6 Rings G.O.A.T.
Supporter
- Feb 11, 2006
- 144,301
- 131,792
the thread about nothing...
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by Renaldo Balkman,
- Start date
- Oct 17, 2012
- 6,753
- 16,821
Dope post. Some of those plays are just out of this world. That baseball between the pitchers glove & face was absolutely insane. Enjoyed the entire video
6 Rings G.O.A.T.
Supporter
- Feb 11, 2006
- 144,301
- 131,792
- Oct 13, 2001
- 175,987
- 164,402
Yea but you still have to wait for the rows in front of you to exit before you can leave.
Occasionally you run into those you speak of that jump the rows in front of them. Hope you aren't one of those types.
- Mar 19, 2013
- 16,860
- 34,961
- Oct 13, 2001
- 175,987
- 164,402
Thanks for the advice.
6 Rings G.O.A.T.
Supporter
- Feb 11, 2006
- 144,301
- 131,792
- Dec 9, 2002
- 36,215
- 30,372
Since she only thinks it's her child I wonder if she'll want his moneyLOGIALLY, I have no argument against what they are saying.
, "Because that is how we've always done it" would be the only response.
If we're being honest here.
- Oct 13, 2001
- 175,987
- 164,402
Well the first woman never called it her child.
She simply said if she carried it for 9 months, why should the dude's last name be used.
But I don't think anyone can make a logical argument against what she is saying TBH.
The second woman is probably calling it hers since she carried it, which again you can't even argue forreal.
- Dec 9, 2002
- 36,215
- 30,372
I was only talking about the second woman.
6 Rings G.O.A.T.
Supporter
- Feb 11, 2006
- 144,301
- 131,792
Trust.. To tell the world that the child is mine by inherently my last name..
Just like in marriage..the wife inherent the husband last name to tell the whole that this woman is my wife..
Just like in marriage..the wife inherent the husband last name to tell the whole that this woman is my wife..
D
Deleted member 212461
Guest
Yea but you still have to wait for the rows in front of you to exit before you can leave.
Occasionally you run into those you speak of that jump the rows in front of them. Hope you aren't one of those types.
- Dec 9, 2002
- 36,215
- 30,372
I will always think that women that get "offended" by the word 'female' are faking it and simply looking for something to be offended by bc they're bored at the moment.
6 Rings G.O.A.T.
Supporter
- Feb 11, 2006
- 144,301
- 131,792
I don't get it.
How does a woman even get pregnant without a man's sperm?
"My Child because I carried it" seems like a really goofy argument IMHO.
Selfish and prideful to post stuff like this and think you're doing it.
Especially considering what women had to go through in English common law with the whole "personhood" thing.
The only place conversations like this matter is between the Father and Mother and any responsible person wouldn't wait until they are pregnant to have the conversation.
If its important to the Man, then ask the Woman you're with how she feels.
If its important to the Woman, then ask the Man you're with how he feels.
If an agreement can be met - great.
If an agreement cant be met - great.
A Mother refusing to take a Mans last name or refusing give their child their Fathers last doesn't make her some progressive champion for Women's rights any more than the opposite makes a Woman a supporter of archaic laws.
Purely a personal decision - that's it and that's all.
People like this are standing on the shoulders of those that came before them while proclaiming they are heroes for posting BS on the internet.
BTW:
How it all started
Historically, a person’s surname was not considered all that important. In early medieval England, most people were known only by one name, their “Christian name,” such as Thomas or Anne, which was conferred at baptism. But as the population grew, it got tiresome trying to distinguish among the many Thomases or Annes (or Richards or Marys), so surnames arose, often based on lineage (such Williamson), occupation (such as Smith), or locale (such as York).
Still, the matter of a wife taking a husband’s surname didn’t surface in English common law until the ninth century, when lawmakers began to consider the legalities surrounding personhood, families, and marriage. Thusly (as they would say), the doctrine of coverture emerged – and women were thereafter considered “one” with their husbands and therefore required to assume the husband’s surname as their own.
Under the concept of coverture, which literally means “covered by,” women had no independent legal identity apart from their spouse. Actually, this “coverage” began upon the birth of a female baby – who was given her father’s surname – and could only change upon the marriage of that female, at which point her name was automatically changed to that of her new husband.
But coverture laws also prevented women from entering into contracts, engaging in litigation, participating in business, or exercising ownership over real estate or personal property. As succinctly stated by former Justice Abe Fortas of the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Yazell, “[c]overture… rests on the old common-law fiction that the husband and wife are one, [and] the one is the husband.”
Evolutions in the law
Not surprisingly, women in the United States began to take exception to their non-existent legal status, and a much-needed feminist uprising occurred concurrently with the passage of Married Women’s Property Acts in several U.S. states in the mid-1800s. Under these acts, women gained individual legal status for purposes of signing contracts, engaging in business and commerce, and making purchases to acquire property. Accordingly, now that the woman’s name had its own independent legal significance, the number of women opting to retain their birth name began to rise.
From there, the law continued to catch up…slowly. It wasn’t until the 1970s that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Tennessee law requiring a woman to assume the last name of her husband before registering to vote. Around the same time, the prefix “Ms.” emerged, allowing women to assert their identity apart from their marital status.
Today, an estimated 20 percent of American women opt to retain their birth name after marriage – actually alower percentage than in the 1970s and 1980s. Back then, many women saw keeping their birth name as an equality issue – a repudiation of any vestiges of coverture. For today’s brides, however, the choice is often practical or rooted in professional identity.
With the marriage landscape finally expanded to include same-sex couples, the future of married surnames remains to be seen (and as attitudes continue to evolve around gay marriage, consensus on the matter likely isn’t forthcoming anytime soon). While many newlyweds choose to retain their birth name, some couples have opted for the non-traditional route of combining parts of both surnames to create a totally new identity – much to the delight of the makers of monogrammed clothing and accessories.
seattlebridemag.com
How does a woman even get pregnant without a man's sperm?
"My Child because I carried it" seems like a really goofy argument IMHO.
Selfish and prideful to post stuff like this and think you're doing it.
Especially considering what women had to go through in English common law with the whole "personhood" thing.
The only place conversations like this matter is between the Father and Mother and any responsible person wouldn't wait until they are pregnant to have the conversation.
If its important to the Man, then ask the Woman you're with how she feels.
If its important to the Woman, then ask the Man you're with how he feels.
If an agreement can be met - great.
If an agreement cant be met - great.
A Mother refusing to take a Mans last name or refusing give their child their Fathers last doesn't make her some progressive champion for Women's rights any more than the opposite makes a Woman a supporter of archaic laws.
Purely a personal decision - that's it and that's all.
People like this are standing on the shoulders of those that came before them while proclaiming they are heroes for posting BS on the internet.
BTW:
How it all started
Historically, a person’s surname was not considered all that important. In early medieval England, most people were known only by one name, their “Christian name,” such as Thomas or Anne, which was conferred at baptism. But as the population grew, it got tiresome trying to distinguish among the many Thomases or Annes (or Richards or Marys), so surnames arose, often based on lineage (such Williamson), occupation (such as Smith), or locale (such as York).
Still, the matter of a wife taking a husband’s surname didn’t surface in English common law until the ninth century, when lawmakers began to consider the legalities surrounding personhood, families, and marriage. Thusly (as they would say), the doctrine of coverture emerged – and women were thereafter considered “one” with their husbands and therefore required to assume the husband’s surname as their own.
Under the concept of coverture, which literally means “covered by,” women had no independent legal identity apart from their spouse. Actually, this “coverage” began upon the birth of a female baby – who was given her father’s surname – and could only change upon the marriage of that female, at which point her name was automatically changed to that of her new husband.
But coverture laws also prevented women from entering into contracts, engaging in litigation, participating in business, or exercising ownership over real estate or personal property. As succinctly stated by former Justice Abe Fortas of the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Yazell, “[c]overture… rests on the old common-law fiction that the husband and wife are one, [and] the one is the husband.”
Evolutions in the law
Not surprisingly, women in the United States began to take exception to their non-existent legal status, and a much-needed feminist uprising occurred concurrently with the passage of Married Women’s Property Acts in several U.S. states in the mid-1800s. Under these acts, women gained individual legal status for purposes of signing contracts, engaging in business and commerce, and making purchases to acquire property. Accordingly, now that the woman’s name had its own independent legal significance, the number of women opting to retain their birth name began to rise.
From there, the law continued to catch up…slowly. It wasn’t until the 1970s that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Tennessee law requiring a woman to assume the last name of her husband before registering to vote. Around the same time, the prefix “Ms.” emerged, allowing women to assert their identity apart from their marital status.
Today, an estimated 20 percent of American women opt to retain their birth name after marriage – actually alower percentage than in the 1970s and 1980s. Back then, many women saw keeping their birth name as an equality issue – a repudiation of any vestiges of coverture. For today’s brides, however, the choice is often practical or rooted in professional identity.
With the marriage landscape finally expanded to include same-sex couples, the future of married surnames remains to be seen (and as attitudes continue to evolve around gay marriage, consensus on the matter likely isn’t forthcoming anytime soon). While many newlyweds choose to retain their birth name, some couples have opted for the non-traditional route of combining parts of both surnames to create a totally new identity – much to the delight of the makers of monogrammed clothing and accessories.
The History Behind Maiden vs. Married Names | Washington Wedding Day
- Nov 16, 2018
- 31,447
- 65,573
- Oct 13, 2001
- 175,987
- 164,402
Yea but how do you really fight it or have a valid comeback?
With anything in life, if I had to perform the labor of caring/carrying something, I would also feel I "own" it more than someone else that might have put in for it.
Just trying to look at it logically.
I can't find a valid argument vs. them saying it's MORE of their child than mine/ours.
Not even trying to argue, just asking.
Not even trying to argue, just asking.
Not even trying to argue, just asking.
Not even trying to argue, just asking.
Not even trying to argue, just asking.
For me its not a valid argument so much as a pair of logical fallacies.
False premise / Appeal to emotion
A child is not "more" a Mother's or a Father's...at all.
A child "belongs" to both the Mother and Father equally (unless a court of law decides otherwise, but that's a separate topic).
A Woman / Man has no choice in the matter of how pregnancy works.
I could see if Men could make the choice to carry the baby like a seahorse (or Lou Gossett Jr in Enemy Mine) and opt not to do so - but there are no other options.
Its human biology, not a volunteer duty.
I remember when my Mom would say stuff like that...
"I carried you for 9 months and you cant even wash the dishes on time "
Whether or not a child has a Man's or Woman's last name has absolutely nothing to do with who carries / gives birth to the child.
Purely a personal choice / opinion that requires no validation.
False premise / Appeal to emotion
A child is not "more" a Mother's or a Father's...at all.
A child "belongs" to both the Mother and Father equally (unless a court of law decides otherwise, but that's a separate topic).
A Woman / Man has no choice in the matter of how pregnancy works.
I could see if Men could make the choice to carry the baby like a seahorse (or Lou Gossett Jr in Enemy Mine) and opt not to do so - but there are no other options.
Its human biology, not a volunteer duty.
I remember when my Mom would say stuff like that...
"I carried you for 9 months and you cant even wash the dishes on time "
Whether or not a child has a Man's or Woman's last name has absolutely nothing to do with who carries / gives birth to the child.
Purely a personal choice / opinion that requires no validation.
- Dec 9, 2002
- 36,215
- 30,372
1. When men approach: "i get approached too much, let us enjoy our day"
2. When men don't approach: "what happened to old fashioned men that used to approach"
3. When men leave after she says no: "men give up too easy"
4. When men are persistent: "ugh men are too creepy, no means no"
5. When you suggest women do the approaching: "no that's the man's job"
Return to 1.
2. When men don't approach: "what happened to old fashioned men that used to approach"
3. When men leave after she says no: "men give up too easy"
4. When men are persistent: "ugh men are too creepy, no means no"
5. When you suggest women do the approaching: "no that's the man's job"
Return to 1.
- Oct 13, 2001
- 175,987
- 164,402
I mean, I know that sounds like the "right" thing to say but based on how the world actually operates there is no way we can honestly deny Women "owning" (use whichever more politically correct word you want) a larger % of the children than men. It is NOT equal. 50%/50% by any stretch.
It's just a reality that we just have to face.
I hear exactly everything you are saying though.
- Feb 5, 2003
- 4,464
- 25,934
- Oct 13, 2001
- 175,987
- 164,402
- Jun 7, 2014
- 43,512
- 66,224
Yup -
Exactly why we cant see borders from space / cant tell where one State ends and another State begins from an airplane.
Social Constructs vs Reality.
I'm not saying social constructs do not exist - I'm just saying they exist only in the minds of humans that agree they exist.
We all agree that a dollar is worth something so its worth something only because we all agree.
If enough people agree - then a social construct is created.
Reality doesn't care either way.
The Earth was once the center of the Universe.
Copernicus got dealt with real quick for saying otherwise.
"He was found guilty of suspected heresy, for defending the earth's motion, and thus denying the authority of Scripture. “Suspected heresy” was not as serious a religious crime as “formal heresy,” and so his punishment was not death by being burned at the stake, but rather house arrest and the banning of the Dialogue."
Sounds familiar huh? LOL!
- Mar 19, 2013
- 16,860
- 34,961
You’re welcome and I hope it helps stop that unhealthy behavior.
Cant please everyone. That’s just how this world is set up, conflict at every moment. I try to remain neutral and shrug it off when it comes to the ladies. Once I get what I want I bouuuuunce
