Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Max White]

Wouldn't it be the same to say that if a father doesn't work, he has no fiscal freedom and is reliant in his wife? So what, everybody has to work  in the name of independence and they can have the kids in childcare from the age of one onwards?

Looking after kids can be a very satisfying, so why if a woman wants to do it and make a full time job of looking after her children, why shouldn't she be able to?

[EveryZig]

Seeing as how my original statement was in regards to how Woman are supporting Santorum, and apparently by doing that they are self-misogynists? (according to Descan)

I pointed out that no, not all woman feel this way.  They often feel that raising their child is in their best interests (blame society's outlook on raising children for that).  Why is that?  Well, go ask your mother for one thing.  She'll probably say the same thing.  Go ask any mother, married or single, and they'll probably tell you the same thing.

My mother did have a career. (Also, 'raising their child' is not all or nothing. For example, some mothers, such as mine, stay at home for a time while the baby is extremely young and than return to work as the child gets older.)

Anyway, I think the thing about Santorum was not about careers so much as it was about contraception, with the point being that lack of contraception harms women, so women being against contraception is harming their own interests. (Available contraception does not hinder their ability to choose to have children and say at home.)

[kaijyuu]

Lack of contraception harms everyone. It's not just a women thing.


Women or no, they're only harming their own interests if they're preventing access to contraception that they, themselves, would use. It's a bit silly to say they're harming themselves because they're harming people in a group they happen to belong to.

(ignoring of course social issues like welfare/etc that is exacerbated by unwanted children, and ultimately harms everyone)

[Max White]

Yea, there are a lot of guys out there that aren't ready to be a father, too. Not to mention that the two most popular forms of contraception also stop the spread of STIs, and that is something that everybody benefits from, regardless of gender or sexuality.
Anyway, the idea of an accidental pregnancy is sort of scary from my point of view, because at that point I have no control over the outcome.  I can't force a women to give up a baby if I don't think I'm ready for fatherhood and she decides she wants to have the child, and that is sort of a life changing thing being chosen for me, but still, I don't see any way that a man would ever have the right to force such a thing on a woman, so suck it up, I guess?  This is why we need reliable, accessible forms of contraception. Well not the only reason, but one of many.

[NinjaBoot]

Misinterpretations of what, exactly? People misinterpreting women 'having careers and hobbies outside of childrearing' as anything but being unfaithful to their husbands?

Sigh, no. 

I would have hoped that I clarified that woman are equal to men and have choice to do what they want.  I don't find how it is sexist for me by asking any of you to ask a mother where they feel they should be.  If you feel uncomfortable with it, then it is certainly not my problem.

And yes, I included what I felt on relationships to hopefully, again, clarify that when I stated a woman should be faithful, it should be to a man in terms of NOT sleeping around in a relationship (and vice versa).  Just to make sure people don't try and willfully misconstrue what I say, this also includes men not sleeping around the woman he is in a relationship with. 

Oh, no, wait, nevermind. Silly me, women should be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen!  Two black eyes is love in MY books!

[Max White]

What if a woman wants to sleep around, and the guy is ok with that, or a guy wants to sleep around, and the woman is ok with that, or both want to sleep around, or it is a homosexual relationship (Did I cover all politically correct bases here?)? I mean there are people with open relationships who see sex as a physical act, rather than an emotional one. Isn't it their right to choose?

[Blargityblarg]

You continue do dodge the question, which, put in blunt terms to avoid any possible misinterpretation (), is:

Why did you respond to 'Are you saying that they need to stay at home to be a good wife?' with 'You ask me, would you stick with an unfaithful wife?'

To be even more specific: Why are you implying that a woman who doesn't stay at home is unfaithful?

[NinjaBoot]

What if a woman wants to sleep around, and the guy is ok with that, or a guy wants to sleep around, and the woman is ok with that, or both want to sleep around, or it is a homosexual relationship (Did I cover all politically correct bases here?)? I mean there are people with open relationships who see sex as a physical act, rather than an emotional one. Isn't it their right to choose?

Hey, if that is how they define their relationship then thats all fine and dandy.  I never said what I said with the intent of it being gospel.  I have stated before that people are free to choose who they want to be with, and in whatever kind of relationship they want to be in. 

[Max White]

Wonderful! Now, sir Blargityblarg McBlargalot of Blarg had a question directed at you.

[NinjaBoot]

You continue do dodge the question, which, put in blunt terms to avoid any possible misinterpretation (), is:

Why did you respond to 'Are you saying that they need to stay at home to be a good wife?' with 'You ask me, would you stick with an unfaithful wife?'

To be even more specific: Why are you implying that a woman who doesn't stay at home is unfaithful?

Ah, I see.  My apologies for misinterpreting the initial question to begin with!  But yes, being blunt is often what is needed because language is so evasive nowadays! 

Point at hand:  No I am not.  I was implying that those who step out on their husbands/wives to be unfaithful.  I responded to your question with the understanding that you were referring to their relationship status (I am a bit stoned at the moment).  I asked if you would stick with an unfaithful wife who stepped out on you (in regards to not staying home, which is again, something i misconstrued).  I certainly did not mean that if a wife has a career outside of her home, that she in inherently unfaithful! 

I hope this clears it up for you!

[Blargityblarg]

You continue do dodge the question, which, put in blunt terms to avoid any possible misinterpretation (), is:

Why did you respond to 'Are you saying that they need to stay at home to be a good wife?' with 'You ask me, would you stick with an unfaithful wife?'

To be even more specific: Why are you implying that a woman who doesn't stay at home is unfaithful?

Ah, I see.  My apologies for misinterpreting the initial question to begin with!  But yes, being blunt is often what is needed because language is so evasive nowadays! 

Point at hand:  No I am not.  I was implying that those who step out on their husbands/wives to be unfaithful.  I responded to your question with the understanding that you were referring to their relationship status (I am a bit stoned at the moment).  I asked if you would stick with an unfaithful wife who stepped out on you (in regards to not staying home, which is again, something i misconstrued).  I certainly did not mean that if a wife has a career outside of her home, that she in inherently unfaithful! 

I hope this clears it up for you!

I still don't think you're making much sense. For example, 'I was implying that those who step out on their husbands/wives to be unfaithful' needs either another verb phrase, or to drop the 'that' in order to be a coherent sentence. Furthermore, although I think you're denying doing so at the beginning of your response, you still seem to be equating leaving one's home with unfaithfulness.

Another blunt question, to try to further clear up this mess: Does, for the purposes of this conversation, the word 'unfaithful' mean 'engages in adultery'?

[NinjaBoot]

You continue do dodge the question, which, put in blunt terms to avoid any possible misinterpretation (), is:

Why did you respond to 'Are you saying that they need to stay at home to be a good wife?' with 'You ask me, would you stick with an unfaithful wife?'

To be even more specific: Why are you implying that a woman who doesn't stay at home is unfaithful?

Ah, I see.  My apologies for misinterpreting the initial question to begin with!  But yes, being blunt is often what is needed because language is so evasive nowadays! 

Point at hand:  No I am not.  I was implying that those who step out on their husbands/wives to be unfaithful.  I responded to your question with the understanding that you were referring to their relationship status (I am a bit stoned at the moment).  I asked if you would stick with an unfaithful wife who stepped out on you (in regards to not staying home, which is again, something i misconstrued).  I certainly did not mean that if a wife has a career outside of her home, that she in inherently unfaithful! 

I hope this clears it up for you!

I still don't think you're making much sense. For example, 'I was implying that those who step out on their husbands/wives to be unfaithful' needs either another verb phrase, or to drop the 'that' in order to be a coherent sentence. Furthermore, although I think you're denying doing so at the beginning of your response, you still seem to be equating leaving one's home with unfaithfulness.

Well, if you seem to equate leaving one's home with being unfaithful even after I have explained it otherwise, then how is it my fault?  Yes I fail at English, but again, if this is something you seem to be reading and can't get over, no matter how I explain it otherwise, what else do you expect me to say? 

Another blunt question, to try to further clear up this mess: Does, for the purposes of this conversation, the word 'unfaithful' mean 'engages in adultery'?

Of course, because I misconstrued "leaving ones home" with "engaging in adultery" this is becoming the issue rather than discussing the issue at hand to begin. 

Could you say it was a matter of projection on my behalf?  Most likely.  Could it have been influenced by my ex cheating on me last week?  It seems so. I am still a bit bitter about it.  Does this mean I am bitter enough to expect all woman to "stay at home least they commit adultery somehow, someway"?  Absolutely not.  Is there anything else you would like to know?

[Blargityblarg]

So you did assume for that first post that when someone else said 'leaving the house' they were referring to adultery? Seems understandable, given your current mental and emotional state (i.e. stoned and having recently been cheated on)

[NinjaBoot]

So you did assume for that first post that when someone else said 'leaving the house' they were referring to adultery? Seems understandable, given your current mental and emotional state (i.e. stoned and having recently been cheated on)

True, but I blame my tin-foil hat for failing me in that regard! 

Now with that hopefully cleared up!

Lack of contraception harms everyone. It's not just a women thing.


Women or no, they're only harming their own interests if they're preventing access to contraception that they, themselves, would use. It's a bit silly to say they're harming themselves because they're harming people in a group they happen to belong to.

(ignoring of course social issues like welfare/etc that is exacerbated by unwanted children, and ultimately harms everyone)

It comes down to actually being responsible for the actions you take.  It is not actively harming women to expect them to pay for something that will let them live the lifestyle they choose.  Contraception is already widely available, so it comes down to whether government should fund Contraceptives or not. 

Now, as mind boggling as this sounds, Santorum by belief would be against the funding of Contraceptives.  Does this mean he actually is?  Well, according to Santorum himself... no?  I guess he flip-flopped to appease the left! 

[Reelya]

So you did assume for that first post that when someone else said 'leaving the house' they were referring to adultery? Seems understandable, given your current mental and emotional state (i.e. stoned and having recently been cheated on)

True, but I blame my tin-foil hat for failing me in that regard! 

Now with that hopefully cleared up!

Lack of contraception harms everyone. It's not just a women thing.


Women or no, they're only harming their own interests if they're preventing access to contraception that they, themselves, would use. It's a bit silly to say they're harming themselves because they're harming people in a group they happen to belong to.

(ignoring of course social issues like welfare/etc that is exacerbated by unwanted children, and ultimately harms everyone)

It comes down to actually being responsible for the actions you take.  It is not actively harming women to expect them to pay for something that will let them live the lifestyle they choose.  Contraception is already widely available, so it comes down to whether government should fund Contraceptives or not. 

Now, as mind boggling as this sounds, Santorum by belief would be against the funding of Contraceptives.  Does this mean he actually is?  Well, according to Santorum himself... no?  I guess he flip-flopped to appease the left!

He flip-flopped to appease "the right" not the left.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/santorum-is-for-federal-funding-of-birth-control-except-when-he-isnt/2012/02/23/gIQAPt1UVR_story.html

His "flip" was to say he was against the funding of Title-X which he'd previously voted for, and publically stated he supported  - this was to a crowd of republicans after he'd already said he supported it to other journalists.

There's a small thing call "before" and "after" which will tell you who he "flipped" to appease.

EDIT: and the thing about personal responsibility is a red-herring. Sometimes the rest of us end up paying for one persons actions. And there's often a cheap way to avoid it. Providing contraceptives to low-income women reduces unwanted pregnancies, and therefore abortions, also shortening the welfare queues years later. (saves a lot of money compared to the low cost of contraceptives).