Replies

And by the way, I love how you guys refuse to deal with what I've actually said ~ that when it comes to caring for a young child, the mother has a more important and more time-demanding role.

Of course you dont respond to that, because it's true and you know its true. You can't just skip the facts that don't help your argument.

"And by the way, I love how you guys refuse to deal with what I've actually said ~ that when it comes to caring for a young child, the mother has a more important and more time-demanding role."

You can't have it both ways, so tell us which way you want to have it? One one side, the law holds divorced women to their stereotypical roles - housebound, chained to their children, slaves to their biology and subjugated to evil "patriarchal dictates." On the other hand, the very women you say have a "more important and more time-demanding role" in the lives of "young children" mostly avail themselves of government subsidized child care that relieves them of most of that burden. The results are in - and these are fully documented and verified - it ain't working. Mothers raising their kids alone are failing en masse, their sons and daughters caught up in the truency and criminal justice systems in rates four to ten times the rate of kids raised by not just two parent families - but single fathers as well. I other words, you have no empirical data, a boxcar load of stereotypical opinions and blind prejudices, yet you expect everyone here to take you seriously because you're a lawyer. NEWSFLASH: Your profession doesn't lend you credibility in this arena of learned laymen and professionals who have made it their business to learn the facts forward and backward. Your profession is a handicap, a Scarlet Letter if you will, yet you hold it out there as if we should defer to it on your say so. Nuts.

"Of course you dont respond to that, because it's true and you know its true."

You've gotten your responses. You just don't seem to understand them. You look foolish, all the more so because you still don't understand that you look foolish. You can use "argument by assertion" 'til your fingers get callouses from pounding the keyboard, but sayin' something is so doesn't make it so.

And by the way, I love how you guys refuse to deal with what I've actually said ~ that when it comes to caring for a young child, the mother has a more important and more time-demanding role.

Of course you dont respond to that, because it's true and you know its true

I have responded to that. I have called it sexist bigotry.

The dominance of men in the fields of art, science, literature, and music is so overwhelming that we could -- using your logic -- justify a policy of excluding women from those fields, and in fact from even educating them.

Now seriously... is this really the direction you want to take this? What's next... that it's simply true that white women are smarter than black women, so we should take their kids away, too?

I think Harrison Bergeron is being most charitable in describing your statements as "sweeping generalizations." Personally, I lean to the theory that it's blind, arrogant bigotry.