That's fine if you choose it. The problem comes in when someone chooses FOR you, that you're going to put your family first, (or your career first for that matter) and decides your pay and advancement chances according to their preconceived notions. That's what women often face. Even if they want the fast track and the high pay and are willing to sacrifice family life for it, they still hit that ceiling where someone else has made the arbitrary, sometimes subconscious decision, that they're better suited being home with the puking toddler. Or, not desirable to hire at all because they have kids, or might have kids.
Mother faces murder charge after baby found in trash
- Thread starter Praxius
- Start date
That's fine if you choose it. The problem comes in when someone chooses FOR you, that you're going to put your family first, (or your career first for that matter) and decides your pay and advancement chances according to their preconceived notions. That's what women often face. Even if they want the fast track and the high pay and are willing to sacrifice family life for it, they still hit that ceiling where someone else has made the arbitrary, sometimes subconscious decision, that they're better suited being home with the puking toddler. Or, not desirable to hire at all because they have kids, or might have kids.
This very case speaks volumes to mistake pregnancies. In a case like this woman abortion during the first 3 months seamed like a better option than the woman facing murder because she was not mentally fit to care for a life other than her own.
It's not a matter of having an abortion or killing it when it's born. Adoption, safe haven programs... there are dozen other things that normal, sane mothers would do with a baby once it was born, even if it wasn't wanted. The number of women who would carry a pregnancy through only to kill a baby after is tiny. And they're not the sort of women who would likely avail themselves of an abortion anyway. This sort of thing is a fringe issue. It's not an argument for or against abortion. It's its very own problem.
Oh, I missed your point did I?
So by the way your worded yourself, you related that the reason why society isn't as "Liberated" as you would like it to be, and the reason why abortions are such a necessary option, is because women are being held down by their "Reproduction."
And who are you blaming for holding down women in society because they carry children?
By all means, explain how I misunderstood what you were trying to "Not Say."
You already started to say it, you might as well finish what you were going to say.
I said I don't like to talk about it because it gets taken as man bashing... case in point. I'm not going to beat the dead horse with you.
Sorry, I do see a Man vs. Woman debate started here, and no matter how you try to avoid it, it's done.
And I find it even more funny when you try and claim you're not pitting the genders against one another, when you generalize in such a way towards men..... as if we have no responsibilities at all when it comes to children being brought into this world, and you and Karrie are far from the truth in what you speak.
Men are responsible for bringing up their families just as they always have, if not more in todays' society. Even when I argued the point in the past where the fathers should have a say in whether or not the child is aborted or not, it's the mother who get's the final say, since it is her body, and nobody can force her to do anything she doesn't want.
And even if the father and mother broke up in the relationship, the father either has to fight for full custody of the child and take the full responsibility, or they end up losing half their income and property, and have to pay child support to the mother and then trust that she's using the money for the child.
I assume you both are aware of the actual chances of fathers actually winning custody over the mother in court towards the child? Usually they're slim to none, and in that event, the father still has to pay the mother up the arse. Unless the courts find the mother is a threat to the child's well being, the child usually ends up with the mother, and if she fights enough, and wanted to, she could very well restict his visitation rights to the child, perhaps completely depending on the situation, all the while still having to dish out half their income to a child they may rarely see.
But I sure as hell haven't see many cases where the father fought the mother, won, and the mother has to dish him out a crap load of child support..... woman have a crap load more rights then they ever had before, and in certain situations, more rights then the man.
And to think that men don't have anymore or any less of an attachment to the child then the mother and claiming they don't have any responsibilities to that child in comparison, is pretty damn ignorant as well as downright offensive.
Why with that mentality, I suppose I could claim that the birthing process isn't that big of a deal since I can't experience it to know what it's like..... you do the same thing when you generalize and trivialize men's positions in the process of having a child.... as though we're just some c*m bucket for your needs.
well what i mean is its given them the chance to forgo there responsibility, socially and monetary
in my view they havent helped the woman thats all
No... men of my generation still sneer at men who run out on their families and obligations. It's not acceptable. And it's certainly not legally acceptable. Monetarily speaking there's a legal obligation there to pay child support. I can see where the impression would come from that they can just run, but, it's no more socially acceptable than it used to be when you boil it right down.
this i agree with you is correct, men do get the bad deal when custody is the issue
but were not discussing custody were discussing the responsibility , years ago the child's welfare would of been considered ,and it was the mans job to look after the family, now that women's lib has given the women the rights that they have now there is no responsibility for the father to stick around.
maybe i was generalizing ,but my point was that women's lib has done the woman no favors.this was not meant as a sweeping statement on the failings of men but on the falling of society to both sexes.
yea maybe im not so good at trying to get my point across
yes but this carries hardly any stigma as would of been the case in my parents generation
correct but there is no social penalties for it like there were, people who were forced to marry even though they were loveless marriages still stood up to the responsibilities of there actions ,nowadays men are not stigmatized or ostrasised like they were , and the fundamental breakdowns in the society that we live in ,like no discipline and such like are the result.
I get what you're saying, but, the penalties are in place now that didn't used to be. A man used to be able to leave and not pay support. Not anymore.
The facades and airs we put on just shift and change.
But they have swung to far the other way now like Praxius was saying men don't have any rights when it comes to custody. all this rights business has left everybody in the losing seat if you ask me in the end everybody rights to have rights stops anybody from having any real rights at all. we were better off having none and living with the consequences of or own stupid folly ...lol
i bet the lawyers are all rubbing there hands now
If those men even stayed. My grandpa left my grandma alone with 3 kids to raise and didn't help her financially. At least today a woman like her has options to earn a better wage. She ran herself ragged with 2 or 3 jobs at a time and they were still poor.
That assumes parents are less productive workers, which isn't always the case. A lot of non-parents are terrible workers. The focus should be on productivity or lack of productivity, not on the cause of it. I work with a nurse who is constantly off on leave, none of it is related to a pregnancy or children.
My hope is those people, the ones who decide for others, get the firing for incompetance they deserve. If I owned part of that business, I would be annoyed valuable employees are being sent to the competition so some self righteous smarm can try and uphold their bigotries.
I agree, but if your a work-aholic then why should they even know if you have kids? Maybes its just me, I have never told bosses nor clients anything about my personal life in my work (on my own or as an employee)
There is plenty of responsibility for the father to stick around.... those who don't are spineless chicken sh*ts who were never taught how to accept the responsibility for their own actions in life and ditch the child off on the mother and think they can get away with it, which they can't unless they're really good at hiding from the police.
But there are many other situations that could have created the original new situation above. The mother could have hid the pregnancy from others, or at least tried to. She could have had a big orgy with a bunch of guys, got pregnant, doesn't know who the father is. There could have been pressures from family.... the father could have died.... and so on....
But if you're trying to connect this situation with her being ditched by the guy who got her pregnant, I haven't heard those details related to this case, and focusing more on that explination more then any other, such as the ones I posted above.... begins to skew the whole thing away from the actual details given.
That's what happens in a Politically Correct society... everybody fights so much for equal rights that by the time they're done, they end up with more rights and responsibilities then the group they were fighting against. Now we have gender and race quotas companies need to meet when hiring people..... forget about their actual education, experience and talent.... if you're short one female or a black guy to fill in your quota, they get the position over the white male, regardless if the white male was more qualified. This isn't always the case, but there has been enough complaints since this whole sore of PC crap has started that it is apparent that it exists.
Then there's the whole concept where a white male might get a job over someone who is less qualified and who is either female or of a minority race.... they ask why they didn't get the job, they're told this guy was more qualified, and the next thing you know, the company is getting sued because they felt they wern't being hired because of their race or gender..... perhaps both.
^ But isn't that sort of counter racist when you have quotas set by the government stating you have to have a certain amount of females and/or race mix in your company? You are then specifically picking who works in your company based on their race and/or gender, all the while white males are potientially excluded because they're not in the quota..... and who do we have to go complain to when this occurs? Nobody, because it's not about race or gender apparently..... even though I didn't get the job because I'm a man.
I am guessing you're not aware of the local mall near where I live and most of the companies which work there:
My ex girlfriend used to work in a card shop in the mall, and for the year and a half she worked there, it was all girls who worked at the company. Every single time she saw a man drop off a resume, the owner chucked it into the garbage without looking at it as soon as they left. Her explination was that males are unreliable, don't take the job seriously, and she can work better with other women. Apparently her store wasn't the only one which did this, as the majority of the people who work in the companies in the mall are all women... hell a few years back I dropped off a few resumes when I was looking for something steady, and I got nothing..... and it was due to my gender.
I know this, nor from assumptions and just by one person telling me what was going on in the background, but from many other old friends who worked in that same mall, who have seen and experienced the exact same things of where resumes were chucked, all because the person who handed it in was a man.
But does anybody do anything about it? Nope.... Why? Because society doesn't like men who complain about inequality.... apparently we haven't had enough of it over the last number of centuries to bitch.... even though I never treated anybody un-equally or like scum as I am treated like sometimes..... I guess we just have to suck it up. And besides.... fighting legally to get into a sexist company who doesn't want you in the first place doesn't seem practical..... since even if you did win the case and got the job, you'd still be treated like sh*t.... probably even worse since you exposed how sexist your boss is towards your gender.
So it's not just the women's liberational side of things that screwed up.... it's not just the racial equality groups who screwed things up..... it's the whole.
But this sort of situation where a mother kills her newborn isn't related to any of this... at least not to the extent it seems to be made out to be. This sort of thing has been going on forever.... the only difference now, is that we have the knowlege and technology to track down the people who commit these sorts of acts, while in the past it would have gone on forever and we'd never know who was responsible.
I see it differently then that.... the reason why perhaps less people are going through forced marriages and just sucking up what other's expect of them, might have something to do with the fact that a majority of those forced marriages eventually ended in divorce and the continual fighting in front of the children doesn't make it a happy or worthwhile home.
My parents were in that situation where they were forced into marriage after having a child, which was my older sister. The entire time it was 90% fighting and arguing, stress, depression and everybody was miserable.... but they stuck to their guns and stayed in the marriage until I moved out after high school.... but I would have much rathered them ending it years before that so that they could go and do what they really wanted to do with their lives.
Now they're divorced, they're both seeing people that they can relate to a lot more then one another, they are happier, and I am happy for them.
Quite honestly, when an entire generation or more have already as you put it "forced to marry even though they were loveless marriages still stood up to the responsibilities of there actions" and find that it doesn't work, their lives are even more miserable then they ever could have imagined and their children get to the point where they wish their parents divorced..... chances are that's not the right path for people to take.
I have accepted years ago that if in any relationship I had a child and for some reason the relationship fails or I can't see myself with the girl I am with, I am not going to feel obligated to force myself or her into a loveless marriage.... because that's just foolish, a waste of everybody's life, and all to suit someone else's morals where your relationship status holds no affect on.
I have accepted that I would take responsibility for the child I may have created, but I will not put that child through a forced marriage or relationship that ends up giving that kid a horrible impression of what married life is. I will still raise the child, visit the child and treat the child as my own, just as I would expect the mother to do. If I feel the child is in some sort of danger or the mother isn't doing her job, then I will take custody of the child..... but marriage has nothing to do with a happy household..... and I know this from experience..... as do my brother and sister..... and my cousin.... and many of my friends.
I would have much rather have lived a childhood with parents that I currently have now.... they're apart, but they're doing what they enjoy now, with people they enjoy... and they are more happier then they ever were.
Back before the 80's not only were forced marriages the norm, but so too was just taking any old job that paids the bills..... now people are starting to try and make careers out of what they enjoy..... people are seeking their own goals and objectives to better their lives, and I think that's a lot better message to send to children, then to teach them to accept the sh*t given to them and not complain...... AKA: teaching your kid to be a drone and that anything you enjoy is a waste of time.
But just because people can divorce or they decide not to get married after finding out they're going to have a child, doesn't mean men just piss off and run away from their responsibilities..... some do.... other's don't.... and it works on both genders in the argument..... neither are exclusive to running away from responsibilities.
look m8 if people dont want kids they should not shagg each other then should they...?
Please quandary, tell me what looks like an "m8" means. Sig of some type, compliment, ragging, laughing etc. I must know.
....Inquisitive....