two parents in different places if the parent’s haven’t remarried people who will nurse them through their illnesses and into old age. When parents stay married, they usually manage to take care of one another, which greatly reduces the burden on adult children who might be dealing with children of their own.
And then you have to deal with the nomadic children if parents have joint physical custody. As a teacher, it was significant to me to hear EVERY child of divorce refer to their residences as “my mom’s house” or “my dad’s house.” They never called it their own home. This was before I was married with children, so there was no bias there. It really stuck with me.
If nomadic living were so great, and if parents REALLY cared about the children’s best interests, then they would suck it up and agree to Birdnesting Custody where the parents live nomadic lives and the children stay in the same place. Needless to say, most parents don’t go for this, and of those who do, it usually doesn’t last long. Funny how most divorced parents think nothing of creating chaos in their children’s lives so that they can have the more ordered and satisfactory lives for themselves.
http://divorcedmoms.com/articles/birdnesting-custody-hooray-for-alternative-custody-arrangements
ParticipantJust saw your post, scaredy. Thank you. 🙂
And I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind, either. Just trying to get them to see things from a perspective that they might not even know exists. I know I’m not alone in my beliefs, as most SAHPs would agree to a large extent with what I’m saying here. We’re just not allowed to say it because it would be totally politically incorrect. We’re supposed to pretend that we love giving up everything else in our lives — everything that defined us prior to marriage and kids — and be absolutely joyful about serving others. So happy and joyful and grateful to serve others (for room and board — a shared room, but a space to sleep, nonetheless) that we would never even dream of claiming that this work would have any value, either financially (within or outside of our own families), or to society.
This thread is proof that we, as women, have a LONG way to go before there is ever any kind of REAL equality (not just “equality” based on how well we do “men’s work”).
Participant[quote=Blogstar]My youngest blogstar jr. Is going to be 8 in dec.
My kids do not need a two parent household let alone a sahp. It has nothing to do with them. They get zero benefit out of my wife and I sharing a bedroom and little out of us sharing the rest of the house day after day.What they need,
More and better mentoring. More quality time with peers and to continue to know both biological untts are crazy about them and will always be there.
What they need from their mom and I they could get with us living in separate households if we didn’t break up in a melodramatic fool fashion and play stupid hate games and victim games for years on end.That’s not to say I am anti-family but at this point where reasonableness and respect would be involved anyway , it’s not that important.[/quote]
You are 100% wrong. EVERY study shows that children suffer when their parents split up, with the possible exception of very abusive households or where severe addictions are involved.
When parents split up, the “family pie” is split up. A child’s physical and financial security is almost always made more vulnerable, and they will often shift to a lower SES as a result. They would also have to deal with having mom and dad show up at “joint” birthday parties, holiday events, school plays, etc. with their new mates/spouses, and while I think there are **a very few** parents who can make this work (we know some families where the ex and new wives and/or husbands hang out together, along with all of the various in-laws), the kids will always feel a bit awkward, especially if one of the parents doesn’t have a mate while the other one does.
And then, there’s the issue of family planning, where the children will almost always have a worse outcome if the parents remarry after divorce, not to mention if they have more kids.
Again, you really need to do some research instead of pulling your opinions out of your behind.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=UCGal][quote=CA renter]The feminists are trying to paint a picture of SAHPs as parasites who deserve nothing in return for their services. They are actively undermining the protections for SAHPs that many have worked so hard for over the years. [/quote]
Examples please.
Show that there is a feminist agenda to paint a picture of SAHPs as parasites. I’ve seen the exact opposite from groups I consider feminist. (Women’s professional societies, NOW, Ms Magazine, etc.)And you still don’t get my point that working parents are still contributing to the household in a non-financially compensated way during non-work hours – you don’t get to claim the 24/7 hours for SAHP and not allow working parents to claim the off-hours as well. This refusal to see this point is incredibly frustrating.
Here- maybe this will make you feel better.
CAR – you are a wonderful parent, wife, homemaker, and you are worth billions of dollars to your family!!!! Far more than any other mother anywhere.[/quote]i never thought of my family or wife as parasites. but now that you mention it, how much would a single mom have to pay a dude for a room, board and general backup care for a kid. that could be easily valued as well…it’s offensive to think that way, because it seems to point out that there is no family unit. but parcelling out services does that too, though to a far lesser degree…[/quote]
This is EXACTLY what people are saying when they say “you are so lucky that your spouse let’s you stay home all day and not work.” I kid you not, I’ve heard that more times than I can count.
You’re not getting it because you’re sitting on the other side of the fence, but I can assure you that many/most people who’ve not done the work of a SAHP believe that the SAHP is getting a “free ride.”
Participant[quote=flyer]Good observations, FIH, and CAR, I agree connections rule.
This, as my wife reminds me that Romance novels are now the #1 genre in the world, with billions in sales.
Interesting dichotomies to be sure.[/quote]
Interesting about romance novels. Other than Gone With the Wind, I’ve never read them. Does your wife happen to know if this trend been changing over time?
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]CAr, you can’t have traditional housewife-husband relationships and more power for women.
If you demand power, men can just throw it back at you and demand to be house-husbands. That’s what the younger generations are thinking.
Workers are also wondering why parents get more slack at work than non-parents. Just not fair.
Society is changing.. now there’s have porn galore on the Net in 3D. Soon we’ll have virtual sex I’m sure.
Women desire the traditional family more. Men care a lot less about it and/or can delay it longer. I don’t think that women have a lot of bargaining power, unless they band together and form a union to restrict to supply of willing woman.
It’s just a question of supply and demand.[/quote]
I’ve never advocated for only allowing women to be SAHPs. We’ve know a few couples where the dad was the primary caretaker/SAHP and we even know some homeschooling families where the dads are the SAH/teachers. I think it’s awesome.
There are many, many women out there would want no part of being a SAHP, and there are some incredibly nurturing dads who would love nothing more than to stay home with the kids. There are families where the woman earns more than the man, so it totally makes sense, all else being equal, for her to continue working while he stays home.
But there is the reality of biology, too. Men don’t get pregnant, don’t have to go on bedrest if there are complications, don’t nurse (while UCGal was able to successfully pull off breastfeeding while working, most of the working women I know stopped BFing because it was just too much work/inconvenience), etc. Men aren’t as hormonally/physically/emotionally attached to their offspring as women are, in general. It’s just different.
As for parents being treated differently at work, I also agree. While working in the corporate world, I really resented having to do other people’s work because they had to leave at 4:45 p.m. to pick up their kids, or when they would often leave early for dr’s appointments, plays, etc. And some of these people were men, including those other managers who were making *more* than I was “because they had families to support.” And then there’s the issue of medical insurance, etc. No, it’s not fair, but I’m not sure there’s much we can do about it.
Participant[quote=Blogstar][quote=CA renter][quote=Blogstar]I am impressed watching how fast the shine fades from people. Most my kids parents are younger, so I was meeting them and seeing them taking kids to kindergarten when they were 30-35ish. They looked so great.
7 years has knocked quite a bit off. Not saying people turned ugly like Dorian Grey. A lot of people are holding it together , but peaking in poise and beauty at 30 and showing signs of having been on the downward slide for several years at 40 is scary.It does happen faster with poor people in general but these aren’t poor people and it’s getting them.
Some pretty drastic cases even when there is no weight gain.[/quote]
Hormones are the downfall of men as well . For blue collar working men it can shorten their ability to make a living. I think that should wipe out any stay at
Nothing kills beauty like changing hormones. Yes, it can affect women in their late 30s and early 40s. Lucky us. :([/quote]Hormones are the downfall of men as well. For blue collar working men it can shorten their ability to make a living. If they have a sahm wife she should pay him for that.[/quote]
She does pay him for that…by being a SAH wife and taking care of everything in the home.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]CAr, like I said before women have the power they can use if they wish.
But you will never enlighten men to come around to your point of view.
Just think of it as a trade in the free market.
Men have manhood and virility. Women have reproduction and eggs. The reality now in the power dynamics now is that women want men more (they want to marry men and they want their company more). Flip it around and women will have the power.Maybe it’s different in your household, but generally speaking, a women can’t simply want to marry a man and have kids with him and then want him to get enlightened. Make him beg for it and he’ll give the woman what she wants. She could wait a long time… But, in the mean time, she could form a union and get all the women together and, in the long run, it could work.
Society has changed. The laws have changed. Men can’t force women anymore.[/quote]
I fully concur with what you are saying regarding the potential power that women have, and are often totally unaware of, and have mentioned before that we might start to move more in that direction as a society. Europe has been traveling down that path ahead of us.
It’s the same reason that I’ve brought up naming rights in other threads; why in the world do we continue with the patriarchal traditions of naming children after men if those men aren’t any more powerful or important than women? If marriage confers no real benefit to women (or men), then why even go there? We can all just buy sperm or contract with surrogates to make our own children; totally unencumbered by the wants, needs, or desires of another person who isn’t obligated, and/or doesn’t desire, to do anything for us?
Some feminists, possibly even BG, would argue that this IS the direction we should take, as it would pretty much eliminate the need for men at all. But is that what we really want for society? Is that really going to put us — all of us — in a better position than we’re in now? I just don’t think so.
Participant[quote=flyer]If either men or women have been “success objects” in prior generations, from what I’m reading, that might not hold for future generations by virtue of pure economics.
Since such a huge percentage of young people are so far “behind the curve” financially, with regard to establishing themselves in careers, buying their own homes, etc., etc.–perhaps we’ll find that, for the majority of the population going forward, the concept of choosing someone because of what they can provide you with in life may simply disappear because that option no longer exists.[/quote]
IMHO, it will become even more important, as more and more people realize that connections (including connections to wealthy spouses) matter more than hard work.
-
AuthorPosts
