is family changing or on the way out?

[Athena]

Would you say Obama has won more voters than he lost, by being in favor of homosexual marriages?

 

This is coming from the thread about what effects our judgment, and a comment about family values being destroyed by industrialization, economic collapse and war. Working parents have to put their jobs before their children, or they loose their jobs. I grew up in a day care center, and for me, this was like being an orphan. My parents had divorced and we didn't have a family life as family was pictured in text books and demonstrated on TV. We are moving further and further away from family values and TV shows that demonstrate good family values. Yesterday my granddaughter asked me to take her shopping for a dress for her 4 year old son. She is living with another female who doesn't know if she is male or female, and my granddaughter does not make much definition between being male of female, and she is teaching her son not to make those definitions either. Like family seems to be on the way out, as well as the traditional role models, or at least changing.

 

Democracy depended on strong families, with defined male and female roles, because that was how we organize our civilization. Without such family order, how do we organize our civilization?

[Phi for All]

I don't think family values hinge on gender distinctions. I think family is about unconditional love and acceptance. I'm not sure how many voters the President won or lost, but I know my respect for the man went up a notch, and I hope he continues to fight for family values that reflect modern reality.

[Joatmon]

Public attitudes to the change of some some things taught and believed as moral and natural need time to be considered. Eventually, but gradually, through education and experience can such changes be accepted.

For example for over half of my life (I was in the British Armed Forces until age 40) homosexuality was accepted by me and the people I lived and worked with as so unnatural that exposing other adults to this sort of behaviour was a crime and deserved a prison sentence.

Over the next 30 odd years my attitude has very gradually shifted. But because of the entrenched attitude of my first 40 years it has had to be a slow and considered process. I have gone slowly through the "If that's what they want to do in private then let them get on with it", "If they wan't other people to know then what's that got to do with me?" to realising that some of the people I meet and respect in my life are obviously homosexual. I am now happy that such people should be able to declare their love and marry. The point I am making is that someone with entrenched attitudes needs education, experience and time, more time than people realise, to allow those attitudes to change.

I have somewhat similar ideas about young people living together without marriage - but this will do for now!

[Xittenn]

I see this sort of as a physics question. Think of it in terms of entropic forces. Organized systems tend towards disorganization as a cause of entropic forces. To maintain a higher level of organization requires a higher level of energy input, as you combat entropy it costs more and more energy. The rigidly organized structure you are proposing was at one time the product of a series of reactions and was in some sense a natural state. But, as time progressed entropy kicked in--or continued about its business--and things changed and became less organized, or took on a new natural state. It's funny that some believe these changes to be the acts of humans fighting against the natural state when in fact the real fight is those who are trying to fight against these entropic changes. I wouldn't say this is suggestive of the decay of organization, it just means that the overall structure is now more complex and the cost of maintaining our previous notions have become much greater.

 

I would also note that many boys up until the 1920's wore dresses well up until the age of eight years old. The disintegration of gender distinctions is probably a better thing than most appreciate. I believe that the statistics with respect to transgendered persons will maintain itself as these distinctions are removed. It just means that boys and girls for the most part will find their own personal way of expressing themselves, and can do so without invasive surgery. At the same time I believe over the next thousand years humans are going to seed an entirely new set of biodiversity that will hinge on various technologies. None of this however, is a cause for concern about the downfall of democracy. Democracy is enabling this progression and diversity for me is what democracy represents. If everyone was the same democracy would be somewhat moot, no?

[Athena]

Wow, another thread is going very badly, and I was thinking of leaving the forums, and then you guys make wonderful post, the kind of post that keep pulling me back. I am really blown away by the changed attitude about gays. It seems just yesterday, rumors about someone being gay, cost a person a career. I remember sitting next to a man in a dining room who thought it good to tell us about, how men disappeared late at night, from the naval ship he was on, as though being involved with this was a good thing.

 

Personally, I have always been attracted to gay men, but I really do not like being around dikes, nor in a saw shop where the men are accustom to the freedom of male company without females. That is, a preference for refined people verses crude and aggressive people. But to each their own said the lady as she kissed the cow. I am okay with diversity, but I am not so sure about changing family.

 

I like the explanation that it takes time to accept some changes. And I didn't know boys might be put in dresses, but there is a picture of my grandfather with long ringlets and very much looking like a girl. Perhaps I should look for more information about the past, regarding this gender identity thing?

 

I also remember discussion on the internet, that it just isn't normal for men and women to live together. Because so many cultures have been organized around men and women getting married and having children, I forgot that some questioned how natural this is. I must say, I am beginning to question how "normal" this human behavior is, because it is appearing so normal for people to be homosexual and raise children. But I am not fully adjusted yet. I still have questions about how well the change will work?

 

My granddaughters lover seemed really uptight when she brought my grandgrandson to me, and without thinking, I said I think it is a mistake to not stay with traditional family values. Ah, this was an awkward moment, and trying to make things better by assuring her I am okay with homosexuality, but--- only extended the awkward moment. I do think it is a good thing that someone to be feminine and protected from stress, and is made free to be focus on being a mother and caring for the family, because I think this is good for the children and society. The person who cares for the children, shouldn't be uptight and stressed and coming down hard on the child's every move. I wanted her to relax and ease up on the kid, or go get a job and allow my granddaughter to stay home and do the mothering. Like who is going to be the mother, and is this important? Understand, I thought being a mother was the most important thing a woman could do. I wanted a career too, but always put family first. I live with notions of family duty, and I don't know how well things can work without a sense of importance and duty? I am reacting to all these questions by making flower arrangements with balloons that say Happy Mother's Day for the apartment lobby, and taking all the females in my daughter's family out for a Mother's Day breakfast. I never celebrated Mother's Day before, but now it is seeming very important to acknowledge mothers, even if they like looking like men. And I thought when my son married a woman with 4 children, things were confusing.

[anotherfilthyape]

Would you say Obama has won more voters than he lost, by being in favor of homosexual marriages?

 

This is coming from the thread about what effects our judgment, and a comment about family values being destroyed by industrialization, economic collapse and war. Working parents have to put their jobs before their children, or they loose their jobs. I grew up in a day care center, and for me, this was like being an orphan. My parents had divorced and we didn't have a family life as family was pictured in text books and demonstrated on TV. We are moving further and further away from family values and TV shows that demonstrate good family values. Yesterday my granddaughter asked me to take her shopping for a dress for her 4 year old son. She is living with another female who doesn't know if she is male or female, and my granddaughter does not make much definition between being male of female, and she is teaching her son not to make those definitions either. Like family seems to be on the way out, as well as the traditional role models, or at least changing.

 

Democracy depended on strong families, with defined male and female roles, because that was how we organize our civilization. Without such family order, how do we organize our civilization?

 

1.The question itself is more a sociology question or a history question than an ethics question... Yet then you make an argument against pro-homosexuality which is indeed a subject ethics must address:

 

2.the words "because that was how we organize our civilization." fall into non sequitur or ignoratio elenchi, also known as irrelevant conclusion or, irrelevant thesis because from the fact that we have organized our civilization in that way does not follow that we have to organize our civilization in that way... It also implies an argumentum ad antiquitatem that is a fallacy that because something is traditional it should be applied... With that flawed logic we would be still under monarchy.

 

3."Without such family order, how do we organize our civilization?" and that is an ad ignorantiam argument, you are impliying that because you do not know an alternate method of organization the only method of organization is heteronormative... It is also the fallacy of false choice or the fallacy of the excluded middle; It claims that either we are hetenormative or we have chaos, but that is wrong...

 

Mind you I am heterosexual but I found many flaws in heteronormativity with its assigned gender roles that sometimes seems to hold a position of "difference feminism" and at other times it holds a position of "difference machism" and overall complies to christian complementarianism

 

http://en.wikipedia....plementarianism

 

For instance it denies that fathers can be better parents than mothers in some ocassions... That men can love their children and be close to them (under the cultural bias that there is a deep maternal instinct and no male counterpart)... It denies that women can work as well as men and thus it expects women to work only as a way to meet men but to allow their husbands to be the breadwinners. It denies that men and women might not be monogamous but polyamorist or polyfidelous. It leads to such terrible sexism as the believe that a woman alone has the right to abort but the man still has to pay for the maintenance of the child after the child is born if the woman decided not to abort (instead of giving the decision to the couple, as it should be, because it is both their responsability and both are equally capable of working for the maintenance of the child). It leads to these ugly campaigns; http://en.wikipedia....ysAreStupid.jpg or http://en.wikipedia....Boys_Made_Of%3F which are sexist (feminist) versions of the Lilith, Eve and Adam mythos (that is the machist version, where Adam is made of fine clay, Lilith is made of filth and rotten matter and Eve is made of Adam's rib and both women are dertimental to Adam and his heirs)...

 

Edit: And the greeks achieved great success despite being mostly homosexuals.

Edited May 12, 2012 by anotherfilthyape

[Joatmon]

Democracy depended on strong families, with defined male and female roles, because that was how we organize our civilization. Without such family order, how do we organize our civilization?

I would just say these are personal thoughts and I present no evidence!

 

I suppose that in prehistoric times the structure of a family depended on two parents with different roles. The mother being the only one who could feed any babies would tend to stay in the cave and the father was needed to go out and do whatever was needed in the way of feeding and protecting. This would be how evolution made males, in general, larger and stronger than females. It could also be argued that it also accounts for males being more aggressive and females more sensitive. Some people say that the male in a household tends to sleep on the side of the bed nearest the door (as I have always done) and this is an unconscious remnant of the need to guard instinct. Without these developments perhaps the human race may not have been able to survive.

However, these days and for many years the conditions that forced this family arrangement do not exist. The products of organised society have seen changes that remove a need for the mother to stay at home or for the man to be physically strong enough to literally fight off competition for the right to mate or to collect or kill food.

Put it simply if society could have been a coherent thing from "day one" there would never have been a need for physical or emotional differences between the sexes.

Perhaps the physical differences that exist will gradually fade away with evolution like the legs of a whale have done. That we cannot control and may happen in it's own time.

But mental attitudes are not physical attributes that await aeons of time for evolution. We have the brain power to reason and accept the results of reasoning within our own lifetimes.

If the result of such reasoning is that there is no longer a need or place for male and female roles then I suppose we shall eventually come to accept that.

The result of this would be that civilisation will continue to develop as it always has but all roles in it's development will be done with equal contribution from both sexes.

 

Edited May 12, 2012 by Joatmon

[Phi for All]

Family is a concept that has helped us grow as a society, but it needs the freedom to adapt along with other concepts. I don't think gender distinctions have affected the family unit negatively as much as urban isolation. We used to band together in larger groups for mutual aid and socialization. Fear of modern predators has forced family units into smaller groupings and that seems very counter-intuitive to me. If we're afraid of gangs/terrorists/criminals/whatever, we should be uniting instead of isolating ourselves.

 

Personally, I have always been attracted to gay men, but I really do not like being around dikes, nor in a saw shop where the men are accustom to the freedom of male company without females.

Just curious, don't want to go off-topic, but what's a "saw shop"? Is that like a male-dominated factory?

[Athena]

1.The question itself is more a sociology question or a history question than an ethics question... Yet then you make an argument against pro-homosexuality which is indeed a subject ethics must address:

 

2.the words "because that was how we organize our civilization." fall into non sequitur or ignoratio elenchi, also known as irrelevant conclusion or, irrelevant thesis because from the fact that we have organized our civilization in that way does not follow that we have to organize our civilization in that way... It also implies an argumentum ad antiquitatem that is a fallacy that because something is traditional it should be applied... With that flawed logic we would be still under monarchy.

 

3."Without such family order, how do we organize our civilization?" and that is an ad ignorantiam argument, you are impliying that because you do not know an alternate method of organization the only method of organization is heteronormative... It is also the fallacy of false choice or the fallacy of the excluded middle; It claims that either we are hetenormative or we have chaos, but that is wrong...

 

Mind you I am heterosexual but I found many flaws in heteronormativity with its assigned gender roles that sometimes seems to hold a position of "difference feminism" and at other times it holds a position of "difference machism" and overall complies to christian complementarianism

 

http://en.wikipedia....plementarianism

 

For instance it denies that fathers can be better parents than mothers in some ocassions... That men can love their children and be close to them (under the cultural bias that there is a deep maternal instinct and no male counterpart)... It denies that women can work as well as men and thus it expects women to work only as a way to meet men but to allow their husbands to be the breadwinners. It denies that men and women might not be monogamous but polyamorist or polyfidelous. It leads to such terrible sexism as the believe that a woman alone has the right to abort but the man still has to pay for the maintenance of the child after the child is born if the woman decided not to abort (instead of giving the decision to the couple, as it should be, because it is both their responsability and both are equally capable of working for the maintenance of the child). It leads to these ugly campaigns; http://en.wikipedia....ysAreStupid.jpg or http://en.wikipedia....Boys_Made_Of%3F which are sexist (feminist) versions of the Lilith, Eve and Adam mythos (that is the machist version, where Adam is made of fine clay, Lilith is made of filth and rotten matter and Eve is made of Adam's rib and both women are dertimental to Adam and his heirs)...

 

Edit: And the greeks achieved great success despite being mostly homosexuals.

 

I am overwhelmed, can we stop at social organization, because this is really what I want to talk about and if another forum is better for this, let's go there.

 

Some of your arguments seemed based on false assumptions, and I would like to address them separately. How about a thread asking is if males and females parent differently? Might this be a good or bad thing? If males and females parently differently, is this because of hormonal differences or is it just social pressure differences? I have no doubt that some women can abandon their children as easily as men, and it seems likely to me that women have committed infanticide more than men, while throughout history men have left children in the care of women more than women have left children in the care of men.

 

[/size]

I would just say these are personal thoughts and I present no evidence!

 

I suppose that in prehistoric times the structure of a family depended on two parents with different roles. The mother being the only one who could feed any babies would tend to stay in the cave and the father was needed to go out and do whatever was needed in the way of feeding and protecting. This would be how evolution made males, in general, larger and stronger than females. It could also be argued that it also accounts for males being more aggressive and females more sensitive. Some people say that the male in a household tends to sleep on the side of the bed nearest the door (as I have always done) and this is an unconscious remnant of the need to guard instinct. Without these developments perhaps the human race may not have been able to survive.

However, these days and for many years the conditions that forced this family arrangement do not exist. The products of organised society have seen changes that remove a need for the mother to stay at home or for the man to be physically strong enough to literally fight off competition for the right to mate or to collect or kill food.

Put it simply if society could have been a coherent thing from "day one" there would never have been a need for physical or emotional differences between the sexes.

Perhaps the physical differences that exist will gradually fade away with evolution like the legs of a whale have done. That we cannot control and may happen in it's own time.

But mental attitudes are not physical attributes that await aeons of time for evolution. We have the brain power to reason and accept the results of reasoning within our own lifetimes.

If the result of such reasoning is that there is no longer a need or place for male and female roles then I suppose we shall eventually come to accept that.

The result of this would be that civilisation will continue to develop as it always has but all roles in it's development will be done with equal contribution from both sexes.

 

 

 

I love zoology, and primates do not live in caves, yet the males are bigger and stronger than the females who have to carry the baby all day. Actually I think comparing human organizations with animal organizations could be very helpful to this thread. Especially comparing the chimps, with bonobos, and humans, could be interesting. Bonobos evidently have less to fear from animals that prey on their kind, than chimps, and among the bonobo, it is the females who ban together and defend each other and the babies from the males of their own kind. It seems we are moving towards the bonobo female dominated social structure and away from the male dominated male social structure that is more like chimps, now that labor, essential to providing the daily needs, does not require the brawn of the male?

 

Are we sure children do not need mothers and fathers and families that interact? Shouldn't we evaluate the research? Like really, are our child equal to pets, or does our human nature require more than what we give a dog?

 

What about the political changes as we move from family order, to being ordered by industry, and then ordered by the despotic government seems to be exactly what Tocqueville said Christian democracies would be, where people put very little value on the family. This is really a political discussion. I don't think our present despotic government is anything like the democracy the US started out to be, and I am not sure the change is a good thing. I asked some friends what is organizing us today and they agree it is power. Truly being organized by power instead of by families, is not the ideal of democracy.

 

 

Smile, have you read "The Brave New World"? In the Brave New World, babies are grown in test tubes, and then conditioned for the lives the planners determine the human will have. The character who makes the story happen is a young male from that taboo place where humans live in terrible poverty and without the drugs and controls that make "The Brave New World" as it is. Personally, I would not chose the drug and scientifically controlled "Brave New World".

[Joatmon]

Are we sure children do not need mothers and fathers and families that interact? Shouldn't we evaluate the research? Like really, are our child equal to pets, or does our human nature require more than what we give a dog?

I think a close and loving family unit is invaluable. Over quite an extended time I have come to accept that two "parents" of the same sex can provide this. However, I still feel that a family unit consisting of a male and female caring for their biological children is the ideal. I also accept that what I feel is acceptable in today's society must also be found acceptable by me. For myself, I am more unhappy about the number of unmarried, unattached, women bringing up their children, often by different fathers, on their own.

Edited May 12, 2012 by Joatmon

[Athena]

Family is a concept that has helped us grow as a society, but it needs the freedom to adapt along with other concepts. I don't think gender distinctions have affected the family unit negatively as much as urban isolation. We used to band together in larger groups for mutual aid and socialization. Fear of modern predators has forced family units into smaller groupings and that seems very counter-intuitive to me. If we're afraid of gangs/terrorists/criminals/whatever, we should be uniting instead of isolating ourselves.

 

 

Just curious, don't want to go off-topic, but what's a "saw shop"? Is that like a male-dominated factory?

 

Yes, I live in Oregon and during the 1970 recession timber was about the only industry we had, and there were extremely few jobs for women. I went to a saw shop to ask the owner if he would train me to work on saws. To my delight he agreed. Then the male customers walked in and their language and manner, sent me running. Laugh, I was not ready for that.

 

I do not think we have banned together for physcial protection for a long a long time, but we do so for psychological reasons. Actually, in the US where people spread apart to live on isolated farms, was unheard of in Europe where people clustered together in small communities. Humans tend to need to belong groups that are small enough for everyone to know each other. For this reason, we break up into groups that are defined as membership in a church, or a social club or professional organization, or subgroups/ cultures such as people who wear tattoos, or people who can afford the best designer jeans, or the folks who hang out at the senior center and live in housing for people over 55, yeah, that is me. This is not different from other social animals who also form small groups and split apart when the group gets too large.

 

Religion is truly a human phenomena, because it united unnaturally large groups of people, and this evolved with the power of the state and than national identity. Has anyone read the book "The Lonely Crowd"? We are surrounded, sometimes by millions of people, and yet feel very alone. Our sense of loneliness can be intolerable, and drives us to find people we can identify with, and who recognize us as individuals, acknowledge us, (that acknowledgement can be, "this person really cares about democracy and has some serious concerns", as opposed to "she is attacking mods and isn't being honest about what this thread about") and hopefully the people we meet will value us, and care about us enough to really listen to what we are saying and avoid being hurtful, even after the person says things have become very hurtful. What we have to fear most is our human nature, and our best protection is people who really care about us. This is especially so when the state takes someone's children and makes them wards of the court. If the family does not have a strong supportive unit, it can be torn apart for life, by people with good intentions but no wisdom. I would not have my grandchildren and great grandchildren today, if I had not united with other grandparents, and successfully fought the state for my family and to change laws and policy. I think everyone is strongly under valuing the importance of family, but I must remain open to the possibility that change is good, and something like The Brave New World", is better than our primitive past?

 

Hum, I have to add- want is really important is people who care about us personal, or care about the principles we live by. Having good manners and being principled, goes a long ways in making it possible for strangers to safely interact without fear of being hurt.

Edited May 12, 2012 by Athena

[anotherfilthyape]

I am overwhelmed, can we stop at social organization, because this is really what I want to talk about and if another forum is better for this, let's go there.

 

Some of your arguments seemed based on false assumptions, and I would like to address them separately. How about a thread asking is if males and females parent differently? Might this be a good or bad thing? If males and females parently differently, is this because of hormonal differences or is it just social pressure differences? I have no doubt that some women can abandon their children as easily as men, and it seems likely to me that women have committed infanticide more than men, while throughout history men have left children in the care of women more than women have left children in the care of men.

 

Ok, I will rephrase my post by explaining every point... But now dont be overwhelmed, give arguments to counter my arguments:

 

1.The question itself is more a sociology question or a history question than an ethics question... Yet then you make an argument against pro-homosexuality which is indeed a subject ethics must address:

 

2.the words "because that was how we organize our civilization." fall into non sequitur or ignoratio elenchi, also known as irrelevant conclusion or, irrelevant thesis because from the fact that we have organized our civilization in that way does not follow that we have to organize our civilization in that way... It also implies an argumentum ad antiquitatem that is a fallacy that because something is traditional it should be applied... With that flawed logic we would be still under monarchy.

 

3."Without such family order, how do we organize our civilization?" and that is an ad ignorantiam argument, you are impliying that because you do not know an alternate method of organization the only method of organization is heteronormative... It is also the fallacy of false choice or the fallacy of the excluded middle; It claims that either we are hetenormative or we have chaos, but that is wrong...

 

4.Mind you I am heterosexual but I found many flaws in heteronormativity with its assigned gender roles that sometimes seems to hold a position of "difference feminism" and at other times it holds a position of "difference machism" and overall complies to christian complementarianism

 

http://en.wikipedia....plementarianism

 

5.For instance it denies that fathers can be better parents than mothers in some ocassions... That men can love their children and be close to them (under the cultural bias that there is a deep maternal instinct and no male counterpart)... It denies that women can work as well as men and thus it expects women to work only as a way to meet men but to allow their husbands to be the breadwinners. It denies that men and women might not be monogamous but polyamorist or polyfidelous. It leads to such terrible sexism as the believe that a woman alone has the right to abort but the man still has to pay for the maintenance of the child after the child is born if the woman decided not to abort (instead of giving the decision to the couple, as it should be, because it is both their responsability and both are equally capable of working for the maintenance of the child). It leads to these ugly campaigns; http://en.wikipedia....ysAreStupid.jpg or http://en.wikipedia....Boys_Made_Of%3F which are sexist (feminist) versions of the Lilith, Eve and Adam mythos (that is the machist version, where Adam is made of fine clay, Lilith is made of filth and rotten matter and Eve is made of Adam's rib and both women are dertimental to Adam and his heirs)...

 

6. And the greeks achieved great success despite being mostly homosexuals.

 

A.The first point is the only one that would need a different thread (placed in "other sciences" because "history" and sociology are human sciences and those qualify as "other sciences" in the scheme this page follows.

 

B.The second and third point are not false assumptions but accusations that you have fallen into fallacies which you may check yourself to confirm that you have fallen into them... You were too overwhelmed to tell me how am I falling into false assumptions...

 

C.The fourth point is the one you address by your question if women and men behave different as parents... Thing is, they behave different because society has determined they have to behave different, but there is no reason other than cultural reasons for mothers and fathers to behave differently, except that men cannot lactate for their children, other than that parenting can be indentical for both and the current gender differences are detrimental... Women are taught to be parasites and men to be obsessed with being in charge, that is not how it should be... Women have to be more proactive and men have to share more responsability. Cultural gender differences will only die when we decide to make them die... Likewise we must abandon the bias that children can only be reared by a father and a mother... They can be reared by their father, their father's wives, their mother and their mother's husbands... Polygamy (true polygamy not the krap that muslims do) is possible and not unhealthy...

 

D.Parts of the fifth point I have addressed in my previous paragraph... But I have to address that important issue in my fifth point is that sexism is a negative bias against men and against women, it is detrimental to both, not only to women as feminists seem to think... The importance of my fifth point is that sexism prevents men from having a say on the abortion of their future child only to then be forced to mantain the child financially when the woman was only a gold-digger that wanted the man's money and does not care about the child. The importance of my fifth point is that sexism prevents men from spending as much time with their children as the mothers and that is detrimental to boys because boys need a father more than they need a mother (and girls need a mother more than they need a father) and this is not because the genders are different at parenting but because the genders are culturally different and maybe, to some lesser degree, psychologically or physiologically different... The importance of my fifth point is that their is a bias to make men breadwinners and mother caregivers to children even when it is possible than the opposite works better (I know it is a comedy but take for example the cast of "two and half men"; Alan is a terrible breadwinner and his ex-wife is worse than Alan as a caregiver, Alan Harper is full of flaws and he is a sick man but his ex-wife is not any better and he should have got the custody of their child, with weekends being for the child to spend with his mother; the show is meant for fun and it is a comedy but I can see that happening in reality)... Forget my example taken from fiction... Consider real-life examples... Many serial killers were taken care of by their mothers, and their mothers were sluts that did nothing to prevent their child from watching them work or fundies that abused their child based on religion. Fundies are more often female than male and fundies are more prone to accept schizophrenia as communication with god than as schizophrenia, non-fundies would get themselves on a mad assylum as schizophrenia starts, fundies on the other hand would obey the voices they hear and kill their own child because the child is the devil... women get post-partum depression that makes them potential murderers, men do not go through it... http://www.f4e.com.au/blog/2010/10/29/woman-kills-child-for-interrupting-farmville-game/ This is not the first time a woman has done such a frivolous accidental murder of her own child... The article does not specifies if the mother and the father were divorced but it certainly gives an idea on how mothers can be too selfish to be good mothers... But divorce keeps the bias that the women must keep the children.

 

[/size]

Some people say that the male in a household tends to sleep on the side of the bed nearest the door (as I have always done) and this is an unconscious remnant of the need to guard instinct.

 

My father sleeps closer to the windows (that lead to the sky, our house has two stories, the main story and a higher story and his room has the bed with one side closer to these windows that lead outwards) and my mother sleeps closer to the door... This is anecdotical evidence but your argument is flawed to in the way it is presented, it needs statistics...

 

 

[Joatmon]

My father sleeps closer to the windows (that lead to the sky, our house has two stories, the main story and a higher story and his room has the bed with one side closer to these windows that lead outwards) and my mother sleeps closer to the door... This is anecdotical evidence but your argument is flawed to in the way it is presented, it needs statistics...

 

I would just say these are personal thoughts and I present no evidence!

 

Some people say that the male in a household tends to sleep on the side of the bed nearest the door (as I have always done) and this is an unconscious remnant of the need to guard instinct.

 

I made clear that what I posted are personal thoughts and therefore anecdotal. However since your comment I have a quick chase around the web and there are plenty of comments from other people on the subject with the majority agreeing with me. Certainly more than enough to justify "some people say"!

Edited May 12, 2012 by Joatmon

[anotherfilthyape]

I made clear that what I posted are personal thoughts and therefore anecdotal. However since your comment I have a quick chase around the web and there are plenty of comments from other people on the subject with the majority agreeing with me. Certainly more than enough to justify "some people say"!

 

plenty from a quick search by a single person can qualify s "some" when compaired against the vast majority of the world? sorry, I prefer statistics

[Joatmon]

plenty from a quick search by a single person can qualify s "some" when compaired against the vast majority of the world? sorry, I prefer statistics

 

I'm sure we all do - especially if someone is making a definite claim. However, as long as the poster makes clear that he is just repeating what he believes or has heard that's ok? Other people are free to express an alternative opinion and present evidence to back up what they say?

 

 

 

[anotherfilthyape]

I'm sure we all do - especially if someone is making a definite claim. However, as long as the poster makes clear that he is just repeating what he believes or has heard that's ok? Other people are free to express an alternative opinion and present evidence to back up what they say?

 

 

ok, fair call, I will give you that... for now...