Originally posted by Bardock42
Your social circle/religious group seems to be pretty sexist of the "women are weak and dumb, unable to take care of themselves, so men must protect them" variety.
Don't you think you have backwards and archaic perspective, Bardock42? It's actually a bit sexist (mysognistic).
I had no idea you were opposed to psychological and financial support for single but soon to be expecting mothers.
Single mothers are some of the most stressed members of human society.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24251936
But even minor support can help these women:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2820475/
Dedicated psychological counseling (free), financial assistance, and welfare programs certainly would help even more.
What you're missing from this is the misandry in the Church. You actually focused on the wrong gender (latent sexism against both genders each in their own stereotypical ways?). The men need to the same support and encouragement as the women. 👆
I'm sure the support is there but the people are the problem.
Perhaps the "tell men to wrap it up" aspect wouldn't be the default if women had easier access to contraception. A box of condoms is on demand, and costs 5 bucks and a trip to the market. A pack of COCPs needs a scheduled appointment, a trip to the doctor, a pelvic exam, a script, a pill every day even when you don't want to have sex, potential cardiac side effects from said pill, and the hundred bucks or so for the office visit.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Don't you think you have backwards and archaic perspective, Bardock42? It's actually a bit sexist (mysognistic).I had no idea you were opposed to psychological and financial support for single but soon to be expecting mothers.
Single mothers are some of the most stressed members of human society.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24251936
But even minor support can help these women:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2820475/
Dedicated psychological counseling (free), financial assistance, and welfare programs certainly would help even more.
What you're missing from this is the misandry in the Church. You actually focused on the wrong gender (latent sexism against both genders each in their own stereotypical ways?). The men need to the same support and encouragement as the women. 👆
I'm sure the support is there but the people are the problem.
Like I previously stated I think a community and the government (with public money) should support caretakers of children (regardless of gender).
And if the way you explained the situation in your community is correct, there is a double standard that is a disadvantage to men, but it seems to come from the hundreds of year old misogynist view that women are not as capable as men. It is benevolent sexism (someone opening only doors for women, women and children first, women can't be soldiers, etc.), that in an individual case can give a woman an advantage, but overall, in a holistic context, infantilises and disenfranchises women. It should be worked against, and by opposing that kind of view of women, it also frees men of these expectations, but we should be clear what the reason is, and that's widespread historcial and current misoginy, not some sort of misandry.
Originally posted by Bardock42
And if the way you explained the situation in your community is correct, there is a double standard that is a disadvantage to men, but it seems to come from the hundreds of year old misogynist view that women are not as capable as men. It is benevolent sexism (someone opening only doors for women, women and children first, women can't be soldiers, etc.), that in an individual case can give a woman an advantage, but overall, in a holistic context, infantilises and disenfranchises women. It should be worked against, and by opposing that kind of view of women, it also frees men of these expectations, but we should be clear what the reason is, and that's widespread historcial and current misoginy, not some sort of misandry.
You're incorrect. These programs did not come about within the church until the 19402-1960s as part of the feminist movement where the members demanded support systems be in place to help single parents (mothers). It also started in the 1940s because of the widowed mothers (WWII). Per the usual, there are complicated reasons why changes occur (feminism and WWII).
What I describe has nothing to do with some sort of convoluted "historical misogyny." It is misandry. What needs to happen is the same offering of welfare, social, and psychological support for the men (minus the social stigma the men get, as well). I'm not sure why you would swing so far away the opposite from what needs to happen, though. Are you just doing a "as far away as possible from dadudemon's position because grrr!"? I'd never expect to read that a feminist wants to remove support programs for single mothers rather than extending those support programs to single fathers...
Like I said three time now:
Originally posted by Bardock42
I think a community and the government (with public money) should support caretakers of children (regardless of gender).
The reason why some people still think it is okay for there to only be support for women and not men, is because of the misogynist view that women need help cause they are not as capable, while men are expected to be able to deal with things on their own.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Like I said three time now:
"I'm not racist! Ignore the racist things I'm saying. I have black friends."
Originally posted by Bardock42
The reason why some people still think it is okay for there to only be support for women and not men, is because of the misogynist view that women need help cause they are not as capable, while men are expected to be able to deal with things on their own.
Almost...you almost got it. But you're still stuck in your tunnel vision.
This is the real reason:
"The reason why some people still think it is okay for there to be extensive support systems in place for women and not men, is because of the misandrist view that men are expected to be able to deal with things on their own."
Let me make it more clear for you: it is not misogynistic to provide support systems to single mothers, which have research to prove their efficacy. You're going out of your way to make something misogynistic instead of just acknowledging the very obvious issue: is misandrous, not misogynistic. This is one of those areas where it is not "both."
Also, by you doing so, you're figuratively shitting on the groundwork and foundations of support systems that feminists help establish. It's like...you couldn't be more out of touch with feminism if you tried.
As I now said four times:
"I think a community and the government (with public money) should support caretakers of children (regardless of gender)."
Now that we have out of the way what I think should happen, we should look at why it doesn't happen, and the reason is that in our society men are viewed as capable, tough, strong, smart and women are viewed as weak, incapable, not as intelligent, childlike, etc., hence why the basis of this discrepancy is rooted in centuries old misogyny.
What should happen is that everyone is viewed as a full person, and it should be realised that it's not weakness to need support, and that anyone can need help and is deserving of it. But because of our sexist gender roles, based on misogynist thinking, that is harder to accomplish.
Originally posted by Bardock42
As I now said four times:"I think a community and the government (with public money) should support caretakers of children (regardless of gender)."
Now that we have out of the way what I think should happen, we should look at why it doesn't happen, and the reason is that in our society men are viewed as capable, tough, strong, smart and women are viewed as weak, incapable, not as intelligent, childlike, etc., hence why the basis of this discrepancy is rooted in centuries old misogyny.
What should happen is that everyone is viewed as a full person, and it should be realised that it's not weakness to need support, and that anyone can need help and is deserving of it. But because of our sexist gender roles, based on misogynist thinking, that is harder to accomplish.
Bardock42, you're just plain wrong. You're misandrous views are actually coming off as anti-feministic.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Almost...you almost got it. But you're still stuck in your tunnel vision.This is the real reason:
"The reason why some people still think it is okay for there to be extensive support systems in place for women and not men, is because of the misandrist view that men are expected to be able to deal with things on their own. [Not because women are viewed as weak. It is popular to romanticize 'strong single mother' despite research contradicting that.]"
Let me make it more clear for you: it is not misogynistic to provide support systems to single mothers, which have research to prove their efficacy. You're going out of your way to make something misogynistic instead of just acknowledging the very obvious issue: is misandrous, not misogynistic. This is one of those areas where it is not "both."
Also, by you doing so, you're figuratively shitting on the groundwork and foundations of support systems that feminists help establish. It's like...you couldn't be more out of touch with feminism if you tried.
Edit - And before you try and pretend this is about society as a whole, this is specifically about the LDS programs and perspectives on single parenthood. In other words, INB4 words games.
Originally posted by Bardock42
And if the father gives up his right then the state has to pay the child support, yes?
IF the woman can't afford to take care of the child on her own then yes. However that just brings up another point: people need to stop having babies if they lack the means to take care of it. Especially when you see people who are already on welfare or something..keep popping out friggin kids. I remember seeing a video about a woman who was so poor she had to live in a motel 6..yet she had 15 friggin kids. 15 kids, and only 3 of them were over the age of 18, so she was living in a single hotel room with 12 kids screaming about "somebody needs to pay for my kids!". That goes too far and I don't think people should be paying for a persons 12 kids. That is when I think funding should be cut off, because that person isn't doing anything to help their situation and is actually actively making themselves more and more of a burden on tax payers by not taking measures to prevent further pregnancies. Oh and she was pregnant with her 16th child while doing the interview. Also yes she quite literally screamed "somebody got to pay for my kids!!".
But don't even get me started on child support, because we need a serious overhaul of that as well. I have heard far too many examples of women taking child support and spending it on themselves. We need a way to make sure child
Oh and I think alimony needs to go entirely. Once you divorce the person is no longer your responsibility.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Bardock42, you're just plain wrong. You're misandrous views are actually coming off as anti-feministic.Edit - And before you try and pretend this is about society as a whole, this is specifically about the LDS programs and perspectives on single parenthood. In other words, INB4 words games.
To me this is both about society in general and the mormon church in specific. It is also both about specific programs as well as attitudes and emotional responses of people. The kind of behaviour you described comes from a very common and very long running misogynist view about the weakness of women, it's very harmful to women overall, but in certain cases gives slight advantages. I already gave similar examples, like "women and children first" or chivalrous behaviour like only holding doors open for women.
Originally posted by Surtur
IF the woman can't afford to take care of the child on her own then yes. However that just brings up another point: people need to stop having babies if they lack the means to take care of it. Especially when you see people who are already on welfare or something..keep popping out friggin kids. I remember seeing a video about a woman who was so poor she had to live in a motel 6..yet she had 15 friggin kids. 15 kids, and only 3 of them were over the age of 18, so she was living in a single hotel room with 12 kids screaming about "somebody needs to pay for my kids!". That goes too far and I don't think people should be paying for a persons 12 kids. That is when I think funding should be cut off, because that person isn't doing anything to help their situation and is actually actively making themselves more and more of a burden on tax payers by not taking measures to prevent further pregnancies. Oh and she was pregnant with her 16th child while doing the interview. Also yes she quite literally screamed "somebody got to pay for my kids!!".But don't even get me started on child support, because we need a serious overhaul of that as well. I have heard far too many examples of women taking child support and spending it on themselves. We need a way to make sure child
Oh and I think alimony needs to go entirely. Once you divorce the person is no longer your responsibility.
I disagree regarding alimony. Marriage is in essence a standard contract for two people to decide to unite their economic and personal potential. If this unit then decides to divide responsibilities into one person more focusing on the economic part while another focuses on the domestic part, and the union breaks apart for some reason, it is unfair to the partner that did not focus as much on furthering their economic potential that they now have to start from 0 (potentially losing many years of career development that they won't be able to make up again), therefore alimony makes a lot of sense when deciding about how a marriage is separated, in order to be fair to both parties.
If someone wants to change the terms of a standard contract that's what a pre-nup is for.
i believe eliminating PP would also be a disaster for our foster care and adoption system. far fewer black [non-hispanic] children are adopted than else-wise. the embarrassing truth is that while non-black families are willing to adopt cross-ethnicity, black kids get far more frequently caught up the system and go unadopted in contrast to their peers. how will the virtual elimination of effective birth control in underclass areas contribute to this issue?
On the other hand..what you are saying is technically if a person cheats and then they get divorced over that..the person cheated on might still have to be paying them money.
I was also not really talking about couples who have kids, but couples who do not. In which there is no real reason to "domesticate" yourself since you aren't a stay at home mom. The only reason to stay home in that case is if you just don't feel like working and want your spouse to fully support you...and then to expect them to continue to do so after a divorce? Eh, does not feel right. A stay at home mom at least could say she has no job, etc. because she stayed home to take care of the kids. Someone with no children can't make such a claim. It's the difference between a mooch and someone who has no income because their job was raising children. The mooches should not get a dime.