Women/family debate (split from ask McJ anything)

[McGiver]

i didn't call you a hypocrite at all - i merely suggested you take a wider view of things, as your argument is the classic argument used by people who are missing who's really responsible for various ills in the world.  if it ain't women stealing the jobs, it's blacks, or gays, or immigrants, or giving jobs to disabled people who can't actually do it...

now do you see what i mean?

and responsibility - both personal and collective - is one of my main bugaboos, possibly the greatest (although as the other is injustice, it's a close thing).  i agree with your take on resposnible parenting.  where we appear to differ, though, is that i look at collective as well as personal, and fight for the proper support which is needed by whoever chooses to take responsbility for bringing up children.  we actually agree on the first point - can you now see what i'm getting at on the second?

yes i do.

your right, and i in no way meant to cast blame on blacks, immigrants, or women, for the lack of decent jobs.

you know my view about the rights of workers to a fair portion af what they produce.  it just doesn't happen.  i am fortunate, i have a dream job and wish that everybody had the same working condition as i do.  the same level of dignity at the workplace.  just as i feel that women deserved more dignity in their crucial role of raising the next generation.

yes corporate greed is taking advantage of this divide and conquer technique.  but its real, and its the result of more people competing for less jobs.  i would like to one day develope the perfect formula to where everybody gains dignity, people appreciate each others roles and no-one is left behind.
impossible, i think not.  the answer is beyond me at the moment.

[McGiver]

* Lucifer shrugs.

water off a 's back, mcj.  i've already started, in the last post.  let's go from there, shall we?

(have to go to work now - i shall return...).

as pyraxis would put it, "i will be waiting with bated breath"

in the meantime i would like to continue with anybody else interrested in the breakdown of the family structure, and i would like to request that each of these be split and maybe we can start a different, meaningful thread about this subject.

[purposefulinsanity]

one reason i have a problem with the womans movement is because it tells women that they need to go out into the job market.  tells women that being a mother is demeaning, its all about money...
back to the baby boomers greed.

not any more they don't, although yes, they did at one point.  now, it's more about recognising that the unpaid "social care" responsbilities women take on (not necessarily as an educated choice), with children, with the eldery, etc., should be recognised for what it is, and recompensed appropriately.

  Whilst I agree with your point in theory- in practice a lot of the damage has already been done and its going to take a long time to repair this damage.   As a woman who chose to have kids before even thinking about a career, who chose to stay at home to take care of them, I know from experience that many people look down on women for that.   I've had other women asking me 'How can you stand to be stuck at home with your kids all day?'- would this question have even been considered before the women came have it all feminist movement??( Which I think tied in nicely with the consumerist attitude of the Thatcher years).

I agree that feminist theory has moved on, but unfortunately the majority of people are still lagging behind in their attitudes.

[Triste]

i will honor my responsibility and do the best i can ( given that i do not have the natural instincts).

Although I could respond at length to various things in this post, I'm going to refrain at the moment, but I do want to point out one thing.  Some aspie moms (myself included) do not feel they have the natural instincts either.  Just because you're a mother doesn't mean you naturally have the right instincts. 

[purposefulinsanity]

i will honor my responsibility and do the best i can ( given that i do not have the natural instincts).

Although I could respond at length to various things in this post, I'm going to refrain at the moment, but I do want to point out one thing.  Some aspie moms (myself included) do not feel they have the natural instincts either.  Just because you're a mother doesn't mean you naturally have the right instincts. 

I agree- I could cope ok with them when they were babies- I had a mental check list for what they might need.  But as they get older I have to work hard at understanding them- I think it helps that I can see some of my traits in them so it helps me to understand where they are coming from.  But despite the hard work I still feel that I can best fulfil my role as their mother by being there for them, even if money is tight.

[McGiver]

i will honor my responsibility and do the best i can ( given that i do not have the natural instincts).

Although I could respond at length to various things in this post, I'm going to refrain at the moment, but I do want to point out one thing.  Some aspie moms (myself included) do not feel they have the natural instincts either.  Just because you're a mother doesn't mean you naturally have the right instincts. 

that i would have to agree with.  i have had discussions about parenting with AS moms, and i agree that you are correct.  its the emotional arms length thing.

[Lucifer]

to PI's posts above:  yes, and abso-bloody-lutely.  the latter is what i meant about proper support - not just financial support, but advice, emotional support, respect and value put on the job of bringing up kids, etc., etc.

and you're so right about the "looking down their noses" coming from other women - it's another aspect of the divide and conquer thingy.  let's face it, it's all about solidarity - if "out groups" stopped the infighting, both inter AND intra, there'd be no stopping sorting things out.  and we couldn't have that now, could we? 

[McGiver]

what has this become, some sort of hippie love fest.

where is the controversy or difference of opinions.

can it be concluded, that, the men of previous generations have not owned up to their personal responsibilities, and therefore in reaction the womens movement came along to right this wrong and took things to an unreasonable level?

[Pyraxis]

pt.2.  why can't men carry babies to term, why cant men breast feed?  there is nothing wrong with a man, being mr mom, i am saying that it is not natural.  we (the sexes) are born wired differently, paternal instincts is not as popular as maternal instincts for a reason.  we are born wired differently and society does nothing to change those perceptions.
why do women show more emotion than men ( for the most part)?
why are women more nurturing than men (for the most part), even in their relationsships with each other?

women are better at it than men are, and i reiterate, it is the most notable of all professions.

But you said one of the most important influences on you as a child was your grandfather. A man. Even assuming that the sexes are wired differently (I really don't feel like rehashing the nature vs nurture debate right now), what makes you think a "woman's" type of caring is better for a child than a "man's"?

should we just toss out a few generations of children till men acquire the skills necessary to raise children as well as women. 

That's better than men never learning, and supporting the status quo by their deliberate ignorance.

women are better than men in so many respects, whats more important tending to a life or making money?  i never said that women cannot do carreers as well as men.

They're both equally important, all the motherly caring in the world's not going to help you if you're starving.

[Pyraxis]

my position on this matter is that since women have entered the workplace there are fewer jobs for more people.
so women are not "people", then?   

fucking hell, mcj - you really are showing your true colours:

pyraxis you are a good interpretor, and i am a bad communicator.
when did i say that women were not people?

who's showing their selective understanding colours, lucifer.

It's just ambiguous wording, though grammatically correct. Lucifer's the one who misinterpreted. If you break the sentence apart logically, it doesn't say that women are not people.

[McGiver]

But you said one of the most important influences on you as a child was your grandfather. A man. Even assuming that the sexes are wired differently (I really don't feel like rehashing the nature vs nurture debate right now), what makes you think a "woman's" type of caring is better for a child than a "man's"?

the bonding that takes place in the suckling of the nipples.  (not meant to be universal, since, not all women can produce healthy cholestrum and mothers milk, and because of formula.
human contact is psychological necessary for a bulk of the population.

BTW- i am half assing this, i can do better.  and i apologize you deserve better.


my argument isn't about how my grandfather influenced me (during the years that i have memories of), but how women can do things (during the non memory years) that men cannot.

what are we supposed to do?
are we supposed to give women 3-4 years off and have men step in as part time labour.  then women return to work, and men go act as  mr mom?
the problem is that women are necessary at some stage of developement.  men are not as necessary.

[McGiver]

That's better than men never learning, and supporting the status quo by their deliberate ignorance.

i think it could have been handled better and as less of a shock to the status quo.
the best way to change things is deliberately and over time.  get people used to the idea before the idea is actually introduced (i can go on and on over this subject).

yes, something needed to be done to give men a kick in the pants.  what we are getting was a cycle of abuse (if you don't mind a buzz phrase).  men were getting less and less responsible with each passing generation.

i can only hope that men take stock and realize the importance of a two parent (contributing) family, both emotional and financially.  Responsibility is the bottom line here.  i suspect that without the drastic measures that have taken place over the past 50 years that i would not be as in tune to how everybody has been wrong.  i am choosing to break that cycle of abuse.

[McGiver]

Quote from: McJagger on June 28, 2006, 10:33:48 PM
women are better than men in so many respects, whats more important tending to a life or making money?  i never said that women cannot do carreers as well as men.

They're both equally important, all the motherly caring in the world's not going to help you if you're starving.

i agree and here is my reactionary solution:
they (babyboomers) have put a shock to the sytem, i propose and i know this might be controversial, but:
i propose that we stop dishing out social security for the next 25 years, and instead put all the baby boomers in old folks homes (pennies on the SS dollar) and put them in front of a TV and have them spend their twilight years the same way we spent our formative years.
fuck them, they get nothing for they have already taken more than their fair share.
they are going to continue to take until there is no more.  MARK MY WORDS ON THIS.

so since they deliberately shocked the system lets shock it back and right the ship.

ALL SS MONEY WILL GO TO EDUCATION AND RESPONSIBILITY RESEARCH.  and social security will be used to aid families who would otherwise starve, so that they can do whats right by the future generation.

[McGiver]

Fine.  However, as a fellow number-watcher, I'm interested in knowing what are you obsessing on in terms of the numbers you're watching.  Can you beat yesterday's count of 4 pages on this thread?

no i am obsessing on the current topic and testing my limits/abilities.

i have seen a shitload of activity today and am interrested in getting 20,000 clicks.  but alas i am unprepared for that today.  i have nothing up my sleeve.  although, ascan can help me if he'd respond to my callout.

[Triste]

Can you explain WHY the topic of personal responsibility is so important to you?