Fidelma Healy Eames at it again. Claims SSM might mean that Mother's Day is banned!

StewartGriffin wrote: »

You see Kunst, I'm not talking about a general sense, and I'm not asking a question, I'm referring specifically to flogg's posts.

Why do you think I have an issue with what you said?

KN's response was 100% accurate - it's not the gender, it's the message they are sending.

You are choosing to read things into my post that just aren't there.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But here's the thing - nobody suggested there was anyone who was less than anyone else, or that anyone was subservient to anyone else? I don't know where you got that from as I certainly didn't get it from Kiwi's post?

Nobody suggested that anyone was less capable or less entitled to anything by virtue of their gender, and nobody suggested anything about raising a child to believe they are less than anyone else (and I also disagree with you throwing in the term 'child abuse' there tbh).

Why do you think a woman couldn't freely choose to be a homemaker if she was raised in an environment where her own mother or another woman in her life had influenced her in that respect?

I certainly don't view my wife as subservient or less than anyone or less capable than anyone else in society. She herself though believes that her work is not appreciated by society, and I've often disagreed with her on this point, but I can see now where she gets it from - because some people in society actually do believe a woman is incapable or is of less value in society if she chooses to be a homemaker.

I can see now too where you're coming from when you say that being told you are less than or unequal often enough you start to believe it. You only start to believe it because you want to believe it, rather than question it.

If I were to believe that I would be impeded by certain circumstances in life and I hadn't questioned those circumstances, I probably wouldn't have thought of myself as capable of anything. I also don't believe in entitlement to anything, as I believe that responsibility towards other people is more important than entitlement. Entitlement is a reward system, not a privilege system.

As my mother used say to me growing up, when I wanted something -

"Don't mind what anyone else has, you make your own case as to why you think you are entitled to... whatever".

I apply the same principle to arguing for marriage equality for people who are LGBT - don't mind what people who are heterosexual have, argue the case for marriage equality on how it benefits people who are LGBT, and not just because people who are heterosexual are allowed be married or because it's "the right thing to do" or "because it's fair" or anything else.

kiwi's post was clearly a satirical criticism of families which imposed rigid gender roles on kids, particularly the reference to daughters helping mother so she would know her role for the future - a role which consisted of doing all domestic tasks and deferring to her husband.

That is a role which assumes inferiority of and requires deference by the wife, and it is not in any way desirable for a daughter to be brought up to believe she should also defer to her husband in family matters or be required to adopt any particular functions simply because of her gender.

I can't see any ifs or buts about it.

As for your suggestion that kids think for themselves and challenge limitations imposed upon them, if only life was always that easy. Given the quote from your mother, it would seem you were clearly raised to think for yourself - which is great.

Many children aren't taught to do so, and it can rather difficult for kids to become confident self aware adults if they are taught from birth to be subservient, uncritical and that they must conform to certain roles or functions.

It's a right wing pipe dream to think that all children are equally capable of making the same choices regardless of their upbringing or circumstances, or that the person yiu become isn't shaped largely by the circumstances of your childhood.

Do you think most girls born and raised in Saudi Arabia grow up to believe themselves as capable or to have the same potential as girls in Iceland for example?

And your criticism of entitlement is rather odd - Equality isn't an xbox or new shoes or whatever else you might have wanted as a kid - it's something we are all absolutely entitled to and deserving of, even it unfortunately has to be fought for all to often.

It's insulting and demeaning to say one group should have to argue for and justify their right to equal treatment with another group. I don't think you would ever argue that racial minorities should ever be required to justify their right to equal treatment.

I have far to much self respect to ever think that I am not entitled to the same rights and treatment as anybody else just because of my sexuality orientation, gender, race or whatever.

floggg wrote: »

kiwi's post was clearly a satirical criticism of families which imposed rigid gender roles on kids, particularly the reference to daughters helping mother so she would know her role for the future - a role which consisted of doing all domestic tasks and deferring to her husband.

As satire goes, it was pretty damn good, because it contained enough elements of truth to be believable, and, whether you find it objectionable or not, this is indeed the way the vast majority of society views family dynamics and gender roles. That's where I was coming from with the idea that presenting that view in a negative light could be perceived as presenting it as inferior in some way. Not the sort of thing you really want to be doing when they are the same people you would hope would support marriage equality for people who are LGBT, because they immediately assume you to be passing judgement on their relationship, viewing it in a negative light, and viewing it as inferior.

That is a role which assumes inferiority of and requires deference by the wife, and it is not in any way desirable for a daughter to be brought up to believe she should also defer to her husband in family matters or be required to adopt any particular functions simply because of her gender.

I can't see any ifs or buts about it.

YOU see it as a role which assumes inferiority and requires deference by a woman, but that simply indicates you have very little understanding of that type of family dynamic. It'd probably take too long to explain and you'd probably still miss the point anyway, but to put it rather simply, and it's something I often tell my own wife - I couldn't do what I do every day, without her doing what she does every day. FAR from viewing my wife as inferior, she is superior to me in her capabilities as far as making a home is concerned. Our home is literally her domain, where she rules the roost if you prefer. That's why as much as I detest her taste in interior decor, I defer to her authority in that regard because I believe that she is entitled to decorate the place how she chooses, in order to make her job easier. My wife also manages all our financial affairs simply because I have no interest in them. I go out to work because I like to work, I'm not motivated by money, and if the financial affairs were left to me, I'd be giving it all away to someone I felt needed it more. I've always done it, hence why it's simply better for both of us that my wife be responsible for our finances.

As for your suggestion that kids think for themselves and challenge limitations imposed upon them, if only life was always that easy. Given the quote from your mother, it would seem you were clearly raised to think for yourself - which is great.

Many children aren't taught to do so, and it can rather difficult for kids to become confident self aware adults if they are taught from birth to be subservient, uncritical and that they must conform to certain roles or functions.

Hmm, perhaps because it lacked context you assume that my mother taught me to think for myself, when in fact the exact opposite is more true, closer to your second paragraph than your first. In fact, it was because of this that I taught myself to think for myself. I agree with you, it's not easy, but if it was easy, I wouldn't have learned that I am entitled to fannyadams, and that if I want something, I have to earn it, and that means I have to work for it. Overcoming challenges is how you build self-confidence and self-awareness of just how much you are truly capable of, as opposed to teaching a person that the world revolves around them. Children will naturally push their limits, it's how they find out where their boundaries are, and teaching them where their boundaries are is how you teach them to have respect and consideration for other people besides themselves and their own needs and their own wants.

It's a right wing pipe dream to think that all children are equally capable of making the same choices regardless of their upbringing or circumstances, or that the person yiu become isn't shaped largely by the circumstances of your childhood.

A right-wing pipe dream to think that all children are equally capable of fulfilling their potential and creating opportunities for themselves, or that the person they want to be doesn't have to be held back by the circumstances of their childhood?

The left-wing nightmare of viewing everyone as victims of circumstance and turning society into a bland, gloopy soup where everyone is "equal" and we're all taught the "correct" way to think, some androgynous social experimental society which values conformity over freedom of personal choice and liberty, is far more a pipe-dream that will thankfully never gain any real traction in society.

Do you think most girls born and raised in Saudi Arabia grow up to believe themselves as capable or to have the same potential as girls in Iceland for example?

Really? This sort of nonsense is why it's bloody impossible to have any sort of a serious conversation about issues in Irish society. What the hell has women's welfare in either Saudi Arabia or Iceland got to do with the price of a can of magic beans in Ireland? Honestly, throwing out stuff like that is just not worth entertaining as it's so far off the point.

And your criticism of entitlement is rather odd - Equality isn't an xbox or new shoes or whatever else you might have wanted as a kid - it's something we are all absolutely entitled to and deserving of, even it unfortunately has to be fought for all to often.

Fight for it? Christ, you're sitting in front of a keyboard, you haven't fought for anything. Nobody is entitled to anything or deserving of anything they haven't earned, so less of the "fighting talk" rhetoric. If you were David Norris, then you might have a point about having fought for something you believed in, not that you were automatically entitled to it.

It's insulting and demeaning to say one group should have to argue for and justify their right to equal treatment with another group. I don't think you would ever argue that racial minorities should ever be required to justify their right to equal treatment.

Yes I would actually, and that's exactly what they did, and that's how they won the right to be treated equally. I don't think it's either insulting or demeaning to anyone to point out the fact that if they want something, they either have to bring something to the table, or fight for it, and earn it. That way they don't take it for granted, rather than someone who feels they are entitled to something or deserve something for literally doing nothing.

This is a major bugbear I have with some of the current marriage equality campaigns - instead of showing what people who are LGBT have to offer society, they campaign on the basis that society owes them something. I think people who are LGBT have a lot to offer society, but marriage equality campaigns run by left-wingers are painting people who are LGBT as victims of society, a society in which they are campaigning for equal participation and recognition, yet they want equality only on their terms - rights, but no recognition of their responsibility towards society.

I have far to much self respect to ever think that I am not entitled to the same rights and treatment as anybody else just because of my sexuality orientation, gender, race or whatever.

Hey, no problem, you continue to think only of yourself and your self-respect and your entitlements, but you're hardly entitled to complain then when other people adopt the same... IMO, selfish attitude, and think only of themselves and their self-respect and so on.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Conformity itself is a negative thing as far as I'm concerned. Conformity is the enemy of free thinking.

And all too often, "free thinking" is the enemy of constructive opinion.



I don't often do soundbites... but when I do... :pac:

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And all too often, "free thinking" is the enemy of constructive opinion.



I don't often do soundbites... but when I do... :pac:

Well how do you mean?
As far as I'm concerned, teaching people to put their own desires on the back burner solely to live up to other people's demands of what a person should be, is incredibly destructive.

feargale wrote: »

I would be the last person to defend this lady. But I thought you had a choice when you voted. I thought that's what voting is all about. Otherwise why not be ruled by decree?

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/59/5932fd84bef50429de7f00989fd2bb1571d83f916c0c9542521b9ff620cf873c.jpg