The modern woman has a career and children, all without the help of any man...

[thanatos144]

Jose would know. It's because all the woman think he is a loser that he is so grumpy. Hang in there lil'guy there is someone for everyone out there.

Again, not sure if Chicks are into illiteracy, but if they were, you'd be their man!

Seeing as he has to know how to read what he just posted you might want to look up the definition of the world illiterate

Sent from my SM-J737T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Lysistrata]

Remember that it is a female person who carries an egg fertilized by a male within her body for nine months and then gives birth to an infant through blood and pain.

 

[karpenter]

Why were there no women at the constitutional convention? Why was there no role for women in public policy to begin with? You completely skip over the fact that women, one half of the population, were completely fenced out of the political process by men to begin with

We Should Throw You In A Cage
Where Your Irrational, Emotional, Hormonal,
Raging Animal That You Are Belongs
And Only Let You Out For Procreation And Sammiches

 

[Disir]

There were no good old days.

Bullshit. United States roared after WW2.

For a select group of people. Yep, girls who were pregnant still went to the country to visit relatives. Whole lot of stuff you are ignoring.

Yes, things were a lot closer to idyllic if you were White and straight, but every American benefited from the post-WWII boom.

That women who put out & got pregnant "went to the country to visit relatives" instead of unabashedly having children out of wedlock or unashamedly having the children's lives terminated was, overall, a good thing sociologically.

Please explain how that was a good thing sociologically.

The increase in fatherless homes correlates directly with an increase in social ills, primarily crime.
Abortion has more and more become thought of as a medical procedure of no more significance that having a wart removed. This, among other thing, has led to a devaluing of life, as well as a diminished of personal responsibility.
There was a time when pregnancy outside of marriage was considered shameful. Then, crime was far less rampant and life was much more valued. These things are connected. Single-motherhood being accepted and celebrated and the significance of abortion being minimized are net negatives for society.

Single Moms Can’t Be Scapegoated for the Murder Rate Anymore
The Majority of Children Live With Two Parents, Census Bureau Reports

or other factors. That shouldn't be read to say that fathers are insignificant.

Juvenile delinquency was a major issue of the 1950s. It was the rise of the teenager.
Comic Books and Juvenile Delinquency

How long should a single mother feel shame? For the duration of the pregnancy or until the child is grown? For the rest of her life? After the 1950s, more young women kept the children rather than have them whisked off for adoption. I would say that is accepting responsibility. Even so, unplanned pregnancies and abortion rates have declined.
U.S. Abortion Rate Continues to Decline, Hits Historic Low

 

[Correll]

We need to get those kind of women out of their parents house and into their own families much faster, if we are to survive as a society and/or culture.

'We' Have No Say In What Any Woman Does
It's Her Right To Choose

Maybe It's Better Kids Live With Their Parents Longer
They Can Help At Home, And Store Away Their Earnings
IF They Are The Responsible Sort

She is not choosing that. She is being forced to wait by economic factors outside of her control.

 

[Correll]

Bullshit. United States roared after WW2.

For a select group of people. Yep, girls who were pregnant still went to the country to visit relatives. Whole lot of stuff you are ignoring.

Select group? Oh...you mean the vast majority of Americans. I see. Not supposed to get pregnant outside marriage.

Again. Dichotomy. Not supposed to do a lot of things. I'll be sure to codify that as soon as I have completed my takeover of the universe. Here is the reality. There were just as many shiftless men in the 1950s as there were in the 1910s etc.

Here is the really fun part. Women that are further down the socioeconomic ladder have a limited pool of men to partner with. So, at the bottom we have mentally ill men, felons, sex offenders, ongoing addictions, intellectually disabled men, etc. and so on. They are just as susceptible today as they were 60-100 years ago to the whole concept of a knight in shining armor and the fairy tale romance. You still have a very large percentage of young girls that drop out of high school and want to be stay at home mothers and wives. That is what they want to do.

The "modern woman" has a career and children today for the same damn reason that they had children and a career 100 years ago without a man. Rent and food. The number of women that make a "lifestyle choice" are few and are usually independently wealthy or financially stable in established careers.

Women rarely marry DOWN the socioeconomic ladder. It is women at the top who actually have a seriously limited pool of men to partner with.


A woman at the bottom, can benefit from partnering with just about any man who is actually planing to even try.


THe magic of sharing rent is an obvious benefit, even if the guy has some issues.

As long as both are sharing rent. It's the whole trying part. Plans are a dime a dozen and is usually the problem; it's the follow through that counts.

Women don't marry down the ladder despite the romance novels of the blue collar worker meets wealthy heiress/journalist/rancher/CEO/financial adviser. It's not the norm. I agree. However, the odds of a woman working the register at a local convenience store meeting, falling in love and marrying the banker are slim to none. So, they are dating whomever is in their community.

The point being that many women picked up the pieces from whatever relationship they had and either created the opportunity or obtained work to provide housing, food for the children that they had. Same as they do now. I don't care what time frame we are talking about because curling up in a fetal position has traditionally not been an option.

1. The CEO? no. The guy with a real and steady job? Maybe.


2. I'm still not seeing the point, in this need to deny that relative "Good Times" did exist in the past.

 

[karpenter]

Maybe It's Better Kids Live With Their Parents Longer
They Can Help At Home, And Store Away Their Earnings
IF They Are The Responsible Sort

She is not choosing that. She is being forced to wait by economic factors outside of her control.

And What Would That Be

You're A Man, Right ??

 

[Correll]

Maybe It's Better Kids Live With Their Parents Longer
They Can Help At Home, And Store Away Their Earnings
IF They Are The Responsible Sort

She is not choosing that. She is being forced to wait by economic factors outside of her control.

And What Would That Be

You're A Man, Right ??

The time to get though college, the debt you pile up doing so, the high cost of living, the rarity of a man with a job good enough to support a family.


Yes, I am a man, why is that relevant?

 

[bodecea]

So your a lesbian. That’s fine.

I'm heterosexual.

Jesus Jumped-Up Christ...that poor bastard. So what’s that like? After he gets done cleaning toilets he gets to make supper...listening to how your day went out shopping with the girls and how you all agreed that you hate Susie in the Personal Department? Then you explain/undercut his plans to go fishing next weekend so you can all go to your relatives house for a cookout. Gee, If he’s really nice I guess he gets a hand job. How dare he would think he could ever be on top. That’s not for a professional woman like you. The ******* guy probably begs his friends to shoot him when he’s mowing the lawn to take him out of his misery.

My now ex husband was in a motorcycle accident and it took off that whole forehead section. He had a really severe brain injury that impacted the area that deals with both time and consequences. I knew **** all about brain injuries when we married. He devolved. My son and I left with a 6 police car escort. I didn't remarry because I didn't want there to be any confusion for my kid. I have seen way too many women marry to obtain financial support and then choose the relationship over their kids. I made sure that my son was available for that relationship. He continued to devolve and now has stage 4 liver disease from drinking. His sister drank daily and was one of those rare people that when she stopped had a psychotic break and became homicidal and suicidal. She blew her brains out after shooting her ex. So, don't think I didn't have a couple rounds of holy crap and what if going on there after that was dealt with.

I work with offenders (violent/sexual/other), victims, mentally ill, homeless,addicts, and their children-many of them have severe disabilities and have suffered through extreme trauma. Heinous. I haven't seen a 40 hour week in over 3 1/2 years. Hell, I hadn't seen a 40 hour work week in the 10 years prior.

I'm a big advocate of father's being present.

When I shop. it's for the people that need stuff. I'm far from perfect. In my spare time, I read mostly history. I also do genealogy for close friends. Or did some 4 years ago. I pretend we have conversations on this forum. I mow my lawn. I hired a guy to mow my lawn but he is in jail now.. So, now I'm back to mowing my lawn. Because it needs to be done. That's how life works.

I didn't owe you that. Don't be a dick.

And in addition to all that you have had to deal with in your life, you get to deal with "men" like that poster trying to mansplain' what women need. Fun times, eh?

Why do you hate “men?” You really, really, really, need to get laid and let off some steam toward men. Unless of course your a lesbian. But still, either way, get laid and let off some steam.

I don't hate men....why is it that you think I hate men?

 

[Disir]

Yes, things were a lot closer to idyllic if you were White and straight, but every American benefited from the post-WWII boom.

That women who put out & got pregnant "went to the country to visit relatives" instead of unabashedly having children out of wedlock or unashamedly having the children's lives terminated was, overall, a good thing sociologically.

It is pretty insulting the way liberals, assume that anyone they disagree with, knows nothing of nuance.


Making a statement about "the good old days" does not imply that a person is unaware that "good" does not mean "perfect" or "utopia".

It's not insulting. People don't change. Technology changes.

No, your point wasn't about technology, but about your assumption that someone else, was completely lacking in nuance or understanding of complexity.

That was you being insulting.
And what is with this need to tear down the past like you are doing?

The OP indicated that all of those problems are the result of Democrats. There is not one speck of nuance or understanding of complexity indicated in that diatribe. The Democratic Party sucks, no doubt about it, but don't pretend that all of the woes are because of them. The issues that he pretends to want to discuss are repetitive because people don't change, technology changes. There is not one time period in history that you do not run into the same crap.

The 1950s are referred to as a dichotomy. Insulting? Too bad.

You are absolutely right that people do not change. But I would say the CULTURE changes--what is acceptable changes. And that's important--vitally important.

I agree to an extent.

There is a book by Elijah Anderson that came out in 1999. He is writing about the challenges that African American youth located on a specific are of a street in Philadelphia and the concept of love and togetherness and family life. Over time I came to the conclusion that this is something that doesn't really have any racial boundaries. At one end of the street is an area of poverty and at the other end of the street are middle class/upper class African Americans. He discusses a young couple that window shops and is bombarded with images from the television of this middle class life and they think it just naturally appears because it's everywhere. They don't grasp how to get from point A to point B. That isn't shown on billboards or television programming at that time.

 

[bodecea]

1 in 4 women experience abuse. It isn't just the left who created this situation.

I question your statistic.

I could as easily say that 1 in 4 women are abusive, and just as easily defend it with tales of children beaten and left alone.

But neither figure is truthful in a meaningful way.

1 in 4 girls are sexually abused in this country before they reach 18.....most by hetero male family members and friends. These are "men"?

 

[bodecea]

,,,the modern man remains boy-like, perpetually playing video games and hopping from woman to woman but never settling down.

This is the world liberal Democrats have created.

How did the Democrats create this, exactly?

What happens today is a woman doesn't feel the need to marry a loser just because he donated some sperm. Now it would be nice if they picked their men better, but the idea of freedom is sometimes, you get to make the wrong choices.

And this is the idiocy that creates crazy incels

Sent from my SM-J737T1 using Tapatalk

"creates crazy INCELS"......it's women's fault for INCELs?

 

[22lcidw]

1 in 4 women experience abuse. It isn't just the left who created this situation.

I question your statistic.

I could as easily say that 1 in 4 women are abusive, and just as easily defend it with tales of children beaten and left alone.

But neither figure is truthful in a meaningful way.

1 in 4 girls are sexually abused in this country before they reach 18.....most by hetero male family members and friends. These are "men"?

That's a lie!

 

[Markle]

,,,the modern man remains boy-like, perpetually playing video games and hopping from woman to woman but never settling down.

This is the world liberal Democrats have created.

There were no good old days.

What is better today?

The rate of poverty?

The quality of education? The level of literacy?

The rate of incarceration?

Yes, health care is far superior to fifty or sixty years ago.

 

[Markle]

How did the Democrats create this, exactly?

What happens today is a woman doesn't feel the need to marry a loser just because he donated some sperm. Now it would be nice if they picked their men better, but the idea of freedom is sometimes, you get to make the wrong choices.

Democrats created these problems by creating and enlarging the welfare state. Good behavior is punished and bad behavior is rewarded. What did they think would happen?

 

[Disir]

For a select group of people. Yep, girls who were pregnant still went to the country to visit relatives. Whole lot of stuff you are ignoring.

Select group? Oh...you mean the vast majority of Americans. I see. Not supposed to get pregnant outside marriage.

Again. Dichotomy. Not supposed to do a lot of things. I'll be sure to codify that as soon as I have completed my takeover of the universe. Here is the reality. There were just as many shiftless men in the 1950s as there were in the 1910s etc.

Here is the really fun part. Women that are further down the socioeconomic ladder have a limited pool of men to partner with. So, at the bottom we have mentally ill men, felons, sex offenders, ongoing addictions, intellectually disabled men, etc. and so on. They are just as susceptible today as they were 60-100 years ago to the whole concept of a knight in shining armor and the fairy tale romance. You still have a very large percentage of young girls that drop out of high school and want to be stay at home mothers and wives. That is what they want to do.

The "modern woman" has a career and children today for the same damn reason that they had children and a career 100 years ago without a man. Rent and food. The number of women that make a "lifestyle choice" are few and are usually independently wealthy or financially stable in established careers.

Women rarely marry DOWN the socioeconomic ladder. It is women at the top who actually have a seriously limited pool of men to partner with.


A woman at the bottom, can benefit from partnering with just about any man who is actually planing to even try.


THe magic of sharing rent is an obvious benefit, even if the guy has some issues.

As long as both are sharing rent. It's the whole trying part. Plans are a dime a dozen and is usually the problem; it's the follow through that counts.

Women don't marry down the ladder despite the romance novels of the blue collar worker meets wealthy heiress/journalist/rancher/CEO/financial adviser. It's not the norm. I agree. However, the odds of a woman working the register at a local convenience store meeting, falling in love and marrying the banker are slim to none. So, they are dating whomever is in their community.

The point being that many women picked up the pieces from whatever relationship they had and either created the opportunity or obtained work to provide housing, food for the children that they had. Same as they do now. I don't care what time frame we are talking about because curling up in a fetal position has traditionally not been an option.

1. The CEO? no. The guy with a real and steady job? Maybe.


2. I'm still not seeing the point, in this need to deny that relative "Good Times" did exist in the past.

Maybe.


Good times is vastly different from the Good Old Days. There were no good old days.

 

[karpenter]

The time to get though college, the debt you pile up doing so, the high cost of living, the rarity of a man with a job good enough to support a family.
Yes, I am a man, why is that relevant?

You're Not Her Grand Father Either
He Hasn't Said All That
And None Of It Is An Excuse For Never Having 'A Real Job' Before 27
Just Lay Around The House Until The 'Real Job' Of Their Liking Shows Up ??
There Are Plenty Of 'Real Jobs' For Those That Want Them
Initforme Hasn't Given What His Grand Daughter's Reasons Are
For Not Having Had Good Employment

My granddaughter is working her first real job now. She is 27

Nor Has He Said What Her Current Job Is

 

[Markle]

We need to get those kind of women out of their parents house and into their own families much faster, if we are to survive as a society and/or culture.

'We' Have No Say In What Any Woman Does
It's Her Right To Choose

Maybe It's Better Kids Live With Their Parents Longer
They Can Help At Home, And Store Away Their Earnings
IF They Are The Responsible Sort

Eighteen and you're an adult, OUT on your own. Grow up!

 

[karpenter]

1 in 4 girls are sexually abused in this country before they reach 18.....most by hetero male family members and friends.

That's a lie!

Remember The Molestation Craze Of The Eighties ??
We Learned About Psychologists And False Memories At The Same Time

 

[Correll]

Select group? Oh...you mean the vast majority of Americans. I see. Not supposed to get pregnant outside marriage.

Again. Dichotomy. Not supposed to do a lot of things. I'll be sure to codify that as soon as I have completed my takeover of the universe. Here is the reality. There were just as many shiftless men in the 1950s as there were in the 1910s etc.

Here is the really fun part. Women that are further down the socioeconomic ladder have a limited pool of men to partner with. So, at the bottom we have mentally ill men, felons, sex offenders, ongoing addictions, intellectually disabled men, etc. and so on. They are just as susceptible today as they were 60-100 years ago to the whole concept of a knight in shining armor and the fairy tale romance. You still have a very large percentage of young girls that drop out of high school and want to be stay at home mothers and wives. That is what they want to do.

The "modern woman" has a career and children today for the same damn reason that they had children and a career 100 years ago without a man. Rent and food. The number of women that make a "lifestyle choice" are few and are usually independently wealthy or financially stable in established careers.

Women rarely marry DOWN the socioeconomic ladder. It is women at the top who actually have a seriously limited pool of men to partner with.


A woman at the bottom, can benefit from partnering with just about any man who is actually planing to even try.


THe magic of sharing rent is an obvious benefit, even if the guy has some issues.

As long as both are sharing rent. It's the whole trying part. Plans are a dime a dozen and is usually the problem; it's the follow through that counts.

Women don't marry down the ladder despite the romance novels of the blue collar worker meets wealthy heiress/journalist/rancher/CEO/financial adviser. It's not the norm. I agree. However, the odds of a woman working the register at a local convenience store meeting, falling in love and marrying the banker are slim to none. So, they are dating whomever is in their community.

The point being that many women picked up the pieces from whatever relationship they had and either created the opportunity or obtained work to provide housing, food for the children that they had. Same as they do now. I don't care what time frame we are talking about because curling up in a fetal position has traditionally not been an option.

1. The CEO? no. The guy with a real and steady job? Maybe.


2. I'm still not seeing the point, in this need to deny that relative "Good Times" did exist in the past.

Maybe.


Good times is vastly different from the Good Old Days. There were no good old days.

Sure there were. Good times are not vastly different from Good Old Days.


What is your point in fighting against the idea of the 50s as a time of "Good old days"?