Ned, I'm gay. Believe it or not, I agree with you in many respects. Mother/father/child is the most normal configuration for a family, and may be the healthiest. However, your picture of the past is too rosy. In the 1970s and before there were plenty of broken homes -- families where a parent had died, families where the father left (tha…
Ned, I'm gay. Believe it or not, I agree with you in many respects. Mother/father/child is the most normal configuration for a family, and may be the healthiest. However, your picture of the past is too rosy. In the 1970s and before there were plenty of broken homes -- families where a parent had died, families where the father left (that happens a lot), etc. Hell, my own parents separated in the 1960s. If a child ends up with two fathers or two mothers, that is better than if the child becomes an orphan. So I think you need to stop putting the ideal situation -- mother/father/child -- on a pedestal as if it were the only workable arrangement.
I agree with the replies to Nedweenie. Ned is talking like a real weenie. A weenie with rose-colored glasses on about the traditional nuclear family. He seems to mean well, but only knows how to think along a narrow line. Children are actually best off (imo) when they have reliable extended close-knit family, who live nearby, and interact in a very friendly way with their neighbors (as long as their neighbors are good people), and vice versa, if that makes sense. Sounds pie in the sky unfortunately. It's just a version of "It takes a village to raise a child." That old saying didn't come out of nowhere. It's the truth.
No matter when you go on the Internoodle, there's always someone who can't resist name calling and strawmanning. And jumping to conclusions. I am female, prefer polarized lenses, and didn't say at all that extended close knit families were a bad thing. I really don't know where you got that one.
If you don't want people to think you're male, then don't choose a pseudonym like Ned Weenie, then complain of being "misgendered" and name-called, when a name like that seems to be asking to be made light of. Never said you did say that extended close knit families were a bad thing, but iirc you seemed to show a preference for certain kinds of families over others, emphasis on father, mother and child/children, as if that were really enough or ideal in any way, when it's just the bare bones, and children often know it. No wonder children often feel so insecure in the world, when all they have is two adults to count on and sometimes not even that. But I'm not the only one who must have read you wrong. Re-read your posts, then wonder again why other commenters also got you wrong.
Ah. So it's my fault that you assumed that I literally had a weenie? And where did I "complain about being misgendered"? I merely clarified my sex so that there wasn't any further confusion. And really, the lower case n and the "ie" are somewhat obvious tells to my mind, but no matter. I don't expect others to have psychic abilities or see things the same way that I do.
Forgive me for being skeptical, but I’m just not convinced that an “anything goes” parental configuration is in the best interest of children. I am also very uncomfortable with the idea of making children into social engineering guinea pigs to satisfy the arguably selfish desires of adults.
Ned -- and yes, Mildred is right, you shouldn't call yourself that if you are a woman -- you keep making it clear that you prefer the traditional nuclear family, but you don't understand that it is MEANINGLESS TO SAY THAT because families are what they are. Reality is what it is; and if only a percentage of families are nuclear, then there's nothing more to say about it. Now, if you are going to say that gay people shouldn't adopt, then all I can do is remind you that there are orphans out there that need a home, and a non-standard home is better than nothing.
Truly, you sound like a man to me. It is mostly men who yammer on about the nuclear family. Women are more nuanced on this subject.
I hope you see the irony in your telling me that I must have a conventional, gender conforming user name on the Internoodle (an unnatural environment if there ever was one!) and then lecture me on our current "reality" (another unnatural environment that's literally making us sick & nuts) and the need to adopt unconventional family arrangements because our self made (post)modern "reality" demands it. (!) I'll take as a compliment that I "sound like a man". We need more Healthy Masculinity these days, not more Toxic Femininity.
Ned, who are you actually even arguing with? Because at this point I'm convinced you're a fraud of some kind or other. Nothing you could say would convince me otherwise. Who cares what a few strangers on substack think of you? You seem to be arguing just to annoy people, so Perry James is probably right. Who else but a man would be likely to use a phrase like Toxic Femininity, about mostly a bunch of feminists or feminist-leaning people? How "feminine" are any of us? Those are your values, not those of Eliza's subscribers. Either way, you are stubbornly stuck with your own opinion, no matter what reality throws at it. Be happy with yourself then, and stop wasting other people's time.
I was replying to Mr. Perry's comment. You received an email notification and a context free quote in your Inbox because that's just how Substack is designed. It's a bit awkward and misleading sometimes.
Ned, I'm gay. Believe it or not, I agree with you in many respects. Mother/father/child is the most normal configuration for a family, and may be the healthiest. However, your picture of the past is too rosy. In the 1970s and before there were plenty of broken homes -- families where a parent had died, families where the father left (that happens a lot), etc. Hell, my own parents separated in the 1960s. If a child ends up with two fathers or two mothers, that is better than if the child becomes an orphan. So I think you need to stop putting the ideal situation -- mother/father/child -- on a pedestal as if it were the only workable arrangement.
I agree with the replies to Nedweenie. Ned is talking like a real weenie. A weenie with rose-colored glasses on about the traditional nuclear family. He seems to mean well, but only knows how to think along a narrow line. Children are actually best off (imo) when they have reliable extended close-knit family, who live nearby, and interact in a very friendly way with their neighbors (as long as their neighbors are good people), and vice versa, if that makes sense. Sounds pie in the sky unfortunately. It's just a version of "It takes a village to raise a child." That old saying didn't come out of nowhere. It's the truth.
No matter when you go on the Internoodle, there's always someone who can't resist name calling and strawmanning. And jumping to conclusions. I am female, prefer polarized lenses, and didn't say at all that extended close knit families were a bad thing. I really don't know where you got that one.
If you don't want people to think you're male, then don't choose a pseudonym like Ned Weenie, then complain of being "misgendered" and name-called, when a name like that seems to be asking to be made light of. Never said you did say that extended close knit families were a bad thing, but iirc you seemed to show a preference for certain kinds of families over others, emphasis on father, mother and child/children, as if that were really enough or ideal in any way, when it's just the bare bones, and children often know it. No wonder children often feel so insecure in the world, when all they have is two adults to count on and sometimes not even that. But I'm not the only one who must have read you wrong. Re-read your posts, then wonder again why other commenters also got you wrong.
Ah. So it's my fault that you assumed that I literally had a weenie? And where did I "complain about being misgendered"? I merely clarified my sex so that there wasn't any further confusion. And really, the lower case n and the "ie" are somewhat obvious tells to my mind, but no matter. I don't expect others to have psychic abilities or see things the same way that I do.
Forgive me for being skeptical, but I’m just not convinced that an “anything goes” parental configuration is in the best interest of children. I am also very uncomfortable with the idea of making children into social engineering guinea pigs to satisfy the arguably selfish desires of adults.
Ned -- and yes, Mildred is right, you shouldn't call yourself that if you are a woman -- you keep making it clear that you prefer the traditional nuclear family, but you don't understand that it is MEANINGLESS TO SAY THAT because families are what they are. Reality is what it is; and if only a percentage of families are nuclear, then there's nothing more to say about it. Now, if you are going to say that gay people shouldn't adopt, then all I can do is remind you that there are orphans out there that need a home, and a non-standard home is better than nothing.
Truly, you sound like a man to me. It is mostly men who yammer on about the nuclear family. Women are more nuanced on this subject.
I hope you see the irony in your telling me that I must have a conventional, gender conforming user name on the Internoodle (an unnatural environment if there ever was one!) and then lecture me on our current "reality" (another unnatural environment that's literally making us sick & nuts) and the need to adopt unconventional family arrangements because our self made (post)modern "reality" demands it. (!) I'll take as a compliment that I "sound like a man". We need more Healthy Masculinity these days, not more Toxic Femininity.
Ned, who are you actually even arguing with? Because at this point I'm convinced you're a fraud of some kind or other. Nothing you could say would convince me otherwise. Who cares what a few strangers on substack think of you? You seem to be arguing just to annoy people, so Perry James is probably right. Who else but a man would be likely to use a phrase like Toxic Femininity, about mostly a bunch of feminists or feminist-leaning people? How "feminine" are any of us? Those are your values, not those of Eliza's subscribers. Either way, you are stubbornly stuck with your own opinion, no matter what reality throws at it. Be happy with yourself then, and stop wasting other people's time.
I was replying to Mr. Perry's comment. You received an email notification and a context free quote in your Inbox because that's just how Substack is designed. It's a bit awkward and misleading sometimes.