LDS and stay at home moms?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Yoda

Re: Gaz

Post by _Yoda »

Gazelam wrote:
And by the way, any woman over the age of 24 whos unmarried is a menace to society.


This IS an example of your dry sense of humor, I hope?

I would hate to have to beat you.

;)
Last edited by _Yoda on Sat Jun 30, 2007 1:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_Yoda

Post by _Yoda »

barrelomonkeys wrote:Gaz, my kids are 12, 11, almost 7, and almost 3.

My girls are dressed like that and have on makeup because they attend a Visual and Performing Arts school and they were about to go do a performance. But that's the only current pic I have with all of them.


Cute kids!

:)
_barrelomonkeys
_Emeritus
Posts: 3004
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 7:00 pm

Re: Jersey

Post by _barrelomonkeys »

liz3564 wrote:
Gazelam wrote:
And by the way, any woman over the age of 24 whos unmarried is a menace to society.


This IS an example of your dry sense of humor, I hope?

I would hate to have to beat you.

;)


I was hoping that too.
_Yoda

Re: PP and Gaz

Post by _Yoda »

Polygamy Porter wrote:
Gazelam wrote:If a woman has no kids, of coarse she can work if she wants to. that's not the issue here. The issue here is whos watching the kids.

And by the way, any woman over the age of 24 whos unmarried is a menace to society.
I'd say women under the age of 24, who are married or not and having babies IS a drain on society.


Hmmm...I had my first baby when I was 24, so I suppose I'm on the cusp of being a menace to society according to you, right, PP? ;)

Let's face it. Both statements are way too broad and show lack of judgment and short-sightedness...But, hey, you and Gaz are both men, so we ladies forgive you.

;)
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

Gazelam wrote:The majority of women are more nurturing and kind than men are.


You have not established that; you have just asserted it several times. I think this is a cultural norm, not a biological norm. Women appear to be more nurturing because society says they have to be because they're the mothers and mothers nurture children. If women were unbound by societal constraints, would they be more nurturing? You say "yes", I say "show me the research that supports your assertion".

Given the opportunity and freedom to be equally nurturing, men may very well be equally optimal candidates to raise children. If society allowed it, the choice of who is the breadwinner may be a choice of the couple, not an automatic assumption that women are the nurturers and men are the breadwinners, such as the POTF claims. That piece of drivel is a fine example of men overstepping their stewardship and putting words in God's mouth.

Men are the testosterone filled hunters, who go out and bring home the bacon or whatever. Our nature is to build a house, gather in supplies, and provide the enviorment for the wife to make a house a home and do her nesting thing and rear good children.


Testosterone has little to do with today's career choice. Granted there are careers that are heavily driven by testosterone (thinking firefighter, police officer, military, etc), but careers in business, engineering, computers, etc. are high paying careers that require no testosterone and a great deal of intelligence. Men are not the ones solely qualified to handle those careers. Women can do so equally well.

The best and proper enviorment is for the children to see a strong healthy relationship betwen two parents who love each other and properly fulfill their roles.


I strongly agree with your first phrase and strongly disagree with your second one. Neither you nor the church nor society can or should tell any couple what their "proper" roles are. That is solely their responsibility, which is why the Family Leave Act is such a great idea, and why the Proclamation on the Family is such a bad idea.
_barrelomonkeys
_Emeritus
Posts: 3004
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 7:00 pm

Post by _barrelomonkeys »

Wow! I just saw this thread had almost 2,000 looksies! Man, that's a lot!
_Mercury
_Emeritus
Posts: 5545
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:14 pm

Re: Jersey

Post by _Mercury »

barrelomonkeys wrote:This is very, very, very, detrimental to children! Is this sort of thinking rampant in the LDS community?


This is EXACTLY what happened. Granted, the situation was not ideal but I was CUT OFF from my mother. THe reasoning given to me for this at the time?? because she was not Mormon.
And crawling on the planet's face
Some insects called the human race
Lost in time
And lost in space...and meaning
_Yoda

Re: Jersey

Post by _Yoda »

Mercury wrote:
barrelomonkeys wrote:This is very, very, very, detrimental to children! Is this sort of thinking rampant in the LDS community?


This is EXACTLY what happened. Granted, the situation was not ideal but I was CUT OFF from my mother. THe reasoning given to me for this at the time?? because she was not Mormon.


That's terrible! Do you have contact with her now? Were you able to develop a relationship with her as an adult at least?
_Mercury
_Emeritus
Posts: 5545
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:14 pm

Re: Jersey

Post by _Mercury »

liz3564 wrote:That's terrible! Do you have contact with her now? Were you able to develop a relationship with her as an adult at least?


She was the first one to show up here after my second daughter was born. Shes here right now.
And crawling on the planet's face
Some insects called the human race
Lost in time
And lost in space...and meaning
_Yoda

Re: Jersey

Post by _Yoda »

Mercury wrote:She was the first one to show up here after my second daughter was born. Shes here right now.


Oh, I'm so glad! That's great that you are at least able to enjoy her now, and she can enjoy that new granddaughter.

Congrats again, by the way! :)
Post Reply