young mom's

oops my bad

 

hmm 'fuck you', that was clever.
Have a fab day!

 

That was in reference to Lynsey, as indicated by the quote. Try reading the whole post next time.

 

thanks Ryan...nice, detect my sarcasm?

 

works over, gotta get home.



see ya tomorrow

 

No problem these things happen. At least you aren't slinging baseless insults like some people here.

 

Can't everyone just unite and trash the idiotic and elitest UK forum.

i got a girl pregnant once, and stuck with her through the adoption, so nananan not a deadbeat or a dad, just one who fucks.

 

I'm good at that too, I'll save that for your 'insult' thread though.

 

My insults were not baseless

 

It took you far too long to get here hippielngstckng. You admit this in post #76. I already said that in post #69. You are reiterating in that post what I already said!!! I hope you don’t think I was arguing anything different than what you have been saying. You might get me thinking that you aren’t even reading my posts!

I know you don’t like me much. I know you and I are in a nice discussion, but please try to keep up. I can’t keep backtracking. You and I are going to agree on some things. Don’t argue with me for the sake of argument.

Stop putting words in my mouth. That is a cheap shot. You don’t have a clear enough grasp of where I am coming from and my views on society to make a judgement call like this: "because the men in the culture are better off, correct?". The fact that you would even assume I would think that shows why you are in this conversation.

A discussion like this should be about furthering understanding of what has happened in the past so that the future can get much better. It shouldn’t be a pissing match. You shouldn’t be trying to make the people who are conversing with you look like assholes.

I understand that women are half the population. I understand that procreation is impossible without women. I also understand that procreation is impossible without men. I am not trying to show that the size of the group is of any significance whatsoever! I don’t care how many or how few. Simple fact remains the group will always be abstract if it does not include all human beings. Anything else is usually classified as racism, or sexism. I am not a sexist.

You ask a great question. One that women were asking in the sixties. Should half the population suffer at the hands of the other? No.

Now I have a question for you.

Should the whole population suffer at the hands of half the population?

I agree 100%. Shane agrees 100%. That is not what we are arguing. This gets brought up every other post. Both Shane and I have said on a number of occasions that our position does not advocate irresponsible fatherhood.

This thread is not advocating. This thread is explaining the current state of the world! You can’t deny that the family has been destructed. You can’t deny that the role of the father is more ambiguous than ever.

I have given an explanation for that. I have given my reasons. Not a single person has offered a suitable counter argument.

All we have heard from your side of the coin is that the reason for such a phenomenon is that males are more irresponsible.

What you don’t do is offer any explanation whatsoever! You have nothing in the way of a counter argument other than your own damned opinion. I am sorry but your opinion is only that and only matters as that, your opinion.

You are not a critical thinker. You can’t get past that big chip on your shoulder that stings when you hear the words "feminism" and "bad" in the same sentence. All the proof in the world and all the logic in the world wouldn’t sway your opinion would it? Why? Cause that is your opinion and you are sticking to it.

You have conviction and I give you credit for that but you end there. You are a pawn and you don’t even know it.

None of this matters. It is all beside the point. It is another discussion altogether. I am sorry I brought it up as it seems to have confused you more.

Remember I think fathers are an integral part of the family. I don’t think women can or should do it all themselves. That isn’t what this thread is about.

Unfortunately feminism had the effect of shutting out fathers. It wasn’t a priority. It wasn’t expected. If the leaders of the revolution had know that effect they would have changed it.

Hindsight is 20/20.

Fact remains, feminism did make the role of the father ambiguous. Sorry, but this isn’t my opinion, this isn’t made up. It is a fact. Unless you can provide an argument or counter argument you aren’t doing anything constructive except helping my typing skills develop.

So please ... please ... please give me something substantive. Give me a better explanation than the one I provided in my first long post in this thread. But leave all that emotional angst and anger at the door. There is no place for it in any intellectual endeavor.

Be careful what you write because I will expose any foolishness for all the readers to see.

If you think you can make my argument seem foolish please do so. So far you haven’t argued anything at all and I am getting tired of dragging you back to the topic.

Only a fucking idiot would think so.

Could have fooled me.













Forget all the shit after post #30. Forget all I have said after that. Forget this post. Forget we ever conversed.

If you really want to understand me and my basis for the opinion than go back and give me the reasons my argument doesn’t hold water. Then give me the real reasons for the decline of fatherhood.

That is my challenge. That is where we will find our common ground.

You can respond to this post with little witty quips so that you get the last word in front of these buffoons. In that you win.

Lets get real. Show me how smart you really are hippielngstckng.

 

Missfontella.

Missfontella, with all do respect, if you are tired of this thread why are you still responding?

Shane and I are not waiting for you people to say anything. This has nothing to do with you. It would be foolish of me to blame you personally, or any women unfortunate enough to be born into this idiotic culture. I hate to utter what it would be for a woman to take anything we have said as an personal accusation.

Men and women have not become equal parents. It is a frightening and growing trend that women are better parents. Even more frightening is that men are caring less and less. It is a part of our culture today that tells us women don’t need men to live happy lives. Girl Power, Independent Women, what do you think those cultural iconic words mean?

These are the effects of the feminist revolution coupled with the sexual revolution. That is what shane and I are saying. We aren’t blaming you. We don’t necessarily disagree with your [beautifully put] assertions that "men are weak ass babies who run and cry instead of stepping up". I wouldn’t use those words, but you and I and Shane and Hippielngstckng all ultimately agree on the idea that those words fundamentally mean to explain. The fact that fathers are becoming ambiguous.

That isn’t what we are arguing

What we are arguing is that the social reconstruction in the sixties had some ill and unexpected effects.

You don’t even have to recognize it. Doesn’t matter. Just don’t get so personally offended when we make that legitimate claim.

Holla.

 

Shane.


I am sorry you have to read so much bullshit. I honestly can not get my head around how some people can be driven to insult you for having a brain in your head.

Just laugh at em. That is the only way I was able to read most of what has been written in the last bunch of pages.

 

OSF



did you read Shane's post?

and I quote:

"You want abortion rights? Fine, BUT DONT COME AFTER ME CAUSE YOU THINK YOU HAVE A MEAL TICKET!"


Abortion and child support have little to do with each other. This is the attitude I am contesting. I could smell it on him before he ever said it, which why I had no problem calling him an idiot.

I do not, however, smell this attitude on you.

You and I don't agree but you have enuff knowledge and understanding that I can respect your opinion


He, on the other hand, pissed me off

 

You're kidding right?

Why do women get to be the only ones who decide whether they want a child to support?

Both man and woman decided to have sex, both man and woman knew of risks of having sex, both man and woman will have to deal with an abortion or fulll term pregnancy, and yet only woman gets to make the abortion decision.

if you choose to not be a parent you choose for both of us, and if you choose to BE a parent you choose for both of us. So how do abortion and child support have nothing to do w/each other?

 

Don't feel bad!
It's hard to have a life when you're 16.
No one lets you...

 

haha i was just kidding, id rather be here then out getting busted for marijuana. coincidently, thats the reason i have no life this summer.

 

I know I said I wouldn’t do this but I have to talk a little bit about this paragraph. You are accusing me of something that I don’t think is fair. You are accusing me of justifying male irresponsibility. What I need you to understand is that justification is very different from explanation.

Justification is defined as 1. The act of justifying or the state of being justified; a showing or proving to be just or conformable to law, justice, right, or duty; defense; vindication; support; as, arguments in justification of the prisoner's conduct; his disobedience admits justification.


It is in the defining words like ‘just’, ‘defense’, and ‘support’ where my opinion deviates from what you are accusing me of. I am not defending the actions. I do not support male abandonment.

What I am doing is explaining. Explaining is defined as "To make plain or comprehensible. To define; expound."

By very definition of the words I am not justifying but explaining.

I don’t want you to think that I support male abandonment. I want you to think I am trying to show a causal connection between what has happened in the past and what the situation is now.

Now that that is clear, ON TO THE ARGUMENT!



We have reached an agreement that the role of the father has become ambiguous in our current culture.

As to the question of why you argue that it is ...

I don’t know which revolution of the sixties you are referring to. I can suppose that you mean the Sexual Revolution. I will touch on that later. For now let us dismiss the idea that the "ME generation" of the nineteen-eighties were a cause of the ambiguity of the father.

The Me generation is known more for spawning the rise in status of the rich and famous. Capitalism made the most of itself in the eighties. That can be attributed to the surge in the technology industry. But again, it had little to do with causing the destruction of the traditional male. I know you don’t posit that it did, and thus we can reach an agreement that a study of the eighties will show that the decade was more a continuation of the trends that began in the sixties than it was a cause of the ambiguity of modern fatherhood.

About the cause of male irresponsibility ...

I don’t know if you are referring specifically to a masculine revolution or if you mean to say that males were involved in the sexual revolution. Males were liberated by the sexual revolution. But so were females. To say that the sexual revolution was distinct to one sex would be false. It was a true social revolution that meant to encompass every American.

Absolutely. People [not just males] had been liberated. It is very important to note that at the heart of this revolution was the need to be liberated. The need and notion of freedom was the driving force behind it. That is contrasted to the driving force of feminism, which was equality.

It is important to see what each revolution was fighting for if we are going to look at it’s effects. I do not mean to say that freedom is more important than equality or vice versa, only that the force at the heart of each revolution is different. Not freedom vs equality, but freedom and equality.

As you mentioned, people were acting according to their own will and not the will of the parents. Bloom gives his reason for this in "The Closing of the American Mind". He says that it is a parental tendency [not limited to that situation, but a universal tendency] for parents to believe it better to let their children act as they will than to forbid them to do so and risk further and worse rebellion. Regardless of the reason, the fact remains.

But there is a pretty good reason that the sexual revolution is called the sexual revolution. The liberation was a sexual liberation. People were having sex more and more out of wedlock and with a number of different people.

The effect on the family was not good. Divorce rates rose sharply in the 60s and 70s. (Do I really need to show you the numbers or can we agree?) The number of children being born out of wedlock to single mothers rose just as rapidly. As a law more sex is always going to result in more babies.



Even love itself was changed. The change in love came through the change in attitude towards the act of love. As soon as the act became free to give to as many people as one liked, so did the emotion. Correlated to the rising divorce rates, love was no longer immortal.

Men and women became freer. But it seems you want to place the blame for the current condition on the family on the male freedom to protest and disobedience of the sixties.

Yes that is an option. That could very well be it. But not many people agree with you. Simply because it disregards, completely, the result of the revolution on the other half of society. It says nothing of women. And ignores the effects of the feminist revolution on women.

I know that you aren’t going to admit that the i) feminist revolution did not have an effect on women and ii) family was based solely on the father. [Neither am I but] that would have to be the case if we are going to accept your premise.

Unfortunately it would be foolish to say either.

Now I refer you to my original point on how feminism changed things in the family. It is very important that you understand this idea because it is essentially the explanation (not justification) of how the father figure became ambiguous.

Quote from post #30...

"Feminism, on the other hand, worked more to liberate us [and I have to say us because to think that the changing role of women had no effect on men is ... stupid] from nature than from society. The women’s movement was not founded on nature. The position of women, to them, was established by nurture not nature and therefore it was a crucial contention that women should not be ruled by biology, as it was nature. It ends, as do all [and have all] movements seeking abstract justice, in forgetting nature and using force to refashion human beings to secure that justice. Feminism attacked male sexual passion as it resulted in sexism. It was the male sexual passion that made men rape their wives, it made bosses assault their female workers, it made teachers abuse their students. These were crimes that were fought against. What sensitive male can avoid realizing how dangerous his sexual passion is?

The interference with sexual desire was more intense than ever, even though the grip had just been loosened. The sexual revolution wanted women and men to get along together and feminism ensured that females could survive apart from men.

As with the sexual revolution, feminism held tight the suppression of female modesty. But modesty can’t be so easily tossed aside. Sociologists and anthropologists tell us that modesty was the female virtue. It governs the powerful desires that related men to women. It is what provided a gratification in harmony with the procreation and rearing of children. Unfortunately the risk and responsibility fell naturally – that is biologically – on women. Modesty impedes sexual intercourse but it enhances the delicate interplay between the sexes that lets the consent of the will equal the importance of possession of the body. You suppress modesty and the end of desire is easily attained. But while doing that, the feminists dismantled the structure of involvement and attachment of the male, reducing sex to an end in itself.

Modesty is what extends sexual differentiation from fucking to living. It makes men and women always men and women. As long as modesty operates, men and women together are never just doctors or lawyers together. They have something else, they have the potentiality for ultimate ends. Ask yourself what is more important, winning the case or love and family? Men and women as doctors are no longer male and female. They are subordinate to one goal. But in parenting they are different but must be naturally related to the naturally given goal of continuing the species. Feminism fought against this natural relatedness because it meant working together which meant ‘roles’ and hence, ‘priorities’ in a way that a man and woman doctor team does not. They fought against the only voice that constantly reminded that a man and a woman have a work to do together that is far different from that found in the lawyers office, and of far greater importance."

Hope you enjoyed your weekend now what say you?

 

Osf we're shouting at a brick wall.