PDA

View Full Version : Let's talk women's rights!



Poly
September 20th, 2004, 08:49 AM
I believe in the right of a woman to raise her own kids rather than to be made to feel that she's less of a person if she doesn't let somebody else raise them for her.

I believe in the right of a woman to see past the lie that she should try for an impossible and unattainable goal of "having it all".

I believe in the right of all women to be born.

I believe in the right of a woman not to make a fool of herself on the T.V. show "Cops" when she's trying to take authority over a 6'5" brute of a man.

Ok gals, speak out and be heard! What other rights do you support for women?

cattyfan
September 20th, 2004, 08:59 AM
I believe in the right of a woman to enjoy taking care of her husband, instead of being told if she does that she is a doormat.

I believe in the right of all women to be satisfied with their appearance instead of swallowing the notion that everything about them needs to be nipped, tucked, or changed in some way.

(fixed my spelling...Poly says I have the right to! :o )

erinmarie
September 20th, 2004, 10:28 AM
I believe that I have the right to be frustrated with the grocery counter clerk (insert bad name referring to a ugly, old gross woman here), because she rang up all of my B.O.G.Os as regular price, and then refused to look at the reciept when I was showing her she was wrong!
But it seemed like everyone else was mad at me instead of her, even the manager (another old bat) who came over, saw the clerk was wrong and fixed it.
I think they were jealous, and angry and someone OUGHT to do something about people like that!
So anyways, my womens' right issue, all women should be able to punch random old bats in the face, if rightly angered.

the Sibbie
September 20th, 2004, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by erinmarie

I believe that I have the right to be frustrated with the grocery counter clerk (insert bad name referring to a ugly, old gross woman here), because she rang up all of my B.O.G.Os as regular price, and then refused to look at the reciept when I was showing her she was wrong!
But it seemed like everyone else was mad at me instead of her, even the manager (another old bat) who came over, saw the clerk was wrong and fixed it.
I think they were jealous, and angry and someone OUGHT to do something about people like that!
So anyways, my womens' right issue, all women should be able to punch random old bats in the face, if rightly angered. :eek: :chuckle:

wickwoman
September 20th, 2004, 12:27 PM
I agree, except for the one political stance thrown in there at the beginning which I will just pretend I didn't see for the sake of solidarity.

But, many would be surprised to know that Mr. Wickwoman is actually pretty much in charge of finances, major decisions, etc., and that I let HIM have the remote control. But, it's not about who has the testosterone, it's more about the freedom I enjoy in letting him take responsibility for the things he wants to take care of. It gives me significant freedom and peace of mind. Also, the trust I place in him, elevates him to his rightful place as a Capricorn male. He is definitely a leader and I am a follower. And, I like it that way. For other relationships, it's different and, thats fine too. Everyone is different and everyone should work out their relationships in a a way that fits them best.

As for career women versus stay at home moms. The stay at home mom has the more important job, in my opinion, because the children really are the future, I know it sounds trite, but the way to change the world is one child at a time. However, I would add, that some women would prefer a career and I'm glad we all have that choice. Especially since I wasn't blessed with kids. I'd just be sitting around the house and getting fat. (For sure I wouldn't be doing a bunch of housecleaning. I didn't inherit that gene from my mom.)

And, when the kids are all grown up, it's wonderful that women have the opportunity, if they have the desire, to have a 2nd career that involves being out in the business world, or whatever they choose. That's the beauty of freedom and equal rights regardless of what's in your pants.

However, I would also like to add the following right:

Any woman has the right to kick any man in the "you know whats" if he ever speaks to her the way BillyBob spoke to me in the following post:


Originally posted by BillyBob
Look Dear, I realize this sort of thing is a bit over your head and beyond your comprehension. Perhaps you would be better suited cooking dinner for your man and cleaning his house, doing his laundry and such things. You clearly don't have the what it takes to be persuasive in a political debate.

Are you with me Sisters?

Gerald
September 20th, 2004, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by erinmarie
I think they were jealous, and angry and someone OUGHT to do something about people like that!I have an axe handle. Wanna borrow it?

So anyways, my womens' right issue, all women should be able to punch random old bats in the face, if rightly angered. As opposed to punching random old bats on general principle...? :chuckle:

servent101
September 20th, 2004, 12:55 PM
Wickwoman
Are you with me Sisters?

So what kind of fabric softener do you use? How do you get cake pans clean?

With Christ's Love

Servent101

Anne
September 20th, 2004, 01:01 PM
Yes, Poly, the right of women (and men too) to be born IS the most fundamental of all rights. Obviously, if one doesn't have the right to not be murdered before birth then what is the point of any other rights.

BillyBob
September 20th, 2004, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by wickwoman


Any woman has the right to kick any man in the "you know whats" if he ever speaks to her the way BillyBob spoke to me in the following post:

:baby:

You deserved every word, you lying, vile, evil twister of words! I predicted this mornimng that you would accuse me of being a sexist instead of realizing that every word I wrote was directed exclusively at you not because you are a woman, but because you are an incompetent liar!

Now, get off the computer and get back in the kitchen where you belong, your man apparently knows his place, it's time you learned yours!!




Are you with me Sisters?

That is doubtful. You see, Poly [and presumably other women here] knows me pretty well by now. She knows that I adore and respect Mrs. BillyBob, I have said so numerous times and given examples. She knows I do not judge people based on their gender.

Nice try, though. Typical liberal, when all else fails, wrongly accuse someone of being a racist or sexist. Now I know how Trent Lott feels. :down:

Crow
September 20th, 2004, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by wickwoman
Are you with me Sisters?

I don't know. Is BillyBob, in the spirit of equality, permitted to smack you around to reciprocate?

firechyld
September 20th, 2004, 06:41 PM
I agree, except for the one political stance thrown in there at the beginning which I will just pretend I didn't see for the sake of solidarity.

My sentiments exactly. :)


As for career women versus stay at home moms. The stay at home mom has the more important job, in my opinion, because the children really are the future, I know it sounds trite, but the way to change the world is one child at a time. However, I would add, that some women would prefer a career and I'm glad we all have that choice. Especially since I wasn't blessed with kids. I'd just be sitting around the house and getting fat. (For sure I wouldn't be doing a bunch of housecleaning. I didn't inherit that gene from my mom.)

I feel that every woman has (or should have) the right to make that decision for herself... whether she wants to be a stay-at-home mother, a career woman, or something in the middle... without being pushed towards one option by anyone other than herself.

Oh, and every woman has the right to, at any given time, declare that she doesn't give a damn about her appearance. Some of my happiest moments have been spent in torn pajama pants, no make up, and ugg boots. ;)

Nineveh
September 20th, 2004, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by Sisters

I believe in the right of a woman to raise her own kids rather than to be made to feel that she's less of a person if she doesn't let somebody else raise them for her.

I believe in the right of a woman to see past the lie that she should try for an impossible and unattainable goal of "having it all".

I believe in the right of all women to be born.

I believe in the right of a woman not to make a fool of herself on the T.V. show "Cops" when she's trying to take authority over a 6'5" brute of a man.

***

I delieve in the right of a woman to enjoy taking care of her husband, instead of being told if she does that she is a doormat.

I believe in the right of all women to be satisfied with their appearance instead of swallowing the notion that everything about them needs to be niiped, tucked, or changed in some way.

and adds...
I believe women have the right not to be sexually exploited.

Poly
September 20th, 2004, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh


Originally posted by Sisters

I believe in the right of a woman to raise her own kids rather than to be made to feel that she's less of a person if she doesn't let somebody else raise them for her.

I believe in the right of a woman to see past the lie that she should try for an impossible and unattainable goal of "having it all".

I believe in the right of all women to be born.

I believe in the right of a woman not to make a fool of herself on the T.V. show "Cops" when she's trying to take authority over a 6'5" brute of a man.

***

I believe in the right of a woman to enjoy taking care of her husband, instead of being told if she does that she is a doormat.

I believe in the right of all women to be satisfied with their appearance instead of swallowing the notion that everything about them needs to be niiped, tucked, or changed in some way.

and adds...
I believe women have the right not to be sexually exploited.

We should get these on a T-shirt.

cattyfan
September 20th, 2004, 08:37 PM
We should get these on a T-shirt.

if we do, could we please correct my lousy typing? :)

Poly
September 20th, 2004, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by cattyfan

if we do, could we please correct my lousy typing? :)
I believe women should have the right to do this. :D

cattyfan
September 20th, 2004, 09:04 PM
Oh, and every woman has the right to, at any given time, declare that she doesn't give a damn about her appearance. Some of my happiest moments have been spent in torn pajama pants, no make up, and ugg boots.


I'm not sure what ugg boots are...but, YEAH! What she said!

firechyld
September 20th, 2004, 09:09 PM
http://www.uggs-n-rugs.com.au/images/AllColoursWhiteSm.jpg

Basically, a sheep turned into a boot. They're wooly on the inside. :)

I keep forgetting that they're an Aussie thing...

BillyBob
September 20th, 2004, 09:10 PM
How aboot that! :D

BillyBob
September 20th, 2004, 09:11 PM
That looks booter than anything the Canadians have! :freak:

BillyBob
September 20th, 2004, 09:12 PM
You booter believe it! :eek:

BillyBob
September 20th, 2004, 09:13 PM
Are you shoer??? :dunce:

firechyld
September 20th, 2004, 09:13 PM
What was the decision on the right of a woman to smack Billybob?

BillyBob
September 20th, 2004, 09:14 PM
Heel Yeah! :neck:

BillyBob
September 20th, 2004, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by firechyld

What was the decision on the right of a woman to smack Billybob?

Depends if you are an advocate of equal rights. If so, That means I get to 'smack back'.

Of course I wouldn't, it would be a blotch on my sole. :freak:

firechyld
September 20th, 2004, 09:20 PM
And if I'm not?

cattyfan
September 20th, 2004, 09:24 PM
I want a pair! These are cute! (kind of a bummer for the sheep, but nice for us...)

BillyBob
September 20th, 2004, 09:26 PM
Originally posted by firechyld

And if I'm not?

You get to be my Goddess! :eek:

[I don't know how to respond to this, but it's certainly a lot more fun than banging my head against the 'Brother Willi Wall'.]

firechyld
September 20th, 2004, 09:30 PM
catty...


I want a pair! These are cute! (kind of a bummer for the sheep, but nice for us...)

Ugg boots are fantastic. :) They're so unstylish, but so amazingly comfortable. :)

I should send you a pair for Christmas. :)

Billybob...


You get to be my Goddess!

Wow. I've been accused of trying to steer people from Jesus before, but never of trying to take his place.... ;)

cattyfan
September 20th, 2004, 09:31 PM
Ugg boots are fantastic. They're so unstylish, but so amazingly comfortable.

I should send you a pair for Christmas.



my feet are thinking about them already :D

firechyld
September 20th, 2004, 09:38 PM
my feet are thinking about them already

Do you use ebay? I just ran a quick search, and there's quite a large number of people selling uggs.

BillyBob
September 20th, 2004, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by firechyld

Wow. I've been accused of trying to steer people from Jesus before, but never of trying to take his place.... ;)

:chuckle:

cattyfan
September 20th, 2004, 09:44 PM
Do you use ebay? I just ran a quick search, and there's quite a large number of people selling uggs.

I'm a skilled e-bayer, and will run a search post-haste...thanks for the tip!

How are your classes going?

cattyfan
September 20th, 2004, 10:05 PM
ugg boots are a cost-prohibative....but I found the American equivalent:

firechyld
September 20th, 2004, 10:07 PM
I'm trying frantically to catch up after missing two weeks of class due to illness. :( Hectic.

cattyfan
September 20th, 2004, 10:08 PM
Minnetonka makes nice stuff. I used to wear their boot style zipper-back mocs all the time. I had blue, black, and brown, plus knee high fringe. (ahh...college!) I still have green emboidered and black embroidered...plus the white zipper backs from my wedding reception. (much easier to dance in than high heels!)

Minnetonka calls their version Pug Boots.

BillyBob
September 20th, 2004, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by firechyld

I'm trying frantically to catch up after missing two weeks of class due to illness. :( Hectic.

Here, use this boot! :vomit:



:D

cattyfan
September 20th, 2004, 10:09 PM
I'm trying frantically to catch up after missing two weeks of class due to illness. Hectic

I'm sorry to hear that. Have you had that nasty flu?

firechyld
September 20th, 2004, 10:47 PM
Minnetonka calls their version Pug Boots.



As in made from pug dogs? Disturbing...


I'm sorry to hear that. Have you had that nasty flu?

It started out as a flu, then turned into a pretty nasty lung infection. I was flat on my back for the better part of two weeks. Not fun. :(

Lighthouse
September 20th, 2004, 11:24 PM
I believe women have the right to remain silent. :p

ShadowMaid
September 20th, 2004, 11:27 PM
I believe women have the right to discipline thier children in a way that's effective.

BillyBob
September 21st, 2004, 06:07 AM
"OK Mom, I'll take out the garbage, please put down that bat!"

:Clete:

wickwoman
September 21st, 2004, 06:42 AM
Originally posted by BillyBob

:baby:

You deserved every word, you lying, vile, evil twister of words! I predicted this mornimng that you would accuse me of being a sexist instead of realizing that every word I wrote was directed exclusively at you not because you are a woman, but because you are an incompetent liar!

Now, get off the computer and get back in the kitchen where you belong, your man apparently knows his place, it's time you learned yours!!

That is doubtful. You see, Poly [and presumably other women here] knows me pretty well by now. She knows that I adore and respect Mrs. BillyBob, I have said so numerous times and given examples. She knows I do not judge people based on their gender.

Nice try, though. Typical liberal, when all else fails, wrongly accuse someone of being a racist or sexist. Now I know how Trent Lott feels. :down:

Dear BillyBob:

I haven't once called you a sexist. You must have a guilty conscience because you keep anticipating that I will.

As for what you say about me, you are entitled to your opinion. However, you know deep in your heart that what I said about you was true. You were, as usual, trying to be absurd and annoying and "over the top" but I cornered you and made you see that your absurdities are sometimes mean and not so funny. Poor Billybob.

I noticed you called me sleazy on another thread. So, as for what you say about women, is it like this: whenever one doesn't agree with everything you say, are they sleazy and stupid?

Zakath
September 21st, 2004, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by wickwoman
...whenever one doesn't agree with everything you say, are they sleazy and stupid? They might also get called "commie", "leftist", or "liberal". :chuckle:

BillyBob
September 21st, 2004, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by wickwoman
However, you know deep in your heart that what I said about you was true.

Not a single word of what you wrote is true.


You were, as usual, trying to be absurd and annoying and "over the top"

Ah, so that's how you libs define 'honesty'.


but I cornered you and made you see that your absurdities are sometimes mean and not so funny. Poor Billybob.

You're still dreaming and using your computer. I thought I told you to get back in the kitchen where you belong.



I noticed you called me sleazy on another thread. So, as for what you say about women, is it like this: whenever one doesn't agree with everything you say, are they sleazy and stupid?

No, just you, I called you sleazy because you resorted to lies and fallacious statements. You certainly are stupid. And you are a liar. Anyone who doubts it can go back to your thread and read the exchange between us.

aharvey
September 21st, 2004, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by BillyBob

:baby:

You deserved every word, you lying, vile, evil twister of words! I predicted this mornimng that you would accuse me of being a sexist instead of realizing that every word I wrote was directed exclusively at you not because you are a woman, but because you are an incompetent liar!

Now, get off the computer and get back in the kitchen where you belong, your man apparently knows his place, it's time you learned yours!!

[blah, blah, blah]

Nice try, though. Typical liberal, when all else fails, wrongly accuse someone of being a racist or sexist. Now I know how Trent Lott feels. :down:

Er, BB, could you show me exactly where in her post WW accused you of being sexist? Otherwise I might be forced to type something like "Typical conservative; make a vicious attack, then when someone confronts you about it, wrongly accuse them of slandering you, so that you seem like the poor victim." It's a great strategy, by the way. You get to be nasty and soak up "poor me" points, all at the same time! That's why conservatives rule!

And so how does Trent Lott feel, by the way? He looks kinda stringy and leathery to me.

servent101
September 21st, 2004, 11:56 AM
Ten points awarded to wickwoman for here polite and controlled response to Billybob.

Lets give Billybob some time, and hope he will progress some more, and actually find out that insulting people is only a way that entrenches them in their opinion,

With Christ's LOve

Servent101

BillyBob
September 21st, 2004, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by aharvey

Er, BB, could you show me exactly where in her post WW accused you of being sexist? Otherwise I might be forced to type something like "Typical conservative; make a vicious attack, then when someone confronts you about it, wrongly accuse them of slandering you, so that you seem like the poor victim."

First of all, WickWoman's first post in this thread was one in which she imported a post of mine from another thread. Have you noticed the title of this thread? SThis was included in her first post:


Wickwoman:
Any woman has the right to kick any man in the "you know whats" if he ever speaks to her the way BillyBob spoke to me in the following post:

quote:
Originally posted by BillyBob
Look Dear, I realize this sort of thing is a bit over your head and beyond your comprehension. Perhaps you would be better suited cooking dinner for your man and cleaning his house, doing his laundry and such things. You clearly don't have the what it takes to be persuasive in a political debate.



Are you with me Sisters?

Now, if you want to pretend that she wasn't implying sexism on my part, you are free to believe so.




Harvey:
It's a great strategy, by the way. You get to be nasty and soak up "poor me" points, all at the same time! That's why conservatives rule!



Actually, Wickwoman and I were having our debate elsewhere, she chose to drag a tiny portion of it into this thread for the reasons previously mentioned, looking to soak up 'Poor Me' points. As you said, it's a great strategy and you fell for it.

You need to follow this debate back to it's source if you want to discover what's really going on here, which is, Wickwoman has lied about things which I supposedly said and I refused to let her get away with that. Her next step, seeing that I displayed her trechery for all to see, was to garner sympathy from her 'sisters'.

FYI

BillyBob
September 21st, 2004, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by servent101

Ten points awarded to wickwoman for here polite and controlled response to Billybob.

What is polite about lying?




Lets give Billybob some time, and hope he will progress some more, and actually find out that insulting people is only a way that entrenches them in their opinion,

With Christ's LOve

Servent101

I have no problem insulting morons like Wickwoman, and it has nothing to do with her gender, as she was hoping to imply and xcapitalize upon.. I was having a nice debate with her until she realized that she was losing and desperately decided to make fallacious statements about things which I was supposed to have said, but never did.

How many points do you award for that type of behavior?

wickwoman
September 21st, 2004, 12:14 PM
Dearest BB:

If you recall, the title of THIS thread is "Let's talk women's rights!" And, I said I should have the right to kick you in . . . well, read the post. Anyway, I at no time implied or eluded to whether or not you are a sexist. And, so, I must presume that your guilty conscience has found you out since you continually accuse me of doing so.

As an aside, I would comment that poor BB does get a sympathy vote from me becase he is living in a world which he is ill equipped to understand, flinging about insults and barbs, but all in an attempt at self-protection against those terrible commies who are always chasing him.

BillyBob
September 21st, 2004, 12:17 PM
When you think of it, I am not sexist at all because I will call to the carpet any person, man or woman, who is a liar. I will not pull any punches just because a liar happens to be female. That makes me extremely fair and reespectable.

Wickwoman is sexist because she was hoping to hide behind her gender and pretend to be the victim of a man, not a fellow poster. Why do you think she imported into this particular thread a debate she and I were having elsewhere?

-50 points for the sexist, Wickwoman. :down:

BillyBob
September 21st, 2004, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by wickwoman

Dearest BB:

If you recall, the title of THIS thread is "Let's talk women's rights!" And, I said I should have the right to kick you in . . . well, read the post. Anyway, I at no time implied or eluded to whether or not you are a sexist. And, so, I must presume that your guilty conscience has found you out since you continually accuse me of doing so.

As an aside, I would comment that poor BB does get a sympathy vote from me becase he is living in a world which he is ill equipped to understand, flinging about insults and barbs, but all in an attempt at self-protection against those terrible commies who are always chasing him.

My dear, you are a liar. Go back to the original thread where this all started and see that you attributed words to me which I never said. I pointed that out to you and you chose to continue doing so. You are a vile person.

The reality is that your political views are childish and immature. You are politically uninformed and base your entire position on emotion.

You should have kept this debate in it's original thread and listened to me when I was being very clear about my views instead of deliberately altering them with the hopes that it would help you win a losing debate.

I realize that debating against what I actually said would have been a no win situation for you, but you could have actually learned something. Now we all know that this is not your intention.

wickwoman
September 21st, 2004, 12:35 PM
Dear BB:

Having a contest of wits with an unarmed man is always a bad idea. It's just unfair and I wouldn't want to be mean like you. And, so I was making light of the very mean things you said. (BTW I will remind you of the comment you made about me in a thread about football, saying I was "sleazy." What it has to do with football, I have no idea.)

Finally, you may start your own thread about the sleaziness and stupidity of Wickwoman if it makes you feel better. However, this thread isn't about you and me. So, we should be polite and move along.

BillyBob
September 21st, 2004, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by wickwoman

Dearest BB:

If you recall, the title of THIS thread is "Let's talk women's rights!" And, I said I should have the right to kick you in . . . well, read the post.

I know what it says.

You said that a "Woman has the right to kick any Man....if he ever spaeks to her....."

Since you believe that, would you also contend that a Man should have the same right to kick a Woman...........for saying something he does not like?

BillyBob
September 21st, 2004, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by wickwoman

Dear BB:

Having a contest of wits with an unarmed man is always a bad idea. It's just unfair and I wouldn't want to be mean like you. And, so I was making light of the very mean things you said. (BTW I will remind you of the comment you made about me in a thread about football, saying I was "sleazy." What it has to do with football, I have no idea.)

Finally, you may start your own thread about the sleaziness and stupidity of Wickwoman if it makes you feel better. However, this thread isn't about you and me. So, we should be polite and move along.

You brought this argument here, not me.

BillyBob
September 21st, 2004, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by BillyBob

I know what it says.

You said that a "Woman has the right to kick any Man....if he ever spaeks to her....."

Since you believe that, would you also contend that a Man should have the same right to kick a Woman...........for saying something he does not like?

Does a man have the right to kick a woman????? Huh?????

wickwoman
September 21st, 2004, 12:40 PM
P.S. I invite anyone on this thread who would like to see what BillyBob said and the inferences I made based on his gross generalizations and simplistic worldview to visit the following thread and let us know what you think.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16310

BillyBob
September 21st, 2004, 12:44 PM
Yes, and watch how often Wick puts words in my mouth even after I pointed out that she was doing so.

BillyBob
September 21st, 2004, 12:46 PM
So, since we are discussing women's rights, I'll ask again:

Does a woman have the right to kick a man?

Does a man have the right to kick a woman?

aharvey
September 21st, 2004, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by BillyBob

First of all, WickWoman's first post in this thread was one in which she imported a post of mine from another thread. Have you noticed the title of this thread? SThis was included in her first post:

"quote:
Wickwoman:
Any woman has the right to kick any man in the "you know whats" if he ever speaks to her the way BillyBob spoke to me in the following post:

quote:
Originally posted by BillyBob
Look Dear, I realize this sort of thing is a bit over your head and beyond your comprehension. Perhaps you would be better suited cooking dinner for your man and cleaning his house, doing his laundry and such things. You clearly don't have the what it takes to be persuasive in a political debate.

Are you with me Sisters?"

Now, if you want to pretend that she wasn't implying sexism on my part, you are free to believe so.
BB, while I freely admit I haven't been following the pre-this-thread history of yours and WW's discussion, it seems to me that you're losing your perspective here. The only way she is implying sexism on your part is by, uh, quoting you directly. Maybe the quote is out of context; goodness knows that's a popular game here at TOL, but let's face it, there aren't too many contexts in which your statement wouldn't be considered sexist (e.g., if you REALLY said, "I just had to punch this guy out after he told my wife, 'Look Dear, I realize this sort of thing is a bit over your head and beyond your comprehension. Perhaps you would be better suited cooking dinner for your man and cleaning his house, doing his laundry and such things. You clearly don't have the what it takes to be persuasive in a political debate.' " Now THAT'S out of context!). And you should follow your own suggestion and read the title to this thread, which automatically seems to impart a sex-specific bias to the subject. WW's comments were no more inherently sexist than the rest of this thread.


Originally posted by BillyBob

Actually, Wickwoman and I were having our debate elsewhere, she chose to drag a tiny portion of it into this thread for the reasons previously mentioned, looking to soak up 'Poor Me' points. As you said, it's a great strategy and you fell for it
Well, your Trent Lott comment fits a little too well into the poor-me strategy, but in any case I can easily see WW's comments coming from such a strategy as well. It's common, and effective in the short term, but probably not something you want to rely on.


Originally posted by BillyBob

You need to follow this debate back to it's source if you want to discover what's really going on here, which is, Wickwoman has lied about things which I supposedly said and I refused to let her get away with that. Her next step, seeing that I displayed her trechery for all to see, was to garner sympathy from her 'sisters'.

FYI
One of the most curious features of this bulletin board is the frequency with which people misquote each other or accuse each other of doing so. For crying out loud, people. it's not like our comments disappear once we hit the "Submit" button! It's not that hard to go back and see what people actually said; our comments are there, for all the world to see, for a long time! Now this is the only bulletin board I participate in; maybe they're all like this, but it just seems a particularly foolish thing to do to claim people said things they didn't.

BillyBob
September 21st, 2004, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by aharvey

BB, while I freely admit I haven't been following the pre-this-thread history of yours and WW's discussion, it seems to me that you're losing your perspective here. The only way she is implying sexism on your part is by, uh, quoting you directly. Maybe the quote is out of context; goodness knows that's a popular game here at TOL, but let's face it, there aren't too many contexts in which your statement wouldn't be considered sexist (e.g., if you REALLY said, "I just had to punch this guy out after he told my wife, 'Look Dear, I realize this sort of thing is a bit over your head and beyond your comprehension. Perhaps you would be better suited cooking dinner for your man and cleaning his house, doing his laundry and such things. You clearly don't have the what it takes to be persuasive in a political debate.' " Now THAT'S out of context!). And you should follow your own suggestion and read the title to this thread, which automatically seems to impart a sex-specific bias to the subject. WW's comments were no more inherently sexist than the rest of this thread.

I made that remark to Wickwoman exactly because it sounded sexist and i figured it would piss her off, but I only did so after she repeatedly misquoted me and I repeatedly tried to correct her.

None of this is a big deal, but the fact that she imnported that particular quote is very telling. She should have left it where it was instead of pulling a Briother Willi on us by dragging one argumant across countless threads.




Well, your Trent Lott comment fits a little too well into the poor-me strategy,

I thought it was pretty funny! :chuckle:




One of the most curious features of this bulletin board is the frequency with which people misquote each other or accuse each other of doing so. For crying out loud, people. it's not like our comments disappear once we hit the "Submit" button! It's not that hard to go back and see what people actually said; our comments are there, for all the world to see, for a long time! Now this is the only bulletin board I participate in; maybe they're all like this, but it just seems a particularly foolish thing to do to claim people said things they didn't.

I am amazed by that myself. There are a few posters here who will continually misquote people no matter how many times they demonstrate this to them, even by using their actaull quotes, because it doesn't serve their purpose. That is the case for Wickwoman's and my argument.

wickwoman
September 21st, 2004, 01:26 PM
BB's idea of showing you that you misunderstood him is to say "I didn't say that" over and over again, meanwhile, continuing to say what he says he didn't say and continuing to say he didn't say it. It's an interesting strategy, I will admit.

And, thank you BB for confirming that your original comment was just to make me angry. I suspected it. But, it didn't. I found it amusing at best.

Poly
September 21st, 2004, 01:31 PM
I believe in a young woman's right not to be encouraged by the government to get pregnant as a teenager by telling her that they will support her and her illegitimate kids.

I support the right of a woman not to be looked at as a hero for raising kids without a dad so that future women won't be encouraged to do so.

ShadowMaid
September 21st, 2004, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by Poly

I believe in a young woman's right not to be encouraged by the government to get pregnant as a teenager by telling her that they will support her and her illegitimate kids.

I support the right of a woman not to be looked at as a hero for raising kids without a dad so that future women won't be encouraged to do so.

:thumb:

wickwoman
September 21st, 2004, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by Poly
I support the right of a woman not to be looked at as a hero for raising kids without a dad so that future women won't be encouraged to do so.

Do you admit that sometimes this is not so much a choice as an unavoidable circumstance?

aharvey
September 21st, 2004, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by Poly

I believe in a young woman's right not to be encouraged by the government to get pregnant as a teenager by telling her that they will support her and her illegitimate kids.

I support the right of a woman not to be looked at as a hero for raising kids without a dad so that future women won't be encouraged to do so.

Okay, now you're getting a little loopy. I understand your sentiments, but you're not doing anything constructive here by calling these "rights." Next I expect you'll be saying "I support the right of a woman not to be able to marry another woman"!

Poly
September 21st, 2004, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by wickwoman

Do you admit that sometimes this is not so much a choice as an unavoidable circumstance?
There would be less so called "unavoidable circumstances" if they weren't looked at as heroes.

Poly
September 21st, 2004, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by aharvey

Okay, now you're getting a little loopy. I understand your sentiments, but you're not doing anything constructive here by calling these "rights."
I like to look at these rights in regards to my daughter. I don't like society encouraging her to get pregnant outside of marriage. They're trying to make it look appealing to her and I don't appreciate it. I want her to know that she has the right to see them as wicked and to know that they are lying to her when they try to suggest that there's nothing wrong with this by honoring her if she does have children outside of marriage and tries to support them without a father.


Next I expect you'll be saying "I support the right of a woman not to be able to marry another woman"!

I support the right of a woman not to be able to marry another woman.
I also support the right of a woman not to have to watch other women "marry". :vomit:

wickwoman
September 21st, 2004, 01:43 PM
Dear Poly:

Nobody is making single motherhood look like a party. And, if your teenager gets pregnant because of Murphy Brown, she's watching too much T.V.

Poly
September 21st, 2004, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by wickwoman

Dear Poly:

Nobody is making single motherhood look like a party.
Then you and I obviously do not live in the same world.


And, if your teenager gets pregnant because of Murphy Brown, she's watching too much T.V.
Unless I lock her in a box she'll get plenty of exposure to this tragedy.

cattyfan
September 21st, 2004, 01:54 PM
most teens today don't know who Murphy Brown is. But they do see single motherhood being demonstrated as perfectly acceptable. They see Hollywood starlets who decide it's "time" to have a baby...and they treat those children like they are accessories, no different from shoes or a briefcase. They are spoiled brats who say "I want. I want a baby this week," so instead of waiting for loving stable marriage, they go ahead and get a baby from whomever with no concern for what might be best for a child.

They see single mothers in their community with people saying "don't be judgemental. Accept them with love," instead of saying this is a sad circumstance. You can love someone and still make it clear their actions are unacceptable.

They see people pretending statistics don't show that on the whole, being raised by a single parent gives children a serious disadvantage in life.

And they see government programs expanded all the time to "help" these single mothers. They can count on a monthly check to help pay the way.

Those are the things to which Poly refers.

BillyBob
September 21st, 2004, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by wickwoman

BB's idea of showing you that you misunderstood him is to say "I didn't say that" over and over again,

That's because I DIDN'T say the things you attributed to me. If you weren't so stupid, you could go back and re read the debate and discover that for yourself!



meanwhile, continuing to say what he says he didn't say and continuing to say he didn't say it. It's an interesting strategy, I will admit.

See, the real problem is your blatant stupidity. You don't understand that there is a difference between local and federal governments. You want to indict me of wanting people to starve simply because I declare that it is not the role of the Federal Governemt to feed people!

You are unbelievably stupid! :dunce:



And, thank you BB for confirming that your original comment was just to make me angry. I suspected it. But, it didn't. I found it amusing at best.

I certainly said it to make you angry, but I also meant it, you are far too stupid to have a reasonable political discourse with. I hope you cook and clean house better than you debate.

Gerald
September 21st, 2004, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by BillyBob
You want to indict me of wanting people to starve simply because I declare that it is not the role of the Federal Governemt to feed people!It ain't yours, either.

Though if you get a warm, fuzzy feeling from wasting your resources, don't let me stop you... :chuckle:

aharvey
September 21st, 2004, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by Poly

I like to look at these rights in regards to my daughter. I don't appreciate society encouraging her to get pregnant outside of marriage. They're trying to make it look appealing to her and I don't appreciate it. I want her to know that she has the right to see them as wicked and to know that they are lying to her when they try to suggest that there's nothing wrong with this by honoring her if she does have outside of marriage and tries to support them without a father.
Your daughter surely already has the right to see these people as wicked; I'm guessing it's more of a requirement than a right in your house! Which is my point; these aren't rights (i.e., just claims) you're talking about, and it's pointless and counterproductive to try to coyly frame them as such.


Originally posted by Poly
I support the right of a woman not to be able to marry another woman.That's also not a "right," it is the exact opposite. You support the prevention of a woman having a just claim to marry another woman. Whether or not a woman should have the right to marry another woman is of course a big issue, but don't cloud it with this kind of vapid rhetoric. It would be like someone saying they support your right not to be able to vote. Does that make any sense to you?


Originally posted by Poly
I also support the right of a woman not to have to watch other women "marry". :vomit:
Well, for your sake, I hope you never lose that right! It is sort of hard for me to imagine that you will ever have to be forced to watch something you don't want to, though.

BillyBob
September 21st, 2004, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by wickwoman

And, thank you BB for confirming that your original comment was just to make me angry. I suspected it. But, it didn't. I found it amusing at best.

Then why did you feel the need to race over to a woman's thread, post it and say that it is your right to kick a man if he says something like that?

Do you believe it is your right to kick a man?

Does a man have the right to kick you?

aharvey
September 21st, 2004, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by cattyfan

most teens today don't know who Murphy Brown is. But they do see single motherhood being demonstrated as perfectly acceptable. They see Hollywood starlets who decide it's "time" to have a baby...and they treat those children like they are accessories, no different from shoes or a briefcase. They are spoiled brats who say "I want. I want a baby this week," so instead of waiting for loving stable marriage, they go ahead and get a baby from whomever with no concern for what might be best for a child.

They see single mothers in their community with people saying "don't be judgemental. Accept them with love," instead of saying this is a sad circumstance. You can love someone and still make it clear their actions are unacceptable.

They see people pretending statistics don't show that on the whole, being raised by a single parent gives children a serious disadvantage in life.

And they see government programs expanded all the time to "help" these single mothers. They can count on a monthly check to help pay the way.

Those are the things to which Poly refers.

And you don't think you're caricturizing the situation just an eensy weensy bit here? Every single paragraph here has perhaps a grain of truth to it. But every one seems also to leave out a large, large part of the story. Single motherhood perfectly acceptable? Hollywood starlets being uncritically accepted as role models for joe teen's reproductive strategy? Single motherhood not being considered a sad situation? People pretending that single motherhood is just as easy as, er, double parenthood? Government programs being expanded all the time to help single mothers? Girls deciding to have kids because they know the government will pay their way?

Pul-lease. Yes, every one of these may have happened, but to describe this as how it is in this country tells me that you are a columnist, not a reporter!

cattyfan
September 21st, 2004, 03:18 PM
And you don't think you're caricturizing the situation just an eensy weensy bit here? Every single paragraph here has perhaps a grain of truth to it. But every one seems also to leave out a large, large part of the story. Single motherhood perfectly acceptable? Hollywood starlets being uncritically accepted as role models for joe teen's reproductive strategy? Single motherhood not being considered a sad situation? People pretending that single motherhood is just as easy as, er, double parenthood? Government programs being expanded all the time to help single mothers? Girls deciding to have kids because they know the government will pay their way?

Pul-lease. Yes, every one of these may have happened, but to describe this as how it is in this country tells me that you are a columnist, not a reporter!


o.k. First let me give you some statistics. The sources are noted.


Recent statistics show single motherhood on the rise, at 12 million, up from 3.4 million in 1970.

• In 1998, 26 percent of all families with children were headed by single parents. Press Release cb98-228.html, U.S. Census Bureau, www.census.gov, April 29, 1999.

• “Most single-parent children live in metropolitan areas (14.5 million), and six in 10 of them (9.2 million) are in cities with populations of 1 million or more.? “Children of single parents – how they fare,? Census Brief CENBR/97-1, September 1997.

• In 1998, an estimated 42 percent of all custodial parents had never married, 38 percent had divorced, only 5 percent were widowed, and about 15 percent were separated.
“Census Bureau Facts for Features,? U.S. Census Bureau, www.census.gov, April 29, 1999.

• In 1995, nearly six of 10 children living with mothers only were near the poverty line. About 45 percent of children raised by divorced mothers and 69 percent by never-married mothers lived in or near poverty, which was $13,003 for a family of three in 1998. Census Brief CENBR/97-1, Bureau of the Census, www.census.gov, September 1997.

• In 1999, 41 percent of all first births were born to premarital parents. Of females ages 15 to 29, 53 percent of first children were conceived out of wedlock. Press-Release (CB99-213), U.S. Census Bureau’s Public Information Office, December 20, 1999.

• Of never married women in their 30s, 40 percent have had a child. “Single Mothers, Many Faces,? by Sara Eckel, American Demographics, May 1999.

• One in five never-married women ages 15 to 44 are mothers. Press Release cb97-192.html, U.S. Census Bureau, www.census.gov, April 29, 1999.

• Two-thirds of infants born to teen mothers were fathered by adult men over age 20. “A Few Facts About Illegitimacy,? Family Research Council, www.frc.org, January 1997.

• Fifty-three percent of high school girls say it is worthwhile to have a child out of wedlock. “Snapshot of America,? Rutgers University study, The Barna Report, July-Sept. 1999.

• An estimated 25 million (40 percent) children are growing up without fathers in the home. “American Agenda,? World News Tonight with Peter Jennings, December 13, 1994.

• About 13 million (50 percent) children without fathers in the home have never even been in their fathers’ homes.
“American Agenda,? World News Tonight with Peter Jennings, December 13, 1994.

• Boys living in a fatherless home are two to three times more likely to be involved in crime, drop out of school, and get divorced. Girls living in a fatherless home are two to three times more likely to become pregnant teenagers and have their marriages end in divorce. “Heading Toward a Fatherless Society,? by Barry Kliff, MSNBC News, www.msnbc.com, March 31, 1999.

• Children of divorce do worse academically, are more prone to delinquency, are more vulnerable to the appeal of substance abuse, are more likely to bear a child out of wedlock, and are less equipped to enter marriage themselves. “Real Women Stay Married,? by Susan Orr, Washington Watch, June 2000.

• Almost 70 percent of young men in prison grew up without fathers in the home. “American Agenda,? World News Tonight with Peter Jennings, January 12, 1995.


take a close look at the statistic I put in bold. From where do you think these gilrs are getting this message?

Now consider these little pieces of our society and culture:





Jodie Foster - single mom

Calista Flockhart - single mom

When actress Dyan Cannon heard about Flockhart and her new child, she told Access Hollywood, "She needs something to love when she gets home and on her days off. "

Camryn Manheim - single mom "I'm going to be a single mom," Manheim's character on The Practice said, calling the baby's father "basically just a sperm donor."

"I don't believe I need a man in my life to raise a happy, healthy daughter," Manheim's character told millions of viewers. Manheim repeated these sentiments in her real life in several interviews.

Elizabeth Hurley - single mom

Some studies show that girls with fathers are less likely to be promiscuous, while boys with fathers are less likely to be delinquent. But watching TV, you'd think single women like Elizabeth Hurley having babies is nothing but great news.

"A woman is never more beautiful than when she's pregnant," said the Today show's Matt Lauer, who later talked to a fashion columnist about how Hurley's pregnancy changed her fashion statement.

Single moms are frequently the theme in movies: One Fine Day (Michelle Pfeiffer, George Clooney,) About a Boy (Hugh Grant,) Jerry Maguire (Tom Cruise, Renee Zellweger)

And on T.V. : Each week, more than 29 million people tune in to NBC's "Friends," making it the most watched show on television, and featuring Rachel's decision to have and raise a child alone.

When Rachel's pal Joey asked her to marry him so that she would not face this "scary" world as a single mother, Rachel squeezed his bicep, thankedhim and replied warmly, "I'm not looking for a husband."

Who is “Friends? target audience? Teens and twenty-somethings.

Sex in the City is designed to appeal to single women…and they celebrated Miranda’s impending single parenthood…the result of a one-night stand of “pity-sex.?

There are also single moms on That 70s Show, My Wife and Kids, Reba...and all of these examples are comedies. Single motherhood is now portrayed not just as acceptable, but as funny.

Typical of the way the single-mom story lines play out over time is Roz, the articulate, savvy assistant to Dr. Frasier Crane on NBC's popular "Frasier." Roz got pregnant during a tryst with a teenager several seasons ago and decided to raise the baby alone. She never mentioned the child's father in the seasons following the birth and does not appear to have any relationship with him.

Whereas “Frasier’s? audience is older, the point is there are dozens of single moms being shown everywhere…and they’re called courageous and wonderful.





All of this supports my original contentions. Is that more "reporter-like" for you?

wickwoman
September 21st, 2004, 03:23 PM
Dear BB:

It was a joke. I hope you aren't frightened of me. It was not my intention to cause you bodily harm. Only to laugh at your expense.

wickwoman
September 21st, 2004, 03:24 PM
I'm leaving this thread now. These rights are starting to sound more and more like the Republican party platform. :bang:

BillyBob
September 21st, 2004, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by wickwoman

Dear BB:

It was a joke.

OK.


I hope you aren't frightened of me.

Nope.


It was not my intention to cause you bodily harm.

Oh, well I guess that's better because I was waiting to see if you actually thought women had the right to kick men and vice versa.


Only to laugh at your expense.

I don't mind, I've certainly had my share of laughs at your expense.

BillyBob
September 21st, 2004, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by wickwoman

I'm leaving this thread now. These rights are starting to sound more and more like the Republican party platform. :bang:

Yeah, liberals hate when people have rights.

smothers
September 21st, 2004, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by Poly

I believe in a young woman's right not to be encouraged by the government to get pregnant as a teenager by telling her that they will support her and her illegitimate kids.

I support the right of a woman not to be looked at as a hero for raising kids without a dad so that future women won't be encouraged to do so.

Right on! Do you believe in the right of a woman to go to college?

BillyBob
September 21st, 2004, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by smothers

Right on! Do you believe in the right of a woman to go to college?

If she can afford the tuition? Of course!

smothers
September 21st, 2004, 05:31 PM
Many female members in the cult of Bob Enyart discourage kids from going to college or voting.

BillyBob
September 21st, 2004, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by smothers

Many female members in the cult of Bob Enyart discourage kids from going to college or voting.

They do? Why?

Aren't kids too young to vote?

ebenz47037
September 21st, 2004, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by Poly

I believe in a young woman's right not to be encouraged by the government to get pregnant as a teenager by telling her that they will support her and her illegitimate kids.

:thumb:


I support the right of a woman not to be looked at as a hero for raising kids without a dad so that future women won't be encouraged to do so.

I make an exception here for widows. :)

cattyfan
September 21st, 2004, 07:08 PM
I make an exception here for widows.

absolutely...but as I cited in my list of statistics, only 5% of children who are being raised in a single parent home are in that position because of a parental death.

ShadowMaid
September 21st, 2004, 07:25 PM
Originally posted by smothers

Many female members in the cult of Bob Enyart discourage kids from going to college or voting.

Cult?

Haha, that's not true. There's nothing wrong with going to college, as long as it's a decent college. And he doesn't discourage voting, he discourages the voting for evil people.

Lighthouse
September 21st, 2004, 07:27 PM
Originally posted by Poly

I support the right of a woman not to be looked at as a hero for raising kids without a dad so that future women won't be encouraged to do so.
Okay, there are exceptions to this rule. Such as a widow, like Nori...she's a hero!:D

firechyld
September 21st, 2004, 09:53 PM
[post deleted because I can't be bothered with the argument it would cause.]

Lighthouse
September 21st, 2004, 10:15 PM
I think you're being a coward.

BChristianK
September 21st, 2004, 10:25 PM
Originally posted by Poly

I believe in the right of a woman to raise her own kids rather than to be made to feel that she's less of a person if she doesn't let somebody else raise them for her.

I believe in the right of a woman to see past the lie that she should try for an impossible and unattainable goal of "having it all".

I believe in the right of all women to be born.

I believe in the right of a woman not to make a fool of herself on the T.V. show "Cops" when she's trying to take authority over a 6'5" brute of a man.

Ok gals, speak out and be heard! What other rights do you support for women? :first:

Excellent!

firechyld
September 21st, 2004, 10:44 PM
I think you're being a coward

Why? It's not like it was an overly salient point. It was me stooping to the level of Poly's posts in this thread, and I simply can't be bothered with the slap fight.

Lighthouse
September 21st, 2004, 10:56 PM
Stooping? I think Poly made some excellent points. She explained how she is sick of liberalism teaching that women have to be something they may not want to be. And I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment that women have the right to not be unwed mothers of illegitimate children.

firechyld
September 21st, 2004, 11:00 PM
Stooping? I think Poly made some excellent points. She explained how she is sick of liberalism teaching that women have to be something they may not want to be.

... whilst ignoring the fact that "conservatism" does the exact same thing.

I feel that women have the right to choose whatever they want to be. That's the summation of my stance. My deleted post was not conveying that... it was stooping to the level of "women have the right to NOT be [insert derogatory description of Poly's stance here]".

It was unnecessary, so I deleted it.


And I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment that women have the right to not be unwed mothers of illegitimate children.

Of course they do. Did I ever dispute that?

ebenz47037
September 22nd, 2004, 02:16 AM
Originally posted by cattyfan

absolutely...but as I cited in my list of statistics, only 5% of children who are being raised in a single parent home are in that position because of a parental death.

Only reason I said anything is because I'm one of the 5%. :chuckle:

Poly
September 22nd, 2004, 07:51 AM
I believe in a woman's right to realize that she can't do everything a man can do and that this isn't a bad thing.

cattyfan
September 22nd, 2004, 07:59 AM
aharvey,

I addressed your concerns from yesterday in post #76.

Poly
September 22nd, 2004, 08:06 AM
Originally posted by Poly

I believe in a woman's right to realize that she can't do everything a man can do and that this isn't a bad thing.
Like belching for 10 seconds. What woman would want to be able to do that? :shocked:

aharvey
September 22nd, 2004, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by cattyfan

o.k. First let me give you some statistics. The sources are noted.
Okay, so single parenthood is common, and it sucks. Never doubted this. But don't you see a direct connection there? Well, I guess you do, but from your posts I'm guessing this is how you see it:

1. Hollywood gives impressionable young kids the idea that being a single parent is cool.

2. Therefore, following this example, impressionable young kids become parents.

3. This leads them into a terrible downward spiral into increasingly miserable circumstances, which are glossed over by the Hollywood machine.

Is that about right?

How about an alternative explanation? People in lousy situations (i.e., those broadly associated with poverty) tend not to be well educated and/or tend to do things that in the short term make their existence more bearable, even if these actions further hurt their situation in the long run. They're having babies because they're having sex, not because Hollywood says it's okay to be a single mom. They're having sex because they're either unaware of the consequences or they're willing to take the long-term risk for the sake of the short term "benefits." This tends to keep their situation bad to worse.


Originally posted by cattyfan

take a close look at the statistic I put in bold. From where do you think these gilrs are getting this message?
That's troubling, no doubt. I wonder who these girls were, where they are from. But showing that girls claim to feel a certain way is not exactly the same thing as showing how they came to feel that way! On the other hand, I'm not saying the commercialization of the media has no effect. I'm saying grains of truth do not an accurate story make.

The irony is that you blame this on the liberals, but a little reflection should make it clear that TV and movies are driven by pure profit motives, the domain of the conservative. You may think of TV as a series of programs interspersed with commercials, little necessary evils that exist only to make the programs possible. But consider an alternative view: TV programs are the very best way to ensure that people actually watch and listen to advertisements. Programs persist or fail not based directly on their morality or lack thereof, but rather on their ability to bring in the right kind of viewers. The only people who really care about numbers of viewers and viewer demographics are the advertisers selling stuff.

The conservative's favorite news programs are owned by the same folks who generate the most offensive TV shows. Go figure.


Originally posted by cattyfan

Now consider these little pieces of our society and culture:
Hmm, comedies don't usually dwell on the depressing aspects of their characters' lives? How bizarre. Potential irony check: did you like the comedies MASH, All in the Family, and Roseanne?


Originally posted by cattyfan

All of this supports my original contentions. Is that more "reporter-like" for you?
You've given evidence that being a single parent is common, that being a single parent is associated with lots of bad things, and that starlets and fictional characters don't dwell on these bad things. You then connect all three things in an unsupported, maybe unsupportable way. Let me tie Hollywood into MY hypothesis, and let's see which makes more sense: Hollywood starlets are wealthy and therefore can afford to become single parents, and a few of them do. They do not have the miserable experiences reflected in the statistics, and so no misery is reflected in how they or Hollywood present their experiences.

cattyfan
September 22nd, 2004, 08:58 AM
here is my original statement:


most teens today don't know who Murphy Brown is. But they do see single motherhood being demonstrated as perfectly acceptable. They see Hollywood starlets who decide it's "time" to have a baby...and they treat those children like they are accessories, no different from shoes or a briefcase. They are spoiled brats who say "I want. I want a baby this week," so instead of waiting for loving stable marriage, they go ahead and get a baby from whomever with no concern for what might be best for a child.

They see single mothers in their community with people saying "don't be judgemental. Accept them with love," instead of saying this is a sad circumstance. You can love someone and still make it clear their actions are unacceptable.

They see people pretending statistics don't show that on the whole, being raised by a single parent gives children a serious disadvantage in life.

And they see government programs expanded all the time to "help" these single mothers. They can count on a monthly check to help pay the way.

Those are the things to which Poly refers.


Part of my original statement was that single motherhood in all areas of society has become accepted. I then gave statistics and examples to back this up, inlcuding the incredible rise in the number of single mothers, both teens and adults, the portrayal in fictional movies and T.V. shows, and also in the media.

Do you think a national morning show would be discussing an unwed mother's fashion statement 30 years ago? Hollywood actresses had plenty of money 30 years ago, but you didn't have so many of them becoming unwed mothers. What is your explanation for that?

Do you really think that if society at large still treated single motherhood as something very sad, something irresponsible, and something to be ashamed of that over 50% of high school girls would think there is nothing wrong with it? Or that if single motherhood was something that was taken seriously that you would have people saying, "Well, she just needs sonething to love on her day off."

If you believe teens don't take their cues from the rich and spoiled, then you're blind...they imitate fashion from 50 Cents, Brittany Spears, and Lindsey Lohan. They try the X-treme stunts they see on MTV. They pick up on the trendy language of hip hop artists. If they didn't, magazines like Teen Cosmo, Us, Entertainment Weekly, and all the rest of the fashion, fan , and teen sport magazines wouldn't exist. There is article after artilcle with titles along the lines of "How to Dress Like Your Favorite Movie Star." Why do you think these are published?

And what you're saying is Hollywood starlets are single moms because they can afford it and poor single moms are single moms because they're poor and don't know any better.

Again, 30 years ago you wouldn't have found 53% of teen girls saying unwed motherhood is okay because back then society didn't support it. There were certainly still poor people. How do you explain the change in their perspective?

As far as "dwelling on the negative aspects," M*A*S*H* would not be a good example as they consistantly showed the blood, lost patients, and had trouble coping...the endless drinking "to forget" and Haweye having a nervous breakdown (he was treated by Dr. Sydney Freedman on several occasions before the series ender) would be prime examples.

If you are unable to see connections, perhaps you should have your reading comprehension checked.

aharvey
September 22nd, 2004, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by cattyfan

Part of my original statement was that single motherhood in all areas of society has become accepted. I then gave statistics and examples to back this up, inlcuding the incredible rise in the number of single mothers, both teens and adults, the portrayal in fictional movies and T.V. shows, and also in the media.

All areas of society? I missed that from your stats. It looks from your numbers that most are poor folks living in large cities. And all your stats are recent, so you didn't really show an incredible rise in anything.


Originally posted by cattyfan

Do you think a national morning show would be discussing an unwed mother's fashion statement 30 years ago? Hollywood actresses had plenty of money 30 years ago, but you didn't have so many of them becoming unwed mothers. What is your explanation for that?

There are more actresses today than 30 years ago. You know something about bias. Why not put a positive spin on the facts: "There are more actresses today that are not unwed mothers than there were 30 years ago."

Just because something on TV is less shocking today than it would have been 30 years ago doesn't make it a bad thing. Thirty years ago, it was truly shocking that a white man and a black woman kissed on a TV show. It wouldn't be so shocking today. Is that a bad change? What would you say are the implications of this change?


Originally posted by cattyfan

Do you really think that if society at large still treated single motherhood as something very sad, something irresponsible, and something to be ashamed of that over 50% of high school girls would think there is nothing wrong with it? Or that if single motherhood was something that was taken seriously that you would have people saying, "Well, she just needs sonething to love on her day off."

Again, I'd be careful to generalize from that study to all teen girls. And I'm skeptical that they actually said they thought there is nothing wrong with it (although I of course don't know). But then again, this is all about overgeneralization. If one person says something ludicrous (as per your quote above), and it fits your soapbox, then it's appropriate to assume that everyone (well, "society at large") feels the same way.


Originally posted by cattyfan

If you believe teens don't take their cues from the rich and spoiled, then you're blind...they imitate fashion from 50 Cents, Brittany Spears, and Lindsey Lohan. They try the X-treme stunts they see on MTV. They pick up on the trendy language of hip hop artists. If they didn't, magazines like Teen Cosmo, Us, Entertainment Weekly, and all the rest of the fashion, fan , and teen sport magazines wouldn't exist. There is article after artilcle with titles along the lines of "How to Dress Like Your Favorite Movie Star." Why do you think these are published?

I must keep missing the articles along the lines of "You too can have a baby without getting married!" At my kids' schools, and at the school where I teach, a minority of kids actually dress like their "idols;" I know of none that try the X-treme stunts seen on MTV; and language transmission is a lot more complex than you're giving it credit. Just because some five-year old kid makes national headlines because he gets hurt trying to imitate a stunt he saw in a movie, you can't generalize this to all kids, or even lots of kids. You also can't jump from clothes to baby-making attitudes in one fell swoop like this.


Originally posted by cattyfan

And what you're saying is Hollywood starlets are single moms because they can afford it and poor single moms are single moms because they're poor and don't know any better.

Oversimplification of what I said, but less so than the oversimplication of your own position.


Originally posted by cattyfan

Again, 30 years ago you wouldn't have found 53% of teen girls saying unwed motherhood is okay because back then society didn't support it. There were certainly still poor people. How do you explain the change in their perspective?

53% of teen girls surveyed doesn't mean 53% of teen girls period. That's why I'd want to know more about the sample. And in any case, you really don't know what teen girls would have said about this 30 years ago (back then there were in fact teen girls in my town who did get pregnant), and you don't really have any evidence that "society" supports it, or that this support is WHY today's teen girls in that sample think it's okay. And I'm rilly sure you don't have a clue what was going on in the worlds of "poor people" thirty years ago, so how would you know that their perspective has changed at all?


Originally posted by cattyfan

As far as "dwelling on the negative aspects," M*A*S*H* would not be a good example as they consistantly showed the blood, lost patients, and had trouble coping...the endless drinking "to forget" and Haweye having a nervous breakdown (he was treated by Dr. Sydney Freedman on several occasions before the series ender) would be prime examples.

No, that was exactly my point. Those shows were not typical comedies in part BECAUSE they dwelled on the darker sides of their characters. That's why I was wondering if you liked them, or preferred them to the kind of comedies that seem to bother you because they do not dwell on the negative.


Originally posted by cattyfan

If you are unable to see connections, perhaps you should have your reading comprehension checked.

Hey, is this really Nineveh?

cattyfan
September 22nd, 2004, 11:51 AM
you say


All areas of society? I missed that from your stats. It looks from your numbers that most are poor folks living in large cities. And all your stats are recent, so you didn't really show an incredible rise in anything.

apparently you missed this stat:



Recent statistics show single motherhood on the rise, at 12 million, up from 3.4 million in 1970

That's 12 million single mother household today...an increase of 8.6 million. That would repersent an "incredible" increase. And the stats on "poor people" demonstrate a high percentage of poor single mothers live in big cities, but if you do a little math, you can figure out not all single moms are in the big city, nor are all single moms poor...but a high percentage of them are.



Originally posted by cattyfan

Do you think a national morning show would be discussing an unwed mother's fashion statement 30 years ago? Hollywood actresses had plenty of money 30 years ago, but you didn't have so many of them becoming unwed mothers. What is your explanation for that?


you responded ;

There are more actresses today than 30 years ago. You know something about bias. Why not put a positive spin on the facts: "There are more actresses today that are not unwed mothers than there were 30 years ago."

Just because something on TV is less shocking today than it would have been 30 years ago doesn't make it a bad thing. Thirty years ago, it was truly shocking that a white man and a black woman kissed on a TV show. It wouldn't be so shocking today. Is that a bad change? What would you say are the implications of this change?




Are you really claiming the percentage of births to unwed mothers hasn't risen?

The comment about something being "shocking" is a red herring. Interracial dating has nothing to do with this discussion, although you make my point by confirming that as something becomes more commonplace, it no longer bothers people. In relation to unwed mothers no longer being "shocking," the implication is it that, sadly, it no longer causes a ripple. You have made my point for me by supporting when something becomes more frequent and is seen more frequently, it in turn becomes more accepted.



Originally posted by cattyfan

Do you really think that if society at large still treated single motherhood as something very sad, something irresponsible, and something to be ashamed of that over 50% of high school girls would think there is nothing wrong with it? Or that if single motherhood was something that was taken seriously that you would have people saying, "Well, she just needs sonething to love on her day off."


you responded:

Again, I'd be careful to generalize from that study to all teen girls. And I'm skeptical that they actually said they thought there is nothing wrong with it (although I of course don't know). But then again, this is all about overgeneralization. If one person says something ludicrous (as per your quote above), and it fits your soapbox, then it's appropriate to assume that everyone (well, "society at large") feels the same way.


The number of 53% of girls who think it's worth it to have a child out of wedlock comes from a study at Rutgers University (as noted in my original post.) The survey they used targeted a cross section of teenage girls covering all social strata,location, and race. As for the quote, that was something one of Calista Flockhart's contemporaries said. I suppose I could research and provide you with thousands more, but you still wouldn't be convinced that the view of society at large has changed.

You still haven't answered my question: If society still sent pregnant unwed girls or women off to their aunt's house to give birth and then put the baby up for adoption ( a common practice until the 70s) do you think we would still see so many births to unwed mothers?



Originally posted by cattyfan

If you believe teens don't take their cues from the rich and spoiled, then you're blind...they imitate fashion from 50 Cents, Brittany Spears, and Lindsey Lohan. They try the X-treme stunts they see on MTV. They pick up on the trendy language of hip hop artists. If they didn't, magazines like Teen Cosmo, Us, Entertainment Weekly, and all the rest of the fashion, fan , and teen sport magazines wouldn't exist. There is article after artilcle with titles along the lines of "How to Dress Like Your Favorite Movie Star." Why do you think these are published?


you responded:


I must keep missing the articles along the lines of "You too can have a baby without getting married!" At my kids' schools, and at the school where I teach, a minority of kids actually dress like their "idols;" I know of none that try the X-treme stunts seen on MTV; and language transmission is a lot more complex than you're giving it credit. Just because some five-year old kid makes national headlines because he gets hurt trying to imitate a stunt he saw in a movie, you can't generalize this to all kids, or even lots of kids. You also can't jump from clothes to baby-making attitudes in one fell swoop like this.


I will ask you again, if kids aren't influenced by media and entertainment figures, why are there magazines which promote these trends targeted toward them...why are there whole lines of sports equipment that are designed and marketed toward them (at a high cost,)...and if they aren't influenced by these cultural icons, where are the changes in kids coming from? What is influencing their dress and behavior.

The kids at your school may not be carbon copies of Ms. Spears, but you can bet they're sporting the latest fashionable shorter, tighter shirts. If not at school, than out when they're socializing. And certainly they are affected when they see someone like Angelina Jolie have or adopt a kid without benefit of marriage...kids imitate the characters these people play..they quote from the movies, know all the words to the songs, and learn all the dance moves in the videos. They then see this person they want to be like who thinks it fine to have a baby sans husband. And you think it has no effect.

And, by the way, it isn't just teens. Single mother birth rates are up across all age demographics. The CDC, the Census Bureau, and just about any other study you'd like to check, will show that with women putting off marriage and living together instead of marrying having become more commonplace, older women are also becoming unmarried moms at a higher rate than ever. And the group with the highest percentage increase? Unmarried career women who have no boyfriend or husband. But it doesn't matter what level of education or income: the same studies show that children without the benefit of a married mom and dad home are at a far greater risk for a number of pitfalls (check my original post.)





Originally posted by cattyfan

And what you're saying is Hollywood starlets are single moms because they can afford it and poor single moms are single moms because they're poor and don't know any better.

you responded:

Oversimplification of what I said, but less so than the oversimplication of your own position.


I merely summarized what you had written.




Originally posted by cattyfan

Again, 30 years ago you wouldn't have found 53% of teen girls saying unwed motherhood is okay because back then society didn't support it. There were certainly still poor people. How do you explain the change in their perspective?

you responded:

53% of teen girls surveyed doesn't mean 53% of teen girls period. That's why I'd want to know more about the sample. And in any case, you really don't know what teen girls would have said about this 30 years ago (back then there were in fact teen girls in my town who did get pregnant), and you don't really have any evidence that "society" supports it, or that this support is WHY today's teen girls in that sample think it's okay. And I'm rilly sure you don't have a clue what was going on in the worlds of "poor people" thirty years ago, so how would you know that their perspective has changed at all?




The huge rise in the percentage of births to unwed mothers speaks for itself. That and thirty years ago single motherhood was whispered about and cautioned against. Now, as I have shown, it's celebrated in the media. Even in small towns where not that long ago unwed births were an embarrassment, they are now "no big deal." In Rockford, Illinois (where I lived for 17 years, and just moved from) 8 of the last 10 "first births of the year" featured on the local newspaper's front page were to unwed moms. If you really believe those births would have been photographed and published on the front pages in 1970, you're living in an entirely different world than the rest of us.

I'm talking about all of our society...not the "world's" poor people to which you refer.



Originally posted by cattyfan

If you are unable to see connections, perhaps you should have your reading comprehension checked.


you responded:

Hey, is this really Nineveh?


more than one person has told you this? You should probably consider why.

aharvey
September 22nd, 2004, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by cattyfan

apparently you missed this stat:

Yup, you're right, I missed that one. My bad.


Originally posted by cattyfan

That's 12 million single mother household today...an increase of 8.6 million. That would repersent an "incredible" increase. And the stats on "poor people" demonstrate a high percentage of poor single mothers live in big cities, but if you do a little math, you can figure out not all single moms are in the big city, nor are all single moms poor...but a high percentage of them are.

I'm glad you realize that less than 100% is not equal to 100%. Now we need you to realize that greater than 0% is also not the same as 100%!


Originally posted by cattyfan

Are you really claiming the percentage of births to unwed mothers hasn't risen?

For Hollywood starlets, the focus of the question to which I was responding here?


Originally posted by cattyfan

The comment about something being "shocking" is a red herring. Interracial dating has nothing to do with this discussion, although you make my point by confirming that as something becomes more commonplace, it no longer bothers people.

Gee, how could I have made your point with an irrelevant observation? Can't have it both ways, you know. And I don't disagree that as something becomes more commonplace, it may bother people less (it's not a universal, as you imply, because obvious these things don't bother you less!). But why does that happen? Sometimes it may be simple habituation. Sometimes it may be the realization that this wasn't such a bad thing after all. Sometimes there may be no direct relationship at all. Our willingness to talk about things that were suppressed 30 years ago is not limited to unwed mothers. Can you even name a topic about which TV is more inhibited in covering? Does this mean society is more accepting of everything? I don't think so.


Originally posted by cattyfan

In relation to unwed mothers no longer being "shocking," the implication is it that, sadly, it no longer causes a ripple. You have made my point for me by supporting when something becomes more frequent and is seen more frequently, it in turn becomes more accepted.

See above. Societies accumulate experiences, like individuals. It becomes harder and harder to shock a society over time, but I hardly think that lack of shock equals acceptance.


Originally posted by cattyfan

The number of 53% of girls who think it's worth it to have a child out of wedlock comes from a study at Rutgers University (as noted in my original post.) The survey they used targeted a cross section of teenage girls covering all social strata,location, and race. As for the quote, that was something one of Calista Flockhart's contemporaries said. I suppose I could research and provide you with thousands more, but you still wouldn't be convinced that the view of society at large has changed.

I guess I just don't think celebrity quotes mined from the National Enquirer are compelling indicators of societal attitudes.


Originally posted by cattyfan

You still haven't answered my question: If society still sent pregnant unwed girls or women off to their aunt's house to give birth and then put the baby up for adoption ( a common practice until the 70s) do you think we would still see so many births to unwed mothers?

Gee, I must have missed that question as well. My first take is that no, we wouldn't be as likely to see things that are being hidden from us.


Originally posted by cattyfan

I will ask you again, if kids aren't influenced by media and entertainment figures, why are there magazines which promote these trends targeted toward them...why are there whole lines of sports equipment that are designed and marketed toward them (at a high cost,)...and if they aren't influenced by these cultural icons, where are the changes in kids coming from? What is influencing their dress and behavior.

The kids at your school may not be carbon copies of Ms. Spears, but you can bet they're sporting the latest fashionable shorter, tighter shirts. If not at school, than out when they're socializing. And certainly they are affected when they see someone like Angelina Jolie have or adopt a kid without benefit of marriage...kids imitate the characters these people play..they quote from the movies, know all the words to the songs, and learn all the dance moves in the videos. They then see this person they want to be like who thinks it fine to have a baby sans husband. And you think it has no effect.

Who said kids aren't influenced by the media? My point is you make it sound like a universal, when it is not. And the more extreme the observation, the fewer kids are going to follow it. Thus, the clothes of some kids, the behavior of fewer kids, the reproductive behavior of very few kids, will reflect this influence. Again, it makes no sense to claim that because I like the way so and so dresses, I will make babies like her as well.


Originally posted by cattyfan

And, by the way, it isn't just teens. Single mother birth rates are up across all age demographics. The CDC, the Census Bureau, and just about any other study you'd like to check, will show that with women putting off marriage and living together instead of marrying having become more commonplace, older women are also becoming unmarried moms at a higher rate than ever. And the group with the highest percentage increase? Unmarried career women who have no boyfriend or husband. But it doesn't matter what level of education or income: the same studies show that children without the benefit of a married mom and dad home are at a far greater risk for a number of pitfalls (check my original post.)

So you're claiming the same pattern for career women as for teens; is -- sorry, I was taken away for a meeting; let's see, where was I? Oh yeah. Is the basis for the pattern the same in the two groups? Are career women modeling their sexual activity after those of Hollywood starlets?


Originally posted by cattyfan

The huge rise in the percentage of births to unwed mothers speaks for itself. That and thirty years ago single motherhood was whispered about and cautioned against. Now, as I have shown, it's celebrated in the media.

Celebrated? Dang, I missed the party. Do you really mean celebrated?


Originally posted by cattyfan

Even in small towns where not that long ago unwed births were an embarrassment, they are now "no big deal." In Rockford, Illinois (where I lived for 17 years, and just moved from) 8 of the last 10 "first births of the year" featured on the local newspaper's front page were to unwed moms. If you really believe those births would have been photographed and published on the front pages in 1970, you're living in an entirely different world than the rest of us.

Nope, nor would I have expected to have seen interracial smooching on TV. Lots of things have changed; not all of them are good, not all are bad, and not all of them are directly related to the evil media.


Originally posted by cattyfan

I'm talking about all of our society...not the "world's" poor people to which you refer.

No, actually you were specifically referring to the perspectives of poor people back then: "There were certainly still poor people [30 years ago]. How do you explain the change in their perspective?" I'd suggest that you might have your own reading comprehension checked, but this is your own writing; I don't think the comprehension tests would cover this.


Originally posted by cattyfan

more than one person has told you this? You should probably consider why.

I do. It's called considering the source.

cattyfan
September 22nd, 2004, 03:45 PM
So you're claiming the same pattern for career women as for teens; is -- sorry, I was taken away for a meeting; let's see, where was I? Oh yeah. Is the basis for the pattern the same in the two groups? Are career women modeling their sexual activity after those of Hollywood starlets?

I'll try to use smaller words for you: Because society has become more accepting of single motherhood, it is becoming more and more prevalent in all age groups, races, and economic strata. And, yes, society is affected by the media...this is why those nasty businesses to which you earlier referred buy advertising: becauses we are all succeptible.

As for "quotes from the National Enquirer," I gave sources for all of my information. If you choose to lump The CDC, The Census Bureau, ABC News, MSNBC, Rutgers University, American Demographics, The Family Research Council, and Washington Watch in with a fish wrapper, then you have bigger problems than we are able to address on this forum.

Single motherhood has a detrimental effect on children in a high percentage of cases...whether that effect is the result of poverty, of mom not being home so the children aren't properly supervised, or any number of other issues isn't the point.

It's a sad situation when a culture decides it's o.k. to shortchange their children. I'm sorry you're so unwilling to acknowledge that.

firechyld
September 22nd, 2004, 07:46 PM
Quick question catty:

Are you grouping together women who raise children without their father being present (what I'd call "single mothers") and women who are raising children with their live-in or de facto partner? What's your definition of "unwed mothers"?

Lighthouse
September 22nd, 2004, 11:29 PM
Originally posted by Poly

Like belching for 10 seconds. What woman would want to be able to do that? :shocked:
Obviously you've never watched Revenge of the Nerds IV: Nerds in Love. :chuckle:

cattyfan
September 23rd, 2004, 07:24 AM
Quick question catty:

Are you grouping together women who raise children without their father being present (what I'd call "single mothers") and women who are raising children with their live-in or de facto partner? What's your definition of "unwed mothers"?


Most of the statistics I cited are from households with no father in the home and the celebrities I named are all women who decided they don't need a father for their child.

The women who are single but living together create a whole different set of troubling statistics. The one that bothers me most is the number of children in this country killed by live-in partners. That is actually the most common cause of death of a child in the U.S. Live-ins in this country are also the most common perpetrators of molestations. I will try and source those with a percentages for you. The frequency is appalling.

aharvey
September 23rd, 2004, 07:30 AM
Originally posted by cattyfan

I'll try to use smaller words for you: Becasue society has become more accepting of single motherhood, it is becoming more and more prevalent in all age groups, races, and economic strata.
If you're going to use smaller words, you might at least try to spell them correctly! And maybe it would help if you thought about this like a scientist would. You have an observation (single motherhood is becoming more prevalent); you have a hypothesis (this is because society has become more accepting of single motherhood). Now it's time to test your hypothesis. Stating it is not the same as testing it! That's my main point in this entire discussion. You make claims about a causal relationship that are unsubstantiated.

But, hey, I was thinking last night. Weren't divorced woman seen in more or less the same jaded eye as single moms in those halcyon days of yesteryear? And wasn't it the same mindset that marginalized both sets of women? How enthusiastically do you want to endorse a return to a society that says women must stay in a marriage, not matter how awful, or face the condemnation (or what ever you're hoping to be able to aim at single mothers) of society?


Originally posted by cattyfan

And, yes, society is affected by the media...this is why those nasty businesses to which you earlier referred buy advertising: becauses we are all succeptible.
Let's see, how many times will I have to say this (are you sure you're not Nineveh?)? I never said society was not affected by the media. And I like your backhanded way of dismissing my claim that businesses drive the media, not the media, while agreeing with it!


Originally posted by cattyfan

As for "quotes from the National Enquirer," I gave sources for all of my information. If you choose to lump The CDC, The Census Bureau, ABC News, MSNBC, Rutgers University, American Demographics, The Family Research Council, and Washington Watch in with a fish wrapper, then you have bigger problems than we are able to address on this forum.
Hmm, are you sure you're not Nineveh? The way you use this "if you don't agree with me, then there must be something wrong with you" insult is just like her.

Oh, and if you read the context of my National Enquirer comment, you will see it refers explicitly to the quote-of-a-friend-of-Calista-Flockhart type of evidence that you were contemplating.


Originally posted by cattyfan

Single motherhood has a detrimental effect on children in a high percentage of cases...whether that effect is the result of poverty, of mom not being home so the children aren't properly supervised, or any number of other issues isn't the point.
Well, you're making the assumption that the high percentage of single mothers in poverty is uncorrelated with the high percentage of single mothers whose children suffer these detrimental effects. I don't think that's been established yet.


Originally posted by cattyfan

It's a sad situation when a culture decides it's o.k. to shortchange their children. I'm sorry you're so unwilling to acknowledge that.
I completely agree with you that it would be a sad situation when a culture decides it's o.k. to shortchange, er, its children. And I don't disagree that popular culture exerts a rather toxic effect on people (where we might disagree is the degree to which pop culture is, what did Newt Gingerich favorably call it, a market culture?). And I agree that two parents are better than one.

cattyfan
September 23rd, 2004, 07:55 AM
If you're going to use smaller words, you might at least try to spell them correctly!

Gee...I apologize for the occasional typo. Like everyone, I am in a hurry sometimes, and don't have the time to make everything perfect. But if perfect typing and spelling were a criteria for judging ideas, there would be plenty of brilliant people whose commentaries would have been dismissed. (not saying I'm in the "brilliant" class, but that I, like many, sometimes don't proofread.)


But, hey, I was thinking last night. Weren't divorced woman seen in more or less the same jaded eye as single moms in those halcyon days of yesteryear? And wasn't it the same mindset that marginalized both sets of women? How enthusiastically do you want to endorse a return to a society that says women must stay in a marriage, not matter how awful, or face the condemnation


Divorce is far too prevalent in this country. I don't think a woman should have to stay married in every horrible situation, but I do think divorce should be the absolute last thing to be considered. Most divorcing couples haven't sought any kind of counseling or assistance to try and avoid the destruction of their marriage.

There are, in fact, two Biblical criteria for divorce. The first is adultery, and even that isn't iron clad. If there is a way to forgive and salvage the marriage, then do it. But if the spouse (male or female) is a serial adulterer, then end it.

The second is if the partner is an unbeliever who is interfering in your ability to forge a strong relationship with God. This can apply to a number of situations. For example, a man who beats his wife is violating scripture...even if at the time he is spouting verses about the woman being obedient. He is ignoring the verses about the man heading the household, leading that household in a Godly fashion, and treating his wife with the same love and care with which Christ tends the church. He is also interfering with her relationship with God in two ways: misrepresenting scripture and tearing her down emotionally which is an ingredient to helping destroy a person's faith.

But I don't think there should be "no fault" divorce. People who stand before God and make vows "'til death" do they part, then turn around a few years later and file for divorce because they "fell out of love," "have grown apart," or the other lame excuses make me sick. A good marriage takes work. If you hit a rough patch, you don't bail out of it. If you suddenly don't love the other person, you didn't really love them in the first place. What you had was infatuation or lust.

Divorce has been made way too easy in this country. And everything I just said about marriage should apply not just to women, but to men as well. Far too many people of both genders take too lightly what should be a lifetime commitment.

aharvey
September 23rd, 2004, 08:11 AM
Originally posted by cattyfan
Gee...I apologize for the occasional typo. Like everyone, I am in a hurry sometimes, and don't have the time to make everything perfect. But if perfect typing and spelling were a criteria for judging ideas, there would be plenty of brilliant people whose commentaries would have been dismissed. (not saying I'm in the "brilliant" class, but that I, like many, sometimes don't proofread.)
So, your "smaller words" crack was okay, my "spell them correctly" crack was offbase?


Originally posted by cattyfan
Divorce is far too prevalent in this country. I don't think a woman should have to stay married in every horrible situation, but I do think divorce should be the absolute last thing to be considered. Most divorcing couples haven't sought any kind of counseling or assistance to try and avoid the destruction of their marriage.

There are, in fact, two Biblical criteria for divorce. The first is adultery, and even that isn't iron clad. If there is a way to forgive and salvage the marriage, then do it. But if the spouse (male or female) is a serial adulterer, then end it.

The second is if the partner is an unbeliever who is interfering in your ability to forge a strong relationship with God. This can apply to a number of situations. For example, a man who beats his wife is violating scripture...even if at the time he is spouting verses about the woman being obedient. He is ignoring the verses about the man heading the household, leading that household in a Godly fashion, and treating his wife with the same love and care with which Christ tends the church. He is also interfering with her relationship with God in two ways: misrepresenting scripture and tearing her down emotionally which is an ingredient to helping destroy a person's faith.

But I don't think there should be "no fault" divorce. People who stand before God and make vows "'til death" do they part, then turn around a few years later and file for divorce because they "fell out of love," "have grown apart," or the other lame excuses make me sick. A good marriage takes work. If you hit a rough patch, you don't bail out of it. If you suddenly don't love the other person, you didn't really love them in the first place. What you had was infatuation or lust.
In which case you should stay married?


Originally posted by cattyfan
Divorce has been made way too easy in this country. And everything I just said about marriage should apply not just to women, but to men as well. Far too many people of both genders take too lightly what should be a lifetime commitment.

Yeah, but what does all that have to do with what I said, which was that the same mindset that unilaterally condemned single moms is the same mindset that unilaterally condemned divorced women?

cattyfan
September 23rd, 2004, 08:23 AM
Yeah, but what does all that have to do with what I said, which was that the same mindset that unilaterally condemned single moms is the same mindset that unilaterally condemned divorced women?

The "mindset" didn't condemn ALL divorces and single motherhood. (weren't you the one complaining about generalizing?) Single motherhood in the case of widows wasn't frowned on, and as I explained, there are times when divorce is understandable.

You made a crack on another thread about my divorce. Just so you know, I'm STILL embarrassed about having been divorced: I had a husband who for ten years slept around. I turned a blind eye until he brought his girlfriend du jour into my house while I was there. He refused to attend church and he badmouthed God. And when I asked him attend counseling with me, he turned violent. Even with all that, I fought the idea of divorce, struggled with it, and after it came to pass I felt shame every time I had to check the "divorced" box on a form or the divorce came up in conversation. I felt shame just thinking about it. Unlike so many people, I don't take it lightly.

I would like to see a return to a society that is less accepting of the rampant divorce and unmarried births in this country...but I would like the disapproval to apply to both sexes. Maybe it's not divorce that is taken too lightly; maybe it's marriage that is taken too lightly.

aharvey
September 23rd, 2004, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by cattyfan

The "mindset" didn't condemn ALL divorces and single motherhood. (weren't you the one complaining about generalizing?) Single motherhood in the case of widows wasn't frowned on, and as I explained, there are times when divorce is understandable.
Yes, but was that so back in the good ol' days? Widows are easily identified as such. Were divorcees under what you, today, would consider legitimate circumstances spared the shame, the humiliation, the ostracizing, the disapproval? Or didn't people tend to overgeneralize? You are still embarassed about your divorce even though you feel it was justified; what possible good is that? And why do you feel that way, if you think you were justified?


Originally posted by cattyfan
You made a crack on another thread about my divorce. Just so you know, I'm STILL embarrassed about having been divorced: I had a husband who for ten years slept around. I turned a blind eye until he brought his girlfriend du jour into my house while I was there. He refused to attend church and he badmouthed God. And when I asked him attend counseling with me, he turned violent. Even with all that, I fought the idea of divorce, struggled with it, and after it came to pass I felt shame every time I had to check the "divorced" box on a form or the divorce came up in conversation. I felt shame just thinking about it. Unlike so many people, I don't take it lightly.
It wasn't a crack about your divorce. It was part of a series of examples of what I see running rampant on TOL; the less likely something will affect someone pesonally, the more likely they are to take a harsh, unyielding view on it.

(Full disclosure, I married too young, to my high school sweetheart who continued a secret affair with her junior high school sweetheart; I eventually filed for divorce after a year of denials, repeated transgressions, and finally the statement that she would NOT stop seeing the other guy. So I'm not unaware of what can go wrong in a marriage).


Originally posted by cattyfan
I would like to see a return to a society that is less accepting of the rampant divorce and unmarried births in this country...but I would like the disapproval to apply to both sexes. Maybe it's not divorce that is taken too lightly; maybe it's marriage that is taken too lightly.

Bingo (to the last sentence, at least!).

cattyfan
September 23rd, 2004, 10:08 AM
You are still embarassed about your divorce even though you feel it was justified; what possible good is that? And why do you feel that way, if you think you were justified?


Justified, yes, but still the disolution of a sacred vow...one that I had expected to be forever. That it wasn't forever was heartbreaking. The shame came from having a failed marriage and from disappointing myself and my family, and from not realizing before marriage that my former spouse didn't have any respect for God or for vows made before God.


(Full disclosure, I married too young, to my high school sweetheart who continued a secret affair with her junior high school sweetheart; I eventually filed for divorce after a year of denials, repeated transgressions, and finally the statement that she would NOT stop seeing the other guy. So I'm not unaware of what can go wrong in a marriage).


I'm sorry you experienced one of the same betrayals that I did...and I know that, even though it gives a person a Biblical reason for divorce, it still causes excruciating pain and anger. My experience cause dme to be far more cautious and circumspect in my choices.


originally posted by me:

Maybe it's not divorce that is taken too lightly; maybe it's marriage that is taken too lightly.


you responded:

Bingo (to the last sentence, at least!).


Finally! We agree on something :)

aharvey
September 23rd, 2004, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by cattyfan

Justified, yes, but still the disolution of a sacred vow...one that I had expected to be forever. That it wasn't forever was heartbreaking. The shame came from having a failed marriage and from disappointing myself and my family, and from not realizing before marriage that my former spouse didn't have any respect for God or for vows made before God.

Hate to say it, but when it comes to being able to read other people there's no substitute for experience. I don't think you need to feel shame for your inexperience, but that's just me.


Originally posted by cattyfan

I'm sorry you experienced one of the same betrayals that I did...and I know that, even though it gives a person a Biblical reason for divorce, it still causes excruciating pain and anger. My experience cause dme to be far more cautious and circumspect in my choices.
Me too. Waited twelve years before making the plunge again. It's working way better this time!


Originally posted by cattyfan

Finally! We agree on something :)
I think we agree on a number of issues here. I just think you've drawn a few too many conclusions about causality without real support, and I fear your "solutions" may therefore create new problems (or resurrect old ones) without necessarily solving the ones you're aiming at. But, on the other hand, I usually just haunt the Origins forum, where talk of hypotheses and data are expected (at least from us scientist types). Soap boxes (i.e., this forum heading) are places to vent strong opinions strongly, so perhaps I'm out of line here in trying to rein that in.

Oh, and I do seem to have lost a little tolerance for gratuitous insults. Just for the record, I am highly educated, have published some three dozen research papers, won major research grants and awards; I have had a broad range of "life experiences" both good and bad (e.g., bitten by a rabid dog, shot in the head with a 30.06; these were bad ones), have a good knowledge of both OT and NT, do not uncritically swallow any particular religious or political line. You may disagree with me, and maybe it will be because I'm wrong (I,m not afraid to admit when I'm wrong, by the way). but it will not be because I am stupid, uninformed, naive, or close-minded. When it comes to trading insults, I can probably hold my own with anyone here, but don't see how these snarky personal attacks really do anyone any good.

Not aimed at you specifically, cattyfan. Probably just feeling like it's my turn to vent...

cattyfan
September 23rd, 2004, 11:42 AM
I am highly educated, have published some three dozen research papers, won major research grants and awards

I had already figured the educated part out. Congratulations on your awards...may I ask in what field?

I attended a small, private, liberal arts (emphasis on liberal) college. It was an education on many levels... I used the independent track 2 program for my major (allowing me to design it myself.)

A lot of my education has also come from having worked since I was 14...that was the only way to afford college.


I have had a broad range of "life experiences" both good and bad (e.g., bitten by a rabid dog, shot in the head with a 30.06; these were bad ones)

Another statement to which I can relate...I've packed a lot into my almost 38 years, some of which I wish I hadn't. I gave a little insight when I recounted my first marriage...The violent element had only been at "things" until I asked for us to get counseling. That, too, was an education.


have a good knowledge of both OT and NT, do not uncritically swallow any particular religious or political line.

Parochial school gave me an introduction to OT and NT, but a lot of other sources gave me an understanding of it. And my disheartening experiences with my first marriage caused me to call into question much of what I had learned. I read and studied other religions and didn't set foot in church for years. I ended up still believing.

I used to be a hard-core Democrat...but in the last 6 or 7 years, that party and I have been on divergent paths. I don't fully relate to Republicans either. I often feel both parties want my money, and neither has a good plan for it. Plus it's hard to ignore how I was raised: in a lower middle class family that was very Democrat and union oriented.

As for religion, you already know I believe in Christ...and with a husband in the Lutheran seminary, it isn't hard to determine where I stand. But my faith isn't blind, and I know churches and people who run them aren't perfect...only the One we follow is.


Probably just feeling like it's my turn to vent...

I understand that, too. My less than pleasant demeanor lately is probably related to being under the weather...although sometimes I do tend to shoot first and ask questions later even when I'm healthy.

firechyld
September 23rd, 2004, 07:12 PM
Most divorcing couples haven't sought any kind of counseling or assistance to try and avoid the destruction of their marriage.


I don't know about the US, but couples in Australia who have been married for less than two years have to undertake mandatory marriage counselling before they can divorce. There's a push to make this apply to all married couples.


The "mindset" didn't condemn ALL divorces and single motherhood. (weren't you the one complaining about generalizing?) Single motherhood in the case of widows wasn't frowned on, and as I explained, there are times when divorce is understandable.

You mentioned a 5% figure regarding widows. I feel there are other categories that fall into the "acceptable" basket. What of women who are single mothers because they're fleeing a violent partner, or a partner who abused them or their child? What of women who are single mothers because their partner has up and left them, through no fault of their own? What of women who are single mothers because they fell pregnant to a rapist, or an abuser?

There are more.

I'm certainly not saying that all, or even most, single mothers fall into these "acceptable" categories... just that I feel the bracket is larger than 5%.

cattyfan
September 23rd, 2004, 08:03 PM
I don't know about the US, but couples in Australia who have been married for less than two years have to undertake mandatory marriage counselling before they can divorce. There's a push to make this apply to all married couples.



not here...no mandatory counseling before marriage...no mandatory counseling before divorce. Very sad and way too easy.



You mentioned a 5% figure regarding widows. I feel there are other categories that fall into the "acceptable" basket. What of women who are single mothers because they're fleeing a violent partner, or a partner who abused them or their child? What of women who are single mothers because their partner has up and left them, through no fault of their own? What of women who are single mothers because they fell pregnant to a rapist, or an abuser?

There are more.

I'm certainly not saying that all, or even most, single mothers fall into these "acceptable" categories... just that I feel the bracket is larger than 5%.

fleeing a dangerous home falls into what I was talking about earlier...Biblical reasons for divorce. the percentage would increase adding those women in...

the sad part is many women in this country (I think the figure is around 65% or higher, but I can't find the study I read a few months ago) who flee abusive relationships get involved in another abusive relationship...and those men frequently abuse the children whom they have no relation to.

servent101
September 26th, 2004, 10:17 AM
Bllybob
How many points do you award for that type of behavior? - very recently I have discovered that one starts to become emotional over an issue, the brain starts to make mistakes, leaving one subject to error more than normal. We all make mistakes in communication - and some people do try to get the other's goat - so in taking offence, and not just letting it slide, you get your blood pressure up, etc, and most likely are unable to access your very fine faculties as you would like - and thus the possibility of making mistakes in logic is increased.

As well a polite response to a misdemeanant is probably more apt to get you your desired response - that is if you desired to be understood, or if you wanted Wickwoman to stop misquoting you.

At any rate you get points for trying - seventy five points, but you loose thirty points for thinking whatever wickwoman was doing was in a way anything other than just having fun. All in all you are forty five points to the good - but I could take those away in the future, and even put you in the minus bracket - not likely though - and frankly who cares - for the most part we are just passing the day here.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

firechyld
September 29th, 2004, 02:25 AM
Catty...

I can't find the actual post, but I believe you mentioned the show "Sex and the City" on this thread.

I found myself watching an episode last night that focussed on the character Miranda... the single mother.

The entire episode was based around her friends understanding how hard her life is, how difficult and un-fun it is to be a single mother, and how much easier she'd find it if she were married. I know it's still not exactly professing the attitude that you'd consider positive, but I think you may have been a little too inaccurate when saying that it glamourised single mother hood, or made it seem appealing.

If I remember correctly, the character had the child in the first place because she didn't want to terminate the pregnancy. Surely there's some merit in that.

erinmarie
September 29th, 2004, 07:45 AM
Originally posted by firechyld

Catty...

I can't find the actual post, but I believe you mentioned the show "Sex and the City" on this thread.

I found myself watching an episode last night that focussed on the character Miranda... the single mother.

The entire episode was based around her friends understanding how hard her life is, how difficult and un-fun it is to be a single mother, and how much easier she'd find it if she were married. I know it's still not exactly professing the attitude that you'd consider positive, but I think you may have been a little too inaccurate when saying that it glamourised single mother hood, or made it seem appealing.

If I remember correctly, the character had the child in the first place because she didn't want to terminate the pregnancy. Surely there's some merit in that.

I have seen all the episodes pertaining to the single mom, Miranda...I almost cried a couple times with her, feeling so bad for her and her situation. And she made a big effort to include the baby's dad in every way too...She shouldn't have had sex with him without being married of course.
But everyone makes mistakes, and throughout the rest of the season she pays for it.

In a lot of cases in Hollywood, I think it's a matter of always getting what you want, when you want it...
I know so many women who are actively looking for a good man to be a good husband so they can have a family together, and with no results.
In Hollywood, you don't have to look further than a sperm donor, or bank, and a lot of money!
Having a husband and being able to have children with him is a wonderful gift, but I would be devestated and hard pressed to raise these two girls on my own in anyway! And I certainly couldn't imagine having a 'high-risk' pregnancy, like mine with Olivia, and not have the support of my husband! I know a lot single mothers say that they have the support of friends and family, but alot of times I had problems through the night, and would be all alone if not for my husband. (I guess women in Hollywood have 'hired help' :freak: )

the Sibbie
September 29th, 2004, 08:06 AM
Originally posted by erinmarie
I know a lot single mothers say that they have the support of friends and family, but alot of times I had problems through the night, and would be all alone if not for my husband. There's no friend that can be closer than a husband :D..... (unless you have a bad one of course). :(


A shout of encouragement to all the women: Choose your husband wisely! :D

erinmarie
September 29th, 2004, 08:17 AM
Originally posted by the Sibbie

There's no friend that can be closer than a husband :D..... (unless you have a bad one of course). :(


A shout of encouragement to all the women: Choose your husband wisely! :D

So, I take it you were just overcome with emotion when you said "Yes" to Turbo's proposal?
Sometimes emotions lead even the strongest woman astray, dear Sibster...you don't have to overcompensate with this cheerful talk!!!:p

the Sibbie
September 29th, 2004, 08:51 AM
Originally posted by erinmarie

So, I take it you were just overcome with emotion when you said "Yes" to Turbo's proposal?
Sometimes emotions lead even the strongest woman astray, dear Sibster...you don't have to overcompensate with this cheerful talk!!!:p Are you saying that Turbo was a foolish choice for me? :think:

erinmarie
September 29th, 2004, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by the Sibbie

Are you saying that Turbo was a foolish choice for me? :think:

:shut:
:eek:
:p

Lighthouse
September 29th, 2004, 11:33 PM
I thought she was saying that Turbo made a foolish choice. :eek: