“When it comes to parenting, mothers are God. They created you”
Really? I thought God did, my mistake. Anyway, that is the take of an author in this MSNBC article entitled, "‘Momblocked’ mothers feel edged out by dads" (Thanks to reader David who sent me the link):
The article points out that many women feel upset now that they are working on careers and their husbands are getting more confident with caring for the kids, and the kids (gasp!) sometimes prefer dad. And other horrible problems are occurring--Dads are not being as PC as some moms would like:
A girl who wrestles--what is the world coming to? Maybe it's time to stop telling moms that they are "God" to their children and are just human beings like everyone else--including Dad. Just remember the wise words of Kahlil Gibran:
Update: This thread is closed--thanks to all who participated.
Moms who feel edged out should take heart, says Philip Lerman, author of Dadditude: How a Real Man Became a Real Dad.
“When it comes to parenting, mothers are God. They created you,” Lerman says. “You don’t go to God and say, ‘What have you done for me lately?’ Mothers have this incredible, undeniable bond with the child. Fathers are always just trying to catch up.”
The article points out that many women feel upset now that they are working on careers and their husbands are getting more confident with caring for the kids, and the kids (gasp!) sometimes prefer dad. And other horrible problems are occurring--Dads are not being as PC as some moms would like:
Besides momblocking, McClure-Metz says her family also has had to come to terms with different parenting styles when Dad is in charge in their Los Angeles home.
“What I’ve noticed with my husband and other stay-at-home dads is that they like to fly by the seat of their pants,” she says. “Consulting a book to them seems like asking for directions. Consequently, they use some interesting, un-PC parenting tactics. I’ve caught my husband saying things like, ‘If you don’t put that back you’ll never have another cookie in your life,’ or, ‘Do you want a birthday party? Because if you don’t stop doing that, I’m going to cancel your birthday party.’”
She also found herself wondering about the more aggressive activities her husband seems to promote. Take the wrestling moves.
“My husband likes to pretend to pile drive our daughter. He acts like he’s going to go right on her but he goes to the side and they think it’s the funniest thing in the world,” McClure-Metz says. “Our daughter now loves to wrestle. I never counted on that.”
A girl who wrestles--what is the world coming to? Maybe it's time to stop telling moms that they are "God" to their children and are just human beings like everyone else--including Dad. Just remember the wise words of Kahlil Gibran:
Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you, yet they belong not to you.
Update: This thread is closed--thanks to all who participated.
posted by Helen at 2:48 PM
293 Comments:
This seems to be the logical result of women claiming that men weren't necessary in the lives of children--child support payments alone were fine. Now, they are shocked (shocked!) to find out that Dad's want interaction with their children as well.
I love that my husband plays and parents our child. I wouldn't have it any other way.
And if Moms truly were god, then why wouldn't we have created babies that come out already potty trained?
These women want it all, the benefits of working, and the benefits of children and yet they complain when men take care of the kids maybe even better than the woman can.
Pile-driving! My kids love it when their dad does that!
But none of that article surprises me. I know lots of women who'd rather leave their kids with strangers while they work rather than with their own dads because they're afraid of having their motherhood role marginalized.
But mothers are God? They create their children? WTF? I never felt less godlike or less powerful in my life than when I was pregnant. Those babies created themselves inside me, taking whatever they needed as they grew. I felt like I had squat all to do with it.
And as for that incredible bond, one of our kids has a stronger bond with me, the other has a stronger bond with her father. That seems to be a more common scenario from what I've seen.
Your children are not your children.
It's a cute sentiment, but it's really more "mamma"-ish than anything a Dad might endorse.
Hell yeah those are your children. Like it or not.
And when they're making a scene in the grocery line where we're all trapped, please acknowledge that they're your children and not some random blessing to the community.
I think kids get away with a lot less excuse making from Dad's, than from well meaning Mom's like helen, who are so quick to find a reason boys are always being picked on.
Time and place for everything. Respect the place and the people around you, and you're more likely to find freedom when you get the chance to be responsibly set free...
There appear to be 2 schools of motherly thought on this line:
One is the "momblocked" egoists of the linked article who have bought the Hear Me Roar crapola, or from a different (?) culture, the sorts of borderline ancestor/goddess worship that comes from too many pulpits on Mother's Day. They are confused and threatened by anything that suggests they are not, in fact, deity.
The other is that of our hostess and the other moms on this comment list, who understand that there are, thankfully, other forces in the universe to help out with things (dads, for example), and that they are not the ultimate arbiter of what is best or right. In short, moms who are joyfully human. Therein lies both wisdom and peace.
I never understood that whole 'mother is a better parent because she is mother' thing. I'm well into my 40's now and this is still as much a load of crap as it ever was. Seriously, especially if you're male, what did you ever learn from your mother? Or any woman for that matter? What, how to be a bitch?
Motherhood, like housework, is horribly, obscenely overrated- why? Because it's just another way for women to excuse their laziness and lack of interest in anything other than gossip and trash TV.
Women will say, "well, lucky for you that your mother decided to give you life." And I always reply, "when I was born, my mother would have gone to prison for murder if she had tried to abort me, and if you abort your baby, you'll be going to Hell."
This is why women are so extremely adament about abortion- the real issue is about POWER- it's sick.
I raised a boy and a girl and they are both adults now, and I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that fathers are typically FAR better parents than women when the mother doesn't legally force the father out of the home.
Always remember women, you were BORN with your reproductive system and had NO choice in that, and just because you have that reproductive system does not somehow make the bizarre leap into somehow making you an expert on children.
Example A: Having a penis does not make me a urologist!
Could you imagine a man going around saying, "I have a penis- I can impregnate women.. I am a GOD!" Any woman who regards herself as a 'god' needs 30 days in the State Hospital.
"Gift from God" I think is the more usual line... :^D
But seriously, O Anonymous One, you are rather unfair. I learned a gigantic number of things from my mother, and continue to do so. Some things were entirely practical (how to launder so that new clothes don't bleed dye and older ones stay new-looking; the joys of the kitchen; how to write a check) and others were of the sort of topic that gives meaning to life (the many, many facets of music; protecting my heart; the value of kindness). Many of the things were also taught me by my father, yet with a different style and view. I would neither part with nor denigrate either in the slightest.
That you are obviously envenomed by some egregious wrong does not change that, nor excuse disgusting overstatement. Get an identification (say, a screen name) and a grip, and re-enter the discussion.
anonymous 4:02:
I think you misinterpret Gibran's poem--if you follow the link and read the whole thing, you will see that parental stability (I assume that includes discipline) is part of the equation.
Momblocked women appear to be of the "I want my cake, and to eat it too" school. If you want your kids to bond with you, you have to spend time with them. Thats why I tell my wife that diaper changing is baby bonding time.
And yes, Dads are typically less tolerant, but not only of the kids, but of inappropriate interference from other adults. I didn't growl at the woman in Wal-mart last week, but she very probably heard it anyways, and she backed off on her 'nannyism' very quickly, and got away from me and my tykes.
Unfortunately, I think I spend more time worrying about protecting my children from well-meaning (or so they claim) idiots than from actual pschyos.
Of course, there was that very nice older couple in McD's who were genuinely very nice to my children so not every person that says hi to your kids, or boo to you needs to be dealt with, but I tend to assume its so until I have other evidence.
Tennwriter
Good damned thing my daughter and I wrestled when she was a kid, and wrestled rough! Later in life she kicked the ass of some bastard who thought he had the right to backhand her.
Don't know what's with American women thinking being capable in a fight is somehow unfeminine. Just look at the delicate little flowers performing high quality Kung Fu. Small, petite, feminine as all hell and capable.
"That you are obviously envenomed by some egregious wrong does not change that, nor excuse disgusting overstatement."
Well, thanks for the 25 cent psychoanalysis, but I'm not in need, but someone like yourself who has to turn a public discussion into a private and personal one, does need some therapy.
"Get an identification (say, a screen name) and a grip, and re-enter the discussion."
Slow down there, Jethro- when you learn how to stop making the leap from the topic of motherhood to me, then you can consider 'advising' me. Until then you have a long, long way to go.
Thank you for the quote - that was lovely. I'm 9 months pregnant and that really resonated with me.
anon 4:57...
I think the both of you'se are moving to the extremes of the argument, and that doesn't help much to push it forward... Motherhood and housework, are obscenely over-rated? Bitter, much? Just because you may have been on the losing end of the equation {I know I was} did the divorce give you the right to assume ALL women are like that? I bet I can find a boatload of women who have been put over a barrel by some guy. The specific doesn't always represent the general.
You may have done a fine job raising your kids, and I know single moms that do. I also know couples who are completely dysfunctional. That doesn't mean everyone is like that.
The whole point of the excercise is to see the partneship in this, even in divorce, and make it work. The bottom line is that it IS about the kids, and not so much the individual egos of the parents. Saying women are worthless, just puts their back up, and paints you as the jerk, do you want to be that? That's just going to the opposite extreme.
Each parent has their own thing to bring to the table, and even if your ex thinks you bring nothing [mine thinks that] It's not in your kids or your best interest to prove that you are a bit out there. Concentrate on the kids, and deal with her from a position of guarded strength, not extremism. Otherwise you just prove her right, and that is what we are trying to prove wrong, yes?
D
"Bitter, much? Just because you may have been on the losing end of the equation {I know I was} did the divorce give you the right to assume ALL women are like that? I bet I can find a boatload of women who have been put over a barrel by some guy. The specific doesn't always represent the general."
Idiot- Exhibit A: Out of one side of your mouth you are telling me I am generalizing women's character (I'm not, I'm pointing out the differences between the sexes) and out the other side of your mouth you are making a generalization yourself- assuming simply because I am critical of women & mothers that I MUST be 'bitter' ot have been burned by a woman. This is proof that you are truly an idiot.
Not to mention the fact that women are not put 'over a barrel' by men in today's society, because women have a legal knife to men's throats- and men have no rights in today's legal system or in the family home. Get yourself educated on current events and divorce laws.
I learned nothing from you, but you learned plenty from me, whether you wanted to or not.
anon 5:43...
what I learned from you is that you are certain that your point of view is the only one. Kind of simplistic...
D
"what I learned from you is that you are certain that your point of view is the only one. Kind of simplistic..."
There is nothing I wrote that would indicate that my 'view' is the only 'one.'
If you didn't learn anything else, then you are either lying or an idiot.
D,
Best not to feed the trolls. Love may be blind; hatred almost certainly is. Until he's got his requisite name and grip, you'll get nothing from him but blithering bile and irrelevant insults. Your attempt to communicate with logic and reason is like tossing pearls to swine, with similar results.
Out of one side of your mouth you are telling me I am generalizing women's character (I'm not, I'm pointing out the differences between the sexes)
Unless you're referring to anatomy, the difference in the sexes are generalities.
They may be useful generalities, but generalities nonetheless.
A girl who wrestles--what is the world coming to?
Some years back I watched a short news clip about a girl who had obtained a court order permitting her to be on the varsity wrestling team.
It was wrenching to watch the emotions play across the face of the young man who found himself across the mat from her: "Wow, it looks like I have society's sanction to try to throw a woman on her back and throw myself on top of her. On the other hand, I was always taught you don't treat a lady that way..."
I believe he won the match. With great trepidations.
Draw your own conclusions.
"Unless you're referring to anatomy, the difference in the sexes are generalities.
They may be useful generalities, but generalities nonetheless."
O....K. That's like saying the differences between a car and a bicycle and are generalizations. By the way, what does any of this have to do with mothers and their god complexes? Try to stick to the topic, Sybil.
"Best not to feed the trolls. Love may be blind; hatred almost certainly is. Until he's got his requisite name and grip, you'll get nothing from him but blithering bile and irrelevant insults. Your attempt to communicate with logic and reason is like tossing pearls to swine, with similar results."
Hm, suffering from a superiority complex? (Or should I really say inferiority complex?) You and I do not agree, so then you feel it necessary to bless everyone with your banal observations.
Here's a novel idea, go back to the topic and prove me wrong. (snicker)
TO: Dr. Helen, et al.
RE: What....
"“When it comes to parenting, mothers are God. They created you,” Lerman says. “You don’t go to God and say, ‘What have you done for me lately?’ Mothers have this incredible, undeniable bond with the child. Fathers are always just trying to catch up.”" -- Philip 'Lemur', as cited by Dr. Helen
...a crock!
Mothers are NOT a 'god'. Nor are fathers, for that matter. Only God is God.
On the other hand, mothers and fathers tend to appear godlike to their children.
Seesh! I hate this systems approach to RETURN key hits.
As I was saying....
On the other hand, mothers and fathers appear godlike to their children. They're all knowing, from experience. All seeing, from experience too. All this from the inexperienced perspective of the child.
But for an alleged adult to give them godly position is simply stupid....if not worse.
From the parents perspective, i.e., a christian parents, children are a gift from God. And, as with all gifts, they come as a mixed blessing. It's a challenge for parents to raise their children well enough that they are good parents themselves. And THAT requires a set a 'rules'.
The best set I've found comes from an old Book I frequently read.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[You know you were a good parent if your grand-children turn out alright.]
TO: All
RE: Philip 'Lemur'
Wow! He was a television producer? For the "longest running [and most macho] TV shows EVER"??!?!? [Note: Emphasis MINE....]
Gosh. How can an Airborne-Ranger EVER measure up to those credentials? I must now go weep bitter tears of failure into my B&B......./sarcasm
Hey! It was a GREAT meal I cooked tonight. Just what the distaff ordered.
Tomorrow....we're going to make several pounds of shortbread to feed several staff/committee meetings we'll be hosting at our place over the next few days. The recipe comes from the Culinary Institute of America (CIA). We're talking up-scale institutional recipes. Looks scruptious.
She, being the mistress of baking flour, will do the lioness' share of the work.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[If I can catch it, I WILL eat it. -- Ranger candidate, around week 5 of the course]
P.S. If you want to get a clue about this 'spa' the Army runs, check out the 1940 classic Northwest Passage; Spencer Tracy, Robert Young, Walter Brennan....
Anon vs Anon.
Reminds me of Dueling Brandos from SNL with Peter Boyle and John Belushi.
"I could have been somebody, I could have been a contender, instead of a bum, which is what I am."
(Insert banjo music here.)
"Bring me the butter."
(Insert guitar music here.)
You get the idea. Pere J, I appreciate your trying to throw the trolls a bone with a clue of how to seek redemption and self-respect on this blog, but pearls before swine brother.
Trey
Women had to go to work, and men were required to help more around the house.
Now men are helping more around the house and women are getting jealous.
Why are so many capable of wanting only the exact opposite of what they already have?
Um, it allows them to see their 'opponents' as always wrong?
OK - now I'm really confused. Over the past several years, housework parity was promoted as being a critical issue impeding gender equity - women are being held back because men weren't contributing equally to childrearing and household chores. But now mens' efforts to accommodate their wives', by taking on childrearing responsibilities, are unfairly alientating their wives and potentially harming their children.
I just read the article and couldn't help but laugh at this line: "...Consulting a book to them seems like asking for directions..."
Why on Earth do you need a book to raise kids? You feed them. Change them. Bathe them. Nurture them. Teach them. Play with them. Discipline them. Love them unconditionally. And pray to God that you don't screw up along the way.
So yeah, I guess this dad does just wing it.
Also, the mother in the story struck me as being somewhat narcissistic. Is it just me or are there way too many parents who believe children exist for the edification of the parents?
I find such parental self-centeredness very disturbing.
Disclaimer: Father of two girls ages six and two.
"Um, it allows them to see their 'opponents' as always wrong?"
---------------------
That's exactly what it is. You start out with the proposition that the man is wrong, and then you work out the details as to why that is. If you look hard enough, or interpret creatively enough, you can always find something.
The second point is that no matter how illogical, inconsistent or trivial your (new) complaint is, there will be enough chivalristic men, and women in the sista'hood, to agree with you. You don't have to be right or consistent or logical or anything else.
Tennwriter: YES! I spent more time protecting my kids from do-gooders than from psychos too. I remember when my youngest was just barely sitting, he just wasn't gaining weight and threw up all the milk/formula I could find. So, I put him on baby food and he thrived. Yet, it seemed that many women around me were FREAKING! "He's too young to be on baby food!" Bah! He's now a thirty year old 6'1" 210 pound cop. Argue with him, not me.
All: There does appear to be a lot of double standard in our culture's view of parenting. If the man works hard but doesn't take care of the kids, he is wrong. If the man works hard at taking care of the kids, he is wrong. Is there ANY WAY a man can be right? Is there ANY WAY a man can do the right thing? Is there ANY WAY a man can please you?
Those questions must be answered by many in our female population. Let's face it, you're annoying a lot of good men.
ok kent, i beleive that people are equal, but in some situations one sex has an advantage (there are exceptions), if this girl in wrestling, complained about sexual touching, her case would be more accepted by the college, the school the law. if a woman wants to do wrestling, thats fine i have no problem, but there are pitfalls.
amen dogwood, i am childfree, its not for me to have children, but we see a lot of pro child pro mother in the world, you cant tell a child off for nearly tripping up a waitress holding very hot food. you cant tell parents that their kids are making a mess or trouble.
thats why we have 2 terms, BNP, breeders not parents who let kids run wild with no restraints, then theres parents not breeders, they are rare and we actually enjoy meeting parentds of children who teach them whats right and wrong like you apparently do. so kudos to you.
no jw, men are always wrong, if we open a door (for anyone) for a woman we are patronising, if we dont we are pigs for not.
men cant win.
"no jw, men are always wrong, if we open a door (for anyone) for a woman we are patronising, if we dont we are pigs for not."
-------------------
A fairly safe generalization is that you can be nice and open a door for an older woman, but a younger woman may be offended. That's certainly not true in all cases. Some older women almost expect it - I saw a guy simply go through a door and some old biddy had to loudly remark that chivalry is dead.
I have personally stopped doing anything for young women, I don't even acknowledge them in any way in public. They can use sex or chivalry to get what they want (and then sneer at how easy the guy was to exploit), they don't need my extra help.
TO: Dogwood
RE: A Very Good Book
"Why on Earth do you need a book to raise kids?" -- Dogwood
I'm suddenly reminded of that Looney Tunes cartoon about child psychology as found in books.
The initial story line shows a mother giving a babysitter a book on child psychology and saying it was very useful.
The child is a pill.
The final story lines shows the mother spanking the child WITH the book saying, "I told you. It is a very good book."
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[I must have been an insufferable child; all children are. -- George Bernard Shaw]
"All: There does appear to be a lot of double standard in our culture's view of parenting. If the man works hard but doesn't take care of the kids, he is wrong. If the man works hard at taking care of the kids, he is wrong. Is there ANY WAY a man can be right? Is there ANY WAY a man can do the right thing? Is there ANY WAY a man can please you?"
This is a big deal with me. I was recently conversing with a friend of mine who is a homeschooling dad. He runs the risk of being viewed as a bum by society for staying at home with his kids. I get applauded no matter what I do. I could go to work and get accolades for showing my children that I can be independent. I could stay home and get loads of support from people for sacrificing the extra income to make my children top priority. I could probably shoot my husband while he's sleeping and get a pat on the back. Men are expected to be "in the office", and they don't get much support for going against the grain.
Now they're getting criticised for doing a good job with the kids?! Oh for Chrissake!
Only women in the Law of Nature can make a claim to the children. Men throughout history have nominally tried to gain possesion of children. However, as Nature has it that children are begotten from mothers' bodies, risk mothers' health and lives to be given life. Men participate by sheer possesion. The Law of Nature applies to all mammals, human sapiens included.
Even as career women struggle with juggling motherhood and career, primal maternal INSTINCT propels mothers back to tend to their children's needs. It is a mammalian instinct, evolved over millions of years as a species. Fathers have NEVER had the INSTINCT to juggle their careers and caring for their children. It has taken economical necessity to drive them to provide care.
After the high stakes of giving birth to their children, the bond people talk about is physical and emotional. The saying goes, "like a lioness defending her cub." Nature has it that the mothers would sacrifice her life to defend her offsprings. Dads, as in Nature, have been instinctively, the "dead beats."
Dr. Helen,
Kahil obviously is a man, so it's so easy for him to divorce himself from children. Women, who risk their health, life and go through labor to give birth, are vested in giving life to the next generation, in caring for the next generation as mammals. The mammalian species is predicated on mothers caring for their children biologically to ensure the survival of the next generation, through the act of nursing. Children are thus bonded to their mothers through evolution and by the Law of Nature.
Women who discount themselves and the critical role they play in perpetuating the human species contribute to the current social economic and political subordination of women. Women do not appreciate their value - so that women are still paid 77 cents to the man's dollar. Even more disturbing is the discounting of their biological and evolutionary role in procreation and ensuring the survival of the species as a member of mammalian family. Mammals, like homosapiens, are by nature evolved to bond with mothers, even during the period after birth while they are nursed by their mothers.
The stay-at-home dad arrangements have developed out of socio-economic necessity. Women have proven, despite being oppressed by the 77 cents to the man's dollar pay scale, that they are superlative workers, that they clearly are capable of earning more than their husbands, even at the oppressive rate of 25% less than the man for the same job in Corporate America. And even as the bread winner of the household, women are not allowed to be the "head of the household," traditionally held by the "breadwinner" of the family unit. Hence, the woman constantly finds herself having to defer to their momblocking spouses. Momblocking is a real problem since mothers, unlike the male species, instinctively bond with their children, even when they are the breadwinner. When have prior generations of father breadwinners complained about "dadblocking?"
anon 9:03,09,26 --
You are ignorant of biology and doing no more than spouting sexist agenda. There are many animals, in all animal phyla, in which the male is the primary or only caregiver.
Here's a link about mammals. You might also educate yourself as to the Sarmations and others.
Dr. Helen,
The wise words of Kahlil Gibran superimposes his own personal condition onto the mother-child bond, in the man's attempt to discount the mother-child bond. In the mammalian species, Nature makes the male species the "loner."
Superimposing the word "children" with "men," Kahlil's words aptly describes his own condition, the condition of men:
Your men are not your men.
They are the sons of Life's longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you, yet theu belong not to you.
Anon wrote: "Men participate by sheer possesion."
Hmm, my participation in conception was a little more than sheer posession.
But I guess I did posess those dirty diapers, but I gave them away. I posess most of the bills, but I pay them. I certainly do posess lots of hugs and kisses and piggy back rides, but I give those away too.
Not sure what you are trying to say there anon. The best I figure is that you think father's are worthless.
Trey
Living mammal species can be identified by the presence of mammary glands in females which produce milk.
Since this milk sustains the young at birth for a period of time until independence. Sarmatian women stayed home and took care of the children, so misinformationn of Sarmatians should be discounted. Sarmatians are further a civilization that's died out, like the Ancient Egyptians.
What mammalian phyla involves male primary care of the young?
Male primary care of the young in mammals contradicts evolution of mammalian glands in females producing milk upon which the young sustains for life for a period of time until independence.
Get your own sexist agenda facts right.
"Women who discount themselves and the critical role they play in perpetuating the human species contribute to the current social economic and political subordination of women. Women do not appreciate their value - so that women are still paid 77 cents to the man's dollar. Even more disturbing is the discounting of their biological and evolutionary role in procreation and ensuring the survival of the species as a member of mammalian family. Mammals, like homosapiens, are by nature evolved to bond with mothers, even during the period after birth while they are nursed by their mothers.
The stay-at-home dad arrangements have developed out of socio-economic necessity. Women have proven, despite being oppressed by the 77 cents to the man's dollar pay scale, that they are superlative workers, that they clearly are capable of earning more than their husbands, even at the oppressive rate of 25% less than the man for the same job in Corporate America. And even as the bread winner of the household, women are not allowed to be the "head of the household," traditionally held by the "breadwinner" of the family unit. Hence, the woman constantly finds herself having to defer to their momblocking spouses. Momblocking is a real problem since mothers, unlike the male species, instinctively bond with their children, even when they are the breadwinner. When have prior generations of father breadwinners complained about "dadblocking?" "
-------------------------
If you are a man, read this through and imagine being married to this woman.
Since you can't always predict who is going to turn into a woman like this, I feel like I dodged a bullet by not getting married. In fact, I am downright grateful.
What I am trying to say Trey, is that discounting mothers and women is a national past time. The bills you pay is through working at a job, which women work similarly to you, at a payrate 25% to your dollar. The bills and diapers you possessed pale in comparison with what your wife did in gestating your children in her body for 9 months at a high risk to her health, body and life due to many uncertain complications that may arise at any given time during pregnancy, give birth through agony, pain, labor, and risk to her health and life. Obviously, men conveniently have all forgotten the tiny piece of fact that prior to the advancement of medicine, women's mortality rate at child birth was like playing Russian roulette. Today, even with the advancement of medicine, the health risks associated with pregnancy, child birth and post-partum complications remain significant. Nursing continues to play a centerrole, even with career women, since doctors reveal Nature's reasoning for mammalian nursing: evolution's way of passing on the mother's immunity to assist in the survival of the baby prior to the advent of antibiotics.
Women who also conveniently forget that very fact that their mothers and grandmothers had a higher rate of mortality and risk in gestation and child birth betray their own biological status. Women who also discount the fact that drugs and research still practice wholesale discounting of its effects and procedures to women are denying reality. Just because women are now able to work in a job or career beyond "secretary" does not mean women "have arrived" and are simply "complaining" and hysterical. Women may be doctors, but how many women doctors run the hospital units, run a particular department, run anything? Women who shirk their children so readily due to perceived "arrival" will do well to reflect on exactly where they truly are in the hierarchy of human order.
"When women behave in the workplace as men do, the wage gap between them is small. June O'Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, found that among people ages 27 to 33 who have never had a child, women's earnings approach 98 percent of men's. Women who hold positions and have skills and experience similar to those of men face wage disparities of less than 10 percent, and many are within a couple of points. Claims of unequal pay almost always involve comparing apples and oranges."
See the rest of this article about the alleged "wage gap" at
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba392/
If women really only commanded 75% of the salary that men get for the exact same job with the exact same qualifications, why wouldn't every employer in the US replace all the men with women and hence cut labor costs by 25%?
"If you are a man, read this through and imagine being married to this woman.
Since you can't always predict who is going to turn into a woman like this, I feel like I dodged a bullet by not getting married. In fact, I am downright grateful."
Women, carefully review the soul of this man who "contemplated marriage." Such a man populates 99% of marriages, unfortunately, who feel "entitled" to rule the roost over women and children.
Women fared better by your decision not to marry. Thank you.
Which all goes to prove my contention that misandry is an essential pillar of modern feminism. The two cannot be separated without tearing the whole edifice down and starting over.
Have mercy, it is hard to tell the players without a scorecard. And since there is a thread of discourse going, it's useful to tell the players.
Dr. Helen, would it be possible to disable the "anonymous" button? People could still post as anonymous if they wished, but at least make them type it each time!
"Such a man populates 99% of marriages, unfortunately, who feel "entitled" to rule the roost over women and children."
-----------------
I'm Anonymous at 9:58.
I honestly don't want to rule over anyone, and I also don't want anyone ruling over me. The portion I quoted came from a very bossy person; the point I was trying to make is that I wouldn't want to have to live in the hell of getting nagged like that with no escape.
I guess I'm the only "ruler" who just wants to be left alone.
Anonymous,
Here's a new book from the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) in 2007:
http://leavingwomenbehind.com/
A new book from the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA).
Outdated public policies have completely ignored the most important economic and social change in the past half-century: the movement of women into the labor market.
In a new book, Leaving Women Behind, authors Kim Strassel of the Wall Street Journal and John Goodman and Celesate Colgan of the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) profile real-life examples of how our nation's laws are making the lives of modern families more difficult than they need be.
Leaving Women Behind
The original author is ignorant about biology. Leaving God aside, the woman no more creates the baby than the man does--she's just the incubator. No sperm, no baby.
Dear Cousin Dave,
It's interesting that whenever someone raises a point about the disparity between men and women, it's discounted and dismissed as "feminism." When does chauvinism get written off as "modern masculinism" and its dismissive snare written off as "hysterical" disorder?
"She's just the incubator - no sperm, no baby" - Anonymous, that sperm is as cheap as they come.
From a valuation perspective, the role of the much glorified sperm is as cheap as they come in the value chain of procreation and infant mortality and survival.
The sperm is thus glorified by "Modern Masculinism" in order to compensate for the overwhelmingly subordinate role that sperm serves in the value chain of procreation, infant mortality and survival and reality.
Anonymous 10:04:
Well, I work in the same field as Trey and so far, the insurance companies have yet to stamp me as a "defective woman" and pay me less than my male colleagues. Much of the hype about women's 75 cents on the dollar is just that--hype. When women work the exact same hours as men and do the exact same job, they are often compensated at the same rate. "For example, female doctors work fewer hours than men, according to the American Medical Association, with 33 percent of female pediatricians working part-time, compared with 4 percent of male pediatricians."
I am not saying that discrimination doesn't happen against women, it does. But on the other hand, jobs must be worked exactly the same number of hours and with the exact level of ambition or hard work and job saviness to make a real comparison.
Helen, There is a presumption that men work 25% harder and have 25% more ambition than women. And unless female workers' male colleagues show them their paychecks, what proof do female workers have that they are paid the same on an hourly basis.
Then, there is the salary disparity, and the opportunity disparity. How many female supervisors, managers, directors, vice presidents, presidents are there in the insurance business that are women? Since the Helens work just as hard as the men, perform as well as the men, at the same payscale, why are there disproportionately fewer women the higher the hierarchy?
"Since the Helens work just as hard as the men, perform as well as the men, at the same payscale, why are there disproportionately fewer women the higher the hierarchy?"
------------------------
Because a whole lot of women drop out - whether with kids or without - because a man will pay for them.
There was a study (or article?) recently on women who graduated from elite universities in law, medicine etc. They started out with careers, but after 10 or 15 years, most had found "Mr. Right" (= Mr. Able-to-Pay-for-their-Lifestyles), and they dropped out.
Even if two groups are equal and work equally hard, a much smaller pool of one group will result in far fewer promotions up the ladder.
It's really quite funny that a CHOICE that women get (that men don't get for the most part) is turned around to look like something BAD for women.
If you want women in all fields and at all levels, start getting your sister housewives away from Oprah and out into the work world.
Quite so, Dr. H. It's a charge so spurious (and as seen above, so easily refuted) that anyone who invokes it in my presence is instantly marked as mentally deficient and morally questionable.
Please also note that Dr. Ellen echoes my desire for clarity. :^)
Trey, sorry man, I keep giving people the benefit of the doubt in the face of all evidence as to who is worth the trouble and who is not. I must reinstate my "anon non-acknowledgement" policy.
I'm a stay at home dad with 2 wonderful young children. A 3 year old boy and a 7 year old girl. When it was time for my wife and I to have kids we came to the conclusion that my career was pause-able and hers just was not. So I pretend to get some work done at home while I take care of the kids.
This is sort of a role reversal from what most folks are comfortable with and many of the young moms in the local baby get-togethers never quite knew what to do with me, but the kids are fine with it.
Why are we so insecure that anybody should be threatened by my deciding to take care of my kids during the day?
The nurturing and love and education and discipline and all the rest that children need is not gender specific. When it comes to parenting PARENTS are God. Whichever one is there at the moment to do parenting duties. I know that my wife feels guilty sometimes about not being the one who stays home, but thats silly. She's the best mom ever, and I'm the best dad ever and the fact that they spend more time with me during the day has no other impact on their lives or development. They are perfect ;)
Anonymous 10:44:
I think one factor is that there are a large majority of women who have other important priorities such as family and other obligations. And getting back to the original point of this post, if a woman were this ambitious, wouldn't she want her husband helping out with the kids as pointed out by the article we have been talking about instead of complaining about "momblocking"?
To all,
Sorry about the anonymous problem but blogger makes you register to get rid of anonymous and many of you have emailed to say you do not have or want a blogger account. Sorry doing the best I can here. If people would please use a name, that would be great so we can avoid confusion.
It is further interesting that the AMA uses the field of pediatrics to show, what, women are less dedicated professionally?
First of all, pediatrics is one of the "lower" paying fields in medicine. Second of all, many women doctors go into pediatrics and psychiatry. The hypothesis is because these deal with relationships and children, traditionally women's "spheres of influence." So pediatrics supposedly offers the "mommy track," so that the AMA cites 33% of women pediatricians work part-time vs. 4% male, presummably to show that women are less dedicated professionally and thus are paid less? Pediatrics is a field that earns less to begin with. Why? Less demanding? Less valued? Does it involve less skill than, podiatry, for instance?
How about surgeons. Are there as many female surgeons who work "part-time, who are "presummably on the mommy track" as in pediatrics? Do female surgeons earn as much as male surgeons? Are there proportionately the same number of head surgeons as there are male based on the male to female ratio? Why doesn't the AMA publish these type of findings instead of pediatrics?
Anon wrote: "What I am trying to say Trey, is that discounting mothers and women is a national past time."
Not at my house anon, and not often on this blog. It does seem that discounting men and fathers is your particular hobby. That is just how your posts read.
Discounting people is wrong, more so when based on gender, race, etc. Dr. King prayed for a day when we are all judged on the content of our character. Smart man Dr. King.
Trey
Last night at the dinner table, my wife enforced some family rules on my 9-year-old son. He responded by wailing "You're ruining my life!"
I leaned over, looked him in the eyes, and quietly reminded him that his mother gave him life, and perhaps a certain amount of respect was due. It sobered him up even more than I expected.
I'm not ignoring God's role as the ultimate creator of life, or my own role as sperm donor, spiritual tutor, and chief source of income. I just thought it appropriate to remind him that, biologically speaking, his mother has invested a lot in him; and with this investment comes some perogatives.
Dr. Helen,
Certainly moms can be as ambitious and have worked as hard, and may be even better than their male counterparts, hence the economic decision to have the dads stay home because day-care is extraordinarily expensive and the stay-at-home dad makes barely more than the cost of day-care, hence making it prferrable to put "HIS" career on hold.
In a scenario like that, where the arrangement was going into its 4th year, it has become a long-term arrangement. It was no longer a temporary economic calculation.
Why should the mother be faulted for identifying she's being momblocked. She's clearly been recognized by a male-dominated Corporate America as exceptional, and transferring those skills at home, she's identified the dynamics at home as momblocking, as she would identify "careerblocking" or "productivityblocking" or "revenueblocking" at the office. Why should she be denied her mothering capabilities and desire at home with momblocking behavior?
I work in an office full of pediatricians, men and women, and they rock. They work hard, the job is difficult, the pay is not great. And pediatric nurses are way cool too. It is true that one of the women docs left the practice to stay at home mom. I miss her, but I am happy for her and the kids. It is cool that the kids get a stay at home parent. At the same time, a male doc left to go teach.
I know this is off topic, but my attitudes toward and feelings about pediatric health workers has done nothing but soar since being in close proximity to them.
Trey
Good for you Kent. Most of us dads get to have a brief, to the point conversation with our children that reminds them that whle she is their mother, she is OUR wife, and nobody talks to the woman we love that way.
Trey
Jeez, while the post was ok, asked some valid questions, after reading the comments here, I wonder who here really understands what being a parent is.
While there are some good points and valid opinions, I don't think most here really understand that being a good parent is not a contest between the woman, the man or "the mother" or "the father".
Instead, it is all about the child. Now you can say, that the product of the child is the product of the care of the parents, but you are missing the one thing that makes a child grow up happy, be he/she rich, poor or inbetween.
Love... yea, do most of you even know what it is?
Love, unadultrated, undiluted, unconditional love is what makes a good childhood.
Of course, disipline, limits, supervision, teaching, and letting them learn some things the hard way are important too.
But love is what makes for adults that have few problems and are in turn able to be good parents.
And it has nothing to do with who bore the childbirth pain, or who has the biggest bank account or makes more per hour or year.
I did a passable, well, almost passable job with my kids. But you can be sure I learned from my mistakes. I am helping raise three grandsons and two granddaughters, and you can be sure I am doing a hell of a lot better job this time around.
And my wages have nothing to do with it, just the amount of time and love and education I am willing to give to my "latest children".
Papa Ray
West Texas
USA
The rationale behind the concern about momblocking is legitimate. Most in society write off this mother's concern as "complaining," "ungrateful," and "unwarranted." Momblocking is a definitive set of behavior. It blocks the mom but insubordinating her parenting attempts by rationalizing that since "she's the one working and not at home, her parenting becomes secondary." The mother, in identifying "momblocking" is explaining that her parenting is just as valuable as it has been traditionally valued in household arrangements where the father is the "chief source of income."
Economics plays a critical role in how a family's structure is ordered, but at the same time, mothers' biological bond with children are unfairly discounted, by men and women alike. The issue is the role of the woman and mother in a household where she is the SOLE source of income.
In such a setting, women actually say to a mother who desires mothering and parenting, "shut up and quit complaining." In such a setting, men who feel they are "enlightened" prove their understanding by reinforcing to their children that their mother gave them life. That's because men AND women too often forget that, and dismiss that primal fact. As much as Religion teaches God gave life, that's another white-washing of mother's physical suffering and risks in actually giving life to your kids and to you. As much as God gets the credit for creating life, it is with us everyday that a woman gave life to all of us and is continuing to give life in a continuum.
In the end, as much as men like to write about the spirituality of giving life, it is women who biologically bear the BURDEN of giving life in a continuum everyday. Instead of giving it and celebrating it, we dismiss it. Those who celebrate it, don;t celebrate it enough. We celebrate God for giving life everyday, but don't celebrate our moms everyday for giving life through giving birth specifically to us.
When my wife and I got married, we were still in college and were looking at our first child. She was closer to graduating than I was (largely because I was still undecided about what major I really wanted) so we put the effort into making sure she graduated.
For the first few years of our marriage, we scraped by, did the crap jobs, and spent a LOT of time dealing with what our supposed 'roles' were going to be. The family and societal pressure was enormous. I was expected, as the dad, to do NOTHING but work at crap jobs and bring the check home - even if it meant that I never saw my wife and kids. (I was repeatedly explicitly told this).
Now, keep in mind, the people who to this to me, largely, had their own failing marriages, multiple divorces, distanced children, etc. But they were telling me that I HAD to choose to be just like that, because that's what was expected.
I went through a couple more years of struggling through this with intense depression, until an economic reality hit - it was costing us more in day care and additional expenses to support two jobs and careers than a second paycheck was bringing in.
Rather than spiral into economic suicide (which had already begun in earnest), we made a final decision - one of us would stay home. Since she was making more money, and was more comfortable with her career at the time, she stayed in the workplace, and I started watching the kids.
Eventually, three very important things happened:
1) Our economic spiral downward began to reverse, to the point that we're nearly down to only having a car payment and student loan as our debt. A far far cry from when we were both working.
2) My children have something that I didn't have growing up, a home where they know a parent will be at. I cannot express how important this is.
3) Gradual elimination of depression. Accepting the choice and no longer struggling to the 'expected role' has been a huge boon to our moods and to the happiness at home. Depressed parents just CAN'T raise children as well as they need to be.
Truth is, it doesn't matter WHICH parent is the one that stays at home. My children love us both immensely. But if a woman decides that she needs to be a breadwinner, then it does, really, fall to the man to be the 'caregiver'.
For many reasons, the 'one income' family works. More power to the dads who realize this and are willing to give their wives their careers if they so want.
The only women who feel 'momblocked' are those who consider their husbands OPPONENTS rather than their PARTNERS.
-- Vanguard --
After assuming the BURDEN of giving life, a mother becomes a stakeholder to the child to a greater degree. That child, no matter becoming a new life, was indeed a part of HER body. To write off the mother's body as nothing but an incubating "hotel" is crude and barbarian. A mother's love for that child is by nature defined by that biological fact, experience and BURDEN. A mother's parenting desire is defined by that very biological fact and law of Nature. This is how women love the children of the men who raped them and killed their families (or attempted to kill them), in the many accounts of genocide and rape coming out of Africa.
Can a man put himself in that woman's shoes? No man is big enough to do that.
Going back to the article on momblocking, the woman who is capable of loving the child of the man who raped her and killed her family shares the same primal maternal instinct as the mother who got a lucrative TV producing job and identified momblocking at home. This mom's desire to mother her child is being vetoed. Her suggestions are being turned down. Her desire to act out her love for her child is being blocked. Instead of scheduling time for her to give her daughter a bath on the weekends, she is scheduled out of giving her daughter a bath PERIOD. That's momblocking.
'Only women in the Law of Nature can make a claim to the children. Men throughout history have nominally tried to gain possesion of children. However, as Nature has it that children are begotten from mothers' bodies, risk mothers' health and lives to be given life. Men participate by sheer possesion. The Law of Nature applies to all mammals, human sapiens included. '
Good morning, NYMOM. Are you looking for a new place to infest now that Daran and HughRistik have turfed you out at last? You identify yourself by your style and blatant, piggish bigotry, and your pseudo-historical and pseudo-scientific argumments in following comments confirm the identification. You'll find that you won't get your bigotries and you arrogant, bitter and stunted ego indulged here the way your fomer hosts did.
To NYMOM (assuming that's her)... a simple question:
In an age where women demand careers while still having children, what do YOU think a father's role could or should be for their children?
What rights and - more importantly - responsibilities should they have, particularly when confronted by the needs of the wife's career?
Because, right now, you're doing nothing but espousing junk science (you DO know that actually defending the pride is the job of the LION, right?) and pseudo-psycho-babble to basically put forward the notion that men are worthless.
Oh, and since you defend the 'holy right of childbearing' so vehemently, I'm going to assume that you're completely and totally against any and all forms of abortion? If not, how can you square that with your own arguments?
Or, is it how it really appears in that you just hate men?
-- Vanguard --
The women who are being momblocked have husbands who behave as if their wives are their opponents and disrespect their wives as mothers, maybe out of their own insecurity and resentment for being at home themselves. Instead of being grateful for the better life-style their wives can afford the entire family, these husbands practice "modern masculinism." Modern masculinism is penalizing women for proving that they are indeed capable and not the damsels in distress and dumb blondes men like their stereotypical women to be. It pushes women out and portrays them as complaining, cold, ambitious, putting career before children and family, and otherwise "undesirable" and "wrong."
Women, who may be soccer moms, but never played soccer themselves, do not know about male bonding and do not bond like men. Sure, women readily bond to go shopping and other fun stuff, but women do not bond to acquire property, do not bond to further their interests, as a block vote, for pursuit of any kind of gains or entitlement. Women do not have the guts to say "My ovary, my baby," or "I gave you life" like men who constantly banter, "No sperm, no baby."
We never see a man who tell another man who complains about "alienating children against them" to "shut up and quit complaining" when the woman is doing the majority of the work raising and caring for kids.
This is the difference. Momblocking is legitimate and these men are alienating their children against their mothers.
My God, such hand wringing and histrionics to deny the obvious; raise your kids the way you see fit and tell everyone else to fuck off.
There are shitty moms and dads, sometimes both and sometimes none. It's a classic bell curve. Frankly, I think parenting skill is way overrated (I say this as a parent of kids with personalities that cross the spectrum.)
Some kids are assholes that the best parents can only do there best with, cross their fingers and hope they don't kill them before they leave home. Other kids are close to perfect and could be raised by the worse parents and still come out marvelous.
(Two of my four kids push buttons none of my parent's seven kids ever did. It has nothing to do with parenting skill, my parents weren't all that great at that, especially when we were teenagers. I do think growing up in the 60s and 70s in rural New York helped, though--my parents could use benign neglect without too much harm happening to us. BTW, before anyone gasps, the only thing I would change is getting rid of the wacky religion I was raised on.)
My point is, that most parents just do the best we can with what biology dealt us and all this PC bullshit is fucking nuts.
ANONYMOUS and Jim Said,
Could it be just that in reality, you just hate women, so that any challenge to your turf is written off as "men hating" and "pseudo-psycho?"
Don't like your own medicine that's been administered to women for eons?
My oldest daughter is severley autistic. At one point we had expensive, and effective therapists in the house helping her.
This, too, took away from mom's role, and she was unhappy about it. Altho she couldn't let on.
I guess its hard to share your kids. She doesnt seem to like me to do much but pay the bills. And be the enforcer if the kids get too out of line.
NYMOM (since that seems to be you)...
Okay, so not only did you NOT answer my questions, but you instead had even more anti-male screeds all over your statement.
Since you're explicitly stating that men should have no rights to parenthood, for no other reason than they're not the incubator, how dare you also demand that they get all the responsibility, regardless of their role?
In your statements, men should be nothing more than a 'source of income', once which can be duplicated by the woman if SHE chooses such. The man, of course, has no rights at all, and no choices... he's a check-writer.
How am I, or anyone else, suppose to take your bigotry as a serious argument?
You claim that 'momblocking' is happening by default. I defy you on that point. Any man that, in our society as its shaped today, is staying at home to care for the children in the FACE of all the expectations placed upon him, probably gives a bigger damn about his relationship with his children AND his wife than women like you EVER could.
And now I'm done with you.
-- Vanguard --
Yes, the LION defends his "turf," not particularly the cubs in there. Indeed, they KILL off all the former LION's cubs, whereas the lioness has sole bond with all her cubs.
Vanguard, Men have used economic might to deny women rights for eons. Now that this mom in this particular article identified momblocking based on NEWLY EVOLVED dynamics, men are up in arms defending their turf vehemently, as usual, with more venom and women hating true colors than ever before.
Interesting idea, i have seen it here and in other forumns, to say that just because someone has testes or ovaries doesn't give them the blah blah blah.
We wish our biology wasn't our destiny. And the preachers and professors say so. But is it true? We came a long way bearing up under our unfair biologies, to decide at this late date they are irrelevent.
"Any man that, in our society as its shaped today, is staying at home to care for the children in the FACE of all the expectations placed upon him, probably gives a bigger damn about his relationship with his children AND his wife than women like you EVER could."
Vanguard, you clearly do not like the way our society is shaped today whereby the man is staying at home, and the women are being momblocked. You are clearly very threatened.
NYMOM...
Again, more anti-male screeds.
Did it not occur to you that, while sexism was rampant and wrong, the men who were 'keeping women down' were also expected to keep a huge amount of responsibility for house and home, welfare of the family, etc...
And, let's face it, it was those men that you hate SO much, that made childbearing safe through evil men's modern evil medicine.
Your bigotry still remains just that. Bigotry.
You should look in the mirror and ponder that the reason men hate YOU, personally, so much, is because of how you treat THEM.
Until then, there is nothing of any value that you have to share with me. I won't be replying again.
-- Vanguard --
If the mother is actually feeling blocked, she's just jealous/feeling guilty that Dad has fulfilled the role she always thought she'd have. He's the primary caregiver, Mom's the breadwinner.
Most Dad's are happy with the reverse arrangement, because as even the misandrist loon (free advice, go read some economics papers, the 75% figure has been debunked 100 times over, and you immediately display your ignorance by quoting it) pointed out, women have an innate biological connection to their children that men do not. That innate connection is inferior to parental love, therefore both fathers and mothers can have greater relationships with their children, but men don't come home and feel "Dadblocked". On the other hand, there is a wealth of anecdotal evidence which says men feel reduced when women are the breadwinner.
"Now I'm done with you."
Only intellectual male-dominants express "Now I'm done with you."
Who did you imagine was doing anything with you to begin with to be done with by youat all?
TO: [Gutless] Anonymouse [Feminist]
RE: Momblocking
"...he same primal maternal instinct as the mother who got a lucrative TV producing job and identified momblocking at home. This mom's desire to mother her child is being vetoed. Her suggestions are being turned down. Her desire to act out her love for her child is being blocked. Instead of scheduling time for her to give her daughter a bath on the weekends, she is scheduled out of giving her daughter a bath PERIOD. That's momblocking." -- [Gutless] Anonymouse [Feminist]
It's a self-inflicted wound, babe. And you're one of the people who aimed the weapon and pulled the trigger.
You don't like it? Tough nuggies. I recommend you reorganize your priorities.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Woman, n., the unfair sex. -- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary]
Matthew, Of course the 75% figure has been "debunked" in your mind in numerous studies over because women, who in being paid the same and given the same opportunities, have this OVERWHELMING URGE when it comes to careers and earning power, to drop out like flies and stay at home, whereas, it's PROGRAMMED in women to be "guilty" for not being home, and further men "resent" their spouses.....
Do men really love it at home? Do women really love it at home?
Are women really that lazy and looking for sugar daddies? Yes, in the minds of men.
Men and women went to college because, men feel, in order to find a husband to support her.
Women then drop out like flies, in order to have babies.
And then, men resent their spouses for being stay-at-home dads.
The fact is, whoever brings home the bacon controls the purse-strings. And haven't every war men have wages been over turf=property=economic riches?
Crazy thing is, you actually have to believe in a GOD to think that a mother, or anyone else, would be considered such. Fortunately my mother, and father, taught me not to set my life up around fictional deities. Thanks parental units!
Chuck,
You are too clever for words. Or maybe it's more aptly you're too clever for bullets.
Whoa, NYMOM...
I WAS going to just ignore you, but - for Maker's sake, did you just threaten the life of another poster on this issue, or at least expressly wish his death?
Please tell me I'm wrong here.
-- Vanguard --
Dear Atheist,
It is just as well your parents taught you not to believe in our version of God. Interesting, Man's version of God is a Man, who subordinates women, but gives life to the Man-God through an immaculate conception of a WOMAN.
Does not Man's version of God serve his OWN agenda?
Vanguard,
Do be done with it and mean what you say, like a man.
Hasn't this account deified the concept that the woman's body is a mere incubator, according to his version of God.
Isn't this a discounting of her body and her choices?
Anonymous said:
Women, who may be soccer moms, but never played soccer themselves, do not know about male bonding and do not bond like men. Sure, women readily bond to go shopping and other fun stuff, but women do not bond to acquire property, do not bond to further their interests, as a block vote, for pursuit of any kind of gains or entitlement. Women do not have the guts to say "My ovary, my baby,"
That has to be one of the most sexist anti-female things I've ever read...and written by a woman who is complaining that men are treating women unfairly to boot.
Women don't bond over anything but fun and shopping?
The father in this stupid article isn't poisoning his daughter against the mother, he's just behaving like the primary parent. As a primary parent mother there have been times that I have cancelled outside plans when the kids have needed down time, or been better at fastening the car seats. When you are home full time you do have more insight into your child's moods and fatigue levels. These women need to just get over it, and realize that life isn't perfect no matter what your choices.
Lions? Good argument. You got us there.
Tell me what woman does not privately feel violated by this account of how a woman's body was used to give birth to a Man God? Or is this meant to exalt the special physicial dependency and bond between God and women?
Then, reflect how Religion teaches what this meant. Is it the latter or the former?
66% of documented child abuse is committed by women.
78% of documented child abuse leading to death is committed by women.
Step-fathers usually rank second in most surveys: the "kill-the-cubs" mentality, I expect.
I'll have to back-source the data here, but I stick to hard data. BLA, FBI--I like stuff with defined parameters. Notice I say documented. Even the director of the local women's shelter in Doylestown acknowledged quite candidly that most child abuse is committed by women.
I believe the FBI is the source on the latter figure. I've seen various sources. It'll take some time, but I can dig them up.
Ladies, you ARE being abused.
Not by men. If you ever watch inter-sex sports--wrestling, say, or basketball (particularly amusing), you'll find that most men are loathe to strike, box-out, set -a-pick on or play close defense on a girl.
It's media saturation. And that's men and women. I don't blame older women (and not so old women) for constantly being relegated to subsidiary roles in tv, movies, etc. Male/female victim ratios in popular media, according to two studies, one from the U. of Toronto, one whose source I misplaced, are 35:1 & 65:1.
Lot of latitude, there, I admit. And all that Father Knows Best in the '60s & You Can Have It All stuff in the '80s must have messed with your heads. Goth-chic/vampire-chic & the promise of eternal youth, beauty & no more day jobs was aimed straight at you ladies.
So are all those bloody fashion magazines with covers splashed with 110 pound, 5'10" waifs, Cinderella, the Mommy Wars, those dreadful adverts in the corners of Internet pages featuring smiling, happy super-models getting their degrees online in their bedrooms...someone's bedrooms.
Mostly I think it's just an attempt to make you feel simultaneously superior and inadequate so you'll buy all kinds of stupid stuff.
Incidentally, about 70% of J-school grads are women...and most go into publishing and advertising.
You're not all good. And you're not all bad. Some of you are great mothers. Some of you are terrible mothers.
As for dads, at least in the north-eastern WASP culture I grew up in, their crime is primarily a combination of economic unreality, neglect & something I like to call Karl Wallenda Syndrome--I interviewed his daughter twice, actually. Basically, being male means a 1,000 foot drop with no safety net if you fall. That's where dads, especially dads of my parents generation tend to fail.
Male suicides in the US out-number female suicides in the US 5:1 in the 15-34 range (CDC, 2001). White males are most at risk.
Black males in the same bracket are murdered at roughly the same ratio (same source, although I believe it might be a more recent study).
If moms (and dads) are doing any kind of job at all, why is it that their sons and daughters are killing themselves and each other in unprecedented numbers.
So Christ, let's stop fighting, okay?
Men and women need each other, for more then the obvious reasons. Someone, I don't care who, has got to watch the kids this weekend. I mean, who knows what satanic plans Barney and lonelygirl15 have planned for this week's entertainment.
In closing, Mommy, Daddy, if you don't start to behave I'll send you to your room without supper and you better not come out until I'm satisfied that you've had a sufficient amount of great sex to start acting sensibly again.
Either that or I whip you with a wet donkey.
Your choice.
;)
What's wrong with choosing a career and resenting momblocking? If anyone is entitled, this woman clearly is.
From what I read, Vanguard was done with nutty posts, not women or thinking (or thinking women, or thinking about women), just done with someone who would not engage in dialogue. Easy choice, bang your head against the wall, or look for someone else to talk to.
What I have read has been in reaction to outlandish posts, I missed the part where anyone seriously denigrated women to the point of being meerly an incubator. When it was said, it was said in irony and to make a point. Both of which were evidently lost on the poster of most of the genuinely bigoted material.
So either that anon does not get it, or just wants to stir the pot.
I consider the pot well stirred, and hope we move on. Nothing to see there.
Trey
Where are you getting statistics of child abuse from? Child abuse is predominantly committed by men, with men committing more than 90% of sexual abuse of children.
Ir do we start from the very beginning and define "child abuse."
"From what I read, Vanguard was done with nutty posts, not women or thinking"
That's basically it. Anytime a poster is obviously someplace just to troll or flamebait, I'm done with them. NYMOM is clearing doing that, in my opinion - so I'm done (dealing with) her.
For me, this whole 'issue' reeks of anti-male bigotry. I mean, if the mom wants the career and goes for it, what does she THINK is going to happen with the dad being at home for the kids?
-- Vanguard --
Sure, anyone who raises the concern of momblocking is a bigot and anyone who agrees with momblocking and disagreeing with those who tell the mother to "shut up and stop complaining" is stirring the pot.
Anyone who says women assume a bigger and more significant role in bearing children and caring for children is a bigot.
All the men who vehemently defend themselves, I venture to estimate had a closer bond and relationship with their mothers as children.
We have the saying "Mama's boy." We don't have "Papa's boy."
Are you kidding! This is an ideal forum to "stir the pot" according to you! Or, do you all prefer the convenience of "yes men?"
And while we are at it, "yes women."
Yes, and exterminate speech with physicial annhilation,
and insist on protecting pornography as free speech.....
Wow, over 100 comments so far and no mention of adopted children. As the adoptive father of two wonderful children, I have a somewhat different perspective on some of these points.
“When it comes to parenting, mothers are God. They created you,”
We didn't create our children, but they are ours now. And neither me nor their mother is God to them.
"thats why we have 2 terms, BNP, breeders not parents who let kids run wild with no restraints, then theres parents not breeders, they are rare and we actually enjoy meeting parentds of children who teach them whats right and wrong like you apparently do. so kudos to you."
We are obviously PNB, and do in fact try to teach the kids right from wrong.
"Why on Earth do you need a book to raise kids? You feed them. Change them. Bathe them. Nurture them. Teach them. Play with them. Discipline them. Love them unconditionally. And pray to God that you don't screw up along the way."
Exactly. I bought two books, "Raising Adopted Children" and "Dr. Spocks Guide...". I read about one-fourth of each before I concluded that raising adopted children was no different from raising your own biological children, and that Dr. Spock was right that "you know more than you think you know" and that parenting was mostly about love, giving, and common sense.
"Also, the mother in the story struck me as being somewhat narcissistic. Is it just me or are there way too many parents who believe children exist for the edification of the parents?"
This goes along with the agenda of the boomers who knew better than their parents, never grew up, and now control the education system. Children know so much more than their parents, don't they? Strange that they feel this way while at the same time idealizing traditional third-world cultures that tend to be very patriarchal and authoritarian. On my son's latest report card (3rd grade), his teacher wrote that he (the teacher) learned a lot from him (my son). I thought it was supposed to be the other way around. Silly me. We live in the SF bay area, after all.
"Could it be just that in reality, you just hate women, so that any challenge to your turf is written off as "men hating" and "pseudo-psycho?"
Could it be you are just projecting your own bigotry because you are too lazy to bother to understand another person's point of view?
"Yes, the LION defends his "turf," not particularly the cubs in there. Indeed, they KILL off all the former LION's cubs, whereas the lioness has sole bond with all her cubs. "
Another example of your laziness. Why would a lion want to defends ALL the cubs on his turf, rather than just his own? You argue like one of those confused sluts who can bother to remember who fathered which of her spawn, and so thinks all men are "commitphobes" if they won't step in and raise the fatherless, worthless bastards. You are too lazy to figure out that a lion defends his turf to raise his OWN cubs. That's exactly the same bond as the mother has with her own cubs; he kills all the others to clear the way for them. You can't even manage that level of logic in your last sentence.
Oh, and the pattern of subsequent posts really gives you away. It's an absolutely signature mannerism of yours.
"Vanguard,
Do be done with it and mean what you say, like a man. "
What a passive-aggressive piece of filth you are, MYMOM.
"Tell me what woman does not privately feel violated by this account of how a woman's body was used to give birth to a Man God?"
Hundreds of millions, for generations and generations and generations. Women are the core of Marian devotion. How can anyone who lives in New York be so pig-ignorant of Catholicism? How can someone with a history degree be so ignorant of Church history?
Face it, cupcake, no one here is going to put up with your strange shit. A chauvinst sow like you are not fit to be the company of real women like the ones who post here.
I was so close to my mother that she LEFT me and my father to live the hippy life on a commune when I was a few months old.
My first step-mother was fine until she had her own child, then I was neglected.
It goes on from there, but let's not get into that, shall we? There's no need.
My father, a career police officer, was largely absentee. Between abusive and neglectful parents, I decided to NEVER allow my children to be raised in such a way.
And, for the record, sure, there can be a real concern to some women who are 'frozen out' of the home just as the SAME concerns men had for the SAME reasons for generations past.
But when the statements are made in such anti-male tones as possible, even calling for one's DEATH because he's a male that dared not follow the feminist line... I would count that as BIGOTRY.
The article did not discuss a true 'freezing out' of the mother from the home. The article discussed a concern over those women who - after choosing career over the home, suddenly find themselves dealing with the ramifications of their decisions.
The band stopped playing for THAT pity party ages ago.
-- Vanguard --
Anon 6:51.
If you really believe that a "God Complex" is not just one value on a continuous axis but instead a binary axis with all women being a 1 and all guys as a 0, there really is no point in talking to you. You don't live in reality.
If you do agree that such an attitude is a continuous range then you can talk about averages, pluralities and such. Those statements are by definintion generalities. You can not then make the case that your opponent speaks in generalities, but you speak in absolutes.
My ultimate point was not whether you were correct or not, but only that you were arguing from a false premise, namely that a superiority complex was an absolute difference in gender.
Pervy,
You astutely made a fine point on adoptive parents. The issue of being blocked from parenting initiated this post. The dynamics between biological and adoptive parent-child relationship is quite different. And from what I read, many adopted children seek out their biological parents or mother as adults, sort of as a biological DNA stamp print ID, maybe? I don't know.
Whatever that may be, the biological factor is a real and key consideration to a person. Hence we make that distinction.
The closest a person can identify with it could be that tangibility a person has with his biological mother in the PNB category.
But breeders and their children also have special bond.
As much as fathers deny it, in reality, a child's fate is closely tied to his or her mother's fate and standing. I need not go into the most infamous public display of this put in practice as the history of Henry VIII.
I've asked about this before, but does anyone know how to disable the automatic refresh function of this page? It's driving me insane.
Carry on...
Someone wrote: "Where are you getting statistics of child abuse from? Child abuse is predominantly committed by men, with men committing more than 90% of sexual abuse of children."
Let's look at the data. Here is a source for some hard data, the year is 2004.
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/summary.htm
Child sexual abuse accounts for 10 percent of reported child abuse. Sexual abuse accounts for .8 percent of child fatalities, neglect, for over 1/3.
Interesting quote here: "Female perpetrators, mostly mothers, were typically younger than male perpetrators, mostly fathers. Women also comprised a larger percentage of all perpetrators than men, 58 percent compared to 42 percent(figure S-7)."
In terms of killing children, 31% of child abuse fatalities were perpetrated by women alone, 22.7 % fathers and mothers, and 14.4% fathers alone. Thems the facts.
In terms of sexual abuse, most of it is committed by "friends or neighbors" 73.8% as opposed to parents at 2.6%.
Men certainly do committ more sexual abuse than women. The numbers were thought to be 92% were committed by males, but some research has found that number to be closer to 80% male. (Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, "Reducing Sexual Abuse through Treatment and Intervention with Abusers," Policy and Position Statement Beaverton, OR, 1996. Sorry for the 90s data, specific and reliable child sexual abuse data was more difficult to find than abuse data in specific. Perhaps someone else will have better luck than I and share their findings.)The thinking is that women perpetrators are under-represented because they tend to perpetrate younger children who are less likely to disclose.
So there are some facts. Men are more likely to sexually abuse children, women are more likely to kill them. Do these facts make anyone happy? Not me.
Stirring the pot with ideas and facts is very different from stirring the pot with hatred and bigotry. The former leads to discussion and learning, the latter to drama and hysterics.
Some of us prefer the former to the latter.
Trey
It does seem a little convoluted for feminists to complain that men are oppressing women (barefoot and pregnant) because they don't help out enough with the children just to turn around and say that men are oppressing women (momblocked) when they do help out with children.
The feminist problem isn't that men are helping/not helping. The problem is that they're men and are therefore wrong.
I don't see any woman killing her "spawn" who's the result of some genocidal soldier's rape in Africa.
Dear Trey,
The DHHS data you pulled out is supposed to support YOUR premise that women are superlative or inferior parents?
Your whole premise is predicated on 'supporting men' and "vindicating" men!
It is OK for you to bash women and not OK when you perceive someone to "bash" men.
No-one's bashing men, but the description of how the world is run by men obviously threatens many men into "hysterics" on this post.
Sorry to burst your bubble, "feminists" are not "complaining" about the oppression of women.
Instead, this post shows "masculinists" are complaining about the fact that today women are publishing about momblocking and exposing men.
ANON 12:45 said: What's wrong with choosing a career and resenting momblocking? If anyone is entitled, this woman clearly is.
The problem is that women have been told they can have it all without making any sacrifices whatsoever, unfortunately, life doesn't work in that way.
If mom wants to have the career while dad stays home with the kids, then it is not realistic for mom to believe or expect that she also can be the center of her children's universe.
The primary caregiver is going to have a stronger relationship with the children and a better understanding of their needs throughout the day.
The simple fact is, raising kids and running the household is a full time job, thus making it impossible for a full-time working parent to stay on top of everything that needs to be done, let alone stay in tune with the physical and psychological needs of the kids.
Around our house, life goes more smoothly when I focus on earning money and my wife takes care of the kids and household. Divide and conquer as we say.
And yes, I would be perfectly happy to trade places with her, but she's not interested.
As for being entitled, I'll just refer back to my earlier comment in this thread. Raising children is not about the parents. Any parent who talks about what they are entitled to needs to get over themselves...quickly.
Wow. What a thread. All I'd like to do is point out that the statistic that "66% of documented child abuse is
committed by women" has absolutely no correlation with the statistic that "men committing more than 90% of sexual abuse of children".
Mark Twain would be proud.
On a personal note, My wife is in the same field as I am, and has a higher salary.
Her mother is a successful Entrepreneur.
My mother Administers several ER departments for a Pacific NW Hospital Chain.
Obviously, I am failing in my part to uphold the oppressive male patriarchy that has existed to eons. It's time to pick up some Bhurkas at the local MaleOpressorMart.
I'm a single dad. I do all the parenting. Both sides. The kids are fine.
Having said that, there are things that I do not do as well as an average woman would do. Some things I do better than an average woman. Moms are special because they are women. Biological research has proven the brains of the two sexes are different.
As for the fussing about having a career taking you away from the kids, give me a break. Parenting is non-trivial and takes time and effort. The time and effort you give to your career is time and effort taken away from something else in your life. You want it all and can't have it. Cry me a river.
As for girls wrestling, we had some of that this year at my son's matches. The girls generally got their asses kicked.
AC 1:39 -- You don't live there.
NYMOM -- You continue to harken on biology, yet exhibit an astonishing ignorance on the subject. Go read. You might start with that link I provided. A number of explicitly named species that contradict your beliefs, for beliefs are all they are.
So wow, first of all, NYMOM or whoever she is clearly has too much time on her hands. But her words have demonstrated the truth of everything that Dr. Helen has ever said on this blog. And my earlier statement about the inherent coupling between modern feminism and misandry. The pose taken by this anon is the sterotypical modern-fem pose, lashing out in hatred at the opposite sex while simultaneously adopting the victim stance: "I wouldn't have to hate men if they weren't all totally evil!"
And actually, the original subject ties back to another bad aspect of modern feminism, the myth that it sold women that "You can have it all, baby! The six-figure, 12-hours-a-day executive career, *and* the perfect Donna Reed family!" That's impossible, for either men or women acting alone, and feminism did women in the '80s and '90s a huge disservice by selling them that story. It was a big part of feminism's downward spiral into self-contradictory illogic and hypocrisy.
Dogwood,
While your premise sounds very linearly logical, again, no consideration is made to the biological process of birthing in parenting. The mother is not a neutered being. Funny how the mother is always neutered by men/parents AFTER the all critical capability of the mother giving birth to the child.
After giving birth, the mother is neutered by men-parents. Not masculine, not feminine, nothing but a neutered "parent."
Parents who feel that the birthing parent needs to get over herself needs to get over himself.
Adoptive parents can only adopt the child after the biological parent(s) waives her (their) rights. That's a recognition of some form of "entitlement" or do biological parent(s) need to get over themselves?
Rather than neutering the unique overwhelming evidence of the mother's biological parenting role and capability, I am pointedly objecting to the neutering of mothers and neutering of their parenting roles. This neutering of mothers is the only way the non-birthing parent is able to "equalize" and elevate themselves. When it is medically feasible, certainly, men flocking to be the birthing parents is clearly not projected, and at that time, I doubt would proffer neutering the importance of their birthing. Birthing is not an incubator appartus of the womb. It is an entire "bio-ecosystem" that has evolved for the mother to instinctly care for their children. Are the same hormones at work in male-parents at the point of birth of children? None that has been identified.
Mother's biological bond to their children is greater for the obvious biological reasons outlined previously.
Michael said: Obviously, I am failing in my part to uphold the oppressive male patriarchy that has existed to eons.
Slacking off will not be tolerated. Either start carrying your own weight in our righteous struggle or find yourself confined to NYMOM's house for an entire month.
Your choice. Now pick one.
Hey, cousin dave, pretty cool to have your comment validated immediately by the next one down.
Did you sock-puppet that thing?
My "mother", who takes great pride in her own parenting ability, announced last week that she would no longer be coming to visit me. The offense? I got a promotion at work and the job I moved across the country to take - which she hated but in her best passive aggresive form gave half hearted praise to - is turning out to be the single best decision of my life.
My wife and I both have mothers who feel that the biological act of giving birth merits some lifetime debt of honor in their children that should rise above any and all other concerns. Their behavior does not matter. Their actions have no weight. All that matters was that day some thirty odd years ago when they got really doped up and gave birth - something about 50% of the world has done since the dawn of man.
It may be sexist and it may be insensitive but the harsh reality is that women in this country need a wake-up call. If you don't make an effort to make yourself important to your children, you aren't. It is painful to the children but if all you do is hold the "I gave birth to you" card over their heads for life one day you will find yourself totally ignored and marganilized. Thems the breaks - sorry.
WOW Both masked menace and cousin dave have an insane post following theirs?
Shudder.
Feminism sold women that their BRAINS are as capable as the men's (contrary to what men taught women for eons in denying women even an education) in the 1980s and 1990s. Feminism is correct in selling women that women can have their 6-figure careers and have their families too. Women clearly are biologically capable of doing both. What women didn't factor in is their partners' acceptance or society's acceptance of this, or lack thereof. Men clearly do not accept the fact that women can do well in both, because men are biologically programmed to have a subordinate function in one.
Controversial? Yes. Men won't admit it. Women won't admit, due to attacks on feminism. Women fear that by admitting they have a greater biological stake and function in rearing children, they will be pushed out of the workplace. That's the real menacing attacks made by many on this post. Either stay home or shut up.
If women have careers and seek to reach the potential of their minds, they are told by men that they have to give up their "motherhood" and be neutered.
Hence, as women are achieving more in the workplace (25% vs. the original 40% underpay), they are being systematically neutered. Society labels mothers as those who chose their biological function over exploring the potential of their minds. Society labels working moms as those who chose neutering over their biological function.
Those who chose to explore their mind's potential are clearly challenging the notion of "neuterhood." This original article about momblocking is a woman who did explore her mind's potential and had a family challenging the neutering of her motherhood in the family.
You know, I never felt neutered right after giving birth.
And genocidal rape-men in Africa?
Please, please never have children. You have way too much man-hatred in you. God help a boy child if you had one.
Wow. A woman gets a great job, then cries about her husband's becoming too competent as the primary caregiver, and it's the MAN'S fault....because he proved that he can be a decent, bonded stay at home Dad he has somehow "neutered" his wife?
Wow. The insanity is strong in this one.
Dear Anon, you wrote: "The DHHS data you pulled out is supposed to support YOUR premise that women are superlative or inferior parents?"
No, not at all. The purpose was to bring some data to the discussion. I count that as a favor as we can disagree about our opinions but we must agree about the facts. Incidently, I have not made any posts critical of mothers in this thread, and I cannot recall any made at any time!
I love and miss my mother, and my wife is a wonderful human being. I do not have a gender issue in this fight. My intent has been to settle the discussion so that it has some value other than drama.
In my job, I see pain and trauma inflicted by mothers, fathers, grandparents, cousins, and strangers. There are certain patterns in the data that are interesting, but not in terms of slamming women or men in my world.
If you had read or understood (they always make sense to me, but sometimes I leave things out, sorry if that was confusing) my posts, you would have picked up on that.
Hey Michael, those stats are accurate because, thankfully, sexual abuse is so rare when compared to physical abuse and so called "neglect." 90% of a tiny piece of pie will not make you fat. 8)
Trey
Anyone want to chip in to the "Take NYMOM's haggard husband out for a beer" fund? If anyone deserves a night away from the family its that guy.
Every workplace tells women that same threat. "You play in our turf" you will be paid less, there are no women in higher jobs, other than the ancillary "Human Resources" or "Communications" or some other similar role in management. The Board room is still full of male suits. "You have children and your job won't be here after 12 weeks." And the list goes on and on.
Of all the incompetent workers in a company, the "women" ones are made posterchilds of and let go as an example, the men keep their jobs for decades, never moving anywhere, because "they have families to feed."
Is everyone on this post going to deny this? Probably. But your denial does not make it a nonreality.
This neutering of mothers is the only way the non-birthing parent is able to "equalize" and elevate themselves.
Most people do not view parenting through the prism of gender power struggles. My wife and I view it as a team effort.
Another way to view the issue is through the economic concept of specialization. I specialize in making money. My wife specializes in raising children and running the household. One person can't do both equally well.
Rather than neutering the unique overwhelming evidence of the mother's biological parenting role and capability, I am pointedly objecting to the neutering of mothers and neutering of their parenting roles.
Don't complain to me about it, complain to the leading feminists who have done everything possible to erase biological considerations from all facets of life over the last 50 years.
Do I believe mothers have a stronger biological connection to children? Yep.
Does that connection create internal conflicts for full-time working moms? Yep.
What's the solution: do one or the other, or be unsatisfied with your performance in both areas of your life.
Life, afterall, is all about making choices and sacrifices to achieve those goals that are most important to us.
Once people accept and understand that choices have to be made and sacrifices endured, then maybe they will stop whining about the results of those choices.
Hence, we deal with producitivity issues daily at work. Unfortunately, we all forget how well production levels were sustained to support the war effort during WWII when factories were run by women while the men fought overseas.
Olig - I think NYMOM's problem is not ignorance. Sounds more like the victim of a Gender Studies program - definitely a college girl.
Well, it takes all sorts. Even bitter and creepy ones...
AC 2:34
"Men clearly do not accept the fact that women can do well in both, because men are biologically programmed to have a subordinate function in one."
Yet again. You're a biological idiot, refusing to educate yourself. Start with the link I gave you waaaaaaaay up there.
AC 2:41 -- Neither do your uncited assertions.
For instance, all the economic specification practicing guys at work posting on this topic.
bugs -- Unfortunately, I have to agree with you about her major. I stand by my observation that she's a biological idiot, however.
Or maybe, you're on vacation, but not hanging out with your children. Maybe they are in school?
At the end of the day, juggling work and family is difficult for men and women. However, women who work who desire to have an equally fulfilling family life with their children are always vilified. In contrast, working men who desire to have an equally fulfilling family life are applauded as "saints."
At the end of the day, this is the fundamental difference.
Amen,
Anonymous 2:52
At the end of the day, you're assertion is only that.
Anyone want to chip in to the "Take NYMOM's haggard husband out for a beer" fund? If anyone deserves a night away from the family its that guy.
I'll buy the first round.
You pick the first bar.
Deal?
What a load of garbage!
Woman who is used to being in control all day tries to come home and do it all at home and is *surprised* that her husband is "slightly" more tuned in to what the daughter needs or wants? They needed counseling for this?
I stay home and my SO works full-time, division of labor and all that. I am home so I take care of *everything* - dishes, yard, broken appliances, basic carpentry, and those pesky kids. There is stuff I do better because I do it all day, every day. I couldn't begin to do the job we both used to do as well as SO does, I've been out of it too long.
Gotta say that keeping your spouse from dealing the car seat because you're better with it before spouse cries for help is pretty tacky. My SO can clean the kitchen much more slowly than I can, but I take the offering of labor with the love it is given.
To the whacko woman who keeps raving about lions and rape victims -- yep, seek more therapy. The mom from the story really needs to get over herself.
"Don't complain to me about it, complain to the leading feminists who have done everything possible to erase biological considerations from all facets of life over the last 50 years."
While it's true that feminists have indeed committed the above, they eradicated biological "differences" in combatting stereotypes embedded in society that these biological differences justified their confinement to the domestic realm.
One cannot fault feminists for their strategy to eradicate a biological myth for the purpose of elevating the woman's mind.
Feminists never neutered motherhood. That has been carried out by the "backlash" campaign, which upon close inspection, are made up of conservative men....
JW, glad you enjoyed it.
NYMOM,
Sure there's a biological connection greater with women than men, but its not the trump card. You spend time and effort with your kids--and at some point it passes the time and effort and risk that the birthing process cost. I think you are so focused on the first part that you're not admitting the second part.
As to Mary, mother of God, you need to read your Bible. Original sin passes down the patriarchical line, thus the Lord Jesus Christ could not have been born of man and still be sinless. And if he was not sinless, He could not take the punishment for all our sins on His shoulders. Your sin too, although sometimes you give the impression of being a Sinless Goddess in your own mind.
Also, God is described as Male, and the Church (those who establish a relationship with Christ) are his Bride. Yup, that includes human men. Its because the way God interacts with Humanity is more closely resembling the way Men act with Women. A Man pursues his chosen Bride just as the hounds of Heaven pursue the sinner. A man leads his house even if he stays at home and takes care of the children just as God guides his children and with the same self-sacrificing love.
Or as Jesus said to Paul--why do you kick against the cattle goad? NYMOM, you're going to break your heart trying to change reality, and when you're done reality is stil going to be there.
Tennwriter
heatherb....is your SO a woman or a man?
"Also, God is described as Male, and the Church (those who establish a relationship with Christ) are his Bride. Yup, that includes human men. Its because the way God interacts with Humanity is more closely resembling the way Men act with Women. A Man pursues his chosen Bride just as the hounds of Heaven pursue the sinner. A man leads his house even if he stays at home and takes care of the children just as God guides his children and with the same self-sacrificing love."
I can't help but observe that the "Church" Bride also consists of "neutered" men....what kind of Bride is that???
It would be nice once in while for the men to do their self-sacrificing part instead of preaching to others (looking around, who's left, oh women) to sacrifice themselves.
Counting the ways men have sacrificed:
1. Sacrificed liquor, smoking etc.
2. Sacrificed bachelors' parties and "gentlemen's clubs"
3. Sacrifice "abstinence" (or so the Bushies preach)
4. Sacrifice your wife's career.
Now, women who work, they bring their paychecks home to pay all household bills.
Now, men who work, they bring their paychecks home, sorry, not home, but indulges in some household neccesities, like the shackfull of home improvement tools in the "workshop."
A darkroom full of camera and photography equipment.
A boat to go fishing with the, guess what, guys.....
Oh, but you women buy shoes, handbags and clothes and Jimmy Choos... Guilty as charged, but they are not $120,000 a pop.
One cannot fault feminists for their strategy to eradicate a biological myth for the purpose of elevating the woman's mind.
You can if they replaced one myth with another myth, i.e. you can be the best career woman ever and still be the best parent in the universe even though your child is being raised by strangers at the daycare center.
Being a parent is a full time job.
Reaching the pinnacle of achievement in a chosen profession requires an almost single-minded focus.
You can choose to do both, but you won't achieve excellence in either one because there are not enough hours in the day to do both exceptionally well.
Ah, here's insane anonymous's inspiration?
When I first read OF WOMAN BORN, in the mid-seventies, it was a Godsend. Rich's feminist critique of the institution of motherhood elucidates the source of so many of the world's problems. When women, the source of life, the life givers, the ones who bear each one of us into the world, whether man or woman, are denigrated, oppressed, abused, imprisoned, and exploited by governments, religions, and cultures - everything is off-kilter. Rich accurately describes the state of motherhood in the mid-20th century and the toll it took on mothers and children. She helped me understand that the pressures mothers put on their daughters to conform to sexist stereotypes were part of the oppression they themselves were enduring. Re-reading this book over the decades, I've seen that while some things have improved for women since Rich wrote OF WOMAN BORN, we still have a long way to go before women are treated equally or given the respect they deserve for their role as life givers and nurturers. The worldwide upsurge in the revival of Fundamentalist religions that institutionalize the oppression and second-class status of mothers and their daughters is frightening, as is the rage expressed by some reviewers of this book. People who are threatened by the ideas in OF WOMAN BORN want to return to the days when women were chattel and children were seen but not heard. In the 21st century, don't we owe our children, grandchildren and the world more than the tired, worn-out worldviews that brought women and families so much pain?
http://www.amazon.com/Woman-Born-Motherhood-Experience-Institution/dp/0393312844
"Its because the way God interacts with Humanity is more closely resembling the way Men act with Women."
Since Man has also called God his Lord, Man has demanded that woman call him "Lord" and made himself Lord over women....
Religion is a contraption, according to this account, to justify the way Men treat women.
This is a bit off topic I guess, but I wonder if Freud ever addressed this particular issue of penis envy. Are there women out there who want to have one in order to more easily facilitate the act of pissing all over men?
"You can if they replaced one myth with another myth, i.e. you can be the best career woman ever and still be the best parent in the universe even though your child is being raised by strangers at the daycare center."
This woman already thinks of her husband as a stranger living under the same roof, objects to the way her child is being raised, especially the uncouth wrestling mania approach.
Are there women out there who want to have one in order to more easily facilitate the act of pissing all over men?
Maybe, but they seem to be doing well without one.
TO: Anonymouse
RE: Dodging
"Or maybe it's more aptly you're too clever for bullets." -- Anonymouse, to moi
Been dodging bullets the better part of my adult life, babe. It comes with the turf; 27 years, airborne-ranger-infantry.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Once the pin has been pulled, Mr. Hand Grenade is no longer your friend.]
Freud would attribute it to "penis envy" since he was obsessively preoccupied with his penis.
...uncouth wrestling mania approach.
Every child should get in wrestling matches with dad.
"Pile on Daddy" is a household favorite for my two girls.
What? Appalled by the objection raised to wrestlemania? A precursory review of wrestlemania on TV nets an objectivization of women and ugly steroid-injected men prancing about like the "missing link."
A precursory review of wrestlemania on TV nets an objectivization of women and ugly steroid-injected men prancing about like the "missing link."
Yeah, but some of the women are hot in an Amazonian kind of way!
TO: Anonymous
RE: [OT] Automatic Page Refreshing
"I've asked about this before, but does anyone know how to disable the automatic refresh function of this page? It's driving me insane." -- Anonymous
What sort of web-browser are you using?
I'm using FireFox and I have no such problem as auto-refresh on this site.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[When Microsoft FINALLY makes a product that doesn't suck, it'll be a vacuum cleaner.]
Dogwood, I respect that Pile on daddy works in your home and that your wife is OK with it. Whether pile on daddy is what every girl ought to do regularly with daddy is debatable, since the woman in the momblocking article has an objection to it, for one.
At the same time, just as respect is shown for pile on daddy to work in your home, surely respect can also be given to the mom who objects to it.
C'est la vie, n'est-ce pas.
"Freud would attribute it to 'penis envy' since he was obsessively preoccupied with his penis."
And some are obsessively preoccupied with pissing all over probably one of the most enlightened generations of men that the civilized western world has ever seen, and I think they should recognise that.
"Yeah, but some of the women are hot in an Amazonian kind of way!"
And you wonder why some women object to their girls participating in wrestlemania......
There is an old saying...
"There is only one thing men and women have in common.....they both do not trust women".
As a 38-year old heterosexual man, I am happy to have not dated a woman in over 10 years. Women are so messed up today, they are not even worth it.
Michele, I agree with you that this generation is the most enlightened one in the history of western civilization.
I forgot to add one more thing to my above post...THANK GOD I have no desire to have children.
""There is only one thing men and women have in common.....they both do not trust women".
That's good. Men like you staying out of the dating pool is a real plus. Keep up the good work!
"I forgot to add one more thing to my above post...THANK GOD I have no desire to have children."
Thank God - even if he is depicted as a Male God.
"Pursuing women like Men pursuing his "bride...."
Anon.
There is no private interpretation. Or as Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom points out in his...ah...colorful... way, the meaning of the words is in the mouth of the person who says them, and not something for the listener to freely interpret according to whatever theory they come up with.
According to the account of the Bible, the relationship of man to woman is a type or symbol of the relationship of human to God.
Note, I do not speak of Religion, but of Relationship.
I also don't see why I should 'privilege your narrative' over the Biblical narrative to get all PoMo for a second.
Tennwriter
And you wonder why some women object to their girls participating in wrestlemania......
LOL.
Unlike feminists and gender studies students, my two girls are going to appreciate sarcasm, recognize a baited hook when they see one, and not take themselves so darn seriously.
Try it once in awhile and you'll realize that life isn't quite so miserable.
Also, wrestling with daddy does not mean they sit around all day watching Wrestlemania and scantily clad women.
It just means they PLAY!
They are kids for goodness sake. Rough play is expected and should be encouraged.
While I respect your view of the sacredness of Biblical narrative, women hearing this male-female analogy has no pretensions that this is not Religious Leaders preordaining the justification behind male's subjugation of women.
What hypocracy to compare the church to a bride when the church denies women an leadership participation or full membership in decision making, when the Bible is written by none other but a collection of accounts each more male centric than the other?
"In the 21st century, don't we owe our children, grandchildren and the world more than the tired, worn-out worldviews that brought women and families so much pain?"
Indeed, we owe them color and sex blind equality. Thought we were saying that?
AC 3:38 -- That's not wrestling, that's just showboating. Wrestling is an art. Don't conflate.
Chuck -- [...] -- Friggin' funny and true.
Anon 3:41 -- Weren't no condemnation of woman fer not wantin' pile on daddy, just her condemning pile on daddy.
TO: Anonymous
RE: ¡Cuidado!
"I forgot to add one more thing to my above post...THANK GOD I have no desire to have children." -- Anonymous
"Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein." -- Mark 10:14-15
Consider the implication....
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[I do not fear for the souls of children murdered by abortion. I fear for the souls of those who perform or countenance these murders.
For as surely as God lives, I am certain He can provide for the former. And I am equally certain He WILL 'provide' for the latter.]
Anonymous said...
Michele, I agree with you that this generation is the most enlightened one in the history of western civilization.
3:44 PM
I don't think this generation is the most enlightened one in the history of western civilization. I think this generation of men, is much more enlightened about sexual fairness, and parental equality, and children in general, and everyone should be happier for it.
Except nobody is happier for it. This generation is just looking for things to fight about, and not doing it very rationally I might add. Notice the word "historically" is used in a lot of these feminist posts. Doesn't that denote a problem that's in the past? Don't we have other more important things to deal with today, besides endless sophmoric navel gazing about sex roles in America?
"And you wonder why some women object to their girls participating in wrestlemania......
LOL.
Unlike feminists and gender studies students, my two girls are going to appreciate sarcasm, recognize a baited hook when they see one, and not take themselves so darn seriously.
Try it once in awhile and you'll realize that life isn't quite so miserable.
Also, wrestling with daddy does not mean they sit around all day watching Wrestlemania and scantily clad women.
It just means they PLAY!
They are kids for goodness sake. Rough play is expected and should be encouraged."
It's great that you are able to play and teach your girls all the finesse of life.
I hope too that after you pay for their college and graduate school educations, they will be well nurtured by you and your wife to aspire to be something else in addition to being mom. And that when do, and still aspire to be full-fledged moms to their children (your grandkids), you and your wife are not going to tell them, "Honey, we love you, but you can only do well in one, that's reality." I hope you will not dash their aspirations to be the best and still strive to be the best participatory mom they can be.
AC 4:01 -- How many hours a week does a "full-fledged mom" spend with her children?
Michele, This generation of women wants more than prior generations, that's a fact.
its all about choice, if you choose to go to work, and you leave someone at home they will connect better to the child left behind.
regardless of men and women, the work its about choice, have you ever seen women working on the trash trucks, or at a building site, women usually go for the "softer" jobs, the other week in my home town, they compared school dinner ladies with people who go up at 5 am to take the rubbish out of the bins..
its all about the choices that people do, men and women. if you work then leave after having a child, then thats your decision, and you shouldnt moan when you fall behind in the work, if a man or childfree woman works all the time and takes NO time off, no wonder they rise to the top.
its about choice. you cant have it both ways, you work, man looks after, then you complain the man is better at looking after than you who work..
Let's see, Middle-Class: Ages 1-2: 18 hour days.
Ages 3-5: 5-6 hour days.
Ages 5-12: 4 hour days, tops.
Ages 12+: Variable.
And this depends on the number of children and closeness in the age of the children.
Let's see, Middle-Class: Ages 1-2: 18 hour days.
Ages 3-5: 5-6 hour days.
Ages 5-12: 4 hour days, tops.
Ages 12+: Variable.
And this depends on the number of children and closeness in the age of the children.
I am not sure the woman is "complaining" that the man is better at looking after the children. It sounds like the woman in the momblocking article is objecting to the blocking of her parenting attempts by her husband after she returns home from work.
Anon.
I can flip that back to you if you like...Men hearing this have no pretensions that....and I'm sure I could get a ton of men on this site to fill in that blank for me.
Lets dispose of hypocrisy first...how is the Bible hypocritical? It calls for male leadership in the church and the home. Perfectly consistent.
How about another narrative on religious leaders? They are trying to do what God tells them to do, but being human (or as you like...male), they mess up...a lot.
But, if you don't trust leaders, then fine. I myself have issues with authorities. Go to the Bible yourself. Read it with an open mind, and test it to see if its true. God invites us to test Him. The Bible is not just another narrative to arrange power, but its an accurate depiction of reality.
Tennwriter
AC 4:11 -- So when men commit themselves to such a schedule, they're "full-fledged fathers" and women shouldn't complain?
Anon 4:14 -
Woman to man. "Don't contradict the way I raise the kids while you're at work."
That kind of thing?
but she CHOSE to work. if she didnt go to work, then he would have, would the man get the chance to complain about dad blocking.
no.. her choice for good or bad.
She objects to the utter lack of support as a parent by her husband, by directly telling her and showing her that she's inadequate, and blocking her attempts to mother her children. Blocking her attempts to do bath time (when she returns home) and blocking her attempts to secure the car seat in the car, and the examples go on and on in her article. When she's home, she observed now that her daughter is 4, wrestling between her husband and her child. She clearly does not agree with it but her husband's position is "it's playing."
So when her attempts to parent are blocked, that's not empty complaining.
Yes, he's doing all the things mothers have done to dads. But she is legitimate in her complaints. See 4:16.
This is a good learning curve for women. If you don't want to be momblocked, make sure you make arrangements to prevent momblocking in your home.
Yes. This might include going along with the program who is the designated majority time parent's goals and plans.
What mothers have done what to dads?
Ha. Trust me, if dads felt slighted, they'd long have written about dadblocking since the recording of history some 5,000 years ago. A perusal of records by Man shows an utter lack of complaint of dadblocking.
I hope too that after you pay for their college and graduate school educations, they will be well nurtured by you and your wife to aspire to be something else in addition to being mom.
What's wrong with aspiring to be a mom? I can think of no more noble a profession than parenting.
Personally, I hope my children aspire to something greater than simply being a wage slave for 50 years.
You apparently do not have any experience in putting others before self, because that is exactly what my wife did when she chose to quit her job and focus on our children.
In fact, while we were dating, she informed me that if we married and had children that she intended to stay home with the kids because that was more important than a career or second paycheck.
Don't denigrate those who choose to be parents just because you believe it is a waste of their education or potential.
Its not. Rather, the ability to make that choice, instead of having the decision made for her, is what true feminism is all about.
I hope you will not dash their aspirations to be the best and still strive to be the best participatory mom they can be.
What in the world is a "participatory mom"?
My children will be raised knowing that in America they can do anything they set their heart to.
They also will be taught that life involves making decisions that require sacrifices of many different types.
My children also will be taught the value of parenting and that there is nothing more important than raising their children to be responsible, caring members of society.
Like generations before them, my children will ultimately make the decisions they believe are in their best interests, as my wife and I have done.
Regardless of the decisions they make, we will continue to love them unconditionally and support them in every way possible.
AC 4:24 -- Um, bullshit.
This momblocked mom clearly stated that her husband decided along with her that her job offer was too good to turn down, his career was going no where. Momblocking was not part of the deal with the arrangement.
Hence, the husband entered into the arrangement getting everything he wanted from the woman, but she did not enter into the arrangement conceding her parenting participation.
The momblocked mom clearly values parenting but is being blocked from parenting. That said, while choosing to be a stay-at-home mom is very noble indeed, the personal investment of the person, and the cost of college and graduate school for parents makes this "choosing to be a parent" a bit flaky.
If the sons in our society started to say that to their fathers, "Pay for my college and grad school, Dad, but when I marry, I am going to refuse to be a wage slave for 50 years and am going to be a full-time stay-at-home dad." Would you post what you just posted?
Since you have two daughters, would you pay for college and grad school at the projected cost of college education in 20 year's time if your daughters tell you, "if I get married and had children I intend to stay home with the kids because that was more important than a career or second paycheck." You're going to honestly tell me that you would invest in education for education's sake?
All this input and no output?
...but she did not enter into the arrangement conceding her parenting participation.
Not all of it anyway, just most of it.
When you make your career the number one priority in your life, rather than staying home with the kids, you automatically choose to sacrifice time with your children and spouse.
Why is it so hard for people to understand this very simple, basic fact of life?
Now, she may not have fully realized the extent to which she would be sacrificing time with her family.
And, she may have come to regret making some of those sacrifices, but no one put a gun to her head and forced her to pursue her career in exchange for family time.
Let's be honest, they both could have chosen to dial back the career pursuits and settled for less money and more family time, but they didn't pick that option.
Choices. Trade offs. Sacrifices.
Make them. Accept them. Stop whining.
Post a Comment
<< Home