Happy New Year!

2014 was the year that brought immigration reform to the table again and thousands of people have been actively trying to make this reform happen, for different reasons.
H-4 visa holders are just some of the people looking forward to the reform, but because it’s a hot issue, and one that brings so much debate, it doesn’t seem to be happening anytime soon.

There is some hope for H-4 visa holders though, as a rule has been proposed by the DHS (http://www.dhs.gov/news/2014/05/06/dhs-announces-proposals-attract-and-retain-highly-skilled-immigrants) that would allow certain H4s to work. We just need a date now. Please President Obama, make this happen!

There is no better way then to start a New Year with hope, so here’s to hoping that the rule will happen early this year and therefore give some of us the opportunity to become self-reliant and independent again!

Happy New Year!

Advertisements

66 thoughts on “Happy New Year!

  1. “become self-reliant and independent again” -> yeah because no job = being a slave. Stupid women with stupid ideas ruining their lives for some job. Wait and watch how this plays out in the long when you do get a job.

      1. Quite clever you are. “Likes” the response … oh and you needed a MAN to say that for you sissi 🙂

  2. I knew you could be nice and polite 🙂
    You see, even though we are not allowed to have a job, we work very hard: we are the cleaning lady, the cook, the chauffeur, the personal assistant, the event organizer, etc and don’t get paid, don’t have benefits, or sick days. In many cases, the husbands are abusive and abuse their wives physically and emotionally, don’t give them money or liberty to do things they like. If that is not slavery, I don’t know what slavery is.
    Being a homemaker or staying at home is fine as long as you are the one making that personal choice and your spouse is a good husband and decent human being. Unfortunately, that is not the case for everyone.
    Just like with any other job, staying at home is not for everyone.
    All the people on H-4 I know were independent, hardworking people, with degrees they worked hard for to get. It is only natural for them to want to have their own career.
    But that is just my opinion man.

  3. The presumption here is that a woman working for the home is less than a woman working for a company. This thinking got into mainstream in the last few decades. And when something is in the mainstream many start to feel pressure (if they are not doing it) or feel proud (if they are with it). In essence none is better than the other but since one of them fetches money so “socially” speaking it becomes more desirable (because people are quite materialistic and want comfort, status more than they need and the part of being with the mainstream is there too). But if you ask me a woman at home is MORE than a woman at work. Not getting paid etc. is irrelevant because the long term results of a woman taking care of her home, her family are much more real than getting money from a slave job every month (while other responsibilities are compromised which is usually the case). This is if the husband is doing good enough, otherwise the wife also needs to support the family as a unit (in making money).

    About the abusive husbands – those are exceptions (just like very good husbands are too). Most are in betweeen and for the educated lot many are balanced enough. And one should not use “exceptions” to formulate a “rule”. It doesn’t matter if the woman was “self independent” previously. All that is non sense because the usage of the term “self independent” is generally twisted so it starts working against the family as a unit giving rise to unneeded complications. Asking for money does not make one dependent or independent. In context of family as a unit what needs to be spent, needs to be spent but in context of frivolous spending asking for money feels like a “dependent” action which is where the argument of “previously self independent” (with its twisted definition) comes in. This is also where the support argument of “worked hard for their degrees so its natural for them to want a career” comes in. I could loosely summarize the above as that many of them are looking for independence without much responsibility (which was generally the case before marriage for them).

    Staying at home is not for every woman but doing a slavery job just because every other woman is doing the same (while compromising on other major factors) is also not for everyone but working for the home is definitely better. Oh and Happy New year to you Sissi 😀

    1. There are many woman who work not just for money, they work because they love their work. If you think its a slavery job, then you better leave your job and become house husband.

      It’s up to the individual to decide if working from home better than working from office. You will understand this when you are tied into H4 and your wife working on H1.

    2. I understand and even agree with your point, to some extent. People who choose to stay home and take care of their families aren’t valued enough. It’s hard and tough work. I’m not sure they are better than others. I like to think that everyone who tries their best at what they do is equally “important”, if we are using that term.
      I understand that a job has become who you are. The first thing people want to know about you is what you do, where do you work, so not having a job makes you uninteresting and even irrelevant sometimes. I do think people should start asking other questions if they want to get to know someone, because there is a lot more to an individual than his/her job.
      What I hear from most people on H-4 though, myself included, is that they miss having a purpose and something challenging to do, not just financial independence or status. Most H-4s are in their early 20s/30s. Lots of them don’t have kids yet and some don’t even want kids, so cleaning the house for life doesn’t seem like a desirable life prospect. There are also other things at stake here, like: what if the breadwinner dies? What if he/she leaves you? (Ideally they would split the money, but everyone knows how nasty divorces can get) Who is going to employ someone who has been a “homemaker” for 5, 15, 20 years? What are the prospects for these people then? Would you employ a person who has no “work” experience for the past years? Whether we like or not, everyone needs money to pay the bills and do the basic things in life.
      Unfortunately, having a job, even one who is badly paid and undervalued, gives people some range of “freedom”. We could debate for years what freedom really means and if we are really free, but for the sake of this discussion, let’s just say freedom in this context is the ability to take care of yourself without asking for help.
      Regarding the abusive spouses, for me, even if there was just one person in this situation, it would be too much (unfortunately there are more, even in the so called educated households). H-4s are in a foreign country, with no family, and no friends. They are alone with an abusive person and no money – they are trapped. It gets even worse when their families won’t take them – a divorce would be embarrassing for the family (yes, this happens). If they had their own money they could at least leave, go to a hotel, buy a ticket to go back to their country, and not have to subject to that kind of thing.
      There is no perfect life. Having a job doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll be happy with it, but it does grant you options, if/when you need them.
      Happy New Year! 🙂

      1. Women choosing to nurture their homes are in general better than ones choosing a career (because other things get compromised). The results of this are seen in short and long run for the family as well as herself. Here ‘better’ doesn’t mean inherently better (though the one choosing home has made a better decision, has more energy to be a better wife, mother etc. assuming she works hard like you said). But in this context it means the consequences of the choice made are ‘better’ for the ones choosing family time. Women have inherently more power to make or break a family than men so a woman spending time away daily results in weakening if the family as a unit (whether she likes it or not). Some obvious and other subtle things reflect this on a daily basis in families where women have less time and energy to devote.

        Yes job has become who you are and this plays on the mind esp. when everybody else is doing it. To me when a husband is there to face the harsh world daily, why should his wife face the same? Not that she can’t but one has to pay for it then. Of course she should also support the home’s financial condition (by doing a job etc.) if he is not able to provide well enough. Then she has to face harsh conditions too which leaks into her family life. But that is the trade-in. Getting the purpose or challenge back (all linked to a job) results in the same trade-in. If one could relate purpose or challenge to family work (duties) then that would be ideal but then many women these days have not really grown up with family duties much, so to them family work is “chores” while being a corporate slave is “real work”. This is just like pushing for higher grades in school was “real work” while household work was just “chores” that Mom (or the help) did. Hence arises the mentality of equating people to their jobs (ignoring everything else), because if you are not doing a corporate type job then you are not doing “real work”. Just plain retarded but consequences of this they are facing. So, there is always a trade-in.

        Like you said there is no perfect life .. so some abusive spouses, fraction of people not wanting kids for life, someone’s spouse dying early, spouse leaving …these things happen but they are exceptions and not the rule. Most educated people get through life just fine (in terms of finances). And even if we consider these scenarios, most spouses who haven’t worked for years can get a job here (and even in India) when the worst happens. More so if they are ready to do a low skilled job for sometime. But this is a different topic altogether as these scenarios are exceptions.

        And since there is always a trade-in so a job does grant options but at the cost of… well you know where this is going sissy 🙂

  4. Another Man – read what is written carefully (and twice) and then make a comment. Oversimplification to absurdity in order to make a point is not recommended.

    1. Man, are you being deliberately fatuitous? Not having the choice to earn a salary is bad for women and for men. Your argument of women being more valuable working at home is not only irrelevant for this topic, it is only an opinion (as pointed out by sissi). The issue here is about a personal liberty (the liberty to earn a salary) that these people don’t have. Calling it economic independence makes enough sense to me. And I’m just a unicorn!

  5. Unicorn – lets not get into “opinion jujitsu” because this blog is opinions of an H4 wife. Another H4 wife (who doesn’t care for a salary, job) will have different opinions and will have a different take on personal liberty not tied to earning a salary. And know that there are H4 wives who are happy that they can’t legally work. So the issue is not “personal liberty” in its absolute sense. A side comment is further added that it (working for women) generally leads to unfavorable results for people around them (including themselves). Be sure about that.

    1. You’ll have to excuse me, but what I write about are not (mostly) personal opinions. I write about my personal experience i.e, what I actually live and go through (and the people I know who are in the same situation). Some time ago I posted a survey asking people on an H-4 visa if they would like to be allowed to work. Of 92 people who answered only 2 said no. I have said several times in different posts that there are in fact people who enjoy not being able to work. It is their right to feel that way. What *most* of us want is the right to choose to stay home or get a job, and that has been taken away from us. We are forcefully unemployed and that is not right. I’m not even sure it is/should be legal to do this to someone. If I want to work, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says I and everyone who wants to has the right to work. That’s my point. I don’t need anyone to tell me that in their opinion it’s better for everyone if I stay home. Again, it’s an opinion. I know what’s better for me – and that is not staying at home cleaning up other people’s mess. Thank you.

    2. I might be misunderstanding what you are trying to say, because your logic seems flawed to me. Opinions aside, — because I really don’t want to enter a debate about who should work and who should take care of the home, or what constitutes a liberty — my understanding of your opinion is: you think that if someone (say an H4 wife) feels it is unfair that they don’t have the same chance as others to being able to do something (say earn a salary) that doesn’t mean it is unfair because… (and this is where I’m struggling to understand your reasoning)… other who happen to be in a similar situation (H4 visa) don’t want to be able to do that something (earning a salary)? If that’s the case, I can’t see how this might be fair. For example, I am happy that I can’t be elected as the President of Molossia. But just because I don’t want to be able to govern a country, that doesn’t mean I think that the unicorn that lives across the street shouldn’t have the chance to run for President if that’s what she wants! (Even though in my opinion she is clearly more valuable working for the stable instead of pursuing a career in politics… just saying!! Be sure that other things get compromised in the process of governing the country… dinner isn’t ready on time, children arrive late at school… total mess!!)

      1. Sir, You may want to read the comments from the beginning. But the crunch is – Its fine for an H4 wife to want to work but it usually manifests poorly for the family and her (short and long term, especially long term). This is similar to if the husband doesn’t work at all (whether the wife works or not), more often than not it manifests poorly for all.

  6. Survey = Getting personal opinions of others. And personal experience helps make personal opinions, do they not? (even though different people in same situations will experience it differently which is where the filter of the wise, the mediocre and the fools kicks in but that is another topic). And sure these days a good number have the personal opinion to be “independent” (usually in a flawed sense of the word) and their personal opinion about working at home is on the lines of “cleaning up other people’s mess, household drudgery”. But that is fine too, I am just listing the other results of this choice (and be sure about that whether us or anyone else thinks its just an opinion doesn’t count towards its results), be it executed by many or by few. And most want the right to get a job because they basically want a job, which comes back to the same point of how it will manifest. Lets not get into Universal human rights and all, because right now you are under H visa laws. Still sooner than later you will get the right to work i.e. your wish fulfilled.

    1. I am sorry for replying in the “wrong” place (I’m just a unicorn, so I don’t know how these comments work) but in response to your last comment:

      “Sir, You may want to read the comments from the beginning. But the crunch is – Its fine for an H4 wife to want to work but it usually manifests poorly for the family and her (short and long term, especially long term). This is similar to if the husband doesn’t work at all (whether the wife works or not), more often than not it manifests poorly for all.”

      I did read the comments from the beginning, not sure what makes you think I didn’t. But coming from someone who was pointing out that this blog and survey are just opinions, I must point out that, unless you make specific references to studies done on the subject (preferably from a trustworthy source that isn’t merely an opinion), your statements above are just opinions. Meaning, they might be right or they might be wrong. I personally do not agree with them and think they are outdated and reactionist. But again, this is just an opinion. And it is fine to share and discuss our opinions. That’s how the world progresses. However, we should understand that different people have different points of view, not necessarily more “right” or “wrong” than ours. In order to discuss a topic in a productive manner we should be open and respectful towards different opinions (even if they are the opinions of a unicorn). Coming to a blog about the “opinions of an H4 wife” and starting to make condescending comments about her opinions seams hardly the way to do it.

      P.S. – I am very honored that you think I am a “Sir” but I am still awaiting for the Queen of England to officially give me the title. It’s taking ages!!!

  7. What makes me think you didn’t read (or were reading with some disturbance around) is the direction in which it had started to go.

    OK if you disagree. Its obvious from how I am seeing it. Haven’t tried finding studies but here is one – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3608664

    Not saying this concludes anything but assuming this study is wrong (it can’t be complete anyway), the results of a wife away at job is still too obvious (its a child for God’s sake) and boggles my mind how can anybody think otherwise? Another loosely related study – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10851684

    Generally, no one (including grand parents) can substitute for the mother. One may say all this is outdated (a general reaction now a days to even the obvious ancient time-tested wisdom) but that is just like a cliche, similar to saying “all religions are equal”. They are not.

    Similarly be sure when the women of the house spend major hours working outside (even when the husband himself is at work) it takes a toll on the husband as well as herself. It is not just the children who suffer though by implication when the children of the household suffers it will leak into the family. This is long term implications.

    P.S: Would it suffice if I had the drama queen of England issue the title instead? 😀

  8. I do not see how the effect of working mothers on children can relate with the H4 issue. If it is bad for the mother to be away from the children then it’s bad for H4’s and non H4’s. Also, lot’s of H4’s aren’t mothers. Some are actually male so it’s impossible for them to ever become one. Understand where your logic fails?

  9. Read the comments from the beginning because you are jumping context. It will be obvious its talking about working women and associated “results”. And since this blog is by an H4 wife (including survey of other H4 wives) so this is how wives on H4 visa gets into the picture. Of course its not intrinsically related (as is obvious if you carefully read). Now back to the topic – It doesn’t matter if an H4 wife is a mother or not, the “results” will still be there, a bit altered though. Please don’t add arbitrary logic and stay in context.

  10. Hey, Man! I was just trying to follow your logic, sorry if it seams “arbitrary. (I did mention that I’m just a unicorn and that I might be misunderstanding what you mean, didn’t I?)

    Anyway, there’s no need to use logical fallacies in order to “win” the debate. Accusing me of “jumping context” or not having “read carefully the comments from the beginning” does not equal the use of arbitrary logic. Nor does it make it true, btw.

    You cited studies that show a correlation between maternal absence and the children’s emotional response. I was pointing out that not every household has children so that argument isn’t valid for every working woman, H4 or non-H4, now is it?

    I could also point out another flaw on your argument: correlation doesn’t equal causation. That’s another big logical fallacy. You should learn more about it.

    Also, the studies you mention are from 1987 and 2000. Taking into account that this is 2015, I believe they are possibly as outdated as your opinions. For example, they do not take into account that the mother is not always the primary caregiver for children. Sometimes (shockingly!) the primary caregiver is the father. Also, some families do not follow your traditional family structure: you have gays and lesbians with children, monoparental families, etc. Unsurprisingly, the world has evolved since the 80’s.

    Finally, and staying on topic, I cannot see any sources backing up your opinion “It doesn’t matter if an H4 wife is a mother or not, the “results” will still be there, a bit altered though”. Care to find some more outdated studies on that to enlighten us?

  11. Sorry – it seemed you were with the flow at times but some comments (esp. the last one) moved in an arbitrary direction. You say you probably misunderstood (seems true) ..so that is what caused the context jump. It seems you are in line now.

    See:
    http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/who_shall_find_a_happy_wife
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/3320392/Housewives-make-their-men-healthy-and-wealthy.html

    Studies or not (as these are just studies and hence subject to interpretation) its pretty obvious that the wife (with / without kids) spending major hours outside will have an eroding effect on the marriage’s well being. This in turn will rub off on her too. Some may feel happy working yet it will erode the well being of the husband, kids, herself. The argument from the beginning is that working wives scenario manifests poorly for the family in short / long term.

    Again please don’t add arbitrary content such as – Correlation doesn’t equal causation.
    Sure this may be true (though many times correlation equals causation) but in any case if you are using this against the argument (by thinking – since the correlations statement is true then my argument must be false) then you yourself are using a logical fallacy. Leave all this aside and lets get to the real content dear Mr. Unicorn 🙂

    You can label these studies as outdated (they are not) however I am not depending on them anyway. Its common-sense-obvious. These studies not taking gays etc. into account is OK as that is a minor trend but lets say they do take all the special cases you listed into account.. their results don’t matter here because the topic here is not gays etc – its working wives in normal households.

    1. Do you know what else reflects poorly on kids? Absent parents and family. You can be a stay at home mum and suck at it. If you haven’t already, I recommend you read Sheryl Sandberg’s book “Lean In” where she explains and demonstrates that both parents can be highly successful at and happy with their job and still find time to have a family. Do you know why it works? Because they are equally participating in raising and educating their children, hence giving them a great example of how valuable both men and women are in the workforce, as well as how valuable a father and a mother are in their children’s upbringing. Naturally, they also have help from their family, which also counts a lot in children’s development (and because no one can be that successful without help). But no one has to or should have to sacrifice their career just because it is more convenient for others, especially a spouse (which brings me back to the H4 issue.) I repeat, it’s fine for people who choose to do it, because that’s what they want, of course.

      1. Madame T – A wife or a husband mentally not up to their responsibilities (e.g. a Mother not being nurturing enough) is not to be taken into account in this discussion. Sure it happens but I am talking in terms of overall healthy individuals who are more or less up to the mark. This is a presupposition here and am not even sure why would we include these scenarios here . We are not talking bad parenting, alien abduction or bad grandpa ;-). Those are special cases.

        In regards to Sheryl Sandberg’s opinions even if she has pulled it off somehow (highly doubtful, the marriage seems business like for her and that is a strange scenario to be in) it is impractical advice for most people. And considering she is high in rank / money which gets her more help than most people, then its just just not every day situations she is facing. But in the process of some people taking that advice they will end up messing things (you can be sure about that).

        The point of “no one has to or should have to sacrifice their career just because it is more convenient for others…” is not very well thought out. Sounds appealing by itself but when taking into account that in short and long term it will hurt the woman herself (including others involved.. check the studies cited) then cracks start to appear. We do jobs for our families we don’t “family” for our jobs. Saying giving up career is a “sacrifice” while being okay with deteriorating own household is a choice people make and the results obviously set in.

      2. I don’t really understand that logic of “exception cases don’t count”. It’s not an exception if it happens – and from I gather, bad parenting is pretty common, not just today, but from ever since babies started to be born. You seem to contradict yourself when you point out that the exceptions of happy couples where both people work are like fairy tales but then go on to make it sound like every household where the wife/mother stays home is perfect and wonderful. I can assure you it is not so.
        But anyway, we come from different cultures, (and centuries even) and we keep discussing the same things. It sounds like you come from an extremely patriarchal and old fashioned (in my eyes) culture. If it works for you, awesome! It does not work where I come from and in most advanced countries. People (couples, kids) can be happy/unhappy regardless of women staying at home or not. I’ve seen women staying at home, working their asses off and not being recognized for anything they do and being treated as basically everyone’s maids. Thanks but no thanks! If i’m going to be treated like that, I at least prefer to be getting paid.

      3. When you say “bad parenting” I am taking it as someone doing a very bad job at it. And that is not to be considered here because of being an exception and not the norm. Rest small exceptions are fine in an imperfect world. And even if we assume that bad parenting (in the sense of emotionally screwed parents) is common (its not), still the studies citing how absence of wives/mothers having negative effects on the babies, marriage are still relevant. Also that assumption of bad parenting being common since ever is also incorrect. And again even if the assumption is true, its still better if the wife is at home, than being outside on a daily basis (again look at the studies). I am not talking exceptional scenarios here.

        I didn’t say happy working couples are a fairy tale ..I said that the idea of all duties shared equally sounds
        good theoretically but is just a fairy tale. And no I did not say the home with wife not working is perfect. Please don’t put words into my mouth. I am just saying it is usually much better for the wife to be at home than outside on a daily basis. You can be sure about that.

        It seems you see “old fashioned” as “outdated”. Sorry, be sure a bunch of things will always stay the same. Honesty is always the best policy even when its not the trend (i.e. old fashioned). A father cannot take as good care of a house hold as a wife/mother can. Similarly for kids. And a wife cannot really do jobs that require much physical strength constantly. And as you may have noticed generations are degrading one after the other ..you should know its the giving up of sound principles (yeah old fashioned) in exchange of greed, self obsession generally.

        Advanced countries are a joke in terms of personal relationships and anybody embracing that culture becomes even more degraded- India is a good example now a days. One can see that on a daily basis.

        Why women are not getting appreciated for their work at home ?
        Ans: Its perfectly inline with degrading generations where personal relationships are a joke. And people still want to degrade it more by letting the wives, mothers go out of the house and raise dysfunctional kids along with an overall negative vibe. And then we expect such nicely raised men to appreciate women. Yeah right.

      4. You don’t seem to be familiar with the “modern” types of families, where stay at home dads are a reality. I am sure they do very well. In the past, women were told they were weak and inferior to men and that they couldn’t do certain jobs. They proved themselves to be quite clever and capable. I’m sure the same happens to these men, who were told by society they were no good at “jobs for women” – such as nurse, teacher, looking after the children and so on. It’s the 21st century. Everyone is capable of whatever they put their minds and effort to.
        You also don’t need to be at home to pass along manners, morals and guidance to your children. Both my parents worked all their lives and I am very proud of how they raised me. And if you must know, as a baby I would only fall asleep in my dad’s arms, not my mum’s. I’m terrible sorry if in your culture men don’t get the chance to hold their babies and nurture them, but I am surrounded by very capable, caring and nurturing dads and I see how much their kids love and appreciate them.

      5. You can be sure the stay at home dads do well (in terms of family’s overall progress) or be as good as women in
        raising children but you are kidding no one other than yourself. Yes women have been pushed down but that
        doesn’t mean men can be as good as women in matters needing tenderness, patience, nurturing.

        And know that most matters in this world work better with tenderness, patience compared to possessing
        technical skills which is how women are superior to men in many ways. Still some things need hard skills which
        is just not suited for females to do (e.g. infantry, drilling etc.) owing to physical makeup. There are key
        biological differences in the sexes giving them unique qualities and anyone claiming both can do all things
        equally is kidding himself. I don’t know how you assume men were told they can’t be cooks, nurses, teachers etc. but its false. Since time immemorial men have been doing these jobs and usually exceed women in terms of technical grasp of the subject. Even the best cooks are usually men. That being said, the tenderness the female offers is usually out of reach for men. So for a male vs. female teacher with equal technical skills the female teacher is superior.

        Please don’t use cliches like 21st Century (if anything the centuries are degrading) and “everyone is capable of whatever they decide” – they are not. All babies are not born equal, there are always predispositions, in born traits
        playing a major role in deciding the life path. In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.

        Yes, you do have to be home to pass along many subtleties and you probably have little to no idea of what you
        are missing. And what we are missing we can’t really pass on. Hence the issue of degrading generations (its a generational not personal statement).

        Girls falling asleep in Dad’s arms is common and boys falling asleep in mother’s and doesn’t mean it fulfills the missing subtleties of the unavailable mother.

        I have to reply to your comments here because the other ones don’t have the “reply” option. Sorry if it is causing confusion.

      6. Madame T – A wife or a husband mentally not up to their responsibilities (e.g. a Mother not being nurturing enough) is not to be taken into account in this discussion. Sure it happens but I am talking in terms of overall healthy individuals who are more or less up to the mark. This is a presupposition here and am not even sure why would we include these scenarios here . We are not talking bad parenting, alien abduction or bad grandpa ;-). Those are special cases. In regards to Sheryl Sandberg’s opinions even if she has pulled it off somehow (highly doubtful, the marriage seems business like for her and that is a strange scenario to be in) it is impractical advice for most people. And considering she is high in rank / money which gets her more help than most people, then its just just not every day situations she is facing. But in the process of some people taking that advice they will end up messing things (you can be sure about that).

        > As Madame T pointed out already, https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-texas-sharpshooter

        The point of “no one has to or should have to sacrifice their career just because it is more convenient for others…” is not very well thought out. Sounds appealing by itself but when taking into account that in short and long term it will hurt the woman herself (including others involved.. check the studies cited) then cracks start to appear. We do jobs for our families we don’t “family” for our jobs. Saying giving up career is a “sacrifice” while being okay with deteriorating own household is a choice people make and the results obviously set in.

        > What do you mean with “in short and long term it will hurt the woman herself”? How will it hurt her? In what aspects? Assuming it does hurt women (which most likely doesn’t) why wouldn’t it hurt men too? Are there other aspects that might compensate the ones that you say hurt women? Is it possible that the results vary depending on the woman in question? All your claims are vague and you provide no credible evidence to support them.

        When you say “bad parenting” I am taking it as someone doing a very bad job at it. And that is not to be considered here because of being an exception and not the norm. Rest small exceptions are fine in an imperfect world.

        > This is the cherry picking fallacy again.

        And even if we assume that bad parenting (in the sense of emotionally screwed parents) is common (its not), still the studies citing how absence of wives/mothers having negative effects on the babies, marriage are still relevant. Also that assumption of bad parenting being common since ever is also incorrect.

        > Define ‘common’. How do you know how common or uncommon this is? What is your source? What makes you say that the assumption of bad parenting being common since ever is incorrect?

        And again even if the assumption is true, its still better if the wife is at home, than being outside on a daily basis (again look at the studies). I am not talking exceptional scenarios here.

        > For whom is it better if the wife is at home? Is it for her? For the husband? There are still cultures nowadays where women are owned by men: when they are born they belong to their father, when they get married they belong to their husband; they have no legal rights, they can’t leave the house without their ‘owner’, they can’t drive, they have to cover their body, if they are raped they are stoned to death because they’re no longer pure, their genitals (clitoris) are mutilated so they cannot have sexual pleasure, etc. These societies are built in a way that totally and completely controle women, and women are raised believing that this is better for them because: a) they are weak and need someone that protects them and provides for them; b) their job is to have babies and care for the house and husband; c) they should be obedient and put the husband’s needs first; etc. By your distorted definition of what is better for women, this should be close to paradise for them and everyone else around, no? Or might there be other factors tremendously more important in regards to women’s and human’s rights? And please, don’t say these are ‘exceptions’. These ‘exceptions’ happen in entire countries in the middle east.

        I didn’t say happy working couples are a fairy tale ..I said that the idea of all duties shared equally sounds
        good theoretically but is just a fairy tale. And no I did not say the home with wife not working is perfect. Please don’t put words into my mouth. I am just saying it is usually much better for the wife to be at home than outside on a daily basis. You can be sure about that.

        > Are you speaking in name of all the women in all the world and all the married couples who share duties equally? Cause I’m guessing a lot of them would disagree with you on this… Or are they also ‘exceptions’?

        It seems you see “old fashioned” as “outdated”. Sorry, be sure a bunch of things will always stay the same. Honesty is always the best policy even when its not the trend (i.e. old fashioned). A father cannot take as good care of a house hold as a wife/mother can. Similarly for kids. And a wife cannot really do jobs that require much physical strength constantly. And as you may have noticed generations are degrading one after the other ..you should know its the giving up of sound principles (yeah old fashioned) in exchange of greed, self obsession generally.

        > This is so cliché… The gender roles stereotypes are so last century…

        Advanced countries are a joke in terms of personal relationships and anybody embracing that culture becomes even more degraded- India is a good example now a days. One can see that on a daily basis.

        > Which advanced countries? Different countries have different cultures, some cultures (like the American culture) are more time oriented, others (like Spaniards) are more inter-personal relationship oriented. Are they all the same? You seem to generalize a lot and not even realize you are doing it.

        Why women are not getting appreciated for their work at home ?
        Ans: Its perfectly inline with degrading generations where personal relationships are a joke. And people still want to degrade it more by letting the wives, mothers go out of the house and raise dysfunctional kids along with an overall negative vibe. And then we expect such nicely raised men to appreciate women. Yeah right.

        > May I conclude that Saudi Arabia is a role model example on how to appreciate women, then?

        You can be sure the stay at home dads do well (in terms of family’s overall progress) or be as good as women in
        raising children but you are kidding no one other than yourself. Yes women have been pushed down but that
        doesn’t mean men can be as good as women in matters needing tenderness, patience, nurturing.

        > Why is that? Why aren’t fathers capable of loving and nurturing their children in the same way mothers do? In what are you basing your claims? Do you have any evidence to support it? Or are these just opinions?

        And know that most matters in this world work better with tenderness, patience compared to possessing
        technical skills which is how women are superior to men in many ways. Still some things need hard skills which
        is just not suited for females to do (e.g. infantry, drilling etc.) owing to physical makeup. There are key
        biological differences in the sexes giving them unique qualities and anyone claiming both can do all things
        equally is kidding himself. I don’t know how you assume men were told they can’t be cooks, nurses, teachers etc. but its false. Since time immemorial men have been doing these jobs and usually exceed women in terms of technical grasp of the subject. Even the best cooks are usually men. That being said, the tenderness the female offers is usually out of reach for men. So for a male vs. female teacher with equal technical skills the female teacher is superior.

        > These are just some more gender stereotypes mixed with some misogyny when you talk about how men usually exceed women in terms of technical grasp of the subject. If I had to guess, I would say you come from a male-dominated societies where oppression of females is used to to place women in subordinate positions with limited access to power and decision making. It is quite obvious that you feel threatened by female independence since you first comment about “stupid women with stupid ideas”. I guess you have reasons to, since women are just as capable as men and are already undoubtedly competing with men in all areas of modern life, and many time doing quite better.

        Please don’t use cliches like 21st Century (if anything the centuries are degrading) and “everyone is capable of whatever they decide” – they are not. All babies are not born equal, there are always predispositions, in born traits
        playing a major role in deciding the life path. In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.

        > This has actually a lot of truth in it but for other reasons. Not everyone will be capable of accomplishing whatever they decide. Economic power will dictate better than any other factor what one will be able to accomplish in life. If one os privileged their chances of succeeding in life are astronomical. If one lives in poverty and has no access to education, their chances of succeeding in life will decrease enormously. Women are at a disadvantage here because if they get pregnant young their chances of dropping school are even higher. Also, in patriarchal societies they might be raised exactly to do that: get pregnant and raise children instead of going to school and getting an education.

        Yes, you do have to be home to pass along many subtleties and you probably have little to no idea of what you
        are missing. And what we are missing we can’t really pass on. Hence the issue of degrading generations (its a generational not personal statement).

        > You do not have to dedicate 100% of your time to your children in order to ‘pass along’ the necessary values and subtleties you mention. In fact, this is probably counter-productive: children learn by example and your personal enrichment is bigger when you are a cultured and educated person, and educating oneself is a process that takes time and effort. There needs to be a balance between your ‘self’ and the rest of your family.

        Girls falling asleep in Dad’s arms is common and boys falling asleep in mother’s and doesn’t mean it fulfills the missing subtleties of the unavailable mother.

        > True, but it also doesn’t means it doesn’t. Nor that there are missing subtleties to begin with.

  12. Have you really just cited mercatornet and the telegraph? Why? Couldn’t find any updated scientific research to support your claim? 😉

    I would argue that if any of the spouses, man or woman, spends major hours outside it will have an eroding effect on the marriage’s well being independently of its gender. If you wish to prove that this claim only applies to woman and not man you need to provide some evidence of that. Claiming it’s “common-sense-obvious” will not do it.

    As for the fallacy fallacy you are accusing me of having committed I can only tell you misunderstood what I said. I didn’t say you were wrong because you used a fallacy. I said you could nor prove your claim with that particular argument because it was a fallacy. After all, you are the one making a claim, so the burden of proof is on you.

    p.s. – not sure why you assume I have a penis instead of a vagina. there are female unicorns you know? that’s how we are able to make babies

    1. Replying to your comment here as the other one has run out of nodes 😦

      Sir, you and I can conveniently label anything as a logical fallacy when dealing with abstract subjects. Unfortunately this area (that we are talking about) is not as abstract to lend to logical fallacies as easily as you may like. Why? For one – several studies exist. Two- it is well known across world cultures since several centuries. Three- common sense will tell you the same generally. Still if you like to believe otherwise then good luck.

      In earlier posts I talked about how it hurts everyone in the household including the wife, so its better for all if the wife is managing the home. Please read them and let me know the point(s) needing more clarification. Yes the results will vary but be sure its a lose-lose deal unless money is very much needed in which case a generation or two has to have their women step outside on a daily basis and deal with the degradation it brings until next generation is ready to be without it. You can call all this vague (even though studies are cited for your entertainment) but life will happen anyway and all this stupid discussion will go down the drain (many women already know inherently).

      “Bad parenting” is not cherry picking or fallacy (no clue how you even arrive to such conclusions assuming you are reading properly). Its just a bad example used by Madame T that she has been requested to avoid. Read the posts again and ask before assuming.

      Sir, I can ask you how do you know “bad parenting” is common? What is your source and how do you (and Madame T) know that it has been common since ever etc. But like indicated before – its futile to get into all this. I know by common sense that overall bad parenting (as in extreme) is uncommon. What does lead to bad parenting in general is poverty which is why it is said above that in such cases the women have to compromise and make money. This does not apply where the husband is making decent money. And no, greed is not included.

      About societies that suppress women – you can be sure these will disintegrate in due time and are already. The destruction of a civilization, society is imminent with degradation of their women. The degradation can be because the women are suppressed by others, or the women (usually under some external influence of degraded cultures) decide to degrade themselves by working jobs and hence compromising on her other duties. In either case its a lose-lose. Here destruction doesn’t necessarily mean annihilation, it means free flow of low morals making the society/civilization uncivilized. Sure people can still have great cars and say “Thank you” a lot but we all know what is really happening and how civilized it really is. Similarly for societies with suppressed cladded women, be sure they are degrading. We all see that at a world level. Your view about my opinion is distorted (please don’t) when matching with them.

      Yes sharing all duties equally is a fairy tale. But the point is that when women step out daily for extended hours many of her duties (that she is naturally better at) will get compromised. Sure the husband can share those duties but he cannot match her there. This is why its fairy tale’ish to think all duties can be shared equally.

      Sure, you can assume the father can be as nurturing as the mother and do an equal job raising kids or the infantry division consists of wives and all this is last century but who are you kidding with all this other than yourself? Do not label things as gender roles without giving them a thought. Some gender roles are in-our-faces obvious. Female bodybuilding is a joke, many take steroids (yeah the male hormone Testosterone) to get there. Some exceptions can happen but only “some”.

      Whether the advanced countries be time oriented or relationship oriented, women stepping out causing degradation still holds. So it doesn’t matter what the society “likes” as long as the women are degrading or degraded. Please don’t add comments without keeping the whole context in mind otherwise you are bound to conclude that a generalization (or some other strange conclusion) has taken place.

      If you need proof why fathers are not as capable as mothers in nurturing then you may study hormones and general biology, then look at the common theme in world cultures and then use common sense. It shall be obvious then. If not …well life will happen anyway.

      Again do not label all differences between the sexes as gender stereotyping. Many are obvious and many are beautifully complimentary. And no having better technical skills does not mean misogyny just like having better nurturing skills does not mean misandry. You can assume I feel threatened or whatever lol but if you are able to keep with the context of this topic it should be obvious that women are literally being “stupid” these days entertaining “stupid” ideas that defy even biological, thousands of years of cultural wisdom and lastly their own common sense. Take this in context and then understand that comment.

      Sure women do jobs well too but again go back to what really happens just because “they can”. And just because “they can” why isn’t boxing happening between men vs. women. Because “they can’t”. Why aren’t men breast feeding instead? Because “they can’t”. Please ..I assume you are able to make basic differentiation between the sexes (without labeling everything as a gender stereotype). If you can’t, then please let me know.

      Sure economic power has a say but still there are inherent predispositions so being rich only helps so much. The rich person still has a better headstart but the point was to not use cliches like she did. They can rob the person’s argument of credibility.

      I can ask you the source of not having to dedicate 100% your time to pass along the subtleties but as you have probably realized by now that it is futile. Now to the topic I feel you should understand the difference between being “well educated” and being “well trained”. A good chunk of us are just well trained with our degrees and not much well educated. Education is to bring wisdom knowing the obviousness of life etc. A wise person will tell us how incredibly important it is for the mother to spend her time (as much as possible) with her children at least until a certain age. A well trained person will probably not… after all their “training” must be applied in working a “job”. And this idea now a days is more important than everything else. Now a days well trained husbands are slurping over their wives’s salaries and the well trained wives think the household/kids will get managed but corporate slavery is a must. So much for being “well educated”.

      You are probably missing the subtleties too so you are shooting in the dark when talking about them. Its OK.

      1. Man, like I already stated before, you write a lot and do not back up your claims. I’ve specifically asked you for sources several times and you were unable (so far) to provide them.

        You also resort to the use of logical fallacies, use abusive generalizations, rely solely on common-sense and ‘obvious’, are unable to challenge your hypothesis (even when I am trying to make you think about them) and keep repeating yourself over and over, as if just by saying it, it would make it true.

        Again, you are the one making the claims here, I’m just disputing them. This means the burden of proof is on you. You do know what burden of proof is, don’t you?

        As for the fallacies you use, I am unsure if you truly don’t understand you are using them or if you are just trying to convince you self of that. Anyway, here’s an example: When someone tells you that a specific set of cases does not fit in your hypothesis, logic and the scientific method tell us that we should reject our hypothesis. If you claim that that particular set of cases isn’t enough to reject because it’s an ‘exception’, you are cherry picking and that is a fallacy. You have done this continuously throughout your comments.

        I would continuing to address the logical flaws in your hypothesis point by point as I’ve done it in my past 2 comments, but it seems you either have a hard time understanding them or, more likely, do not want to admit them. Plus, you write so much in order to try to prove your point that it’s actually becoming too time consuming. Your rhetorics is good, I’ll give you that. But frankly I have better things to do than having dishonest discussions with a retrograde obtuse person.

    2. p.s. – Testosterone is a hormone produced in female’s ovaries, it is actually a precursor of the female hormone estrogen. Since you clearly do not know basic physiology, I am now wondering what other type of knowledge you lack but are convinced you possess.

      1. ‘Man, like I already stated before, you write a lot and do not back up your claims. I’ve specifically asked you for sources several times and you were unable (so far) to provide them’
        You are kidding, right? After citing studies, and the point about “asking for sources for everything is futile to the argument” …you are still in that loop? What is so hard to understand about this? Please read properly (which you are definitely not OR you have low intelligence to begin with, I hope not) and many of your questions will be answered leading to a productive flow.

        Again, you are wasting your time talking about me using fallacies and whatever diluting stuff you are adding to this without getting to the real content. Sorry and once again (for the 15th time) the studies are cited (1), the point of the same being known across world cultures is made (2) and last but not the least common sense will tell you the same (3). If these 3 factors are not enough for you to start thinking (while still calling things as fallacies or whatever) then I don’t know who you are kidding other than yourself.

        Burden of proof? You do know how to DISCUSS right? You can’t just tell someone to source things while not sourcing what you yourself claim (or ‘dispute’ as you would like to call it LOL). At least some studies are cited by me and if you really (REALLY) read through the comments several things will be quite clear.

        The fallacy you claim I am using is your misunderstanding (probably because you didn’t read properly? no surprise there). Still if you want to discuss those then please word them in a specific manner (of where and how it was used). To make it easy for you whichever scenarios have been labeled as exceptions, they are along with explanation of how/why it is an exception e.g. bad parenting, gays. So read through s l o w l y and neutrally and you won’t find cherry picking. Still if you do, then be sure its your own misinterpretation but I will try to clarify.

        You haven’t pointed out any valid logical flaws. If you pointed out anything it was answered to you. Still if I missed anything then word it out very specifically (NO generic type statements).

        And I should be using the word “obtuse” for you but refer first paragraph of this post.
        Somethings I am writing repeatedly because you are making no points and are inserting useless content repeatedly. Yes its a good idea for you to eject because you have no argument anyway. Any neutral and intelligent person can make out who is beating around the bush here and who is making some valid points.

        And like I said – ask before assuming but you are probably can’t grasp that. So it is getting stupider now that I have to tell you this basic -> Yes, testosterone exists in females too but is no match for its quantity in males which is what makes males …males. That is the easiest way I can put it.

  13. p.p.s. – I thought it was pretty obvious, since the beginning, that I was challenging your claim that it is the woman who has to take care of the home and family, so it is her absence (and only hers) that will have a negative affect on the family unit. most people in 2015 have the opinion that this is a shared responsibility among both spouses. equally.

    1. Go to Virginia.edu if you are not sure about mercatornet. If you can’t find let me know.

      Yes absence of both partners matter but absence of a wife on a daily basis influences the household and the kids (if any) much more as is seen in the studies cited. I indicated that studies apart (but only after citing them ..so don’t know what more you need) it is common-sense-obvious. You may want to argue against but in your hearts of hearts most likely you too know that daily absence of the wife (example a job) will deteriorate the household / marriage much faster than the daily absence of a husband on duty. And if kids are also involved then God help that household. If you somehow do not know this then you maybe an exception to the norm. Keep in mind “knowing” yet “ignoring” is common but usually people “know”. . .

      I said “IF you are using the logical fallacy argument…” Notice the IF. In other words – its a conditional statement. So if you were not using it then its OK. And no, I did not use a fallacy instead studies are cited and the context kept intact. If you think there was a fallacy then word it out very specifically. Make sure you read all the posts otherwise we may be solving a mystery that never happened. I am starting to think you are just messing around 😐 without doing due diligence. Hope not.

      Sorry, I didn’t think if you were male / female so used generic abbreviations. From now on you are Ms. Unicorny 😉 and dear blog owner Titanetsissi shall be addressed madame T. You can call me – Mr. Ri

      It has always been for both partners to share equal responsibility of the household but here equal doesn’t mean equal in every thing, it means equal overall. So there are many parts where the wife is in charge and others where the husband is and others where elders are and others where both have equal say. For e.g in-charge of the house hold activities, gift giving, hospitality, nurturing etc. is the wife with due respect to elderly women in the house. The part of making money, creating assets etc. is where the husband is in charge.

      A wife spending major hours outside making money (now a days just because she can) is stepping into additional duties and it will barter with her other duties. This is why people in 2015 are of the opinion that both should share all duties equally. Well sounds good theoretically (read fairy tale) but is practically impossible to implement (and we wonder why are conflicts on the rise?). A man can rarely nurture as well as the woman or be better at hospitality. There are exceptions but these are just a few examples. N number of things are compromised with the wife outside “making money”. A man / woman can make money but the man is inferior to her in several other things (these are the things that get compromised because she is outside, tired, stressed, limited on time etc.). This is why I indicated earlier that a woman has much more power than a man in making or breaking a household.

      And to those men who think that responsibilities should be shared because wives should work (just because she can) try this – The husband takes charge of the house hold (just because he can) and the wife steps into making money. Let me know how that works out.

    2. 1. You do not support you claims with credible sources. I have already pointed this out but I will repeat. A study from 1987 is outdated. Mercator and The Telegraph are not reliable sources. I am truly sorry if you don’t know what peer-reviewed is or how the scientific method works. Maybe you can learn it?

      2. You talk about things you clearly don’t understand, but think you do. The testosterone example is one I could identify. Are there more?

      3. You resort to the use of logical fallacies. Here are some examples:

      Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument. Ex.: “Stupid women with stupid ideas ruining their lives for some job.”
      Straw man – an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. Ex.: “The presumption here is that a woman working for the home is less than a woman working for a company.”
      Cherry picking (suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence) – act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. Ex.: “About the abusive husbands – those are exceptions (just like very good husbands are too).”; “so some abusive spouses, fraction of people not wanting kids for life, someone’s spouse dying early, spouse leaving …these things happen but they are exceptions and not the rule.”; “These studies not taking gays etc. into account is OK as that is a minor trend but lets say they do take all the special cases you listed into account.. their results don’t matter here because the topic here is not gays etc – its working wives in normal households.”; “A wife or a husband mentally not up to their responsibilities (e.g. a Mother not being nurturing enough) is not to be taken into account in this discussion. (…) Those are special cases.”; “When you say “bad parenting” I am taking it as someone doing a very bad job at it. And that is not to be considered here because of being an exception and not the norm.”
      Special pleading – where a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption. Ex.: the same as for cherry picking fallacies
      Correlation proves causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc) – a faulty assumption that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other. Ex.: “Again please don’t add arbitrary content such as – Correlation doesn’t equal causation. Sure this may be true (though many times correlation equals causation)”
      False attribution – an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument. Ex.: Your citation of Mercator and The Telegraph; “For one – several studies exist.”
      False authority (single authority) – using an expert of dubious credentials or using only one opinion to sell a product or idea. Related to the appeal to authority fallacy. Ex.: “Two- it is well known across world cultures since several centuries. Three- common sense will tell you the same generally.”; You can label these studies as outdated (they are not) however I am not depending on them anyway. Its common-sense-obvious.”; ” I indicated that studies apart (but only after citing them ..so don’t know what more you need) it is common-sense-obvious.”
      Fallacy of the single cause (causal oversimplification) – it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes. Ex.: “Similarly be sure when the women of the house spend major hours working outside (even when the husband himself is at work) it takes a toll on the husband as well as herself. It is not just the children who suffer though by implication when the children of the household suffers it will leak into the family. This is long term implications.”
      Circular reasoning (circulus in demonstrando) – when the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with; sometimes called assuming the conclusion. Ex.: “A side comment is further added that it (working for women) generally leads to unfavorable results for people around them (including themselves). Be sure about that.”
      Onus probandi – from Latin “onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat” the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the “argumentum ad ignorantiam” fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion. Ex.: “Sir, I can ask you how do you know “bad parenting” is common? What is your source and how do you (and Madame T) know that it has been common since ever etc.”
      Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is the tendency to favor information that confirms one’s beliefs or hypotheses and to ignore information that disagrees with one’s point of view. Ex.: “I know by common sense that overall bad parenting (as in extreme) is uncommon.”
      Mind projection fallacy – when one considers the way one sees the world as the way the world really is. Ex.: “Yes sharing all duties equally is a fairy tale. But the point is that when women step out daily for extended hours many of her duties (that she is naturally better at) will get compromised. Sure the husband can share those duties but he cannot match her there. This is why its fairy tale’ish to think all duties can be shared equally.”
      Proof by assertion – a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction. Ex.: Everytime you repeat yourself without supporting your claims and without addressing the logical flaws pointed out by others
      Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion, missing the point) – an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question. Ex.: “It has always been for both partners to share equal responsibility of the household but here equal doesn’t mean equal in every thing, it means equal overall. So there are many parts where the wife is in charge and others where the husband is and others where elders are and others where both have equal say. ”
      Thought-terminating cliché – a commonly used phrase, sometimes passing as folk wisdom, used to quell cognitive dissonance, conceal lack of thought-entertainment, move on to other topics etc. but in any case, end the debate with a cliche—not a point. Ex.: “Generally, no one (including grand parents) can substitute for the mother.”
      Appeal to tradition (argumentum ad antiquitatem) – a conclusion supported solely because it has long been held to be true. Ex.: ” One may say all this is outdated (a general reaction now a days to even the obvious ancient time-tested wisdom) but that is just like a cliche”
      False analogy – an argument by analogy in which the analogy is poorly suited. Ex.: “similar to saying “all religions are equal”. They are not.”

      1. That is just your opinion that studies from the 80’s are outdated (they are not) however you have been directed to go check Virginia.edu for the meta magazine reference that you are uncomfortable with.
        Something funny is going on with this thread as a comment with more studies links was posted on February 13, 2015 at 7:25 pm by me and is still awaiting moderation. Strange because I think you also commented with an external link on a later day and it appeared on here. Maybe madame T hasn’t seen my comment (assuming its she who has to approve and not wordpress when there are external links posted). In any case if it doesn’t get approved in a few days I will leave my email here so the links can sent to you.

        You probably have no understanding about the Testosterone example (just taking mindless stabs at any straw without thinking it through or should I say reading it through?). This is why I put it in a very simplistic manner in the last post. It was very clear yet you fail and use that as some example to prove some point. Good going.

        “Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument. Ex.: “Stupid women with stupid ideas ruining their lives for some job.”
        — Did you also happen to read the post in which the context of the above statement was clearly explained? If so, did you understand it? In any case – did you also notice that this was the very first comment and so how can I attack some arguer when no one was arguing with me in the first place? Makes sense? Think about it.
        The above is where you are doing cherry picking (that too without thinking things through) by excluding the context and the circumstances of the comment. Makes sense? This is why I have been telling you to not jump context as it will only lead to idiotic unneeded sub threads (which we are into now, any surprise?).

        The other hominem you claim is your own imagination. Its not there if you read with a neutral mind. However is you still don’t get it then I don’t know what to say other than that you are not reading or not comprehending well. This is not an attack, its just observation because you have demonstrated comprehension deficiency too many times in a row now. And then on top of that idiotic concepts are inserted making it go in an entirely different direction. If you still find it attacking then sorry. But its not.

        “Straw man – an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. ”
        This is just about all you are doing but probably not on purpose (or maybe you are?) but its your own misunderstanding causing misrepresentation along with other junk you keep adding.
        Ex.: “The presumption here is that a woman working for the home is less than a woman working for a company.”
        –This was to Madame T’s comment (did you again miss the context, circumstances?) and from what I remember she understands it well. So why would you include something that both parties understand and then call it straw man or whatever? This is just a poor case of mindless cherry picking and would not have happened with proper reading or comprehending.

        You call the example of gays, bad parenting, abusive husbands etc. as “cherry picking” … but you don’t say HOW. Strange. But no wonder (since you have no argument to begin with).
        However if you understand (or read?) its pretty evident I am talking normal people here just like everyday people are not criminals. This is why there are different set of rules for dealing with criminals versus normal folks. And not just by law but people also treat them differently when they know. So it should be pretty evident how exceptions operate under a varied rule set which is the point to comprehend with such examples.

        “Special pleading – where a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption”
        –And where were the exceptions not justified? The justification of why is it to be excluded is always given by me. If you have counter justification for that then do so but please do NOT compare it with arbitrary concepts like special pleading (when its clearly not so) and again if you just READ properly this wouldn’t have happened either. I hope your comprehension is good enough in written media.

        The “Correlation doesn’t equal causation or sometimes it does” was discussed in the context of telling you (or Madame T?) to NOT use it here because while it may be true at times but it may not be too. So the circumstances of discussing it was “to not use arbitrary stuff in the discussion” and it was NOT to make a point directly relevant to the actual topic in discussion (working wives). It seems you didn’t pay attention to the context (no surprise anymore) at that time and are now using it to say – oh look you used “correlation causation BS”. Strange.

        About the magazine citation, it has been told to go to Virgina.edu for the source. You did that? NO is my guess. But quick to label it with something your whims tell you to as “False attribution”.

        “False authority (single authority)”:
        –Really? What is well known across world cultures of several thousand years is single authority? What is cited in several studies (some awaiting moderation here) is also single authority? What is common sense to many is single authority? So now we have THREE single / false authorities? ha ha. But somehow what you feel about it is “right” … it needs NO source and is “common sense” for you. You see the idiocy in this? You may get real and stop beating around the bush.

        “Fallacy of the single cause (causal oversimplification) – Ex.: “Similarly be sure when the women of the house spend major hours working outside (even when the husband himself is at work) it takes a toll on the husband as well as herself. It is not just the children who suffer though by implication when the children of the household suffers it will leak into the family. This is long term implications.”
        –Again, really? When the whole topic is about “working women leading to XYZ results or not” so the above statement I make is in regards to that topic only. Sure, other factors drop in but we are ONLY focusing on “problems happening (or not) in a household because of working women” and NOT how these problems are influenced by other factors. This is why we are citing studies of working women and the problems its causing (and not studies on how kids are influencing such problems, are we?) This should be clear from the beginning but maybe you just like to jump context please stop. About the other 2 fallacies you claim in your second successive post yesterday, I am not even getting into them because that is again ignoring context from your end leading to complete misunderstanding of the picture. You get the context right and it will be clear there are no fallacies. Try it. Really.

        “Circular reasoning (circulus in demonstrando) Ex.: A side comment is further added that it (working for women) generally leads to unfavorable results for people around them (including themselves). Be sure about that.”
        –This is not funny anymore. Did you again forget the context in which this comment was made? It was a break up of a previous statement that dear Unicorny (or madame T) needed more understanding on. The misunderstanding was evident hence demanding explanation before the topic goes in the wrong direction. So the statement was made for “better understanding” purposes. In any case it is NOT circular reasoning because it is in line with the studies cited and other support arguments. So please do NOT take things out of context just for fitting it to some theory.

        “Onus probandi “Ex.: “Sir, I can ask you how do you know “bad parenting” is common? What is your source and how do you (and Madame T) know that it has been common since ever etc.”
        –This is just poor understanding of the concept as well as bad reading of the thread. If you READ through you will find that its madame T who makes the first claim first saying bad parenting is very common and I am the one denying that (makes sense?). So the burden of proof must be on her? Please no mindless quoting and take your own advice on learning what you are telling me to learn (lol). I mean, do you even know what you are getting into? Below paragraph is from the same website link you posted (not posting the link as it will go under moderation). Read it properly as you are abusing the concept because of poor understanding. This will make it clear how you are using further fallacious reasoning.

        —–The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn’t been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning—–

        “Confirmation bias Ex.: I know by common sense that overall bad parenting (as in extreme) is uncommon.”
        –Wow, this is just weak. How many families you know who beat their kids a lot? (notice the word extreme above). Or how many who torture them a lot mentally? Unless you are in a very strange community it is very uncommon which is how “common sense” will tell you that bad parenting is uncommon. So how can I favor your side of saying that “bad parenting” is very common? Its just too obvious when you look around. So there goes your confirmation bias in the drain. Just another useless dilution of the main topic.

        “Mind projection fallacy – when one considers the way one sees the world as the way the world really is. Ex. Yes sharing all duties equally is a fairy tale ….. ”
        –This is so useless of an addition that I don’t even want to comment on it. I mean, REALLY? How is this relevant at all? How does it even apply to me to begin with? Just in your mind’s eye it does? And what if in my mind it applies to you? You see how this is just building air castles kind of deal. Even after seeing that the content of the comment made was relevant to the topic and in line with studies its somehow “my mind projection fallacy”. Maybe its your mind projection fallacy. Think about it then pause for a while and then think about it again.

        “Proof by assertion – a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction. Ex.: Every time you repeat yourself without supporting your claims and without addressing the logical flaws pointed out by others”
        –What contradiction? Can you list one? What support claims? The support studies are there and if you READ you will see that many things said are intertwined with the studies. They may be implications or direct results but only reading properly will clear it (or raising relevant questions). Otherwise you are just kidding yourself by adding new diluting junk repeatedly. And again you also need to support your claims. What happened to that? Oh the burden of proof (hope your understanding of the concept is better now) is on me because I just repeated something well known. And what logical flaws? List one and do so PROPERLY.

        “Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion, missing the point) – an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question. Ex.: “It has always been for both partners to share equal responsibility …..”
        –Did you again forget the context in which it was discussed? It was a comment to something you (or madame T) said in the first place and now its irrelevant? LOLOL. Do your due diligence and look it up for yourself and the context will become clear. Very bad. Also do you even remember you “AGREED” to this point? Maybe that doesn’t matter as long as you can quote it for some absurd reasoning ha ha

        “Thought-terminating cliché – Ex.: Generally, no one (including grand parents) can substitute for the mother.”
        –The studies citing how mother’s absence negatively plays out on the child implies that her presence is extremely important, what is so hard to understand about that? So her extended absence daily while someone else like daycare takes care of the child ..it still means the study applies. This would have been obvious … but to you its a thought terminating cliche talk about out of context proofs. Bad.
        If you are not sure what out of context means here is a crude example: Yesterday I saw you taking off clothes ….. *few seconds pause* ……… from the Sun drying wire.
        If the last part is excluded then the whole meaning of the sentence changes i.e. its a context jump.

        “Appeal to tradition Ex. One may say all this is outdated (a general reaction now a days to even the obvious ancient time-tested wisdom) but that is just like a cliche”
        –Many people dismiss just about everything they think is “old” as “outdated” without a second thought. What I said was not an appeal to tradition, it is how many of us react these days to even time tested concepts. Be clear about that. But lets assume people don’t react like that to old stuff. Even in that case the usage of this concept is wrong by you (out of context) because there is no appeal to begin with – It was just said because from your comments it seems you dismiss old as outdated in general. So the takeaway from that comment is to not be so quick in dismissing anything you think is old and for God’s sake NEVER by depending on cliches. In other words it was not used for you to believe something because ‘tradition’ tells you to i.e. your usage of the concept is wrong and out of context.

        “False analogy – an argument by analogy in which the analogy is poorly suited. Ex.: “similar to saying “all religions are equal”. They are not.”
        –Again out of context quoting. The example of religion was given to understand how “cliches” are used in society in general and the religion example was given to see how cliches can be completely wrong, misleading and hence lend themselves to be misused (which is what you did right now by using it as an example of False Analogy).

        Yeah please explain the difference between “common sense” and “scientific evidence” again. Last time I read you took “faith” for “common sense” with supernatural phenomena. Thanks for that good laugh and I am hoping you give me a better one this time. In any case if you want to ignore “common sense” then OK (though very dangerous) but ignoring what is well known across world cultures and is the subject of many studies is just being an ignorant.

        ” since the beginning you are claiming that I don’t read properly. do you have any more arguments besides the Ad hominem fallacy? because claiming I misunderstand what you say without explaining what exactly was misunderstood is the straw man fallacy”
        –Really? Every time you have misunderstood the explanation has been given except 1-2 times when I asked you to do your due diligence/ look up etc. This is because I can’t keep spoon feeding you every time you misunderstand (not that I didn’t try). You completely ignored all the explanations and resort to me doing hominem and then you obviously concluded straw man. I mean who you are kidding with all this other than yourself here? Get real, all else is junk.

        LOL @ threatening. I am asking you to eject because you are not doing a good job here to put it nicely (Unicorn as you say) and so it will be better for you to focus on other things you are good at. It seems jumping out of context is the theme in your comments.

        Essentially you cited nothing valid and/or valuable. This is just saddening as I was hoping that there will be at least one valid point. It is also a great example of fitting data to the curve (because you are fitting cherry picked things while ignoring context, making arbitrary assumptions, misunderstanding and then declaring –> oh look whatever you say fits point by point with the Argument Theory so you are wrong lolol).

        “Testosterone – Claiming I can’t grasp a subject in which I just corrected you is quite amusing”
        –Your correction? LOL this is your correction? -> “You talk about things you clearly don’t understand, but think you do. The testosterone example is one I could identify”
        ha ha ha it is more amusing because it came after you were told how males have more Testosterone.

  14. Go to Virginia.edu if you are not sure about mercatornet. If you can’t find let me know. —> Mercatornet is a magazine and ThTelegraph is a newspaper. They have opinion articles that are been written by people who may or may not have done a good job at researching the topic they are writing about. They are not peer-reviewed , which is the gold standard for standards of quality, improved performance, and credibility. This is why when you first tried to prove your point you went to NCBI to look for studies to support your claims, not newspaper/magazine articles

    Yes absence of both partners matter but absence of a wife on a daily basis influences the household and the kids (if any) much more as is seen in the studies cited. —> the links you provided do not mention a specific study that has been publish and that we can read, it only has a vague reference to “studies”. no specific peer-reviewed publication to analyze means no credibility. if we want to discuss the studies we need to actually read the papers. sorry, that’s how science works.

    I indicated that studies apart (but only after citing them ..so don’t know what more you need) it is common-sense-obvious. —-> i actually don’t understand your sentence, but like I said before, common sense isn’t always right. using “common sense” for rhetorical effect in order to appeal to positivity and authority isn’t only silly is another fallacy. science has a method, requires validation and tests hypothesis. common sense allows us to believe in ghosts and god.

    You may want to argue against but in your hearts of hearts most likely you too know that daily absence of the wife (example a job) will deteriorate the household / marriage much faster than the daily absence of a husband on duty. And if kids are also involved then God help that household. If you somehow do not know this then you maybe an exception to the norm. Keep in mind “knowing” yet “ignoring” is common but usually people “know”. . . —-> a lot of opinions, no arguments or anything to back them up

    I said “IF you are using the logical fallacy argument…” Notice the IF. In other words – its a conditional statement. So if you were not using it then its OK. And no, I did not use a fallacy instead studies are cited and the context kept intact. If you think there was a fallacy then word it out very specifically. Make sure you read all the posts otherwise we may be solving a mystery that never happened. I am starting to think you are just messing around 😐 without doing due diligence. Hope not. —> i already pointed out your previous fallacies, i don’t think i need to repeat myself

    Sorry, I didn’t think if you were male / female so used generic abbreviations. From now on you are Ms. Unicorny 😉 and dear blog owner Titanetsissi shall be addressed madame T. You can call me – Mr. Ri —–> again, i do not understand why you are assuming I am male or female. the only thing you know for sure is that I have a large, pointed, spiraling horn projecting from my forehead

    It has always been for both partners to share equal responsibility of the household but here equal doesn’t mean equal in every thing, it means equal overall. So there are many parts where the wife is in charge and others where the husband is and others where elders are and others where both have equal say. —> agreed

    For e.g in-charge of the house hold activities, gift giving, hospitality, nurturing etc. is the wife with due respect to elderly women in the house. The part of making money, creating assets etc. is where the husband is in charge. —> again, this is your opinion. i would argue that there are many women that don’t like or care for gift giving, hospitality, nurturing etc. and that there are many men who love it.

    A wife spending major hours outside making money (now a days just because she can) is stepping into additional duties and it will barter with her other duties. —> again, just an opinion. i would argue that there are a lot of women with high-demanding careers that also have a well balanced family life.

    This is why people in 2015 are of the opinion that both should share all duties equally. Well sounds good theoretically (read fairy tale) but is practically impossible to implement (and we wonder why are conflicts on the rise?). —> why do you say it’s practically impossible to implement? do you have anything to back this up? what makes you say conflicts on the rise? and what types of conflicts? where did you find this information?

    A man can rarely nurture as well as the woman or be better at hospitality. ——-> i know i keep repeating myself but if it’s not backed up with some reliable source it’s just an opinion…..

    There are exceptions but these are just a few examples. —-> how much is a few? how do you know how many examples? what is your source?

    N number of things are compromised with the wife outside “making money”. A man / woman can make money but the man is inferior to her in several other things (these are the things that get compromised because she is outside, tired, stressed, limited on time etc.). This is why I indicated earlier that a woman has much more power than a man in making or breaking a household. —-> no facts, just opinions…..

    And to those men who think that responsibilities should be shared because wives should work (just because she can) try this – The husband takes charge of the house hold (just because he can) and the wife steps into making money. Let me know how that works out. —-> this actually happens nowadays, and like so many other things in life I would imagine that sometimes it works well, sometimes it works poorly

    You write a lot but you don’t really seem to be able to support your claims. This discussion is pointless if we’re just discussing opinions.

    1. Which is why it was indicated to go to Virginia.edu if you are unsure about magazines.

      See these if you like:
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3608664
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2407128
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8222883
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3691199

      To your point of ‘specific study’ – It doesn’t matter if the link provided in the earlier post does not mention a specific study, the point still comes across. Do your due diligence and find those vague references to studies.

      Like indicated earlier studies or not its common-sense-obvious. This is more so because such studies are subject to interpretation and abstraction more than studies involving exact sciences. Hence I do not care for studies as such and have cited them just because you want to believe “studies” shall prove. Listen to your common sense and you will know. If you still can’t then find the studies for yourself.

      I am using the term “common sense” in a specific (keeping in mind this topic and not vague manner. Common sense (in a specific manner not vague while having grasp of the subject) is mostly right. So please don’t add comments that you yourself haven’t put thought into. Thus your conclusion of it being used as a fallacy is lack of own understanding and/or grip over the topic in question. Please don’t do that. If you can’t keep the whole context in mind while discussing then who you are kidding here? And no common sense does not allow for believing in supernatural phenomena, that is faith. Please only add well thought out comments.”a lot of opinions, no arguments or anything to back them up” -> Sure. If the studies don’t do it for you then so be it.

      And no you didn’t point out anything specific (fallacy or whatever). Whatever you supposedly pointed out was told to you and if you can’t understand it then ask specific questions.

      The gift giving, hospitality, money making etc. are tasks that require uniqueness of both sexes which is why they are divided like that. Sure there are women who do not care about hospitality but yet they will mostly do a better job at it than the man. This is universally known across cultures so don’t know who you are kidding with believing otherwise.

      Yeah you can argue that “there are a lot of women with high-demanding careers that also have a well balanced family life” but the impact it is causing on their families you probably have no idea of. Maybe you see it from the outside and conclude – oh look a BMW-7 and cars for everyone, swimming lessons, piano playing ..so all must be well! Who cares if the kids got the nurturing of daycare and the wife is tired /short on time regularly and hence compromising on other facets? The $1 million house speaks for itself. Well, good luck with that. So yeah you can call it my opinion but it is pretty obvious a wife stepping outside daily has “additional” responsibilities and the shortage of time and energy will bleed into her other responsibilities. And that should just work out fine, Right? Sure.

      Doing all duties equally is practically impossible to implement. You do not need back up theories for everything. It should be obvious if you just look at your own experiences in all relationships. Human interaction is much more complicated than a balance sheet and you cannot implement a balance sheet in a marriage except for matters with hard facts like money etc. Now if you can implement a balance sheet type structure in a marriage about tenderness then sure it is possible. Let me know how that works out lol.

      Conflicts are on the rise is also obvious. Just look around you. Again you do not need back up for everything. Get down to common sense and then discuss things. I can ask how do you know that conflicts are not on rise? All this is just filler. Get real and talk in a manner that leads to a concrete discussion (and not diluting the discussion). I am sorry I have to tell you this but please don’t waste your time here if you are going to discuss like someone who is oblivious to the many obvious things in life.

      About the part that you think is an opinion “A man can rarely nurture as well as the woman or be better at hospitality ..” OK. So why are these studies focused on working mothers and their impact on kids? And why are the results not nice? Obviously because the woman is more suited for it. It is also well known across all cultures. If you still want to play dumb then OK.

      Similarly for the the obvious part of tired, outside, limited on time etc. If you think women are less powerful than men in making or breaking a household then tell a married woman to do something inappropriate in front of the world and see how nicely it works out. Then tell the husband of another woman to do the same. Let me know what happens next to the two families.

      Yeah sure stay at home husbands happens now a days (not that it hasn’t happened in the past). And no it doesn’t work out well for the families.

      “You write a lot but you don’t really seem to be able to support your claims. This discussion is pointless if we’re just discussing opinions” -> It is you calling them as opinions even after the studies cited, their implications and well known facts across all cultures then you need to refresh yourself.

      “It has always been for both partners to share equal responsibility of the household but here equal doesn’t mean equal in every thing, it means equal overall. So there are many parts where the wife is in charge and others where the husband is and others where elders are and others where both have equal say. —> agreed”
      Funny when you want to agree then you don’t want studies or back up for that. Please do not participate here if you are just messing around. You are losing credibility in the name of being a unicorn or having insomnia. Talk in a mature manner and if you just want to label everything as opinion then I can too label everything you say as an opinion and ask for back up facts. What will that lead to? Nothing, but idiotic dilution of the topic.

      Get real.

  15. You are kidding, right? After citing studies, and the point about “asking for sources for everything is futile to the argument” …you are still in that loop? What is so hard to understand about this? Please read properly (which you are definitely not OR you have low intelligence to begin with, I hope not) and many of your questions will be answered leading to a productive flow.

    > Ad hominem fallacy

    Again, you are wasting your time talking about me using fallacies and whatever diluting stuff you are adding to this without getting to the real content. Sorry and once again (for the 15th time) the studies are cited (1), the point of the same being known across world cultures is made (2) and last but not the least common sense will tell you the same (3). If these 3 factors are not enough for you to start thinking (while still calling things as fallacies or whatever) then I don’t know who you are kidding other than yourself.

    > “the studies are cited (1)” has already been addressed several times in my comments. I’ll repeat, they are either outdated (1987) or have no credibility (Mercator and The Telegraph). you are using the False attribution fallacy
    > “the point of the same being known across world cultures is made (2)” is the False authority fallacy
    >”common sense will tell you the same (3)” — do I really need to explain the difference between common sense and the scientific method AGAIN?

    Burden of proof? You do know how to DISCUSS right? You can’t just tell someone to source things while not sourcing what you yourself claim (or ‘dispute’ as you would like to call it LOL). At least some studies are cited by me and if you really (REALLY) read through the comments several things will be quite clear.

    > 2 fallacies, the ad hominem and the burden of proof. my advice? learn what burden of proof means, you clearly do not know it.

    The fallacy you claim I am using is your misunderstanding (probably because you didn’t read properly? no surprise there). Still if you want to discuss those then please word them in a specific manner (of where and how it was used). To make it easy for you whichever scenarios have been labeled as exceptions, they are along with explanation of how/why it is an exception e.g. bad parenting, gays. So read through s l o w l y and neutrally and you won’t find cherry picking. Still if you do, then be sure its your own misinterpretation but I will try to clarify.

    > since the beginning you are claiming that I don’t read properly. do you have any more arguments besides the Ad hominem fallacy? because claiming I misunderstand what you say without explaining what exactly was misunderstood is the straw man fallacy

    You haven’t pointed out any valid logical flaws. If you pointed out anything it was answered to you. Still if I missed anything then word it out very specifically (NO generic type statements).

    > is my previous comment specific enough for you?

    And I should be using the word “obtuse” for you but refer first paragraph of this post.
    Somethings I am writing repeatedly because you are making no points and are inserting useless content repeatedly. Yes its a good idea for you to eject because you have no argument anyway. Any neutral and intelligent person can make out who is beating around the bush here and who is making some valid points.

    > Ad hominem… again! Are you feeling threatened in some way? Is that the reason for all the personal attacks?

    And like I said – ask before assuming but you are probably can’t grasp that. So it is getting stupider now that I have to tell you this basic -> Yes, testosterone exists in females too but is no match for its quantity in males which is what makes males …males. That is the easiest way I can put it.

    > Claiming I can’t grasp a subject in which I just corrected you is quite amusing.

  16. This discussion is frankly becoming nonsensical. Let’s recap (please correct me if I make any mistake) in order to maintain context, shall we?

    1. Your thesis is that “Its fine for an H4 wife to want to work but it usually manifests poorly for the family and her (short and long term, especially long term). This is similar to if the husband doesn’t work at all (whether the wife works or not), more often than not it manifests poorly for all.”. Is this correct? I got this from one of your comments in which you say this is the “crunch” of what you were trying to say, so I am assuming it is correct. Please correct me if it’s not.

    2. I then pointed out that, unless you back up this claim with some sources, this was just an opinion. In response you cited a correlation study from 1987 about the “Effects of maternal absence due to employment on the quality of infant-mother attachment in a low-risk sample”. You also cited another loosely related study (your own words) from 2000 on “Predictors of Children’s Emotional Distress in a Mother-Absent Situation: Implications for Caregiving Research”.
    I cannot access any of the full texts, but for me, with the ‘low interpretation skills’ and ‘comprehension deficits’ of a unicorn, I would say that the first study could maybe be used to support part of your claim… but in your original claim you talk about wives and husbands (more specifically on H4 visas) and this study refers to working MOTHERS. Not exactly the same… Please, tell me, am I misunderstanding your point or jumping context?
    As for the second study, after reading the abstract, I’m not even totally sure that the ‘Mother-Absent Situation’ they’re studying involves working mothers. I think they are referring to situations in which the mother died and/or is separated from the children, so saying it’s loosely related might be an overstatement.

    3. Since your original claim referred to wives and husbands on H4, I then pointed out that not all H4’s are mothers. You accused me of ‘jumping context’ and using ‘arbitrary logic. This is a fallacy because instead of addressing my criticism you directed an attack at your opponent (ad hominem). [side comment: when in your first comment you mentioned stupid women with stupid ideas you were talking about the ideas Madame T talks about on her post and that you disagree with…. so, she is your opponent and you are in fact using ad hominem. if a unicorn can understand this I’m sure you, a Man, can too ;)]
    You also said, and I quote, “It doesn’t matter if an H4 wife is a mother or not, the “results” will still be there, a bit altered though.”. However you provided no sources for this claim and the previous studies you cited don’t back you up on this one. Am I misinterpreting something here? Or don’t you need to provide any evidences for this opinion because it is ‘comon-sense-obvious’?

    4. I then addressed two other points about the first study you cited: a) it’s a correlation study and correlation doesn’t equal causation; b) it’s probably outdated since it only takes into account a traditional family structure.
    To this, you stated that:
    a) “Correlation doesn’t equal causation. Sure this may be true (though many times correlation equals causation)”. This is FALSE. Correlation does not equal causation. NEVER. It might sometimes COINCIDE with causation (maybe it was this you were trying to imply?), but in order to determine if it does coincide with causation, a different hypothesis needs to be tested.
    b) “You can label these studies as outdated (they are not) however I am not depending on them anyway. Its common-sense-obvious.”. If you claim these studies are not outdated (which may be true or may be false) you need to present some argument to support you claim. Saying it is ‘common sense’ and ‘obvious’ is a fallacy called ***Argument from (personal) incredulity (divine fallacy, appeal to common sense) fallacy – I cannot imagine how this could be true, therefore it must be false (or I cannot imagine how this could be false, therefore it must be true).***

    NOTE: while I was copying and pasting the big list of logical fallacies and examples, I failed to paste the ‘Argument from personal incredulity fallacy’ (and its definition) after the previous example— sorry about that, it made all the examples that refer to common sense to be mistakenly referred to as the ‘False authority fallacy’.

    Anyway, getting back to the studies being or not being outdated… The study is not outdated just on the base of having been published in 1987. Charles Darwin published “On the Origin of Species” in 1859 and his work is certainly not outdated, it’s considered to be the foundation of evolutionary biology. So some old studies do remain relevant and accurate.
    But as I already pointed out before, that study only takes into account a traditional family structure. You say “These studies not taking gays etc. into account is OK as that is a minor trend but lets say they do take all the special cases you listed into account.. their results don’t matter here because the topic here is not gays etc – its working wives in normal households.” When you claim that “exceptions” don’t count because the norm is a family constituted by Mom+Dad+Kid(s) you are cherry picking. You decided (on your own, btw) that a LOT of cases can’t be taken into account (interestingly all the cases that do not fit your thesis): gay families, monoparental families, then latter on bad parenting, abusive spouses, childless couples, spouses dying, spouses leaving… WOW! All of this added together might (MIGHT! I don’t have statistics on this so it is not a claim) even be a bigger chunk of the population than your traditional normal household, do you realize this? Also, you were the one claiming these are “exceptions” and “uncommon”, so yeah the burden of proof is really on you; Madame T and I don’t need to prove that these cases you call ‘exceptions’ are either common or uncommon, we are just pointing out that they exist and do not fit your theory. Does this make sense to you? I think I made it pretty simple. Or am I jumping context in this too?

    5. You then talk about studies referred by Mercatornet and The Telegraph. I do not need to check Virginia.edu to know these aren’t peer-reviewed, so naturally I’m skeptic. And no, they do not cite specific peer-reviewed studies that I can look up (you know, title of the publication, author, year, journal…. that sort of thing). As for the other links you say you posted and are awaiting moderation, maybe you can repost them? Just a thought…
    In regards to these studies mentioned by the magazine and newspaper, you say: “Studies or not (as these are just studies and hence subject to interpretation) its pretty obvious that the wife (with / without kids) spending major hours outside will have an eroding effect on the marriage’s well being. This in turn will rub off on her too. Some may feel happy working yet it will erode the well being of the husband, kids, herself. The argument from the beginning is that working wives scenario manifests poorly for the family in short / long term.”
    I disputed this claim by arguing that if ANY of the spouses, regardless of its gender, spends major hours outside it will have an eroding effect on the marriage’s well being. I didn’t get any reply to this. Again, I will repeat myself: If you wish to prove that your claim only applies to women and doesn’t apply to men you need to provide some evidence of that. Claiming it’s “common-sense-obvious” is a fallacy so it doesn’t support your argument. So please, tell me… do you have any evidence to support your claim “if women spend major hours outside their homes it will have an eroding effect on the marriage’s well being, but the same doesn’t apply to men”? Or am I misunderstanding your claim? Please correct me if I am. I am not trying to ‘jump context’. But I would like an answer this time.

    I get a bit lost after this because all the comments are out of place/order (and they are very long)… but I believe that your next argument is that women are better at nurturing the children and attending to the home, while men are better at grasping technical subjects and hard skills. Where I come from this is called misogyny: women are intellectually and physically inferior so they should have a subservient position while men are stronger and smarter, therefore more suited to dominant positions. You try to sugarcoat this with all the flowery language about women being more patient, tender and nurturing, but you still claim to be superior.

    In fact, all your thesis is based on the idea that it’s women’s job to take care of the home and children because (in your opinion) they are better at it. You imply that they are the ones responsible for the erosion of their family life if they want to pursue other interests or to work. You also imply they should sacrifice their wants and needs and just stay at home because it’s better for them (as if you knew better then each one of them what is best for themselves LOL).
    After all women are stupid, right? They have stupid ideas and are not as good as men in grasping subjects, right? They should probably listen to their husbands and do as they say, since they are better at grasping subjects. (Am I jumping context?)
    Since you are a man, this is a very interesting position to have, because you wouldn’t be the one sacrificing yourself in favor of your family. I guess it’s easy to say one should make sacrifices as long as you are not the one making them, isn’t it?
    This is also circular reasoning: you begin with the assumption that women are better at taking care of the home/family so you conclude that it is better if women stay at home taking care of the family.
    But let’s assume for a moment that women really are better at taking care of the house/family… This doesn’t mean the house/family are solely their responsibility.

    I also love the condescending tone you use to describe how sharing responsibilities is fairytailish and how having a job will hurt the woman herself short and long term… You talk as if you know better than others what is best for them and as if your opinion is an absolute truth. You don’t even try to present arguments for this claim, even though there are numerous couples throughout the world that share their responsibilities with great results. Or… I’m sorry, are these also ‘exception not to be taken into account’?

    You keep saying people should ‘read the studies’ (not sure which ones since you don’t specify) and refuse to answer any questions that dispute your claims. For example, I’ve asked you before: What do you mean with “in short and long term [working] will hurt the woman herself”? How will it hurt her? In what aspects? Assuming that working will hurt the woman, why won’t it hurt the man too? Will it hurt all women? Or are there ‘exception’ that do not count because you say so? You haven’t replied…. For such big claims you make, you sure are very vague.

    I will not go through the trouble of explaining your logical fallacies again. Your justifications for some of them not being fallacies are so pathetic that I am now convinced you are being deliberately obtuse. I kind of regret having said your rhetoric was good because, in your last comment, you use so many sentences that make no sense it gave me a headache just from reading it… If I try to make a sense of what you are trying to say, I will end up being accused of misunderstanding for sure. But maybe it’s may poor comprehension skills… after all I’m just a unicorn (possibly female?)…

    I will let you with something more to read, though… Because I have a true passion for the scientific method (I think we all should!):

    http://usfiles.us.szc.pl/pliki/plik_1258199112.pdf

    Since you don’t trust me, you might want to read what this text says about common sense vs. the scientific method (it does cite references). It is long, but you might want to read it all so you ‘understand the context’ and ‘do not jump it’. But here are a few highlights:

    “Science is a part of our culture (like religion, art, literature, architecture,
    law or technology). It is the set of institutions doing the systematic
    investigation of nature and society. It is usually said that the core of science
    is a method of investigating nature that discovers reliable knowledge. We
    can also say like K. Popper that science is not the method but a system of
    knowledge (concepts, problems and theories). In fact it is probably a system
    of knowledge gained by scientific method.
    Science is a powerful resource for understanding natural and social
    phenomena. The inherent function of the scientific endeavour is to carry out
    a comprehensive and thorough inquiry into nature and society, leading to
    new knowledge. (UNESCO 1999, pp. 8, 29)
    These words of the UNESCO declaration express our common understanding
    of science as new knowledge powerful to explain the world in reliable way.
    Scientific knowledge seems to have some specific features: new in the
    world (what is known to most people is common); systematic — gained by
    using established methods, rationally justified usually on a base of empirical
    data and in a system of other accepted knowledge, expressed in intersubjective
    and precise language; and self-improving (critical and fallible).”

    “Common knowledge (everyday, pre-scientific) contains all the information
    we encounter in everyday life and reasonably accept as our beliefs (the
    standards of reasonability are not very demanding: hurry and emotions are
    tolerated). It runs without any planning as our life runs. It probably (if the
    condition of it being true is fulfilled) encloses most of our everyday beliefs
    about the world, popular religious, moral and aesthetic beliefs, practical
    knowledge how to earn money or get food, knowledge how to communicate
    and make decisions, knowledge about other minds etc. In general it is
    practical knowledge.
    The source of common knowledge is family, friends, school, media etc.
    and our own experience and thinking. The common beliefs are practically
    useful, subjective, relative, difficult to express in exact language. Our
    common knowledge is an accidental composition of different takings from
    different points of view. We accept common beliefs usually in a hurry, not
    carefully enough, usually on emotional reasons. That is why the common
    beliefs are not systematic, have gaps and even contradictions. We use
    common sense but it does not guarantee avoiding faults and inconsistencies.
    (Kamiñski 1981, p. 24) We can say that common sense is the cognitive and
    moral faculty shared by some majority of people. Common knowledge is
    the result of using common sense”

    “There are two views about the relation between scientific knowledge and
    common knowledge. First, represented by Popper, is that scientific
    knowledge is just enlightenment of common knowledge. Many philosophers
    say that science is continuous with common knowledge (making it more
    exact, clear and reliable, theoretical expanding, eliminating common
    ambiguities, too quick inferences etc.). But many say that science is a jump
    to special thinking. Einstein is held to have said that scientists must refute
    common sense to discover something new. Probably both claims are partly
    correct and science is the play between using common intuitions and rejecting
    them. Great discoveries especially require rejecting usual way of looking
    and thinking. This is exactly the famous thesis of Thomas Kuhn (1922–
    1996) about scientific revolutions.”

    1. Of course its becoming nonsensical as you kept including diluting stuff like fallacies etc. even after being told (multiple times) that all this will only open unneeded sub threads esp. because all they were mostly applied out of context. What a waste that was. But seems you are still up to it with your comments of hominem and fallacies. Strange. Anyway you do realize that telling me if I am being deliberately “fatuitious” in your first post is an attack to begin with? After which you accuse me of using “logical fallacies” so I can “win”. That is also somehow not an attack. Strange. Do you still not see how all this is useless filler?

      Yes a working wife (H4 or not) manifests poorly in general. It is similar to if a husband doesn’t work at all. SIMILAR in the sense that both cases manifest poorly for the household / individuals.

      The comment awaiting moderation is now published with a few other studies for your reference. However please don’t be too convinced with them even though they are supporting my case. Just apply common sense and look for why traditionally both sexes have had certain prevailing duties. I say traditionally because that encompasses eons and not because its some random unreasonable appeal to tradition.

      Sure you can call the second study as irrelevant but I am calling it loosely related because it takes into account how mother’s absence has a negative effect and so one may ponder on to how her daily absence (for work) might have some negative results too. That is the point.

      The Virginia.edu study (mercatornet yes the magazine link) talks about how a non working wife makes for a happier marriage. It covers aspects of husband-wife dynamics (i.e. without considering kids) as well as their parental roles (considering kids). This is an example of whether an H4 wife is a mother or not, her working is more likely to have a negative impact on the marriage than otherwise. It is peer reviewed in social forces.

      The ‘stupid’ comment was on ‘women’ in general who are ‘toying’ with this stupid idea too much these days. Hence the comment was ‘stupid women (plural) with stupid ideas (plural) …’ So its not an attack on her as an individual. But lets assume for a bit that it was an attack on her post OK? Now go read her blog post. Has she presented any “argument” to begin with? No. She is sharing whats happening and her hopes for the same. If there is no argument by her how can I attack that?
      And then I read other posts on this blog with comments from women slurping over getting jobs ..and so the comment was not on her but on WOMEN in general who are misleading themselves into bigger problems. Hope you get it but if not that’s OK too.

      Again you are getting into useless filler with correlation, causation talk.
      Your statement ‘Correlation doesn’t EQUAL causation’ is misleading usage. The correct usage is ‘Correlation doesn’t IMPLY causation’. IMPLY is NOT equal to EQUAL. I ignored it at that time assuming it to be figure of speech but it seems you are taking it literally.

      The concept “Correlation doesn’t imply causation” is used to suggest that there may not be a casual relationship (but non casual).

      If I heat regular water under room conditions it will boil i.e. correlation implies causation here from an everyday life point of view. Now one may say its not a direct relationship because heat increases kinetic energy causing many molecular collisions generating internal heat causing it to boil OR its the room conditions that is the cause OR some other factor OR a mix of them all. So one will conclude – Correlation doesn’t imply causation as it wasn’t the heat I gave that made the water boil. But essentially one is saying that correlation implies but does not prove causation. However for everyday life purposes we know that heating water boils it. Similarly if I crash test 1000 Acura 2006 by pushing them into Grand canyon from the top, there will be damage to them i.e. Correlation implies causation.

      Now one can say that “I” (me) am the cause of the boiling water (or damage to the cars) so heating water isn’t the cause, its the person (me) who did it. Or I had money to buy heating equipment so MONEY or equipment is the cause. But then one can say that “I” had the time today to boil water (or push 1000 cars into a ditch) so Time/having time is the cause. Ultimately one can say its a mix of all this that caused the water to boil which means – Correlation doesn’t imply causation. But then we are in the territory of not being sure of anything because all variables cannot be known/measured esp. variables that are non-mathematical in nature such as mood (to throw cars). This is why these are useless additions and even more so because we do know that an absent mother (lets say dead) of an infant will likely have adverse effects. So trying to use correlation, causation concept in the sense of how you are seemingly wanting to use it is virtually useless here. This is why I am saying ‘Correlation does equal causation at times’ because I am using it in an everyday life manner. Lets not get into all this beating around the bush talk.

      Sorry, I am not going to keep giving you argument to support some claim that you feel is wrong for e.g. you feeling something is outdated. Because we can start getting into what defines “outdated” and if you probably know it will go nowhere. Anyway, you have reference to more recent studies from the other post that got published as well as the Virginia study from 2006 I think.

      Again stop useless insertions of divine fallacy, appeal to common sense etc. I can too start using all this and as you have seen it will be nonsensical conversation (if still not sure just look at my last post, every point you have made using these useless insertions has been shown of its uselessness and your flawed understanding of the ongoing topic flow).

      Sorry to hear about your misunderstanding again about how gay households are exceptions. The results of gay households (if studied) do not matter on this blog because this blog is by an “H4 wife” and her feelings about the issues she is facing which is generally joined by other H4 wives who read this blog. That is the major GROUP in question here i.e. women (and children) who are dependent on husband’s visa status and wants to work (though I am talking married working women in general). which means the husband is alive (not dead) and not separated. What is so hard to understand about this? Does this not give you a general picture of a standard household? This is why the studies I am citing are also done on such households (and not with gay households or dead spouse or a separated couple) because such households are the NORM.

      It is wrong to include the above exceptions because not only they are NOT the norm but they run into very special circumstances and including them in studies (or in our discussion) is like this – A group of well built wrestlers are getting their Testosterone measured … now we include a 75 year old man with them who lets assume has a nice built and was a wrestler. Still he is the odd one out and should we start to include several 75 year olds in and then do a hormonal study on ALL wrestlers the results will be strange with a lot of deviation which can then be interpreted in very strange manners when the researcher assumes that he just looking at data of wrestlers and has no idea that many of them were 75 year olds. Makes sense? So this is not cherry picking it is to keep the topic focused on the norm. Similarly abuse spouses, single parents etc. are NOT the norm. And even if they do become the norm I am still only focusing on how working wives have a deteriorating effect on the marriage. That is the context here, so yes you are jumping context. You need to realize that even though all these exceptions can be added to have more numbers, they are still irrelevant to this topic because by themselves they are exceptions to the norm and esp. to this topic.

      About your question of any spouse spending major hours outside has an eroding effect.. it was replied (looks like this wasn’t read properly). Here is an excerpt – ‘Yes absence of both partners matter but absence of a wife on a daily basis influences the household and the kids (if any) much more as is seen in the studies cited …’ It should be common sense obvious to you after looking at the studies on how working mothers have a negative impact on the children or the Virginia study of how non-working wives generally translates to happier marriages. Just read properly (if possible from the beginning), look at the studies and all these fallacies you are claiming will turn out to be your own Unicorn imaginations.

      Misogyny is a problem by some people but the usage this has been put to esp. by feminists falls short of anything idiotic. Having better technical or nurturing skills does not mean one is lesser than the other. If a man can’t raise his kid as well as the woman is he inferior? And sure the man (in general) is superior in terms of having focused intelligence on a task but the woman is superior in terms of having intelligence of reading someone’s state of mind without them explicitly saying it. There is also no question that women are more tender and nurturing while men are not in general. The problem faced is that being tender or reading someone’s mind is not paid as highly as is being able to focus on a task, which is where some women start to think that their duties are ‘less’ than the Man’s. Men also start thinking similarly (thinking they have better positions) and it becomes a theme.

      It seems by ‘dominant’ you mean positions with more power being taken by men. Have you noticed many positions with much less power i.e. subservient (e.g. professional gardeners, plumbers) are also taken by men? Oh but these don’t matter because who cares? Or you mean in the household the man is the dominant figure and the woman follows. Well this is fine because following the husband’s lead does not make the wife less or more. It only becomes a bad scenario when the man is an idiot who abuses this dynamic. And in this day of increasingly missing mothers (yeah for work) don’t expect the male kids to grow into responsible men (who won’t abuse this dynamic). And with these kids having fathers mmmmm’ing over their wives’s salaries … well there you have it – vicious circle of generational degradation.

      By the way here is a generic study for your entertainment (entertainment because you don’t seem to be serious anyway as you keep inserting irrelevant fluff):

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22591825

      Yes its the woman’s duty to take care of the home / children because they are better at it, the man is subservient to here there. This is not just my opinion but most women know this inherently. But lets just say it is my opinion. So yes when they step out ..the family’s quality goes down as is evident from the studies that talks about how kids and families with working mothers are impacted. If you expect these kids to become better people compared to kids who do not have to face all this then I don’t know who you are kidding other than yourself. Keep in mind the man can also erode the family but the woman naturally has more say in making or eroding a family. And why is it best for them rather than running after a “career”? Well take this to be false and let life happen.
      And no they should not sacrifice their want and needs but at the same time ‘wanting’ to be a career woman over the kids/family well being is likely to backfire in which case its a good idea to sacrifice that ‘want’ if possible. If not, that’s OK too. The results will show up anyway.

      Oh yeah being a MAN, doing corporate slavery listening/bowing down to strange people just to make money is not a sacrifice. The man should actually stay at home and take it cool because then he won’t be sacrificing anything. Your problem seems to be many women are taking ‘doing a job’ to be too important which is how ‘doing a job’ is more important for them than the house. Well, OK.

      So I am sorry I rather be a corporate jockey dealing with strange people than having my spouse go through this BS on a daily basis. My spouse (and women in general) is to be protected and not exposed to unneeded stressful situations just to make some money. I am there to take that stress on myself. However if the spouse is hell bent on working then that puts the husband in a very strange situation (unless he likes to MMMMM hearing about his wife’s salary and hikes) which is a degraded scenario to begin with. I am unmarried though hehe.

      Once again your circular reasoning point is poor usage. It could apply (even that is up for debate) if it was as simplistic as you have made it sound. Unfortunately its not because you have been provided with studies on working mothers and its impacts that you have conveniently set aside to make this point. But hey you would love to oversimplify so that it fits your point. Well done. And yes the house is not solely the woman’s responsibility. We talked about that, don’t keep inserting already discussed statements unless you have further questions because otherwise you just out of context by citing a part.

      Yeah love my tone or hate it, its irrelevant. ‘Read the studies’ obviously means the ones cited. If the studies cited don’t make you understand that having a happier married life (because of the wife not working) and/or having kids growing up without mental issues as such (because of mother being home) are good long and short term results then I don’t know who are you kidding other than yourself. And if having a less happy married life is best for you, the husband, the kids and the family as a whole then yeah I am wrong it won’t hurt you at all. Lol.
      About the ‘numerous’ couples throughout the world (yeah you know that inside out) sharing their responsibilities with supposedly great results (like a BMW or kids getting good grades etc.) …well good luck… the studies cited still apply to them. Life will happen and the other great results will also show up.

      I refuse to answer any questions that dispute my claim? Or is it that you don’t read properly or just don’t get it? Read properly and its likely you will see (Hint: read the Feb 18th post and the short long term thing is hinted there but you may need to read more). If you can’t figure it out just be kind enough to read the studies and figure it out for yourself.


      There is no question that you have no idea what you are talking about in terms of using fallacies and other fluff you inserted. If you have any doubts about this, read my last post very slowly and you will see how much nonsense you have added with your post previous to that. You can call it pathetic but be sure its your own misunderstanding. So you being convinced about anything does not carry weight (at least for the stuff you discussed here but maybe you are good at other things outside this). If you have any intelligence can you reply to that post? Its doubtful if you will be able to handle what happens next in terms of making sense unless you realize that your own particular post with all the copy paste stuff was used in an out of context manner. And even more so because each and everything you would say to it will be wrong (this is because that post of yours was wrong usage of concepts and out of context quoting to begin with which I corrected in my last post so it can only get worse from there if you try to reply to it). Try it. If not well thanks for the good laughs anyway. Of course it gave you a headache because the nonsense you started was plowed over in the last post.

      Mail me at talkaboutyahoo at gmail for more discussion esp. on that link you posted.

  17. Of course its becoming nonsensical as you kept including diluting stuff like fallacies etc. even after being told (multiple times) that all this will only open unneeded sub threads esp. because all they were mostly applied out of context. What a waste that was. But seems you are still up to it with your comments of hominem and fallacies. Strange. Anyway you do realize that telling me if I am being deliberately “fatuitious” in your first post is an attack to begin with? After which you accuse me of using “logical fallacies” so I can “win”. That is also somehow not an attack. Strange. Do you still not see how all this is useless filler? → So you DO know how to identify fallacies (at least the ad hominem)! Congratulations!! I’m sorry if I offended you with my comment. Maybe that’s how the stupid women (plural) with stupid ideas (plural) — or any man, transgender or asexual that agrees with those stupid ideas — that read this blog felt with your initial comment… Maybe that’s also why you later apologized to Madame T. for your rude comment. So you can keep accusing me of “diluting stuff” and saying you aren’t using fallacious arguments but, to use an expression you love using, “I don’t know who you are kidding other than yourself”… see, I do read what you write 😉 And btw, it’s “fatuitous”.

    Yes a working wife (H4 or not) manifests poorly in general. It is similar to if a husband doesn’t work at all. SIMILAR in the sense that both cases manifest poorly for the household / individuals. → So let me see if I got this “common-sense-obvious” abusive generalization right… If a woman works it’s bad for the household, if a man works it’s good for the household. Got it! Makes perfect sense, now.

    The comment awaiting moderation is now published with a few other studies for your reference. However please don’t be too convinced with them even though they are supporting my case. Just apply common sense and look for why traditionally both sexes have had certain prevailing duties. I say traditionally because that encompasses eons and not because its some random unreasonable appeal to tradition. → You know what else encompasses eons? Slavery. It has been traditionally used since the invention of agriculture and it still exists nowadays. And common sense alone tells me slavery is very very bad. As for the studies you cite, I have a question: can you access the full text for any of them? Were you able to read and understand them? Cause the only thing I can access is the abstract which, by itself, does not provide much information (but it does show you keep citing studies from the last century…). Can you provide the full text for me to read so we can both make a critical analysis of what each studied found?

    Sure you can call the second study as irrelevant but I am calling it loosely related because it takes into account how mother’s absence has a negative effect and so one may ponder on to how her daily absence (for work) might have some negative results too. That is the point. → Well of course the mother’s absence has a negative effect, but so it has the father’s. Your fallacious argument here is that you begin with the assumption that working parents = absent parents and by contrast non working parents = present/available parents. None of those are necessarily true. Logically, if a parent works 12+h/day it will not have enough time to be present in their children’s (or any other family member’s) lives, and it will definitely have an eroding effect on the marriage’s and family’s well being. Does those cases exist? Sure. But there’s also a lot of parents that work 8h/day (or less), a lot that work part-time, others work from home, and others have totally different work arrangements that allow them to have enough time for their kids. This it’s “common-sense-obvious” even to an unicorn. As for the non-working parents, my grandparents’ generation (Greatest Generation) is known for non-working women staying at home and taking care of the kids. It is also well known for being emotionally withdrawn and unavailable, mostly as a result of having been through two world wars and famine — there was no use in whining about your feelings, you were already lucky to be alive and have enough food on your belly. How easy do you think it was for my parents’ generation (Baby Boomers) to have gone through childhood with emotionally unavailable parents? (No wonder they turned out to be so and self-centered…) I say what is better for children’s well being is to have happy, stable parents that love them and support them. A lot of women (just like men) feel good about themselves if they have a job and career they enjoy, and feel accomplished if they earn a salary for their hard work. If you take that away from them (women or men), you will have unhappy people and resentful parents staying at home, available for their children to learn, by example, how to be angry at the injustices of the world. Sounds super, no? (p.s. – before you jump ahead and start calling the kettle black, I do realize my last point makes generalizations, but they are in accordance with what is historically preceived and a consensus among historians)

    The Virginia.edu study (mercatornet yes the magazine link) talks about how a non working wife makes for a happier marriage. It covers aspects of husband-wife dynamics (i.e. without considering kids) as well as their parental roles (considering kids). This is an example of whether an H4 wife is a mother or not, her working is more likely to have a negative impact on the marriage than otherwise. It is peer reviewed in social forces. → It’s great if what you say about the magazine is true. It still doesn’t change the fact that the article makes no mention of specific studies published in scientific papers I can look up on ncbi or other search engine (name of paper, authors, journal published, year, etc.) so I remain skeptical. Are you still struggling to understand my skepticism?

    The ‘stupid’ comment was on ‘women’ in general who are ‘toying’ with this stupid idea too much these days. Hence the comment was ‘stupid women (plural) with stupid ideas (plural) …’ So its not an attack on her as an individual. But lets assume for a bit that it was an attack on her post OK? Now go read her blog post. Has she presented any “argument” to begin with? No. She is sharing whats happening and her hopes for the same. If there is no argument by her how can I attack that? → Is this really all you could come up with, she doesn’t have an “argument”? lol 🙂
    And then I read other posts on this blog with comments from women slurping over getting jobs ..and so the comment was not on her but on WOMEN in general who are misleading themselves into bigger problems. Hope you get it but if not that’s OK too. → You are right!!! How dare they express their opinions on the internet?!?!? Surely they must know they deserve to be insulted for that!!!!! Just like you probably know you deserved that insult I offended you with, am I right?

    Again you are getting into useless filler with correlation, causation talk.
    Your statement ‘Correlation doesn’t EQUAL causation’ is misleading usage. The correct usage is ‘Correlation doesn’t IMPLY causation’. IMPLY is NOT equal to EQUAL. I ignored it at that time assuming it to be figure of speech but it seems you are taking it literally. → I am sorry, are we arguing semantics now? Yes, imply isn’t equal to equal. Which in this case is irrelevant. Correlation doesn’t imply (or is equal to, or whatever other equivalent expression you might want to use) causation. EVER. It sometimes coincides (because causation does imply correlation – yeah Forrest, it’s the other way around!), but not always. If you are convinced otherwise you couldn’t be more wrong. I’ve already explained this. If you don’t believe me, look it up yourself. Or don’t, what do I care? But I’m not going to continue to argue this very simple fact.

    The concept “Correlation doesn’t imply causation” is used to suggest that there may not be a casual relationship (but non casual). → BINGO!

    If I heat regular water under room conditions it will boil i.e. correlation implies causation here from an everyday life point of view. Now one may say its not a direct relationship because heat increases kinetic energy causing many molecular collisions generating internal heat causing it to boil OR its the room conditions that is the cause OR some other factor OR a mix of them all. So one will conclude – Correlation doesn’t imply causation as it wasn’t the heat I gave that made the water boil. But essentially one is saying that correlation implies but does not prove causation. However for everyday life purposes we know that heating water boils it. Similarly if I crash test 1000 Acura 2006 by pushing them into Grand canyon from the top, there will be damage to them i.e. Correlation implies causation. → No Forrest, it’s the other way around: causation implies correlation.

    Now one can say that “I” (me) am the cause of the boiling water (or damage to the cars) so heating water isn’t the cause, its the person (me) who did it. Or I had money to buy heating equipment so MONEY or equipment is the cause. But then one can say that “I” had the time today to boil water (or push 1000 cars into a ditch) so Time/having time is the cause. Ultimately one can say its a mix of all this that caused the water to boil which means – Correlation doesn’t imply causation. But then we are in the territory of not being sure of anything because all variables cannot be known/measured esp. variables that are non-mathematical in nature such as mood (to throw cars). This is why these are useless additions and even more so because we do know that an absent mother (lets say dead) of an infant will likely have adverse effects. So trying to use correlation, causation concept in the sense of how you are seemingly wanting to use it is virtually useless here. This is why I am saying ‘Correlation does equal causation at times’ because I am using it in an everyday life manner. Lets not get into all this beating around the bush talk. → Talk about “irrelevant fluff” and “diluting stuff” LMAO at the entire heating water and crashing cars at the Grand Canyon thing!!!!!! It’s so ridiculous it made me laugh :’D

    Sorry, I am not going to keep giving you argument to support some claim that you feel is wrong for e.g. you feeling something is outdated. Because we can start getting into what defines “outdated” and if you probably know it will go nowhere. Anyway, you have reference to more recent studies from the other post that got published as well as the Virginia study from 2006 I think. → Should we discuss those papers then? I will gladly read them if you provide me with the full text, since I cannot access it myself.

    Again stop useless insertions of divine fallacy, appeal to common sense etc. I can too start using all this and as you have seen it will be nonsensical conversation (if still not sure just look at my last post, every point you have made using these useless insertions has been shown of its uselessness and your flawed understanding of the ongoing topic flow). → If you stop using fallacious arguments I promise I will stop pointing them out, deal? As for the nonsensical conversation, I recall you being the one insisting on me “wording them in a specific manner (of where and how they were used)” and I reluctantly complied. The examples I provided can be found in the original text for anyone to read the context of where and how they were used, so I am not sure how I could be “jumping context”. But I think it’ great that you try to make me responsible for the nonsensical arguments you used. Hey, at least you tried!

    Sorry to hear about your misunderstanding again about how gay households are exceptions. The results of gay households (if studied) do not matter on this blog because this blog is by an “H4 wife” and her feelings about the issues she is facing which is generally joined by other H4 wives who read this blog. That is the major GROUP in question here i.e. women (and children) who are dependent on husband’s visa status and wants to work (though I am talking married working women in general). which means the husband is alive (not dead) and not separated. What is so hard to understand about this? Does this not give you a general picture of a standard household? This is why the studies I am citing are also done on such households (and not with gay households or dead spouse or a separated couple) because such households are the NORM. → Just because this blog is about an H4 wife, it doesn’t mean H4 visas are only used by women, and this is what you struggle to understand. The H4 issue is about a personal liberty/right that affects women, men, heterosexuals, homosexuals, transgenders, and just about anyone that is living in a domestic partnership with an H1-B and wants to work, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, etc. It is a very broad group and it does not fall exclusively on what you perceive as “the NORM”. That is what both Madame T. and I have been trying to explain you. Can you understand this? It is quite simple, actually…

    It is wrong to include the above exceptions because not only they are NOT the norm but they run into very special circumstances and including them in studies (or in our discussion) is like this – A group of well built wrestlers are getting their Testosterone measured … now we include a 75 year old man with them who lets assume has a nice built and was a wrestler. Still he is the odd one out and should we start to include several 75 year olds in and then do a hormonal study on ALL wrestlers the results will be strange with a lot of deviation which can then be interpreted in very strange manners when the researcher assumes that he just looking at data of wrestlers and has no idea that many of them were 75 year olds. Makes sense? So this is not cherry picking it is to keep the topic focused on the norm. Similarly abuse spouses, single parents etc. are NOT the norm. And even if they do become the norm I am still only focusing on how working wives have a deteriorating effect on the marriage. That is the context here, so yes you are jumping context. You need to realize that even though all these exceptions can be added to have more numbers, they are still irrelevant to this topic because by themselves they are exceptions to the norm and esp. to this topic. → See, you could have avoided inserting all this irrelevant fluff and diluting stuff if you just could read what Madame T. and I have been saying (really READ) and understand what I have explained for the 15th time in the point above.

    About your question of any spouse spending major hours outside has an eroding effect.. it was replied (looks like this wasn’t read properly). Here is an excerpt – ‘Yes absence of both partners matter but absence of a wife on a daily basis influences the household and the kids (if any) much more as is seen in the studies cited …’ It should be common sense obvious to you after looking at the studies on how working mothers have a negative impact on the children or the Virginia study of how non-working wives generally translates to happier marriages. Just read properly (if possible from the beginning), look at the studies and all these fallacies you are claiming will turn out to be your own Unicorn imaginations. → I believe I mentioned something about the mother not always being the primary caregiver. I have also (repeatedly) explained why I’m skeptical of the Mercatornet article that doesn’t cite specific studies (looks like this wasn’t read properly). Read previous point where I addressed your fallacy of working/absent parents.

    Misogyny is a problem by some people but the usage this has been put to esp. by feminists falls short of anything idiotic. Having better technical or nurturing skills does not mean one is lesser than the other. If a man can’t raise his kid as well as the woman is he inferior? And sure the man (in general) is superior in terms of having focused intelligence on a task but the woman is superior in terms of having intelligence of reading someone’s state of mind without them explicitly saying it. There is also no question that women are more tender and nurturing while men are not in general. The problem faced is that being tender or reading someone’s mind is not paid as highly as is being able to focus on a task, which is where some women start to think that their duties are ‘less’ than the Man’s. Men also start thinking similarly (thinking they have better positions) and it becomes a theme. → This abusive generalization fallacy is getting old… But let’s give you the benefit of the doubt for a second, assume you are not being misogynist, and that what you are trying to say is that, generally speaking, given to differences in brain wiring, it comes inherently easier to men to perform certain types of tasks and inherently easier for women to perform another type of tasks. Does that mean women should ONLY do certain tasks while men should ONLY do others? It’s largely accepted by the scientific community that training your brain can change that outcome (the connections in your brain) so this reasoning would still be flawed. And even if certain groups of people would always perform better at certain tasks (like mothers taking care of children) would that mean they HAVE to do those tasks just because others are not as good? What is this, soviet russia? What if a father would like to be as good at taking care of the children and trains (by taking care of them) until he is just as good at it? Should he be denied custody of the children in case of divorce because “the mother is inherently better at it”? This is actually a type of thinking that created a problem we deal with today, and is extremely unfair on men. Feminism isn’t only needed to empower oppressed women, it is also needed to allow men to be more human (aka being “weak”, sensitive, and express feelings and emotions without being called “pussies”… something they have been denied of ever since gender inequality exists). And gender stereotypes like the ones you are trying to spread only worsen this situation.

    It seems by ‘dominant’ you mean positions with more power being taken by men. Have you noticed many positions with much less power i.e. subservient (e.g. professional gardeners, plumbers) are also taken by men? Oh but these don’t matter because who cares? Or you mean in the household the man is the dominant figure and the woman follows. Well this is fine because following the husband’s lead does not make the wife less or more. It only becomes a bad scenario when the man is an idiot who abuses this dynamic. And in this day of increasingly missing mothers (yeah for work) don’t expect the male kids to grow into responsible men (who won’t abuse this dynamic). And with these kids having fathers mmmmm’ing over their wives’s salaries … well there you have it – vicious circle of generational degradation. → “Oh but these don’t matter because who cares?” I do, and so do a lot of other people. Do you care? Because it isn’t clear… “It only becomes a bad scenario when the man is an idiot who abuses this dynamic.” TADAMMM! And here enters the abusive husbands problem Madame T. mentioned in her comments! Congratulations!!! You finally got it 😀 As for the male kids growing, if the example they see at home is of equality t is far more likely they will grow into men who won’t abuse women. Kids learn by example. And what example are you giving them if you keep saying the women’s place is at home taking care of the family? Also, english isn’t my first language so I don’t really understand what you mean with “mmmmm’ing over salaries”. Sorry.

    By the way here is a generic study for your entertainment (entertainment because you don’t seem to be serious anyway as you keep inserting irrelevant fluff):
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22591825 → Thank you very much, I am extremely amused and still cannot see how this particular study would prove your point.

    Yes its the woman’s duty to take care of the home / children because they are better at it, the man is subservient to here there. This is not just my opinion but most women know this inherently. But lets just say it is my opinion. So yes when they step out ..the family’s quality goes down as is evident from the studies that talks about how kids and families with working mothers are impacted. If you expect these kids to become better people compared to kids who do not have to face all this then I don’t know who you are kidding other than yourself. Keep in mind the man can also erode the family but the woman naturally has more say in making or eroding a family. And why is it best for them rather than running after a “career”? Well take this to be false and let life happen.
    And no they should not sacrifice their want and needs but at the same time ‘wanting’ to be a career woman over the kids/family well being is likely to backfire in which case its a good idea to sacrifice that ‘want’ if possible. If not, that’s OK too. The results will show up anyway. → “And no they should not sacrifice their want and needs” Good! So this isn’t soviet russia after all! Like explained before, just because they’re inherently better (assuming they are) it doesn’t mean it’s they’re duty or that it is solely their responsibility. If they are treated as such, they will resent it for sure, even if they are staying at home and taking care of the children by choice and their own free will. And if they do not want to stay at home and prefer to work, it serves no purpose to anyone to try to make them feel guilty about it. It’s both spouses equal responsibility to take care of the kids, their home and their marriage — for better and for worse, marriage is a partnership. If both spouses are happier having a job, why can’t they both get one? And if one (any) of them is happier staying at home and is able to, great for them. Who are we to judge?

    Oh yeah being a MAN, doing corporate slavery listening/bowing down to strange people just to make money is not a sacrifice. The man should actually stay at home and take it cool because then he won’t be sacrificing anything. Your problem seems to be many women are taking ‘doing a job’ to be too important which is how ‘doing a job’ is more important for them than the house. Well, OK. → Like Another Man said, if you don’t like your job you should try to find another one that makes you happier. Using that as an excuse on how women should not work is just plain ridiculous (especially if the women in question do want to/enjoy working).

    So I am sorry I rather be a corporate jockey dealing with strange people than having my spouse go through this BS on a daily basis. My spouse (and women in general) is to be protected and not exposed to unneeded stressful situations just to make some money. I am there to take that stress on myself. However if the spouse is hell bent on working then that puts the husband in a very strange situation (unless he likes to MMMMM hearing about his wife’s salary and hikes) which is a degraded scenario to begin with. I am unmarried though hehe. → Right, because women are fragile weaker beings that need a Man’s protection, right? No stereotype here AT ALL! (again, not sure about what you mean with the “MMMMM”)

    Once again your circular reasoning point is poor usage. It could apply (even that is up for debate) if it was as simplistic as you have made it sound. Unfortunately its not because you have been provided with studies on working mothers and its impacts that you have conveniently set aside to make this point. But hey you would love to oversimplify so that it fits your point. Well done. And yes the house is not solely the woman’s responsibility. We talked about that, don’t keep inserting already discussed statements unless you have further questions because otherwise you just out of context by citing a part. → “And yes the house is not solely the woman’s responsibility.” But you just said above that “Yes its the woman’s duty to take care of the home / children because they are better at it”. What is it? You are contradicting yourself. Oh let me guess…. I am oversimplifying and jumping context, am I right? 😉

    Yeah love my tone or hate it, its irrelevant. ‘Read the studies’ obviously means the ones cited. If the studies cited don’t make you understand that having a happier married life (because of the wife not working) and/or having kids growing up without mental issues as such (because of mother being home) are good long and short term results then I don’t know who are you kidding other than yourself. And if having a less happy married life is best for you, the husband, the kids and the family as a whole then yeah I am wrong it won’t hurt you at all. Lol. → And if you think that a women that wants to work and ends up staying at home taking care of the kids will have a happier life than if she is doing what she wants (working) then I don’t know who are you kidding other than yourself.

    About the ‘numerous’ couples throughout the world (yeah you know that inside out) sharing their responsibilities with supposedly great results (like a BMW or kids getting good grades etc.) …well good luck… the studies cited still apply to them. Life will happen and the other great results will also show up. → Why do you keep mentioning “BMW-7 and cars for everyone, swimming lessons, piano playing” etc.? Is that, in your head, the goal of people who want to work or something like that? Can’t people enjoy their work because it makes them feel good to save lives, teach, make new discoveries, etc. and not be obsessed with consumerism?

    I refuse to answer any questions that dispute my claim? Or is it that you don’t read properly or just don’t get it? Read properly and its likely you will see (Hint: read the Feb 18th post and the short long term thing is hinted there but you may need to read more). If you can’t figure it out just be kind enough to read the studies and figure it out for yourself. → I would love to read the studies, can you please send me the full texts to unicornsarethebest33@gmail.com

    There is no question that you have no idea what you are talking about in terms of using fallacies and other fluff you inserted. If you have any doubts about this, read my last post very slowly and you will see how much nonsense you have added with your post previous to that. You can call it pathetic but be sure its your own misunderstanding. So you being convinced about anything does not carry weight (at least for the stuff you discussed here but maybe you are good at other things outside this). If you have any intelligence can you reply to that post? Its doubtful if you will be able to handle what happens next in terms of making sense unless you realize that your own particular post with all the copy paste stuff was used in an out of context manner. And even more so because each and everything you would say to it will be wrong (this is because that post of yours was wrong usage of concepts and out of context quoting to begin with which I corrected in my last post so it can only get worse from there if you try to reply to it). Try it. If not well thanks for the good laughs anyway. Of course it gave you a headache because the nonsense you started was plowed over in the last post. → Man, are you trying to give me another headache? That’s really mean of you… Anyway, you can convince yourself that you are not using fallacies but you are kidding no one other than yourself (I just love this new catchphrase! I now understand why you use it so much… you just say it and everything the other person said is immediately invalid! :D).

    Mail me at talkaboutyahoo at gmail for more discussion esp. on that link you posted. → What makes you think I have any desire of discussing science and common sense with you if you clearly don’t know much about the distinction between the two?

    1. If you want a real conversation (and not just beating around the bush) then you need to stop fallacies, hominem etc. filler material. More so because you seem to either have no idea about the usage of these concepts or maybe you just enjoy jumping context just to fit your opinion in.

      Pretty sure you got the context wrong of my apology to her and that’s OK. Read with proper context and if its still not clear then point out the unclear part *specifically* and I will try to clear it for you.
      If its still fatuitous to you, then its laughable. Anyway just ignore everything else and look at the studies. for whatever you have available. Otherwise you will keep adding useless filler. And yeah ‘reading’ does not equal ‘understanding’. Even a 5th grader can read this.

      “If a woman works it’s bad for the household, if a man works it’s good for the household”. Ah looks like you are getting a some understanding at least. But if you don’t get the full understanding, that’s OK too.

      Awww look at you.. now to make your point you are talking ‘slavery’ (oh yeah another insert that can open useless sub-threads). You know what else is happening for ‘eons’? Donations. E.g. people donating to open schools, hospitals or generally to the less fortunate. But why am I saying this?
      Because the point is that when I say to apply common sense for why both sexes have had certain prevailing duties ..then it just means that i.e. apply common sense. What does that mean? It means whether it be slavery or prevailing duties of the sexes or donations or marriages just apply common sense on to why these have survived. They all have their reasons and anybody who is well educated (well trained may not cut it) should be able to see why. Now however messed up some reason maybe (e.g. for slavery), but there is a reason. And mostly there exists good reasoning for good practices.

      Takeaway: Don’t include new topics (like slavery etc.) just because you can blab it. I had to write the above paragraph just because you did not (yet again) understand context. Think it through first.

      Aww now you need full text because otherwise the studies make zero sense. Its probably futile to tell you anything anyway because you (and many other women) have been been brainwashed into doing corporate slavery to the point that it precedes over everything else. Good luck with that. Oh did I just give you another bait to start adding your useless filler to (by raising out of context questions)? Oh well, you need to leech to something to respond next time so use this for useless filler. I still hope you keep to the topic and not add irrelevant stuff.

      Aah studies from last century. What a great point. This changes everything! LOL. The 2000 or the 2006 study doesn’t mean anything either. Good point again.

      The assumption that working mother = non available mother is true. What is so hard to understand about that? Sure she is available in the evening but that doesn’t cut it. Its better if the mother is available at home than working some job at least till the kids cross a certain age and better if she doesn’t work at all unless circumstances demand.

      Home based business or job can be handy if its not very demanding. Because working a job doesn’t mean short of time only or being physically away only, it also means stress. In any case the majority doesn’t get these so called ‘working arrangements’. And the ones who do get, they maybe in a better position than others but not in as good as a position of being home without compromises because of some job. And your concept of “getting enough time for kids” seems like convenience. I don’t want to get such statements anymore because they lend themselves to subjectivity and open up many sub threads (that you then use for filler material) basically rendering the discussion useless.

      Again do not include exceptional scenarios like famine. I already indicated when the circumstances demand then women must step outside for work. When people are under severe situations they are much more prone to behave in a manner they never would in general. Sure the parents must be stable. We discussed that earlier so please no.

      The women feeling good about themselves because of some job -> this is the current problem I am talking about i.e. women associating their happiness with some job/career to the point its more important than everything else. They are ready to leave their 3 month olds in daycare for that. And then you expect those infants to grow up into emotionally available parents? I don’t.

      Yes, I don’t see an argument in her initial post. Its just her hope that H4s should be allowed to work. Her hopes have come true now. And now you will see how some wives on H4 will be staying in different cities (just because there is a “job” in that city), the husbands mmm’ing about the extra money even though he is doing well, other wives will be short of time and the overall degradation of these households. But hey many are already doing it so lets just join in. All the best!

      Lol @ insulting them to express their opinions on the Internet.
      Just another context jump without giving any good thought to it. I have no idea about any insult you did that offended me. I am just flabbergasted at the amount of nonsense you have inputted here which is becoming irritating because you just keep doing that.

      Again the so called very simple fact of ‘correlation / causation’ -> YOU are using it in a way that is USELESS. So where you are disagreeing with the heating water/throwing cars example saying ‘Correlation implies causation’ is not correct. This is because I am using the concept in a usable manner in everyday life. This is why I said if we take it literally for everyday life then we will rarely (if ever) get anywhere. In other words – its useless in this discussion. And this is why I said that you may be taking it too literally (EQUAL is NOT equal to IMPLY). So if you want a real talk, talk in everyday terms or you can keep adding useless filler, which you are more likely to anyway. You want to take it as Causation implies Correlation? Well fine. In either case its useless filler.

      “But I think it’ great that you try to make me responsible for the nonsensical arguments you used. Hey, at least you tried!”
      All could have been discussed in much less number of words here but since you just keep adding useless filler and that too generated out of context it ends up making it lengthy. Thanks for the nonsensical additions and now every post has to deal with the nonsense you keep adding making them lengthy too. Any wonder you have been told N number of times to stop beating around the bush?

      Again H4 visas are usually used by wives but lets assume this is false. OK Let me say it in clear words – I am talking about “working wives” ONLY. So I do not need to understand anything about gays or mice or kangaroos on H4. My argument has been clear cut about what area I am touching. If you haven’t been able to grab that until now then who are you kidding with blabbing so much other than yourself?

      LOL the 75 year old example was given to make you understand to NOT include idiotic scenarios which my argument does not care to touch on because ONCE AGAIN (if you still can’t make out) I am ONLY and ONLY talking about working wives and it its effects. Is that clear? So your 15th time just proves how challenged you are to grasp context which makes you naturally jump context. In other words the 75 year old useless filler is the example of how posts are becoming lengthy because you just keep beating around the bush, jumping context and whatever nonsense you keep doing. Stop it or else we will have to deal with lengthy as well as useless filler.

      “Read previous point where I addressed your fallacy of working/absent parents”
      Yeah be skeptical of the Mercatornet article even though you have been told about the source LOL. And if the mother is not always the primary caregiver (because she must have a “career” at the cost of everything else) then its a sorry scenario and those studies apply.

      About Misogyny abusive generalization getting old. Well so be it. I really don’t want to get into additional topics anyway. And lets not get into how training your brain can change things because obviously there are literal hormonal differences so unless those get equaled out there are going to be big and small differences in terms of disposition, inherent characteristics etc. So even though women can learn driving an earth auger it is still hard for them to be aggressively confrontational. Similarly being tender like women is hard for men. So yeah men can try raising babies and women can try being in the infantry and that should work out very nicely. And this has to happen after retraining the brain LOL. And no women don’t have to do tasks (like mothering) because they are good at it but if they leave it to others then be prepared for the results of those studies too. That is the point. No one is saying “have to”. I am just saying the “results”. Get it?

      And stop labeling everything as a Gender stereotypes because you really have no understanding of when to label something as that and when its a genuine difference.

      This is just weak grasp of the whole discussion when you say that I got what Madame T is saying. I mean how much more out of context will you go just to blab something out? Have you not even understood that I am only talking about people who are “NORMAL”? If you had READ properly before then you wouldn’t even be saying all this BS. So whatever Madame T mentioned has been handled. Do NOT quote it out of context. Read properly and only ask further questions.

      About the equality at home. A non working woman does not mean she is more or less than the working husband. Equality is seen by kids in the dynamics set between the parents. These are the foolish women who think by working a job they become equal or more. Not to mention the foolish men who are mmm’ing over their wives salaries. MMM’ing means drooling.

      Lol you can’t see how 22591825 study talks about the suffering of the home when the mother works? Did you see even read it? An excerpt- “…an increasing number of studies have observed associations between mothers’ full-time employment and less healthful family food environments”. Hilarious.

      ” If both spouses are happier having a job, why can’t they both get one? And if one (any) of them is happier staying at home and is able to, great for them. Who are we to judge?”
      Happier to have a job? At the cost of what? The results cited in the studies? There is no judging here just plain simple degradation RESULTS.

      ” Like Another Man said, if you don’t like your job you should try to find another one that makes you happier. Using that as an excuse on how women should not work is just plain ridiculous”
      Again out of context jumping or just plain misunderstanding. That was said to tell that whatever be your job there will be stress, there will be shortage of time, there will be tiredness etc.

      “Right, because women are fragile weaker beings that need a Man’s protection, right? No stereotype here AT ALL!”
      Wrong interpretation because you are probably seeing it in the light of being weaker = being less. NO! And yes women are fragile and weaker than men but NOT less.

      Yes its the woman’s duty to take care of the home/children AND THE MAN IS SUBSERVIENT TO HER THERE. Oh you misquoted (again) by ignoring the part in caps just so you can find some contradiction. LOL. If you read the above it will be clear “subservient” means he too has his duty there but he is secondary. So now the statement “And yes the house is not solely the woman’s responsibility” should make sense. This is just weak that you need to be told obvious things repeatedly just because you miss the context somehow. Strange.

      “And if you think that a women that wants to work and ends up staying at home taking care of the kids will have a happier life than if she is doing what she wants (working) then I don’t know who are you kidding other than yourself”
      Sure these women can work all they want (because of the strange messed up ideas in their head) but the results from the studies will be there. That is the point.

      “Why do you keep mentioning “BMW-7 and cars for everyone, swimming lessons, piano playing” etc.?”
      Yes that is generally what people are after. Sure some may enjoy their work like discoveries etc. but that is a small group and even in that case the results of the wives stepping out of the house will be there. Most are not working to make the world a better place, to most its just a job that helps them have luxuries. The more money the better even if it requires putting the infants in daycare. So the great results you talk about are not really as great.

      Sorry for being mean with that paragraph but all I am telling you is to cut the filler material. And try understanding how to use “fallacies” before you use them because unless you use them properly I will literally walk over every fallacy you use against my argument and in a mean manner because its getting irritating that you keep jumping context (hence end up using fallacy concepts in a wrong manner).

      “What makes you think I have any desire of discussing science and common sense with you if you clearly don’t know much about the distinction between the two?”
      If your arguments had carried any weight till now then this would have been an acceptable statement. And if you do talk to me, you will literally have to reconsider your ways of conversation and maybe even your life so far. So its good that you decided against.

      1. Man, I’m sorry you are one of those people that are ignorant and wish to remain ignorant. You also have the intellectual capacity of a potato so I would be extremely surprised if you had actually read the articles YOU cited, much less understand them. Of course you do not want to provide the full text (I actually doubt that you can access it yourself) and make a critical analysis of the studies. This just proves how full of yourself you are, convinced you know more than you really do, when it’s clear for anyone reading your comments that you lack the most basic knowledge of science and psychology and struggle to understand the simplest most basic concepts like burden of proof, correlation or common sense. I do feel very sorry for the oppressed woman who ends up marrying you as she will be condemned to live a life of submission and subservience.

        I could continue to answer all you nonsense point by point but you already proved you don’t deserve the time I would spend doing so. I will keep it short this time, but you can go ahead and continue with your long and pointless texts. If you ever decide to prove me wrong and discuss the studies you cited I’m all ears (but I would advise against it if you don’t want to embarace yourself more than you already have). Otherwise I’ll remove myself from this idiotic debate because arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good you are at chess the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board and strut around like it’s victorious.

        Btw, as a way of celebrating the International Women’s Day here’s a youtube video on gender equality given by a silly little girl that should be cooking and ironing instead of giving speeches at the UN https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9SUAcNlVQ4

    1. Critical Analysis? If anything you have proved yourself to be ignorant. I do not expect you to be able to do any critical analysis. The studies clearly say what they say and still all this BS. Laughable. Really.

      Lets not get into who marries who because you have not only not grasped what I said properly, thanks to your intelligence but you can’t even make out from the studies and further I could say the same for the poor man who has to deal with you. I mean how lame are you? Mind boggling.

      Anyone neutral reading this can literally make out that you really have no argument. In fact if you ask me I say even you realize that you have lost your credibility here. But I do support your decision to eject because I eat people like you for breakfast. I am a lawyer so try your idiotic reasoning and convenient ignoring somewhere else. So take care.

  18. Whatever makes your ego less bruised, Mr. Potato Head 😉 I wasn’t expecting you to want to discuss a scientific paper anyway. It is clearly more than you can chew… My advice? Better take some antacid with that breakfast or you might get an indigestion because you may think you can eat scientists like me for breakfast but you are kidding no one other than yourself 😀

    p.s. – What do lawyers use as contraceptives? Their personalities.

    1. p.p.s. – Did you hear about the dead lawyer who was too big to fit in a coffin? They gave him an enema and buried him in a shoebox.

  19. Dear Unicorn scientist, if you had any real debating skills (your hurt ego defense skills don’t count) then this thread would have taken a different path. Unfortunately you have lost your credibility too many times in this thread which is why it has taken the path it has.

    Thanks for the lawyer jokes but really the joke is on you in this thread. Even you know that (or maybe you don’t considering your mintelligence).

      1. Did you know that you can get a woman pregnant from anal intercourse? That’s how lawyers are made.

  20. Actually, the real joke is that you think you know stuff you actually don’t and you don’t realize it even after it has been pointed out to you (like thinking I am a male or female when I haven’t disclosed my gender). But that’s no news, so instead I’ll just continue posting new jokes:

    Did you hear about the lawyer who stepped in cow dung, and thought that he was melting?

  21. I have started to like some of your peculiarities. So here is a joke:

    Q: Did you hear about the guy who finally figured out women?
    A: He died laughing before he could tell anybody

    1. What’s the difference between Iron Man and Iron Woman?
      One’s a Fe-male and one’s a Fe-female.
      Alternative: One is a super hero. The other is a simple command.

      1. What’s the definition of mixed emotions?
        Watching your attorney drive over a cliff in your new car.

      2. Have you heard about the lawyers’ word processor?
        No matter what font you select, everything comes out in fine print.

  22. Why does the Iron Woman have more FE than the Iron Man?
    Because she is better designed to Iron clothes 😛

    Why is watching a female attorney drive over a cliff a mixed emotion for her?
    Because she couldn’t figure out if she was driving or parking.

    Have you heard about the female word processor?
    No matter if you select a font or not, something or the other keeps blabbing out!

    1. Wow, I’m impressed! You’re just as good at making jokes as at making unsubstantiated claims.

      You are in a room with Mussolini, Hitler, and the lawyer of your choice. You have a gun, but only two bullets. Which do you shoot? The lawyer. Twice.

  23. “Unsubstantiated” heheh sayeth the Unicorneth.

    Why would Unicorn shoot a lawyer twice when she could shoot the dictators?
    Because she thought she could stab the dictators later with her unihorn.

    You see Unicorns can’t reason. Their horn does the reasoning for them 😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s