In a big jug throw in
4 cups tomato juice or V8
1 diced onion
1 diced green pepper
1 diced cucumber
3 diced tomatoes
5 or more cloves crushed garlic
a tablespoon terragon
a tablespoon basil
1/4 -1/2 tsp cayenne pepper
3 tablespoons lime juice
3 tablespoons lemon juice
1 teaspoon honey
salt and pepper
Stir and chill a few hours.
We had it tonight with BLTs, very good. If the avocados hadn't gone bad we would have had chips and guac too.
My garden is so much work! Wow. I was out there half the day. I rototilled a section which had tried to go back to grass, and started double digging it, and sifting the top layer. The soil is just marvelous afterwards, but it is slow, back breaking work. I also hilled the blue potatoes with sifted compost from the old manure pile from the former owner's horses. The grass to the pile was waist high, so i had to try and carve a path for the wheel barrow. Of course when I started digging up the compost I disturbed not one but two ant nests, so I had to keep brushing off ants from my hands as i was pushing the dirt through the screen. My legs are all scratched now from the bedstraw and saw grass, in fact there is actually the imprint of a leaf on one leg in red dots! Took tow full loads for the potatoes, but I am hoping it is worth it. The soil is rich and loose, so the spuds should be big and easy to harvest.
We had fresh spinach last night! Yum.
My chickens are getting huge. They should start laying any time now. The banty rooster is the tamest, the three large hens are just pissers, they were going after Jack, my dal mix today. He just ran away and tried to circle back behind me! Poor guy.
I got my bee keeping equiptment. I wimped out, and decided instead of the chinzy little veil that came with the kit to buy a good study jacket with zippered hood. I do not want to get stung! I got gloves, a smoker, a hive tool and a hive body with frames and plasticell. I have to build the hive body, as it comes unassembled, then we will be ready to pull the bees out of the wall. I am very excited and a little afraid.
Last Friday I went to an elemetary school and made four 'speeches' about being a dog trainer. I brought Jack and Llyan, and they were great. I told the kids what I did for a job, then showed them with Llyan what I teach the dogs. Then I got Jack and talked about sports, and we did a little frisbee, in a 3X 6 foot space! Then we spoke about how to approach a dog, using Tom as my assistant. He decided to rebel, so when I asked him if his dogs were nice, he said "No, their viscious." in a dead pan voice. I said "may I pet your dogs?" He said, "No, their viscious." Well. So I tried again. "What are their names?" " Rip and Fang" he says! Oh the little bugger! Well, he finally gave up being the smart alek, and decided to cooperate. The kid laughed about it, as did I. Other than that little bump it went awesome. Tom was a big help, the dogs were very well behaved, and the kids were great, which means I hit the right combination of info and fun. We had exactly the right amount of time for each speech. I love it when things go that good!
I am hoping I can get more gigs doing this. The SPCA has been putting it out there as an outreach program. I really enjoy it, and I think it does good. It is much better than going to the spca, where I am always wanting to take home another dog (NOT something I need!)
Saturday Jack and I and Tom went to a frisbee tourney about an hour away. My throws sucked, so we only came in third, but we had a god time. Poor Tom was bored, so we spent the rest of the day doing fun stuff.
I wrote about Greg, Andrew and Steve coming over. Steve stayed another day, we went to the lake with the kids. I took Tallulah the Bull Terrier, and she tried on her new life vest (she cannot swim). She wouldn't go in at first past her armpits. She did, however, love chasing the waves from the boats., I finally let her off leash and she ripped up and down the shore, trying to bit the white waves. After an hour, with a 20 minute break in her crate, she actually started to swim on her own. She would take a big lunge, and squit up her face and start swimming! I was very proud, as she has sunk to the bottom before and it must have been very scary.
When Lou was in her crate I hung out with the boys and skipped rocks and swam. Tom got cut on the zebra mussels but was pretty calm about it. I had stuff in the car, so we band-aided it. Nick found lots of snail eggs and mussels to bring home and add to his 2 gallon lake tank. Last year when he started it he ended up with fish eggs and now has two fish in there. We stopped for ice cream-aww man did that hit the spot, the first cone of the season!
Sunday night Tom had absolute meltdown, missing dad, bawling his eyes out. I called Dave and told him, figuring I would find out the day he was coming back and it would make Tom feel better. Well, sure enough the next morning in pulls Dave, who got up early and drove 5 hours back for Tom! Tom was so excited he didn't know what to do. I had to tell him to go hug his dad, because he just stood there and stared at him, not believing he came home early. Dave actually played Clue with us tonight, (he hates board games with a passion) - Tom has been milking this for all it is worth.
Well, there is nothing deep tonight. I am sore and exhausted and am going to bed. G-night!
This Saturday’s Recipes by The Pioneer Woman
3 years ago
41 comments:
Is Tom your youngest son or your oldest? How long was your husband gone???
I hate Board games too, but ONE I like is Clue...
I'm glad you got the heavier outfit for the bees...I just saw a newsreport about bees swarming and it looked a little scary...not something I'd want to face with a flimsy veil on...
So maybe you can sell your own honey on your blog after you bottle it? I'm always looking for ways to make extra money myself as I am very underemployed here; but stay for the other benefits, walking to home, excellent medical (I have early onset of arthritis) good sick/vacation policy, etc.,
Anyway, I actually have these potpourri bags I make which are very pretty...I have four different bags, (Fall, a dark green one with orange/yellow ribbons, Christmas- Hanukkah two actually, one red, the other dark blue w silver ribbons, Spring, this one is really nice with roses, and I'm trying to come up with a summer design now, so I have one for every season)...
I wanted to sell them originally, but I winded up giving away so many as gifts at birthdays, Christmas, my granddaughter's teachers, ALL my co-workers including the men I just gave them a dark color, LOL, etc., Well anyway, when the smoke cleared, I had none left to sell...
So, I'm starting to make another batch now and I'm thinking about trying to sell them on my blog...
I LOVE board games, particularly the trivia kind, and Pictionary. Luckily I married into a family that also loves board games so we always do some of that at family get-togethers (if the kids will let us, LOL). Clue is one of my father-in-law's favorites, but I don't care for it much.
Love it that your son got your husband into a game. I remember drafting my dad into board games on Saturday afternoons while my mom went shopping. A real coup was when I could get him into a Monopoly marathon...the man had a world of patience, to be sure!
Can't imagine actually working with bees...you must have nerves of steel.
Anne
Bees are very cool, they are not a danger to the normal bee keeper. I just watched a video, and the guy was wearing a short sleeve shirt and no gloves. He had no problem. Being a novice I wanted protection, as I am not expirienced with the smoker, and how to handle the hives and all. The bees are very docile, and only sting when they feel someone is endangering their home. You can actually let them walk on your hands and arms and they won't sting unless you are getting into their hive. Fascinating to me.
I doubt I will get into it enough to sell honey, but as far as I am concerned if I can use it for gifts then it is just as good as selling it, since you are saving money. I have done quilts and jam/bread baskets before for gifts. I have thought about making soaps and putting baskets of those together, but since I cannot smell it would be tricky.
I am looking forward to trying berry honey whip. I bought a jar years ago, it was blueberries and whipped honey, it was awesome. I will have to play with recipes until I figure out the consistancy. But I could add that to the jam baskets. This year I just used my uncle Bill's honey and poured a few small jars (although I left plenty for myself!)
Tom is 9, and he really missed his dad. It was great to see him, I missed him like crazy too, although I didn't melt down and cry! My husband is very competitive, and doesn't like games where a large amount of chance is involved. Eucre is the closest he comes to normal card games, and board games drive him crazy. We played Warlord for a while, a battle card game, which was a blast, but heis bored of that now. We get it out once and a while.
My brother loves monopoly, my parents will only play it once a year with him. I was too day dreamy for that game, I never would see anyone on my properties.
Sounds really good! I never knew what Sangria was. I have to go down to town tomorrow, I will pick up a bottle ( I will have to write down the neme or I'll forget). We should have brandy (our bar is stocked). I usually only frink beer, but what they hey, I'll give it a try. I am always looking for party ideas.
Thanks for the help over there. I unfortunately just lost it a few minutes ago. I am so tired of the marriage bashing. Oh well, I figure it is my problem, if I don't like it I should leave.
Are you going to the men's conference in DC? I am really looking forward to it. Practicing pool tonight just to get ready!
I am trying to decide what shirts I want to make up. Maybe one which says "Boys Rock!" We are supposed to go march, so I want a good message for people to see. I think if Dave doesn't make it (it is up in the air) I will bring the boys, and they can wear those shirts too. I really want them to see what I am fighting for, and with Glenn Sack and Warren Farrell being there it would be great for them.
Sorry, but I'm a Spanish form Andalucia, and i have to say that Gazpacho is not what you have said.
Thanks
So what is it? I am going on my Moosewood cookbook, based on a vegetarian restaurant, with a few little changes.
Can you tell me what I am doing that is different? Maybe I can rename this American Gazpacho, and learn the authentic one.
I noticed that many American versions are vastly different than their authentic counterparts. Sometimes just as good, just different.
Please send me a recipe, I am interested in trying it.
"Thanks for the help over there. I unfortunately just lost it a few minutes ago. I am so tired of the marriage bashing. Oh well, I figure it is my problem, if I don't like it I should leave."
Yes, I lurked and saw the marriage argument as well...
I agree with the part that many men do NOT wish to be married, but it's curious how they keep bringing it up to discourage other men (particularly younger ones) who MIGHT wish to try it...
PLUS, in many communities around the US it's the ONLY way that men can have children, as many women still hold out for a legal marriage BEFORE having children...and MOST communities would still deem a man strange who did a single parent adoption or even the surrogate mother/sperm donor route with soooo many women looking for husbands out there...
So for a man to decide NOT to get married usually means he won't have children either...but maybe they don't care...there were a group of die hard bachelors around when I was growing up...and they seemed to do fine...nor like that other person over there thinks that every man would be potentially gay if it weren't for society pressuring them...
I think they might all be single and having a lot of sex with differing women every night, but not necessarily gay...
I told you she was strange...
Whoops...
I mean to delete the last sentence and thought I did but it just went further down so I didn't see it...
I you can erase it would be fine...
Sorry.
I think that warning men away from marriage is good, until the application of the law changes. But I think that the men need to be specific in WHY they are warning away, and it too often degrades into bashing the institution and women instead of judicial bias. I understand why, but that does not mean I can condone it. Predudice is just that, no matter what side it is on.
The marriage laws being aplied so wrongly does deprive men of children, and it deprives children of fathers. Unfortunately it does not stop women from procreating anyways, which damns yet another generation of even more of the horrible effects of fatherlessness. The only hope is that women realize that the two parent family for raising children is best, and if they expect to have men joining them they need top play fair. That means no more insane child support orders which men cannot pay even when they try, that means taking away the ability of mothers to take their children away from fathers without proven cause, and it means no more alimony payments (prehaps short term (2 year) alimony for SAHMs, but even that I am unsure on.)
If women want men to pay into the system they must make it fair. Otherwise men keep dropping out of the system, and I for one cannot blame them.
I think that warning men away from marriage is good, until the application of the law changes. But I think that the men need to be specific in WHY they are warning away, and it too often degrades into bashing the institution and women instead of judicial bias. I understand why, but that does not mean I can condone it. Predudice is just that, no matter what side it is on.
The marriage laws being aplied so wrongly does deprive men of children, and it deprives children of fathers. Unfortunately it does not stop women from procreating anyways, which damns yet another generation of even more of the horrible effects of fatherlessness. The only hope is that women realize that the two parent family for raising children is best, and if they expect to have men joining them they need top play fair. That means no more insane child support orders which men cannot pay even when they try, that means taking away the ability of mothers to take their children away from fathers without proven cause, and it means no more alimony payments (prehaps short term (2 year) alimony for SAHMs, but even that I am unsure on.)
If women want men to pay into the system they must make it fair. Otherwise men keep dropping out of the system, and I for one cannot blame them.
Why should women marry however under the system you describe which would basically leave them with nothing for chosing to stay home to bear and raise children except two years of alimony...
Maybe...
In other words you appear to have defined everything financial that each party contributes as belonging to that individual, but what women contribute, bearing and raising children, as a joint endeavor...
Why's that????
AND just to inform you women have a much shorter 'shelf life' then men in the job market as well...I have a BA from an Ivy league university and it got me a job paying about $35,000 annually since I got the degree in my 40s...
Why so late...I was home raising my kids and then working to support them after my divorce...there is only so many hours in the day and you can't work and then go to school at night too, at least NOT if you expect to see your kids at all...
You seem to think that women can just go out after a divorce and morph from stay-at-home mom to career woman making top dollar in a matter of a few years...
It doesn't happen that way...
Of course, it could, like the two hour housework day, become reality if women were willing to juggle their lives between raising their kids, staying up on all the career changes in their field and PLUS do all the housework but I guess my question is WHY SHOULD WE do all that...
The bottom line is that is I have to do everything myself ANYWAY, what in the heck do I need a husband for...
Oh just to let you know I overstated my income by mistake...that 35,000 annually included a p/t job I had last year at a pharmacy which I left because I have early onset of arthritis and couldn't be on my feet so much on weekends...so this year my income will be about 4 thousand less...
That's with a BA from an Ivy league university but in and out of the workforce for over ten years while bearing and raising children...
The situation men want before agreeing to marry is unrealistic...since if you marry a career woman like an Ann Coulter, let's say, or a Condi Rice, who make enough or MORE then men, guess what, NO KIDS...since preparing for a professional career follows roughly the same timeline that a women's most productive childbearing years does...
So again, it's about choices made by men, as well as women...since generally speaking you can't have everything...so you have to decide which is more important to you...wife who make equal to or MORE then you, so your own financial assets are protected in the event of divorce or wife who makes far less because she spent her time bearing and raising the children...
Cause if you pick door number 1, you're probably not going to get the second choice or vice versa...
"...since if you marry a career woman like an Ann Coulter, let's say, or a Condi Rice, who make enough or MORE then men, guess what, NO KIDS...since preparing for a professional career follows roughly the same timeline that a women's most productive childbearing years does..."
Oh NYMOM, that's not necessarily so. In fact I think it represents a scenario that could be a solution (not perfect, mind you) to BQ's point about men shying away from the dangers of marriage even though they'd like to have the family and kids. IMHO later marriage and later childbearing (30+) would eliminate a world of family and economic woes. Everyone can have an education. Everyone can get established and experienced in a career. Everyone can accumulate some assets and some retirement funds. Most important of all, everyone can acquire some of the common sense and experience necessary to choose a suitable mate for themselves--or at least a good and responsible parent for their kids even if the marriage doesn't last.
It's interesting to look at the statistics on parents who make a success of joint custody. The large majority of them are older, well-educated, with good incomes. They have the maturity and the knowledge necessary to cooperate and to place their kids' interests before their own.
I don't think I'll be warning either of my kids away from marriage altogether--it's good for everyone concerned if done right. But I will warn them to avoid it like the plague until they're 30 or so. By then they might know what they're doing. They might have fewer kids, but whatever kids they have will probably have much more stable and secure lives.
Anne
Right now about 80% of divorces are initiated by women. The chances of a stay at home mom being left high and dry are pretty low. Also given that very few marriages end out of the blue and with no warning, most people can see the marriage falling apart and can make changes to prepare for the divorce, if divorce is an option for them.
The two year alimony (in my ideal) would only be given when the husband leaves and the wife did not work, or vice versa, in order to care for children. If the wife chooses to leave, she gives up the right to any further money from her husband (vice versa). The money is to go into college, so the wife has the ability to get a decent job. SHe no longer has the luxury of staying at home unless she can build up a business from home. That is real life, you make choices based on the reality of your situation, not the ideal. People do it every day, SAHmotherhood is a luxury, or a goal, not a God given right. Women gave up that right when we gained the vote, the right to divore, and the right to compete in the workforce.
I truly believe that if women did not have the option of 'sticking it to him' they wouldn't be so quick to divorce over trivial matters.
Will a few women get left behind? probably. There are other agencies which can pick up the slack there. There are many programs in place which help single mothers, and for those women who are honestly abused there are shelters and programs to help them.
However the current application of the law is screwing thousands of men a year who did nothing to deserve it, and there are no services available to them. Not only that, but they are branded criminals for the inability to pay far more than they can earn and still have money to live on. Many are also branded sex offenders and abusers even though there was never a trial or jury, and no proof is needed in many cases.
For every one doctor who goes on vacation of Cancun and drives a Porshe while behind on support, there are thousands of bluecollar men who are asked to pay until they have under $10,000 a year to live on.
I do strongly believe in joint custody. The most well adjusted children I have seen of divorce were from joint custody arrangements, where the kids know that both parents want and love them, and the kids retain two functional parents. Relegating either parent to visitor status is wrong, unless abuse can be proven beyond a doubt.
I stay at home. If Dave got a brain tumor and asked for a divorce(nothing short of that would make him ask for one), I certainly would not expect him to maintain my lifestyle. I would have no right to his money. Our partnership would be over. Our children would spend every other week with him, and other than medical insurance all costs would be split evenly.
To expect him to continue to support me makes no sense. I am not his child, I am an adult. While I may have given up a career to stay home, I benifitted from that and so did the kids. So I really did not give away something for nothing, and consider us even.
Well, I wrote way more than I intended.
"but what women contribute, bearing and raising children, as a joint endeavor..."
That's because raising kids is a joint endeavor -- is in my house anyway."
But you leave out the fact that ONE of you invests more in your JOINT ENDEAVOUR then the other...why should women go through all the inconvenience, pain, disfigurement and sheer bloody mess of the whole childbirth thing ONLY to have someone who's really gone through nothing have the exact same rights as her one minute after birth...
Men keep trying to overlook that fact...they are the lesser contributor to this joint endeavor, yet want the exact same legal rights after the fact...Can you give me ONE good reason why women should support this????
When, in fact, men have clearly define their financial investments as their OWN and are very indignant when asked to share that investment by the court...
"and MOST communities would still deem a man strange who did a single parent adoption"
Actually most communities would deem a single man who adopts as extremely wealthy since tons of money is the only way for a single man to adopt. Google "single men adoption" and see what you come up with. The barriers are extreme -- much more so than for single women. As far as international adoption, the Ukraine is the only foreign country that even allows it."
AND those barriers put up are because MOST communities deem a single man as strange who wants to adopt...that's a worldwide reaction, not just western society btw...
"In other words you appear to have defined everything financial that each party contributes as belonging to that individual"
Actually if you're familiar with the Queen she believes everything in the marriage is shared. It's AFTER the marriage ends that financial contributions shouldn't be shared anymore."
Isn't that what I kinda, sorta said already...since we were talking about 'after the marriage ends'...and that you CANNOT expect women to go into these open-ended arrangements and have kids, not knowing if and when they could be divorced and under you and bq's policies, they would be eligible for NOTHING expect maybe a few years alimony so they could train for a job...speaking of which today if a mother isn't able to be self-supporting right away, she wouldn't even get custody of her kids probably, so who's supposed to pay her child support to her ex over those years that she's trying to become self-supporting????
I hate to tell you but it's a no brainer that few women will marry if this is what they can expect...and women, who historically have been the MAIN supporters of marriage, if they decide it's not worth it anymore, THEN the institution will be finished...as men in every society in every age have NEVER wanted to be married, that's nothing new...what's new is that it appears to becoming more unattractive now to women too...
"Oh NYMOM, that's not necessarily so. In fact I think it represents a scenario that could be a solution (not perfect, mind you) to BQ's point about men shying away from the dangers of marriage even though they'd like to have the family and kids. IMHO later marriage and later childbearing (30+) would eliminate a world of family and economic woes. Everyone can have an education. Everyone can get established and experienced in a career. Everyone can accumulate some assets and some retirement funds. Most important of all, everyone can acquire some of the common sense and experience necessary to choose a suitable mate for themselves--or at least a good and responsible parent for their kids even if the marriage doesn't last."
We're already done that...and that's what we THOUGHT would happen...it's been shown to be wrong...over the last 20 years or so 50% of women making over 100,000 (which is like your cream of the crop career women) have had NO KIDS...Didn't you even hear about the book "Creating a Life"...by Sylvia Hewitt, I think her name was...
Clearly women who go to all that trouble and time to build a career do NOT turn around so readily (or maybe bioliogically they can't) and decide to have kids...
"Or the other alternative is to try and foster a culture where women who want high power careers marry men who want to stay home with kids.
That of course means doing away with the idea of women seeking a man of status and doing away with the idea of men always seeking status through work and money.
If I had my choice, I'd stay home at least until she's five."
Again, you keep overlooking the fact that you are asking women to invest far more then men do, only to turn around and charge back to work right afterwards...It doesn't happen...
First of all, women don't find lower performing men appealing, at least not for marriage...and we can see from the abortion numbers that still haven't dropped, even though we have TONS of parents willing to adopt in this country...women will chose abortion over having and then giving up a child...so I think the stay-at-home dad could be facing the same mind-set...
I mean to me, logically speaking, I don't see the point of a woman birthing kids if she's not going to raise them????
It really doesn't make sense for women...
It made sense when men did it since they invested NOTHING in the front end, but for women to go through all we go through to bring a child into the world just to hustle back off to work again???
It doesn't even make sense to me if they do it with a babysitter...
BQ...
I'll write more later as I have to get ready for work....
"I mean to me, logically speaking, I don't see the point of a woman birthing kids if she's not going to raise them????
It really doesn't make sense for women...
It made sense when men did it since they invested NOTHING in the front end, but for women to go through all we go through to bring a child into the world just to hustle back off to work again???"
I'm hearing some echoes of Dr. Laura here...
The thing is, women DO do this, all the time. The majority of mothers of small children work. Hence the childcare crisis. Hence thousands of grandparents raising the kids while the parents work. The problem doesn't seem to be that women aren't willing to leave the kids while they work--but that even high-achieving women are socially (and perhaps biologically) conditioned to seek a high-earning male to marry rather than one who might be more domestically inclined and thus better suited to the needs of a family--certainly a better choice than babysitters. That and the fact that, in the case of not-so-high-achieving women, it usually takes two incomes to maintain a desirable lifestyle.
I know you were a stay-at-home mom and felt a strong vocation for this, which is commendable. It's just that not all women react the same way. There are many who want the FAMILY scenario and all that goes with it (and pregnancy and birth may be inconvenient and uncomfortable but it's hardly the ordeal it once was) but the actual raising of the children is the hard part and many are willing to delegate it to others either because they'd rather be at work or because they feel that the income they provide is more beneficial to the kids than their presence. It's sad in some ways, but it's everywhere you look. I've seen it in my own family and friends, as well.
Perhaps, just as career women became more attractive to men over time, overriding centuries of conditioning, domestic men will become more attractive to the kinds of women who need them.
Anne
"...over the last 20 years or so 50% of women making over 100,000 (which is like your cream of the crop career women) have had NO KIDS..."
I'd have to take a look at her research...I'm sure many women don't want to leave their careers once they're on the fast track but I'm inclined to think that this lack of kids has more to do with the biological clock coupled with the trouble that very successful women over 30 have finding a man of the same age group who meets their expectations--since most women feel they must have a man who out-earns them even if it's not really what she needs the most. Just as men have been expected to change their expectations of women (and have, to a large degree), women may have to change theirs as well.
Anne
Just as career women became more attractive to men over time, overriding centuries of conditioning, domestic men will become more attractive to the kinds of women who need them.
Perhaps...
But actually there have been a few studies put out that appear to show just the opposite, and in fact, career women are NOT ATTRACTIVE to men...Actually it appears that many men could be chosing lesser achieving women when they are looking to settle down and have a family...that's what that whole Maureen Dowd column was about that upset so many people.
She claimed that men were always looking for mommy...and she was right but I think it wasn't their mother they were looking for, but their kids' mothers...
But ONLY time will show where western society is going with this...
"Men keep trying to overlook that fact...they are the lesser contributor to this joint endeavor, yet want the exact same legal rights after the fact...Can you give me ONE good reason why women should support this????"
Because it's good for the kids."
Well maybe that will be enough incentive...it doesn't seem to be working vis-a-vis abortion however, where over a million abortions are performed annually even though infants of any race are in short supply in the adoption market...
Sadly people do NOT plan their lives that way birthing children and following the grand plan as laid out by a bunch of logic-minded social engineers...
Man can plan out everything according to what people SHOULD do, but since we are not rats in a maze negoiating to reach a piece of cheese, you can't always count on it working out the way logic saids it OUGHT TO...
That's the only problem...
You're expecting everyone in this scenario to act according to their own best interest, except mothers...and I'm telling you don't expect that to work...
"...over the last 20 years or so 50% of women making over 100,000 (which is like your cream of the crop career women) have had NO KIDS..."
I'd have to take a look at her research."
Well order the book then...it's in Barnes and Nobles online...
"I stay at home. If Dave got a brain tumor and asked for a divorce(nothing short of that would make him ask for one), I certainly would not expect him to maintain my lifestyle. I would have no right to his money. Our partnership would be over. Our children would spend every other week with him, and other than medical insurance all costs would be split evenly.
To expect him to continue to support me makes no sense. I am not his child, I am an adult. While I may have given up a career to stay home, I benifitted from that and so did the kids. So I really did not give away something for nothing, and consider us even."
Well then you made an informed choice and appear resourceful enough from the little I've observed of you to be able to support yourself and the kids with this Joint Custody as in New York, unlike some states, no child support is exchanged in Joint Custody no matter the disparity in income of the households...
BUT I'm talking about going forward for hundreds of thousands of other women, who will be making life decisions based upon this possible scenario...and I think we have to admit many women's life plans will change due to it...
I know mine did when I was divorced and probably the plans of my daughters as well, since they saw what can happen when women take chances like that and apparently have planned their lives differently...
So you need to multiply that by thousands of women and project it forward to see the impact...
Highlonesome, yes, I would love to see your recipes. I will start a thread tonight wehre you can post them.
NYMOM, you are going under some pretty strong assumptions which I believe are not true.
1) " Men keep trying to overlook that fact...they are the lesser contributor to this joint endeavor, yet want the exact same legal rights after the fact..."
Men are not the lesser contributer. Without the sperm there is no baby.
The woman carries and gives birth to the child. In the vast majority of cases, this is a safe process with no disfigurement. It is also a great privilage to carry and give birth. I myself consider the greatest thing I ever did was give birth to two healthy children with no medication. I would not trade that expirience for anything.
My point is that she is compensated by the expirience itself. It is a benifit the father cannot know.
That baby comes out and both parents have equal value. Period. The fact that she went through the labor process does not give her any more rights than the father. That baby is both the mothers and the fathers, and that baby, by all research available, needs both parents equally.
2) " First of all, women don't find lower performing men appealing, at least not for marriage...and we can see from the abortion numbers that still haven't dropped, even though we have TONS of parents willing to adopt in this country...women will chose abortion over having and then giving up a child...so I think the stay-at-home dad could be facing the same mind-set..."
Women do not find lower income men attractive because they have been trained to want someone to provide for them. That is women's problem, and they need to decide what they want, tons of money or a good family. If a woman wants a career and a family, her best bet is to find a man who wants to have kids and spend his days with them.
Men want someone who will be a good parent, who will take the commitment seriously, and who will respect them and their contribution to the family. Career women tend to be selfish and liberated. Liberated today means feminist, feminist means some pretty bad things. I do not blame men for stearing clear of these women. Perhaps career women need to look inward as to why men are shunning them.
As for abortion, you can thank feminism, this throw away culture, and selfishness as to what women abort instead of adopt. Instead of it being about what is best for the baby, it is all about what is best for the mother. Men had nothing to do with that.
3."I mean to me, logically speaking, I don't see the point of a woman birthing kids if she's not going to raise them????"
Fathers who work certainly raise their children. So why couldn't a mom who worked and her husband stayed home raise her children. Millions of mothers work today, what is the difference to her if she puts them in daycare or if her husband cares for them. And it is a huge difference to the children.
4) "I hate to tell you but it's a no brainer that few women will marry if this is what they can expect...and women, who historically have been the MAIN supporters of marriage, if they decide it's not worth it anymore, THEN the institution will be finished...as men in every society in every age have NEVER wanted to be married, that's nothing new...what's new is that it appears to becoming more unattractive now to women too... "
You have no proof that men did not want to marry, nor want children. We are force fed that men are losers who want no responsibility, but that is not true. Men tend to be more cautious today because they stand to lose everthing in the case of divorce.
If divorce law were reformed, you would see women become more cautious, and I truly believe you would see the divorce rate plummetr, becuase there would be a much higher incentive to make marriages work as opposed to incentives to end marriage as we have today.
Historically speaking, men waited until they were established because they had to support the family. They married younger women because they were better suited to give birth. It worked for thousands of years.
If you are making your life decisions based on the inevitablility of divorce, chances are you will get divorced. If you make your plans based on a lifetime partnership and do not even look at divorce as an option, then chances are you will remain married. I do not think screwing the system for the majority is warrented to give benifits to the minority. The fact is that if a woman is committed to her marriage, and made an informed decision of who her spouse is, and pays attention to how her marriage is going, she is very unlikely to end up in a divorce. WOmen are the deciding factor in divorces in most cases, because women have the most incentive to divorce. That needs to change.
It's not true I have no historic proof that men never wanted to be married...Actually if you go back to my blog I've posted citations directly from Augustus Caesar himself, who changed many laws in an attempt to force men into marriage...
So you can see that on my blog if you wish for historic proof...
Additionally I will wrap up my response to everything else you are saying by reiterating what has been obvious for some time, which is that women are the main decision-makers on whether or not a family will have ANY children, no matter what a husband might say...and if women feel threatened that they could lose their children, they simply won't have them...it's that simple...
AND for all you think that it's an equal investment, no big deal for women really, biology and our falling birth rate show that other women don't agree with you...it's a big big deal to most women...
So if men continue on their current path with these constant threats to women, they will simply not have children...many men don't already...
That's where this is heading...men will have their good jobs, their investment portfolio, their nice cars and a house but no one to share them with, it's their decision...
"as men in every society in every age have NEVER wanted to be married"
This is a broad statement saying no man has in the history of the world wanted to get married.
That is not true. While a few cultures (Rome being one of them) where men did not value women at all, infact preferred each other for company, did exist, most cultures are based on family and are not forced by women. Many men DO want children. Many men DO want to get married.
But why should they make a commitment to someone who has the legal right to take their children and house and 1/3 their paytcheck because they are unfufilled? You ask why women would have children, but you fail to see that is exactly the boat men are in. And not every man is OK with becoming a visitor in his childrens lives.
It is irrelevant who makes the decision to have children, they are still born to two parents.
I do not see what threats are being made. I do see that men expect fairness. Women now have every advantage men have, so there is no reason why men should not have every advantage women have.
You personally may not like it, but every time you go to work, enjoy your husbandless home and vote, you enjoy the traditionally male benifits. You are taking the perks but not willing to pay for them.
While you personally may not like this, you live in this world which has given over most power to women. Unless you actively fight to give back men the ability to run the country, and head the household, then you really can't expect them to continue paying through the nose and treating women as things to be cared for.
Women have cheapened motherhood, not men. Women have turned marriage into a zero sum game, not men. Men are reacting to the vast movement called feminism, which was created, pushed forward, and maintained by women.
I do not understand your hatred of men. I myself am fairly bitter over the bill of goods we were sold by feminism, but I cartainly do not hate all women, nor do I think all women are to blame for where we are. A few pulled the strings on this.
"That is not true. While a few cultures (Rome being one of them) where men did not value women at all, infact preferred each other for company, did exist, most cultures are based on family and are not forced by women. Many men DO want children. Many men DO want to get married."
You asked for historic evidence I gave it to you...now you are claiming Rome was exceptional in that regard...not so...and remember we are the 'heirs' of the
Greco-Roman culture and in spite of everything bad about their society and culture, they treated women far better then surrounding state such as Persia...
Men preferring each other company in Rome was totally dependent upon long stays away from home due to the extent of their empire and having their armies far from home for long periods of time...it was never as extensive as in ancient Greece and actually as much as the Romans admired the Greeks, they were always somewhat suspicious of their attraction to boys when women were readily available...
"But why should they make a commitment to someone who has the legal right to take their children and house and 1/3 their paytcheck because they are unfufilled? You ask why women would have children, but you fail to see that is exactly the boat men are in. And not every man is OK with becoming a visitor in his childrens lives."
I hate to tell you this because it's going to be very disturbing to your world view but it's NOT true that women have the advantages you claim in the courtroom...it's frequently just the opposite and study after study has shown that it's mother who faces bias in the courtroom...MOST mothers have custody of their children today (and even that number is falling every year as anyone who looks at the census can see) because they negotiated outside of the court for it and that negotiation involves them making substantial financial concessions such as giving up their share of marital assets like half the equity in the house, cars, bank accounts, pensions, even accepting more marital debt then they can handle...
Why do you think states made child support illegal to waive...because too many mothers would agree to waive child support in order to get custody of their children, that's why...but because so many women are waiving other marital assets to assure custody a number of states are NOW making it illegal to waive alimony as well...
You are just absolutely wrong in what you say and making assumptions based upon what used to happen maybe 10 years or so ago regarding mothers always getting custody in courts...the last census 2000 showed father custody increasing by over 67% and
many counties today (especially where you live, I hate to tell you, in upstate NY) are more biased against mothers in the courts today then fathers...
"You personally may not like it, but every time you go to work, enjoy your husbandless home and vote, you enjoy the traditionally male benifits. You are taking the perks but not willing to pay for them."
I don't consider these things you mention working and voting to be 'perks' as you call them...but ordinary rights that I should be able to expect as an American citizen...and to be honest most men fought against women having the right to vote...regarding working, women have always worked, maybe just not in jobs outside the home, but let's not claim women never worked...and my husbandless home was made that way by my husband...as he filed for divorce but stipulated custody to ME...I never even went to court, he handled everything for BOTH of us...but that was almost 20 years ago and a different time...
I feel divorce is a 'perk' for men as well...as they can get rid of an inconvenience wife. AND I consider my working to assist men as well since most don't pay alimony today BECAUSE women work...
So men benefit just like women from us working and having freedom to divorce...
"While you personally may not like this, you live in this world which has given over most power to women. Unless you actively fight to give back men the ability to run the country, and head the household, then you really can't expect them to continue paying through the nose and treating women as things to be cared for.
Women have cheapened motherhood, not men. Women have turned marriage into a zero sum game, not men. Men are reacting to the vast movement called feminism, which was created, pushed forward, and maintained by women."
No, again you are wrong...as it was men who cheapened both marriage and motherhood by deciding they all wanted to be like Hugh Hefner in the 60s...they wanted to be free to have sex with responsibility and to NOT have to get married and support a family...
Actually looking back objectively on this period 100 years from now I believe feminism (which at it's core was intially about women being able to be educated to work and support ourselves, although I understand how it's morphed now) but looking back many will see that it's really men who benefitted MORE from these changes then women...as now we HAVE to educate ourselves for a career, bear our children (with no assurance of being able to raise them to adulthood), and work fulltime for the most part for our entire adults lives...as staying home to raise our children has become a luxury for the few who either have saved a LOT of money or whose husband has agreed to allow them to be home while he works and brings home the lion's share of family income...
But again, it's all dependent upon your husband 'allowing' you to do this...
"I do not understand your hatred of men. I myself am fairly bitter over the bill of goods we were sold by feminism, but I cartainly do not hate all women, nor do I think all women are to blame for where we are. A few pulled the strings on this."
I do NOT hate men...but understand them. As I told you, I think, I have 5 brothers...why I do what I do on my blog is because I do not wish to see women and children getting shafted as these changes in our society are taking place...
I actually became involved, although I started my blog later, due to the Ryan Green abduction in upstate NY...this man abducted a 2 year old from its mother and they didn't find him for 14 years...YET he received no punishment when he was found...
I actually had no plans on having a blog, had never heard of one, nor of going on any 'missions' at my age and with my health situation, my kids are adults, I looked forward to finally being able to plan for retirement, but unfortunately, after looking around for someone to speak out about these issues saw only two groups: feminists and mens
fathers' rights advocates and in spite of what you think, both are on the same page in many on these issues...
You just fail to understand the similarities in feminism and this whole mens rights movement...both of them have the same goals for our society, gender neutrality in every facet of our lives, including the military, custody of children and even extending the idea to death row...you are the ones who fails to see these things...
Sorry but that's the facts as I see them...
"I hate to tell you this because it's going to be very disturbing to your world view but it's NOT true that women have the advantages you claim in the courtroom...it's frequently just the opposite and study after study has shown that it's mother who faces bias in the courtroom...MOST mothers have custody of their children today (and even that number is falling every year as anyone who looks at the census can see) because they negotiated outside of the court for it and that negotiation involves them making substantial financial concessions such as giving up their share of marital assets like half the equity in the house, cars, bank accounts, pensions, even accepting more marital debt then they can handle..."
Interesting... how about some references, I'd like to see a few of these studies and especailly who's funding them. Frankly if some women do choose to leverage capital in order to gain custodial control, it's simply an illustration of the value parents place on their children, which makes it more of a crime that the majority of custody judgements are in favor of the mother.
Your claim regarding court/divorce industry bias against women is unsubstantiated in my experience... I have yet to see UNBIASED (non feminist financed) research that indicates ANYTHING you've claimed. I HEAR claims from feminists that women are still treated unfairly, but they also claim their underpaid and still living under a 'glass ceiling'... both of which are complete hogwash. If divorce was so 'anti-female' you would not see 80% of divorces initiated by women. The deck is stacked in women's favor... and many know it and use it to their advantage.
We live in a country where when a male and a female commit a crime togeter, systemic sexist bias can prevent the female from even being charged while the male can end up with life in prison.
We live in a country where when 4 children choose to have consentual sex, the three boys can be thrown in jail for rape simply because they got caught and the girl decided to change her story. The word of ONE girl is worth more than the word of THREE boys in a hear-say case. ABSURD.
I suggest you post some examples of systemic anti-female bias in the courts for me to research, see if you can find ANYTHING even remotely as blatant as the above two examples (which are both in the news now)... barring that find ANYTHING indicating a structured legalized anti-female bias. I highly doubt it exists.
Women commit two thirds of child abuse, but we see a VAWA bill reintroduction that says and does NOTHING to attempt to address this. Women initiate spousal abuse at least 50% of the time, yet we see nothing in our DV industry intended to address this. Now I feel that women certainly are not being done any favors in this, but the way the legislation and industry currently operates is 100% controlled by feminists... so they're getting exactly what they want.
Jen and I have said all along that masculist and feminist radicals are different sides of the same coin. You, like most of those groups, are so ingrained in your distorted view of the world that you actually view your radical agenda as 'equality seeking' behavior. It really is fascinating for me to see the same scenario played out time and time again when I discuss these issues with radicals. I would post the exact same question on SYG and a feminist board (with genders swapped) and the responses would be virtually identical. The best part about dealing with radicals is when I point it out... then both sides will spit and sputter about how I'm wrong, 'we're NOTHING like them'. It's laughable.
Finally, your belief that you 'understand' men based on experience with brothers is... well to be generous I'll call it nieve. I had 5 sisters and would make no similar claim, and my stance is not based on some inherent 'complexity' in women that men lack, but rather a knowledge that it's hard enough to understand other men, creatures I share a lot with genetically. Women are structurally different and have other blessings and challenges, they experience life in some ways the same but in some ways very differently than I do. I think for me to claim I 'understood' women would simply show my ignorance.
"...and to be honest most men fought against women having the right to vote..."
Most? How do we know that? A constitutional amendment is not easy to get, and it was only men who voted it in.
Anne
"I suggest you post some examples of systemic anti-female bias in the courts for me to research, see if you can find ANYTHING even remotely as blatant as the above two examples (which are both in the news now)... barring that find ANYTHING indicating a structured legalized anti-female bias. I highly doubt it exists."
First of all studies CAN show whatever anybody wants them to show...basically they mean little or nothing...
But I get my information that custody awards to fathers have increased over the last decade from both our census data and American Association of Retired Persons AARP (which I consider objective data since neither have an ax to grind)...and in spite of the fact that you discount them and in some sense could be right, many NOW studies have shown bias against women in the courts...and not ALL of them are wrong...PLUS I've been working with a lot of non-custodial mothers individually for about 6 years now and frequently hear antedotal stories of bias in court...
It appears that most mothers have custody because they file for divorce first (and generally the person who files FIRST will get temporary custody, which usually morphs into permanent custody depending upon how skillful the woman or her attorney is with negotiating this). This fact probably also explains the 80% figure of women filing for divorces, since even as your wife noted, most divorces don't occur in a vaccuum and both parties have a sense that divorce is imminient just before one files the actually papers...
Thus it appears in MOST situations (not all, but most) where no abuse exists the person who opts for the preemptive strike gets an automatic advantage vis-a-vis custody...
"Women commit two thirds of child abuse, but we see a VAWA bill reintroduction that says and does NOTHING to attempt to address this. Women initiate spousal abuse at least 50% of the time, yet we see nothing in our DV industry intended to address this. Now I feel that women certainly are not being done any favors in this, but the way the legislation and industry currently operates is 100% controlled by feminists... so they're getting exactly what they want."
First, of all even if it WERE true that more mothers abuse children then fathers (and in fact it is NOT true, that data you are using is old, now that more men, over the last decade or so, have been getting custody, the figures have shifted and in fact, now the stats show more father DO abuse children then mothers and father abuse is more lethal, in other words, more fathers kill) nevertheless it still would mean nothing, as MOST people do NOT abuse or kill their children. The ones who do fall far outside of the bell-shaped curve when most of us both men and women, reside in the middle...
So I wish people would NOT try to use these old stats against women because 1. they are outdated and no longer true; and 2. even if they were true, they address a small subset of most of the rest of us, as MOST people do NOT abuse or kill their children...
Thus your numbers say nothing good bad or indifferent about MOST women...
"Jen and I have said all along that masculist and feminist radicals are different sides of the same coin. You, like most of those groups, are so ingrained in your distorted view of the world that you actually view your radical agenda as 'equality seeking' behavior. It really is fascinating for me to see the same scenario played out time and time again when I discuss these issues with radicals. I would post the exact same question on SYG and a feminist board (with genders swapped) and the responses would be virtually identical. The best part about dealing with radicals is when I point it out... then both sides will spit and sputter about how I'm wrong, 'we're NOTHING like them'. It's laughable."
Well isn't that the pot calling the kettle black since even though you claim NOT to be a part of any radical groups, you sprout all of the MRA stats/distortions such as women committing 50% of domestic abuse and MOST child abuse, yet act like you are NOT a a part of that movement...MOST people do NOT abuse either their spouses or their children, so this fixiation both MRAs and feminists have with this small subset of humanity is very odd...
I've often wondered from your wife's description of your life why you ever got involved with MRAs in the first place, as you appear to have no reason to be disatisfied with ANYTHING in our system...life appears to have been very good to you both, so actually you both kind of stood out like a sore thumb amongst the rest of SYG...
AND no I am not a feminist...I could be more of a radical, who knows...I consider myself on a mission and part of no distinct group...
"Finally, your belief that you 'understand' men based on experience with brothers is... well to be generous I'll call it nieve."
Lastly, I find that when women are accused of 'hating' all men the secondary implication behind it is that you are a lesbian and THUS have little or no contact with men and this is used to dismiss anything you have to say about them, which is WHY I let your wife know that in fact I have constant and frequent contact with men...and in a few weeks will actually be upstate at my nephew's graduation...so that's why I mentioned that I have 5 brothers...not to act like I was some kind of expert because I have brothers...
Sorry if it came out that way...
"Most? How do we know that? A constitutional amendment is not easy to get, and it was only men who voted it in."
Well from American history books since none of us were there, we must assume they are correct otherwise we have nothing...
AND yes it was voted in but HOW long did it take since women were agitating for it since the time of Dolly Madison...
I mean slaves were eventually liberated and given the vote as well but does that mean NOBODY was against that as well...just because you eventually win the right to something doesn't mean it was universally supported from its inception...
The fact that women were granted the right to vote meant that most men were not against it. If they were, they simply would not have voted it in. Politics do not change. If the politicians thought it would cost them their jobs, they would not have voted it in.
Slavery was ended because of a long and bloody war fought by men. Yes, a great many people were against ending slavery. But as many or more were for ending it.
Your claim of doubling of male custody is what, 7% to 15%? Still the vast majority of custody is awarded to women. And I too have worked with men and have plenty of anectotal evidence, so that is a wash. Let's see the numbers, stats, with links. If there is such a bias then it should not matter who gets temporary custody, the final custody would be predetermined.
No one even came close to calling you a lesbian. That is a huge red herring.
http://www.dpw.state.pa.us/Child/ChildAbuseNeglect/ChildAbuseAnnualRpts/2003ChildAbuseRpt/003672542.htm
In 2003, parents were the most frequent perpetrators of child abuse deaths. Mothers account for 40 percent of all perpetrators in child deaths due to abuse while fathers account for 21 percent.
Mothers caused three percent more physical injuries than fathers.
Fathers were significantly more likely than mothers to commit sexual abuse.
Mothers were more than twice as likely as fathers to be responsible for causing physical neglect
Sounds like both are fully capable of abusing children to me. Mothers ARE more of a risk to children for death, neglect, and many types of injuries. Fathers are more of a risk for sexual abuse, although only 2% or so of sexual abuse cases are by the fathers.
These are the state statistics for Pennsylvania, 2003.
Neither Dave or I even hinted that we thought most women were abusive, or neglectful. We agree that most people do not abuse their children. I am not sure were you got that from, but making up something and then argueing it is a straw man tactic, which doesn't work any better than the red herring.
Anyways, I am going to play pool with Nick.
We have two sons, that is why I am involved in men's activism. Dave can tell you his own reasons if he chooses to.
Well, if you want to talk about straw men the biggest one was set up by even playing the abuse card initially...if you know that MOST people do NOT abuse their children or each other, why does your side keep bringing it up???
As it saids nothing essential about women since it shows us a small subset of humanity, not most of us at all...
So again why does your side keep bringing it up?
I see it as an attempt to paint mothers as abusive and thus not worthy of having custody of their own children obviously since SOME small group of women abuse children...so immediately could limit someone defending mothers having custody because you erected the 'straw man' of abuse...
...and again I state that your numbers are wrong...the latest numbers show more fathers then mothers abuse children and more fathers abuse is lethal...
BUT yet means nothing anyway nor does it say anything essential about either men or women since MOST PEOPLE do NOT abuse children...
So why do you KEEP bringing up that strawman...
Regarding the lesbian comment I threw it out because I find it usually shortly follows after someones said "you hate men" which if you want to be honest could be called another attempt to bring a straw man up in the conversation since it was inappropriate of you to just throw it in there at the end of your post...
I never said I hate men...and to accuse me of it was wrong...really more of a way to limit what I say since now every comment I make going forward I should be analyzing to see if it could be deemed as evidence that I hate men...which is why I even felt the need to mention I had 5 brothers...
I am involved in this due to my love for my daughters and granddaughter; just as you admit you have gotten involved with MRAs due to your having two sons...but yet according to you, I could NOT be involved for love but because of hate: ie:, I hate men...
Nice try NYMOM.
First of all, we are having a discussion here, you, me, Dengst and Anne. "Your side" or "my side" has nothing to do with this. Arguing what is being said in this discussion, not what is said on other boards makes more sense.
Drengst brought up the stats to prove to you that there is bias against men, not women. That even though women are equally as violent as men they get far more perks and benifits such as custody and VAWA type protection. He never made any claim that most women were violent. That claim was the straw man, not the bringing it up to begin with.
I myself see it as important that people realize women can be as violent because women get the kid glove treatment precisely because people assume each act is an anomoly. It isn't, there is a clear violent trend in women which I believe matches that of men. Women wound in different ways sometimes, but it still damages, in some cases lethally.
It is interesting that you say my site was wrong. My site showed statistics for the state of Pennsylvania for 2003. It was not a report done by a thrid party, or research, it is the actual numbers based on arrests. Are you saying the state of Pennsylvania is lying?
Or maybe that you just don't like being proven wrong?
I personally do not think that women are any MORE violent than men. WHile MRA sites may try to make that claim, I am not bound by their thoughts and ideas.
I have never seen someone argue mothers should not have custody because more mothers abuse children than fathers. However I have heard fathers should not get custody because men are abusers.
I never said you couldn't be involved for any other reason than hating men. I asked why you hate men. Your posts show no love or even liking or respect for men. You assume I am in danger of divorce, you assume men cannot or should not be parents in the real sense of the word. You lump every man at SYG in with the extremists. You have given me no reason to think otherwise. I was just curious as to what made you feel that way. The obvious answer is your expiriences, but sometimes the obvious is not the right answer.
If it offends you, perhaps you should look at how I came to that conclusion instead of assigning motives which simply do not exist. I argue facts, not insults.
My husband and I do not fall into logical fallicies often. Neither of us has done it here. We used examples to prove our points. The examples were relevant to the points, which were relevant to the arguements. We did not put words in your mouth simply to argue.
I believe you do this for love, but I also think your hate blinds you to some pretty basic realities. That is not saying your intentions are bad, nor am I saying that as an insult. I really think your heart is in the right place. But I do think your 'truth' is not anything I see in real life. You see things differently, and I respect that. Doesn't mean I agree, but I can respect that.
"...and again I state that your numbers are wrong...the latest numbers show more fathers then mothers abuse children and more fathers abuse is lethal..."
I'm not saying you're wrong, NYMOM, but you've stated this many times without ever saying where these latest numbers come from. Do you have a link or a cite?
Although I agree that it doesn't matter that much--most parents are loving and nonabusive.
Anne
"I believe you do this for love, but I also think your hate blinds you to some pretty basic realities. That is not saying your intentions are bad, nor am I saying that as an insult. I really think your heart is in the right place. But I do think your 'truth' is not anything I see in real life. You see things differently, and I respect that. Doesn't mean I agree, but I can respect that."
Very interesting play with words...
You feel that what I do is because of love, but I'm blinded by hate...
Well that's just a nice way to say that everything I do is motivated by hate, but I'm too stupid to see it...so I'm not ONLY a hate monger, but a dopey one as well...
Well I guess we have nothing more to say to each other really...
But good luck with your site anyway...
"You feel that what I do is because of love, but I'm blinded by hate...
Well that's just a nice way to say that everything I do is motivated by hate, but I'm too stupid to see it...so I'm not ONLY a hate monger, but a dopey one as well..."
Are you really going to take such offense at this, NYMOM? Remember that you've pointedly told BQ that her ideas are pure feminist and MRA propaganda, that she's been sold a bunch of baloney by SYG--all of which imply a certain degree of stupidity and naivete, but she's debated respectfully with you and not taken offense.
I don't think BQ was trying to offend. The gist of what I think BQ was saying to you is that she thinks you are motivated, out of love for women and children, to help protect them from numerous dangers posed by men, and that those dangers you perceive are much exaggerated due to your hatred for men. No real inconsistency there.
And perhaps it is true that you don't really hate men. I think the word "hate" is often misused. The way I see it, bigotry does not always have active hate at its roots--in fact, most of it does not. What it always does have at its roots, however, is a decided contempt for the targeted group, an automatic presumption of that group's lesser worth, intelligence, morality, whatever. So let's leave hate out of it. You have said repeatedly, over at Trish's blog, that you believe women are better than men--you've made no bones about that. So you may not HATE men, true, but that statements have still identified you as a misandrist. A person who thinks men are better than women is a misogynist, even if he has a wife or a girlfriend. A person who thinks white people are better than black people is a racist, even if he/she has black friends. And a person who thinks women are better than men is a misandrist, even if she does have five brothers. So at least be up front and honest about yourself, and go from there in your debating.
If you're determined to go, that's too bad, because this blog of BQ's seems to be an extremely civil and tolerant forum, and troll-free so far. But, whatever.
Anne
Sorry to see you go, NYMOM. Anne is absolutely right, I could not have stated my intent any better than that. I meant no animosity.
For a while I was a member of PETA. I loved animals so much couldn't stand to see them in pain. I was a vegitarian, would not wear lether or fur, would not use any products that were tested on animals if i had a choice.
I was completely blind to the other side. Was it out of stupidity? No, it was out of compassion and love.
But taking the blinders off I realized that while I had perfectly good intentions, the extremism at PETA was harmful to the whole movement. I could not see the extremism because I felt such passion. It topok meeting my hsband and his family, and actually working a booth for Earth First and talking to our nieghbors the trapping association to make me start opening my eyes all the way.
Passion is important. It drives us, makes our lives have meaning. It gets people moving, it makes things happen.
We just need to temper that passion with logic and reasoning. I question everything now. And while it takes a bit of the spark out of things, it makes me be sure I stay on the right track.
You have a choice to go, NYMOM, and I certainly cannot stop you. You are welcome here, I hope you know that.
Take care of yourself.
Autor I've done a quick search and in 5 minutes found 10 different recipe's for Gazpacho, and one of the sites indicated that in Spain virtually every resteraunt has a different Gazpacho recipe (and that was an Andalusian site)... TBQ's version of Gazpacho had no ingredients that were out of the ordinary so I would suggest that it is indeed an acceptable version of "Gazpacho" (it certainly tastes similar to Gazpacho I've had in resteraunts), perhaps you were thinking of a different soup?
Post a Comment