Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I beg to differ, but that is not the point of this thread.
Quote:
Unless the role of the woman is to make sure the family has what it needs to survive and the role of the husband is to care for the children and support the wife.
I acknowledged this already. I said if the primary caretaker is the husband, there is still no replacement for the relationship a mother has with her child. The woman is and always will be who the baby relies on.
Quote:
OR
The role of the woman is to make sure the family has what it needs to survive and the role of the other woman is to care for the children.
You might say that my idea of traditional is antiquated, but the above certainly is for most of America.
Quote:
OR
The role of the man is to make sure the family has what it needs to survive and the role of the other man is to care for the children.
Again, a man cannot provide what a child needs in the same way a mother can. Even my husband cannot give our child what I can.
Quote:
OR
Gasp! The roles of both partners is to care for the children and make sure the family has what it needs to survive.
See my responses above.
Quote:
Do you realize that your situation doesn't represent every situation?
Of course, but I also realize there is absolutely no replacement for the mother when it comes to children. Why do you think that judges really dislike separating a child from his/her mother? The mother has to really have done some horrible stuff for the child to be removed permanently. The father, on the other hand, has much less leeway for screwing up.
What lack of choice? I'll use myself as the example again.
My main responsibilities in life are to my husband and my child. Would you not agree that a wife's main priorities in life are to her husband and children? If you disagree, please explain why.
As I said, I am free to do whatever I please, as long as we're not living in squalor, eating junk for dinner and our child is loved, clean and fed. Again, I think that's pretty typical of a marriage. If you don't see it that way, what kind of marriage would you prefer?
Ultimately, it doesn't really matter what these women think, b/c that's what it all boils down to in the end. I'm just practical enough to acknowledge it.
It's inescapable.........human babies get here via a human female carrying a pregnancy to delivery. So far, anyway. Like it or not, that's the way Nature made it. Nature also gave women the means to produce the perfect food for a newborn. As a species, this hasn't changed for millions of years. A man's role in the reproduction of the species is over with in a few minutes. Yet his responsibilities don't end there. (They shouldn't, anyway.) It's his natural job to provide for and protect the mother and child(ren) so the mother can care for them in a safe environment. Together they bring them to adulthood. This isn't rocket science. Why it should be surprising that there are still both women and men who see this natural order and are quite happy to go along with it is beyond me.
You're overthinking it. We were all put here to perpetuate the species. The role of the woman in that scenario is to care for children and support the husband.
Huh.
I'm male, yet I care for my child and support my wife.
And my wife makes sure that we have what we need to survive.
Whelp!
Looks like another useless tradition thrown out the window!
Sponsoring their international spouse/partner for a visa is just one.
That doesn't bother me. Why would we want to allow someone to get a visa for their boyfriend or girlfriend?
Quote:
There are many more. And why should they have to go through the expense of drawing up all of those different contracts (presumably with the help of a lawyer) when you or I can automatically get every one of those benefits for the cost of a marriage license?
They're the ones wanting a non-traditional relationship to be recognized. But in any event, I'm guessing hiring a lawyer is cheaper than what a lot of people spend on weddings.
Ultimately, it doesn't really matter what these women think
This is the main problem that I have with your stance. I do care what women think. I would imagine that they do as well.
Quote:
What lack of choice? I'll use myself as the example again.
My main responsibilities in life are to my husband and my child.
Ok. So? What has that to do with anyone besides you?
Quote:
Would you not agree that a wife's main priorities in life are to her husband and children? If you disagree, please explain why.
No. I believe that all parties to the marriage are equal and their priorities to themselves and the family are equal.
Quote:
As I said, I am free to do whatever I please, as long as we're not living in squalor, eating junk for dinner and our child is loved, clean and fed. Again, I think that's pretty typical of a marriage. If you don't see it that way, what kind of marriage would you prefer?
You're free to live in squalor, eat junk for dinner (or breakfast, or a snack...).
I would prefer no 'marriage'
I would prefer that people are free to live in the social circumstance that best suits them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrea3821
I beg to differ, but that is not the point of this thread.
Then why did YOU bring it up?
Quote:
I acknowledged this already. I said if the primary caretaker is the husband, there is still no replacement for the relationship a mother has with her child. The woman is and always will be who the baby relies on.
What if the woman dies? I guess the baby is quite capable of relying on someone else. What if the woman is an unfit mother? I guess the baby is quite capable of relying on someone else? What if the woman is the primary bread winner in the family? I guess the baby is quite capable of relying on someone else.
Quote:
You might say that my idea of traditional is antiquated, but the above certainly is for most of America.
Again, a man cannot provide what a child needs in the same way a mother can. Even my husband cannot give our child what I can.
See my responses above.
Of course, but I also realize there is absolutely no replacement for the mother when it comes to children. Why do you think that judges really dislike separating a child from his/her mother? The mother has to really have done some horrible stuff for the child to be removed permanently. The father, on the other hand, has much less leeway for screwing up.
Your appeal to tradition has no foundation in logic.
That doesn't bother me. Why would we want to allow someone to get a visa for their boyfriend or girlfriend?
They're the ones wanting a non-traditional relationship to be recognized. But in any event, I'm guessing hiring a lawyer is cheaper than what a lot of people spend on weddings.
And what of FMLA? Do you also not like the benefit of FMLA that allows one spouse to care for the other without fear of losing his or her job?
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrea3821
We were all put here to perpetuate the species.
And some are put here, by design, to help prevent overpopulation of the species.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrea3821
The role of the woman in that scenario is to care for children and support the husband. The role of the husband is to make sure the family has what it needs to survive. I'm not saying in modern times that women don't have other things they can do. I'm saying that when it comes down to it, women are the ones who raise the children while men provide for the family.
For you and your family, this may hold true. In mine? Totally different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrea3821
Even if the father is the stay at home parent, there is a bond and relationship between mother and child that the father can never have.
Sexism at its finest.
Too bad it doesn't apply to real-world stay-at-home fathers, of which my husband is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrea3821
I have a four-week old in the house, it is abundantly clear that the relationship between father and child is vastly different than mother and child, no matter who is the primary caretaker.
That's because you're the stay-at-home and he's the bacon-bringer.
In my household, it's the reverse.
And we do quite well with our setup.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrea3821
My main responsibilities in life are to my husband and my child. Would you not agree that a wife's main priorities in life are to her husband and children? If you disagree, please explain why.
Your "responsibility" is to your husband and child as a caregiver.
My "responsibility" is to my husband and child as the bacon-bringer.
Is either scenario wrong? No.
It's what works best for us and for our families.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrea3821
As I said, I am free to do whatever I please, as long as we're not living in squalor, eating junk for dinner and our child is loved, clean and fed. Again, I think that's pretty typical of a marriage.
Perhaps for you, it is typical. For me, that's abnormal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrea3821
If you don't see it that way, what kind of marriage would you prefer?
I prefer the setup of my marriage. It makes more sense because he has more domestic sense and my earning potential is greatly higher than his.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrea3821
Ultimately, it doesn't really matter what these women think, b/c that's what it all boils down to in the end. I'm just practical enough to acknowledge it.
Ultimately, it does matter what "these women" think - because it really boils down to people living their marriage the way they want to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrea3821
I acknowledged this already. I said if the primary caretaker is the husband, there is still no replacement for the relationship a mother has with her child. The woman is and always will be who the baby relies on.
Well, as a working mother with a stay-at-home husband, I can tell you that you are wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrea3821
You might say that my idea of traditional is antiquated, but the above certainly is for most of America.
It's antiquated and wrong for most of America nowadays.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrea3821
Again, a man cannot provide what a child needs in the same way a mother can. Even my husband cannot give our child what I can.
Yet my husband has no problem with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrea3821
Of course, but I also realize there is absolutely no replacement for the mother when it comes to children. Why do you think that judges really dislike separating a child from his/her mother?
Yet surprisingly, when my parents divorced (best decision they ever made), I lived with my father.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrea3821
The mother has to really have done some horrible stuff for the child to be removed permanently. The father, on the other hand, has much less leeway for screwing up.
My mother's only "crime" was that she was in the Navy and my father had already been medically discharged.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantasy Tokoro
Huh.
I'm male, yet I care for my child and support my wife.
And my wife makes sure that we have what we need to survive.
Whelp!
Looks like another useless tradition thrown out the window!
This is the main problem that I have with your stance. I do care what women think. I would imagine that they do as well.
These contrary opinions have no bearing on how life really is. It is what it is, whether you or they want to acknowledge that.
Quote:
Ok. So? What has that to do with anyone besides you?
You cut off two statements that go together.
Quote:
No. I believe that all parties to the marriage are equal and their priorities to themselves and the family are equal.
I'm not saying a woman has to forsake her own needs to care for her husband. Not at all.
Quote:
You're free to live in squalor, eat junk for dinner (or breakfast, or a snack...).
I would prefer no 'marriage'
I would prefer that people are free to live in the social circumstance that best suits them.
Of course I'm free to do what I want. But do you really think it's a good idea for a family to live in filth and be unhealthy? What kind of example does that set for the child? Psychologically it also is not healthy.
As to the OP, I would prefer the gov't stay out of marriage entirely. I guess we could agree on that.
Quote:
Then why did YOU bring it up?
I didn't bring it up. That's my belief about life, it was not up for debate, it was me making a statement about something else and it has no bearing on anything to do with this topic. You are the one wanting to argue about it.
Quote:
What if the woman dies? I guess the baby is quite capable of relying on someone else. What if the woman is an unfit mother? I guess the baby is quite capable of relying on someone else? What if the woman is the primary bread winner in the family? I guess the baby is quite capable of relying on someone else.
Obviously if the woman dies or is unfit, there is a better alternative for parent. In most cases, that is not the situation, thankfully. The baby is never going to have that ideal mother/child relationship in that case anyway, so anyone else would be a better alternative. If the woman is the breadwinner...I already addressed that.
Quote:
Your appeal to tradition has no foundation in logic.
Actually, it does, you just don't want to see it. I have given multiple arguments and if you would rather keep bickering, that's your problem.
Obviously if the woman dies or is unfit, there is a better alternative for parent. In most cases, that is not the situation, thankfully. The baby is never going to have that ideal mother/child relationship in that case anyway, so anyone else would be a better alternative. If the woman is the breadwinner...I already addressed that.Actually, it does, you just don't want to see it. I have given multiple arguments and if you would rather keep bickering, that's your problem.
HEre's the thing:
YOu'd be correct in your assumptions, if it wasn't proven that in same sex households, children grow up just as balanced and well nurtured as those in opposite sex households.
You don't need a husband and a wife, man and woman, to bring up a child.
THat idea is old, and not relevant anymore.
At the most, all you really need is supporting parents. Not even the roles of "breadwinner" and "caretaker".
And what of FMLA? Do you also not like the benefit of FMLA that allows one spouse to care for the other without fear of losing his or her job?
And some are put here, by design, to help prevent overpopulation of the species.
For you and your family, this may hold true. In mine? Totally different.
Sexism at its finest.
Too bad it doesn't apply to real-world stay-at-home fathers, of which my husband is.
That's because you're the stay-at-home and he's the bacon-bringer.
In my household, it's the reverse.
And we do quite well with our setup.
Your "responsibility" is to your husband and child as a caregiver.
My "responsibility" is to my husband and child as the bacon-bringer.
Is either scenario wrong? No.
It's what works best for us and for our families.
Perhaps for you, it is typical. For me, that's abnormal.
I prefer the setup of my marriage. It makes more sense because he has more domestic sense and my earning potential is greatly higher than his.
Ultimately, it does matter what "these women" think - because it really boils down to people living their marriage the way they want to.
Well, as a working mother with a stay-at-home husband, I can tell you that you are wrong.
It's antiquated and wrong for most of America nowadays.
Yet my husband has no problem with it.
Yet surprisingly, when my parents divorced (best decision they ever made), I lived with my father.
My mother's only "crime" was that she was in the Navy and my father had already been medically discharged.
Do you make sandwiches for your wife, too?
The special relationship between mom and baby starts in utero. I guess you'll also say your husband carried the child and breastfed him/her as well.
I'm definitely surprised that you would say I'm sexist against my own sex. Now not only are conservatives racist and bigoted, they're also sexist.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
