Spidey, I'm going to disagree with you on this one, at least partially.

The problems you speak of aren't "created by Satan" but are created by us, because we as a society have stopped placing value on ideals like marriage and responsibility.

Nowadays folks treat marriage as part of the dating experience. Claims of taking marriage seriously are undermined when we see courtship periods that typically last less than a year, compounded by divorces practically being done via drive-thru. It is now COMMON to hear people saying, "I don't need a piece of paper to say I love somebody." What people have forgotten is that marriage isn't just a piece of paper, it is the strongest commitment we can make to somebody, to spend the rest of our lives with them no matter how difficult it may become. Only death will sever that bond. To take such an oath so lightly that our divorce rates are at their current level is an indictment against or value system as a society. I'm sorry, for those of you who are divorced, if I offend by saying this, but even my own sister is guilty of this frivolity. Divorce used to be unacceptable, so you made damn sure you got it right the first time...and now people get married in Vegas because they get drunk. That actually turns my stomach.

As for responsibility...I shouldn't even get started on this one. Let's take a glowing example of the babying that we do because of our PC attitude. In England, a mother who kills her child will not be convicted of murder, because they ASSUME that she MUST be insane to kill her child. This same prejudice falls within the US, where women are not equally numbered amongst serial killers...in spite of cases like Eileen Wurnos and others. We have a criminal rehabilitation system that we refuse to change, even though we KNOW FOR A FACT that it only serves to let unrepentant and violent criminals have an early check-out from prison.

I know you must have all kinds of opinions about what I'm saying bl8ant, but keep in mind that most folks aren't able to run a family with three different fathers, you are the exception not the rule. And maybe you aren't even an exception. Apparently in spite of not having a "traditional family", you still created a stable environment filled with positive role-models. I don't think tradition is as important as consistency and affection, and from what you say your children had plenty of both.

But that doesn't meant that your way is better, it just mean that your way worked for you and yours.

Keeping stability in an environment like yours must not have been easy, and not every family has the added benefit of hop-scotching across the globe spreading charity and goodwill. Not too mention, I'm sure your family also has its share of problems, after all, no one is perfect.

You obviously have some sort of animosity towards a patriarchy, for god knows what reasons. Congratulations on forging your own path, but tradition does have some value, as it teaches us things like to be wary of hubris. Undoubtedly, you have given your children rich lives, but the implication that your way is thus the right way is a parody of the very "patriarchal religions" that you decry. The fact is that in those 7 countries that you visit there are people who lead happy and fulfilling lives, lives that contain as much warmth and worth as the lives of you and your loved ones; and they achieved it by the tradition and convention and religion(s) that you speak so vehemently against.

Now, you could argue that your lifestyle has more value; but I don't think you are that arrogant or that ignorant. You believe in equality and humanity, sentiments shared by folks who have likely made your experiences possible. I wonder how many of them are followers of the "patriarchal religion and it's conventions and insidious disease"?

i agree with all of that !


but i don't think my way is the right way...

how can i know the way if i don't know what i am doing!? lol

i just wanted to do something different... so we did

well i don't know about that bit with the mothers that killed their children....


would have to see the whole story...



you were a little harsh... i'd be more temperate with subjects like depression....

it's a serious disease when it is so chemically and hormonally driven...

some people are completely taken over ...and become unrecognizable in their behaviour...i have seen it myself with a dear friend.... they must not be left alone especialy with their children until it has been treated.

First of all I'd like to say,
No offense or disrespect meant to you Bl8tant.
I can read between the lines pretty good...
I commend you for following your heart
and for blazing your own trail...

I think there is a lot of other wisdom here, too.
Spider, Tom and Art Gurl...
all excellent comments...
Wish there was an easy answer, but there isn't...
I just pray that the truth be revealed to all of this...
And the walls of illusion get trampled down...

I knew I liked this site for a reason...it's the people.

Yeah, I can be a little harsh at times - I do TRY not to be so abrasive, but tact can be a difficult tool to use.

As far as the mothers in England thing, that's British Common law. It doesn't matter what the circumstance is (it usually involves a diagnosis of Münchhausen's Syndrome by proxy), the woman gets off "due to temporary insanity". The thing about that is, temporary insanity isn't applicable for men who are diagnosed with MSbP, which is typically a feminine issue. And it is very different from Post-partem depression, which is what I'm assuming your talking about. In those cases an argument of temporary insanity is fine, however, post-partem cases are hardly comparable to a woman who is poisoning her six year old child for the sympathy she gets.

You make no bones about being a feminist (ugh to the internet and the limitations of subtlety...I don't think feminism is a bad thing - insofar that it promotes equality in gender neutral situations), but I can see that you most likely don't turn a blind-eye to reverse prejudice due to some extreme arguments. You might find a book called "When she was bad" really interesting. It does a really good job of unmasking certain assumptions that society makes about gender roles and how they apply to many situations.

I had actually spent a lot of time researching the role that gender assumptions play in reverse prejudice (i.e. spousal abuse, homicide, infanticide, recidivism rates of female versus male repeat offenders, etc.). It was quite an eye-opener. While it does nothing to argue against various "glass-ceiling" arguments, it does do a lot to dispel many of the myths that radical feminists support. It's cool stuff. Well to me anyway, but then again I'm a big nerd .

Tomokun...
You are a wealth of knowledge.
My goodness and only 26!!!
Just a babe!!!
With all that you say and understand
I would think you were going on at least 100...

Nice dress, Bud...


You wear it well...

LOL Thanks for the complement, I don't quite know what to say, that's very sweet of you.

If I do anything right at all, I'd have to blame it on my parents, hehe.

As for the dress...I find it's very slimming

that's a brilliant book...

what we share is our approach to what is what rather than how it is gendered...


why did you read it?

Oh, just FYI...

I was a little slow on the draw..
The laughter was meant
towards Tomokun's response to mine.

To R Glad I could make you laugh!

and B, I read a lot! That particular book I read in a forensic psychology class, back when I was interested in becoming a criminal psychologist. LOL, I flirted with psychology from a number of perspectives, before I decided it wasn't for me.

Another book you might like by virtue of its insights is something I had read YEARS ago called, "If it wasn't for stupid people we'd all be broke." I was pretty young when I read it, but I would have to say that it completely changed the way I look at the world; and it was funny too.

Sex ed in Kindergarten??..Well here we have the states(or Liberals in Government...depending how you want to see it) trying to raise kids in absentee of parents right to raise children how they see fit in their own traditions. Well I'll make a deal..If the government can guarentee that the kids will learn how to read, write and do basic Algebra before they learn sex ed..and they can do that by Kindergarten...then I'm all for it.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I believe it is parry then thrust, not parry then backpedal because what I said is so far from convention that anyone but me would think I was a whack job. Geeeeez! WTF? We shouldn't stop there. Why don't we do away with social order altogether? Men, grab your clubs while the women gather and forage for Haagen Dasz for dessert? Think I'm gonna have to take a break and leave this site. The bastardization of normalcy is being given out freely as if it how we should be. WTF makes your view more correct than mine? GFD! HFC! GDMF! You all view yourselves as being freakin normal? God help us all! And by the way, God has no F*cking gender!!!! But if I viewed myself as god, then obviously it would be he (pay no attention to the man behind the vacuum)

people have been saying for years that kids are growing up way too fast these days and the reason that they seem to be growing up faster is because they are being subjected to things that use to be considered adult.

i think where this becomes a sticky situation that deserves discussion is that most of the kids are already being introduced to adult content before they have any knowledge about safety risks and other important facts. i think kindergarten is too young but you have to be there for them with good information when they need it, not after.

Zapchaser,

Who are you talking to and what are you talking about? I think somebody got you so angry that you aren't making much sense, to me at least.

Zapchaser,

Who are you talking to and what are you talking about? I think somebody got you so angry that you aren't making much sense, to me at least.

just passing through

LOL, fair enough Zapchaser, no one person gets to decide normalcy, but do you think that also extends to morality?

Also, there have been numerous studies supporting that stable emotional environments have a higher percentage of children having 'normal', productive lives. As for what they use as a standard for normal, they talk about the ability of an individual to act in an emotionally balanced manner. Would you agree that there is a "good" or healthy way to respond to a situation, and a "bad" or unhealthy way? For example, would you agree that flying into a destructive rage because your favorite TV show is a rerun would be considered "bad"? If not, what would it be?

And I couldn't agree more king, education is important, but a part of that education should be a sense of value and respect. Kids that are making decisions to have sex at young ages typically don't consider the consequences of their actions. What's more, there is no sense of wonder that a "good time" can lead to a little miracle. Remember when when waiting for marriage was a point of pride? Why have young kids, as fast as they are "growing up", lost this concept? And I say it is lost due to increase of babies having babies. (Don't forget the "Prom baby" phenomenon *shudder*)

I'm curious, what if anything do you guys and gals think we may have lost alongside that sense of ...I don't know what to call it; pride, accomplishment, appreciation?

towards the freaking end each individual has the right to educate his/her children in any way they choose
and it's not the government an authorize entity to tell parents how to do it.

This is a wonderful conversation, covering a lot of closely related territory. The opening post was specifically about something Obama said.

>>> i think kindergarten is too young but you have to be there for them with good information when they need it, not after.

Kingbreeze,

Yes, Kindergarten is TOO YOUNG for MANY things to be told to our children by the state. If some parents think that age is appropriate for some things, fine. If other parents thing some of those same things should wait until later, fine.

But -what is it- that Obama is really saying??? Hypothetically, if "age appropriate sex ed" means having a superficial, basic biological knowledge or how various forms of life reproduce, or even just the fact that they DO reproduce (and do not arise by spontaneous generation, nor are brought by storks), then I think it would be a GOOD THING.