Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Are working with or against you spouse/OH

13

Comments

  • #62
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    Dominic Dry Sirloin wrote: »
    Dude there's literally no point. OP starts threads with the very obvious intention of getting into conflict. I won't say "getting into arguments" because as we can all see, they don't actually argue.

    Just a periodic need to type "you're wrong you're stupid this is the kind of stuff I hate" at people, and they've figured out that variations on "since I've moved back to Ireland I've noticed this stupid thing about Ireland. Also some vaguely gendered stuff. And if people aren't being responsive enough I'll throw in something more incendiary like gay marriage" pretty much always gets that need met in AH.

    Watch now, I'll be accused of some ad nausea ad homino attack or something :D

    I never raised or even mentioned gay marriage and the only reason it went there is because you and others brought it there. The thread isn't even about that but some people have decided to go there and make the issue about themselves so they can get offended and play the victim a bit longer. I'm not interested and not taking the bait. If you want to have a conversation about gay marriage go and start a new thread.


  • #63
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Caroline Jealous Tart wrote: »
    TLDR I'm sorry but I got two sentences in and I couldn't go any further.

    So the cop out is complete then. As expected.

    Thankfully some of us _have_ put the time into subjects like this and are quite well informed on the topic. And I can tell you that there are many workable and viable templates by which relationships work. In terms of child rearing. Finance splitting. Work load splitting. And more.

    Aside from from the obvious caveat of Single Parenting which seems to in general suffer the worst - none of the other configurations seem any more or less viable than any other. They are all quite workable.

    So when someone says "This is what works for me" and the best you can do is screech "Relationships dont work that way - go find the evidence for this yourself" then you really are pushing nonsense.
    Caroline Jealous Tart wrote: »
    most likely no matter what evidence you are presented probably you will try and explain it away with anecdotes and personal experience.

    Nope - that is something I never do. But I see that when coping out it is much easier to imagine and make believe how I will respond to evidence - rather than bother to present any (mainly cause you got none) and actually find out how I will respond to it.

    But as I said - I have likely read anything you are likely to post and cite anyway long before you have.
    Caroline Jealous Tart wrote: »
    I just rely on the data. Of which there is alot.

    Not in a single one of your posts so far there ain't.
    Caroline Jealous Tart wrote: »
    The thread isn't even about that but some people have decided to go there and make the issue about themselves so they can get offended and play the victim a bit longer.

    I can not see a single person getting offended at all. I know I certainly ain't. What you need to get hip to however is that I know this particular subject quite well. Both because of personal interest in it - and because when getting into my own particular slightly unusual relationship I felt the need to research it heavily to be sure I knew what I was getting myself into.

    So rather than being offended at your nonsense - which I am far from - I am using you as a welcome platform from which to show anyone who happens to read the thread - yourself included - just what baseless outdated nonsense you are pedalling.

    I am not offended by you. I am happily using you. And you're making it real easy with your bait and retreat approach to the conversation :)


  • #64
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    Deleted User wrote: »
    So the cop out is complete then. As expected.

    Thankfully some of us _have_ put the time into subjects like this and are quite well informed on the topic. And I can tell you that there are many workable and viable templates by which relationships work. In terms of child rearing. Finance splitting. Work load splitting. And more.

    Aside from from the obvious caveat of Single Parenting which seems to in general suffer the worst - none of the other configurations seem any more or less viable than any other. They are all quite workable.

    So when someone says "This is what works for me" and the best you can do is screech "Relationships dont work that way - go find the evidence for this yourself" then you really are pushing nonsense.



    Nope - that is something I never do. But I see that when coping out it is much easier to imagine and make believe how I will respond to evidence - rather than bother to present any (mainly cause you got none) and actually find out how I will respond to it.

    But as I said - I have likely read anything you are likely to post and cite anyway long before you have.



    Not in a single one of your posts so far there ain't.



    I can not see a single person getting offended at all. I know I certainly ain't. What you need to get hip to however is that I know this particular subject quite well. Both because of personal interest in it - and because when getting into my own particular slightly unusual relationship I felt the need to research it heavily to be sure I knew what I was getting myself - and all our potential kids too - into.

    So rather than being offended at your nonsense - which I am far from - I am using you as a welcome platform from which to show anyone who happens to read the thread - yourself included - just what baseless outdated nonsense you are pedalling.

    I am not offended by you. I am happily using you. And you're making it real easy with your bait and retreat approach to the conversation :)

    So just to clarify, do you actually have kids?


  • #65
    Stateofyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    Caroline Jealous Tart wrote: »
    I never raised or even mentioned gay marriage and the only reason it went there is because you and others brought it there. The thread isn't even about that but some people have decided to go there and make the issue about themselves so they can get offended and play the victim a bit longer. I'm not interested and not taking the bait. If you want to have a conversation about gay marriage go and start a new thread.

    No one is talking about gay marriage, we are talking about raising children in non-heterosexual homes.

    I think you'll find you did bring it actually:
    Caroline Jealous Tart wrote: »
    Well actually you couldn't be more wrong. There is a proven tried and tested template upon which successful relationships function, particularly when it comes to children in those relationships. It involves one father and one mother in a stable supportive relationship not divvying up the workload based on salary levels and economies of scale.


  • #66
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Caroline Jealous Tart wrote: »
    So just to clarify, do you actually have kids?

    Three of a planned 4 kids yes. The plan was always they would have 2 kids each. They are 9, 5, and new born. We plan to have one more and then the tubes are getting decimated beyond use :) We are absolutely stopping at 4.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    Dominic Dry Sirloin wrote: »
    Dude there's literally no point. OP starts threads with the very obvious intention of getting into conflict. I won't say "getting into arguments" because as we can all see, they don't actually argue.

    Just a periodic need to type "you're wrong you're stupid this is the kind of stuff I hate" at people, and they've figured out that variations on "since I've moved back to Ireland I've noticed this stupid thing about Ireland. Also some vaguely gendered stuff. And if people aren't being responsive enough I'll throw in something more incendiary like gay marriage" pretty much always gets that need met in AH.

    Watch now, I'll be accused of some ad nausea ad homino attack or something :D
    Stateofyou wrote: »
    No one is talking about gay marriage, there is talk about raising children in non-heterosexual homes.

    I think you'll find you did bring it up actually:

    Wrong and where in my post do I refer to gay marriage or are you just chomping at the bit to put words in my mouth so you can get offended. Seriously.


  • #68
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Three of a planned 4 kids yes. The plan was always they would have 2 kids each. They are 9, 5, and new born. We plan to have one more and then the tubes are getting decimated beyond use :) We are absolutely stopping at 4.

    I'm not saying I don't believe you but I have my doubts.


  • #69
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Caroline Jealous Tart wrote: »
    I'm not saying I don't believe you but I have my doubts.

    Thankfully it is an internet forum and I neither want nor require your belief. But if you are going to doubt the answer to every question you bother to ask - it is a wonder you bother to ask them in the first place :) A rather unusual behaviour to say the least. Like starting a thread on a subject you do not actually appear to want to hear answers to because you have already decided in your own fantasy world how relationships do and do not work.

    For someone with no kids however - I seem to have made a serious number of posts talking about them and what I do with them and how and when :)

    Now that we are done talking about me - if you want to stop derailing your own thread and return to the topic any time soon rather than keep running away from it - I am ready.


  • #70
    Stateofyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    Caroline Jealous Tart wrote: »
    Wrong and where in my post do I refer to gay marriage or are you just chomping at the bit to put words in my mouth so you can get offended. Seriously.

    I literally said "No one is talking about gay marriage, there is talk about raising children in non-heterosexual homes."

    You're putting words in your own mouth and now mine. To avoid that all you have to do is read posts properly.


  • #71
    pq0n1ct4ve8zf5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    Caroline Jealous Tart wrote: »
    I never raised or even mentioned gay marriage and the only reason it went there is because you and others brought it there. The thread isn't even about that but some people have decided to go there and make the issue about themselves so they can get offended and play the victim a bit longer. I'm not interested and not taking the bait. If you want to have a conversation about gay marriage go and start a new thread.

    No. Wrong. There's decades of proof. Google it yourself. Proof. Wrong. Yourself google. "Peer review".

    Am I doing it right? Feels like I'm doing it right.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    I work for her.


  • #73
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Thankfully it is an internet forum and I neither want nor require your belief. But if you are going to doubt the answer to every question you bother to ask - it is a wonder you bother to ask them in the first place :) A rather unusual behaviour to say the least. Like starting a thread on a subject you do not actually appear to want to hear answers to because you have already decided in your own fantasy world how relationships do and do not work.

    For someone with no kids however - I seem to have made a serious number of posts talking about them and what I do with them and how and when :)

    Now that we are done talking about me - if you want to stop derailing your own thread and return to the topic any time soon rather than keep running away from it - I am ready.

    Ready for what, you completely refuse to accept the facts. How can you talk to someone like that?


  • #74
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    Dominic Dry Sirloin wrote: »
    No. Wrong. There's decades of proof. Google it yourself. Proof. Wrong. Yourself google. "Peer review".

    Am I doing it right? Feels like I'm doing it right.

    No quite the opposite actually. You contributed nothing to this thread other than to pass remarks about me. Absolutely nothing.


  • #75
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Caroline Jealous Tart wrote: »
    Ready for what, you completely refuse to accept the facts. How can you talk to someone like that?

    You have not shown any facts. You have just claimed there is a lot of facts and then run away repeatedly when asked for them.


  • #76
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    Deleted User wrote: »
    You have not shown any facts. You have just claimed there is a lot of facts and then run away repeatedly when asked for them.

    Sorry but I'm not going to engage in a tit for tat pissing contest over some woke articles whereby the outcome is predetermined and they work their way back from there. Whatever you choose to do is your business but I don't have to accept the alternate reality where facts aren't facts anymore because someone might get triggered. The reality is that the data has been collaborated on this for 70 years and the findings are conclusive.


  • #77
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Caroline Jealous Tart wrote: »
    Sorry but I'm not going to engage in a tit for tat pissing contest over some woke articles whereby the outcome is predetermined and they work their way back from there.

    Since I never asked you for any such thing, nor did I offer you any such thing, you are really going full blown fantasy land on this cop out of yours.
    Caroline Jealous Tart wrote: »
    Whatever you choose to do is your business but I don't have to accept the alternate reality where facts aren't facts anymore because someone might get triggered.

    Which facts are these now exactly? Once again I have to point out you have not actually offered any yet. You offered an opinion so far that is all. An opinion that is not backed up by a multitude of counter examples in our society. No actual facts that I have seen yet. What exactly do you think is a fact and what supports it?
    Caroline Jealous Tart wrote: »
    The reality is that the data has been collaborated on this for 70 years and the findings are conclusive.

    No such data exists it seems. You are making it up and not showing any of it. You were called on it - now you are trying to bluff your way out of a whole and I am at least enjoying the laugh :)


  • #78
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Since I never asked you for any such thing, nor did I offer you any such thing, you are really going full blown fantasy land on this cop out of yours.



    Which facts are these now exactly? Once again I have to point out you have not actually offered any yet. You offered an opinion so far that is all. An opinion that is not backed up by a multitude of counter examples in our society. No actual facts that I have seen yet. What exactly do you think is a fact and what supports it?

    No such data exists it seems. You are making it up and not showing any of it. You were called on it - now you are trying to bluff your way out of a whole and I am at least enjoying the laugh :)

    Nothing to bluff my way out of. You haven't even put forward a position so not sure what you're referring to exactly. I can do this all day, the data and facts are on my side.


  • #79
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,336 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Caroline Jealous Tart wrote: »
    Nothing to bluff my way out of. You haven't even put forward a position so not sure what you're referring to exactly. I can do this all day, the data and facts are on my side.

    I am interested to know about the "data and facts" too. I hope to help show some of the data I know about too and get in on this one. Can you let me know some of it? I had a LONG LONG conversation about this very topic on another thread ages ago with some of the users who are posting here. So I would love to know if some new "data and facts" have come to light?


  • #80
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Caroline Jealous Tart wrote: »
    Nothing to bluff my way out of. You haven't even put forward a position so not sure what you're referring to exactly. I can do this all day, the data and facts are on my side.

    hey might be - if you would show some of it we would find out wouldnt we

    But since you can not even keep up on the discussion here I can refresh you.

    My position is that there are many ways to divvie up house work - many ways to divvie up income - many ways to form a relationship with different people genders and numbers - and they are all viable. Relationships can and do work in all these different ways. I gave you the example of my own life as a case in point.

    Your position in response to that was merely to screech that "relationships do not work like that" and make some vague claim about one man and one woman and children that is not even clear. Neither of these claims however have you backed up with anything at all - despite claiming there is lots to back it up with.

    Caught up again yet?


  • #81
    Ted_YNWA
    Registered Users Posts: 71,799 ✭✭✭✭Ted_YNWA


    Tickers - you have claimed multiple times now, that you have data ( 70 years worth of it even!!), either prove it, or drop it.

    No more of this, I have it, but you just have to believe me posting.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    I am interested to know about the "data and facts" too. I hope to help show some of the data I know about too and get in on this one. Can you let me know some of it? I had a LONG LONG conversation about this very topic on another thread ages ago with some of the users who are posting here. So I would love to know if some new "data and facts" have come to light?



    Good to see some actual data being posted by someone. In fact there have been a small number of studies showing that some children in such families actually fare better. But not so many. The majority of the evidence suggests they are pretty much on an equal par/footing with each other.

    What is quite difficult though are the studies that show that single women fare worse as parents. Which is quite often the case in such studies. However the results are often presented not as saying single parents have it worse..... but as saying that the children need a male presence, role model, or gender in the house. Which is clearly not what the studies actually tell us.

    The sample size and demographic of that and other studies you want to rely on is not good enough to make reliable conclusions. I think the study even refers to that.


  • #83
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,336 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Caroline Jealous Tart wrote: »
    The sample size and demographic of that and other studies you want to rely on is not good enough to make reliable conclusions. I think the study even refers to that.

    Who said I want to rely on it? I said it was good to see something is being posted here. But that there are many OTHER studies either backing up this one or showing no real level of disparity between the types.

    It is never a good idea to rely on a single study if it is possible. Multiple studies and meta analysis and so forth are generally a better way to go. Especially when measuring complex outcomes against complex inputs.

    However it is interesting that while reply to my post you replied solely to the bit that was directed at another user entirely. You appear to have missed (ignored?) the part directed at you.


  • #84
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Who said I want to rely on it? I said it was good to see something is being posted here. But that there are many OTHER studies either backing up this one or showing no real level of disparity between the types.

    It is never a good idea to rely on a single study if it is possible. Multiple studies and meta analysis and so forth are generally a better way to go. Especially when measuring complex outcomes against complex inputs. The very fact that I asked you directly if you are aware of NEW material shows straight up in fact that I was not "relying on" anything in fact. Otherwise why would I be requiring more?

    However it is interesting that while reply to my post you replied solely to the bit that was directed at another user entirely. You appear to have missed (ignored?) the part directed at you.

    “Something something meta analysis” I honestly don’t know what your question is or what your point is exactly. Your diction is very difficult to follow, can you repeat the point or question you want me to answer please?


  • #85
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    [Deleted User] wrote: »

    My position is that there are many ways to divvie up house work - many ways to divvie up income - many ways to form a relationship with different people genders and numbers - and they are all viable. Relationships can and do work in all these different ways. I gave you the example of my own life as a case in point.


    That assumption is questionable. It can happen and it can happen very well and some people do it but I know other people who have been traumatised because the relationship wasn’t stable enough.


  • #86
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,336 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Caroline Jealous Tart wrote: »
    “Something something meta analysis” I honestly don’t know what your question is or what your point is exactly. Your diction is very difficult to follow, can you repeat the point or question you want me to answer please?

    I am not sure your inability to understand equates to my inability to write clearly to be honest. But I am happy to rephrase the question in a simpler format.

    You claimed there is 70 years of data backing up your position. I am asking you whether you could refer me specifically to the more recent examples from that data set. Since I had a deep conversation on this topic a few years ago, I am curious if anything new has come to light more recently.

    The link you replied to me replying to for example was a comprehensive review of a lot of literature if you actually read it. In fact if you search it specifically for the word "update" you will see they updated it in light of new findings. And if you search it specifically for the word "consensus" you will see their conclusions about what ALL of the evidence currently points to. Neither of these things seem to be matching your claims here.

    So perhaps you are aware of something more recent? Or anything that contradicts their conclusions? Either would be interesting.


  • #87
    Bigbagofcans
    Registered Users Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭Bigbagofcans


    This thread has become unbearable. Can we please get back on topic?


  • #88
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,336 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Bigbagofcans wrote: »
    This thread has become unbearable. Can we please get back on topic?

    Absolutely, though much of the discussion above pertains to the topic directly at times and tangentially at others. So I feel your pain.

    I guess the topic is how do you divide home life in a relationship, and does/should the money from your day job factor into that?

    I think for me: no.

    Full time employed on a relatively decent salary. My partner is freelance in an industry that does not pay amazing rates. So there is a disparity of earnings.

    The idea my job being more lucrative means I should get a proportionally easier ride in home life is not a mentality that appeals to me. The mileage of others clearly varies on that however.


  • #89
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    Bigbagofcans wrote: »
    This thread has become unbearable. Can we please get back on topic?

    Thank you. This is exactly what I was talking about. Some posters seem intent on dragging this conversation into some type of debate about gay marriage.


  • #90
    topper75
    Registered Users Posts: 5,942 ✭✭✭topper75


    Let all these reported woes be a salutary lesson to those thinking of marrying: choose a whole, life is too short to be involved with a half person.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Stateofyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    Caroline Jealous Tart wrote: »
    Thank you. This is exactly what I was talking about. Some posters seem intent on dragging this conversation into some type of debate about gay marriage.

    Relieved to hopefully be let off the hook in proving an absurd claim, that even a Mod asked you to basically put up or shut up? :pac: And for the second time, for the record, you brought up that "There is a proven tried and tested template upon which successful relationships function, particularlywhen it comes to children in those relationships. It involves one father and one mother in a stable supportive relationship..."

    The debate isn't about gay marriage. That is a very disingenuous comment, and you know it.

    Issue was taken with your statement, yet you will provide no proof of that claim that you say has been well established over 70 years.

    The issue some have with that statement is that contrary to your claim, research actually shows there is not just one template. Same sex gender parents are equally successful in rearing children as heterosexual parents are (and some outcomes show they fare even better within the latter) according to researched outcomes.

    Regardless of gender, spouses and parents working together to maintain a stable and loving environment free from major resentment is going to be healthiest for all.


Advertisement