Are there single fathers, who never married, with children in the West?

[Robert.Evans]

It is because the off topic of abuse was introduced to the thread by a post about habitual domestic abuse. Catch up please.

No it wasn't. You were asleep through pages of it. It started with the definition of "abuse" and still seems to be there, except people are now beginning to put more and more words in my mouth, with no links to back them up. Commenting on them are we?

 

[Draka]

Who is "he" ? We shall assume it is me.

Yes. And if you can figure out that much perhaps you could learn how to dissect a post correctly instead of doing it in such a way as to misquote and try to twist things.

Yes grandmothers would help as grandfathers would probably be at work; that is traditional. I am not saying it is always that case though, so don't go off on a tangent.

Grandmothers work just like grandfathers do. In fact, my mother worked long after my father retired due to his physical ailments. He was the one home while she continued to work.

which meant there would be a shortage of omney, hence I said why isn't the extended family helping and your reply was basically they can go to h*ll as I look after my own kids. That is no family imo.

Now who is putting words into whose mouth? I have been quoting you. Quoting you. I didn't make up the things you said. However you just did that to me now didn't you? Can't handle supporting your side of the argument anymore and now must flat out resort to lying? Nice. Proof how your side is crumbling beneath you.

It shouldn't. Who is saying it should? You are reading that in perhaps?

By you intoning that grandparent, grandmothers specifically, should be helping to raise the child, in a discussion about lacking child support, you insinuate exactly that.

strong family units support one another. Not all old people can't help, which appears to be your excuse. It falls to the woman as it is primarily the woman that wants it to fall to her. Is this news to you or something or just some sort of insecurity?

Wait, it is primarily the woman who wants it to fall to her? Now a woman wants to be doing the child rearing on her own? It is a woman who feels she is only capable of helping to raise a child? You confuse me so. You talk so badly about women. So much misogyny. Yet you also seem to think pretty lowly of men to think that they are either not capable or are not interested in children.

and what is wrong with missy or woman? Is this a personal issue or something?

Calling a woman "woman" or "missy" is condescending. You know full well it is and full well that is how you meant it.

And just in case anyone is thinking it, I did not write that quote.

Oh boy... you sound insecure. Who on earth said that? no one. Discussions work best when you discuss what the other is said rather than rattle on about other things. We need to be constructive, Madam.

link please.

And here is where you completely chopped up things in such a weird way. Do not try to backpeddle out of this one. @A Greased Scotsman made that statement about women not being chattel and not losing their bodily autonomy and so on...YOU quote him and simply put "disagree".

post

So this had nothing to do with any insecurity on my part and everything to do with how you obviously believe women are chattel, property, to be controlled by men. I mean, why else would you disagree with someone saying they aren't such?

well, they say it takes one to know one. So you are sxist also. Now, you will say you arn't, and so we can try and define another word. Either way, less attacks eh.

It's not an attack if it is true. It is a statement of fact. You are sexist. You are misogynistic. Glaringly so.

The one disturbing here is you misrepresenting me. Arguments are the most common form of abuse. If you wish to ignore that and speak of one singular form of abuse, something close to your own concerns, such as, a man beating a woman, then fine. But please don't try and make out that there are no other forms of abuse. There are, and I have quoted enough dictionaries to show that.
Calm down and start again please. This is silly.

This is silly. It is silly that you keep trying to talk about Oaks, Ashes, Elms, Maples, and Walnut trees when everyone else is specifically having a conversation about Pines.

 

[savagewind]

No it wasn't. You were asleep through pages of it. It started with the definition of "abuse" and still seems to be there, except people are now beginning to put more and more words in my mouth, with no links to back them up. Commenting on them are we?

You are challenging me to go back some 30 pages. I won't.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I agree with you. I even have an example. Care to hear? If when driving over the speed limit you hit a wild animal that is abuse. OK?

It would be a form of abuse, agreed.
I could wipe my dirty shoes on your new carpet and you might shout, Stop abusing my carpet." haha Okay?

 

[Robert.Evans]

You are challenging me to go back some 30 pages. I won't.

That's my girl!

 

[savagewind]

It would be a form of abuse, agreed.
I could wipe my dirty shoes on your new carpet and you might shout, Stop abusing my carpet." haha Okay?

That is right and a very good retort. I shall give you a point for it but..................................

 

[Robert.Evans]

Yes. And if you can figure out that much perhaps you could learn how to dissect a post correctly instead of doing it in such a way as to misquote and try to twist things.

Grandmothers work just like grandfathers do. In fact, my mother worked long after my father retired due to his physical ailments. He was the one home while she continued to work.

Now who is putting words into whose mouth? I have been quoting you. Quoting you. I didn't make up the things you said. However you just did that to me now didn't you? Can't handle supporting your side of the argument anymore and now must flat out resort to lying? Nice. Proof how your side is crumbling beneath you.

By you intoning that grandparent, grandmothers specifically, should be helping to raise the child, in a discussion about lacking child support, you insinuate exactly that.

Wait, it is primarily the woman who wants it to fall to her? Now a woman wants to be doing the child rearing on her own? It is a woman who feels she is only capable of helping to raise a child? You confuse me so. You talk so badly about women. So much misogyny. Yet you also seem to think pretty lowly of men to think that they are either not capable or are not interested in children.

Calling a woman "woman" or "missy" is condescending. You know full well it is and full well that is how you meant it.

And here is where you completely chopped up things in such a weird way. Do not try to backpeddle out of this one. @A Greased Scotsman made that statement about women not being chattel and not losing their bodily autonomy and so on...YOU quote him and simply put "disagree".

post

So this had nothing to do with any insecurity on my part and everything to do with how you obviously believe women are chattel, property, to be controlled by men. I mean, why else would you disagree with someone saying they aren't such?

It's not an attack if it is true. It is a statement of fact. You are sexist. You are misogynistic. Glaringly so.

This is silly. It is silly that you keep trying to talk about Oaks, Ashes, Elms, Maples, and Walnut trees when everyone else is specifically having a conversation about Pines.

@cocolia41 said:
Or if we're going to say the father must take responsibility for the child, then he should be able to prevent the mother from getting an abortion and he should get full custody of that child.
____
To which @A Greased Scotsman said:
No. No. No. Women do not lose or forsake their bodily autonomy when they become pregnant and they are not property or chattels for men to control as they please. Pregnant women are not walking incubators with no rights or sense of self. They're human beings with needs. This is the 21st Century, not the 1st.

Edit: I love how that one instance of '********' was censored but the others weren't
____


YOU took it all out of context Madam. And you did the rest of what I said so I am not going to bother argueing it. You have to look two posts back to see what it related to, not just as you did. You see what your hysterical eyes wish to see. You cannot discuss. You are too emotional. and in misrepresenting me that is breaking a rule.

 

[Robert.Evans]

That is right and a very good retort. I shall give you a point for it but..................................

but what?

 

[Draka]

@cocolia41 said:
Or if we're going to say the father must take responsibility for the child, then he should be able to prevent the mother from getting an abortion and he should get full custody of that child.
____
To which @A Greased Scotsman said:
No. No. No. Women do not lose or forsake their bodily autonomy when they become pregnant and they are not property or chattels for men to control as they please. Pregnant women are not walking incubators with no rights or sense of self. They're human beings with needs. This is the 21st Century, not the 1st.

Edit: I love how that one instance of '********' was censored but the others weren't
____


YOU took it all out of context Madam. And you did the rest of what I said so I am not going to bother argueing it. You have to look two posts back to see what it related to, not just as you did. You see what your hysterical eyes wish to see. You cannot discuss. You are too emotional. and in misrepresenting me that is breaking a rule.

I am not misrepresenting you at all. That discussion had to do with abortion, correct? The idea that a man should be able to prevent a woman from having an abortion. By preventing her you strip her of her bodily autonomy. Which is what A Greased Scotsman was pointing out. That a woman is not property or chattel that loses their bodily autonomy when they become pregnant. That was what you quoted and simply put "disagree" to. So if I am somehow misrepresenting you by quoting your exact words in response to exact words, please, do say how it is a misrepresentation. Exactly what did you mean by disagreeing with his statement. Do you or do you not believe that women give up all rights to their body and their decisions the moment they get pregnant? And if they do, who do you claim should take control of them?

 

[Robert.Evans]

I am not misrepresenting you at all. That discussion had to do with abortion, correct? The idea that a man should be able to prevent a woman from having an abortion. By preventing her you strip her of her bodily autonomy. Which is what A Greased Scotsman was pointing out. That a woman is not property or chattel that loses their bodily autonomy when they become pregnant. That was what you quoted and simply put "disagree" to. So if I am somehow misrepresenting you by quoting your exact words in response to exact words, please, do say how it is a misrepresentation. Exactly what did you mean by disagreeing with his statement. Do you or do you not believe that women give up all rights to their body and their decisions the moment they get pregnant? And if they do, who do you claim should take control of them?

So you do not understand my response then which did explain this, is that what you are saying?
Please can we start again.
From the beginning IF you wish to continue.
You have misunderstood too much as others have.
One point at a time.
You first. Nice and short.

 

[Draka]

So you do not understand my response then which did explain this, is that what you are saying?
Please can we start again.
From the beginning IF you wish to continue.
You have misunderstood too much as others have.
One point at a time.
You first. Nice and short.

I just love that it is all of us that don't understand. You know, when you keep having issues with people, keep having disagreements, claiming no one understands or that everyone else just isn't "getting it" and so on, does it ever once occur to you that it isn't everyone else that has the problem...but you? You are the common denominator in all these "misunderstandings". Ever think there may be a reason for that?

And I have already gone first and asked for you to clarify what you seem to think I misunderstood. Do you or do you not agree that women are chattel, property, who have no bodily autonomy once they become pregnant? Why or why not? If they don't have those rights who does? Who gets to make decisions for them and why? If I have misrepresented your position inferred by your response to A Greased Scotsman, then, please, do clarify. If I am correct however, just admit so and let's move on.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Do you or do you not agree that women are chattel, property, who have no bodily autonomy once they become pregnant?

not agree.
I have explained this just. Do you not read all my posts.
Next...

 

[Draka]

not agree.
I have explained this just. Do you not read all my posts.
Next...

Then why did you say disagree at first? Did you not understand his point? Did you perhaps misunderstand?

 

[savagewind]

Remarrying is living in sin (unless they have died)- not that I want to get personal.

It's a good thing I don't believe in your "sin" then.

In no way can you possibly believe that if a man beats the **** out of his wife and treats her like she's less than the muck on his boots that she should be restricted to never find any love or happiness for the rest of her life. If she is lucky enough to get out of that marriage and away from her abuser you would actually hold that she should never love again? Because that is what you are saying when you seem to think that being with anyone unmarried is a "sin" and daring to remarry is a "sin" as well. You are punishing a victim for the rest of their life. You honestly believe that your god holds such standards? If so do you really wonder why anyone would think your god cruel and spiteful?

OK? The abuse the thread is about is marriage abuse. Well people marry to be loved. Some people instead of loving their partner ABUSE them.
Everyone makes mistakes. Sometimes hurtful things are done but not on purpose. The abuse posted on this thread is about the kind of abuse that is on purpose and habitual, hurtful and evidence of unlove.

 

[McBell]

ad hominem

No, it isn't.

Try understanding what the big terms mean BEFORE you try using them on the forums....

 

[Debater Slayer]

I completely and absolutely don't understand the mindset that makes people hate and distrust women so much. Did you forget that you came from a woman who carried you for nine months and then had to go through almost-fatal pain to deliver you? Did you forget that you would be nothing without the woman who brought you up and probably fostered you while you were still sucking on your thumb? Let's not even talk about the stretch marks or the possibility of death during labor. Let's not talk about pregnancy or childbirth at all. What about the fact that you basically hate and despise half of the whole world? Your mother, your aunt, your sister, your cousin, your wife, your girlfriend, your classmate, your colleague, your teacher. Possibly even yourself, if you're a woman (and yes, there are misogynistic women; I know some myself).

Sometimes I just don't get people. Sometimes I'm thankful I don't get certain mindsets.

 

[McBell]

Then why did you say disagree at first? Did you not understand his point? Did you perhaps misunderstand?

um...
He has lost track of his bull ****?
Interesting that.
I mean, my experience has been that when someone honestly and actually believes the bull **** they shovel, they are able to keep track of it.
It is those who do not honestly actually believe that which they shovel who lose track....

Interesting development me thinks.

 

[paarsurrey]

I completely and absolutely don't understand the mindset that makes people hate and distrust women so much. Did you forget that you came from a woman who carried you for nine months and then had to go through almost-fatal pain to deliver you? Did you forget that you would be nothing without the woman who brought you up and probably fostered you while you were still sucking on your thumb? Let's not even talk about the stretch marks or the possibility of death during labor. Let's not talk about pregnancy or childbirth at all. What about the fact that you basically hate and despise half of the whole world? Your mother, your aunt, your sister, your cousin, your wife, your girlfriend, your classmate, your colleague, your teacher. Possibly even yourself, if you're a woman (and yes, there are misogynistic women; I know some myself).

Sometimes I just don't get people. Sometimes I'm thankful I don't get certain mindsets.

This is like what Quran says:
[31:15] And We have enjoined on man concerning his parents — his mother bears him in weakness upon weakness, and his weaning takes two years — ‘Give thanks to Me and to thy parents. Unto Me is the final return.
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=31&verse=14

Regards

 

[Robert.Evans]

Then why did you say disagree at first? Did you not understand his point? Did you perhaps misunderstand?

It was relative to what HE was speaking of which i have already explained and also told that I explained. Are you not reading this or something or is just to wind me up?

 

[Robert.Evans]

No, it isn't.

Try understanding what the big terms mean BEFORE you try using them on the forums....

gee, thanks for that. Your'e all heart. Now try understanding it yourself.