Comments for Parenting Against the Patriarchy

Comment on Apparently women of “childbearing age” shouldn’t be allowed psych meds… by Dr Sarah

Dr Sarah — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 09:13:08 +0000

Anji, was this the article?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/9631088/Women-of-childbearing-age-should-not-be-allowed-to-take-antidepressants.html

Looking at what Howard’s quoted as saying here, there’s absolutely nothing to indicate that she’s calling for a blanket ban on all antidepressants. What she says is that *drugs that are known to be harmful in pregnancy* should be avoided in all women of childbearing age where possible, but that ultimately you need to weigh up the pros and cons in each case. That’s hardly the misogynistic, extreme view you and Philippa are attributing to her.

By the way, lesbians and infertile women do end up with unintended pregnancies as well. Rape can result in pregnancy, and not every woman is going to choose to abort. People do occasionally experiment with sexual partners who wouldn’t normally be their gender. Infertility isn’t an absolute – there are women who take many years to conceive and are diagnosed as infertile, but eventually get pregnant. I agree that we shouldn’t assume that anyone is heterosexual, but that’s not the same as dismissing the chance that they could get pregnant.

Comment on “That’s sexism against fathers!” by Garp

Garp — Sat, 22 Dec 2012 22:45:09 +0000

What you are totally ignoring is how children are used.as a weapon or at least a negotiating tool in divorce. The ‘dudes’ I last spoke to were living in bus stations and travelling around on London’s night buses all night because they had nowhere to live. Any responsible divorce lawyer will advise female clients to use the children against the father, in the US this is known as the H Bomb. Even if the father is a stay a home dad the mother can get custody of the children (and get the father kicked out the family home) by suggesting that he poses a risk to her or the children. No proof is required that the father does pose a risk, the mother merely has to suggest that he might pose a risk.

When the situation comes to the courts it is because two sides are battling and it’s just niave to assume that sides won’t use every weapon in the armoury.

The system is skewed in favour of the mother in family breakups. It is she who will have the final decision on the fate of the children and her ex-husband. Individual women may take advantage or exploit this, others may seek to do what is in the interests of the children. Some fathers may can contributed little to the upbringing of their children and see custody as just point-scoring or a way of getting back at their ex-wives. Some may be self-pitying fools. But referring to “some dude” “moaning” does your argument no good at all. It just smacks of silly viciousness.

The sexism that does exist in the system doesn’t favour men, it favours the most unscrupulous of women. You seem to have no interest in changing the system but who rather tell a group of people you have no sympathy for to stop whining. What’s the point in that?

Comment on You’ll never truly be “child free” by Olenix

Olenix — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 05:55:32 +0000

Humans at all stages of life are both good and bad. It is hard not to discriminate one kind or the other. I mean, I would consider myself to be a person merely without a child (by choice) rather than “childless” or “childfree,” who hopes to some degree that he/she/it respects those with children and the children themselves. There are always going to be people who have children and those who do not. Obviously I have my opinions on child discrimination, which I cannot define in words because this is a rather broad matter for me to comprehend. Perhaps I could say that the parents who make the decision to have children at least try understand where their child is best suited in society and adapt so they may grow up well without as much discrimination, but know that discrimination will exist, and for those who choose to not have children, they also try to understand that there will always be children, and learn to adapt as well so that they may be part of a suitable environment for the young humans who are learning and growing like all of us. To me I feel empathic to people of all ages/genders/races and try to understand too many points of view at once (and it is hard to understand because I am only human myself), even though people have not understood that about me. I like to feel connected with people, and often cannot tell the difference between my “blood family” and “other people.” I am not social though. I think everyone’s point is valid on some level. Thank you for the thoughts on the matter. I know this comment is a bit broad, but all the opinions have helped me.

Comment on You’ll never truly be “child free” by Confused

Confused — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:34:38 +0000

Judging by your post it seems that you’re arguing that we should treat children and give them the same rights to choose where to be, what to do, etc as adults (because currently when they do NOT have all of these rights, they are discriminated against according to you). What is your view on statutory rape? It seems such a definition does not exist in your ideal world because if a child should be allowed to drop their education and get (or not) a job, why shouldn’t they choose to have sex with an older man or woman if they’d like to? I’m just trying to figure out what your point is with the list you made in your post of what I thought were perfectly logical “rules” placed onto children (eg kids having to finish their education, etc).

Comment on You’ll never truly be “child free” by therantingslut

therantingslut — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 06:28:02 +0000

I’m fine with kids being allowed everywhere as long as the parents of those kids don’t mind their kid hearing the c word. Get mad and I can come up with a big, long, fancy rant about how you are discriminating against me too.

Comment on You’ll never truly be “child free” by Cadillac Rick

Cadillac Rick — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 03:57:26 +0000

Sing it sister

Comment on You’ll never truly be “child free” by Cadillac Rick

Cadillac Rick — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 03:53:10 +0000

This is so fucking bat shit crazy. Look if I dont want a child in my place of business thay mean no children, I have my reasons. There loud, smell like shit and piss, and I dont want some parents giving me the look of disappointment when I curse or talk about a woman I want to fuck so hard she will walk funny for a week.

Comment on You’ll never truly be “child free” by Meghin,

Meghin, — Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:36:28 +0000

I think I wouldn’t want a four-year old in a nightclub because they’re open late at night, noisy, and full of drunk people. It’s not good for the child, and the people there aren’t attending to spend time with children
But You don’t care, much, about logic and facts. You just want to feel righteous.
Forcing people to stay in their house if they don’t want to hear wailing is worse discrimination than them wanting children to stay quiet or have them removed until they calm down.

Comment on You’ll never truly be “child free” by Ashley

Ashley — Sun, 11 Nov 2012 17:33:17 +0000

Where are these magical, child free places?? You must tell me. As a 25 year old female, I would pay through the damn nose to find even a single restaurant that was child free. I would happily welcome childfree businesses and locations.

Nothing worse than being forced to listen to someone else’s wailing crotchfruit -.-

Comment on You’ll never truly be “child free” by allen

allen — Sun, 11 Nov 2012 16:59:03 +0000

I hate kids. I really do.