Tories=Bigots..... proof if needed

WhiteThierry

sjaypink wrote: »

Again, we seem to be confusing 'happy, stable families' with 'marriage'

yes, i think we've both made this point several times, some people however seem to think that if you're not married then you're not in a stable relationship. It seems strange that if someone signed a contract at work that prevented them leaving the company without severe reprisals everyone would bemoan their lack of freedom, but marriage is celebrated for that exact same reason.

treliac

WhiteThierry wrote: »

yes, i think we've both made this point several times, some people however seem to think that if you're not married then you're not in a stable relationship. It seems strange that if someone signed a contract at work that prevented them leaving the company without severe reprisals everyone would bemoan their lack of freedom, but marriage is celebrated for that exact same reason.

Each to their own, don't you think? But don't overlook that fact that very many people enjoy being married.

sjaypink

WhiteThierry wrote: »

yes, i think we've both made this point several times, some people however seem to think that if you're not married then you're not in a stable relationship. It seems strange that if someone signed a contract at work that prevented them leaving the company without severe reprisals everyone would bemoan their lack of freedom, but marriage is celebrated for that exact same reason.

Errr, not sure I'm quite with your example there, but I get you

The name helps :A

Thrugelmir

sjaypink wrote: »

Again, we seem to be confusing 'happy, stable families' with 'marriage'

Outside of the world you live in there's a real world out there.

That even the Daily Mail doesn't cover. Even the politicians are loathe to admit exists.

Not everyone is middleclass. .

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

treliac wrote: »

With respect, Hamish, you don't have or want children and don't have the instincts that are experienced by those of us who do and whose first instinct is to be a parent.

That by no means makes me unqualified to ask the question though.

It'd be like me saying, you don't have a house, so aren't qualified to talk about them.....

I have balanced a career and bringing up children, because I had to, to keep us afloat as a family, not because I wanted to - once I became a mum. Fortunately, I didn't have to work full time and was fairly lucky in being able to make it work without, I hope, my children suffering too much.

I was the one who suffered when they were young, because I desperately wanted to be a full-time mum to them and I hated having to leave them.

I believe it's a sad fact of life that we cannot have it all, we have to prioritise and make choices and, if we have a family, we have to try and work out what is best for everyone. It would be nice to have 'it all' but it can't be done.

I'm sure that is absolutely correct for you, and no doubt for many others.... But not for everyone.

But it doesn't answer my question for those who think differently.

I know many professional women with children who have no desire to be stay at home mothers, or even to work part time. They enjoy their careers, they want to work, to succeed professionally, to challenge themselves and enjoy the fruits of their labour. AND to be a parent.

I even know a couple of women, who whilst they love their children, if they had the choice to go back and do it again, would have chosen not to have had them, or to have had them much later in life.

So I ask again, is it also so wrong that women should want to have the rewards of a satisfying career?

And perhaps this time, we could leave the assumption that all women want to breed and then be full time mothers at the door.....;)

WhiteThierry

sjaypink wrote: »

Errr, not sure I'm quite with your example there, but I get you

The name helps :A

my username? well a friend said i looked like a white thierry henry, i chose the name before he became a cheat however

ckerrd

WhiteThierry wrote: »

ok racism was the wrong word, religious descrimination is the word i was looking for, as atheism is a faith and a true atheist would not get married.

!!!!!!?

Atheists would not get married?
First you got racism wrong and now you have compounded your error.

sjaypink

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Outside of the world you live in there's a real world out there.

That even the Daily Mail doesn't cover. Even the politicians are loathe to admit exists.

Not everyone is middleclass. .

:rotfl:Thats the funniest thing I've read in ages. I honestly have no idea where that came from?! Or what relavance it had to my quoted post? < genuine >

I'm thoroughbred chav mate

treliac

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And perhaps this time, we could leave the assumption that all women want to breed and then be full time mothers at the door.....;)

By all means. But, whatever we want, when we have children we have no right to put ourselves before them. They didn't ask us to have them and they have the right to not be treated like accessories (for whom we have little time) or insurance policies for our old age.

The most dishonest term is the one.... 'Quality Time.'

blue_monkey_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Is it also so wrong that women should want to have the rewards of a satisfying career?

No it isn't at all, some women do uwant to work, I understand that, that is their CHOICE. This is the key word - choice. A lot of women do not want to work, they work because they have to. They do not enjoy leaving their children with others and to be told that they said their first word, took their frst steps without them being there to see it - but they have to work because the cost of having a family home is so expensive and social housing is very few and far between.

And when they are working because they HAVE to and not when they WANT to it is not satisfying or rewarding!!

I know lots of women who do not want to work, they want to be a mum and bring up their own children and be there for them all the time but they cannot do this because they have a mortgage to pay so HAVE to go out to work. They are telling me they want children but know they cannot afford it because they have to buy/rent somewhere to live that is almost - or more than - the cost of one person's wage.

There is a difference. Choice. There have always been women who will want to have a satifying and rewarding career but to have both parents working a minimum wage job stacking shelves at Tesco is neither satisfying or rewarding, but the goverment then gives you 'up to' £300 a week to pay someone else to look after your kids - it all seems very upside down to me. It is not really what I would call a party with 'family values'.