Should women focus more on jobs or children?

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 3846
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Should women focus more on jobs or children?

Post by Harbal » Wed Apr 05, 2017 8:30 pm

thedoc wrote: Possibly, but the way I read it first and responded, fits her better.
You can't argue with someone on the basis of what you think they would usually say but didn't.

thedoc
Posts: 6251
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Should women focus more on jobs or children?

Post by thedoc » Wed Apr 05, 2017 8:35 pm

Harbal wrote:
thedoc wrote: Possibly, but the way I read it first and responded, fits her better.
You can't argue with someone on the basis of what you think they would usually say but didn't.
Why not? You do it all the time.

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 3846
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Should women focus more on jobs or children?

Post by Harbal » Wed Apr 05, 2017 8:43 pm

thedoc wrote: Why not? You do it all the time.
I don't make the rules, I just break them.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 6041
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Should women focus more on jobs or children?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Wed Apr 05, 2017 8:45 pm

Harbal wrote:
thedoc wrote: Possibly, but the way I read it first and responded, fits her better.
You can't argue with someone on the basis of what you think they would usually say but didn't.
'Doc' doesn't argue anyway. He can barely string two sentences together. His 'arguments' consist of catty insults, usually one sentence long and invariably after getting something totally wrong, and that's it. To be honest I have no clue what he thinks about anything

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 6041
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Should women focus more on jobs or children?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Wed Apr 05, 2017 9:15 pm

ForCruxSake wrote:
After all the 'blah blah blah' from you, one obvious question needs to be asked: Are you even a mother, yourself? I'm wondering if all this posturing comes from the fact you are, but don't wish to cite your own experience, to lend support to what you say? If not, it sounds rather like your 'blah blah blah' may well be emanating from your nether region.
The mere fact that you think this relevant says it all really. This is not about subjective opinion. And citing a child that you profess to know who preferred foster care to their mother actually supports what I say; that life with her mother would have to be completely unbearable to warrant preferring a stranger over her. Moronic to cite anecdotal 'evidence' and expect to be believed. Even if it's true it makes no difference to what I've said. I've never said there's no such thing as a good foster parent. You would have to be pretty hard though. Bringing children into your home. Having them come and then go. Hard or money-hungry. If you genuinely loved a child, do you think you could just give it back, and then do it over and over again? How many mothers could do that? It only proves that they are nothing like a real mother. And yes, a child that has no love at home is of course likely to latch onto the first person who shows them some affection or kindness. Do you really think I'm not aware that there are terrible parents out there? I knew a foster boy who had burns all over his arms because his foster 'mother' had used a hot iron on him. Does that change your opinion? Exactly. And where did I say the Kibbutz system was 'abusive'? I'm sure the children were looked after. Resorting to lies only weakens your position even further. It was an idealised social experiment that didn't work, just as Communism didn't work.
Last edited by vegetariantaxidermy on Wed Apr 05, 2017 9:51 pm, edited 3 times in total.

thedoc
Posts: 6251
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Should women focus more on jobs or children?

Post by thedoc » Wed Apr 05, 2017 9:41 pm

Harbal wrote:
thedoc wrote: Why not? You do it all the time.
I don't make the rules, I just break them.
I've noticed.

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 3846
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Should women focus more on jobs or children?

Post by Harbal » Wed Apr 05, 2017 9:45 pm

thedoc wrote: I've noticed.
Isn't that why we're here, doc, to get noticed? My way seems to work for me.

thedoc
Posts: 6251
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Should women focus more on jobs or children?

Post by thedoc » Wed Apr 05, 2017 9:51 pm

Harbal wrote:
thedoc wrote: I've noticed.
Isn't that why we're here, doc, to get noticed? My way seems to work for me.
I suppose some of you are just here to be noticed, but some, like me and a few others, are here to find some new knowledge, but that is like finding a needle in a haystack. But not to worry, I can even learn from bad examples, Thankyou.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 6041
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Should women focus more on jobs or children?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Wed Apr 05, 2017 10:02 pm

thedoc wrote:
Harbal wrote:
thedoc wrote: I've noticed.
Isn't that why we're here, doc, to get noticed? My way seems to work for me.
I suppose some of you are just here to be noticed, but some, like me and a few others, are here to find some new knowledge, but that is like finding a needle in a haystack. But not to worry, I can even learn from bad examples, Thankyou.
You might like to try remedial reading classes in that case.

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 3846
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Should women focus more on jobs or children?

Post by Harbal » Wed Apr 05, 2017 10:10 pm

thedoc wrote: I suppose some of you are just here to be noticed, but some, like me and a few others, are here to find some new knowledge,
Well I've tried to enlighten you on many occasions but you always seem to be very unreceptive.

thedoc
Posts: 6251
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Should women focus more on jobs or children?

Post by thedoc » Wed Apr 05, 2017 10:15 pm

Harbal wrote:
thedoc wrote: I suppose some of you are just here to be noticed, but some, like me and a few others, are here to find some new knowledge,
Well I've tried to enlighten you on many occasions but you always seem to be very unreceptive.
Not true at all, I've learned a great deal from you, as I have said I can even learn from a bad example.

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 3846
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Should women focus more on jobs or children?

Post by Harbal » Wed Apr 05, 2017 10:26 pm

thedoc wrote: I can even learn from a bad example.
A bad example of what?

ForCruxSake
Posts: 495
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:48 am

Re: Should women focus more on jobs or children?

Post by ForCruxSake » Thu Apr 06, 2017 1:30 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
ForCruxSake wrote:
After all the 'blah blah blah' from you, one obvious question needs to be asked: Are you even a mother, yourself? I'm wondering if all this posturing comes from the fact you are, but don't wish to cite your own experience, to lend support to what you say? If not, it sounds rather like your 'blah blah blah' may well be emanating from your nether region.
The mere fact that you think this relevant says it all really. This is not about subjective opinion.
And what you have been saying is not the least bit subjective or opinionated??! Hahahahahahahaha
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:And citing a child that you profess to know who preferred foster care to their mother actually supports what I say; that life with her mother would have to be completely unbearable to warrant preferring a stranger over her. Moronic to cite anecdotal 'evidence' and expect to be believed.
Clearly you cannot read, I cited that I know a foster carer, who continues to be visited by the children, she cared for, now in their adulthood, one of whom calls her mum. It doesn't support anything you have been contending, you idiot, as you seem to have misread it,

If it's 'moronic to cite an anecdotal story that beggars belief', then what does that say about the fool who makes that claim after choosing to cite it as supporting their theory? You can't have it both ways.

However anecdotal it is, whether you choose to believe it or not, it beats the conjecture you seem to throw in at every turn. I could pass the foster carer's number on to you and you'd still find a reason not believe what I have said, even if she confirmed it. You're just contentious and incapable of being reasoned with.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Even if it's true it makes no difference to what I've said.
Nothing seems to make a difference to what you say. You stubbornly refuse to take on what anyone else has to say, preferring to hurl insults at them. There's no discussion with you.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: I've never said there's no such thing as a good foster parent. You would have to be pretty hard though. Bringing children into your home. Having them come and then go. Hard or money-hungry.
What are you talking about??? I can't even wade through the sewage of your English use here.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:If you genuinely loved a child, do you think you could just give it back, and then do it over and over again? How many mothers could do that? It only proves that they are nothing like a real mother.
"How many mothers could do that?" -----> The mothers that can't cope with having children 24/7 or those that pass the duty on to others. Ask the round-the-clock nannies, paid to look after children who barely see their career parents. I'm sure they could name a few names.

Good foster parents are amazing people proven by the fact they sometimes do form strong attachments and still have to let go. It's selfless.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:And yes, a child that has no love at home is of course likely to latch onto the first person who shows them some affection or kindness. Do you really think I'm not aware that there are terrible parents out there? I knew a foster boy who had burns all over his arms because his foster 'mother' had used a hot iron on him. Does that change your opinion? Exactly.
I thought you frowned on anecdotes to support what one has to say? Hypocrite.

And no it doesn't change my thinking on what has seemed obvious to me, but not you, from the beginning: THAT CHILDREN NEED PEOPLE WHO CARE ABOUT THEM, PEOPLE WHO MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE THEIR MOTHERS.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:And where did I say the Kibbutz system was 'abusive'?
You didn't. You said: "Any half-wit could see that children would be unhappy in that system." which suggested child cruelty or lack of care, and I asked for proof of the system failing for being "abusive" or "lacking in care". Is that clear enough?
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I'm sure the children were looked after.
Hang on, I thought you said "Any half wit could see see the children would be unhappy in that system"? Even if they were "looked after"??? Make up your mind!
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Resorting to lies only weakens your position even further.
I lied? When did I lie??

Do you have proof that, whatever you think I lied about, was actually a lie? Or is it just something you want to believe to be a lie simply because it doesn't fit in with what you are saying?
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:It was an idealised social experiment that didn't work, just as Communism didn't work.
Just as discussion with you doesn't work.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 6041
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Should women focus more on jobs or children?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Thu Apr 06, 2017 2:22 am

ForCruxSake wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
ForCruxSake wrote:
After all the 'blah blah blah' from you, one obvious question needs to be asked: Are you even a mother, yourself? I'm wondering if all this posturing comes from the fact you are, but don't wish to cite your own experience, to lend support to what you say? If not, it sounds rather like your 'blah blah blah' may well be emanating from your nether region.
The mere fact that you think this relevant says it all really. This is not about subjective opinion.
And what you have been saying is not the least bit subjective or opinionated??! Hahahahahahahaha
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:And citing a child that you profess to know who preferred foster care to their mother actually supports what I say; that life with her mother would have to be completely unbearable to warrant preferring a stranger over her. Moronic to cite anecdotal 'evidence' and expect to be believed.
Clearly you cannot read, I cited that I know a foster carer, who continues to be visited by the children, she cared for, now in their adulthood, one of whom calls her mum. It doesn't support anything you have been contending, you idiot, as you seem to have misread it,

If it's 'moronic to cite an anecdotal story that beggars belief', then what does that say about the fool who makes that claim after choosing to cite it as supporting their theory? You can't have it both ways.

However anecdotal it is, whether you choose to believe it or not, it beats the conjecture you seem to throw in at every turn. I could pass the foster carer's number on to you and you'd still find a reason not believe what I have said, even if she confirmed it. You're just contentious and incapable of being reasoned with.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Even if it's true it makes no difference to what I've said.
Nothing seems to make a difference to what you say. You stubbornly refuse to take on what anyone else has to say, preferring to hurl insults at them. There's no discussion with you.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: I've never said there's no such thing as a good foster parent. You would have to be pretty hard though. Bringing children into your home. Having them come and then go. Hard or money-hungry.
What are you talking about??? I can't even wade through the sewage of your English use here.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:If you genuinely loved a child, do you think you could just give it back, and then do it over and over again? How many mothers could do that? It only proves that they are nothing like a real mother.
"How many mothers could do that?" -----> The mothers that can't cope with having children 24/7 or those that pass the duty on to others. Ask the round-the-clock nannies, paid to look after children who barely see their career parents. I'm sure they could name a few names.

Good foster parents are amazing people proven by the fact they sometimes do form strong attachments and still have to let go. It's selfless.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:And yes, a child that has no love at home is of course likely to latch onto the first person who shows them some affection or kindness. Do you really think I'm not aware that there are terrible parents out there? I knew a foster boy who had burns all over his arms because his foster 'mother' had used a hot iron on him. Does that change your opinion? Exactly.
I thought you frowned on anecdotes to support what one has to say? Hypocrite.

And no it doesn't change my thinking on what has seemed obvious to me, but not you, from the beginning: THAT CHILDREN NEED PEOPLE WHO CARE ABOUT THEM, PEOPLE WHO MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE THEIR MOTHERS.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:And where did I say the Kibbutz system was 'abusive'?
You didn't. You said: "Any half-wit could see that children would be unhappy in that system." which suggested child cruelty or lack of care, and I asked for proof of the system failing for being "abusive" or "lacking in care". Is that clear enough?
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I'm sure the children were looked after.
Hang on, I thought you said "Any half wit could see see the children would be unhappy in that system"? Even if they were "looked after"??? Make up your mind!
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Resorting to lies only weakens your position even further.
I lied? When did I lie??

Do you have proof that, whatever you think I lied about, was actually a lie? Or is it just something you want to believe to be a lie simply because it doesn't fit in with what you are saying?
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:It was an idealised social experiment that didn't work, just as Communism didn't work.
Just as discussion with you doesn't work.
Right. 'Not happy' means exactly the same thing as being 'cruelly abused and not cared for'. I wish you would fuck off. You don't have a clue what I'm talking about. I have no idea why. I think you must be mentally handicapped. You have my sympathy.

ForCruxSake
Posts: 495
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:48 am

Re: Should women focus more on jobs or children?

Post by ForCruxSake » Thu Apr 06, 2017 3:01 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Spare me the self-righteous crocodile tears over being 'insulted'.
Was I crying? No, I was annoyed because you shit talk virtuality every forum member and discussion into the ground. (Does EVERYTHING have to be 'explained-by-numbers' to you?)
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:You are just as insulting, in fact more so because it's dishonest and slimy.
Errrr, no. I think I owned up to guiltily liking the opportunity to shit-talk back. (The masochism was referring to doing it with you, as it's so dreary.) The shower helps wash away the sliminess.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: I was perfectly capable of thinking for myself even as a child so stick your patronising PC bullshit up your arse.
Be careful what you say in posts, then, as it can lead people to draw conclusions as to how fucked up you are.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:That really takes the cake when you start viewing a young child through your fogged-up PCscope.
I have a PCscope? Really?!! Oh my God, Santa usually sends candy cane! Yayyyyy! I have a PCscope! A 'PC'SCOPE! Now I can shove it up VT's arse! Might stop the continuous drivel of shit! (I'm yodelling this nonsense because I have no idea what you are talking about.)
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I was brought up pro-Israel actually. As I pointed out (but you seem to have trouble reading), the rigid kibbutz system of child-rearing is no longer practiced, and it's not as if all Israelis lived like that.
I didn't say they did. I merely pointed out that it was system where children didn't see their biological parents as much as YOU seem to think they should, and it hasn't ruined their lives. You are the one that then started shifting the whole argument to be about kibbutzes.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Even at their peak the Kibbutz system was never a standard way of life for the average Israeli. I would love to know which 'culture' you think the Kibbutz system represented.
And there you go again. You are banging on about the kibbutzes again, dragging the discussion away from the point you were so intent on poorly defending, about the overarching necessity of children to be with their biological mothers.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:You are obviously too stupid to grasp even the simplest concept.
Not at all, although I admit it's hard to follow your meandering way of thinking, as you stray from the point of every discussion, and a little distracting when I have to pick my way through the litter of your insults, and navigate the sewage that spills out of your head, at the same time as having to requalify everything I've already said, because you have a penchant for bending out of shape, the meaning of everything that everyone else has to say.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:You don't mind offending mothers by saying the role of mother begins and ends with giving birth and after that the term is only subjective, yet you have a little PC hissyfit at some unPC comments that just happen to be true.
Not your finest put down, VT. It's so unspecific and meaningless as to make the put down null and void.

I didn't actually say that "the role of mother begins and ends with giving birth". I said that the only time a mother absolutely need be present is giving birth. It's a logical impossibility if she isn't, which is what I meant, you fool. Beyond that, if she rejects the child in post natal depression, or chooses to take off, or even dies in childbirth, whatever reason takes her away... no judgement on her... that child still stands the chance of a good life GIVEN LOVE AND CARE BY SOMEONE WHO ISN'T THEIR MOTHER. (Scuse the CAPS but I'm hoping it will remind you to stick to the point, which it hasn't so far). Now wheel on the mums I offended, if you would, so we can all laugh in your face, you numpty-dumpy.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:The PC aren't interested in what is true, only in what they perceive to be the 'correct' way to think.
I'm not being PC . I'm being commonsensical. What on earth makes you think my argument is PC? Do you even know what politically correct means? You seem to hurl it as an insult at absolutely everyone that challenges you. That, and feminist.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I've had enough of you. There is no argument.
There is only what you have to impose on the rest of us, presumably?
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Children need their mothers. And if they can't have a mother then a substitute is always going to be just that--a substitute. Now if that offends the little cockles of your terribly PC heart, then tough titty, because nothing you say or do is ever going to change that. Take it up with mother nature.
Don't worry, I'll be here when your children come running to me for a little PC love, and foster care. I'll even let them play with my PCscope.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests