Female users with 'mommy' or 'wifey' in name

_Emma_Problema_

There is legitimately no man involved in whether I do or do not show my breasts.

Depends on how many drinks are had IMO.

_Emma_Problema_

yes because of their very own narrow, selfish focus. in the grand scheme of things, nothing heroic about getting a baby either naturally or by other means.

here is the issue: we have too many babies in the world and too many mothers and fathers. what we need are parents for these kids. their moms and dads are not parents. require people to have a license to make a baby. lets make Ayn Rand proud!

So what is your real story? Who hurt you? Or who peed in your cheerios? Maybe your blood sugar is low, need a cookie?

Seriously, why does it bother you so much what other people do? Maybe you should turn that negativity around and focus on yourself instead of worry about what others are doing. Not all mommies and daddies are bad people, not all of us treat our kids poorly, there are a lot of wonderful parents out there, sure their are some who should be cut off and not allowed to ever have kids but lets not make all parents feel like you have it out for them because you sound pretty awful.

It's a very logical and rational argument. It lacks the emotional aspect of having kids but it's true. Having kids is inherently selfish and there are lots of children who need homes.

And it does bother those of us who are concerned with things like overconsumption of natural resources, increasing class sizes in public schools, emotional trauma/mental illness among unadopted kids in foster homes, etc. That's why people care what individuals do. It affects everyone.

But I do understand why people have kids. Heck, sometimes I really want kids of my own. My boyfriend has 3 and I don't think he's a terrible awful human being.

Just from a rather cold and rational perspective, yeah. He's right.

Just clarifying the argument.

FlaxMilk

I think your issue with my opinion is based on something I never said. I never said that I thought all women with things relating to motherhood or being a wife had completely lost their identity. That's an extreme view. If you look back I said that it shows underlying patriarchy.

I haven't said anything specific about how particular women identify themselves only that they are identifying themselves through another person which is something that socially women are expected to do- taking the name of their spouse, quitting their jobs to become a SAHM, etc.

Working backward: I absolutely have privilege. I'm a white, heterosexual, cis woman from a middle-class family who was able to get the education I needed for the career I've always wanted. Having privilege is inevitable for many of us. I worked for what I have, but I also know that given other circumstances, I literally may not have been able to achieve it. There have been other factors in my life that count against me. Also inevitable.

I think the argument we are having comes down to this sentence: The fact that women often identify with the parental role as their identity or with their husband does show underlying patriarchy. I would write it as *can* rather than *often does*. That is also what I was getting at by referencing the 1990's, as the role of motherhood has evolved quite a bit. Non-heterosexual couples not only can (sometimes) adopt children, they can also create children without having coitus. A single person can decide to become a parent through a sperm bank. Obviously the sperm comes from a man, but I wouldn't say the role of mother for that person has much to do with men. A woman who wants to be a mom can become one by finding a willing stranger in a bar.

I think that feminism has gotten so used to ensuring that women not over identify as mothers and lose their identities that the notion that one reason women identify so strongly with being mothers has nothing to do with men but the unbelievable amount of love and attachment that comes with creating, birthing, and nurturing a dependent being. That's not the patriarchy. That's humanity, and that's how we (people) are meant to work. That's why we have oxytocin. Oxytocin is functional and its from our bodies, not from society. We need bonds and attachments for society to hold up. Parenting is a powerful experience for someone who wants to be a parent.

I strongly disagree with society's expectations for women-not all women want children or want to stop working when they have them. Women shouldn't be expected to give up their names simply because they are the female. You'll never get an argument from me on those. A man who stays at home and parents shouldn't be seen as a lazy bum mooching. He should be seen as a committed father. Gender expectations are pretty silly. But we can't assume actions are due to gender expectations, either. We *should* keep ensuring that people not feel confined by them and realize all the many options out there. (I'm all for people not wanting to be parents not being them. The idea that people must grow up and reproduce is not necessary for survival and often causes misery. Those who do want to reproduce though find joy. They do give up some independence. They must, by choosing to nurture a dependent. But fathers should as much as mothers.)

TheFitHooker

yes because of their very own narrow, selfish focus. in the grand scheme of things, nothing heroic about getting a baby either naturally or by other means.

here is the issue: we have too many babies in the world and too many mothers and fathers. what we need are parents for these kids. their moms and dads are not parents. require people to have a license to make a baby. lets make Ayn Rand proud!

So what is your real story? Who hurt you? Or who peed in your cheerios? Maybe your blood sugar is low, need a cookie?

Seriously, why does it bother you so much what other people do? Maybe you should turn that negativity around and focus on yourself instead of worry about what others are doing. Not all mommies and daddies are bad people, not all of us treat our kids poorly, there are a lot of wonderful parents out there, sure their are some who should be cut off and not allowed to ever have kids but lets not make all parents feel like you have it out for them because you sound pretty awful.

It's a very logical and rational argument. It lacks the emotional aspect of having kids but it's true. Having kids is inherently selfish and there are lots of children who need homes.

And it does bother those of us who are concerned with things like overconsumption of natural resources, increasing class sizes in public schools, emotional trauma/mental illness among unadopted kids in foster homes, etc. That's why people care what individuals do. It affects everyone.

But I do understand why people have kids. Heck, sometimes I really want kids of my own. My boyfriend has 3 and I don't think he's a terrible awful human being.

Just from a rather cold and rational perspective, yeah. He's right.

Just clarifying the argument.

Not to turn this into a political debate, but we have plenty of resources, but our government is harvesting a lot of things, why? Their is a guide stone that wants to depopulate the earth, but yet there is plenty of land and plenty of resources. I think having kids when you can take care of them without relying on the government is very selfish, but I don't agree that having kids is all that selfish but then again I'm a believer in God and his word and he tells us to go and populate.

FlaxMilk

PS: I hated my anthropology courses. I can't lie. I worked way harder in those courses.

whierd

yes because of their very own narrow, selfish focus. in the grand scheme of things, nothing heroic about getting a baby either naturally or by other means.

here is the issue: we have too many babies in the world and too many mothers and fathers. what we need are parents for these kids. their moms and dads are not parents. require people to have a license to make a baby. lets make Ayn Rand proud!

So what is your real story? Who hurt you? Or who peed in your cheerios? Maybe your blood sugar is low, need a cookie?

Seriously, why does it bother you so much what other people do? Maybe you should turn that negativity around and focus on yourself instead of worry about what others are doing. Not all mommies and daddies are bad people, not all of us treat our kids poorly, there are a lot of wonderful parents out there, sure their are some who should be cut off and not allowed to ever have kids but lets not make all parents feel like you have it out for them because you sound pretty awful.

It's a very logical and rational argument. It lacks the emotional aspect of having kids but it's true. Having kids is inherently selfish and there are lots of children who need homes.

And it does bother those of us who are concerned with things like overconsumption of natural resources, increasing class sizes in public schools, emotional trauma/mental illness among unadopted kids in foster homes, etc. That's why people care what individuals do. It affects everyone.

But I do understand why people have kids. Heck, sometimes I really want kids of my own. My boyfriend has 3 and I don't think he's a terrible awful human being.

Just from a rather cold and rational perspective, yeah. He's right.

Just clarifying the argument.

Not to turn this into a political debate, but we have plenty of resources, but our government is harvesting a lot of things, why? Their is a guide stone that wants to depopulate the earth, but yet there is plenty of land and plenty of resources. I think having kids when you can take care of them without relying on the government is very selfish, but I don't agree that having kids is all that selfish but then again I'm a believer in God and his word and he tells us to go and populate.

No, there are not plenty of resources or land. At our current rate we may hit critical population levels in a century. And having kids is inherently selfish because we do it, biologically, to pass on our genetics.

Madame_Goldbricker

yes because of their very own narrow, selfish focus. in the grand scheme of things, nothing heroic about getting a baby either naturally or by other means.

here is the issue: we have too many babies in the world and too many mothers and fathers. what we need are parents for these kids. their moms and dads are not parents. require people to have a license to make a baby. lets make Ayn Rand proud!

So what is your real story? Who hurt you? Or who peed in your cheerios? Maybe your blood sugar is low, need a cookie?

Seriously, why does it bother you so much what other people do? Maybe you should turn that negativity around and focus on yourself instead of worry about what others are doing. Not all mommies and daddies are bad people, not all of us treat our kids poorly, there are a lot of wonderful parents out there, sure their are some who should be cut off and not allowed to ever have kids but lets not make all parents feel like you have it out for them because you sound pretty awful.

It's a very logical and rational argument. It lacks the emotional aspect of having kids but it's true. Having kids is inherently selfish and there are lots of children who need homes.

And it does bother those of us who are concerned with things like overconsumption of natural resources, increasing class sizes in public schools, emotional trauma/mental illness among unadopted kids in foster homes, etc. That's why people care what individuals do. It affects everyone.

But I do understand why people have kids. Heck, sometimes I really want kids of my own. My boyfriend has 3 and I don't think he's a terrible awful human being.

Just from a rather cold and rational perspective, yeah. He's right.

Just clarifying the argument.

All I can say is from my personal perspective as an adoptee I can honestly say I'm thrilled no-one made the judgement call on if my birth mother had a inherent right to have me or not. When I was a teenage single parent at the time of my daughter's birth I can say I'm glad that no-one had the right to tell me if I could have her or not. Furthermore, as the holder of a social work degree I'm glad that no-one had the right to state if I was allowed to be both a parent & earn an education. :drinker:

cnsmith2

How do you feel about that? I am not sure how I feel. Why cant a woman be her own person on a fitness website? Why does she have to define herself as a mommy or a wifey? I dont see any daddios or hubbies!

Maybe their children are such a gigantic part of their life that they feel NO reason to separate being a Mom from themselves for a fitness website....or any other website for that matter.

technobunny

moms love their children so much they would give their lives 100x if it meant saving their child. it is a human bond, no matter culture, race, creed...it is innate, human experience.

if you were a mother, you would understand. to identify with the strongest bond a human can feel, sounds natural to me.

_Emma_Problema_

It's a very logical and rational argument. It lacks the emotional aspect of having kids but it's true. Having kids is inherently selfish and there are lots of children who need homes.

And it does bother those of us who are concerned with things like overconsumption of natural resources, increasing class sizes in public schools, emotional trauma/mental illness among unadopted kids in foster homes, etc. That's why people care what individuals do. It affects everyone.

But I do understand why people have kids. Heck, sometimes I really want kids of my own. My boyfriend has 3 and I don't think he's a terrible awful human being.

Just from a rather cold and rational perspective, yeah. He's right.

Just clarifying the argument.

Not to turn this into a political debate, but we have plenty of resources, but our government is harvesting a lot of things, why? Their is a guide stone that wants to depopulate the earth, but yet there is plenty of land and plenty of resources. I think having kids when you can take care of them without relying on the government is very selfish, but I don't agree that having kids is all that selfish but then again I'm a believer in God and his word and he tells us to go and populate.

I simply can't see blindly following your religion as a valid argument to have children without respect and understand of the context in which you're having them. I simply can't.

But um....it's not a political debate. There are NOT plenty of resources. Food you mean? Yeah. Ok. And problems with food are based on structural system issues. Starvation doesn't occur because there is not enough food in the world. But non-renewable resources are quickly being eaten up and let's think about where all of your garbage goes after you put in in the bin. There is definitely not plenty of land, unless you want to destroy lots of ecosystems in the process.

Simply deciding to have your own children rather than adopt is in some sense selfish. Choosing to replicate your DNA rather than give a home to a child who is suffering is selfish. But there are lots of complications to that idea that I understand. Just saying that you can't say that having children is completely unselfish.

Oh and they aren't trying to depopulate the earth. FYI. They are trying to decrease the population growth rate so that it isn't absolutely insane.

_Emma_Problema_

All I can say is from my personal perspective as an adoptee I can honestly say I'm thrilled no-one made the judgement call on if my birth mother had a inherent right to have me or not. When I was a teenage single parent at the time of my daughter's birth I can say I'm glad that no-one had the right to tell me if I could have her or not. Furthermore, as the holder of a social work degree I'm glad that no-one had the right to state if I was allowed to be both a parent & earn an education. :drinker:

No mention of forced sterilization or abortion. And your point is?

TheFitHooker

yes because of their very own narrow, selfish focus. in the grand scheme of things, nothing heroic about getting a baby either naturally or by other means.

here is the issue: we have too many babies in the world and too many mothers and fathers. what we need are parents for these kids. their moms and dads are not parents. require people to have a license to make a baby. lets make Ayn Rand proud!

So what is your real story? Who hurt you? Or who peed in your cheerios? Maybe your blood sugar is low, need a cookie?

Seriously, why does it bother you so much what other people do? Maybe you should turn that negativity around and focus on yourself instead of worry about what others are doing. Not all mommies and daddies are bad people, not all of us treat our kids poorly, there are a lot of wonderful parents out there, sure their are some who should be cut off and not allowed to ever have kids but lets not make all parents feel like you have it out for them because you sound pretty awful.

It's a very logical and rational argument. It lacks the emotional aspect of having kids but it's true. Having kids is inherently selfish and there are lots of children who need homes.

And it does bother those of us who are concerned with things like overconsumption of natural resources, increasing class sizes in public schools, emotional trauma/mental illness among unadopted kids in foster homes, etc. That's why people care what individuals do. It affects everyone.

But I do understand why people have kids. Heck, sometimes I really want kids of my own. My boyfriend has 3 and I don't think he's a terrible awful human being.

Just from a rather cold and rational perspective, yeah. He's right.

Just clarifying the argument.

Not to turn this into a political debate, but we have plenty of resources, but our government is harvesting a lot of things, why? Their is a guide stone that wants to depopulate the earth, but yet there is plenty of land and plenty of resources. I think having kids when you can take care of them without relying on the government is very selfish, but I don't agree that having kids is all that selfish but then again I'm a believer in God and his word and he tells us to go and populate.

No, there are not plenty of resources or land. At our current rate we may hit critical population levels in a century. And having kids is inherently selfish because we do it, biologically, to pass on our genetics.

When it comes to "sheer space" and "places to grow food," we have barely touched what the earth has available. Given that the earth contains just north of 7 billion people, the entire population of the planet could easily fit into the state of Texas, which contains less than 0.14% of the earth's land area.

According to the U.N. Population Database, the world's population in 2010 should have been 6,908,688,000. The landmass of Texas is 268,820 sq mi (7,494,271,488,000 sq ft).

So, divide 7,494,271,488,000 sq ft by 6,908,688,000 people, and you get 1084.76 sq ft/person. That's approximately a 33' x 33' plot of land for every person on the planet, enough space for a town house.

Given an average four person family, every family would have a 66' x 66' plot of land, which would comfortably provide a single family home and yard -- and all of them fit on a landmass the size of Texas. Admittedly, it'd basically be one massive subdivision, but Texas is a tiny portion of the inhabitable Earth.

Such an arrangement would leave the entire rest of the world vacant. There's plenty of space for humanity.

NormInv

Well at my job, I deal with mortality and fertility trends. The one most interesting fact is that there is an inverse relationship between intelligence and fertility (you can do a google search on this and find articles). There is also an inverse relationship between education (not the same as intelligence) and fertility. What we find is that more intelligent and more educated people are making fewer babies. So one concern is that in another 50 years, our collective IQ is going to be even smaller. And imagine what that world would look like.

Secondly, I am guessing many of you have NOT been to Chicago south side. We have problems of gangs, poverty, violence, child prostitution etc. The more babies you have, the more money the government sends your way, so you are incentivized to make more babies who grow up with no education, no prospects, and fall into the hands of the gangs.

So the problems are not in the affluent areas of Texas or Manhattan o Chicago. But the problem of unconstrained childbirth are primarily observed in the poor neighborhoods of the urban areas.

Some of my earlier comments were not meant to be so harsh or cut and dry. I am known to have a dry wit. And I feel terrible if I offend someone.

_Emma_Problema_

PS: I hated my anthropology courses. I can't lie. I worked way harder in those courses.

OK. I'm way to tired to try to respond to all of your points, but I get them and understand them. And I understand that I have my own bias in my views on motherhood as someone who values education over procreation and saw a lot of girls in the community I worked in drop out to have kids. But yeah. I'm way too tired to continue this debate but I believe we've reached a happy agreement where I understand where you're coming from and you understand my perspective.

Oh and anthro came pretty easy to me and it's my academic passion. It gives me immense pain that you hated your anthro coursework, especially if it was cultural anthro. I can see how evolution and physical anthro can be crazy boring if you aren't a bone person. I want to prepare a reading list, especially if you're into understanding privaledge. On of my fave ethnographies deals with the selling of crack and how it connects to societal inequities and social capital.

FlaxMilk

I know I worked for my education and career, but I know my friends that are parents work way harder than I did.

then obviously your education wasnt that challenging. im talking about advanced degrees in science.

Again, your opinion. The genius I'm thinking of worked for his "advanced degree in science" but would be lost trying to parent. "Challenging" is often defined on what doesn't come naturally to you. A friend of mine who has both (advanced degree in science, all hail, and a father has never looked so exhausted since becoming a father of three. He worked hard for his degree and continues to work hard at his career. If I had to ask him which was the more challenging AND which was the greater accomplishment, I believe I know which he'd pick.) Even for people who naturally want to be parents and are naturally great at it, it's still very, very, very challenging. And it should be.

TheFitHooker

Well at my job, I deal with mortality and fertility trends. The one most interesting fact is that there is an inverse relationship between intelligence and fertility (you can do a google search on this and find articles). There is also an inverse relationship between education (not the same as intelligence) and fertility. What we find is that more intelligent and more educated people are making fewer babies. So one concern is that in another 50 years, our collective IQ is going to be even smaller. And imagine what that world would look like.

Secondly, I am guessing many of you have NOT been to Chicago south side. We have problems of gangs, poverty, violence, child prostitution etc. The more babies you have, the more money the government sends your way, so you are incentivized to make more babies who grow up with no education, no prospects, and fall into the hands of the gangs.

So the problems are not in the affluent areas of Texas or Manhattan o Chicago. But the problem of unconstrained childbirth are primarily observed in the poor neighborhoods of the urban areas.

Some of my earlier comments were not meant to be so harsh or cut and dry. I am known to have a dry wit. And I feel terrible if I offend someone.

Well your open post was about why we have people with mom/wife in our names, and I honestly don't understand why it bothers you. Why let what someone else does, bother you? Now if you were just wondering what the point is, fair enough but some people feel very blessed to be a mom or wife.

I am very blessed to have my babies, they make my life feel complete and selfish to you or not, it doesn't bother me, they are my babies and I am very thankful for them.

Nico_the_enabler

what about wench. how do you feel about that?

_Emma_Problema_

When it comes to "sheer space" and "places to grow food," we have barely touched what the earth has available. Given that the earth contains just north of 7 billion people, the entire population of the planet could easily fit into the state of Texas, which contains less than 0.14% of the earth's land area.

According to the U.N. Population Database, the world's population in 2010 should have been 6,908,688,000. The landmass of Texas is 268,820 sq mi (7,494,271,488,000 sq ft).

So, divide 7,494,271,488,000 sq ft by 6,908,688,000 people, and you get 1084.76 sq ft/person. That's approximately a 33' x 33' plot of land for every person on the planet, enough space for a town house.

Given an average four person family, every family would have a 66' x 66' plot of land, which would comfortably provide a single family home and yard -- and all of them fit on a landmass the size of Texas. Admittedly, it'd basically be one massive subdivision, but Texas is a tiny portion of the inhabitable Earth.

Such an arrangement would leave the entire rest of the world vacant. There's plenty of space for humanity.

You're throwing numbers at a problem that has lots of ecological, as well as political and social implications. People don't randomly stake out spaces to live. The live in cities and in communities. Also, you're talking about a lot of rain forest and other ecosystems that really shouldn't be plotted out for humanity to live in and use for agriculture.

TheFitHooker

All land at one time was a rain forest or something, trees had to be cut down to make place to live, they are still being cut down to make places. I'm not debating, I say keep populating, we aren't over populated and we won't be, people die every day, people are born every day, it's a way of life that has always been and always will be, and nothing anyone says will stop it.

usernameMAMA

I'm guessing it is because they know their place.

hahahahaha! Winning!