All male Fox News panel freak out over the numbers of women providing the main income in households

[Something Amyss]

MSNBC is the liberal Fox News Channel (and arguably just as insane).

Come now, we don't need false equivalence up in here. MSNBC's news segment, which is most of their day, doesn't run to the left significantly at all (unlike Fox News, they run stories against their 'liberal interests' despite some of them not even being true, like the Shirley Sharrod instance or the false ACORN scandal). And while their commentary team is certainly liberal, I'd really like to see some equivalence to the actual actions and claims of Fox News.

...But I won't hold my breath. When pressed for examples of religious bias in MSNBC, the best people seem to come up with is Rachel Maddow saying the national day of prayer violates the first amendment. And if liberal bias is simply pointing out that we are supposed to have no state sponsorship of religion, then...Well, fuck it, I welcome liberal bias. But that's not the equivalent of the constant Jesus fellatio of Fox News.

There's a reason Fox News viewers tend to be among the most misinformed in polls pretty routinely (Yes, I know, Bill ORLY pointed to an exception). Actually, I'd kind of like to know what misinformation there is on the left that equates to things such as the following:

-That we found WMD in Iraq.
-That Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11.
-That our President was born in another country.
-That it's relevant, given our current definition of citizenship.
-That Obama has not only raised taxes, but significantly so.
-That you will go to jail for not having healthcare (One that not only did Bill lie about, but lied about lying about....)


MSNBC isn't the kind of journalism we should expect (nor is anything on television), but there is absolutely NO equivalent to Fox on the left (again, on television).

 

[Stu35]

And he probably is, but we don't feel in our right enviroment. I have been working with children for four years so it is not that we can't do it, but it really doen't come natural

Neither does driving cars, flying in planes, or eating 'meat' that has been heavily processed.

We seem to manage with those things though.

 

[Berithil]

Good lord...

The vitriol in this thread!

Yes, those men are closed minded and biased in their opinions, but I'm seeing equally closed minded and biased comments from this thread, not just towards Fox News, but toward Conservatives as a whole. I'm a "conservative" (technically), and since I have liberal friends, I've been able to remove the thought that all liberals have the misconception that "All conservatives are racist, sexist, homophobic bigots who are so stuck in the past, they must have the secret to time travel", but this thread is causing that thought to creep back.

I have no problem with women working.

I have no problem with a woman being the main bread winner.

I feel like I shouldn't have to make that statement, but just in case someone decides they want to jump down my throat simply because I said "I'm a conservative".

/rant

snippy

And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that life choice. Though I'm sure there are going to be some people here who hate it simply because it's a "traditional" lifestyle.


Man, this thread has really left a bad taste in my mouth. I remember why I avoid the politics and religion sub-forum.

[sub]The above post is not aimed at everyone, but the thread in general. I've also seen some civil comments, too[/sub]

 

[Yuuki]

I know everybody will disagree with me but that's my opinion.

As a man, I'd just like to say that I believe that all marriage duties are shared among all members of the marriage. Household maintenance? Everyday chores? Putting money on the table every day? Taking care of the children? Everything is the responsibility of all members of the marriage.

Soz if you've posted other stuff since this one but I haven't bothered digging through 10 pages :S

Anyway what you said is not only highly impractical but borderline impossible, I'm getting a feeling you're not actually married and don't actually know what having kids is like. Duties are "shared" in the sense that one person gets certain duties while another person gets other duties. Asking both people to share ALL duties exactly 50/50 will not only work, it's plain silly because families don't work like calculators.
Who is doing the household work and everyday chores? Not the one who's out at work, because obviously they're away from home a lot. Who's putting money on the table every day? Not the one who's looking after the house and children obviously, they're not working!

If I ever have kids I'm going to make sure either me or my partner are available to look after those kids for the first ~3-4 years of their life pretty much 24/7 (I hate daycares or nannies), which is going to mean either me or my partner are going to have to drop our jobs or switch to something part-time (or work from home). Sacrifices need to be made and that's how family duties are shared.

Anyway that's all I had to say, carry on

 

[Chemical Alia]

And he probably is, but we don't feel in our right enviroment. I have been working with children for four years so it is not that we can't do it, but it really doen't come natural

Dealing with children comes as "naturally" for me as the hole drilled through one of my wrist bones that has the ligament weaved through from the other side. And slightly less comfortable.

There's nothing about me being female that makes me "better" at dealing with children. If you're rarely around children, don't grow up with many of them in your family, or never have to talk to, pick up, or watch them, of course it's going to be awkward when you do. Jesus Christ, even my mom's dog knows this. Incidentally, my mom's dog also jumps on small children because she thinks they're squirrels.

 

[Something Amyss]

I've been able to remove the thought that all liberals have the misconception that "All conservatives are racist, sexist, homophobic bigots who are so stuck in the past, they must have the secret to time travel", but this thread is causing that thought to creep back.

I'd be interested to see if you an pull up even one quote that actually supports that. To keep this line of argument short and to the point, I'll just point out that when people say "conservatives" they generally mean the body as a whole, not every member or a given individual member. Saying things like:

I have no problem with women working.

I have no problem with a woman being the main bread winner.

Doesn't change the fact that the body as a whole supports what are called "traditional" values (though many of thes evalues are relatively new and have little to no actual root in tradition).

I feel like I shouldn't have to make that statement, but just in case someone decides they want to jump down my throat simply because I said "I'm a conservative".

Maybe you shouldn't label yourself so narrowly. For example, if I were to call myself a liberal, I might similarly have to explain that I don't think corporations are evil, I don't want to take away everyone's guns and I don't mind the death penalty so much as the kangaroo courts we use to get TO the death penalty.

On more modern political spectrum tests, I usually fall somewhere in the "libertarian" camp, but then I'd have to explain that I'm not like the Ron Paul camp. And, for that matter, that I'm not a sociopath. I'm also kind of a weak libertarian, since I have certain "socialist" beliefs, but if I call myself a socialist, I have to qualify that I don't believe in...Well, that's a laundry list.

It's almost like I'm an individual with complex beliefs that are probably not described well by a single, one word term or something. Join us, comrade, in this brave new world where you are more than the sum of a single-word phrase. And maybe then, just maybe, you will be less offended by people acting with disdain towards the neanderthal brethren that occupy the base of the movement. The people who vote, the people who poll, the people who speak out profess different ideologies than you and there will be commentary on those beliefs.

And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that life choice. Though I'm sure there are going to be some people here who hate it simply because it's a "traditional" lifestyle.

There is a saying, perhaps you've heard of it. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." And you've already decided to go painting people as being axiomatically opposed to a concept without any real evidence. You're asserting certainty of prejudice even as you're complaining about prejudice. To quote Nathan Fillion:

 

[Yuuki]

Dealing with children comes as "naturally" for me as the hole drilled through one of my wrist bones that has the ligament weaved through from the other side. And slightly less comfortable.

There's nothing about me being female that makes me "better" at dealing with children. If you're rarely around children, don't grow up with many of them in your family, or never have to talk to, pick up, or watch them, of course it's going to be awkward when you do. Jesus Christ, even my mom's dog knows this. Incidentally, my mom's dog also jumps on small children because she thinks they're squirrels.

Assuming you're healthy, your biology and primal instincts beg to differ.

Carrying around a living breathing child inside one's own body for 9 months and giving birth to it brings a mother and child closer than any emotional bond could possibly describe. From the very beginning of conception the both the woman's mind and body go through some pretty spectacular changes that 99% of the time WILL bring out at least some level of motherly instincts (again, assuming they're health/"normal"). It's something nature has had millions of years to perfect and while you insist that you find kids awkward to deal with (and I'm sure you do), those feelings are rarely anything more than emotions on the surface.

Meanwhile men don't have any such biological processes going on, no spurts of hormonal activity that "prepares" them to become fathers. Their bodies or minds don't go through any change during those 9 months. The tensions and the stress of fatherhood are purely emotional with no biological impacts.

While I have slightly exaggerated the above differences between men and women, it is undeniable that women are naturally better caretakers of children and are even biologically equipped to do so (breastfeeding, which is still the best food in existence for babies aged up to 2 years, that one's a no-brainer).
That fact still holds past early years into daycare and kindergarten, where the caretakers/teachers are overwhelmingly female - why do you think this is the case, hmmm? Is it a fluke that children have just happened to respond better to women through the history of civilization?

Not saying you have to get into any of that, there are tons of women like you. Just pointing out the obvious

 

[Something Amyss]

If I ever have kids I'm going to make sure either me or my partner are available to look after those kids for the first ~3-4 years of their life pretty much 24/7 (I hate daycares or nannies), which is going to mean either me or my partner are going to have to drop our jobs or switch to something part-time (or work from home).

And that's not mutually exclusive with the concept of sharing the responsibility and duty equally. Sorry, but both people CAN compromise their work load. It can and does happen.

also, it's funny that you're commenting on how that guy must not have a family and acting definitive when you admittedly don't have one either. What makes your experience so much more valid, then?

And he probably is, but we don't feel in our right enviroment. I have been working with children for four years so it is not that we can't do it, but it really doen't come natural

Dealing with children comes as "naturally" for me as the hole drilled through one of my wrist bones that has the ligament weaved through from the other side. And slightly less comfortable.

There's nothing about me being female that makes me "better" at dealing with children. If you're rarely around children, don't grow up with many of them in your family, or never have to talk to, pick up, or watch them, of course it's going to be awkward when you do. Jesus Christ, even my mom's dog knows this. Incidentally, my mom's dog also jumps on small children because she thinks they're squirrels.

Small, pink squirrels with no tails?

Anyway, the interesting thing is that it's sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Women are socialised to be better with children because of the stereotype that women are better with children, so you end up with a lot more women who are good with children and a society that trusts women more with children. Nothing "natural" here, this is a strong case of "nurture."

 

[Lieju]

And he probably is, but we don't feel in our right enviroment. I have been working with children for four years so it is not that we can't do it, but it really doen't come natural

You probably should not speak for all men.
You might not feel natural working with kids, but a lot of men do.

And even if they don't, they can still make the effort because sometimes in life you need to do things you'd rather not.

Anyway, the interesting thing is that it's sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Women are socialised to be better with children because of the stereotype that women are better with children, so you end up with a lot more women who are good with children and a society that trusts women more with children. Nothing "natural" here, this is a strong case of "nurture."

And don't forget that even women who aren't good with kids or interested in having them will be told there's something wrong with them, so in many cultures through time those women weren't open about it.

Even today, not having an immediate connection to your child is still a taboo for the mother, and since we are taught mothers will just instinctively know how to deal with a baby and do things like breastfeed.

 

[Yuuki]

And that's not mutually exclusive with the concept of sharing the responsibility and duty equally. Sorry, but both people CAN compromise their work load. It can and does happen.

also, it's funny that you're commenting on how that guy must not have a family and acting definitive when you admittedly don't have one either. What makes your experience so much more valid, then?

He seemed to be implying that it is some kind of rule for all duties to be equally split amongst the couple. I was merely pointing out that such a rule rarely works for couples.
I'll admit I was raised by my parents and both were working part-time, juggling me around with their work shifts or calling close friends/relatives to look after me when shifts didn't work out (tough times!). They were, in essence, doing something fairly close to splitting up more or less all responsibilities 50/50.
But I hardly think it's ideal for the baby, constantly getting bounced between mother and father and facing two different personalities so early in life. In my case I would prefer if either me or my partner could stay at home, preferably the mother because...well, reasons (described few posts above).

 

[Therarchos]

And he probably is, but we don't feel in our right enviroment. I have been working with children for four years so it is not that we can't do it, but it really doen't come natural

I don't think you're using the word "natural" right here.

For a lack of a better term. We manage and doesn't always do bad, but we could "naturally" be way better

 

[Chemical Alia]

Dealing with children comes as "naturally" for me as the hole drilled through one of my wrist bones that has the ligament weaved through from the other side. And slightly less comfortable.

There's nothing about me being female that makes me "better" at dealing with children. If you're rarely around children, don't grow up with many of them in your family, or never have to talk to, pick up, or watch them, of course it's going to be awkward when you do. Jesus Christ, even my mom's dog knows this. Incidentally, my mom's dog also jumps on small children because she thinks they're squirrels.

Assuming you're healthy, your biology and primal instincts beg to differ.

Carrying around a living breathing child inside one's own body for 9 months and giving birth to it brings a mother and child closer than any emotional bond could possibly describe. From the very beginning of conception the both the woman's mind and body go through some pretty spectacular changes that 99% of the time WILL bring out at least some level of motherly instincts (again, assuming they're health/"normal"). It's something nature has had millions of years to perfect and while you insist that you find kids awkward to deal with (and I'm sure you do), those feelings are rarely anything more than emotions on the surface.

Meanwhile men don't have any such biological processes going on, no spurts of hormonal activity that "prepares" them to become fathers. Their bodies or minds don't go through any change during those 9 months.

While I have slightly exaggerated the above differences between men and women, it is undeniable that women are naturally better caretakers of very small children and are even biologically equipped to do so (breastfeeding, which is still the best food in existence for babies aged up to 2 years, that one's a no-brainer).

This may sound a little crazy, but how my body is shaped and what is "equipped to do" has very little bearing on how I go about my life. I've never given birth, never desired to give birth, never even played with dolls, and if some magic instincts were telling me to care for and nuture kids when I see them, I'm pretty sure I'd have noticed them at some point in my thirty years. Also I'm quite sure that I'm perfectly healthy. Women who are already pregnant generally actually want to be mothers in the first place, so that might have something to do with it.

I dunno, this whole thing just strikes me as pretty insulting to all the men out there who are naturally great with children and wonderful fathers despite the lack of the ability to breastfeed and pregger hormones or whatever.

 

[LittleThestral]

Carrying around a living breathing child inside one's own body for 9 months and giving birth to it brings a mother and child closer than any emotional bond could possibly describe. From the very beginning of conception the both the woman's mind and body go through some pretty spectacular changes that 99% of the time WILL bring out at least some level of motherly instincts (again, assuming they're health/"normal"). It's something nature has had millions of years to perfect and while you insist that you find kids awkward to deal with (and I'm sure you do), those feelings are rarely anything more than emotions on the surface.

Meanwhile men don't have any such biological processes going on, no spurts of hormonal activity that "prepares" them to become fathers. Their bodies or minds don't go through any change during those 9 months. The tensions and the stress of fatherhood are purely emotional with no biological impacts.

While I have slightly exaggerated the above differences between men and women, it is undeniable that women are naturally better caretakers of children and are even biologically equipped to do so (breastfeeding, which is still the best food in existence for babies aged up to 2 years, that one's a no-brainer).

From this, I can conclude the following:

1) Gay men are unfit parents because neither of them can be "properly nurturing".
2) A lesbian mother who did not carry the child is not as nurturing as a 'real' mother due to lack of magical pregnancy hormones.
3) Fathers have no real, deep ties to their children because, again, lack of magical pregnancy hormones.
4) Adoptive mothers are not as fit as birth mothers because (say it with me) lack of magical pregnancy hormones.

If I ever have kids I'm going to make sure either me or my partner are available to look after those kids for the first ~3-4 years of their life pretty much 24/7 (I hate daycares or nannies), which is going to mean either me or my partner are going to have to drop our jobs or switch to something part-time (or work from home). Sacrifices need to be made and that's how family duties are shared.

Wait...mothers are more fit to tend to children they've birthed, but you're thinking you may be the caretaker of the kids? So are you trying to scar them?


I grew up in a really dysfunctional family; my mother may have given birth to me, but she was NOT a fit parent for it. She's excessively temperamental and takes everything as a slight against her. Meanwhile, my dad's the more compassionate, level-headed one who genuinely loves me despite my going against his beliefs (I'm an atheist, he is fundamentalist Christian) and who does not lash out at me when I do the least little thing wrong.

The plural of anecdote is not data, but the extrapolation of one-sided bias is not truth. Saying that women are more nurturing because hormones and not at all to do with social conditioning is like saying women don't do well in math because tiny woman brains.

 

[Phasmal]

Why do these threads always turn into `lets say dumb sweeping generalisations about gender!`.
Ugh.

Men are perfectly capable of caring for children just as well as women. And I say this as a person who has worked in several nurseries.
And what made me pick nursery work?
Was it magic lady hormones?
Or was it the fact my education wasn't great and the only thing I had any experience in was looking after kids because I have several younger siblings which I had a good portion of responsibility for?

Who knows.

 

[Sabitsuki]

Anyway, the interesting thing is that it's sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Women are socialised to be better with children because of the stereotype that women are better with children, so you end up with a lot more women who are good with children and a society that trusts women more with children. Nothing "natural" here, this is a strong case of "nurture."

Yes. Thank you.
We live in a society that constantly hammers women over the head with the idea that one day they will have children, one day children will be part of their life, that they waste their life if at some point they don't produce and care for their own offspring.
On top of that, we live in a society that constantly presses the idea that taking care of a child is women's work, not men's. That men are meant to provide the food and shelter for the woman who is taking care of their child. That a man taking care of a child is doing women's work.

Of course certain genders seem more prepared for these roles when they are conditioned throughout their entire lives to be ready for them. We are making them that way.

 

[Chemical Alia]

Small, pink squirrels with no tails?

Anyway, the interesting thing is that it's sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Women are socialised to be better with children because of the stereotype that women are better with children, so you end up with a lot more women who are good with children and a society that trusts women more with children. Nothing "natural" here, this is a strong case of "nurture."

Haha, I never said she was smart v: Though I'll give her the pink part on account of her not perceiving colors. But yeah, it really is. I had dolls thrown at me for years as default birthday gifts even when everyone was perfectly aware that I wasn't into that kind of stuff. The way we socialize kids to bring out certain gendered behavior is so insidious and so common that it's no wonder that's what we see as what's normal and natural.

 

[Lieju]

EDIT: This means that the only change the government should make is stepping out of the issue. Instead of legalizing something, just not having the government decide the issue. This includes Gay Marriage and drug legalization, the government should just step out of it. It would make the solutions much easier, as both sides may get what they want.

Okay, I'm confused what you're arguing.

If you're saying that the government should not be involved in marriage at all, and heterosexual couples should not have anything like the current institution of marriage, fair enough.

That would be the government stepping out of the issue entirely.
Similarly, with certain substances, legalizing them would be stepping out of the issue. (Whether one thinks that's a good idea or not is different)

But I'm kinda confused on your use f the word 'legalize' here.

Surely legalizing drugs would be the government stepping out of the whole thing? they wouldn't be punishing people for it, or rewarding them?

 

[Bluestorm83]

There is a saying, perhaps you've heard of it. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

What happened next, then? Allow me to tell you. This woman, who was surrounded by a crowd who demanded her death, had been caught in the act of adultery. The crowd said that the scripture said "Surely she is to be put to death." This was inaccurate; the Scripture says "Surely THEY are to be put to death." Now, you can't be caught in adultery ALONE. By definition it requires at least one other person. Where was the man? Apparently, this crowd of men was only interested in punishing a woman, and letting one of their own go scott free. Jesus stooped to the ground, and began to write in the dirt with his finger. Please note that in the Book of the Exodus, the Ten Commandments were desribed as having been written in the stone with God's own finger. The implication is clear; the one who gave the Law in the first please is here, and He will make His judgment. THIS is when He said to them "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." After the crowd dispersed, Christ asked the woman "Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?" She replied, "No man, Lord." Then Jesus said to her, and this is the crux of the argument, "Neither to I condemn thee, GO, AND SIN NO MORE."

The message wasn't "Sin all you want, because nobody's any better." It was "you have received forgiveness, now live up to the grace, faith, and mercy that I've put forth for you."

If you plan on quoting scripture, please do more than toss out one sentence without context or explanation.

 

[Bluestorm83]

Anyway, the interesting thing is that it's sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Women are socialised to be better with children because of the stereotype that women are better with children, so you end up with a lot more women who are good with children and a society that trusts women more with children. Nothing "natural" here, this is a strong case of "nurture."

Yes. Thank you.
We live in a society that constantly hammers women over the head with the idea that one day they will have children, one day children will be part of their life, that they waste their life if at some point they don't produce and care for their own offspring.
On top of that, we live in a society that constantly presses the idea that taking care of a child is women's work, not men's. That men are meant to provide the food and shelter for the woman who is taking care of their child. That a man taking care of a child is doing women's work.

Of course certain genders seem more prepared for these roles when they are conditioned throughout their entire lives to be ready for them. We are making them that way.

You're partially right. Now, of course, Children come from Women. That's a basic fact that every woman should be aware of. Dudes can't have 'em. No way around that. However, historically and naturally, Men HAVE been the primary keepers of their children, at least certainly for their sons. The son would go into the fields or the workshop with his father, and would learn his father's work. Only recently, with the dawn of mass production, does dad go away in the morning and only come back at night when he's too tired to interact with his children. And that's a crime against nature. Fathers are supposed to be there for their children. So are mothers.

And as far as wasting your life if you don't have your own children, well, that's kind of a genetic fact. If you don't have children, everything that you physically ARE is gone when you die. But that's true for both men and women.

My basic point is that both genders need to cut the crap and be parents, and not just progenitors.