Reply to Re: This is gunna come back and bite me...
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
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 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.
