"Society's Bias Against Motherhood Is Creating a New Problem"

“Fear of a name increases fear of the thing itself.” ~ J.K. Rowling

Suppose the issue is not fear, but efficiency of term used to create the fear? Maybe the term is not helpful anymore, and needs to be changed. What's wrong with questioning the name? Maybe the issue is not the fear of the thing but the assumption that this thing is the only thing to fear? Or that once you eradicate that thing, then you won't have any more reason to fear?
 
J.K rowling...isn't she that person who's being paid lots of money to make the occult cool to kids?

yup pretty sure she's the one helping to normalise the occult.....wow...look how well you get rewarded for that

If you want to make lots of money just find a way to publically normalise the occult...certain people will throw money at you

Ssssslitherin....draco......hmmm

Its funny the occult stuff that comes out of edinburgh

Yeah. Maybe that's the problem. Because I think the occult is normal.
 
wow, so because I expressed this view, I am supposedly oppressed by the men in my life? Really?

No, why would you think that?
 
This doesn't mean we shouldn't work to address the issue if it is gender stereotypical dominance and sexism. However, if we keep sticking to using words which signify a particular gender as the origin of the problem, as a word such as patre which means father indicates, then there's no end to the creation of new systems of domination such as "feminarchy" (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Feminarchy), a system of power that privileges domination by women throughout history. The problem I am trying to address is the tendency to see the problem as located in a particular group such as one gender rather than a system of belief which can be present in any gender. Women are just as capable of demonstrating unrestrained dominance and control which is not fair. They are not always and only victims. It just happens that in our particular world, they have been more the victims than victors because of the devaluing of particular differences in women vs. men.

This is a valid point and I concede it. Thanks for explaining.

At the same time I would maintain that people who fall into this are the problem in itself. They will still be a problem even if we change the language and I don't think they can be counted on to solve anything regardless of how nicely we word it.
 
Suppose the issue is not fear, but efficiency of term used to create the fear? Maybe the term is not helpful anymore, and needs to be changed. What's wrong with questioning the name? Maybe the issue is not the fear of the thing but the assumption that this thing is the only thing to fear? Or that once you eradicate that thing, then you won't have any more reason to fear?

I suspect some women will like using the term because they do in fact harbour anger towards men

They're angry and want to blame someone and men make an easy target these days

They should do their research into what really shapes our society...but then that requires effort
 
No, why would you think that?

Maybe I misunderstood. Possibly the wording of the first two paragraphs of your post.
 
Yeah. Maybe that's the problem. Because I think the occult is normal.

Get all the little kiddies summoning up some djinn......good clean fun hey?

I see the sale of ouija boards is up...what a lovely christmas prezzie...or should i say saturnalia ;)
 
Maybe I misunderstood. Possibly the wording of the first two paragraphs of your post.

I wasnt implying something, I dont do that, I was asking that because I was seeking to clarify how you reached your conclusions, arrived at your opinions.
 
I wasnt implying something, I dont do that, I was asking that because I was seeking to clarify how you reached your conclusions, arrived at your opinions.

But to imply that my comments were because of some brainwashing by the men in my life is ridiculous. The thread is a discussion of common stereotypes of gender in work and domestic culture. What I posted was based on well known observations about perceptions of gender differences. You made it personal by bringing up questions about who in my life was responsible for me thinking this way, which doesn't make sense since the discussion has progressed so far by speaking in general terms, or at least I have. To suggest that I made those comments because I'm somehow deluded and was mislead by some men is sexist. And to clarify I didn't say it was good to have those perceptions, I was simply describing those perceptions as common. There's a difference between the two.
 
http://www.inquisitr.com/1646677/ou...warns-dont-let-this-darkness-into-your-lives/

[h=1]Ouija Boards Become A Christmas ‘Must Buy’: Church Warns ‘Don’t Let This Darkness Into Your Lives’[/h]
ouijabdlogo-665x385.jpg


ADVERTISEMENT
It would appear that Ouija boards are fast becoming one of the “coolest” and “must-have” Christmas gifts of 2014, but the church has fiercely criticized the trend calling it “absolutely appalling,” and strongly warned people to “not let this darkness” into their lives.
Google reports that sales of Ouija boards are up to 300 percent, and are flying off the shelves quicker than you can say, “Oh no, it looks like poltergeist activity’.
The reason for the resurgence in sales is a new low-budget horror film called Ouija.
The film, which tells the time-honored story of kids meddling with powers they do not comprehend and then wondering why all of a sudden everything’s gone to hell, was slated by the critics, but cinema-going teens adored it.
Cue the current demand for Ouija boards. Interestingly, toy manufacturer Hasbro, who are one of the companies currently selling Ouija boards to ghost-seeking teens, helped finance the making of Ouija. Vested interests perchance?
Although Ouija boards are viewed as a harmless parlor trick by some, many, including the church, regard them as dangerous tools which can trigger psychological harm — or something even more sinister.
Church of England vicar Peter Irwin-Clark is one such man, and told the Daily Mail that he has witnessed the dark side of the Ouija, and believes it is hugely responsible to market and sell the controversial devices as toys.
“It is absolutely appalling. I would very strongly advise parents not to buy Ouija boards for children. It’s like opening a shutter in one’s soul and letting in the supernatural. There are spiritual realities out there and they can be very negative.
“I would hugely recommend people not to have anything to do with the occult. People find they are having strange dreams, strange things happening to them, even poltergeist activity.”
Ouija boards were invented in America at the height of the spiritualist craze of the 19th century, where seances and mediums seemed to be awaiting around every corner to help one contact the dead.
They enjoyed a brief resurgence in the 1960s, even outstripping sales of other well-loved board games such as Monopoly, and kids who didn’t have the money to buy a mass produced Ouija board would make their own.
Yet in 1973, the film The Exorcist, based on a true story of a teenager who became obsessed after playing with a Ouija board for long periods, seemed to change the public’s perception of the devices, according to Christina Oakley Harrington, proprietor of Treadwell’s, a London bookshop specializing in the esoteric and the occult.
“The horror film shifted the focus of Ouija to the idea of lost or malevolent spirits. That was where the culture of danger came in. Once you have something said to be a way of consorting with malevolent spirits, you get the Church involved.”
Catholic Priest and former exorcist Anthony Hayne was only too aware of the dangers of teenagers who “had been using Ouija boards and had let the darkness into their lives”.
The late Reverend Tom Willis, who was also a practicing exorcist, was also concerned about the dangers inherent in the Ouija board.
“A lot more people are dabbling in the occult and having seances, and that is causing a lot of problems. In the Sixties, the Ouija board caused so many problems — people ending up in mental hospitals because of what they have experienced.
“An unseen force spelling out messages may have sinister motives. It may pretend to be your grandmother you’re in contact with, but it might be something more evil that suddenly gives you some bad advice.”
Yet skeptics believe that when the planchette on a Ouija board moves to spell out messages, it is powered entirely by the subconscious of the users involved, and not spirits from beyond the grave.
Canadian paranormal investigator James Randi once tested this theory by blindfolding people taking part in a Ouija board session. The result? The chatty spirits seemed to be silenced when the users couldn’t see the board’s letters, and when they did speak, they spoke nothing but gibberish.

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1646677/ou...darkness-into-your-lives/#QxafRGShgRpdW7bx.99
 
Mkay. Taking part in a mindful conversation is pretty futile once people start randomly lobbing ouija boards around. Have fun guys.
 
Can you explain to me what a 'patriarchal society' is and how this works against motherhood?

She or he or (insert particular gender identifier here) is not here to educate you, shitlord.
 
Oh well then.

[video=youtube;WgbN4pCVZGo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgbN4pCVZGo[/video]

[video=youtube;FWtO0cfgewY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWtO0cfgewY[/video]
 
Now that semantics have been unsuccessfully argued...

Do you think women can have it all?

I have personally never witnessed anyone be discriminated against for having a baby. People fucking love babies. They love pregnant bellies. They love cute tiny little things. What I have seen is a lot of shit gets let go when someone is pregnant because they have "baby brain." Even after a year off and adjusting to motherhood sometimes people return to work and their work ethic sucks shit because they have this whole new lease on life now that they have a kid. *I* discriminate against incompetence, not your personal life. If you can't perform your job to a certain level then get the fuck out. I don't know why any special treatment should be given to people who can't perform their work.

With that said, I do not think 1 year of mat leave is long enough. I would love to see it raised to 2 and split equally among the parents should they CHOOSE to exercise it. Maybe this would take some of the pressure off of having an absolutely massive lifestyle change for both parties and allow them to come back to work strong.

However, I do say all of this as someone who always had one parent at home, and most of my friends growing up had one parent at home. I don't personally know anyone from my childhood that had to be put in daycare or always had to have a baby sitter unless the parents wanted to take a weekend away, and in that case, it was always family that stepped in to watch... It seems that during that time child care was much less of a business than it is now. I mean, some people are spending a very significant portion of their monthly salary on having someone else raise their child. I think it's sad that this has to happen before that child is even in school full time.

I kind of get sick of pointing fingers at people at the top. Just because they tell us what we should do doesn't mean they have to listen.

Let's say hypothetically most women DID want to be mothers. Let's say they wanted to raise their own kids. What do you think would have to change to make that happen? If a woman wants to actually live her nature and have children and have a family and this is what the man wants too... what can be done so that they can carry on humanity without it being such a god damn struggle all the time?

I do not think anyone should be punished for having a kid or that we should be set up in a life where it's almost impossible to provide appropriately for yourselves and a child, even though I want nothing to do with children.
 
I don't think there is only one way to see this issue. I don't think it's as simple as women are never discriminated against or they are heavily discriminated against. There is a middle ground.
 
Last edited:
you know what. I was wrong. Everyone has a right to make the arguments they want regardless if we agree or disagree. There's no end to argument, so of course, people are welcome to continue the discussion.
 
I don't think there is only one way to see this issue. I don't think it's as simple as women are never discriminated against or they are heavily discriminated against. There is a middle ground.

A lot of times there doesn't seem to be because people don't seem to want one.

Many people seem to want to polarize either by demonizing an issue, diminishing it, or playing the victim. They don't want a middle ground because a middle ground is diplomacy and diplomacy is not conducive to battle, and battle appears to be what they want.

It's like, how dare you be in the middle? They want you to pick a side (always their side)
 
But to imply that my comments were because of some brainwashing by the men in my life is ridiculous.

It would be and that's why I did not do that.

Now I didnt read the rest of your post because I think things are about to get very circular if you're going to continue asserting that I'm saying things which I'm not.
 
It would be and that's why I did not do that.

Now I didnt read the rest of your post because I think things are about to get very circular if you're going to continue asserting that I'm saying things which I'm not.

Honestly, I let that go, so it's all good.
 
Now that semantics have been unsuccessfully argued...

Do you think women can have it all?

I have personally never witnessed anyone be discriminated against for having a baby. People fucking love babies. They love pregnant bellies. They love cute tiny little things. What I have seen is a lot of shit gets let go when someone is pregnant because they have "baby brain." Even after a year off and adjusting to motherhood sometimes people return to work and their work ethic sucks shit because they have this whole new lease on life now that they have a kid. *I* discriminate against incompetence, not your personal life. If you can't perform your job to a certain level then get the fuck out. I don't know why any special treatment should be given to people who can't perform their work.

With that said, I do not think 1 year of mat leave is long enough. I would love to see it raised to 2 and split equally among the parents should they CHOOSE to exercise it. Maybe this would take some of the pressure off of having an absolutely massive lifestyle change for both parties and allow them to come back to work strong.

However, I do say all of this as someone who always had one parent at home, and most of my friends growing up had one parent at home. I don't personally know anyone from my childhood that had to be put in daycare or always had to have a baby sitter unless the parents wanted to take a weekend away, and in that case, it was always family that stepped in to watch... It seems that during that time child care was much less of a business than it is now. I mean, some people are spending a very significant portion of their monthly salary on having someone else raise their child. I think it's sad that this has to happen before that child is even in school full time.

I kind of get sick of pointing fingers at people at the top. Just because they tell us what we should do doesn't mean they have to listen.

Let's say hypothetically most women DID want to be mothers. Let's say they wanted to raise their own kids. What do you think would have to change to make that happen? If a woman wants to actually live her nature and have children and have a family and this is what the man wants too... what can be done so that they can carry on humanity without it being such a god damn struggle all the time?

I do not think anyone should be punished for having a kid or that we should be set up in a life where it's almost impossible to provide appropriately for yourselves and a child, even though I want nothing to do with children.

I kind of would like the citizens wage/minimum income introduced as an alternative to present welfare arrangements because it would be something which would permit extended breaks from employment in order to raise a child with your living expenses at least taken care of but beyond a certain point it obviously is not going to cover the expense of your own needs and those of children, especially with a larger and larger family, so there are no moral hazards or perverse incentives to have larger and larger families in order to be perpetually on maternity leave or claiming greater and greater benefits for more children.
 
Back
Top