what really matters?

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by menewa
How can you say that anyone who has progressive beliefs is against a tight community and a close family?

One of the left's goals is to destroy the nuclear family. Libs want government to provide, not the historical provider, the man. Libs want ultimate allegiance to government not family. Hence, why they mock and malign family values and traditional roles, which are nothing more than specialization of tasks and duties.

 

[brneyedgrl80]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
One of the left's goals is to destroy the nuclear family. Libs want government to provide, not the historical provider, the man. Libs want ultimate allegiance to government not family. Hence, why they mock and malign family values and traditional roles, which are nothing more than specialization of tasks and duties.

Ya, I can't say that I'm all for "traditional roles". If by that you mean along the lines that the man is the provider and women stay home and have kids.

But then again, me personally, I'm not for the nuclear family either. At least not for my family. For cryin' outloud, I have 5 cats in my family! I don't think that falls under nuclear family codes, lol. If other people want that, that's fine by me though.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by brneyedgrl80
Ya, I can't say that I'm all for "traditional roles". If by that you mean along the lines that the man is the provider and women stay home and have kids.

But then again, me personally, I'm not for the nuclear family either. At least not for my family. For cryin' outloud, I have 5 cats in my family! I don't think that falls under nuclear family codes, lol. If other people want that, that's fine by me though.

Traditional roles evolved due to necessity, someone needs to protect and provide resources, someone needs to perform raise kids and do domestic stuff. Specialization is evolutionarily more advanced than an "everyone does everything" approach. Plus I truly believe a PARENT (mother or father) needs to raise kids up til about age five. Sending kids off to daycare, where no one REALLY care about them, not really, will be the downfall of our society. Kids need more attention than a 1/30 ratio or whatever. Think of all your class size rationalization for more education budget. Now realize that it's YOUR DAMN KID.

I don't see how being able to join the workforce was such a coups for women, though they should be able to, I'd much rather stay at home. Working sucks. What's the big deal? Not to mention that 50% or so taxation rates means one person effectively works solely for government. Who got richer from women working? not the families, the government did.

 

[MrProlifer]

That republicans try to force their morals on all of america, hmmm, how come it takes a few million of us conservatives to stop one atheist from taking the "under God" out the pledge. Seems to me the Democrats want to force their morals on us not vice versa. If our fore fathers could see us now.....

 

[acludem]

The founding fathers would be stunned that the Constitution was still in existence. As for "Under God" it was not in the original pledge and should never have been inserted. The right wishes to force a narrow moral code on all Americans. Those like me wish to see America kept a free nation, where you are guided by your own moral code, free to do as you please so long as you don't interfere with someone else's rights. I do not believe taking "Under God" out of the pledge takes away your right to religion. Having it in the pledge does take away the right of atheists to pledge allegience to the flag without pledging allegience to God.

acludem

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Originally posted by Modu$OperanDi
A single woman who cannot afford a child victimizes herself by having one.

She should learn to not get pregnant, or close her legs. But that requires personal responsibility

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by JIHADTHIS
She should learn to not get pregnant, or close her legs. But that requires personal responsibility

You arent serious are you? You wouldnt really want, perish the thought, people to take responsibility for their actions?

 

[menewa]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Traditional roles evolved due to necessity, someone needs to protect and provide resources, someone needs to perform raise kids and do domestic stuff. Specialization is evolutionarily more advanced than an "everyone does everything" approach. Plus I truly believe a PARENT (mother or father) needs to raise kids up til about age five. Sending kids off to daycare, where no one REALLY care about them, not really, will be the downfall of our society. Kids need more attention than a 1/30 ratio or whatever. Think of all your class size rationalization for more education budget. Now realize that it's YOUR DAMN KID.

I don't see how being able to join the workforce was such a coups for women, though they should be able to, I'd much rather stay at home. Working sucks. What's the big deal? Not to mention that 50% or so taxation rates means one person effectively works solely for government. Who got richer from women working? not the families, the government did.

I dig this post RWA. You almost sound like a hippie ready to start a commune. Which I think is great. You are correct in believing that a big gov't. does not work. Be it a republic, socialist, communist, theocratic, etc. When a gov't is this big and ruling over 100s of millions no body at the top and in the halls of the beuracracy can really relate and give a shit about all us worker bees out here. We are all faceless to each other. Yeah, I dream of a day when America will break up into a collections of se;f-sustainable city-states or villages and tribes. Then we will once again have a close community and be forced to take responsibility for our actions. I agree with the right that big gov't is wrong. But we can't have a country this big without it. We need to splinter like a piece of kindling.

 

[brneyedgrl80]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Traditional roles evolved due to necessity, someone needs to protect and provide resources, someone needs to perform raise kids and do domestic stuff. Specialization is evolutionarily more advanced than an "everyone does everything" approach. Plus I truly believe a PARENT (mother or father) needs to raise kids up til about age five. Sending kids off to daycare, where no one REALLY care about them, not really, will be the downfall of our society. Kids need more attention than a 1/30 ratio or whatever. Think of all your class size rationalization for more education budget. Now realize that it's YOUR DAMN KID.

I don't see how being able to join the workforce was such a coups for women, though they should be able to, I'd much rather stay at home. Working sucks. What's the big deal? Not to mention that 50% or so taxation rates means one person effectively works solely for government. Who got richer from women working? not the families, the government did.

From a personal viewpoint, I would never want to be a house wife and have to be dependent on my husband. That's not a life! At least not for me. What if the couple gets divorced? Then you have a woman who has no skills outside the home. What kind of job could she get? That's where it becomes scary for me. Having to be fully dependent on someone when you are a grown adult. I'm happy that I make my own money so I don't have to seek out an allowance from my husband. I'm a little too independent to just stay at home and rely on my husband to take care of me.

I do agree as far as the childcare thing, but unfortunately, in this day and age, it is just not feasible for one of the parents to stay at home and take care of the kid, especially true if you want to include single parents in the equation.

And as for women joining the workforce, it was a big thing simply because it was a way for us to show that we can do what men do. Obviously in this day and age, it has lost some meaning because it is commonplace to see women in the workplace, but back then it was something new and radical. There were also women out there during that time that didn't want to be housewives, they wanted something more in life. They didn't want to be dependent on a husband, they wanted to do their own thing. And most importantly, those women wanted to have the option to be able to work instead of having their only option be was to stay home.

And just so no one gets me wrong. I do not think that being a stay at home mother or a house wife is an easy task, in fact, women should probably get paid for it, lol But being able to work outside of the home is just as difficult in different ways.

 

[Said1]

Originally posted by brneyedgrl80
From a personal viewpoint, I would never want to be a house wife and have to be dependent on my husband. That's not a life! At least not for me. What if the couple gets divorced? Then you have a woman who has no skills outside the home. What kind of job could she get? That's where it becomes scary for me. Having to be fully dependent on someone when you are a grown adult. I'm happy that I make my own money so I don't have to seek out an allowance from my husband. I'm a little too independent to just stay at home and rely on my husband to take care of me.

I do agree as far as the childcare thing, but unfortunately, in this day and age, it is just not feasible for one of the parents to stay at home and take care of the kid, especially true if you want to include single parents in the equation.

And as for women joining the workforce, it was a big thing simply because it was a way for us to show that we can do what men do. Obviously in this day and age, it has lost some meaning because it is commonplace to see women in the workplace, but back then it was something new and radical. There were also women out there during that time that didn't want to be housewives, they wanted something more in life. They didn't want to be dependent on a husband, they wanted to do their own thing. And most importantly, those women wanted to have the option to be able to work instead of having their only option be was to stay home.

And just so no one gets me wrong. I do not think that being a stay at home mother or a house wife is an easy task, in fact, women should probably get paid for it, lol But being able to work outside of the home is just as difficult in different ways.

Personally, I think you need to be in the position to make that choice in order to understand how difficult it is for some women to leave their children with strangers for 10 hrs a day. It's not really about staying home and being dependant on someone - it's raising your kids yourself. I used to think like you, but when the time came for me to make the decision, I didn't go back to work, I changed careers so I could work from home. My daughter is not going to be little forever, and I won't be able to get those years back if I miss everything.

Housewives put themselves in a position of be dependant by simply doing nothing to help themselves prepare for their future, married or not. Going to school, or working part time is a good idea. Most people aren't helpless unless they chose to be.

 

[brneyedgrl80]

Originally posted by Said1
Personally, I think you need to be in the position to make that choice in order to understand how difficult it is for some women to leave their children with strangers for 10 hrs a day. It's not really about staying home and being dependant on someone - it's raising your kids yourself. I used to think like you, but when the time came for me to make the decision, I didn't go back to work, I changed careers so I could work from home. My daughter is not going to be little forever, and I won't be able to get those years back if I miss everything.

Housewives put themselves in a position of be dependant by simply doing nothing to help themselves prepare for their future, married or not. Going to school, or working part time is a good idea. Most people aren't helpless unless they chose to be.

I wasn't putting down house wives or stay at homes, as indicated above. I did say that sometimes it is just not an option for parents or parent to stay home with their kid. Sometimes the only option is daycare or if you are lucky, another family member.

I came from a single parent household, so I know the struggles that raising a kid by yoursefl entails, I watched my mom go through it.

And I agree, if there is the time for a house wife or stay at home mom to go out and get a part time job that is probably in her best interest. But if there is not time for that any job skills that the woman may have will become dated by the time she can finally go back into the work force. And face it, if you and your job skills are dated, especially as a woman, it is a lot harder to get a decent paying job.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by acludem
The right paints itself as "pro-family" yet they seek to tear children from the only homes they've known because a parent is gay.

Link?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by menewa
I dig this post RWA. You almost sound like a hippie ready to start a commune. Which I think is great. You are correct in believing that a big gov't. does not work. Be it a republic, socialist, communist, theocratic, etc. When a gov't is this big and ruling over 100s of millions no body at the top and in the halls of the beuracracy can really relate and give a shit about all us worker bees out here. We are all faceless to each other. Yeah, I dream of a day when America will break up into a collections of se;f-sustainable city-states or villages and tribes. Then we will once again have a close community and be forced to take responsibility for our actions. I agree with the right that big gov't is wrong. But we can't have a country this big without it. We need to splinter like a piece of kindling.

You splinter off into a hippie commune. I prefer a single family dwelling without everyone getting into my business!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by brneyedgrl80
I wasn't putting down house wives or stay at homes, as indicated above. I did say that sometimes it is just not an option for parents or parent to stay home with their kid.

Yes, because we're overtaxed.

And if both DO work, it's a slap in the face for the government to take half the combined income.

 

[Said1]

Originally posted by brneyedgrl80
I wasn't putting down house wives or stay at homes, as indicated above. I did say that sometimes it is just not an option for parents or parent to stay home with their kid. Sometimes the only option is daycare or if you are lucky, another family member.

I came from a single parent household, so I know the struggles that raising a kid by yoursefl entails, I watched my mom go through it.

And I agree, if there is the time for a house wife or stay at home mom to go out and get a part time job that is probably in her best interest. But if there is not time for that any job skills that the woman may have will become dated by the time she can finally go back into the work force. And face it, if you and your job skills are dated, especially as a woman, it is a lot harder to get a decent paying job.

I think single parents are a seperate issue, and I know all about that personally. I was speaking about double income families, no one benefits from this, other than the government.