On a blog that I participate in for work, there was some back and forth in the comments of a post that leaves me a little baffled. The post is about one particular new vehicle and its lack of stability control even though that is a standard feature in the same vehicle outside of North America. The woman who wrote the post and another female author on the same blog both said they wouldn't purchase the vehicle for that reason because of their concern for the safety of their children. Below are some of the comments that followed:
Male Commenter #1: Yes [these women] writers, seem very over the top on safety. I hope their kids walking around with helmets, wrist gaurds, eblow and knee pads all the time, so they dont get hurt ;-).
Me: Guys: If you grow another human being inside your body, you are allowed to be as concerned as you want about its safety once it is outside your body.
Male Commenter #1: ^... yes you are correct, you can do just about whatever you want. Just like everyone else can look at you and think your nuts. Whatever happened to what does not kill you, makes you stronger?
Male Commenter #2: "Guys: If you grow another human being inside your body, you are allowed to be as concerned as you want about its safety once it is outside your body."
Your statement is a ridiculous attack against all men and those women that haven't given birth. It's inappropriate.Me: I am not attacking men or women who haven't given birth. I am just saying that if you gave birth to a child, it gives you the right to be completely, irrationally obsessed about anything that might possibly or impossibly happen to that child.
Did you see my first comment as an attack on men and women who haven't given birth? I was responding to Male Commenter #1 and I felt that my comment had the same level of tongue-in-cheekiness as both his original comment and his second comment in response to mine. Do you agree, or was Male Commenter #2 justified in getting his panties in a wad?
