+1

Most Third Waves are.

A feminist organisation, or a humanitarian/humanist organisation that focuses on equality for women in areas that it does not exist?

Explicitly feminist. Central concern has to do with support for women's autonomy, protection from religious authority, and secular democracy.

That should read 'could she' rather than 'she could'.

I have no problem with any of those things.

And this is why no true feminist puts honey on her porridge.

Edited by notorganic: 28/8/2014 09:16:42 PM

Considering you strike me as the kinda guy that would have to pay for sex; glass houses etc :lol:

-PB

I still don't understand the question. You seem to be taking the position that I do not provide comfort or warmth to my daughter, to which you would be wrong.

He doesn't pay, it comes with his work. Where else does he get his fantastic stories?

I believe most of his stories come from somewhere between his neckbeard and his fedora.

I'm sure you'll be glad to know I've never paid for it in my life. It'd be worth remembering that I invited many forum members to come and see what I do for a living when they were in Melbourne for the LFC game, you and your bum buddies declined.

I'm not saying that at all. I guess it more pertains to broader parenting. If you're seeking to be the primary influence in her philosophies, does it not concern you that she will seek to find similar wisdom in another male figure, another philosophical shepherd if you will? Any parent can attempt to be there continually for their child, but sooner or later they can't be and I'm wondering if you think preaching a specific way of thinking would encourage that.

That aside, we can all acknowledge that there are both level headed and extremist adherents to the TRP philosophy, do you worry that she might see parallels between your approach and extremist members and be mislead or coerced into a negative position?

What's a "third wave"

-PB

I don't think you know what you're saying.

Am I worried that she will seek knowledge from other sources than myself? Of course not... I'm encouraging it.

I see.

I have one patient at the moment who is in a custody battle with his ex-partner where the police were called to their house because she wouldn't let him in to see their son. This was originally made aware to me by the mother - who is also a patient of mine - as she was trying to make out that that her son has been unwell because of the "stress" of having to go to their father's house once per fortnight. She is trying to claim more custody over this matter. She constantly claims that the father "does nothing for the child."

I thought of this thread during the consultation. I made it be known in my professional opinion that it will be deeply troubling for the boy if she denied him access to his father.

Are those situations common?

Anecdotally, I've seen it happen a few times in my family (to my cousins, both genders) and my mate is a lender with a major bank that hears a lot of stories from Dad's going through nasty divorces being cut off from their kids and seeking more money for family lawyers.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing as there are positive influences to be had as well, more pertaining to the possibility of being drawn to sources other than yourself that have a more extreme view of your own philosophies, or other dangerous or more negative ideologies.

Most of the situations I've seen have the mother with the child most of the time but I have one patient who is a former IV drug user who's now clean who raises his 8 year old son very well as the mother is an unstable heroin addict.

I do however have a lot of patients who are single mothers where the fathers left the scene either just before the baby was born or shortly afterwards and fled to leave her alone to raise the children. These men are usually drug addicts and/or criminal lowlifes. The women are not much better, but are doing an ok job of juggling 2 or 3 crazy rug rats on their own.

I think those men give some men a bad name.

There seems to be a standard where a father gets a weekend per fortnight. I'm not sure why this "standard" is used as it is clearly not fair and makes fathers out to be an unnecessary vice on society.

It seems bizarre to me that the standard is not 50/50.

This is the standard because 10 days of the fortnight is dedicated to schooling. One parent or the other is forced to move and a stable environment is more beneficial to the child's education. It also stops kids from going "I can't do XYZ because I left something at my mum's/dad's and I'm staying at dad's/mum's house this week".

That leaves 4 days a fortnight and they're divided equally. That's why it's the standard.

[citation needed]

[being a child of 21st century divorce]

That may be fair enough if the father moves away. But if the father stays nearby he can take the kids to school too. I come from a home where my parents divorced when I was six. Both my parents stayed in the same town and my dad would pick me up every day from school and I would spend the afternoon and weekends at his place. That way I saw him every day. I'll always credit my parents for staying amicable and my Mum for having a relaxed custody agreement. I had a very stable upbringing. Better than anyone else I know.

That's entirely reasonable, but unfortunately not the norm.

The push from Family Court (at least in SA) is for 50/50 - even when that may not actually be in the best interests of the children. I 50/50 my kids, but then I'm the one that pushed for 50/50 even when their mum wanted me to have them 100%.

http://marriedmansexlife.com/take-the-red-pill/

I find the dramatic rhetoric a bit superfluous, but the actual information within is interesting.

Because most people are childish cunts who only think about what's best for them.

Interesting;




-PB

Wow. That's pretty bad.