young mom's

This is why we used to stone women who weren't married. It's not that I was so opposed to it so much it just brought more and more arguments all the time. Of course today being stoned means another thing...

 

So, what is your definition of family? Mine would be (as a definition of the 'nuclear family): the parents and the kid(s), If you expand that, you may add people like the grandparents, uncles, aunts, helpfull neighbours etc.

So, what does a 'good father' in a 'nuclear family' do according to you, if it doesn't mean hanging out with children?

Yes, my argument would be that because of equality, men ànd women can both get educated and get jobs and they both share the same responsibility for the children. So in a perfect world, they both provide love, care and money (for things like school, housing etc.).

Because in most countries the government doesn't give moms and dads the same options when a child is born. It should be made easier for men to work part-time if they want to, so they can spend more time with their child. In fact, in the Netherlands there has a whole public campaign to promote this. If I remember correctly, then Sweden has things organised very well in this area (fathers can take a long 'maturnity' leave for example).

BUT: it isn't all that unrealistic, as long as the men really want to.. they just have to put up with all the other men who are just 'providers' of money to their kids laughing at them for not working fulltime but actually enjoying spending lots of qualitly time with their offspring. As long as the woman brings in her share of money, most of the time the man doesn't have to work fulltime (unless you want that extra big car, house, vacation etc.. but be honest, what are the kids gonna remember.. the size of the car of their daddy being there to play ball?).

 

It wasn't? I would think that it would be, at least I know that I and every woman I know would be tired of being abused regularly by the men who took a vow to love, honor, and protect us. So why do you think feminism came to be, if not for the reason of rescuing ourselves from a life less than human? That's what every civil rights movement in history has been about, attaining the same rights as "other individuals" (usually white males). The ending of slavery destroyed the South's main source of income, but should the slaves not have been freed? Reconstruction takes time, but people have to be willing to work on it. If your hypothesis is correct, it is still in the man's duties to get over whatever issues he has with women taking their rightful place by their side in life.

But that's all a matter of opinion. Are you suggesting that we would have been better off without the feminist movement? The very word "progress" suggests a postive movement (as it's definition is, to advance, move forward, or grow). It's unseemly to suggest that men would rather have women as mere baby-makers and maids... I certainly hope that's not the true nature of men. I would thought that a man would want a partner and a helper rather than a slave. This suggests that man has not evolved enough to be civil by nature, and prefers to dominate. Do you think this is true?

 

Aside from everything else written on this post. Some I haven't even read. This is what broke my heart the most. My oldest son JUST this morning was looking out the window watching his Daddy go to work and he was sitting there with his lip down to the floor. He see's his Daddy every day and he still mangages to say to me this morning "I wish Daddy was home all day".

"I told him to have a good day while rubbing his head and kissing his cheeks" that is what my Husband just told me after I told him what Billy said.


This is why Mother's and Father's are so important to Lil' Ones. We each play an equal roll in their lives.

I don't know what the situations or excuses are. I don't think there is any excuse that justifies why a Father OR a Mother doesn't take their responsibility in parenting.

This is actually a very tough subject for me. I have a good life, excellent marriage. I grew up in a stable environment. I am blessed to say this is true. What is tough for me...CHILDREN NEED THEIR PARENTS!!! BOTH, NOT JUST ONE BUT BOTH!!!!

I just had to say this. I take my roll as a Mother very seriously.

 

You sure sound like a good mom, don't worry about it too much.. I was thinking, it makes sense that kids often cling to their daddy, although mom is home a lot more.. mom deals with a the hard stuff, has to discipline sometimes.. dads usually try to spend the little time they have with their kids in a fun way but don't get too involved in the hard parts of raising them.. You're boy would probably beg you to stay home if you and your hubby would switch lives for a week It's just too bad that parenting is hardly ever an equal business or both parents.. keep trying though, make sure your hubby knows what it's like to deal with all the aspects of raising his son!

Good luck sweety.. !

 

Thank you for your post.

My boys have both of us in their lives. Of course me more because I am home all day and their Daddy has to work.

My Husband takes his roll as "Daddy" and as a "Husband" very seriously too. We had our rough spots in the begining of our marriage only because we were learning how to comprimise. He knows all that goes on here during the day because we talk about it and share our day with him.

 

You really do sound like a great Mommy
You are soooo blessed! I'm really glad that you and your hubby found ways to communicate through those rough patches, because the truth of the matter is, children really do need both parents, and preferably parents that are still together. This is something I don't think many people want to recognize, but couples today call it quits way too easily. It takes a lot of compromise and patience to make a relationship work, especially where children are involved. That's really awesome that you guys had the endurance to persevere through the bad times, you don't see that much anymore.

 

My fault. I should have said "if all that was meant by ‘fatherhood’ was ..." I didn’t mean family. But a note, family is the interaction of the mother and father and children. It includes those alchemic and very difficult to name virtues of "motherness" and "fatherness". Grandparents and uncles are not listed as part of the family, they are listed as extended family. Friendly neighbors are not more part of the family than is the grass growing on the lawn. They can not be classified in any of the sub headings under family.

It would be impossible for me to list all the things involved in fatherhood. To think that all that is involved is "hanging out with the kids" is absurd and I am refusing to believe that you think that a father is nothing more than a friend.

However, if we are to accept that you are indeed telling the truth and believe firmly that a father is nothing more than a good play mate, you have given much more credence to my original argument than I would have hoped for.

There is no better proof than the words of our generation.

That whole statement would have to be qualified with your last sentence. Only in a perfect world [a perfect world wouldn’t necessarily be a perfect world in itself, only through us] is what you are arguing a possibility. Since I am not one for alchemy I can not agree with you.

Unfortunately we don’t have the luxury of being able to live in a perfect world. We can not sit here and imagine up fairy tales. That will get us nowhere fast. I can’t base my arguments on anything other than what has been observed as effects of social reconstruction.

As for your idea of men and women both having part time jobs and both doing the same thing [ultimately eliminating nature completely] for their kids, I have already written my answer.

 

What are you talking about? I don’t follow you.

She [bjorky] said ... "it was men who blame these things on passion, feminism was a reaction to this." I disagreed. I don’t think men admitting that they rape because of passion caused feminism.

Doesn’t suffice as an explanatory cause.

Feminism came to be because abstract groups of people are always going to force an abstract justice on others through abstract justifications. It isn’t surprising that it happens. It is like clockwork throughout all of history. It wasn’t the first and it wasn’t the last. It wasn’t unique in content, only in form.

If my hypothesis is correct than it would no longer be in the man’s duties to take his rightful place beside the woman he impregnated simply because beside the woman he impregnated is no longer his rightful place. That was part of my hypothesis.

What you just said is that if my hypothesis is true than my hypothesis is false. You’re confusing me.

That [first question is a tough question. Would the world be better off without ever having gone through the feminist movement. I think I know what I might say but I think even beginning to mention why I believe what I believe [no matter what side of the coin I happen to be on] would derail this topic and I want to say as focused on the topic as we can.

If you want to talk about that than start up another thread. It might be a fun topic. If you want a serious chat than you should start the thread in a private forum that doesn’t get much traffic so that we aren’t disturbed and drawn away from the point.

Good question though.

The word progress does not automatically mean good. Progress can be negative. If you are going to insist that progress necessarily means good progress than I refuse to use the word and ask you to re read all I have written and replace the word ‘progress’ with ‘shift’.

I don’t think that you are in the best position possible to say what men would rather have. You say that you think a man would rather have a partner and a helper. But you are a woman. It is funny that the thing that most women want is the exact same thing you think a man would want. No offense, but of course you would think that. That is what you want. As for the true nature of men, I don’t want to guess.

No it wouldn’t. Is it so hard to believe that a dominant man with a slave could not be civil?

 

There is a style of arguing in which people answer questions with questions; pick up on particular words and debate the meaning of that word rather than discuss the full statement and question the ability of a person to debate on a subject based on factors such as age, gender, social standing.

I am aware that this is off topic and I apologise for this.

 

Is that the Socratic Method? haha I don't know.

 

LOL! Probably...

 

example of feminisim displacing fathers:


if a woman chooses abortion that is her "choice", the father has no legal or moral say in the matter.

if a woman chooses to keep her baby the father is held financially responsible regardless of whether he wanted a child or not.

either way the father is treated as a bystander who is seperated from the issue.

and yet here we have a thread w/feminists asking why fathers are not taking an active role...

 

Are you kidding me? Rape is not a common passion among males. I have known men passionate about a great many things. I have known men who are passionate in their love for their wives and children. I have known men passionate in their sexual cravings. I have known men passionate in their aggression. But I have never known a rapist. It is in what our modern psychology calls a psychotic that rape is a passion. But even then, under the guise of Freudian psychology, a rapist is notoriously passionless. I call into question your inclusion of rape as a result of passion. [yes i understand you mean "was so before the feminist revolution"] I do so on the grounds of modern psychology.

But, should that question be ignored, I will note that rapists comprise such a marginal percentage of males that the mere mention of men as rapists in a discussion of men as men is an insult and as absurd as the flat earth.

None of that matters. It simply isn’t the case that men raping women was the cause of the feminist movement. It can be seen as a part but like I have mentioned it does not suffice as the explanatory cause.

You can not include all women in all regions in a discussion of feminism. What has feminism done for the poor wives of Muslim men who can be killed for speaking or locking eyes with another man? What has feminism done to sway the Muslim man from thinking women are an abomination? That women are despicable creatures who must live as slaves? Nothing. Feminism did not help all women, everywhere. Where has the revolution gone? It ended as it began, in receiving as it demanded, an abstract justice for an abstract group.

That isn't the abstract group I was targeting but it seems logical now. When I said an abstract group I meant any group apart from the whole. Women, all women, everywhere are an abstract grouping of the human species. That’s what I meant.

Men should stick around for the child not for the woman, right?

There was a case held in the Supreme Court of Connecticut last year that had to do with a man who was accused of committing aggravated assault on his girlfriend after he tried to kill the fetus in his girlfriends womb by giving her labor-inducing drugs. Edwin Sandoval defended himself by saying that he could not be convicted because he tried to kill the fetus, not the woman.

The court unanimously ruled to convict him and justified their ruling by saying that a fetus is part of the woman akin to the skin and teeth, which is eventually shed.

How can I be a father to a body part? And by what alchemy does that women lose the right to her body after it is shed? You are going to have to explain that because I am completely lost. I can’t explain it.

Why am I not afforded a right to my child until birth? Why does the woman lose rights to her child after it is born?

This is the confusion that is brought about when women need to learn how to be both parents. Women need to learn to be both parents because in a parenting team there are roles and priorities. It is these roles and priorities that feminism fought so hard to eliminate.

Shane99x, the proud new father, nicely points out the [to put it nicely]contradiction [should really read utter absurdity] in what really is and what you are asking for. I need not elaborate.

I have already explained this. Three times now. It was in my long post. Go read it again. Please keep in mind that I am not justifying men leaving women. I am only explaining it.

The prefix pro has nothing to say about betterment. The prefix pro in progress is from the Latin pro which means "on behalf of, in place of, before, for,". In cases it is from the Greek pro meaning "before, in front of".

Regardless, I have already outlined my resolution if we are not able to reach an agreement on the definition of progress. Unfortunately it must come into action now.

Don’t put words in my mouth. I quote myself, "As for the true nature of men, I don’t want to guess."

Horrific to our generations. But our generations are horrific themselves. The biggest regret I have is being born into this age of value relativism. I find it bland and hypocritical, I find it subdues real passion, the kind that drives a man to Florence or to Athens to meet his Beatrice on the Ponte Santa Trinita or his Socrates in the Agora. Very few now know that Plato’s Symposium is the book of lovers. Our Eros is dictated in half-hour sprints in prime time. Our souls have been replaced by the senses. The notion that love is a passion that when ignored can drive a man to enslave a woman or die himself is only seen in psycho killer movies.

Hey hippielngstckng when is the last time a man wrote poetry about you or stood outside your window with a guitar and risked the slings and arrows through a ballad?

Passion is a dinner and a movie now.

There is horror. I should say, here is horror.

It is subject to opinion. It is that cultural arrogance, the presumption, the closedness to the dignity of other ways of life, and it’s implicit contempt for those who do not share your way, that serves you and kills you.

 

You are making a generalization here. Some of those women are believers, and would not want you to swoop in and "set them free".

 

I have grown very tired of this thread



So OSF and Shane99X, what the fuck are you waiting for us to say?


That its our own fault? That men and woman are equal parents? That because of our selfish women's lib, you fathers are not getting a fair shake?


Well I don't believe that shit, and it may be due to the fact I'm raising 4 kids alone.


Either way, pick one, pretend I said it and shut the fuck up

 

No apology needed, just an acknowledgement that feminism has had a negative affect on families.