Fathers have a choice

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-10-2003
Fathers have a choice
903
Tue, 07-25-2006 - 1:45pm

I was flipping through the channels this morning when I came across one of those baby shows. I think it was called Bringing home Baby or something like that. Anyway, the part that caught my attention was where they were changing the baby (actually she was doing the changing. He was just standing and watching) She then made the comment that he "doesn't do diapers". She then goes on to say her dad didn't either and try to come up with some reasons why some dad's don't do it and how they can't handle it, blah, blah, blah. The new dad then piped in that he couldn't stand the smell and he just doesn't do them. She then says...some dads do and some dads don't.

So I sat there and thought.....Why does dad get a *choice* in it at all? Why do they get to *opt out* of the diaper changing duties? What if the mom decided she couldn't stand the smell as well? Would the child then stay in a dirty diaper for the next two years until he is potty trained or until one of them broke own and changed the poor child? Why would a mom think that changing a diaper was an opional assignment for the dad?

Anyway....it's not really sah/woh. But I thought it a good debate topic.....Why do dads get the choice to *opt out* of parenting duties? And why would moms let them do it?

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2003
Thu, 08-03-2006 - 9:01pm

<>

You are kidding, right?

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,83849,00.html
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_iraq_011305,00.html.

16,500 in Afghanistan, and 140,000 in Iraq. Wow, I'd say the majority of our force left Afghanistan and concentrated on Iraq. If you are so *deep* in your conviction to *get them first before they get us*, why aren't you concerned with the fact that Bin Laden is still free? I was/am much more concerned about Bin Laden then I ever was about Saddam.

<>

Really, what country supports America, invading Iran? Where do you get your facts from?

Julia

Julia

Proud Mommy of Macey and Reece

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2003
Thu, 08-03-2006 - 9:17pm

<>

With that logic, can an Iranian have the same argument against bombing/invading America? If they deem America a threat to their country, do they have the right to defend themselves and *get us first* so they don't have attacks on their soil? God forbid China ever sees America as a threat, should they have the right to invade America? If not, why?
I really don't understand the logic that we can do it, but others can't.

Julia

Julia

Proud Mommy of Macey and Reece

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-21-2001
Fri, 08-04-2006 - 12:28am
I apologize...it was George HW Bush who said that.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-11-2005
Fri, 08-04-2006 - 8:40am

What is an "Iraqi's Afghani's"? I've never heard of that term, nor can I figure out from normal grammar rules what that would be. I do know you suggested an Eqyptian was not Middle Eastern, thus I asked how you define the Middle East.

As to your scenario: I would need to know a lot more about the situation than that before I could tell you that I would be afriad of someone. Generally, I am not afraid of tall men. Generally, I'm not afraid of men, or people, for that matter, unless they have done something to cause me to fear. Is he pointing a gun at me? Yelling obscenities at me? Threatening me? If so, I may be afraid--whether he was tall or not.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-11-2005
Fri, 08-04-2006 - 8:46am

If I see a man wearing a muslim prayer cap, it is a opretty safe bet he is muslim. If I see women wearing traditional muslim headdress, it's a pretty safe bet she and her family are muslim. If I see someone carrying muslim prayer beads, or even see the ebads sticking a bit out of someone's pockety, it is a pretty safe bet they are muslim.

Alos, if I see someone who looks middle eastern and is speaking arabic to family members, it is reasonable to think they are middle eastern.

I can't say how the travels knew for sure, but these are some pretty safe bets, wouldn't you agree?

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-11-2005
Fri, 08-04-2006 - 8:53am

For the people who think it is all just made up:

The following exchange took place at the Chicago airport between Robert I. Sherman of American Atheist Press and George Bush, on August 27 1987. Sherman is a fully accredited reporter, and was present by invitation as a member of the press corps. The Republican presidential nominee was there to announce federal disaster relief for Illinois. The discussion turned to the presidential primary:

RS:
"What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are atheists?"
GB:
"I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me."
RS:
"Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?"
GB:
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
RS:
"Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?"
GB:
"Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists."
UPI reported on May 8, 1989, that various atheist organizations were still angry over the remarks.

The exchange appeared in the Boulder Daily Camera on Monday February 27, 1989. It can also be found in "Free Inquiry" magazine, Fall 1988 issue, Volume 8, Number 4, page 16.

On October 29, 1988, Mr. Sherman had a confrontation with Ed Murnane, co-chairman of the Bush-Quayle '88 Illinois campaign. This concerned a lawsuit Mr. Sherman had filed to stop the Community Consolidated School District 21 (Chicago, Illinois) from forcing his first-grade atheist son to pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States as "one nation under God" (Bush's phrase). The following conversation took place:

RS:
"American Atheists filed the Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit yesterday. Does the Bush campaign have an official response to this filing?"
EM:
"It's bulls**t."
RS:
"What is bulls**t?"
EM:
"Everything that American Atheists does, Rob, is bulls**t."
RS:
"Thank you for telling me what the official position of the Bush campaign is on this issue."
EM:
"You're welcome."

After Bush's election, American Atheists wrote to Bush asking him to retract his statement. On February 21st 1989, C. Boyden Gray, Counsel to the President, replied on White House stationery that Bush substantively stood by his original statement, and wrote:

"As you are aware, the President is a religious man who neither supports atheism nor believes that atheism should be unnecessarily encouraged or supported by the government."

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-26-2006
Fri, 08-04-2006 - 9:27am

Your links stated just what I said. We are still in Afghanistan. The war in Afghanistan is over. Bin Laden is in a hole or dead. His key leaders are dead. Bin Laden if alive will be found that I have no doubt about.

As for what I said about invading. I should not have used the term invading. We have world support when it comes to Iran. No one wants Iran to enrich uranium. If they don't follow sanctions and continue the course they are on, use of force will most definately have to come into play.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/767B3A48-27CB-4798-B504-6CE59C7F893B.htm

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-26-2006
Fri, 08-04-2006 - 9:29am
Another argument fromt he left I just don't get. We aren't under any UN sanctions whatsoever. I must ask you this. Do you really want Iran to enrich uranium? DO you really want them to possess nuclear bombs? They do that, and they will have a large amount of control of the worlds market with oil. Not a good thing at all.
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-26-2006
Fri, 08-04-2006 - 9:30am
When? I missed that one too.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-11-2005
Fri, 08-04-2006 - 9:34am
I posted the quotes and gave a source where you can verify them if you choose to do so.

Pages