Jodie Foster: Sexist

Different term, same meaning

I agree with you. And were you to say that the father's perspective and role is deserving of the same respect as the mother's, I would agree with you again.

I would say that fathers and mothers are equally capable of forming a different kind of bond with their children. I can never discount the physical experience that you and Rose describe. I have witnessed that experience in a person I felt very close to. But I'm arguing that the bond that forms between fathers and their children, while different, is no less valuable and deserving of respect - and "empowers" a father no less than a mother's bond.

I cannot know for certain what it is to be a mother - although since I am father and surrogate mother to two children, I have an idea. Likewise, no woman can know for certain what it is to be a father - a real father, not the deadbeat stereotypical images swamping our society. I'm only arguing that the tenderness, passion, ferocity of protection, and single-minded devotion that we ascribe to good mothers also be recognized in good fathers. They are capable of this, and millions exercise these behaviors for their children every day, single or in a partnership.

I agree with you on this and for the health and well being of a child I think that if parents split up, the custody of the child should be shared because they really, really, need both parents and during development stages, a caring, responsible father is just as important as a mother.

In cases where a mother has proven to be less responsible in parenting, hands down, the child should be with the father if he is the more responsible parent. No argument there.

However, when it comes to making the decision on whether or not to carry a child to term, as far as I am concerned, it is the irrevocable decision of the woman who's body the child resides in. It's an agonizing decision, but no matter how much the government or others think they can interfere, since the body is hers, the decision is hers.

People who think that they can pass laws to prevent the termination of a pregnancy obviously don't know about all the unsafe but effective ways that women have been doing just this very thing for centuries. Outlawing the ability to make the termination safer for the woman will not negate her determination to end a pregnancy, it will only compell her to use unsafe herbs, poisons or a coat hanger, causing death or permanent damage.

Then again, perhaps that's the point - some people think she should be punished for getting pregnant in the first place. Bad girl, lets brand her with a scarlet S for Slut or P for Poor or maybe a big fat B for Selfish Bitch because she isn't ready to take on a family yet or learns that the child will be severely disabled and cannot handle the life time committment and responsibility associated with caring for a severely disabled child.

I grew up in the 1950's with this attitude. I knew desperate girls with no one to turn to who went to "backrooms" only to be so cut up so bad that they nearly died and could never have children again. Knowing that this could happen to them didn't stop them though. Desperate is desperate.

I can only hope that women will never be faced with such terrible choices again.

.

My mother described the prelegalized abortion days as a matter of class. The upper class had friends of the family who knew how to help a good girl who made a bad choice get a safe procedure. The lower class bad girls had the back alley option.

No doubt. I'd sue the little bastard for damages!

I just wanted to clarify that I was not commenting on issues of abortion, a woman's decision whether to carry a child to term, and a man's rights in that case. For me, it's not very practical to conflate that issue with issues of fatherhood and motherhood once a child is born.

Yet this pseudo-mystical link is not strong enough to prevent the schizoid of the month from murdering her children in a gruesome spree. Personally, I consider the natal link to be a figment of sexist society which has little basis in reality, and which is offensive to both single fathers and to those children who have been abused or neglected by their errant mothers. It's one of those widespread notions which everyone perceives to be true, despite being viciously debunked on an all-too frequent basis.

And that feels both logically and intuitively right.

I don't think courts should be weighted in favor of mothers in custody cases. I don't believe it's any more traumatic to seperate a mother from her child than it is to seperate the father.

But I think it's strongly tied to the idea that women are supposed to be the primary caregivers for children, and men just show up now and then to read a bedtime story or play some catch. As more women achieve a degree of parity in the workplace and more men opt to suspend their careers to stay home and raise the babies, those perceptions will undergo a gradual evolution towards a more balanced perspective.

Right now, in individual cases where the man is the primary caregiver, he deserves every bit of support and respect that we would accord a good mother (and ALL good parents deserve more credit than they'll ever receive).

I have a unique perspective in this situation I would like to share.

My partner and I have long debated if a non-bio mom can love a chiild the same as a bio-mom. Much of this stems from her being adopted. I think we have both been proven right, and wrong via our own experiences and I no longer believe it is even about love. I believe it is about hormones. This relates in that the father can be substituded as a non-bio mom in that he doesnt experience the hormones of pregnancy.

Let me explain.

I gave birth to our first child some years ago and felt forever changed. I used to get angry at my partner because she claimed, I thought, that she couldnt smell the poopy that was so clear to me. I would become frustrated that she didnt know what was wrong with the baby when it was crying and I just inately knew what the baby needed. Why couldnt I just get a nights sleep? I woke at the slightest whimper when she slept right through. I could also subsist on very little sleep and be perfectly fine. Surely *I* loved the baby more because I was the bio mom.

Skip several years later.

My partner had a baby and guess what? Well, first off I will say I would run in front of a speeding bus to save either child without hesitation, even if it meant sure death for me. I love these kids with all my fiber.

But.. I didn't smell poopies that my partner did and I was unsure what was wrong with the baby when it cried. I relied on routine rather than knowing. I was not awoken by each whimper, and when I did lose sleep because of the baby, I was a wreck.

I believe that there are hormonal changes in the bio mom that prepare her to deal with the baby. To be alert to their needs and to be able to cope with the no sleep you get. I do think this does make a bio-mom's role unmatchable by any other parent. What I do not think is that this equates to love. I think a father, an adoptive parent or partner can love their kids just as fiercly. What makes a difference in my opinion is the hormones. I don't think it sexist, I think it just *is*.

I'd place my money that the 'mythical link' does exist in most cases - of course, you're always going to run into the bad mother, but those bad mothers alone do not negate the connection.

I imagine it to be nearly impossible for men to relate, as they have no way to relate to having another being grow inside of you. That's not to lessen the connection a father has, it is just a different and unique connection than that of a father.

Agreed - it's largely an issue of social perception and therefore subject to change and education; there's very little qualitative difference between a mother's and a father's connection to a child that's based on "biology" or involves "psychic links". The idea that the biological mother has some sort of superior "instinct" about caregiving is belied by experience and numerous scientific studies; when a father is "allowed" to become the primary caregiver and accepts that responsibility, he very definitely cycles with the child's rhythms, sleepwise, diaperwise, whatever the case.

In my years as a single parent, I've actually seen positive changes in the attitudes of the courts, women, and men as this trade-off occurs - women into the workplace and men into the realms of caregiving.

With all due respect, I'd imagine you're wrong.

Here's different perspective. Ask any good father what it meant to have his hand on his partner's belly and feel a good kick from his child's foot. Ask any good father what it meant to watch his child's heart beat on the sonograph. Or to watch his child's head "roll" across the inside of his partner's belly, as the child changes position.

These are rare and telling events for a father, a window into the process, and he can invest an enormous amount into such experiences. They make the child real for him; many fathers claim that they have gotten a good sense of the child's personality, just by witnessing these experiences and interacting with the mother and the child. My child was incredibly active in the womb and very aware; when I touched, he'd kick, and when I'd explore, he'd roll over to meet me. Activeness, awareness, curiousity, inquisitiveness, boldness - these are traits by which he introduced himself to me before he was born, and traits he has never lost.

I "knew" my child while he was in the womb. Any father can. There's your "psychic link", I suppose.

First off, in all seriousness, let me just say "Bravo" to all who've participated in this thread thus far. This is one of the few threads in the Off Topic area that I've started where I didn't need my handy dandy flame retardant silver suit. The discussion has been civil and intelligent.

I'm going to touch on some points made and forgive me for not naming names but I'm not on my own computer and my current connection is horrendous at best.

1. I agree that, while mothers and fathers may share *different* bonds with their children, those bonds are also *equally* strong.

2. A little background. While I have 4 children, I've only contributed biologically to one (with my first wife) and I've been through the pregnancy and birth of two. That said, I think we can all agree that we love our children the same regardless of biology. When my youngest was born I was up far more often than my wife. I smelled the "poopie" and I addressed said issue. Same with my biological daughter. Now this is not because my current wife was lazy (tho my first wife...well don't get me started), but partly due to the fact that I'm a lighter sleeper and a LOT to due with A) a personal desire to spend that time with my children and B) I figured she'd just spend the last two trimesters getting zero sleep due to the baby, I could certainly help out now that I was able and I was happy to do it.

Let me be clear: My current wife is a FANTASTIC mother. There is nothing she wouldn't do for our children.

Also, I've been able to discern the needs of infants since I was a toddler interpreting my baby sister's cries for our bewildered parents. Maybe it's just a switch that is turned on in some people from birth and for others gets flipped during pregnancy. I don't know. But I could tell the difference between the tired cry, the change-my-diaper cry, and the I-need-your-attention cry.

3. I don't believe that Ms. Foster was being deliberately belittling of the role of fathers. I honestly believe she simply didn't think about what she was saying. And, either way, she's entitled to her opinion.

4. As someone mentioned, I've made my feelings on abortion very clear in other posts and I don't want this one to get dragged into that abyss again. Long story short I believe that pro-choice is just a nice way of saying pro-abortion. I put "reproductive rights" in quotes because I don't believe in the concept. Again, it's just a euphemism for abortion.

If you wish to discuss my views on abortion I ask that you send me a private message in the forums or find one of my abortion threads, but please do not turn this one into an abortion flame fest.

In summary, I love children. I honestly believe that they are gifts from God and should be treated as such. My children are a blessing to me. I would kill for them, I would die for them. Sadly, I think that the role and therefore the rights of fathers have been overlooked in this country and abroad (do some research on the plight of fathers in England-it will break your heart) mostly due to some irresponsible men who happily fritter those rights away to be free of any "attachments".

-Kiamat Dusk

PS: Thanks, Juro. See you soon!
PSS: You're all right: Jodie is SOOOO teh hawt! I would totally father her children...if only to prove her wrong. lol

...one more thing to think about....

Why is it when my wife is out alone with the kids she's "parenting", but when I'm out alone with the kids everyone makes some comment about me "babysitting"??

-Kiamat Dusk
...makes you go "Hmmmmm"

Well....

If relativism were as pervasive as you're implying, you'd have no justification for claiming what "reality is". Bit of a contradiction, there.

In reality - while much in our lives is relative, there are methods and experiences that allow us to closely approximate some fairly fundamental truths. However, appealing to a universal relativism is one way of prohibiting further argument; I'll respect your wishes.

Thanks for this. I could not have said it better myself. I don't think the world will benefit from more people talking about how the sex they just happen to belong to is The Chosen Sex. Not in any way, shape, or form. It's too easy for this kind of thinking to devolve into cognitive poison, and then you get bigotry.

I should mention something here. My own experiences in life have lead me to care enough about this particular topic to respond.