Female users with 'mommy' or 'wifey' in name
Replies
-
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?0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
what about wench. how do you feel about that?0
-
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.0 -
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.0
-
I'm guessing it is because they know their place.
hahahahaha! Winning!0 -
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.
True perhaps but when I only have 1 kid and the neighbor has 5, and the government asks me to give x% of my salary to them so they can feed their kids, I have to question whats going on.0 -
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.
True perhaps but when I only have 1 kid and the neighbor has 5, and the government asks me to give x% of my salary to them so they can feed their kids, I have to question whats going on.
Trust me, I already said this, I don't believe people who need to rely on the gov should be popping kids out, but honestly there isn't anything anyone can do about it unless the gov would stop giving to them, but don't see that happening.0 -
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.
Also doesnt take into account land area needed for commercial and industrial zones, waste areas, resource harvesting areas, etc.
Or that a large amount of space is necessary to maintain certain ecosystems.0 -
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.
I'm fine on the happy medium understanding. The anthro class I specifically had in mind was the one involving evolution/bones/etc. *Shudders*
Please don't worry about preparing me a reading list though. I honestly do limit the amount of personal information I share on the internet, but I'll leave it with "preaching to the choir."0 -
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.
I'm fine on the happy medium understanding. The anthro class I specifically had in mind was the one involving evolution. *Shudders*
Please don't worry about preparing me a reading list though. I honestly do limit the amount of personal information I share on the internet, but I'll leave it with "preaching to the choir."
That made me chuckle. Cat fight galore!0 -
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?
It was in relation to the "license" for having children. Which did appear to point towards the notion that people should undergo a process to determine if they are considered suitable to have children or not. I had meant to put it in bold, but it didn't post.0 -
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.
Wow. Aren't you the environmentalist? We need plants and animals to SUSTAIN OUR LIFE. You need that oxygen that the plants in the rain forest are giving you. You need those plants for medications and goods, even if you don't give a damn about any other creatures other than humans. How short sighted that view is.
And we very obviously are overpopulated. Look at China or India. Overpopulation is when an area can't sustain the population within it. I don't think you understand the meaning of overpopulation.
I'm really trying to hold my tongue about how completely uneducated you are about all of this. But seriously. Get off the internet and read a book NOW.
I realize I'm sounding extremely condescending but I'm 100% floored by how ignorant your responses have been.0 -
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.
No, there are plains areas, mountainous areas, etc. And they are now being harvested for wood or to clear area to extract other natural resources. And if the rate of death were greater than the rates of birth, there wouldnt be this issue.0 -
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?
It was in relation to the "license" for having children. Which did appear to point towards the notion that people should undergo a process to determine if they are considered suitable to have children or not. I had meant to put it in bold, but it didn't post.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
No one said that. Seriously, no one. No one has talked about whether people need to be deemed suitable. I don't even know what you're posting for. It's completely off-topic and no one in their right mind would suggest that. It would be pretty obviously a violation of human rights.0 -
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.
Wow. Aren't you the environmentalist? We need plants and animals to SUSTAIN OUR LIFE. You need that oxygen that the plants in the rain forest are giving you. You need those plants for medications and goods, even if you don't give a damn about any other creatures other than humans. How short sighted that view is.
And we very obviously are overpopulated. Look at China or India. Overpopulation is when an area can't sustain the population within it. I don't think you understand the meaning of overpopulation.
I'm really trying to hold my tongue about how completely uneducated you are about all of this. But seriously. Get off the internet and read a book NOW.
I realize I'm sounding extremely condescending but I'm 100% floored by how ignorant your responses have been.
Yeah, I can see it is a losing battle too.0 -
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?
It was in relation to the "license" for having children. Which did appear to point towards the notion that people should undergo a process to determine if they are considered suitable to have children or not. I had meant to put it in bold, but it didn't post.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
No one said that. Seriously, no one. No one has talked about whether people need to be deemed suitable. I don't even know what you're posting for. It's completely off-topic and no one in their right mind would suggest that. It would be pretty obviously a violation of human rights.
I did talk about licence to have babies. It wasnt supposed to be as cut and dry but the suggestion was certainly there that not everyone should be allowed to have a baby. I stand by it.0 -
That made me chuckle. Cat fight galore!
I won't lie and say I didn't enjoy it.0 -
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!
I don't see anything wrong with it. Being a wife or mother is an honorable and important role.
Frankly your implied denigration of something so staggering important by suggesting that people are selling themselves short by identifying as one is sounds more sexist to me than someone picking a screen name with 'mom' in it.
It basically comes across as "Oh you're a Mom? meh, what ELSE are you? Come back when you can put Scientist in your screen name."
Stop telling people who are perfectly happy that they're oppressing themselves. It's obnoxious and misguided.
No. Being a good mother is honorable. Getting pregnant and having a child is easy, especial given medical advances.
You really can't compare the achievement of being a PhD to being a mom.
That's kind of the point of the social sciences man. To look into why we work the way we do. No one said anything about telling people they're oppressing themselves, just that it's guided by an underlying patriarchal system.
Ignorant comment is ignorant.
Just because some people do a job badly doesn't mean the job has no value. Frankly I didn't think it was really worth stating that I meant being a good mother because why state the blatantly obvious.
Don't tell me that no one said anything about people oppressing themselves. You can't be the kind of person who uses phrases like 'patriarchal system' un-ironically and not understand that I was talking about my perception of the subtext of the OP. You're normally all about stuff like that.
In future if you're going to be this condescending at least have something to add to the discussion.0 -
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.
I'm fine on the happy medium understanding. The anthro class I specifically had in mind was the one involving evolution/bones/etc. *Shudders*
Please don't worry about preparing me a reading list though. I honestly do limit the amount of personal information I share on the internet, but I'll leave it with "preaching to the choir."
Lol. No one's trying to stalk you. Self-involved much?
Nothing like trying to make nice and have the other person shove it in your face to make you realize that first impressions are usually correct.0 -
In for side tracked thread.
mousemommy0 -
[/quote]
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.
[/quote]
I live in a rainforest. Works for me and the rest of SE Alaska.0 -
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
No one said that. Seriously, no one. No one has talked about whether people need to be deemed suitable. I don't even know what you're posting for. It's completely off-topic and no one in their right mind would suggest that. It would be pretty obviously a violation of human rights.
I did talk about licence to have babies. It wasnt supposed to be as cut and dry but the suggestion was certainly there that not everyone should be allowed to have a baby. I stand by it.
Oh. Ooops. Yeah, stop making this me/this side of the argument look bad. That's a pretty obvious issue with human rights. Every living person should be allowed to do whatever they want with their body, including their reproductive organs. And the idea that someone would be able to determine who "should" or "shouldn't have" children is plain wrong.
You can stand by it, but it's a morally wrong idea.0 -
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.
[/quote]
I live in a rainforest. Works for me and the rest of SE Alaska.
[/quote]
You have access to the internet how?0 -
i joined this site 4 years ago, just after the birth of my first child. That's probably why.0
-
This content has been removed.
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 435 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions