“I am SO OVER a social issue only mattering when it affects (1) men or (2) middle-class people or (3) both at the same time. If you think women are truly consenting to the trafficking of our children, you. are. dreaming.
Everyone works against us keeping our kids. We must be (1)married, (2) possessing of a doctorate degree, and (3) independently wealthy before we are considered fully fit mothers. And EVERYONE is guilty of this mentality: right-wing Christians (well, maybe they'll concede about the doctorate-degree thing), conservatives, liberals, AND pro-choicers. Think about the rhetoric the pro-choice groups use to justify keeping abortion legal: very rarely is it ever about a woman's right to medical consent. It's always about her social and economic situation rendering her "unfit."
With all of society working against us, how can we consent? If you want fathers' rights upheld, here's a crazy idea: Quit violating the rights of mothers and children. Because at the end of the day we're treating family like a consumer product or a privilege, falsifying legal documents (birth certificates) and trafficking in children (even if the adoption agency says it's payment for services rendered, let's not be precious here). This has to stop. It's not my or any other woman's OR man's job to provide child-products to the infertile. Get a dog.”
Kristina Noetzelman on Sep 14, 2011 at 22:27:54
“Dana I disagree, I'm a 28 year old single mother who choose to keep my child against her father, and his mothers wishes. They both wanted me to get an abortion or give my child up. They talked to me many times and each time I said you can choose not to be involved, but i'm keeping my baby. It's up to women to choose, to stand up for themselves and their children against opposition.
I'm a right wing christian pro choicer and I believe that society should uphold and support women wanting to keep their children rather than making it impossible to raise them on our own. The sad thing is some women, especially in this situation young girls who don't want to give up their lives to raising a child don't want the ties to an ex, and a child they didn't want. By giving it up they cut clear ties, by giving it to an ex they're giving him something he wants, and there's always gonna be that link to them.
And I don't think we need to say we're only going to uphold mens rights when we uphold womens. I don't think two wrongs are gonna make a right in this situation, and i'm sorry, but when a man has been involved in the pregnancy, shown the desire to support his child by buying baby clothes, and gear they're showing an interest, and these women knowing that have gone behind their backs and sold their children.”
“He was abandoned by his *culture*. His parents would have never gotten it into their heads that they were not fit to raise him had the culture not been pounding that into them from early life onward. And it's still doing that today. Even liberals are guilty of it. "If you are not independently wealthy and possessing of perfect morals, you shouldn't have kids." Upon this attitude is the entire adoption industry built, and never mind that people who adopt children are not perfect human specimens either.”
“And I'm going to ask another obvious question. Too many young women are emotionally, financially, and socially coerced into giving up their babies in *infant* adoption (not even concerning foster care) because they're single or they're poor. Society says they are unfit mothers because they're unmarried and broke. But we allow adopters to adopt who are unmarried and who can't afford the bills when they wind up with a troubled child. If you don't think you are able to handle any possible contingency with a child once you adopt them, why are you adopting? I understand why adopters are held to a different standard than someone giving birth--the connection between adult and child is very different. (If you have never had children, you will disagree with me. That's because you don't know from personal experience. If you've had biological kids and still disagree with me, you're being dishonest, period. I didn't say your relationship with your adopted kids was a bad one, just that it's different.) But why are adopters held to a lower standard when it comes to the stated reasons so many biological parents relinquish? If you're single, you shouldn't adopt. If you're young (early 20s) you shouldn't adopt. If you're poor, forget it. If we spent more money on helping original families keep their kids who want them, we wouldn't have so many troubled kids in the foster care system. And believe it or not, a lot of these original families DO want their kids.”
“I suppose I should ask the obvious question here. Why is adoption the only answer for any troubled kid? The older ones in particular already know they lost their original families. You can't erase that by falsifying their birth certificates. That is exactly what adoption is and it is the *only* thing adoption is. There's no reason an adult can't take on permanent guardianship of a child for the purposes of raising that child to adulthood. Nothing stops you except state law. State law can be changed.
If the states are refusing to support adoptive parents *because* they have adopted, the obvious answer is to stop adopting and become permanent foster parents instead. Like I said, the kids already know you aren't their original parents. It does not matter.”
“The problem is that when you are who you are, you get punished for it. Women already have societal permission to wear nail polish. But when courts decree that it is acceptable for employers to *fire* you for not wearing nail polish, we have a problem.
Oh wait, you didn't know about that? My bad. Get on with your feminism, then.”
“The issue of fitting into the social norm and the issue of how you feel about yourself are two entirely different things. And you *don't* fit into the social norm if you don't primp. You can have all the confidence in the world and still be passed over for stuff that matters to you, just because someone else judges you for not plucking your brows. If we judged rapists as harshly as we did women who are not height/weight proportionate, the world would be a very different place.”
thelilithian on Aug 18, 2011 at 16:43:05
“"If we judged rapists as harshly as we did women who are not height/weight proportionate, the world would be a very different place."
“Political: the way women who do not primp are more likely to be passed over for jobs, meaning a decline in political power, since we don't have the money to back it up.
Economic: the above, plus the fact that if we buy into the mainstream perception of "proper" female appearance, we spend much more money on grooming than men do, and we are already paid less for the same work.
Social: It's a stretch, just barely, to say that a woman being considered unattractive for not being made up to the nines is social? How is it *not* social?
Maybe if you'd stop bashing feminists for long enough, you'd figure out that equality is not a zero-sum game, and that calling men on their sexism is an attempt at helping them, not a bash. Unless you think men are *entitled* to be sexist, and that it would harm them to stop.”
“What, just women? Men are just as bad, if not worse. I could count on one hand the number of men who have actually appreciated me for my mind. And I've dated a lot of men in the 20 years I've been dating and married and divorced and so on. They have their guy friends to appreciate. For most of them, that's not what we're for.
I'm tired of women always being blamed for stupid societal stuff when we didn't set it up this way in the first place. I know some women get all Stockholm Syndrome about the way things are, but honestly... men don't help!”
“Devil's advocate argument: How in the world is wearing makeup, short skirts, and heels "thinking outside the box"? Honey, you are so far in the box. And it's locked shut. And has bars over the windows. And you keep being handed the key and you keep throwing it away.
Why yes, I *am* fat. And ugly. (But heterosexual. I don't *completely* fit the stereotype.) But the point is, I should not have to look like a Barbie doll to be considered fully human. And who the hell are you to dictate what "attractive" is, anyway? You *must* wear makeup, you *must* wear high heels, and you *must* never age to be attractive? Really? (Go look up some photos of actress Elisabeth Sladen from her later years, for crying out loud.)
I suppose you could do all that primping and be a feminist, but (1) if you insist on chasing after guys who will only date a woman who does those things, and, (2) if you have to ask yourself whether it's feminist, do you really need to ask?
Why isn't being clean and neatly groomed good enough for us? It's good enough for men.
Not to mention what some of those "beauty products" do to the human body. Yeah, there are natural alternatives... and they're pricey. We already get paid less than guys do. This is just one more idiotic thing chipping away at our long-term security.
“I'm not giving up meat because of this. It would be just as logical if I gave up sprouts, spinach, and peanut butter. (OK, I don't eat peanut butter anyway anymore, but you know what I mean.) But as soon as feasible I'll be purchasing my food from farmers' markets and grass-finishing ranchers instead of Kroger. I was already mad at them for adulterating the heavy cream I used to buy from them with skim milk. Skim milk in cream. I don't think so. What I get now is from a grass-fed dairy and it's nothing but cream, no gums even, and is cheaper per ounce than Kroger's watered-down crap. But I'm not the one with the grocery dollars so I only have so much influence over where we source things. Hopefully I will change that soon.”
“I still drink pasteurized milk but it is low-temp pasteurized at 175 degrees F. After several months of using that local brand I tried some Kroger milk one day. It was so disgusting, and it hadn't even gone bad. So, people, kagu here is NOT exaggerating. The dairy I use not only is low-temp but also their milk is very fresh. I can only imagine that raw milk would be that much better. Plus the cows are on pasture, something else Kroger doesn't do.”
“You live in an industrially built house, wearing clothes made by slaves from halfway around the world, get to and from work in a car, are typing your little screed on a computer and you presume to tell us we shouldn't drink milk because it's unnatural.
By the way, you missed one. Pigs will drink milk too. Now you're torn between comparing human beings to pigs and defending pigs as intelligent animals. That's got to be a lousy way to start your day.
Also by-the-by, not all dairy products have lactose in them. And if the milk is raw, it is far more likely to ferment than to spoil, which means there are lactic acid bacteria already in the milk eating up that lactose for you. I keep hearing story after story from raw milk drinkers about how their lactose intolerance magically cleared up after they switched away from pasteurized. Too bad I don't get to try that yet, since the government thinks it's OK that I die from raw spinach or raw sprouts but not that I benefit from raw milk.”
Untainted Love on Aug 8, 2011 at 02:10:34
“If one can consume milk products with no digestive or allergy issues, that's great. People who never stop drinking it from childhood are generally the ones who don't have a problem with it, but the natural development for mammals is to be weaned, and the body stops producing the chemicals needed to digest it. Once stopped this production never returns.
Here's a long but interesting read on milk, lactose intolerance is far from the only issue:
“It wouldn't bother me if civilization itself died. It's nothing more than human domestication--making us dumber and more docile, like what's happened with other domesticated animals.
We can be properly socialized (what is meant by most people when they say "civilized") without being turned into dumb slaves and without having civilization. Which is what indigenous people were doing before the "civilized" people came along and destroyed them. Of the indigenous who did create civilizations, most of those civilizations had fallen and the remaining were greatly resented by the neighbors. A lesson for us, if we would learn it.”
“Which you can only do so far. It was a pre-industrial agricultural civilization that turned the cedar forest of Iraq into the desert it is today. You cannot expect people to live with "footprints" so tiny that we all die of malnutrition, and go insane from not enough personal space before then.”
“18 months? Pregnancies need to be spaced a good three to four years.
You should investigate Rep. King's connections, see if he's taking donations from the adoption industry. I bet that's what this is about. Poor women are desperate women, and are sitting ducks for adoption for that reason.”