Female users with 'mommy' or 'wifey' in name
Options
Replies
-
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 discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 937 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions