The Intentional Destruction of our Civilization: Have you noticed? Do you care?

[DGS49]

Yes, traditional family structures are possible. My point is that the prevailing culture attacks that structure in a dozen different ways. Young women are taught that they MUST pursue a career, and if they choose to be a traditional wife & mother they will have failed. The inflation and inflated expectations that two-income households generate make it more and more difficult to have a traditional household.

Dr. Jordan Peterson has spoken eloquently about the unhappiness of these "career" women as they reach their 30's and 40's, then realize what they have already missed because of their career choices.

Bottom line: There is no career choice that is more valuable to the overall society than raising a house full of loved, nurtured, well-developed citizen/kids.

 

[Unkotare]

A few short generations ago, it was common knowledge that the ideal family life centered around a (a) working father who provided the financial support, and (b) a nurturing mother who kept the household together and, most importantly, managed the nurturing of the children - which were plentiful. The uncomfortable fact remains that households that maintain that structure still produce the most well-rounded, happiest, and most successful children. No other family structure is its equal, AND there is no other family objective that is more important than this. "We" pay lip service to this fact by mouthing platitudes like, "Our children are the future," and "Children are our most important asset," but in every meaningful way we relegate child nurturing to a task of secondary importance in our culture. Indeed, our female children are indoctrinated (I will not say "taught") to believe that being a "housewife" is equivalent to "being a failure." Kids are taught the same thing in school, with subtle putdowns like, "What does your mommy DO?" As though raising children and running a household were DOING NOTHING. But this is a LIE.

It is also said that, "It is no longer possible to live on a single income." This is something between a lie and a self-fulfilling, self-destructive prophecy. While it's true that we experienced a recession and a rude introduction to the World Economy in the 70's that killed hundreds of thousands of good-paying middle class jobs - mainly manufacturing jobs - and forcing many women into the workplace, the introduction of tens of millions of working moms into the workforce did more to depress wages overall than any other economic development. Maybe that's why there are fewer good, middle-class jobs around for our Dads.

While no one was looking, these second incomes converted scores of nice-to-haves into must-haves, did they not? Do we all need big houses in the suburbs? Does every child need its own bedroom? Do we need several televisions in the house, and all of the electronic bullshit that mesmerizes our children ALL DAY LONG(!)? Do we need to take an opulent vacation every year? Do we really need two or three thirty-thousand-dollar cars in every household (which would not be necessary if Mom did not work)? Do we really need the closets and closets full of clothing and shoes that we eventually donate to charity because the house is simply not big enough to contain them?

What is the expected result of essentially turning over the nurturing of our children to The State? We complain that they are being indoctrinated into a Leftist dream world of bullshit, but isn't that entirely predictable?

Our culture teaches as a matter of faith that "alternative" lifestyles are just as good, if not superior to, the traditional family structure described above, and statistical evidence that denies that propaganda is suppressed. When assessing these alternative households to others, they always compare it to the household where the father is a convict or a drug addict - never to the norm. "Heather has two mommies," sounds almost tolerable, but what if it's Johnnie? Is it OK for him to have two Mommies? What a fucked up existence that would be.

While it is off the radar screen to many Americans (and you will never see this in scripted television), we still have tens of millions of families that continue the traditional paradigm. The dads go to work every day, year after year, and the moms are always there to send the kids off to school every day and be there when they get home, help with their homework, volunteer with the PTA (and the Church), and so on. Some of these families are even working class. Somehow they survive in modest homes, with one car, multiple kids in a single bedroom, and moms who are doing what we all pretend to value as the most import function in our society: nurturing the next generation.

And our culture treats such people - especially the wives/mothers - with disgust. Why is that?

Sexiest rant notwithstanding it actually is a fact that many if not most households cannot survive on a single income.

Traditional family structures are still possible today.

Maybe for the top ten percent or so.

Not so.

 

[WinterBorn]

The good old days were never as good as you remember them. The boomers especially are prone to think that the time of their childhood was perfect. This is because they were the most pampered and sheltered generation of children in human history.

You cant be serious. A family then did not pamper their children. The "world does not owe you a living" was on our refrigerator.

Then, as now, had huge variations in how people raised their children. I was not spoiled. But I knew those who were.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes, traditional family structures are possible. My point is that the prevailing culture attacks that structure in a dozen different ways. Young women are taught that they MUST pursue a career, and if they choose to be a traditional wife & mother they will have failed. The inflation and inflated expectations that two-income households generate make it more and more difficult to have a traditional household.

Dr. Jordan Peterson has spoken eloquently about the unhappiness of these "career" women as they reach their 30's and 40's, then realize what they have already missed because of their career choices.

Bottom line: There is no career choice that is more valuable to the overall society than raising a house full of loved, nurtured, well-developed citizen/kids.

My girlfriend/partner chose not to have children long before I met her. And she had her reasons. Should she have been berated for such a choice? In those halcyon golden days of which you speak, she certainly would have been.

I have never seen what you have described, calling women a failure for choosing to stay home with their children. My first wife stayed home with our 3 children until they were in middle school. No one told her she was a failure.

At the same time, women who choose to pursue a career should not be chastised either. The point is that woman have been given a choice. If they choose to work, and thereby doubling their income, they cannot be faulted. Men's ability to make enough to support a family has dwindled. If these women choose to work to make sure there is financial stability and security for their family, they have certainly not failed.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Yes, traditional family structures are possible. My point is that the prevailing culture attacks that structure in a dozen different ways. Young women are taught that they MUST pursue a career, and if they choose to be a traditional wife & mother they will have failed. The inflation and inflated expectations that two-income households generate make it more and more difficult to have a traditional household.

Dr. Jordan Peterson has spoken eloquently about the unhappiness of these "career" women as they reach their 30's and 40's, then realize what they have already missed because of their career choices.

Bottom line: There is no career choice that is more valuable to the overall society than raising a house full of loved, nurtured, well-developed citizen/kids.

Your opinions are just that, opinions. People make their own choices about the way they lead their lives. Your fag packet generalisations do not alter that.

 

[IM2]

The good old days were never as good as you remember them. The boomers especially are prone to think that the time of their childhood was perfect. This is because they were the most pampered and sheltered generation of children in human history.

The 'bad old days' were never as bad as the left would have the world beleive.

They were if you were not white or male.

 

[Moonglow]

Yes, traditional family structures are possible. My point is that the prevailing culture attacks that structure in a dozen different ways. Young women are taught that they MUST pursue a career, and if they choose to be a traditional wife & mother they will have failed. The inflation and inflated expectations that two-income households generate make it more and more difficult to have a traditional household.

Dr. Jordan Peterson has spoken eloquently about the unhappiness of these "career" women as they reach their 30's and 40's, then realize what they have already missed because of their career choices.

Bottom line: There is no career choice that is more valuable to the overall society than raising a house full of loved, nurtured, well-developed citizen/kids.

You don't want a traditional family structure's you want stereotypical roles in society. Just like Adolph Hitler and Joe Stalin had.

 

[IM2]

The good old days were never as good as you remember them.

Like hell they weren't. The good ole days were far better than they are now. You must have had a shitty childhood.

--------------------------

For the greater part of my childhood, my mother did stay home and raise us kids. I couldn't have asked for a better childhood. I pity kids that are carted off to a day care center each morning to be raised by someone other than a parent. What a rotten thing to do to little kids. If you can't afford to have one stay at home parent to raise kids, then you shouldn't have any.

The good old days never were.

 

[Stryder50]

The boys gets to enjoy all of life's possibilities just because he can beat up the girl? ... this tradition gives the boy ownership rights over his girl ... the wife belongs to the man, he can do whatever he wants to with her ... it shouldn't be a crime to beat her to death ...

Any civilization based on this needs to be destroyed ... with all due malice ...



(Yes, Jerry very occasionally spoke a word or two directly to the audience)

So have you studied Islam and the nature of Islamic culture/civilizations ???

 

[Esdraelon]

The good old days were never as good as you remember them. The boomers especially are prone to think that the time of their childhood was perfect. This is because they were the most pampered and sheltered generation of children in human history.

So... because the house wasn't as nice as you'd like, it's better to burn it down? I just hope that those who are actively destroying this nation have to suffer life in the ruins for MANY YEARS...

 

[francoHFW]

So... because the house wasn't as nice as you'd like, it's better to burn it down? I just hope that those who are actively destroying this nation have to suffer life in the ruins for MANY YEARS...

The boomers grew up in a boom time for the working class and the middle class. Now we have the worst inequality and upward mobility in our history thanks to 40 years of GOP giveaway to the rich tax rates and screw jobs for everyone else. We can have boom times again. We have to text the rich and giant corporations and invest in America and Americans again. A permanent GI Bill for everyone.

 

[Woodznutz]

The good old days were never as good as you remember them. The boomers especially are prone to think that the time of their childhood was perfect. This is because they were the most pampered and sheltered generation of children in human history.

I grew up in the 1940's and 1950's. Those times were great. The downfall came in the 1960's.

 

[Woodznutz]

So... because the house wasn't as nice as you'd like, it's better to burn it down? I just hope that those who are actively destroying this nation have to suffer life in the ruins for MANY YEARS...

They are already suffering mentally and spiritually. Sadly they don't recognize it.

 

[Likkmee]

A few short generations ago, it was common knowledge that the ideal family life centered around a (a) working father who provided the financial support, and (b) a nurturing mother who kept the household together and, most importantly, managed the nurturing of the children - which were plentiful. The uncomfortable fact remains that households that maintain that structure still produce the most well-rounded, happiest, and most successful children. No other family structure is its equal, AND there is no other family objective that is more important than this. "We" pay lip service to this fact by mouthing platitudes like, "Our children are the future," and "Children are our most important asset," but in every meaningful way we relegate child nurturing to a task of secondary importance in our culture. Indeed, our female children are indoctrinated (I will not say "taught") to believe that being a "housewife" is equivalent to "being a failure." Kids are taught the same thing in school, with subtle putdowns like, "What does your mommy DO?" As though raising children and running a household were DOING NOTHING. But this is a LIE.

It is also said that, "It is no longer possible to live on a single income." This is something between a lie and a self-fulfilling, self-destructive prophecy. While it's true that we experienced a recession and a rude introduction to the World Economy in the 70's that killed hundreds of thousands of good-paying middle class jobs - mainly manufacturing jobs - and forcing many women into the workplace, the introduction of tens of millions of working moms into the workforce did more to depress wages overall than any other economic development. Maybe that's why there are fewer good, middle-class jobs around for our Dads.

While no one was looking, these second incomes converted scores of nice-to-haves into must-haves, did they not? Do we all need big houses in the suburbs? Does every child need its own bedroom? Do we need several televisions in the house, and all of the electronic bullshit that mesmerizes our children ALL DAY LONG(!)? Do we need to take an opulent vacation every year? Do we really need two or three thirty-thousand-dollar cars in every household (which would not be necessary if Mom did not work)? Do we really need the closets and closets full of clothing and shoes that we eventually donate to charity because the house is simply not big enough to contain them?

What is the expected result of essentially turning over the nurturing of our children to The State? We complain that they are being indoctrinated into a Leftist dream world of bullshit, but isn't that entirely predictable?

Our culture teaches as a matter of faith that "alternative" lifestyles are just as good, if not superior to, the traditional family structure described above, and statistical evidence that denies that propaganda is suppressed. When assessing these alternative households to others, they always compare it to the household where the father is a convict or a drug addict - never to the norm. "Heather has two mommies," sounds almost tolerable, but what if it's Johnnie? Is it OK for him to have two Mommies? What a fucked up existence that would be.

While it is off the radar screen to many Americans (and you will never see this in scripted television), we still have tens of millions of families that continue the traditional paradigm. The dads go to work every day, year after year, and the moms are always there to send the kids off to school every day and be there when they get home, help with their homework, volunteer with the PTA (and the Church), and so on. Some of these families are even working class. Somehow they survive in modest homes, with one car, multiple kids in a single bedroom, and moms who are doing what we all pretend to value as the most import function in our society: nurturing the next generation.

And our culture treats such people - especially the wives/mothers - with disgust. Why is that?

Because we know what they had in their mouth ?

 

[Woodznutz]

A few short generations ago, it was common knowledge that the ideal family life centered around a (a) working father who provided the financial support, and (b) a nurturing mother who kept the household together and, most importantly, managed the nurturing of the children - which were plentiful. The uncomfortable fact remains that households that maintain that structure still produce the most well-rounded, happiest, and most successful children. No other family structure is its equal, AND there is no other family objective that is more important than this. "We" pay lip service to this fact by mouthing platitudes like, "Our children are the future," and "Children are our most important asset," but in every meaningful way we relegate child nurturing to a task of secondary importance in our culture. Indeed, our female children are indoctrinated (I will not say "taught") to believe that being a "housewife" is equivalent to "being a failure." Kids are taught the same thing in school, with subtle putdowns like, "What does your mommy DO?" As though raising children and running a household were DOING NOTHING. But this is a LIE.

It is also said that, "It is no longer possible to live on a single income." This is something between a lie and a self-fulfilling, self-destructive prophecy. While it's true that we experienced a recession and a rude introduction to the World Economy in the 70's that killed hundreds of thousands of good-paying middle class jobs - mainly manufacturing jobs - and forcing many women into the workplace, the introduction of tens of millions of working moms into the workforce did more to depress wages overall than any other economic development. Maybe that's why there are fewer good, middle-class jobs around for our Dads.

While no one was looking, these second incomes converted scores of nice-to-haves into must-haves, did they not? Do we all need big houses in the suburbs? Does every child need its own bedroom? Do we need several televisions in the house, and all of the electronic bullshit that mesmerizes our children ALL DAY LONG(!)? Do we need to take an opulent vacation every year? Do we really need two or three thirty-thousand-dollar cars in every household (which would not be necessary if Mom did not work)? Do we really need the closets and closets full of clothing and shoes that we eventually donate to charity because the house is simply not big enough to contain them?

What is the expected result of essentially turning over the nurturing of our children to The State? We complain that they are being indoctrinated into a Leftist dream world of bullshit, but isn't that entirely predictable?

Our culture teaches as a matter of faith that "alternative" lifestyles are just as good, if not superior to, the traditional family structure described above, and statistical evidence that denies that propaganda is suppressed. When assessing these alternative households to others, they always compare it to the household where the father is a convict or a drug addict - never to the norm. "Heather has two mommies," sounds almost tolerable, but what if it's Johnnie? Is it OK for him to have two Mommies? What a fucked up existence that would be.

While it is off the radar screen to many Americans (and you will never see this in scripted television), we still have tens of millions of families that continue the traditional paradigm. The dads go to work every day, year after year, and the moms are always there to send the kids off to school every day and be there when they get home, help with their homework, volunteer with the PTA (and the Church), and so on. Some of these families are even working class. Somehow they survive in modest homes, with one car, multiple kids in a single bedroom, and moms who are doing what we all pretend to value as the most import function in our society: nurturing the next generation.

And our culture treats such people - especially the wives/mothers - with disgust. Why is that?

Blame the women. WW2 put millions into the factories. They liked it. After the war industry and business welcomed them back.

Regarding the size of houses. In the past houses were large to allow for large families (and because building them was cheap), and for later taking in and caring for parents and other relatives. Thankfully there are still many of these great old houses around. You can easily make a big old house nicer, but you can't easily make a small house bigger.

 

[francoHFW]

I grew up in the 1940's and 1950's. Those times were great. The downfall came in the 1960's.

Women and minorities would definitely disagree lol. The downfall came in the 1980s with Ronald corporate Reagan and the giveaway to the rich and the end of the fairness doctrine and the beginning of garbage propaganda. then there was pure corruption from Nixon who gave us disrespect for the presidency for the first time really... Southern California Republicans eat s***.

 

[Woodznutz]

Women and minorities would definitely disagree lol. The downfall came in the 1980s with Ronald corporate Reagan and the giveaway to the rich and the end of the fairness doctrine and the beginning of garbage propaganda. then there was pure corruption from Nixon who gave us disrespect for the presidency for the first time really... Southern California Republicans eat s***.

Of course they might disagree. Women got the "pill" and minorities got their "rights".

I was there in the 1960's; the most profound (ly negative) societal change in our history.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Of course they might disagree. Women got the "pill" and minorities got their "rights".

I was there in the 1960's; the most profound (ly negative) societal change in our history.

Back in the 1960s the male to female ratio was 1 male to every 6 women. That was because the wars had decimated the male population. So the pretty girls always seemed to get the man while the bitter females had to work for themselves and be depressed. So of course those bitter ones would talk real bad about the girls who got to stay home, raise a family enjoy living a long life. But those bitters they couldnt have that life, so started calling the homemakers, worthless because they just stayed home making their men happy. So those same bitters started pushing for the castration of men, by having men, no longer wearing boxers but briefs that pulled the scrotum up against the body killing 50% of the sperm that makes males men. Also feeding men Soy, (estrogen which is female hormone) were introduced into the diets of men, thus we see the pussy progressive pajama boy, who would pull out a phone and video a woman being raped, instead of preventing the rape from happening.

Pictures are worth a thousand words..

 

[initforme]

The 50s we're "meh" time. Alot of poverty and alot of poor people. They weren't the good ole days.

 

[francoHFW]

Of course they might disagree. Women got the "pill" and minorities got their "rights".

I was there in the 1960's; the most profound (ly negative) societal change in our history.

I was there to and you are so wrong. Economically for whites the 50s were great, we had no competition everyone else is economies were destroyed in world war II..... ALL PEOPLE have never had better than we do now despite too many people too much inequality and not enough upward mobility thanks to Republicans. The major problem as we are the only modern country without a living wage health care daycare paid parental leave cheap college and training and Great infrastructure and vacations for a change. And the end of your garbage propaganda machine with a return to debate being mandatory.... The amount of hate based on misinformation in the GOP is ridiculous.