With regarding your last point BM ~ at no point in this thread have I suggested a woman's place is forever in the home.. Do read the discussion and see that. It was for this earlier accusation that I disclosed various personal relationships with women in my life ~ relatives, colleagues, friends etc. I was then shot down (rather predictably ) with ".... Ere listen to 'im now ...I have women relatives so therefore I can't be sexist" jibes. So I cannot really win..It is impossible to further a discussion when the only purpose is to (attempt to) corner your opponent and (attempt to) shut them down. I do hope you will find more on this thread than just your own viewpoint.
With regarding your last point BM ~ at no point in this thread have I suggested a woman's place is forever in the home.. Do read the discussion and see that. It was for this earlier accusation that I disclosed various personal relationships with women in my life ~ relatives, colleagues, friends etc. I was then shot down (rather predictably ) with ".... Ere listen to 'im now ...I have women relatives so therefore I can't be sexist" jibes. So I cannot really win..It is impossible to further a discussion when the only purpose is to (attempt to) corner your opponent and (attempt to) shut them down. I do hope you will find more on this thread than just your own viewpoint.
There is no discussion to be had. You are sexist. You have proven it again and again.
With regarding your last point BM ~ at no point in this thread have I suggested a woman's place is forever in the home.. Do read the discussion and see that. It was for this earlier accusation that I disclosed various personal relationships with women in my life ~ relatives, colleagues, friends etc. I was then shot down (rather predictably ) with ".... Ere listen to 'im now ...I have women relatives so therefore I can't be sexist" jibes. So I cannot really win..It is impossible to further a discussion when the only purpose is to (attempt to) corner your opponent and (attempt to) shut them down. I do hope you will find more on this thread than just your own viewpoint.
This whole argument began because you told the female referee, who did pretty well at her job, to go and ref women instead because she has no place with the men.
With regarding your last point BM ~ at no point in this thread have I suggested a woman's place is forever in the home.. Do read the discussion and see that. It was for this earlier accusation that I disclosed various personal relationships with women in my life ~ relatives, colleagues, friends etc. I was then shot down (rather predictably ) with ".... Ere listen to 'im now ...I have women relatives so therefore I can't be sexist" jibes. So I cannot really win..It is impossible to further a discussion when the only purpose is to (attempt to) corner your opponent and (attempt to) shut them down. I do hope you will find more on this thread than just your own viewpoint.
Just some of the time?
What is your view on the dad staying at home and the mum going out to work?
Ok. I won’t go into the “misappropriation” or “misquoting” stuff. I feel I was being honest, if sometimes paraphrasing (a necessary part of constructive debate, even though it’s often abused). You feel otherwise. Fair enough, I think you’re wrong, but that’s ok 🙂.
Lets talk about this bit that I’ve clipped from your post. A direct quote.
Do you concede that maybe you should reconsider your position on whether we should allow female referees to officiate men’s football? Others have made strong arguments - have you taken these on board?
Or do you concede that maybe your views on gender roles is outdated and inappropriate? Others have made strong arguments - have you taken these on board? I’m just asking because you haven’t made any argument to convincingly back your views up, while others have, at length. You’ve suggested that a family with one working parent and one homemaker is better than two working parents, which is not an unreasonable position, but how do you justify that it should be the woman who is the homemaker? Others have made strong arguments against this - have you taken these on board?
Finally, an argument from me regarding your reference to how we as a society have ‘moved away from the family unit’. Forgive the paraphrasing again, but the gist of what you said was that we, as a society, are all going to work and that not having a parent at home to bring those kids up is negatively affecting them. Right? Well my further issue with this is that it’s a false comparison anyway unless the people from previous generations that you’re referencing lived in Downton Abbey. For most people, having only one working parent has never been an option. My parents both worked. All four of my grandparents worked. I suspect all eight of my great-grandparents did too. They couldn’t afford not to. So the idea that this is something we’re moving away from doesn’t make sense to me. If what you’re trying to say is that women want careers now rather than be satisfied with being a mum, well I simply don’t know why, if a family can afford it, it has to be the mum that stays at home. And in fact, some dads do. I just can’t see why anyone would have an issue with this sort of change in societal structure. We’ve grown as people. We don’t have to work to avoid starving. We don’t get smallpox and polio. We’re better educated.
Change can be good.
LR: To respond to your overriding positon ~ If one's starting point on every issue is ~ Hey, there's a perceived inequality, quick everyone let's destroy the perceived cause and perpetuator of it and then we can all live in some Lennonesque Imagine utopia. Then I would have to agree your position on things is wholly understandable.
But I generally find "Inequality Hunters" tend to be very selective when including in their "portfolio of inequalities" various inequalities that don't really support their underlying biases. We soon discover it isn't the principle of fighting inequality and social inustices (see Gribbo's fine point on an enormous social injustice of our time) that is the driving force in such persons but rather the implementation of a world view completely at loggerheads with what is true and right. But let us set this aside for now.
If I were to share the approach "how dare you stop someone from doing something they enjoy and are competent to execute you "***-ist pig" I would be denying a broader picture (and there IS a broader picture) and would therefore be disingenuous and not living what I believe to be true.
All this disagreement really is about how we "frame" things. I don't want to demand that you frame things my way. I am just sharing how and why I frame things the way I do. That is all.
My starting point in this issue is what I believe to be best for a family, community and society. And faith does indeed inform that starting point. I fully take on-board that others don't see things that way and rather choose to make, as their starting point (and in many cases ~ end point too) in any argument "injustice" or as pointed out "some injustices".
If this very able sounding referee, to whom we refer, say, works Monday - Friday full time as does her husband, (it has been noted on this thread that both husband and wife MUST work to meet the cost of living now ~ I agree they do but believe it is not good for the family) and their children see barely any of them during the week, would I see that, for "equality's sake" , this mother (and it's Mothering Sunday today so a good time to mention this!) Should be encouraged to deprive her children of EVEN MORE vital parenting ~ at weekends ~ for the sake of simply being able to do something as well as a man (refereeing) I would say an emphatic "NO"!
You however would, I suspect, take the position that to hell with the needs of the children or family or, dare I even whisper it - the husband ... King in all of this is that a certain political agenda is furthered at all costs.
I believe that this MO is bad for children, bad for families, bad for the nation and, when the neglected children have long left home, such mothers will (and DO) discover ~ it was bad for them too. And one can never get back those vital bonding years and family memories. I believe this to be true. It's not hatred of a perceived group. It is what I think works in people's lives..If you have accounts of where this isn't the case. That neglecting children and spouse, family etc is actually good for the family and the community ~ then I am happy to take these on board..
Ok, I’ll stop trying to engage with you now. I’ve been polite and respectful. I’ve made concessions to try to understand your view. I’ve tried to have a sensible discussion with you. I’ve asked you some very simple questions. You’ve avoided answering those questions by obfuscating the discussion without really saying anything. You’ve moved the goalposts again. You've then presumed to know my motivations and assumed I have an agenda. Unfortunately, you’ve got it completely wrong again.
Apologies if I’ve got you wrong, but I think your stubbornness and closed mindedness mean you are not willing or able to change. And for that reason…
(Deliberate use of a high achieving woman in the gif, by the way)
Ok. I won’t go into the “misappropriation” or “misquoting” stuff. I feel I was being honest, if sometimes paraphrasing (a necessary part of constructive debate, even though it’s often abused). You feel otherwise. Fair enough, I think you’re wrong, but that’s ok 🙂.
Lets talk about this bit that I’ve clipped from your post. A direct quote.
Do you concede that maybe you should reconsider your position on whether we should allow female referees to officiate men’s football? Others have made strong arguments - have you taken these on board?
Or do you concede that maybe your views on gender roles is outdated and inappropriate? Others have made strong arguments - have you taken these on board? I’m just asking because you haven’t made any argument to convincingly back your views up, while others have, at length. You’ve suggested that a family with one working parent and one homemaker is better than two working parents, which is not an unreasonable position, but how do you justify that it should be the woman who is the homemaker? Others have made strong arguments against this - have you taken these on board?
Finally, an argument from me regarding your reference to how we as a society have ‘moved away from the family unit’. Forgive the paraphrasing again, but the gist of what you said was that we, as a society, are all going to work and that not having a parent at home to bring those kids up is negatively affecting them. Right? Well my further issue with this is that it’s a false comparison anyway unless the people from previous generations that you’re referencing lived in Downton Abbey. For most people, having only one working parent has never been an option. My parents both worked. All four of my grandparents worked. I suspect all eight of my great-grandparents did too. They couldn’t afford not to. So the idea that this is something we’re moving away from doesn’t make sense to me. If what you’re trying to say is that women want careers now rather than be satisfied with being a mum, well I simply don’t know why, if a family can afford it, it has to be the mum that stays at home. And in fact, some dads do. I just can’t see why anyone would have an issue with this sort of change in societal structure. We’ve grown as people. We don’t have to work to avoid starving. We don’t get smallpox and polio. We’re better educated.
Ok. I won’t go into the “misappropriation” or “misquoting” stuff. I feel I was being honest, if sometimes paraphrasing (a necessary part of constructive debate, even though it’s often abused). You feel otherwise. Fair enough, I think you’re wrong, but that’s ok 🙂.
Lets talk about this bit that I’ve clipped from your post. A direct quote.
Do you concede that maybe you should reconsider your position on whether we should allow female referees to officiate men’s football? Others have made strong arguments - have you taken these on board?
Or do you concede that maybe your views on gender roles is outdated and inappropriate? Others have made strong arguments - have you taken these on board? I’m just asking because you haven’t made any argument to convincingly back your views up, while others have, at length. You’ve suggested that a family with one working parent and one homemaker is better than two working parents, which is not an unreasonable position, but how do you justify that it should be the woman who is the homemaker? Others have made strong arguments against this - have you taken these on board?
Finally, an argument from me regarding your reference to how we as a society have ‘moved away from the family unit’. Forgive the paraphrasing again, but the gist of what you said was that we, as a society, are all going to work and that not having a parent at home to bring those kids up is negatively affecting them. Right? Well my further issue with this is that it’s a false comparison anyway unless the people from previous generations that you’re referencing lived in Downton Abbey. For most people, having only one working parent has never been an option. My parents both worked. All four of my grandparents worked. I suspect all eight of my great-grandparents did too. They couldn’t afford not to. So the idea that this is something we’re moving away from doesn’t make sense to me. If what you’re trying to say is that women want careers now rather than be satisfied with being a mum, well I simply don’t know why, if a family can afford it, it has to be the mum that stays at home. And in fact, some dads do. I just can’t see why anyone would have an issue with this sort of change in societal structure. We’ve grown as people. We don’t have to work to avoid starving. We don’t get smallpox and polio. We’re better educated.
Change can be good.
LR: To respond to your overriding positon ~ If one's starting point on every issue is ~ Hey, there's a perceived inequality, quick everyone let's destroy the perceived cause and perpetuator of it and then we can all live in some Lennonesque Imagine utopia. Then I would have to agree your position on things is wholly understandable.
But I generally find "Inequality Hunters" tend to be very selective when including in their "portfolio of inequalities" various inequalities that don't really support their underlying biases. We soon discover it isn't the principle of fighting inequality and social inustices (see Gribbo's fine point on an enormous social injustice of our time) that is the driving force in such persons but rather the implementation of a world view completely at loggerheads with what is true and right. But let us set this aside for now.
If I were to share the approach "how dare you stop someone from doing something they enjoy and are competent to execute you "***-ist pig" I would be denying a broader picture (and there IS a broader picture) and would therefore be disingenuous and not living what I believe to be true.
All this disagreement really is about how we "frame" things. I don't want to demand that you frame things my way. I am just sharing how and why I frame things the way I do. That is all.
My starting point in this issue is what I believe to be best for a family, community and society. And faith does indeed inform that starting point. I fully take on-board that others don't see things that way and rather choose to make, as their starting point (and in many cases ~ end point too) in any argument "injustice" or as pointed out "some injustices".
If this very able sounding referee, to whom we refer, say, works Monday - Friday full time as does her husband, (it has been noted on this thread that both husband and wife MUST work to meet the cost of living now ~ I agree they do but believe it is not good for the family) and their children see barely any of them during the week, would I see that, for "equality's sake" , this mother (and it's Mothering Sunday today so a good time to mention this!) Should be encouraged to deprive her children of EVEN MORE vital parenting ~ at weekends ~ for the sake of simply being able to do something as well as a man (refereeing) I would say an emphatic "NO"!
You however would, I suspect, take the position that to hell with the needs of the children or family or, dare I even whisper it - the husband ... King in all of this is that a certain political agenda is furthered at all costs.
I believe that this MO is bad for children, bad for families, bad for the nation and, when the neglected children have long left home, such mothers will (and DO) discover ~ it was bad for them too. And one can never get back those vital bonding years and family memories. I believe this to be true. It's not hatred of a perceived group. It is what I think works in people's lives..If you have accounts of where this isn't the case. That neglecting children and spouse, family etc is actually good for the family and the community ~ then I am happy to take these on board..
Children need contact with their parents, a truism of course and very hard to argue against. In an ideal world both parents would be available and in contact 24/7 (the reality of economics says differently), particularly in the early years of development - but of course a wider circle is also beneficial - other children at school, siblings, cousins, uncles, aunts, grandparents and family friends.
You state that the woman referee is depriving her children even more vital parenting with her at the weekends. But what if the male partner (and we are assuming a heterosexual relationship) referees games on a weekend and the mother stays at home - is that in someway different? Or is it the woman's place to be the homemaker and child carer/nurturer. Are men in some way deficient in their ability to care for and nurture children? What if the male in a relationship is the homemaker and the woman the breadwinner - is that acceptable or does it go against your belief that a woman's place is in the home?
BM: While it may seem useful to turn the discussion into one of accusations of hate of sexism and so on, I think in this thread, especially in the last day of so, the discussion has revealed that this isn't the case. But you are free of course to keep things at that level.
I was quoting your words and just asked a series of straightforward questions - which, of course, you fail to answer and instead respond with whataboutery.
To anyone reading who may feel offended by those nasty woke people…
We aren’t cancelling you, we are challenging you. Meanwhile religious zealots here in the States are having books banned from children’s school libraries that focus on topics that they don’t agree with.
There’s one article above but do look it up, it’s actually happening. And it won’t take long for sections of the British public to follow suit. Meanwhile, I’ll give you three attempts at trying to name a right wing mouthpiece that has actually been ‘cancelSELR_addicks said:
"I'm definitely not controlling and sexist but I would force women to stay in the kitchen and rear children for their entire lives".
When one cannot find a single quote to attack someone they ... Invent their own quote and idiotically attribute it to that person. Best leave you in fantasy land.
What role in society do you think that women should play a part in?
Are they allowed to interact with men in the workplace? Maybe perhaps even hold a similar role to a man in the same working environment?
SELR: I have mother, aunts, sisters, spouse, daughters, female colleagues and ... believe-it-or-not ... women I count as good friends. As unlikely as it may seem, they rather like my honest - hide nothing - approach. They know I am not 'performing to the gallery' and trying to virtue-signal my way through this short life we have. My terminology may appear (on a thread discussion among the rather woke-minded) to belong in the mid 19th Century but most people I know know the INTENT behind what I am saying. That is to say - they know I am not saying something either for effect or to hurt others. It might come across as clumsy or lacking the 'finesse' of a Guardian article (and thank God for that!) but there is no intended malice. To return to the original thread about a female referee. I applauded that this particular person has attained a high level of competence in her chosen field - refereeing. The umbrage that some have taken stems from where that refereeing should take place. Men's football or women's football. It's hardly Enoch Powell's 'rivers of blood' speech. And yet to the very distorted among us that is EXACTLY what my comment seems to represent. How utterly ridiculous.
The aforesaid women in my life all seem to play a variety of roles in society, yes. Motherhood being by far and away the most rewarding of these roles (they say). But as educated women they have professional lives also. They interact with men in the workplace. Of course.
I suspect there are many on these pages who think a family functions best when mum and dad are both out at work all day (presumably esp with the woman doing a quintessential male job of course!) and their children are left unparented, neglected and zombied out on computer games until those exhausted parents get home each evening. I don't. And I know a good number of men and women that do not subscribe to this particular configuration of family life.
It never fails to baffle me how the perceived 'victims' of all these woke discussions are always the least problematic persons to actually personally encounter in real life. Whether it be ethnic minorities, women, the same sex attracted, the disabled etc. The real problems are the (mostly) white, middle-class liberal/leftists that think they speak for the whole world when in fact they only speak for JUST other white, middle-class liberal/leftists.
And absolutely no one else.
I wish this woman referee - every happiness and success. And, if she has a husband and children - them too.
You quite clearly do not live in the real world.
I'm sure there are both men and women who would love to spend all day looking after their children, but the reality is that for most people, both parents need to work to earn enough money to bring up their children. Others choose to work as they enjoy it and lead more fulfilled lives by working. Everyone should do what is right for them and the view that the woman's place is in the home is outdated and abhorrent.
Your views on the role of women are archaic and have no place in the 21st century.
Yes, I would tend to agree with you ME14 - both parents DO '... need to work to earn enough money to bring up their children'. The point is, I believe that that NEED to be wrong. Wrong for those parents. Definitely wrong for their children and wrong for society.
I believe as a society we should not be making this sort of demand on parents. If you can point out how children, arguably with MORE complex needs than ever before, have less and less parent time, somehow helps society and builds up this nation to be stronger and makes families stay together and by extension - the community and the nation - I'd be really interested to hear about this. I see the polar opposite taking place. Everywhere.
Simply do not think that the family is should be at the centre of everything. Children need to go to school and be looked after in groups together while their parents are sometimes absent doing other things..
The traditional family unit as we know it is an artificial invention of the industrial age enabling efficiency in factories.
I couldn't differ more. I wonder how many, say, Indian heritage families you know, resident in UK? They seem to "get" family values and traditional families very well. What is completely artificial is the current configuration of the family as progressives see it. It doesn't work.
Well all the Asian women I know, seem to excel in medicine, law and accountancy. So not sure what your point is
That's all that really needed to have been said on this subject as no person of faith can demonstrate that it is. Therefore it undermines every single aspect of their faith based beliefs.
Voila. Logical conclusion reached and no need for pages and pages of horseshit.
To anyone reading who may feel offended by those nasty woke people…
We aren’t cancelling you, we are challenging you. Meanwhile religious zealots here in the States are having books banned from children’s school libraries that focus on topics that they don’t agree with.
There’s one article above but do look it up, it’s actually happening. And it won’t take long for sections of the British public to follow suit. Meanwhile, I’ll give you three attempts at trying to name a right wing mouthpiece that has actually been ‘cancelSELR_addicks said:
"I'm definitely not controlling and sexist but I would force women to stay in the kitchen and rear children for their entire lives".
When one cannot find a single quote to attack someone they ... Invent their own quote and idiotically attribute it to that person. Best leave you in fantasy land.
What role in society do you think that women should play a part in?
Are they allowed to interact with men in the workplace? Maybe perhaps even hold a similar role to a man in the same working environment?
SELR: I have mother, aunts, sisters, spouse, daughters, female colleagues and ... believe-it-or-not ... women I count as good friends. As unlikely as it may seem, they rather like my honest - hide nothing - approach. They know I am not 'performing to the gallery' and trying to virtue-signal my way through this short life we have. My terminology may appear (on a thread discussion among the rather woke-minded) to belong in the mid 19th Century but most people I know know the INTENT behind what I am saying. That is to say - they know I am not saying something either for effect or to hurt others. It might come across as clumsy or lacking the 'finesse' of a Guardian article (and thank God for that!) but there is no intended malice. To return to the original thread about a female referee. I applauded that this particular person has attained a high level of competence in her chosen field - refereeing. The umbrage that some have taken stems from where that refereeing should take place. Men's football or women's football. It's hardly Enoch Powell's 'rivers of blood' speech. And yet to the very distorted among us that is EXACTLY what my comment seems to represent. How utterly ridiculous.
The aforesaid women in my life all seem to play a variety of roles in society, yes. Motherhood being by far and away the most rewarding of these roles (they say). But as educated women they have professional lives also. They interact with men in the workplace. Of course.
I suspect there are many on these pages who think a family functions best when mum and dad are both out at work all day (presumably esp with the woman doing a quintessential male job of course!) and their children are left unparented, neglected and zombied out on computer games until those exhausted parents get home each evening. I don't. And I know a good number of men and women that do not subscribe to this particular configuration of family life.
It never fails to baffle me how the perceived 'victims' of all these woke discussions are always the least problematic persons to actually personally encounter in real life. Whether it be ethnic minorities, women, the same sex attracted, the disabled etc. The real problems are the (mostly) white, middle-class liberal/leftists that think they speak for the whole world when in fact they only speak for JUST other white, middle-class liberal/leftists.
And absolutely no one else.
I wish this woman referee - every happiness and success. And, if she has a husband and children - them too.
You quite clearly do not live in the real world.
I'm sure there are both men and women who would love to spend all day looking after their children, but the reality is that for most people, both parents need to work to earn enough money to bring up their children. Others choose to work as they enjoy it and lead more fulfilled lives by working. Everyone should do what is right for them and the view that the woman's place is in the home is outdated and abhorrent.
Your views on the role of women are archaic and have no place in the 21st century.
Yes, I would tend to agree with you ME14 - both parents DO '... need to work to earn enough money to bring up their children'. The point is, I believe that that NEED to be wrong. Wrong for those parents. Definitely wrong for their children and wrong for society.
I believe as a society we should not be making this sort of demand on parents. If you can point out how children, arguably with MORE complex needs than ever before, have less and less parent time, somehow helps society and builds up this nation to be stronger and makes families stay together and by extension - the community and the nation - I'd be really interested to hear about this. I see the polar opposite taking place. Everywhere.
Simply do not think that the family is should be at the centre of everything. Children need to go to school and be looked after in groups together while their parents are sometimes absent doing other things..
The traditional family unit as we know it is an artificial invention of the industrial age enabling efficiency in factories.
I couldn't differ more. I wonder how many, say, Indian heritage families you know, resident in UK? They seem to "get" family values and traditional families very well. What is completely artificial is the current configuration of the family as progressives see it. It doesn't work.
Indian families in the UK love to have Mum living with them. So they can get free child care and both go out to work earning 80k a year each in IT.
To anyone reading who may feel offended by those nasty woke people…
We aren’t cancelling you, we are challenging you. Meanwhile religious zealots here in the States are having books banned from children’s school libraries that focus on topics that they don’t agree with.
There’s one article above but do look it up, it’s actually happening. And it won’t take long for sections of the British public to follow suit. Meanwhile, I’ll give you three attempts at trying to name a right wing mouthpiece that has actually been ‘cancelSELR_addicks said:
"I'm definitely not controlling and sexist but I would force women to stay in the kitchen and rear children for their entire lives".
When one cannot find a single quote to attack someone they ... Invent their own quote and idiotically attribute it to that person. Best leave you in fantasy land.
What role in society do you think that women should play a part in?
Are they allowed to interact with men in the workplace? Maybe perhaps even hold a similar role to a man in the same working environment?
SELR: I have mother, aunts, sisters, spouse, daughters, female colleagues and ... believe-it-or-not ... women I count as good friends. As unlikely as it may seem, they rather like my honest - hide nothing - approach. They know I am not 'performing to the gallery' and trying to virtue-signal my way through this short life we have. My terminology may appear (on a thread discussion among the rather woke-minded) to belong in the mid 19th Century but most people I know know the INTENT behind what I am saying. That is to say - they know I am not saying something either for effect or to hurt others. It might come across as clumsy or lacking the 'finesse' of a Guardian article (and thank God for that!) but there is no intended malice. To return to the original thread about a female referee. I applauded that this particular person has attained a high level of competence in her chosen field - refereeing. The umbrage that some have taken stems from where that refereeing should take place. Men's football or women's football. It's hardly Enoch Powell's 'rivers of blood' speech. And yet to the very distorted among us that is EXACTLY what my comment seems to represent. How utterly ridiculous.
The aforesaid women in my life all seem to play a variety of roles in society, yes. Motherhood being by far and away the most rewarding of these roles (they say). But as educated women they have professional lives also. They interact with men in the workplace. Of course.
I suspect there are many on these pages who think a family functions best when mum and dad are both out at work all day (presumably esp with the woman doing a quintessential male job of course!) and their children are left unparented, neglected and zombied out on computer games until those exhausted parents get home each evening. I don't. And I know a good number of men and women that do not subscribe to this particular configuration of family life.
It never fails to baffle me how the perceived 'victims' of all these woke discussions are always the least problematic persons to actually personally encounter in real life. Whether it be ethnic minorities, women, the same sex attracted, the disabled etc. The real problems are the (mostly) white, middle-class liberal/leftists that think they speak for the whole world when in fact they only speak for JUST other white, middle-class liberal/leftists.
And absolutely no one else.
I wish this woman referee - every happiness and success. And, if she has a husband and children - them too.
You quite clearly do not live in the real world.
I'm sure there are both men and women who would love to spend all day looking after their children, but the reality is that for most people, both parents need to work to earn enough money to bring up their children. Others choose to work as they enjoy it and lead more fulfilled lives by working. Everyone should do what is right for them and the view that the woman's place is in the home is outdated and abhorrent.
Your views on the role of women are archaic and have no place in the 21st century.
Yes, I would tend to agree with you ME14 - both parents DO '... need to work to earn enough money to bring up their children'. The point is, I believe that that NEED to be wrong. Wrong for those parents. Definitely wrong for their children and wrong for society.
I believe as a society we should not be making this sort of demand on parents. If you can point out how children, arguably with MORE complex needs than ever before, have less and less parent time, somehow helps society and builds up this nation to be stronger and makes families stay together and by extension - the community and the nation - I'd be really interested to hear about this. I see the polar opposite taking place. Everywhere.
Simply do not think that the family is should be at the centre of everything. Children need to go to school and be looked after in groups together while their parents are sometimes absent doing other things..
The traditional family unit as we know it is an artificial invention of the industrial age enabling efficiency in factories.
I couldn't differ more. I wonder how many, say, Indian heritage families you know, resident in UK? They seem to "get" family values and traditional families very well. What is completely artificial is the current configuration of the family as progressives see it. It doesn't work.
Well all the Asian women I know, seem to excel in medicine, law and accountancy. So not sure what your point is
I think his point is that he’s run out of gender stereotypes and is moving on to racial stereotypes.
With regarding your last point BM ~ at no point in this thread have I suggested a woman's place is forever in the home.. Do read the discussion and see that. It was for this earlier accusation that I disclosed various personal relationships with women in my life ~ relatives, colleagues, friends etc. I was then shot down (rather predictably ) with ".... Ere listen to 'im now ...I have women relatives so therefore I can't be sexist" jibes. So I cannot really win..It is impossible to further a discussion when the only purpose is to (attempt to) corner your opponent and (attempt to) shut them down. I do hope you will find more on this thread than just your own viewpoint.
This whole argument began because you told the female referee, who did pretty well at her job, to go and ref women instead because she has no place with the men.
Glad this was pointed out, as I had noticed the goal posts had been ever so slightly moved from that original contention to one of (paraphrased) "the woman should be at home for the weekends being a mother not being a ref"
Both contentions of course, absolute rubbish and dripping in misogyny.
With regarding your last point BM ~ at no point in this thread have I suggested a woman's place is forever in the home.. Do read the discussion and see that. It was for this earlier accusation that I disclosed various personal relationships with women in my life ~ relatives, colleagues, friends etc. I was then shot down (rather predictably ) with ".... Ere listen to 'im now ...I have women relatives so therefore I can't be sexist" jibes. So I cannot really win..It is impossible to further a discussion when the only purpose is to (attempt to) corner your opponent and (attempt to) shut them down. I do hope you will find more on this thread than just your own viewpoint.
Just some of the time?
What is your view on the dad staying at home and the mum going out to work?
Not the ideal set up ME14. You asked for my view
There are of course many factors to be considered in a case by case basis. You could add somewhere down the line that the father in question has a disability that makes staying at home essential and the mother is very well paid or perhaps has taken over the business etc Perhaps there is a choice of maintaining the aforesaid (not ideal) set up, or a broken home, where the child sees even less of both parent ~ totally for the child to be raised with both parents in the most functional way for the child to adapt and function and thrive and meet the many challenges modern adult life throws up.
To anyone reading who may feel offended by those nasty woke people…
We aren’t cancelling you, we are challenging you. Meanwhile religious zealots here in the States are having books banned from children’s school libraries that focus on topics that they don’t agree with.
There’s one article above but do look it up, it’s actually happening. And it won’t take long for sections of the British public to follow suit. Meanwhile, I’ll give you three attempts at trying to name a right wing mouthpiece that has actually been ‘cancelSELR_addicks said:
"I'm definitely not controlling and sexist but I would force women to stay in the kitchen and rear children for their entire lives".
When one cannot find a single quote to attack someone they ... Invent their own quote and idiotically attribute it to that person. Best leave you in fantasy land.
What role in society do you think that women should play a part in?
Are they allowed to interact with men in the workplace? Maybe perhaps even hold a similar role to a man in the same working environment?
SELR: I have mother, aunts, sisters, spouse, daughters, female colleagues and ... believe-it-or-not ... women I count as good friends. As unlikely as it may seem, they rather like my honest - hide nothing - approach. They know I am not 'performing to the gallery' and trying to virtue-signal my way through this short life we have. My terminology may appear (on a thread discussion among the rather woke-minded) to belong in the mid 19th Century but most people I know know the INTENT behind what I am saying. That is to say - they know I am not saying something either for effect or to hurt others. It might come across as clumsy or lacking the 'finesse' of a Guardian article (and thank God for that!) but there is no intended malice. To return to the original thread about a female referee. I applauded that this particular person has attained a high level of competence in her chosen field - refereeing. The umbrage that some have taken stems from where that refereeing should take place. Men's football or women's football. It's hardly Enoch Powell's 'rivers of blood' speech. And yet to the very distorted among us that is EXACTLY what my comment seems to represent. How utterly ridiculous.
The aforesaid women in my life all seem to play a variety of roles in society, yes. Motherhood being by far and away the most rewarding of these roles (they say). But as educated women they have professional lives also. They interact with men in the workplace. Of course.
I suspect there are many on these pages who think a family functions best when mum and dad are both out at work all day (presumably esp with the woman doing a quintessential male job of course!) and their children are left unparented, neglected and zombied out on computer games until those exhausted parents get home each evening. I don't. And I know a good number of men and women that do not subscribe to this particular configuration of family life.
It never fails to baffle me how the perceived 'victims' of all these woke discussions are always the least problematic persons to actually personally encounter in real life. Whether it be ethnic minorities, women, the same sex attracted, the disabled etc. The real problems are the (mostly) white, middle-class liberal/leftists that think they speak for the whole world when in fact they only speak for JUST other white, middle-class liberal/leftists.
And absolutely no one else.
I wish this woman referee - every happiness and success. And, if she has a husband and children - them too.
You quite clearly do not live in the real world.
I'm sure there are both men and women who would love to spend all day looking after their children, but the reality is that for most people, both parents need to work to earn enough money to bring up their children. Others choose to work as they enjoy it and lead more fulfilled lives by working. Everyone should do what is right for them and the view that the woman's place is in the home is outdated and abhorrent.
Your views on the role of women are archaic and have no place in the 21st century.
Yes, I would tend to agree with you ME14 - both parents DO '... need to work to earn enough money to bring up their children'. The point is, I believe that that NEED to be wrong. Wrong for those parents. Definitely wrong for their children and wrong for society.
I believe as a society we should not be making this sort of demand on parents. If you can point out how children, arguably with MORE complex needs than ever before, have less and less parent time, somehow helps society and builds up this nation to be stronger and makes families stay together and by extension - the community and the nation - I'd be really interested to hear about this. I see the polar opposite taking place. Everywhere.
Simply do not think that the family is should be at the centre of everything. Children need to go to school and be looked after in groups together while their parents are sometimes absent doing other things..
The traditional family unit as we know it is an artificial invention of the industrial age enabling efficiency in factories.
I couldn't differ more. I wonder how many, say, Indian heritage families you know, resident in UK? They seem to "get" family values and traditional families very well. What is completely artificial is the current configuration of the family as progressives see it. It doesn't work.
Well all the Asian women I know, seem to excel in medicine, law and accountancy. So not sure what your point is
And nearly every one, to a man, seems to have a faith. And strong family values.
With regarding your last point BM ~ at no point in this thread have I suggested a woman's place is forever in the home.. Do read the discussion and see that. It was for this earlier accusation that I disclosed various personal relationships with women in my life ~ relatives, colleagues, friends etc. I was then shot down (rather predictably ) with ".... Ere listen to 'im now ...I have women relatives so therefore I can't be sexist" jibes. So I cannot really win..It is impossible to further a discussion when the only purpose is to (attempt to) corner your opponent and (attempt to) shut them down. I do hope you will find more on this thread than just your own viewpoint.
This whole argument began because you told the female referee, who did pretty well at her job, to go and ref women instead because she has no place with the men.
Glad this was pointed out, as I had noticed the goal posts had been ever so slightly moved from that original contention to one of (paraphrased) "the woman should be at home for the weekends being a mother not being a ref"
Both contentions of course, absolute rubbish and dripping in misogyny.
(((Shakes head))))
Because you are unable to argue a single point, you revert to this rather predictable leftist crib sheet. "...Oh he's a sexist he's a this he's a that"((mega-yawn))
I am none of these things. I don't follow the crowd or follow the latest fashionable progressive viewpoint. (Which will be next year's "- ism" anyway.
I will leave you in your woke echo chamber to influence absolutely noone to your hearts content..
But should you wish to grow and take on board other viewpoints (not agree with them) then all well and good...
That's all that really needed to have been said on this subject as no person of faith can demonstrate that it is. Therefore it undermines every single aspect of their faith based beliefs.
Voila. Logical conclusion reached and no need for pages and pages of horseshit.
You're all very much welcome.
BBW: You use faith every day of the week. You enter a room and you have faith that the chair you are about to sit on will take your weight and not collapse.
Ok. I won’t go into the “misappropriation” or “misquoting” stuff. I feel I was being honest, if sometimes paraphrasing (a necessary part of constructive debate, even though it’s often abused). You feel otherwise. Fair enough, I think you’re wrong, but that’s ok 🙂.
Lets talk about this bit that I’ve clipped from your post. A direct quote.
Do you concede that maybe you should reconsider your position on whether we should allow female referees to officiate men’s football? Others have made strong arguments - have you taken these on board?
Or do you concede that maybe your views on gender roles is outdated and inappropriate? Others have made strong arguments - have you taken these on board? I’m just asking because you haven’t made any argument to convincingly back your views up, while others have, at length. You’ve suggested that a family with one working parent and one homemaker is better than two working parents, which is not an unreasonable position, but how do you justify that it should be the woman who is the homemaker? Others have made strong arguments against this - have you taken these on board?
Finally, an argument from me regarding your reference to how we as a society have ‘moved away from the family unit’. Forgive the paraphrasing again, but the gist of what you said was that we, as a society, are all going to work and that not having a parent at home to bring those kids up is negatively affecting them. Right? Well my further issue with this is that it’s a false comparison anyway unless the people from previous generations that you’re referencing lived in Downton Abbey. For most people, having only one working parent has never been an option. My parents both worked. All four of my grandparents worked. I suspect all eight of my great-grandparents did too. They couldn’t afford not to. So the idea that this is something we’re moving away from doesn’t make sense to me. If what you’re trying to say is that women want careers now rather than be satisfied with being a mum, well I simply don’t know why, if a family can afford it, it has to be the mum that stays at home. And in fact, some dads do. I just can’t see why anyone would have an issue with this sort of change in societal structure. We’ve grown as people. We don’t have to work to avoid starving. We don’t get smallpox and polio. We’re better educated.
Change can be good.
LR: To respond to your overriding positon ~ If one's starting point on every issue is ~ Hey, there's a perceived inequality, quick everyone let's destroy the perceived cause and perpetuator of it and then we can all live in some Lennonesque Imagine utopia. Then I would have to agree your position on things is wholly understandable.
But I generally find "Inequality Hunters" tend to be very selective when including in their "portfolio of inequalities" various inequalities that don't really support their underlying biases. We soon discover it isn't the principle of fighting inequality and social inustices (see Gribbo's fine point on an enormous social injustice of our time) that is the driving force in such persons but rather the implementation of a world view completely at loggerheads with what is true and right. But let us set this aside for now.
If I were to share the approach "how dare you stop someone from doing something they enjoy and are competent to execute you "***-ist pig" I would be denying a broader picture (and there IS a broader picture) and would therefore be disingenuous and not living what I believe to be true.
All this disagreement really is about how we "frame" things. I don't want to demand that you frame things my way. I am just sharing how and why I frame things the way I do. That is all.
My starting point in this issue is what I believe to be best for a family, community and society. And faith does indeed inform that starting point. I fully take on-board that others don't see things that way and rather choose to make, as their starting point (and in many cases ~ end point too) in any argument "injustice" or as pointed out "some injustices".
If this very able sounding referee, to whom we refer, say, works Monday - Friday full time as does her husband, (it has been noted on this thread that both husband and wife MUST work to meet the cost of living now ~ I agree they do but believe it is not good for the family) and their children see barely any of them during the week, would I see that, for "equality's sake" , this mother (and it's Mothering Sunday today so a good time to mention this!) Should be encouraged to deprive her children of EVEN MORE vital parenting ~ at weekends ~ for the sake of simply being able to do something as well as a man (refereeing) I would say an emphatic "NO"!
You however would, I suspect, take the position that to hell with the needs of the children or family or, dare I even whisper it - the husband ... King in all of this is that a certain political agenda is furthered at all costs.
I believe that this MO is bad for children, bad for families, bad for the nation and, when the neglected children have long left home, such mothers will (and DO) discover ~ it was bad for them too. And one can never get back those vital bonding years and family memories. I believe this to be true. It's not hatred of a perceived group. It is what I think works in people's lives..If you have accounts of where this isn't the case. That neglecting children and spouse, family etc is actually good for the family and the community ~ then I am happy to take these on board..
Ok, I’ll stop trying to engage with you now. I’ve been polite and respectful. I’ve made concessions to try to understand your view. I’ve tried to have a sensible discussion with you. I’ve asked you some very simple questions. You’ve avoided answering those questions by obfuscating the discussion without really saying anything. You’ve moved the goalposts again. You've then presumed to know my motivations and assumed I have an agenda. Unfortunately, you’ve got it completely wrong again.
Apologies if I’ve got you wrong, but I think your stubbornness and closed mindedness mean you are not willing or able to change. And for that reason…
(Deliberate use of a high achieving woman in the gif, by the way)
With regarding your last point BM ~ at no point in this thread have I suggested a woman's place is forever in the home.. Do read the discussion and see that. It was for this earlier accusation that I disclosed various personal relationships with women in my life ~ relatives, colleagues, friends etc. I was then shot down (rather predictably ) with ".... Ere listen to 'im now ...I have women relatives so therefore I can't be sexist" jibes. So I cannot really win..It is impossible to further a discussion when the only purpose is to (attempt to) corner your opponent and (attempt to) shut them down. I do hope you will find more on this thread than just your own viewpoint.
There is no discussion to be had. You are sexist. You have proven it again and again.
That's perfectly fine KB. Those that shut down conversation and effectively say "I WILL NOT compete/discuss/talk" have a name ~ they are called "toddlers". "Spoilt toddlers".
Now go to your room and come back when you are ready to move from baby food to solids!
I didn't suggest reading a hit piece on the author, I recommended reading the actual book! Two very different things.
So often in this age we do virtually no challenging of our own error laden default positions, refuse to read a text that may inform us in a variety of ways we may have been hitherto blind to and instead we hunt down any source anywhere that will reinforce our position and noone learns anything at all.
To anyone reading who may feel offended by those nasty woke people…
We aren’t cancelling you, we are challenging you. Meanwhile religious zealots here in the States are having books banned from children’s school libraries that focus on topics that they don’t agree with.
There’s one article above but do look it up, it’s actually happening. And it won’t take long for sections of the British public to follow suit. Meanwhile, I’ll give you three attempts at trying to name a right wing mouthpiece that has actually been ‘cancelSELR_addicks said:
"I'm definitely not controlling and sexist but I would force women to stay in the kitchen and rear children for their entire lives".
When one cannot find a single quote to attack someone they ... Invent their own quote and idiotically attribute it to that person. Best leave you in fantasy land.
What role in society do you think that women should play a part in?
Are they allowed to interact with men in the workplace? Maybe perhaps even hold a similar role to a man in the same working environment?
SELR: I have mother, aunts, sisters, spouse, daughters, female colleagues and ... believe-it-or-not ... women I count as good friends. As unlikely as it may seem, they rather like my honest - hide nothing - approach. They know I am not 'performing to the gallery' and trying to virtue-signal my way through this short life we have. My terminology may appear (on a thread discussion among the rather woke-minded) to belong in the mid 19th Century but most people I know know the INTENT behind what I am saying. That is to say - they know I am not saying something either for effect or to hurt others. It might come across as clumsy or lacking the 'finesse' of a Guardian article (and thank God for that!) but there is no intended malice. To return to the original thread about a female referee. I applauded that this particular person has attained a high level of competence in her chosen field - refereeing. The umbrage that some have taken stems from where that refereeing should take place. Men's football or women's football. It's hardly Enoch Powell's 'rivers of blood' speech. And yet to the very distorted among us that is EXACTLY what my comment seems to represent. How utterly ridiculous.
The aforesaid women in my life all seem to play a variety of roles in society, yes. Motherhood being by far and away the most rewarding of these roles (they say). But as educated women they have professional lives also. They interact with men in the workplace. Of course.
I suspect there are many on these pages who think a family functions best when mum and dad are both out at work all day (presumably esp with the woman doing a quintessential male job of course!) and their children are left unparented, neglected and zombied out on computer games until those exhausted parents get home each evening. I don't. And I know a good number of men and women that do not subscribe to this particular configuration of family life.
It never fails to baffle me how the perceived 'victims' of all these woke discussions are always the least problematic persons to actually personally encounter in real life. Whether it be ethnic minorities, women, the same sex attracted, the disabled etc. The real problems are the (mostly) white, middle-class liberal/leftists that think they speak for the whole world when in fact they only speak for JUST other white, middle-class liberal/leftists.
And absolutely no one else.
I wish this woman referee - every happiness and success. And, if she has a husband and children - them too.
You quite clearly do not live in the real world.
I'm sure there are both men and women who would love to spend all day looking after their children, but the reality is that for most people, both parents need to work to earn enough money to bring up their children. Others choose to work as they enjoy it and lead more fulfilled lives by working. Everyone should do what is right for them and the view that the woman's place is in the home is outdated and abhorrent.
Your views on the role of women are archaic and have no place in the 21st century.
Yes, I would tend to agree with you ME14 - both parents DO '... need to work to earn enough money to bring up their children'. The point is, I believe that that NEED to be wrong. Wrong for those parents. Definitely wrong for their children and wrong for society.
I believe as a society we should not be making this sort of demand on parents. If you can point out how children, arguably with MORE complex needs than ever before, have less and less parent time, somehow helps society and builds up this nation to be stronger and makes families stay together and by extension - the community and the nation - I'd be really interested to hear about this. I see the polar opposite taking place. Everywhere.
Simply do not think that the family is should be at the centre of everything. Children need to go to school and be looked after in groups together while their parents are sometimes absent doing other things..
The traditional family unit as we know it is an artificial invention of the industrial age enabling efficiency in factories.
I couldn't differ more. I wonder how many, say, Indian heritage families you know, resident in UK? They seem to "get" family values and traditional families very well. What is completely artificial is the current configuration of the family as progressives see it. It doesn't work.
Well all the Asian women I know, seem to excel in medicine, law and accountancy. So not sure what your point is
And nearly every one, to a man, seems to have a faith. And strong family values.
You really do have a problem with women don't you.
VoT, none of what I’ve read on here has made me more likely to agree with your assertion that Rebecca should only be allowed to referee women’s football. There is no logic to your argument, it just comes across as dogma.
With regarding your last point BM ~ at no point in this thread have I suggested a woman's place is forever in the home.. Do read the discussion and see that. It was for this earlier accusation that I disclosed various personal relationships with women in my life ~ relatives, colleagues, friends etc. I was then shot down (rather predictably ) with ".... Ere listen to 'im now ...I have women relatives so therefore I can't be sexist" jibes. So I cannot really win..It is impossible to further a discussion when the only purpose is to (attempt to) corner your opponent and (attempt to) shut them down. I do hope you will find more on this thread than just your own viewpoint.
This whole argument began because you told the female referee, who did pretty well at her job, to go and ref women instead because she has no place with the men.
Glad this was pointed out, as I had noticed the goal posts had been ever so slightly moved from that original contention to one of (paraphrased) "the woman should be at home for the weekends being a mother not being a ref"
Both contentions of course, absolute rubbish and dripping in misogyny.
(((Shakes head))))
Because you are unable to argue a single point, you revert to this rather predictable leftist crib sheet. "...Oh he's a sexist he's a this he's a that"((mega-yawn))
I am none of these things. I don't follow the crowd or follow the latest fashionable progressive viewpoint. (Which will be next year's "- ism" anyway.
I will leave you in your woke echo chamber to influence absolutely noone to your hearts content..
But should you wish to grow and take on board other viewpoints (not agree with them) then all well and good...
I wasn't trying to argue any points, just keeping you honest when it comes to what you are arguing, your contentions do not tally with each other. You originally said you wished her the best of luck officiating womens matches. Do they not happen at weekends as well? Or is she only neglecting her kids if she officiates mens games?
With regarding your last point BM ~ at no point in this thread have I suggested a woman's place is forever in the home.. Do read the discussion and see that. It was for this earlier accusation that I disclosed various personal relationships with women in my life ~ relatives, colleagues, friends etc. I was then shot down (rather predictably ) with ".... Ere listen to 'im now ...I have women relatives so therefore I can't be sexist" jibes. So I cannot really win..It is impossible to further a discussion when the only purpose is to (attempt to) corner your opponent and (attempt to) shut them down. I do hope you will find more on this thread than just your own viewpoint.
Just some of the time?
What is your view on the dad staying at home and the mum going out to work?
Not the ideal set up ME14. You asked for my view
There are of course many factors to be considered in a case by case basis. You could add somewhere down the line that the father in question has a disability that makes staying at home essential and the mother is very well paid or perhaps has taken over the business etc Perhaps there is a choice of maintaining the aforesaid (not ideal) set up, or a broken home, where the child sees even less of both parent ~ totally for the child to be raised with both parents in the most functional way for the child to adapt and function and thrive and meet the many challenges modern adult life throws up.
Why is it not ideal for a man to stay at home and look after the children, instead of the woman? Apart from giving birth and breast feeding, what can a woman do that a man can't when bringing up their children?
With regarding your last point BM ~ at no point in this thread have I suggested a woman's place is forever in the home.. Do read the discussion and see that. It was for this earlier accusation that I disclosed various personal relationships with women in my life ~ relatives, colleagues, friends etc. I was then shot down (rather predictably ) with ".... Ere listen to 'im now ...I have women relatives so therefore I can't be sexist" jibes. So I cannot really win..It is impossible to further a discussion when the only purpose is to (attempt to) corner your opponent and (attempt to) shut them down. I do hope you will find more on this thread than just your own viewpoint.
There is no discussion to be had. You are sexist. You have proven it again and again.
That's perfectly fine KB. Those that shut down conversation and effectively say "I WILL NOT compete/discuss/talk" have a name ~ they are called "toddlers". "Spoilt toddlers".
Now go to your room and come back when you are ready to move from baby food to solids!
Well at least you’re acknowledging me now. I don’t want to compete/discuss/talk with a sexist pig.
I want to remind you, again and again, that is what you are. In fact you’re proving that you’re an ignorant sexist pig.
And what’s great? Rebecca will continue to referee mens football matches, as will other women after her. And there’s feck all you can do about it. That makes me very happy.
I didn't suggest reading a hit piece on the author, I recommended reading the actual book! Two very different things.
So often in this age we do virtually no challenging of our own error laden default positions, refuse to read a text that may inform us in a variety of ways we may have been hitherto blind to and instead we hunt down any source anywhere that will reinforce our position and noone learns anything at all.
So why don't you challenge your own error laden default position.
Do you wish to walk back your idea that Rebecca Welch shouldn't be free to referee men's football if she so chooses and is good enough to do it?
Comments
prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
Seems pretty on the money to me.
You are sexist.
You have proven it again and again.
What is your view on the dad staying at home and the mum going out to work?
I’ve been polite and respectful.
I’ve made concessions to try to understand your view.
I’ve tried to have a sensible discussion with you.
I’ve asked you some very simple questions.
You’ve avoided answering those questions by obfuscating the discussion without really saying anything.
You’ve moved the goalposts again.
You've then presumed to know my motivations and assumed I have an agenda. Unfortunately, you’ve got it completely wrong again.
And for that reason…
I was quoting your words and just asked a series of straightforward questions - which, of course, you fail to answer and instead respond with whataboutery.
That's all that really needed to have been said on this subject as no person of faith can demonstrate that it is. Therefore it undermines every single aspect of their faith based beliefs.
Voila. Logical conclusion reached and no need for pages and pages of horseshit.
You're all very much welcome.
Indian families in the UK love to have Mum living with them. So they can get free child care and both go out to work earning 80k a year each in IT.
Both contentions of course, absolute rubbish and dripping in misogyny.
There are of course many factors to be considered in a case by case basis. You could add somewhere down the line that the father in question has a disability that makes staying at home essential and the mother is very well paid or perhaps has taken over the business etc Perhaps there is a choice of maintaining the aforesaid (not ideal) set up, or a broken home, where the child sees even less of both parent ~ totally for the child to be raised with both parents in the most functional way for the child to adapt and function and thrive and meet the many challenges modern adult life throws up.
Because you are unable to argue a single point, you revert to this rather predictable leftist crib sheet. "...Oh he's a sexist he's a this he's a that"((mega-yawn))
I am none of these things. I don't follow the crowd or follow the latest fashionable progressive viewpoint. (Which will be next year's "- ism" anyway.
I will leave you in your woke echo chamber to influence absolutely noone to your hearts content..
But should you wish to grow and take on board other viewpoints (not agree with them) then all well and good...
Thanks Deborah!
So often in this age we do virtually no challenging of our own error laden default positions, refuse to read a text that may inform us in a variety of ways we may have been hitherto blind to and instead we hunt down any source anywhere that will reinforce our position and noone learns anything at all.
I don’t want to compete/discuss/talk with a sexist pig.
I want to remind you, again and again, that is what you are. In fact you’re proving that you’re an ignorant sexist pig.
And what’s great? Rebecca will continue to referee mens football matches, as will other women after her. And there’s feck all you can do about it.
That makes me very happy.
Do you wish to walk back your idea that Rebecca Welch shouldn't be free to referee men's football if she so chooses and is good enough to do it?