this auld wan that's up the duff (3 Viewers)

[snakybus]

AKA "she's made her bed, now she has to lie in it", "it's her own fault for having sex in the first place", "if she didn't want to be punished, she should have thought of that before having sex, shouldn't she?" etc.

I dunno, sounds about right to me

 

[ITalkShite]

Can we make this thread less about the lectures and more about the sex? Sexier that way.

 

[jane]

Can we make this thread less about the lectures and more about the sex? Sexier that way.

Did you know that if you have sex in someone's mouth, a baby might come out the other end? Not sure who owns it, though. Guess it belongs to the one who spots it first.

 

[egg_]

It's funny how Ro is responding so much more politely to the men on this thread than to many of the women. Clearly, mazzyianne, we are just hysterical and no one should listen to us.

I'm only making an observation.

My arse you are dear.

Don't you think that Ro's manner towards you might have had something to do with your manner towards him? And haven't you noticed any difference between your manner towards him and Tom's?

 

[ITalkShite]

My arse you are dear.

Don't you think that Ro's manner towards you might have had something to do with your manner towards him? And haven't you noticed any difference between your manner towards him and Tom's?

Oh, you're for the high-jump now, bucko. Jane's spraying WD-40 onto her knuckles and limbering up for another monster post right now, I can smell it.

 

[egg_]

Y'know this thread almost ruined my evening on Friday cos it took me hours to stop thinking about it (despite the fact that is was my first full night alone with my wife since our child was born), and it lost me about 6 hours I couldn't afford to lose today. And for what? Just to try and get Jane (who is normally nice to everyone) to be nice to people when talking about this subject. It hasn't worked

 

[jane]

My arse you are dear.

Don't you think that Ro's manner towards you might have had something to do with your manner towards him? And haven't you noticed any difference between your manner towards him and Tom's?

I was referring to my posts in the earlier pages of this thread, before he chose to ignore what I was actually saying and focus on what he wanted me to have said so he could avoid my questions. Tom only joined a few pages ago, and asked the same questions Ro had been avoiding since about page 5, and they were answered immediately. He didn't need to get angry. He was taken seriously immediately and responded to, rather than reacted to, and totally dismissed which is what Ro did to me. He had a chance to respond politely, but he chose not to. I got angry, and so did a lot of people, and then it turned into an accusation that my 'tone' was somehow off, when actually, the real problem is not that I am angry, it is that these objectionable attitudes are rarely challenged because people are too afraid to say anything that might make the person who said them angry, and thus open themselves up to accusations that they are 'just as bad' because they got angry.

I have actually been answering the questions asked of me, even though it is understandably enraging to have to prove that the underlying reasons for these kinds of laws and perceptions exist. It's hard not to get angry, and I'm angry because they affect me directly. I'm not going to apologise because sometimes I choose not to discuss things with the detached reserve on the internet that is expected in a more 'official' arena. Ro has chosen to ignore just about everything I've said. He has not once acknowledged that I am not just sympathetic to fathers' rights, I am actually concerned that they are not often taken seriously enough, I just don't believe we can conflate them with the issue of a woman's reproductive rights.

What Ro proposed is outrageous, and I think most people on here agree. I think it's important to get angry about things like this, and not revert to some attitude that everyone's point is valid. Some simply are not, and when they continue to be asserted in such a simplistic and dismissive faction, and with a refusal to respond to any challenges, I think we not only have a right to get angry, we have a responsibility to do so. I take responsibility for my anger at the existence of outrageous attitudes, but I do not take responsibility for those attitudes themselves.

Is that monster enough for you, I Talk Shite?

 

[Buzzo]

Ro- you said that a man shoud get recourse through the courts. What would this entail? Money? How much money do you put on that? Would it not be tantamount to sueing someone for breaking up with them, given that the male may not have agreed to her ending something they created (the relationship) without his consent?

What about women who can't afford to pay the compensation? This is a back door into prison for economically disadvantaged women.

What about the fact that men generally have to pay maintenance for their child if they are not living with the mother? Would women who didn't want their child but were forced to give birth to it be obliged in the same manner, and if not, is that not grossly unequal to men who are fathers to children they don't want?

.
While intimately knowing women who are pregnant and have children may give you a better understanding of pregnancy and childbirth, I don't think it equates with an understanding of what it would mean to a woman who was forced into doing it, against her consent. I don't know if you can concieve how exploited and worthless a woman would feel in this circumstance. I don't think I can and I never, ever, ever want to understand it first hand.


I do understand the powerlessness you may feel under current legislation, but it's a biological issue, not a legal one. It is, I believe, inhumane to consider it otherwise.

 

[jane]

Y'know this thread almost ruined my evening on Friday cos it took me hours to stop thinking about it (despite the fact that is was my first full night alone with my wife since our child was born), and it lost me about 6 hours I couldn't afford to lose today. And for what? Just to try and get Jane (who is normally nice to everyone) to be nice to people when talking about this subject. It hasn't worked

Dude, Egg, it's taken like two days of decent worktime for me, too. And I am nice to everyone that I can be nice to, but there are times when I have to suspend my diplomatic ways because my words are being twisted around. I am nice to people because I like people, and I respect people, but I have a very hard time respecting the views of certain people when they are insane. EVEN if I like them.

Seriously, Egg, go have a nice night with your wife. You're among the lucky few in life who is lucky enough to have a lovely babby to play with. I'm not angry at you, I'm angry in general. I think at a few points, you took it as directed at you, when it most certainly was not. I'm angry about the fact that sexism goes unchallenged, and if something someone says sets me off, it's hard not to make it look like it's not directed at the person who said the thing (if that makes sense). I'm not angry at you for the existence of these attitudes -- why would I be?

Have a nice night with Niamh and talk about other stuff, and don't talk about this thread. SAVE YOURSELF. I'm stuck here with two stupid articles to write and kicking myself that I let my (justified) rage take time away from important work...

 

[ITalkShite]

I was referring to my posts in the earlier pages of this thread, before he chose to ignore what I was actually saying and focus on what he wanted me to have said so he could avoid my questions. Tom only joined a few pages ago, and asked the same questions Ro had been avoiding since about page 5, and they were answered immediately. He didn't need to get angry. He was taken seriously immediately and responded to, rather than reacted to, and totally dismissed which is what Ro did to me. He had a chance to respond politely, but he chose not to. I got angry, and so did a lot of people, and then it turned into an accusation that my 'tone' was somehow off, when actually, the real problem is not that I am angry, it is that these objectionable attitudes are rarely challenged because people are too afraid to say anything that might make the person who said them angry, and thus open themselves up to accusations that they are 'just as bad' because they got angry.

I have actually been answering the questions asked of me, even though it is understandably enraging to have to prove that the underlying reasons for these kinds of laws and perceptions exist. It's hard not to get angry, and I'm angry because they affect me directly. I'm not going to apologise because sometimes I choose not to discuss things with the detached reserve on the internet that is expected in a more 'official' arena. Ro has chosen to ignore just about everything I've said. He has not once acknowledged that I am not just sympathetic to fathers' rights, I am actually concerned that they are not often taken seriously enough, I just don't believe we can conflate them with the issue of a woman's reproductive rights.

What Ro proposed is outrageous, and I think most people on here agree. I think it's important to get angry about things like this, and not revert to some attitude that everyone's point is valid. Some simply are not, and when they continue to be asserted in such a simplistic and dismissive faction, and with a refusal to respond to any challenges, I think we not only have a right to get angry, we have a responsibility to do so. I take responsibility for my anger at the existence of outrageous attitudes, but I do not take responsibility for those attitudes themselves.

Is that monster enough for you, I Talk Shite?

Okay, I read all that, so here's a perfectly serious reply: what Mumblin' Deaf Ro appears to believe in seems to be pretty nutty. But there is a difference between anger and exasperation.

 

[ITalkShite]

Okay, I read all that, so here's a perfectly serious reply: what Mumblin' Deaf Ro appears to believe in seems to be pretty nutty. But there is a difference between anger and exasperation.

Caveat: I realise that this is a side-issue. I don't want to skew things away from what's actually being discussed. In conclusion, go wombs.

 

[jane]

Okay, I read all that, so here's a perfectly serious reply: what Mumblin' Deaf Ro appears to believe in seems to be pretty nutty. But there is a difference between anger and exasperation.

Are you saying I'm exasperated?

Well I never!

The nerve!

*storms off*

*comes back*

*shakes fist*

*gives self-congratulatory nod*

*marches off, nose in the air*

 

[pete]

What about the fact that men generally have to pay maintenance for their child if they are not living with the mother? Would women who didn't want their child but were forced to give birth to it be obliged in the same manner, and if not, is that not grossly unequal to men who are fathers to children they don't want

Weellll as things stand now, is it not grossly unequal to force men to financially support a child they do not want while simutaneously depriving them of any choice in the matter?

Or even, if you support a woman's right to choose when she becomes a parent, then why can't a man? Or can they? I don't know what the legal situation re:child support here is. Thank god.

 

[taubstumm]

My arse you are dear.

Don't you think that Ro's manner towards you might have had something to do with your manner towards him? And haven't you noticed any difference between your manner towards him and Tom's?

as a man, i had more womb for maneuver

ha! i kill me. boom, shake the womb.

 

[mazzyianne]

Ok, something weird is going on here, I can't exactly figure out why, but I'm feeling a little invisible. Not only are my questions not being answered or my points taken into account but

I agree with jane, if you're so hell bent on backing your argument up with "i have sisters who've had kids so how dare you argue with me", go discuss this with them, ask them how they'd feel if they were forced to carry a child to term by a man they'd had a one night stand with.

That was me what said that.

Don't you think that Ro's manner towards you might have had something to do with your manner towards him? And haven't you noticed any difference between your manner towards him and Tom's?

I was also the one who complained about my questions not being answered when tom asked the same ones and got not only an answer but a commendation on how clearly he had expressed his point. And I've been very civil.
Its all a bit..weird

This isn't a Jane vs Ro or egg thread. She does a great job of arguing and is generally fantastic but lots of other women have expressed opinions here and it keeps turning to - Jane isn't acting like a good girl should. Why doesn't she just be nice to everyone.
COZ SHES PISSED OFF. And rightly so.
It just seems like it's turned away from what the debate was about, and more about how Jane should behave while she argues.

 

[oh shit]

Weellll as things stand now, is it not grossly unequal to force men to financially support a child they do not want while simutaneously depriving them of any choice in the matter?

as it stands now, a man can walk away the second the pregnancy test comes back positive and never pay a penny. that's the reason men are legally required to pay up, where they have a name on the birth certificate. and even then... the british government recently announced plans to scrap the child support agency and start over, because that's cheaper than all the money they're having to pay out to cover for absent, unpaying fathers.

a woman isn't allowed to abort, but for her maternity is a certainty, whereas paternity is just an idea.

 

[oh shit]

AKA "she's made her bed, now she has to lie in it", "it's her own fault for having sex in the first place", "if she didn't want to be punished, she should have thought of that before having sex, shouldn't she?" etc.

really, are you listening to yourself?

*is appalled*

this is what i was getting at, only phrased much better.
MDR, you've said it's not a moral issue, but one of responsibility.
can i ask how responsibility and morality can be divorced? in other words, what is morality if not the source of responsibility?
or in other words, how can you say a person is being irresponsible with sex without equating that with a moral judgement on peoples' sexual choices?

 

[krystal]

it's baffling and not a little weird. Perhaps it's because she's more impassioned and because she's raised other issues which contribute to the continuing lack of reproductive rights us Irish ladies don't enjoy she's getting stick for it. Seems a tad unfair to me. I've watched on these boards over the years where people have behaved in a breathtakingly bad way towards other people, bullying them both in public and private via PM's, for example and they never get taken to task. But Jane is fighting her corner for an issue she's very passionate, and knowledgeable about. She hasn't attacked Ro, but she has DEBATED with him and refused to allow him to get away with his appalling opinions (and there are now many of us, men and women who have said they think so). And what on earth is wrong with that?

This isn't a Jane vs Ro or egg thread. She does a great job of arguing and is generally fantastic but lots of other women have expressed opinions here and it keeps turning to - Jane isn't acting like a good girl should. Why doesn't she just be nice to everyone.
COZ SHES PISSED OFF. And rightly so.
It just seems like it's turned away from what the debate was about, and more about how Jane should behave while she argues.

 

[oh shit]

Ok, something weird is going on here, I can't exactly figure out why, but I'm feeling a little invisible. Not only are my questions not being answered or my points taken into account but


That was me what said that.


I was also the one who complained about my questions not being answered when tom asked the same ones and got not only an answer but a commendation on how clearly he had expressed his point. And I've been very civil.
Its all a bit..weird

This isn't a Jane vs Ro or egg thread. She does a great job of arguing and is generally fantastic but lots of other women have expressed opinions here and it keeps turning to - Jane isn't acting like a good girl should. Why doesn't she just be nice to everyone.
COZ SHES PISSED OFF. And rightly so.
It just seems like it's turned away from what the debate was about, and more about how Jane should behave while she argues.

maybe people are going for the most recent post that echoes or rephrases previous points and just replying directly to that...
(i hope)?

 

[jane]

Ok, something weird is going on here, I can't exactly figure out why, but I'm feeling a little invisible. Not only are my questions not being answered or my points taken into account but


That was me what said that.


I was also the one who complained about my questions not being answered when tom asked the same ones and got not only an answer but a commendation on how clearly he had expressed his point. And I've been very civil.
Its all a bit..weird

This isn't a Jane vs Ro or egg thread. She does a great job of arguing and is generally fantastic but lots of other women have expressed opinions here and it keeps turning to - Jane isn't acting like a good girl should. Why doesn't she just be nice to everyone.
COZ SHES PISSED OFF. And rightly so.
It just seems like it's turned away from what the debate was about, and more about how Jane should behave while she argues.

I find this troubling, too. I've just had a read through of the thread, and noticed that you were consistently ignored. And there were lots of other people who were ignored, and most of them were women and Glen.

While I'm perfectly happy to have my voice heard, I would hope that people would recognise that it's not only my voice being aired on the side of reproductive rights. In fact, most people who have posted have been on the side of legal reproductive rights, but it keeps being framed as if it is only between me and Ro. YEs, I've posted a lot, and I apologise if my lengthy posts have caused some people screen exhaustion. But really, I generally assume that people read shorter posts more easily, and so it doesn't explain why mazzyianne's posts, or those of many others, have been ignored.