Should women focus more on jobs or children?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You are so fucked up, to believe that an alcoholic mother could be better than a loving grandparent or father is really screwed up.

Did I say that? you retarded, illiterate yank. Learn to read. So now it's become unPC to even dare to suggest that human babies need their mothers.
It's you your PC ilk who are screwed up.

You wrote, "probably." That's the turd in the punchbowl.

So sue me. It was more a case of exaggerating the obvious to an obvious idiot. Too subtle for a yank of course. None of those are ever going to be as good as a good mother though, or even an average one, to her children.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Would a child do better under a drunk British mother or a non-drinking Yank father?

PhilX

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Would a child do better under a drunk British mother or a non-drinking Yank father?

PhilX

Wouldn't know, unless you want to describe the two in every detail. But it's too complex for any of the men on here to cope with. And don't you have some files to add to? Or some other shit-stirring thread to start? You do thrive on conflict.
I honestly could give a flying fuck what the PC consensus is on the matter. There are plenty of studies, although why they would even need to have 'studies' on something so fucking obvious I can't imagine.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Would a child do better under a drunk British mother or a non-drinking Yank father?

PhilX

Wouldn't know, unless you want to describe the two in every detail. But it's too complex for any of the men on here to cope with. And don't you have some files to add to? Or some other shit-stirring thread to start? You do thrive on conflict.
I honestly could give a flying fuck what the PC consensus is on the matter. There are plenty of studies, although why they would even need to have 'studies' on something so fucking obvious I can't imagine.

Why don't you know? I thought you were the Yank and British expert.

PhilX

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Would a child do better under a drunk British mother or a non-drinking Yank father?

PhilX

Wouldn't know, unless you want to describe the two in every detail. But it's too complex for any of the men on here to cope with. And don't you have some files to add to? Or some other shit-stirring thread to start? You do thrive on conflict.
I honestly could give a flying fuck what the PC consensus is on the matter. There are plenty of studies, although why they would even need to have 'studies' on something so fucking obvious I can't imagine.

Why don't you know? I thought you were the Yank and British expert.

PhilX

Is 'British' the only 'nationality' that you are aware of, apart from your own? What do you mean when you say 'British'? Does that include Scottish? Why are Americans so stupid? Why don't you start a thread with that title?

[Philosophy Explorer]

Wouldn't know, unless you want to describe the two in every detail. But it's too complex for any of the men on here to cope with. And don't you have some files to add to? Or some other shit-stirring thread to start? You do thrive on conflict.
I honestly could give a flying fuck what the PC consensus is on the matter. There are plenty of studies, although why they would even need to have 'studies' on something so fucking obvious I can't imagine.

Why don't you know? I thought you were the Yank and British expert.

PhilX

Is 'British' the only 'nationality' that you are aware of, apart from your own? What do you mean when you say 'British'? Does that include Scottish? Why are Americans so stupid? Why don't you start a thread with that title?

How do you know I'm American?

You appear to be a British sympathizer and prejudiced against Americans. Isn't Scotland part of the UK? (although that may change).

Why don't you start a thread with that title? I don't recall you starting any threads because you are gutless. All you appear to be is prejudiced against Americans and I bet you don't have one American friend. I would love to shake the hand of the one who made you so prejudiced against the Americans (doc takes credit for that).

PhilX

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Why don't you know? I thought you were the Yank and British expert.

PhilX

Is 'British' the only 'nationality' that you are aware of, apart from your own? What do you mean when you say 'British'? Does that include Scottish? Why are Americans so stupid? Why don't you start a thread with that title?

How do you know I'm American?

You appear to be a British sympathizer and prejudiced against Americans. Isn't Scotland part of the UK? (although that may change).

Why don't you start a thread with that title? I don't recall you starting any threads because you are gutless. All you appear to be is prejudiced against Americans and I bet you don't have one American friend. I would love to shake the hand of the one who made you so prejudiced against the Americans (doc takes credit for that).

PhilX

Do the 'British' need sympathy? And it's hardly 'prejudice'. I always give reasons. They make a dreadful noise that gives me actual pain in my ears every time they open their mouths. I love language, and they insist on butchering it... deliberately. I'm anti-war, so naturally I'm not going to like warmongers or military types very much, and yanks, apart from a tiny minority that has never shown itself, idolise anyone in the military and love war (unless it inconveniences them personally). I can't stand phoniness, and the yanks definitely reign supreme in that department. Money worship is another repulsive trait. I'll have my say, but you can 'rest easy'. American 'culture' is spreading like an itchy rash over the planet. There will be nothing else soon enough.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Is 'British' the only 'nationality' that you are aware of, apart from your own? What do you mean when you say 'British'? Does that include Scottish? Why are Americans so stupid? Why don't you start a thread with that title?

How do you know I'm American?

You appear to be a British sympathizer and prejudiced against Americans. Isn't Scotland part of the UK? (although that may change).

Why don't you start a thread with that title? I don't recall you starting any threads because you are gutless. All you appear to be is prejudiced against Americans and I bet you don't have one American friend. I would love to shake the hand of the one who made you so prejudiced against the Americans (doc takes credit for that).

PhilX

Do the 'British' need sympathy?

You know they do. Want me to go over their history again?

PhilX

[vegetariantaxidermy]

How do you know I'm American?

You appear to be a British sympathizer and prejudiced against Americans. Isn't Scotland part of the UK? (although that may change).

Why don't you start a thread with that title? I don't recall you starting any threads because you are gutless. All you appear to be is prejudiced against Americans and I bet you don't have one American friend. I would love to shake the hand of the one who made you so prejudiced against the Americans (doc takes credit for that).

PhilX

Do the 'British' need sympathy?

You know they do. Want me to go over their history again?

PhilX

When I think about it I suppose I am a bit of an Anglophile. England is breathtakingly beautiful, even the ugly bits. The people have depth and incredible history. It produced the Beatles.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Do the 'British' need sympathy?

You know they do. Want me to go over their history again?

PhilX

When I think about it I suppose I am a bit of an Anglophile. England is breathtakingly beautiful, even the ugly bits. The people have depth and incredible history. It produced the Beatles.

The Beatles are my No. 1 rock group. Their range is incredible.

PhilX

[ForCruxSake]

No, a human baby needs a parent who cares, gender doesn't matter.

I think a human baby just needs someone who cares, and can care for it. Having grown into a young child, he/she may need more, for a developing identity, something or someone to identify with, but generally they just need care.

I have to agree with Hobbes': as many children have gone on to successful lives with minimal parental interaction (as with children growing up in boarding school) as children have been fucked up by bad parenting from their actual parents.

The Israeli kibbutz system never seemed to harm child development and the kids saw their parents for a limited time during the working day, the rest of the time spent in child dorms being looked after by adults other than their own parents.

I think as long as children are well cared for, it doesn't matter who does the caring.

It's so funny, you both like to think of yourselves as terribly enlightened 'feminists' but as is par for the course you are both full of disingenuous crap.

And this kind of crap adds to the argument how? Again, you undermine your own argument by having to shout people down and insult them. All it does is encourage others to speak to you likewise, without even bothering to take on your points because of they have to navigate the insults first... but I will try. Clearly, I'm a masochist who likes the odd opportunity to shit-talk back. (I always need to take a shower after, though.)

Back to 'the point' you made.... I'm not trying to be a feminist and have never claimed to be one. I can't speak for thedoc, but I don't think he's trying to be one either. It's you that insists on, not just labelling people, but making out they are labelling themselves. Why you do this is beyond me. It's irrational.

Name another mammal whose mother isn't needed.

Why? So that you shift ground from the point being made, a little further? A mother is needed to give birth, obviously. After that a child needs loving care, whoever can give it. All mammals risk being abandoned, it's care they need to survive WHOEVER GIVES IT.

I'm not saying human mothers are the best mothers in the animal kingdom--because they aren't by a long shot. And yes, I will state the obvious. A child that is being beaten the shit out of by a screaming alcoholic mother is probably better off with a loving, nurturing father, grandmother, grandfather...

... Or by extension, you are saying, ANY OTHER PERSON CAPABLE OF REALLY CARING FOR THEM!

...whatever, if there happens to be one handy. Even then, children tend to yearn for their mother.

No, they don't. They yearn for care and love. The habit that is called 'mother', who may be abusive, may be all that they have known. It's hard to shake off habits, even ones that are bad for you, or ultimately make you feel shit, even after a very brief high. If poor parenting is all they have ever known, then it may all they can hope for rather than being totally alone. All it takes is a new experience of healthy care to shift that, assuming they have not been irrevocably damaged by poor parenting. Better they receive care from ANYONE WHO CAN CARE FOR THEM IN A HEALTHY, LOVING MANNER.

What happens, more often than not, is the child is fostered out and never really loved by anyone, growing up emotionally retarded and dysfunctional.

"More often than not" suggests you know very little about this, otherwise cite a fact.

Here's a fact of experience: I know a very successful foster mum whose children would cry for her for weeks after being placed with a permanent parent, returned to their own parents or returning to general care. She has been fostering for 25 years and many of her foster children have stayed in touch with into adulthood. One actually calls her mum. I'm not saying every foster experience is like this, but it's stated to put your unsupported "more often than not" bullshit back in it's place.

Kibbutzes have long since abandoned the rigid child-separation policy.

Proof being?

Any half-wit could see that children would be unhappy in that system.

Any half-wit can see that your statement is conjecture and half-witted in itself.

Many children are unhappy at home, but where's your proof that the kibbutz child care care system was dismantled because it was abusive or lacking in care, rather than part of a kibbutz restructure that was economic, or unworkable due to mechanics?

Kibbut's didn't restructure their care of children. Economics shifted the organisation of kibbutzes.

Exactly. So if it had bugger all to do with the childcare, and was about the economic efficacy of kibbutzes, why blow smoke out of your arse about it?

It was about economics and an idealist socialist dream of complete equality, 'emancipation' of women from the 'burden' of child rearing-- leaving her 'free' to work for the good of the collective blah blah blah....

If only we could get more than 'blah blah blah' from you in general. It's really not as good as sound, supported reasoning. From you, even unadulterated common sense will do.

You can't suppress human nature, and you can't stop babies and mothers from wanting to be together, or children from wanting to be with their families.

Let's call them 'caregivers' and assume that they're not all related to mothers, or being mothers, shall we?

I remember as a young child being taught at school about the Kibbutz system of child-rearing and being horrified at the thought of it (imperfect as my own family was). It just sounded wrong to me. And that's the gut feeling of a child, not some twit with an agenda.

No, that's the way someone brought up in an alternative culture thinks, whose parents, or culture, might have been bone headed enough to instil into her, that their way is the ONLY way that is right. I was taught about kibbutzes, too. I was also pro-Arab, not least because of the way they taught Arab-Israeli history at my CofE school, and was prone to argue against all that was Jewish, or Israeli, in my youth. Even I was fascinated by how kibbutzes worked and wanted to go see for them for myself. That's called 'open-minded curiosity'. It seems you never had that even when you were young. You were just as judgemental then by the sound of it.

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.

Off to take that shower now.

[Harbal]

And yes, I will state the obvious. A child that is being beaten the shit out of by a screaming alcoholic mother is probably better off with a loving, nurturing father, grandmother, grandfather.. whatever, if there happens to be one handy.

You are so fucked up, to believe that an alcoholic mother could be better than a loving grandparent or father is really screwed up.

VT is saying the child would be better off with the father, grandparent etc. I think you misread her post.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I think a human baby just needs someone who cares, and can care for it. Having grown into a young child, he/she may need more, for a developing identity, something or someone to identify with, but generally they just need care.

I have to agree with Hobbes': as many children have gone on to successful lives with minimal parental interaction (as with children growing up in boarding school) as children have been fucked up by bad parenting from their actual parents.

The Israeli kibbutz system never seemed to harm child development and the kids saw their parents for a limited time during the working day, the rest of the time spent in child dorms being looked after by adults other than their own parents.

I think as long as children are well cared for, it doesn't matter who does the caring.

It's so funny, you both like to think of yourselves as terribly enlightened 'feminists' but as is par for the course you are both full of disingenuous crap.

And this kind of crap adds to the argument how? Again, you undermine your own argument by having to shout people down and insult them. All it does is encourage others to speak to you likewise, without even bothering to take on your points because of they have to navigate the insults first... but I will try. Clearly, I'm a masochist who likes the odd opportunity to shit-talk back. (I always need to take a shower after, though.)

Back to 'the point' you made.... I'm not trying to be a feminist and have never claimed to be one. I can't speak for thedoc, but I don't think he's trying to be one either. It's you that insists on, not just labelling people, but making out they are labelling themselves. Why you do this is beyond me. It's irrational.

Name another mammal whose mother isn't needed.

Why? So that you shift ground from the point being made, a little further? A mother is needed to give birth, obviously. After that a child needs loving care, whoever can give it. All mammals risk being abandoned, it's care they need to survive WHOEVER GIVES IT.

I'm not saying human mothers are the best mothers in the animal kingdom--because they aren't by a long shot. And yes, I will state the obvious. A child that is being beaten the shit out of by a screaming alcoholic mother is probably better off with a loving, nurturing father, grandmother, grandfather...

... Or by extension, you are saying, ANY OTHER PERSON CAPABLE OF REALLY CARING FOR THEM!

...whatever, if there happens to be one handy. Even then, children tend to yearn for their mother.

No, they don't. They yearn for care and love. The habit that is called 'mother', who may be abusive, may be all that they have known. It's hard to shake off habits, even ones that are bad for you, or ultimately make you feel shit, even after a very brief high. If poor parenting is all they have ever known, then it may all they can hope for rather than being totally alone. All it takes is a new experience of healthy care to shift that, assuming they have not been irrevocably damaged by poor parenting. Better they receive care from ANYONE WHO CAN CARE FOR THEM IN A HEALTHY, LOVING MANNER.

What happens, more often than not, is the child is fostered out and never really loved by anyone, growing up emotionally retarded and dysfunctional.

"More often than not" suggests you know very little about this, otherwise cite a fact.

Here's a fact of experience: I know a very successful foster mum whose children would cry for her for weeks after being placed with a permanent parent, returned to their own parents or returning to general care. She has been fostering for 25 years and many of her foster children have stayed in touch with into adulthood. One actually calls her mum. I'm not saying every foster experience is like this, but it's stated to put your unsupported "more often than not" bullshit back in it's place.

Kibbutzes have long since abandoned the rigid child-separation policy.

Proof being?

Any half-wit could see that children would be unhappy in that system.

Any half-wit can see that your statement is conjecture and half-witted in itself.

Many children are unhappy at home, but where's your proof that the kibbutz child care care system was dismantled because it was abusive or lacking in care, rather than part of a kibbutz restructure that was economic, or unworkable due to mechanics?

Kibbut's didn't restructure their care of children. Economics shifted the organisation of kibbutzes.

Exactly. So if it had bugger all to do with the childcare, and was about the economic efficacy of kibbutzes, why blow smoke out of your arse about it?

It was about economics and an idealist socialist dream of complete equality, 'emancipation' of women from the 'burden' of child rearing-- leaving her 'free' to work for the good of the collective blah blah blah....

If only we could get more than 'blah blah blah' from you in general. It's really not as good as sound, supported reasoning. From you, even unadulterated common sense will do.

You can't suppress human nature, and you can't stop babies and mothers from wanting to be together, or children from wanting to be with their families.

Let's call them 'caregivers' and assume that they're not all related to mothers, or being mothers, shall we?

I remember as a young child being taught at school about the Kibbutz system of child-rearing and being horrified at the thought of it (imperfect as my own family was). It just sounded wrong to me. And that's the gut feeling of a child, not some twit with an agenda.

No, that's the way someone brought up in an alternative culture thinks, whose parents, or culture, might have been bone headed enough to instil into her, that their way is the ONLY way that is right. I was taught about kibbutzes, too. I was also pro-Arab, not least because of the way they taught Arab-Israeli history at my CofE school, and was prone to argue against all that was Jewish, or Israeli, in my youth. Even I was fascinated by how kibbutzes worked and wanted to go see for them for myself. That's called 'open-minded curiosity'. It seems you never had that even when you were young. You were just as judgemental then by the sound of it.

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.

Off to take that shower now.

Spare me the self-righteous crocodile tears over being 'insulted'. You are just as insulting, in fact more so because it's dishonest and slimy. I was perfectly capable of thinking for myself even as a child so stick your patronising PC bullshit up your arse. That really takes the cake when you start viewing a young child through your fogged-up PCscope. 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. 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.
You are obviously too stupid to grasp even the simplest concept. 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. The PC aren't interested in what is true, only in what they perceive to be the 'correct' way to think.
I've had enough of you. There is no argument. 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.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

And yes, I will state the obvious. A child that is being beaten the shit out of by a screaming alcoholic mother is probably better off with a loving, nurturing father, grandmother, grandfather.. whatever, if there happens to be one handy.

You are so fucked up, to believe that an alcoholic mother could be better than a loving grandparent or father is really screwed up.

VT is saying the child would be better off with the father, grandparent etc. I think you misread her post.

You don't say. But even an alcoholic mother can love her children like no one else can and vice versa, which is why the State takes children from the mother only in the most extreme circumstances.

[thedoc]

And yes, I will state the obvious. A child that is being beaten the shit out of by a screaming alcoholic mother is probably better off with a loving, nurturing father, grandmother, grandfather.. whatever, if there happens to be one handy.

You are so fucked up, to believe that an alcoholic mother could be better than a loving grandparent or father is really screwed up.

VT is saying the child would be better off with the father, grandparent etc. I think you misread her post.

Possibly, but the way I read it first and responded, fits her better.