[men and women are naturally equal]?

[Denyer]

things seem to have smoothed out with Jessy and I

Cool, glad to hear it.

[Yaya]

I would LOVE to spend everyday with my kids.. Id be terrible at it btw. They wear me out after 15 minutes. In fact, hold on one moment while I get them to stop jumping off the the end table onto the couch and bounce onto an elabortae arrangement of pillows they have put out.. Mind you they are 3 and 2.
Oh yeah compeltely diff topic I know, but things seem to have smoothed out with Jessy and I Thanks for the support everyone!

Glad to hear things are working out for you. They have to. You were true to your word. In the end, that always prevails.

As far as your children go, wow, 2 and 3. That's a one-two combo. Makes you appreciate your wifes work a bit more, eh? I have seen children sap the strength of full grown men in mere minutes when working 18 hours straight has no impact whatsoever. Its tough for both you guys, in different ways. Anyway, hang tough dude.

For women to have a calling as mothers, there would need to be willed design of biology (which would be found to be of flawed design in any case.) What we find ourselves with instead are statistical trends -- things that many women accomplish more easily or with more satisfaction than many men (and vice versa) owing to a mix of chemistry and culture. In this case a significant deal to do with culture -- although we are seeing more men taking care of kids now, as has been seen in rather more isolated circumstances historically.

I'm sorry Stu, but I just think you are flat out wrong. You have been proven wrong by years and years of scientific evidence and phychosocial analyses that there is such a thing as maternal instinct and a maternal bond with offspring. It's just fact.

To deny this is, to coin a term you often employ when commenting on God's existence, delusional. If you want to argue about this, fine, but you shouldn't bring scientific evidence in the rest of your arguments then since you in this instance hold it to be a weak argument.

[Guest]

I'm sorry Stu, but I just think you are flat out wrong. You have been proven wrong by years and years of scientific evidence and phychosocial analyses that there is such a thing as maternal instinct and a maternal bond with offspring. It's just fact.

That may be true, but the problem is that the way you are presenting yourself is as if there are only absolutes in the world, when the reality is that some women have strong maternal instincts, some are not so strong, some don't feel it at all.

But that's the same with everything in life. Each and every person out there is an individual. There is no way to tell whether two people are going to react the same way given the same situation; their individual circumstances will determine this, not tick-in-the-box compartmentalism.

Sweeping generalisations cannot be applied to real life situations in the vain hope of simplifying events. Psychology is not a straightforward science like most branches of Physics and Chemistry. It's dealing with one of the most complex (and little understood) systems known and so the majority of what is called 'proof' is actually just example-based theory.

[Kup_1]

Okay...gonna throw my two cents in here...

1) I'm not even gonna get into the debate of 'should women stay home with the kids'..


2) As far as women and men being different..well..we are!!!

Women should hav the same options as men, however...there are a few jobs that women...in general...can't do as well as a man.

Case in point. I had a house fire a few years back....no biggie...and we all got out dafe...but...


Lets say that you are at home...and asleep...and your house catches on fire. You are unconcious from the smoke, and suddenly theres a ladder on the side of your house. Now, what would you rather have climb up those steps and save your ass...


A big strong burly man...or a woman who's there to fill a quota?

[Yaya]

Sweeping generalisations cannot be applied to real life situations in the vain hope of simplifying events. Psychology is not a straightforward science like most branches of Physics and Chemistry. It's dealing with one of the most complex (and little understood) systems known and so the majority of what is called 'proof' is actually just example-based theory.

Oh, I agree, there are always exceptions to every rule. But I'm basing my discussions not solely on psychosocial evidence but physiological and biological evidence. Women by their physical natures have at the microscopic level differences that make them better equipped for child rearing. Does this tranlate to women being actually better at tending to children in every case? Of course not. I mean, women abuse children too. But physically speaking, their bodies have been prepared from conception to tend to the needs of their offspring and provide needs that men cannot, like breast milk for example. Breast milk is not just nutrition. It provides antibodies, for example, that give the baby the ability to fight off infection. Can a man provide this? No. Can a man carry a child in his abdomen for nine months? No.

Having said that, at the time of weaning, men can definitely provide more comfort to a child they an abusive or neglectful mother. So the bond with a father certainly can be stronger.

In life, sometimes there are several things that work. But generally speaking, some things work better than others. I am of the belief that women raising children is on average a better option with exceptions.

[Best First]

i love the way you say 'with exceptions' thus showing you have utterly missed Rebis's point.

Jesus.

[Guest]

Women by their physical natures have at the microscopic level differences that make them better equipped for child rearing.

No they're not.

At the microscopic level, only life from a different Kingdom looks different. Are you now implying that women are not only a different species, but a completely different form of life from men? Plants, perhaps, or Fungi, or macrocellular bacteria?

But physically speaking, their bodies have been prepared from conception to tend to the needs of their offspring and provide needs that men cannot, like breast milk for example.

No they haven't.

Humans, like any sexual form of life differ at conception only in their DNA structure, with the sex genes kicking in at a later point in development. Fish birds and reptiles, for example can change their sex during development due to changes in their environment. It's rarer in Mammals, but this does happen too, including Humans.

Breast milk is not just nutrition. It provides antibodies, for example, that give the baby the ability to fight off infection. Can a man provide this? No. Can a man carry a child in his abdomen for nine months? No.

And you can't get pregnant from kissing.

[Denyer]

there are always exceptions

Does this tranlate to women being actually better at tending to children in every case? Of course not.

the bond with a father certainly can be stronger.

generally speaking, some things work better than others

Right, so you're agreeing with me. Glad to hear it.

The 'exceptions' are a little more widespread than you imagine. Postpartum depression, to pick just one example (and one I'm curious to know whether you're going to come back with something along the lines of "doesn't exist") affects roughly one in ten new mothers.

That's before we start counting abandonments, suffocations, adoptions, and a large body of people who've reported they simply didn't feel any particular connection to their offspring.

it's just fact.

So was a flat Earth.

The nuclear family is a myth. There's another fact. It's been raised as an aspirational standard within the last hundred years. Naturalisation. Historicisation. Eternalisation. It's "obviously" true, it's "always" been true, it will "always" be true.

Traditional families were multigenerational. It was common for women to die in childbirth. It was a norm for children to be brought up by older relatives whilst those younger and more able saw to business.

Indeed, it's only since people have been insisting that women should be feeling a strong connection that postpartum depression has increased in frequency. And without that extended family network, the results of twisting someone's head towards their being a failure as a person and as a woman if they don't feel that connection have tended to become more catastrophic.

[Denyer]

what would you rather have climb up those steps and save your ass...

Anyone who gets the job done expeditiously. I'm not picky about who just saved my life.

It's fine to set entry requirements on a profession (eg, strength) that many women will not pass.

The automatic assessment that if a women is there, she's there not there due to competency... is no less stupid than addressing every male employee of a hospital in scrubs as 'doctor', and every female employee in scrubs as 'nurse'.