Quote Originally Posted by Beskar View Post
Though the point was, your father could do that while your mother worked.
I still believe the mother is better at this when the child is at a young age.


That one is not true. I was never breast fed.
No, it is true. Only women have the biological capacity (without messing with hormones etc.) to feed an infant using their own body. This is an adaptation which naturally makes the unweened infant more dependant on the mother than father. To get around this you have to domesticate animals.

They do, but they grunt and moan and tell their 'wife' to do it. Or they are actually a good father and do go to their child.
I know one father who doesn't, he asks his wife to wake him because he doesn't think it's fair. It doesn't have to be about "bad" fathers. You know what else women do when babies cry?

Lactate.

They don't need a "mother" nor a "father" figure. They just need a figure there to love and care for them. Also, what is playing to not playing to most men's strengths? Majority of fathers I know are good and takecare of their children and raising kids do play to their strengths. I am also good with children.
I dissagree, I see men and women dealling with children differently. This doesn't make men bad parents, but it doesn't make them mothers either.

Just because you might be a bad father or raised by one, doesn't men that you just label everyone else.
I beg your pardon? That's dangerously close to ad hominem. You know very little, if anything, about my father. If you must know, I didn't meet him until two years old because he was always working. Despite this, I probably have a better relationship with him than my mother.

And you are wrong there, unless they were a bad father, then obviously would go to "mummy" because "daddy" would be at the pub. Even seen three year olds come to "Uncle", (oh wait, that was my niece who came to me.)
It might have something to do with "daddy" stinking of sheep muck and having big calloused, clumsy, hands, you know. Your assumption is, again, that because the man can't perfom the woman's function as well as her he must have been incompetant.



I think John Lennon once sang a song about you:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
We make her paint her
face and dance
If she won't be slave ,we
say that she don't love us
If she's real, we say she's
trying to be a man
While putting her down we
pretend that she is above us
Woman is the of
the world...yes she is
If you don't belive me take a
look to the one you're with
Woman is the slaves of
the slaves
Ah yeah...better screem
about it
We make her bear and raise
our children
And then we leave her flat for
being a fat old mother hen
We tell her home is the only
place she would be
Then we complain that she's
too unworldly to be our friend
Woman is the of
the world...yes she is
If you don't belive me take a
look to the one you're with
Woman is the slaves of
the slaves
Yeah (think about it)
So now we have moved to ad hominem. Congratulations, I must be a bigot because I don't agree with you. So, I suppose it's acceptable for men to punch and kick women, leave them to do all their own heavy lifting, not stop to offer to help change a tire, God forbid the woman might be insulted! Obviously, we shouldn't hold heavy daws open for them either, even the small women with tiny hands who have to lean into the things with their shoulders!

Let be tell you what I think of men, they're boring, mind-numbingly, soul-crushingly, boring. At any given time I would rather be in the company of women than men.