The Dink Network

Need Versus want.

People and relationships - thats all that really matter in this world.

I believe all people need to be treated with courtesy - how you would like to be treated I guess, I am old fashioned and believe women should actually stay at home and make a decent job of bringing their kids up (they're actually our next generation and will one day run our countries so they need a good job done for/on them).

I really dislike how men no longer know what their roles are because women took over their hunter gatherer roles and theyre messed up in the heads cause they no longer know where they fit. Kids have no one to come home to after school cause mum is out working,so they wander the streets and our crime rate goes up or mum and dad are so tired from working for the MUST HAVE 3rd car they really NEED, that the children are badly treated or ignored - doesnt matter in the end, because its all abuse of one sort or the other.Our "normal - expected "family unit has changed to single parents or two families joined to make a new one.

I know a lot of families feel they have to both work to survive, but do we really need that extra TV set, new couch, ipod, *cringe* washer dryer and so on - just cause the Jones'es or little tommy at school has it 'I deserve' 'NEED' it too, or is time with people more important as against solitude on a machine for you?

We would be healther without packaged foods, eat together and the family works out its issues (or at least offers a forum to do so) grow your own veges its so rewarding to eat what you have tended, make your own meals - yes it takes longer but life is over so fast so why not slow down and enjoy it. Less of what I call "plastic" food and we will be healthier and invariably happier.

What do you guys think about life or are you too busy enjoying your youth and carefree hours?

Ohh and so its an acceptable topic - DINK dink dddiiiinnnkkkkkkk di-NK happy now?

After it was made a law that women and men are equal, it seems women, for some reason, believe they are above men now. For example, women can hit men all they want, but men can't hit women back, or if they even refuse to take the hits, they are all "evil" and should go to jail. Gimme a break. It seems it's either gonna be men above women or vice versa. We can't have equality for some reason. If women were right now to be put under men's command, you can already guess how much crybaby stuff there would be from women, cause they are used to being spoiled nowadays. I say to all males here, if a woman talks you down or physically hurts you, I think you have the exact right to do so back.

As for the rest of that stuff, try to do that yourself and inform if it worked (which it probably didn't).

"women can hit men all they want, but men can't hit women back, or if they even refuse to take the hits, they are all "evil" and should go to jail"

Source? Cause that's the first I ever heard of that. If that is some Finnish law (which I doubt) you guys are some crazy people (which I don't doubt).

It's all around the place. It's not just Finland. Maybe Netherlands is the only place that doesn't have that kinda thinking. Every time I've seen someone talk about physical attacks from men towards women, AFTER it had happened vice versa, it has been so horrible and everyone has said "men DO NOT hit women, no matter what". I've seen this here in Finland, in real-life, for example in court and just in my neighborhood for that matter. I've also seen it in TV, no matter which country the show is broadcast from. And no, I'm not talking about TV as in soap opera and that kinda crap, but real shows such as news and court broadcasts and that kinda crap.

What I think you mean is that there is a taboo on men being hit my women, which is true.

In reality, 90% of domestic violence is done by men, so all the media attention goes towards men beating up women, which, ofcourse, is illegal and punishable. Women beating up men doesn't happen as often, but is just as illegal and punishable. However, since it doesn't happen as much, and men are generally considered to be physically stronger then women, most men who are getting beat up by a woman are ashamed of it and will not admit it. Therefore, women beating up men is a taboo: nobody talks about it.

That's still entirely different from what you said though, there are virtually no women who actually believe it's accepted to physically abuse men. Mental abuse however...

Amen skull. Any woman who hates "male chauvenist pigs" and wishes to be treated as equal may reap the same beltings that men would dish out to other men they hate.

Not all males are messed up. Many females are messed up too. I think that life is terrible and butter and the best way is that when you're fighting, don't feel the pain when you're in the middle. savour it when you win because pain is good and moan about it only when you lose.
I agree that women should raise their children properly.
The only thing that makes me sad is the fact that my parents don't ever spend any time with me and always seem to favour my sister. sibling rivaalry

We would be healther without packaged foods, eat together and the family works out its issues (or at least offers a forum to do so) grow your own veges its so rewarding to eat what you have tended, make your own meals - yes it takes longer but life is over so fast so why not slow down and enjoy it.

I agree about families eating together. My family always did that, and I'm glad. But growing my own food and cooking every meal from scratch I can do without. I'd rather enjoy other things in life rather than spending all my time on preparing my meals.

I agree with MsDink about the "old fashioned" thinking about women. I definitely don't want to see the status of women return to the point where they couldn't leave their husband without having to sleep in the gutter and being expelled from regular society, but lately women have gone to great lengths to try and inflict the wrongs they had to endure (not even them, their ancestors) onto men.

Inevitebly as this continues, a counter reaction will once again come (say in 100 years) and women will be back to the bottom of the pile of rights and duties. I like to think that a family has a core, which is the mother. The children and the household need a mother as their pillar to make the family run right. That's not to say there aren't any exceptions and there are definitely men who can perform the same duties as a woman in the household.

There was an awful TV campaign several years ago entitled "Violence against women: Australia says no", and recently another one featuring football players.

It's not explicitly stated but it's certainly implied that you can beat up a guy all you like without consequence if you're female.

I think it's more about just being violent, than outright beating someone up. E.g. if you get into an argument with a member of the opposite sex, it's perfectly acceptable for the woman to hit the man in rage, whereas if the man does this, he is a monster.

I don't think a simple "hit me, and I hit back!" mentality is really the right way to go either. There is something wrong with knocking the living shoot out of someone maybe 20cm shorter, and 40kg lighter than you - you shouldn't have to, similar to how you wouldn't punch a kid in the nose for having a fit (although I'm sure someone would argue this is the right way to go about parenting ).

No one should just stand there and accept getting hit, though, and if you're in serious danger of getting owned, you should do your best to defend yourself, whoever the attacker is.

In reality, 90% of domestic violence is done by men

Christiaan, that's not very true at all. At least to a certain point. Men might be 90% of the time who yell at women, and violate them by doing that, but women are the ones who usually physically attack men. I'm not saying attacking someone physically is a good or right thing to do, but hell, if someone hits you, you have the absolute right to hit him/her back without having to listen to peoples' bullshoot.

That is not true at all... do you have any source for that? I have a background in sociology and social psychology and know for a fact that women are far more often the victim of domestic violence. Which isn't to say men are nver victims; they are, just not as often. More often than most people would think though, hence the taboo.

Check out the references 90 and 91 on Wiki's domestic violence page, for example.

KNIFE 'EM ALL!!

Funnily enough during the aforementioned advertising campaign, in the state of Queensland violence perpetrated by women skyrocketed. Fairly sure most men who do get beaten up by a chick don't report it out of pride anyway.

I can't take anyone seriously if they're going to cite Wikipedia and then call it "Wiki".

That is true, breaking the taboo should make the statistics for domestic violence perpetraded by women rise significantly. That's why I said women beating up men happens more often than most people would think.

Don't really care for your last argument... Wiki is short for Wikipedia, should be obvious enough...

I have proof of this. I just don't have proof that I could link on the Internet, nor argument points that I could make you trust via Internet, so it's kinda useless for me to say anything about this. But my sources though, are more trustworthy than any of Wikipedia's crap.

Back in the day, the most domestic violence was directed towards children, and when the children left, it was directed at the women. Now it's the otherwise around. It's usually the children who act violently towards parents/adults and after they leave, like I said, women take on the "I'm a Goddess" show, and if men don't agree, they get slapped or punched in the face for it. Not saying all women are like that. Only most. -__-

You don't have to link to your source but I'd like to know what your source is. This is kind of part of my field of study so I'd be very interested in how you know this fact.

Well, mostly of what I've already said. Personally, I have some experience of it. My neighborhood has lots of experience of this (although my neighborhood is quite violent with men beating men and women beating women too). I have been in court where my friend was told to pay a heckuva lot of money to his girlfriend, after yelling at her after she smacked him in the face. Then there's of course the TV like I said. And I'm not denying some of this information hasn't come from the Internet as well, but it's not like I write down every page that I visit. And of course some of it is as simple as people talking to me about the subject in general and some other knowledge and research on the subject.

If this was 30 years ago, or maybe a little more, I would maybe still have had a different opinion about this, but as far as I'm concerned about the situation, men are in the receiving end of the punishment currently.

Although I regret your experiences with this (I know it can be quite ugly), it's interesting you have had these experiences. That court thing is an example of the taboo in action I would say, but it still surprises me. Judges should know better, but on the other hand I should know better that justice is not always served.

However, the plural of anecdote is not data. In other words, you may have had these experiences, but that does not change scientific data. I have seen more good movies than bad ones, but that doesn't mean bad movies are in the minority (au contraire). A great majority of domestic violence victims definitely are women, even though your experiences may differ.

The link Yeoldetoast provided is interesting though, it suggest breaking the taboo of men being abused by women might be easier to break than many think.

My family always eats together

Scientific data isn't always right, you know. Also, you seemed to overlook everything that my post said except for my own experiences with the thing.

Also, what you said about movies and that, it could also mean that you're wrong in this case, you know.

I hate the fact that demons(sorry.. women ) think that they are better than men. It's not true. WHat makes them think whatever they do is cute and men are all noisy andd stupid and criminals? All the magazines here have at least one piece of crap labeled, "Girls are smarter/more good-looking(lol narcissism) than boys"

I don't really feel like having a discussion about the merit of science, but saying that scientific data isn't always right is an ignorant thing to say. Scientific data is right until proven otherwise by other scientific data. Personal experiences =/= scientific data.

I've seen infinitely more Dutch people in my life than Chinese people. Doesn't change the fact that there are more Chinese people than Dutch people on the planet.

If you really are interested in this, I'd suggest to go to college when you graduate high school. Or read up on the internet about the scientific method of verification and falsification.

Dude, you know I never went to school after fourth grade, so why push your luck with me? Stop being an ass. Apparently I was wrong to expect that a guy who has gone to school can actually NOT be dumb.

Scientific data is right until proven otherwise by other scientific data

No, scientific data isn't right unless proven it's right. Scientific data says we exist, while we may not exist at all. And your Chinese Dutch scientific view ain't quite right either. More might in actuality be less. I know it sounds childish, and a human brain can't even necessarily understand it, but it could be true. What you call science should be called human point of view.

And as for the whole women being above men thing, I'm open for your opinions, but I know I'm right in this one. So unless you can come up with any better proof yourself than human point of view, or as you call it science, I'm probably not gonna change my mind about this.

This will be the last I say about this, but you should educate yourself, as you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. And how the hell should I know you never went to school after fourth grade, although it explains a lot.

Not trying to be an ass, but if you don't understand things, try admitting you don't understand. There is no shame in that. But don't act like you know everything when it's obvious you don't.

Why are you acting like you know everything, running boy? So far I haven't heard a single "proof" from you on the actual subject, except for human point of view. I myself have given you plenty of proof. Science is all about trying to explain things human brain can't understand, so everyone who's involved in trying to explain science, only make themselves look dumb. *Cough*Scientistsforexample*cough*

At least before coming and saying I don't understand things, maybe you should learn to use proper words in their proper places. You're not relating to science, you're relating to human point of view. End of story.

And now get back to the subject at hand instead of trying to prove your all mighty wisdom to all of us.

I have a background in sociology and social psychology

That's your problem right there. You have it the way colleges teach it. Try talking to a few older cops, or go down to your local shelter. You can get the real story there.

It's not the way college taught me, it's the way I researched it myself! And yes, that includes field studies on domestic violence shelters. Am I the only one around here who knows what's the difference between science and personal -thus by definition biased- experiences?

No, you're not the only one who knows science sucks.

Oh that really proves you knowledgeability, yes sir.

I didn't say DOMESTIC VIOLENCE shelters. I mean homeless shelters. There are no DV shelters for men, they end up in homeless shelters.

Stop with this waah waah I know everything waah waah I am better than you and get back on the topic. Yeah, every topic in DN gets sidetracked at some point, but you just got it sidetracked so you could talk about how you're such a masterpiece in science, which you clearly aren't apparently, not being able to tell two things apart from each other.

Scientific data says we exist, while we may not exist at all.

That is philosophy, not science.

What you call science should be called human point of view.

Modern science is based on sound and reasonable principles. Although some research isn't done properly, the method as a whole outperforms an arbitrary "human point of view".

Why are you acting like you know everything, running boy? So far I haven't heard a single "proof" from you on the actual subject, except for human point of view. I myself have given you plenty of proof.

I don't think you know what the word "proof" means. Even many students have difficulty providing a "proof". Handwaving and arguments are not proof. Only a rigorous explanation can be a proof.

Science is all about trying to explain things human brain can't understand, so everyone who's involved in trying to explain science, only make themselves look dumb. *Cough*Scientistsforexample*cough*

Do you have a problem with science? It's obvious that practitioners of science spend more time explaining science and scientific work than those who don't. You wouldn't be the first to claim that science is "just an opinion" while it's actually the opposite. Despite incidents and problems it's the best method we humans have to determine how the world works and to gain knowledge about the world.

Actually, in many European countries, male victims of domestic violence actually are being accomidated, in the Netherlands there is even a domestic violence shelter specifically for men.

I'm pretty sure you sidetracked the topic with your very first reply, by going on about women physically hurting men. And it's an interesting topic all in itself, which happens to be a topic I have educated myself in.

I wonder why you feel so threatened by me. I'm just having a discussion about domestic violence prevalence for men and women, which is quite an interesting fielf of research actually.

Do you have any proof on what you said, Simeon? Considering you know so well what proof is, I'd sure like for you to provide me with some. xD

I don't feel threatened by you Christiaan. Why would I be threatened by someone like yourself, who hasn't even got any understanding on what he's talking about. You know, I express my opinion about things, and what do you do? Instead of expressing your opinion about things, you come and say "Your opinion is wrong Skull. I know better than you".

Shortest proof: Basically all knowledge of mankind has been acquired through the scientific method.

In the failure basket: making stuff up, superstitious beliefs, religion, pseudoscience, anything based on "I feel so strongly that it is true", and so on.

You misunderstood, I'm not saying your opinion is wrong. I valued your perspective and personal experiences, and I said so. I'm not out to get you, relax! I'm just saying that women do get more often abused than men, even though your personal experiences would tell you otherwise. That doesn't mean personal experience are worthless, on the contrary.

A question for you Skull: would you say a cup falling down when dropping it is "proof" of the existence of gravity?

And exactly how much knowledge of mankind has been acquired. About the last 700 years, and even that one's as blurry as my television.

And everything you listed down there is what you and Christiaan are doing right now.

Christiaan: Don't say women get beat up more than men, if you have nothing else to prove than your "scientific" research and Wikipedia. Yes, I have my own experiences of such things and that is exactly why I know this stuff. It makes you do quite a lot of research being violated your whole life, y'know.

Also, no, I wouldn't consider that proof of gravity existing. It may exist the way we humans see it as, but in reality, it may not exist at all. So once again I'm saying it's human point of view that you're referring as to.

"Also, no, I wouldn't consider that proof of gravity existing. It may exist the way we humans see it as, but in reality, it may not exist at all."

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. You are right. That is not proof. It's empirical evidence. Positieve proof is, like you are correctly stating, never definitive. One could say positive "proof" doesn't exist.

What does exist, however, is the scientific theory of gravity. And until this very day, the concept of gravity explains things falling down to a 100% accuracy. Maybe, someday, the concept of gravity will be proven wrong. But until that day, there is absolutely no reason to state that the concept of gravity is bullshoot. You may doubt the existence of gravity, but to disprove it, you need evidence.

Now, my next question: do you think gravity exists?

I think Christiaan and Simeon's main point is that statistical evidence is more reliable than anecdotal evidence (evidence from stories of a few individuals' experiences), because anecdotal evidence doesn't evenly represent the way different situations are distributed.

Skull and darksign13's point seems to be that the statistical studies didn't take their evidence from the right sources, which should have been more like Skull's neighborhood, homeless shelters, and the things older cops have experienced.

Also Skull is saying something about science being dependent on a human point of view. But wouldn't that also apply to your experience of your neighborhood, Skull?

I don't think anything exists, so no.

And for the record, we all see science as something different. Put the two most similar people on the face of this earth together, and you will still find something that they disagree in on what science is. I see science mainly as people searching for things, which can never be quite "proven", if you will. Gravity, for example, many say is scientific. I just find it, as I've said many times, a human point of view.

Right, you don't really think nothing exists. Otherwise you wouldn't function. Do you eat? Why? Because otherwise you'll die? But death doesn't exist, as does live. So why even eat? Why post on this forum? Why even have discussions, who do you want to convince? We don't exist, after all.

That is exactly my point, thanks. I know statistical data isn't definitive, that's why it can be disproven by other data. But not entirely by anecdotal evidence, as anecdotal evidence is unreliable.

Yeah, I don't think nothing exists. You have a problem with that?

As I said, human brain is not able to understand the fact that something is endless and that something keeps growing forever, for example. The same applies to that we may not exist, nothing may exist at all. I mean, it goes to the same question we've been trying to answer forever. Where did everything first come from? I say, maybe it didn't come at all. You're asking questions Christiaan that you know no human can answer, just to try to prove you're right. Poor.

Ok, good luck with that.

Are we all living in the same shared illusion? If so, let's stick with that and ask our questions about what the illusion is like. Except that some of us will call it reality, okay? XD

Ok, good luck with that.

Heh, at times that's the best answer.

You can always come up with something more reasonable. Hey everyone, I heard Christiaan knows how the existence was created, so if you wanna know, ask him! BUT CERTAINLY DON'T COME UP WITH YOUR OWN THEORIES CAUSE CHRISTIAAN WILL GET ANGRY CAUSE YOU'RE WRONG AND DON'T KNOW CRAP!

geesh I ask question I wanna know answer to... head off to bed - usual person immediately states their opinion - (as usual), pokes others who have differing opinions, they bite, usual person gets mad - as usual, untill eventually - 'yells' like a 2 year old and abuses others - hereby effectively ending every one elses enjoyment of discussion, and no answers for me *sighs* - yay dont ya love the dn Noone else is allowed to rant at people like this, threaten others and so on - why is this person allowed to continue? This is getting really old, some people need to remember there are many others who come here for enjoyment, not just to hear someone 'loose his rag' all the time

so bleeding sick of it!!

Hey, you can't blame me for having an opinion. I stayed calm, until mr.Christiaan here, claims that he knows how existence was created, just to get his point through. And that's something I'm not gonna take. If you don't like it, leave.

no answers for me

I thought people answered your questions earlier on.

I'd say don't bother griping about the usual person. I doubt it will change anything. If he's bothering you, just ignore him. Pretend he hasn't even posted, and instead reply to the people who are having the discussion you want to have.

Yep, women should definitely be lowered down a level or two.

You are sexist, dude. Really, really sexist.

Thanks. Why don't I provide a list of things that should be said after what I have just witnessed.

1 - Skull is a troll. We should just start ignoring him and let him grow up on his own. Clearly we are not getting to him, and never will until Skull has matured. Maybe in time even Skull will learn that he is stupid.

2 - Close this thread and everything else Skull posts, because all he's going to do is troll us until he gets everyone to agree with him.

3 - If you have anything else to say to Skull before ignoring him, send him a PM regarding what ticks you off about him, and never respond to said PM ever again.

In time, the troll will stop trolling, and we can get back to enjoying the topics rather than trying to argue with a troll.

Well, as you can see, I deleted that message. If you two want to bicker over who is more of an donkey, please take it to PM.

Says the minority.

Nope. Wiki is the Hawaiian word for bus.

Calling Wikipedia "wiki" is like calling The Dink Network, "dink".

...I like Scratcher...

Wiki is the Hawaiian word for bus.

Wiki is the Hawaiian word for "fast." But you're close. The first wiki was named after a bus called Wiki Wiki Shuttle.

Nope, I dont hate scratcher... nothing wrong with a good scratch i recon

Edit: and its actually surprising how many women (nasty cows) hit their partners- its just not officially reported unless its really bad because men are too embarrassed to admit it. Kinda sad really. Some of the cases I have seen the guy was treated sooooooo bad, I would have liked to take the cow round the back and get someone to show her how it feels, but I am only allowed to authorise the hitting of ducks, pigs and pillies with the occasional bonca thrown in Kudos to the guys that didnt hit back - takes real man strength that does, proof of character.

Thats a tad incorrect there Predator, all the staff are deleting your messages as they come on and see that sort of 'I am gunna get you' stuff , it's not just scratcher - so why issue your venom on him - hes just doing the job he was Tasked to do? A fair amount of what you post is called bullying and isnt acceptable on this forum.

They only delete comments/posts where you threaten people or scream hate messages, maybe think about how you are saying what you want to share - what the delivery is like etc, so maybe what you have to say comes through better.

And, no I wasnt meaning you have to change who u are, I am suggesting only that it may be helpful to just tone the abusing people etc down somewhat and your messages will not be deleted. It really isnt a personal attack at you, they delete all messages of that nature. You just seem to be posting an unusually large amount of those lately and therefore to you it may look like they are picking on you when they arent.

well thats not nice of him either

While I sorta agree staff are kinda uptight on what someone posts these days, majority of your posts, Predator, still deserved to be deleted.

And why would you delete my post and not Skorn's. That's not very fair. He called me a sexist, which is much more of an insult than my half jokingly posted post. Ok, so it wasn't nice, neither was his post, so either leave them both be, or delete them both. Try to be fair, cause we all know we're similar in every dang way.

Deletion of posts can be debatable. But your post didn't just insult Skorn (which you could argue that he kind of asked for) but it insulted homosexuals too. And that's really going too far.

Homosexuals are human, so am I. What's the difference between insulting us?

Besides, Skorn's post insults all sexists.

I delete as many of your posts as anyone, Predator.

If I met you in real life I would give you HUGS.

Skull, you need to understand the scientific method.

But hey, how about getting back on topic?
"I really dislike how men no longer know what their roles are because women took over their hunter gatherer roles and theyre messed up in the heads cause they no longer know where they fit." Interesting. Say, why does the core of the family have to be the mother, anyway? Does she have some genetic predisposition that makes her more suited to raise children? Isn't the important part that there is at least one parent available - preferably both - not that the mother is?

I agree that people should spend more time with family and less time at work, however.

What I think is that parents should have their fun in their younger days, and settle down after having children. If it takes 50 years for you to have all the fun you want to, hey, that's fine, but if you want to rise your children properly, you'll have to have settled down. Fifty years, sadly, might be a little too late already, so it's best to have your fun in the younger days.

And Gamehampe, I just see science a little different than others. Just like I said, everyone does, that's nothing new.

I agree totally Gamehampe - some of the guys I know make way better mothers/home makers (HAHA stoopid name for it) than their partners ever could hope to - theyre awesome. I was meaning that that it was the traditional role that men had and because (for some/most) women are taking a role men traditionally filled and because of that they are lost now (a lot of them are anyways) By traditional I mean - I am a christian and my thoughts are that according to the bible, women were built to compliment men not beat the sheez out of them and take their jobs and in doing so mess with their heads
Where I live wayy down the bottom its the men bumping chests and roaring hehehe

These forums are like dam Nazi Germany or Stalin's USSR if you have an opinion that staff dont like at all its gets deleted even if its not that offensive.
Rather the staff acting like their Hitler we should have votes that a message or forum should or shouldnt be deleted.

If only we were as effective in getting rid of the unwanted. =)

Repitition scratcher... repitition thats how people learn

Well, staff HAVE kinda removed some of his post, even though not necessary. And all because they were posted by Predator.

Nice one, Scratcher.

.. This topic was so fun to read... XD

From an internet-café in Greece

Love to the community!

<Bites MsDink>

GREECE?!! I want! Greece is awsome-land

Oi get your teeth out of my butt - what did I do to deserve that may I ask?

Knees Godley in the "nibbly bits" shezzz!

and Greece is way too hot at this time of year

A Finland midwinter Dinker meeting. Now that would be some cool shoot.

LOL ! ! ! ! ! you are pretty good at graphics there Absolution

Yep, I finally got some of that luxury I've desired.

Ohhhhh I am a bit slow hehe I (finally) see what you did thar Godley lol, very clever!

I'd like to resurrect this thread. Why? Because -

I really dislike how men no longer know what their roles are because women took over their hunter gatherer roles and theyre messed up in the heads cause they no longer know where they fit.

Excuse me? You think a specific gender has a role to keep just because they happen to have a dick? Right. To that, I have one thing to say - Duck off.

Seriously, it's so much more complex than that. Just because someone is genetically male, they must take an ax and cut down some trees, provide buffalo meat for their families, and be manly men with their penis-compensation rifles? Ok, cool. On what basis? How about men who do not want to fit in to that gender criteria? What about the men who can't work in such a way? What about the men who have their priorities set in a different way rather than accepting what is the male stereotype? What about people who feel differently about the gender they identify with? You said to call you old fashioned, well I'm going to call you insultingly old-fashioned.

There are plenty of people out there who said "Duck that" to gender roles. The fact a person has a specific set of sexual features should in now way influence how they act as a person. Where are you getting this idea?

A person makes a person, MsDink. Not genitals. I can't even fathom the reasoning behind thinking that a man must the tough as nails provider, and the woman, a caring, stay-at-home type who does all the cooking. That kind of crap is where I draw the line. Are you going to look at a man who likes to cook and say "You are not fitting into your gender role. Let the woman do all the work"? Are you going to look at a woman who is training to be a cop and say "Back to the kitchen. A woman is not fit for the role of a cop"? If so, that's really, really sad.

Kids have no one to come home to after school cause mum is out working,so they wander the streets and our crime rate goes up

What the hell is this garbage? Since you're so ignorant and probably believe that a man and a woman are essential to the raising of a child, all I can view you as is really, really insultingly old-fashioned and a victim of the religious ideal that a man or even two men are not allowed to raise someone. Again, time to list some things - what about a man who adopts a child? Is that a problem? What about a single mother who raises a child? Is that wrong? What about two men who are in love with each other who adopt a child or get some artificial insemination done? Is that wrong? No. Not at all. There's various families out there. There's the old-fashioned kind that is the "social norm" or "only acceptable form because Jesus", and there's families with one parent (gender doesn't matter), or ones with a same sex couple and a child. Just because there's no "standard" couple in the equation doesn't mean the child is going to be scarred or anything. In fact, it presents the opportunity for said child to be more open and speak out against ignorance.

And about that "they wander the streets and our crime rate goes up" point - excuse me? No, really, what? Did you just really imply that a mother is necessary for the child in question to not become a criminal? What about the basic teachings of morals, which can be taught by either gender or any kind of person? What if said mother is a total drunk and doesn't give a shit about the kid at all? What if, now this may come as a shocker...what if either parent or even the child/teen, whatever themselves is responsible for it and not the fact that a mother may not be there? Since you based your first post on a "normal" family, what if the father is there and gives the same care anyone else could? Are they still going to go out and commit crimes? What is your reasoning? Any sources to back up "They go out and commit crimes because their mothers work when they're back"? This point is so ludicrous that I cannot even imagine where you're getting this from. Although, I do remember a list of reasons fabulous marriage, or fabulous couples are bad or some horsecrap. Guess what? The final point (and most important one to them), was that it's an insult to God. I wonder if you found this information from the same site. Hmm.

I know a lot of families feel they have to both work to survive, but do we really need that extra TV set, new couch, ipod, *cringe* washer dryer and so on - just cause the Jones'es or little tommy at school has it 'I deserve' 'NEED' it too, or is time with people more important as against solitude on a machine for you?

Continues in next post because I went over the limit I guess.

I know a lot of families feel they have to both work to survive, but do we really need that extra TV set, new couch, ipod, *cringe* washer dryer and so on - just cause the Jones'es or little tommy at school has it 'I deserve' 'NEED' it too, or is time with people more important as against solitude on a machine for you?

It depends on what you find to be convenient. For a lot people, they find it necessary to buy everything from a car, to a huge house, and subscribe to a worthless television network. That's a big contributor to people needing to work more and more because they bought things they must continue to pay for in large increments because they didn't plan anything out. And, wow. You really are old-fashioned. You want to force this belief that "family is super important, love and care, blah, blah, blah" when there are people who are uncomfortable with such a thing as spending time with "family". I remember going to this "party" some time back. Total waste of time. I don't know anyone there, they're not technically related to begin with, and nobody there has similar interests. However, one there was actually intelligent among the masses of ones whom are not and we discussed the dangers of religion. Good stuff. But the rest was just uncomfortable. I'm not comfortable with many, so let me ask you this, MsDink - if someone is uncomfortable with most people, should they be forced to spend time with hordes of people just because they're "family", or should they be allowed to do what is most comfortable to them? I say we let people do what they find comfortable the most instead of force potentially harmful situations on people just because it's "the old-fashioned way".

We would be healther without packaged foods, eat together and the family works out its issues (or at least offers a forum to do so) grow your own veges its so rewarding to eat what you have tended, make your own meals - yes it takes longer but life is over so fast so why not slow down and enjoy it. Less of what I call "plastic" food and we will be healthier and invariably happier.

Again, this point of family. I'll say it again - if someone isn't comfortable with certain situations, don't ducking force them too. I can't even tell you how long it's been since I've been at a table to noisily slurp something with others in silence. That is so ducking awkward and the thought of it makes me cringe. Do you know how less awkward it is to grab your shit and sit down on a couch or walk around with it? What about at the desk so you can continue to do the things you enjoy? I'm typing this long-winded rant to a 3 year old topic with something to my right. Am I wrong? Should I be at the table that is not used for such a thing just because it's the old-fashioned way? Should I be forced into an uncomfortable situation that I would want to get away from because it's old-fashioned? It's not the only way. Different strokes for different people, MsDink.

On the topic of "we would be healthier without packaged foods". Just how avoidable is that? There's plenty of packaged things that are healthy, and growing a garden takes work that people either don't want to do, can't do, or don't even want to try because it can easily be unrewarding and get ruined by weather, deer, birds, and various insects. Well, guess I'll go grow a garden. Let's see...tomatoes, cucumbers, lettuce...I think this is good. Time to wait it out. Is it harvest time? Damn, my crops are all gone! Guess I'll just eat nothing. Hold on...there's a store down the road which sells a more healthy lineup of foods! Perfect! They're much better at this than I am. I'll go over there instead. >_>

Oh, and should we all live on farms then too? What if we don't have the money or the space to begin with to have crops and cows or some crap?