Wifely Duties
POSTED BY: piratenews
UPDATED: Saturday, January 9, 2010 04:47
VIEWED: 63010
PAGE 1 of 2
Quote:
Gulf Daily News
Referring to the news 'Man raped wife,' first of all she failed in her primary duties as a wife in this case.
Denying sex to the partner stands valid for a divorce.
Secondly he has not gone to anybody else but approached his wife that is his right as a husband.
Thirdly God has created women in a way to satisfy an average man so that he need not bother to look at any other woman with the wrong intention provided the so-called wife takes care of him.
Naturally men are more aggressive in terms of sex compared to women, while the latter will find ample reasons for postponing it.
Finally I would like to say that this case should be treated as 'Wife refused to have sex with her husband.'
A desperate husband
www.gulf-daily-news.com/1yr_arc_Articles.asp?Article=237382&Sn=LETT&Is
sueID=31266&date=12-11-2008
www.musc.edu/vawprevention/research/wiferape.shtml
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,244098,00.html
Church lady Betty Page RIP
Read between the lines for the most important tip
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
C'mon! No comment?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm taking it as comedy there, Guy.
Not really on board with that whole philosopy, since...
A - I do the housewife gig better than any chick I've ever dated.
(Thus the alter-ego of Domestic Dynamo!)
B - I can do for my own damned self, and have no tolerance for anyone who can't within my life.
That's not to say there's not a lot of lies and bullshit goin on what with rabid feministas trying to demasculate men as revenge under the banner of "equality" - but I nailed one ex good and solid on that one when she brought it up.
"You want equality ? fine, change your own fucking spark plugs, here's a wrench."
Amazing how fast she abandoned that line of thought and offered to make dinner instead.
People are people, and in todays world gender matters as little as race, but goddamn that doesn't stop some folk from making an issue out of stupid shit like that, does it now ?
Really, I could care less - any girl in my life has to meet my criteria, not anyone elses, and vice-versa, not simpler than that.
Who gives a shit what other people think.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Since disabled Im forced to do some of the househubby things. Parts of staying at home are pretty good, which is really underplayed by the media mafia. I can see why being a housewife is a highly soughtafter job these days, but very hard to find a husband who can afford it.
Instead girls and women are brainwashed to want to fight vampires, shoot bad guys, volunteer for military combat, go to college ($100,000 debt for the banksters), work a career (get a credit card at 39% plus late fees), dont get married (until its too late to make babies), ignore your biological clock (what clock?), be a lesbian (just buy an anonymous pervert felon sperm donor). "Sex in the City" has the ugliest Jewess on TV, so ugly that other Jewish comedians dedicate their monologues to her (in reality she's married to a rich Jewish guy and don't have to work, so he's probably investing some of his fortune on hos).
Women only have a short window of opportunity of sexual attractiveness to catch a husband and make babies, age 15 to 25-35. God and/or Evolution made it that way. Mad Doctors now put growth steroids in milk and plastics, causing girls to reach publerty before age 5, which results in early menopause, which reduces the opportunity to have babies. Birth hormone pills and other contraceptives cause sterility, breast cancer, cervical cancer and premature aging, making it harder to have babies.
Good Old Days of the 1950s versus Today:
1. Taxes were so low that women didn't have to work 5 months out of the year to pay 100% of their wages to Uncle Scam. Income tax only started for the middle class after WW2.
2. Since taxes were low women didn't have to work to survive and have a good standard of living.
3. Women could raise babies, instead of work until menopause, when it's too late. Not having kids results in extreme stress.
4. Now more kids are insane, raised by govt psyop babysitters in armed concentration camps. Govt skools force medicate millions of kids with drugs that cause brain damage. Sending kids to skool breaks the family bond, perhaps forever, and prevents kids from learning life skills that can only be learned at home.
5. Women in the workplace lowers wages for husbands, resulting in less income for families.
6. Stress on women in the workplace causes fights at home, divorces, car crashes, deaths, suicides, murders. Women must compete with men, who are more agressive. Travel splits up familes, allowing more time for affairs.
7. Women who work get less sex, which raises stress levels. Semen is a natural antidepressant (condoms not allowed - that's why they call it Gay?). Women who work get raped more.
8. Working women result in more burgleries since homes are abandoned during working hours.
9. Working women have more babies out of wedlock.
10. Any lawsuit for gender discrimination, sexual harassment or rape results in blacklisting FOREVER by companies with "human resource" depts, which use public court database searches for civil lawsuits. Win or lose, right or wrong don't matter.
Multi-trillionaire Rabbi David Rockefeller laughs at billions of goyim women who got suckered into paying him to work as his biatches. The Jew who made this video was assassinated by the Rockefellers, after founding the Libertarian and Constitution Parties.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1263677258215075609
I'd add that guys are brainwashed to look for working women, pimping out their girlfriends and/or wives for an extra paycheck (to pay the man's taxes).
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Not sayin ya don't have a point there in that last post - but the solution to it isn't to turn on each other over gender issues, that's just one more artificial divide (socially, it is) to keep us at each others throats so we don't gang up on THEM.
Motherhood oughta be a cherished, sacred and respected profession, and it always struck me as passing strange that it ain't.
Mine did a pretty good job, although it's never sat fully at rest the fact that she rather deliberately armed a laser guided tykebomb while doing so as an act of revenge against an unjust society.
Woulda been nice to have been *asked* first, and I still likely woulda done it, but the fact that I wasn't has always irked me just a little.
-Frem
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LaserGuidedTykebomb
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The secret that no one wants to let out is this is why Islam is so successful. It's not the men, it's the women. Society expects nothing of them, and in a multiple marriage, they only have to put up with their provider a small % of the time. Not Saudi burn them at the stake Islam, but normal Islam. The strongest defenders of it I have met have all been women. I agree with the free ride principle.
I think it's the biggest thing driving the drug market in this country: It's a free ride. Drug trades are easy money, and it's pretty easy to pump yourself up on amphetamines and opiates, let them withdraw from your system, and then check into the hospital as a schitzophrenic. There's a ring around here that does that in chain, they're all on disability for being hopeless schitzophrenics, a condition which they fake. Initially. Of course, long term use and they become real schitzophrenics, and those initially, they live the life of Riley, five or six junkies to an apt. all on public assistance, soon it devolves into spending it all on drugs when the candyman learns that they're easy money.
Eventually, the one here in town ended in AK47s, bodies burried in the forest, police hunts with dogs, some suicides, and of course, all charges against the candyman were dropped. The reason is simple: The cops are on the take.
The above is all true, and deeply disturbing from a social perspective. I think that we need to collectively recognize that the desire for personal free time is far greater than the freedome to wear sweatpants and drive cars, or even own property, that it's probably the principle driving force of our society. It probably helps provide our poor education: Terrible students have a lot more free time.
Just thought I'd lob this handgrenade into this sinking starhship
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I think that we need to collectively recognize that the desire for personal free time is far greater than the freedome to wear sweatpants and drive cars, or even own property, that it's probably the principle driving force of our society.
Amen to that.
As for free rides, house-wives, cherishing motherhood and the 1950's.. I think we can all agree that there are many good and complex reason things changed. They are not perfect now but neither were they necessarily better before.
Parenthood and earning the money to live decently are two things that are never easily combined without losses somehwere along the line. Be that loss of money, loss of equality, loss of experiences, loss of child bonding... Something is going to be cut back, always. We can only try, as parents, to be fair to one another and agree on an equal share of the burdens and joys. Whichever shape that may take.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think free time wouldn't be so artificially inflated in value if folks didn't have to feed the fucking Governments voracious appetite before themselves, you ask me.
And ponder this, one reason I am dire pissed at GM right now - when you ponder the chunk of that 
bailout that *I* am going to have to pay...
It's not a bit different than if the Gov sent some goons to my house, stuck a gun to my head and *forced* me to buy one of their overpriced, poor quality, gas guzzling SUVs, except I don't even GET the goddamn SUV now do I ?
GM is gonna rue the day, since I got a *lot* of contacts here within the auto industry, especially procurement, logistics and supply chain management - they're gonna have a hell of a time with their suppliers now if I have anythin to say about it, and damn straight that I will.
I want my fuckin money back, or the SUV, or an equivalent amount of revenge, which I tend to pay at 10-to-1, minimum.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow this thread is......unbelievable. Good old days huh! 'Leave it to Beaver Land' where everyone was happy?
Give me a frakking break. How big was valium use amongst housewives in the 50's and 60's? Just to get through the day.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If a marriage certificate is a license to rape a woman, I firmly stand by my choice to never sign one.
No matter the relationship, and no matter which party is saying it, the word "no" is always to be respected.
The end.
[/sig]
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"If a marriage certificate is a license to rape a woman, I firmly stand by my choice to never sign one."
Who said/believes that horseshit?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"If a marriage certificate is a license to rape a woman, I firmly stand by my choice to never sign one."
Who said/believes that horseshit?
I think it's fair to say that most people don't and PN was a bit more obvious than usual in his attempt to stir up entertaining outrage, so most people didn't bite.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Scenario:
Jeff has been out of work due to a lay-off for a while. It isn’t to bad he and his spouse are still able to keep their head above the bill collectors because she puts in a full day at the office. The thing is…… Jeff, in order to mellow his depression takes some of that money and heads down to the local bar to drink his sorrow away with his friends. His buddies do help make him feel better. Jeff heads home feeling better about himself and meets Mary in the kitchen where she’s taking things out of the frig to prepare the nights dinner. The drunken man sashays up to his pretty wife on course for a romantic evening. So, Mary isn’t in the mood. She’s worked all day, is getting dinner ready and now has to deal with a liquored up mate?
“Wifely Duties?” I personally think she has the right to refuse.
Course it works both ways…but if my honey came home all boozed up ready for ….. I think I’d have to give in. But that’s just me 
Z
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Wow this thread is......unbelievable. Good old days huh! 'Leave it to Beaver Land' where everyone was happy?
Give me a frakking break. How big was valium use amongst housewives in the 50's and 60's? Just to get through the day.
Crime was virtually non-existant, the Second Amendment was not infringed, houses cost under 50 grand, cars and gas were likewise cheap....
People believed in things, and MADE their dreams a reality. Folks worked hard and had the things to show for it.
Children grew up with their Moms making them breakfast, lunch AND dinner. Families sat down together to eat.
If a kid got in trouble, he was punished by his parents. You could count on your neightbors.
Sounds like a slice of heaven to me,
Granted, I believe a woman should be allowed to work, if she wants to. NOT because she has to, tho.
Nor do I think there is anything wrong with a woman who is a stay-at-home mom.
Have you ever noticed that those folks/homes with a mother as a housewife, are usually spotless, always have food prepared, and the kids are generally better behaved?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
If a marriage certificate is a license to rape a woman, I firmly stand by my choice to never sign one.
US military Status of Forces Agreement changes law to allow rapists to marry their victims to avoid arrest in Iraq
www.equalityiniraq.com
Many married folks learn the hard way to never sign a marriage contract with the govt, which literally marries them to the govt. If they get divorced, the govt judge will put one of them in jail for civil contempt, to extort all their family's wealth. Better to only get a church wedding, and no civil contract with the govt.
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Wow this thread is......unbelievable. Good old days huh! 'Leave it to Beaver Land' where everyone was happy?
Give me a frakking break. How big was valium use amongst housewives in the 50's and 60's? Just to get through the day.
Some friends of mine lived what I thought was the 1950s lifestyle in the 1970s. Their dad was an engineering director and their mom a housewife. Nice house, private schools, A+ students, sports stars yet geeky kids. One became an airline pilot the other an MD director. Ran into her 20 years later. She said the only way she survived college was by psych therapy. Seems she grew up with a crazy mom. By crazy I mean homicidal schizophrenic psychopath. Every day after school she had to rush home and "HIDE THE GUNS", "to keep her mom from shooting her dad". My theory is she had an adverse reaction to a medication, but failed to sue for malpractice damages. Speed also causes psychosis as a side effect. Beware Dexatrim non-prescription "diet" pills. And they weren't smart enough to buy a $200 gunsafe.
Quote:
Originally posted by zzetta13:
The Scenario:
Jeff has been out of work due to a lay-off for a while. It isn’t to bad he and his spouse are still able to keep their head above the bill collectors because she puts in a full day at the office. The thing is…… Jeff, in order to mellow his depression takes some of that money and heads down to the local bar to drink his sorrow away with his friends. His buddies do help make him feel better. Jeff heads home feeling better about himself and meets Mary in the kitchen where she’s taking things out of the frig to prepare the nights dinner. The drunken man sashays up to his pretty wife on course for a romantic evening. So, Mary isn’t in the mood. She’s worked all day, is getting dinner ready and now has to deal with a liquored up mate?
“Wifely Duties?” I personally think she has the right to refuse.
Course it works both ways…but if my honey came home all boozed up ready for ….. I think I’d have to give in. But that’s just me
Z
Scenario: Husband does not work, for whatever reason. Wife can't take the pressure of being The Man of the house, working in the cutthroat Mans World. Wife becomes an alcoholic pill-popper smoker to "cope", and because she begins to hate all men. Drinking a 6-pack or quart of liquor every day adds 150 pounds of flubber. Pills cause other medical and behavior problems. Celebacy is the safest form of birth contro, and intentional intimacy avoidance perhaps due to suppressed incest memories. Wifely duties no longer required results in more depression by ignoring a human need for human contact. Obeisity also destroys her ability to get promoted or make friends. Self image plummets. The downward spiral accellerates...
And somebody is responsible for brainwashing 100-million parents to murder 50-million of their own children in USA, for "financial reasons". Murder for hire was legalized by Roe v Wade. Jane Roe BTW did get to have her baby, which she loved very much. No nation has ever survived that failed to sustain its population.
Islam does not murder their next generation. Polygamy is a Christian value too, until the homosexual pagan Catholic pope kings genocided Europe to build their tax-exempt Vatican Nation. Mormons have been quite successful with polygamy. The Vatican also runs the illegal alien invasion of USA, and f
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Crime was virtually non-existant, the Second Amendment was not infringed, houses cost under 50 grand, cars and gas were likewise cheap....
People believed in things, and MADE their dreams a reality. Folks worked hard and had the things to show for it.
And all of this because of housewives? Hmm. GOOD, attentive parenting plays a role in creating optimistic, law-abiding citizens, but neither do I think that the 1950's were thecrime-free, happy paradise you make it out to be, nor that women staying at home had ALL that much to do with it.
Try and look at this image you paint from the perspective of a 1950's woman. Even ignoring the blatant inequality before the law, and the blatant sexism in society alive in those days. Stay. At. Home. No job. No independent income. Your children HAVE to be your entire focus. The house HAS to be spotless. Your interaction with other adults is limited and as is your involvement in intellectual pursuits and current affairs. And it's the same thing day after day.
Yes, it has its rewarding aspects, but I think there is a big reason why not all women strive for this and it is just as valid a negative aspect of the 1950's as all those positive aspects you describe and should always be taken into account.
Quote:
Children grew up with their Moms making them breakfast, lunch AND dinner. Families sat down together to eat.
If a kid got in trouble, he was punished by his parents. You could count on your neightbors.
Sounds like a slice of heaven to me,
Yes, sounds like heaven if you're the kid or the husband. Try and view this image as the one making breakfast, lunch and dinner and doing the dishes, cleaning up afterwards, every time, every day. While the others do not. That home-y feeling the husband and children experience is not what a housewife necessarily experiences because she is surrounded by her job 24/7. She doesn't get to leave work and then relax.
Quote:
Granted, I believe a woman should be allowed to work, if she wants to. NOT because she has to, tho.
Nor do I think there is anything wrong with a woman who is a stay-at-home mom.
Neither do I have something against stay-at-home moms. If this is the life they want, more power to them, I'm sure they will have a beautiful family life.
BUT doesn't your argument contain an inherent blame toward working moms (who choose it and are not forced to do it) because their choice not to be at home negates all those positive things you ascribe to the existence of housewives? Or are you willing to cede that there are uniquely positive aspects to working mothers?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Crime was virtually non-existant, the Second Amendment was not infringed, houses cost under 50 grand, cars and gas were likewise cheap....
People believed in things, and MADE their dreams a reality. Folks worked hard and had the things to show for it.
And all of this because of housewives? Hmm. GOOD, attentive parenting plays a role in creating optimistic, law-abiding citizens, but neither do I think that the 1950's were thecrime-free, happy paradise you make it out to be, nor that women staying at home had ALL that much to do with it.
Try and look at this image you paint from the perspective of a 1950's woman. Even ignoring the blatant inequality before the law, and the blatant sexism in society alive in those days. Stay. At. Home. No job. No independent income. Your children HAVE to be your entire focus. The house HAS to be spotless. Your interaction with other adults is limited and as is your involvement in intellectual pursuits and current affairs. And it's the same thing day after day.
Yes, it has its rewarding aspects, but I think there is a big reason why not all women strive for this and it is just as valid a negative aspect of the 1950's as all those positive aspects you describe and should always be taken into account.Quote:
Children grew up with their Moms making them breakfast, lunch AND dinner. Families sat down together to eat.
If a kid got in trouble, he was punished by his parents. You could count on your neightbors.
Sounds like a slice of heaven to me,
Yes, sounds like heaven if you're the kid or the husband. Try and view this image as the one making breakfast, lunch and dinner and doing the dishes, cleaning up afterwards, every time, every day. While the others do not. That home-y feeling the husband and children experience is not what a housewife necessarily experiences because she is surrounded by her job 24/7. She doesn't get to leave work and then relax.Quote:
Granted, I believe a woman should be allowed to work, if she wants to. NOT because she has to, tho.
Nor do I think there is anything wrong with a woman who is a stay-at-home mom.
Neither do I have something against stay-at-home moms. If this is the life they want, more power to them, I'm sure they will have a beautiful family life.
BUT doesn't your argument contain an inherent blame toward working moms (who choose it and are not forced to do it) because their choice not to be at home negates all those positive things you ascribe to the existence of housewives? Or are you willing to cede that there are uniquely positive aspects to working mothers?
Yes, I do blame "working" mothers, ESPECIALLY when they don't have to.
The lack of caring, loving parents, is where a LOT of the problems in our society come from.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
BUT doesn't your argument contain an inherent blame toward working moms (who choose it and are not forced to do it) because their choice not to be at home negates all those positive things you ascribe to the existence of housewives? Or are you willing to cede that there are uniquely positive aspects to working mothers?
Yes, I do blame "working" mothers, ESPECIALLY when they don't have to.
The lack of caring, loving parents, is where a LOT of the problems in our society come from.
Then why not say so upfront? Why the "I think women should be allowed to work if they want to, not if they have to" line?
And why not blame working husbands? They don't have to make a choice between parenthood and self-fullfillment. Or do they? Why aren't you more mad at fathers that work away from home all day and then come home too tired to play with their kids, which is a LOT more common than working mothers doing so.
I find it very telling that the answer to working mothers is to tell them to stop instead of trying to involve men MORE in the act of childrearing.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If you say so.
I do think women should be allowed to work if they want.
Let me clarify. I believe that A parent should be home (to clean and take care of it).
ESPECIALLY if there are children.
It can be either parent. But someone NEEDS to be at home.
Hell, if the guy works at McDonalds, and the woman makes 100k a year, the guy should be at home.
But dont tell me that BOTH parents should work.
Its because there is noone home that kids grow up so fucked up today.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
If you say so.
I do think women should be allowed to work if they want.
Let me clarify. I believe that A parent should be home (to clean and take care of it).
ESPECIALLY if there are children.
I take it you really mean one spouse should be home at all times, especially if there are children?
Quote:
It can be either parent. But someone NEEDS to be at home.
Hell, if the guy works at McDonalds, and the woman makes 100k a year, the guy should be at home.
But dont tell me that BOTH parents should work.
Its because there is noone home that kids grow up so fucked up today.
This I find a more reasonable basis for debate.
(A personal question: Would you be willing to be the stay-at-home parent or house-keeper, incomes being more or less equal? How much do you like your job? What if you really LOVED your job?)
I agree that children should not be left alone unsupervised for long afternoons every day. I do not think that one parent staying home full time is the only solution to this.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Crime was virtually non-existant, the Second Amendment was not infringed, houses cost under 50 grand, cars and gas were likewise cheap....
People believed in things, and MADE their dreams a reality. Folks worked hard and had the things to show for it.
And all of this because of housewives? Hmm. GOOD, attentive parenting plays a role in creating optimistic, law-abiding citizens, but neither do I think that the 1950's were thecrime-free, happy paradise you make it out to be, nor that women staying at home had ALL that much to do with it.
Try and look at this image you paint from the perspective of a 1950's woman. Even ignoring the blatant inequality before the law, and the blatant sexism in society alive in those days. Stay. At. Home. No job. No independent income. Your children HAVE to be your entire focus. The house HAS to be spotless. Your interaction with other adults is limited and as is your involvement in intellectual pursuits and current affairs. And it's the same thing day after day.
Yes, it has its rewarding aspects, but I think there is a big reason why not all women strive for this and it is just as valid a negative aspect of the 1950's as all those positive aspects you describe and should always be taken into account.Quote:
Children grew up with their Moms making them breakfast, lunch AND dinner. Families sat down together to eat.
If a kid got in trouble, he was punished by his parents. You could count on your neightbors.
Sounds like a slice of heaven to me,
Yes, sounds like heaven if you're the kid or the husband. Try and view this image as the one making breakfast, lunch and dinner and doing the dishes, cleaning up afterwards, every time, every day. While the others do not. That home-y feeling the husband and children experience is not what a housewife necessarily experiences because she is surrounded by her job 24/7. She doesn't get to leave work and then relax.Quote:
Granted, I believe a woman should be allowed to work, if she wants to. NOT because she has to, tho.
Nor do I think there is anything wrong with a woman who is a stay-at-home mom.
Neither do I have something against stay-at-home moms. If this is the life they want, more power to them, I'm sure they will have a beautiful family life.
BUT doesn't your argument contain an inherent blame toward working moms (who choose it and are not forced to do it) because their choice not to be at home negates all those positive things you ascribe to the existence of housewives? Or are you willing to cede that there are uniquely positive aspects to working mothers?
Yes, I do blame "working" mothers, ESPECIALLY when they don't have to.
The lack of caring, loving parents, is where a LOT of the problems in our society come from.
There is so much bullshit in this thread that the smell is sky high. But this has got to be the topper. In case you had not nticed WOMEN for the most part raise their kids......Men tend to have a nasty habit of forgetting that their 30 seconds of pleasure last a liftime, so don't give me any of this crap that working mothers are the root of the problem.
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
FORSAKEN original
Trolls Against McCain
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I can't believe the BS posted here.
Women have NEVER had a free ride, historically or during evolution.
Look at more primitive societies - you will find females provide roughly 80%+ of the food through gathering and primitive agriculture, males provide 20% or less through hunting.
It is common for women to do all the farming AND cooking AND child minding AND fetching - water, firewood, goods - women are often treated as beasts of burden.
Girls are treated as trade goods, sold into prostitution, often to fund the father's drug habits.
Islam is the driving force of female mutilation. Hey guys, how would you like to have YOUR parts dug out with a rusty razor blade in order to be considered 'clean' ?
As for Islam - the more restrictive it is - in say Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Morocco, Nigeria, Western Sahara - the higher the female suicide rates, mutilation rates, abuse rates. Uuhhm, yeah, women really must like that.
When it comes to childcare, in Fiji today (an egalitarian society) the older people look after the children, men fish, and women plant, harvest and cook taro and other vegetables. Food is too hard to come by to waste the time of able-bodied adults in looking after children.
The idea of the delicate flower staying at home is a recent Western notion, spawned in the late 1800's, and only for high class consumption, as women in lower classes still did the farming, worked in mills and sweatshops, as housemaids etc.
And y'all need to read the book 'Mother Love'. It's historically common (in Europe through the 1200's to currently, for which data is available) that when females have social opportunities other than child-bearing, they choose those things other than child-bearing.
Female choice is the driving force of the 'demographic transition' - the reliable change to smaller family size as overall prosperity goes up, education goes up, and people move to cities.
A male dominated society in which females are restricted has never been a good things for women. And given the choice, women choose otherwise.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Ahhh, that's so big of you. I'm sure all the women of the world bow down and thank you for so condescendingly granting them permission to live their own lives!
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Granted, I believe a woman should be allowed to work, if she wants to.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
As for free rides, house-wives, cherishing motherhood and the 1950's.. I think we can all agree that there are many good and complex reason things changed. They are not perfect now but neither were they necessarily better before.
Aaron Russo said it was to increase the tax base. My analysis would be that it was to increase the labor pool, and thereby decrease the price of labor.
mindless hordes always follow their self-appointed representatives.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:Quote:
As for free rides, house-wives, cherishing motherhood and the 1950's.. I think we can all agree that there are many good and complex reason things changed. They are not perfect now but neither were they necessarily better before.
Aaron Russo said it was to increase the tax base. My analysis would be that it was to increase the labor pool, and thereby decrease the price of labor.
mindless hordes always follow their self-appointed representatives.
So women chose to work in order to increase the tax base..? How could such a thing be dictated from above? If the 1950's were as golden as some of here claim, why would women willingly change this?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Swish,
Shut-up.
My point was not that women should be barefoot. pregnant, and in the kitchen.
But rather,
SOMEONE NEEDS TO BE HOME WITH THE CHILDREN.
Whether its the father, or the mother.... if you have kids, someone needs to be there for them.
Stop allowing schools, and expensive day-care to raise them.
The problem, as I see it, is that people have forgotten that it is a RESPONSIBILITY to have children. Not a right, or a status symbol.
You are responsible for bringing the child up to adult-hood.
NOT just by buying them the best toys. But by raising/teaching them to be GOOD people.
Fucking socialists think that the government can raise their kids for them. They forget that a kid needs more than a PS3 to grow up right. He/she needs loving PARENTS, to grow.
No wonder our society is so screwed up. You have a bunch of kids raised by the streets, or by schools, or just left to fend for themselves.
You fucking make them, you better fucking raise them right.
Dammit, why is this concept so hard for you lazy bastards?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And why are you not responding to the questions people ask you? (I.e., my question of whether you would be perfectly happy to be a housekeeper who cleans and guards the house all day and nothing else.)
And I think you would find a whole lot more common ground with people if you had not focused specifically on mothers before. That naturally drew some irritation from others and now you react aggressively to that irritation as if people are arguing against the concept of responsible parenting as a whole.
People asking about where you place the role of working fathers or shared responsibility, like both parents working part time, or possible alternatives to the housewife syndrome you can envision.. that's not an unjustified request.
Calm down, employ some benefit of doubt and you might be surprised that most people DO agree with your concept that parents should spend more time with their kids.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Aaron Russo said it was to increase the tax base. My analysis would be that it was to increase the labor pool, and thereby decrease the price of labor.
The trillionaire NWO kingpins who own the private central banks, that keep all income taxes (thus owning all governments and taxslaves), pick and choose what they want their slaves to do. Their program has been in effect for over 200 years, according to their own published confessions.
This also doubles the labor pool to cut wages by over 50%, as Detroit is finding out this week as Congress nationalizes (Communizes) the automobile industry. Instead of raising wages of working folk to $30/hour, They want to cut everyone down to $5/hour. The Jap car plants in USA only ASSEMBLE with unskilled labor, they don't manufacture with machinists, fabricators, engineers and steelworkers, and even their office workers are in Japan.
Read what the Rockefellers and Rothschilds write, and you realize thay want to destroy our families. Communism and fascism were their creation to that endgame. They started World Wars 1 and 2, that genocided 100-million people.
When you have 300-Trillion in your private piggybank, you can pretty much buy whoever you want, which buys a lot of brainwashing from the media mafia whores.
For example, when they wanted to get women to get addicted to tobacco, they when to Jewish adman and CIA agent Edward Bernays, Sigmond Freud's nephew, who first brainwashed women to smoke, "by making them want a penis".
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=bbc+century+of+the+self#
Joe Camel is a penis/vagina
My grandmother died of throat cancer from smoking at age 32, so I never met her. Great genocide program that costs each tobacco addict over $100,000 in tobacco over their lifetime, plus $100,000 in medical bills, which the Rockefellers also profit from. Tobacco is a great tool to destroy families, when they can't even afford to buy houses due to tobacco expenses, which is more expensive than a gambling addiction.
Sheeple think their thoughts are their own, but in reality they're brainwashed by 10,000s hours of TeeVee and skoolin.
We've all been duped. Is it too late to fix it?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:
We've all been duped. Is it too late to fix it?
I feel pretty happy, but maybe it's the just my tap water. What do you mean by "fix it?" Maybe if you paint a picture of what you see life would be without these New World Order kingpins pulling all the levers we could understand what we're missing?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Stop it, my sides are splitting.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by zzetta13:
The Scenario:
Jeff has been out of work due to a lay-off for a while. It isn’t to bad he and his spouse are still able to keep their head above the bill collectors because she puts in a full day at the office. The thing is…… Jeff, in order to mellow his depression takes some of that money and heads down to the local bar to drink his sorrow away with his friends. His buddies do help make him feel better. Jeff heads home feeling better about himself and meets Mary in the kitchen where she’s taking things out of the frig to prepare the nights dinner. The drunken man sashays up to his pretty wife on course for a romantic evening. So, Mary isn’t in the mood. She’s worked all day, is getting dinner ready and now has to deal with a liquored up mate?
“Wifely Duties?” I personally think she has the right to refuse.
Course it works both ways…but if my honey came home all boozed up ready for ….. I think I’d have to give in. But that’s just me
Z
Is there really some question here that women don't have the right to refuse? I mean, do we even have to play out any scenario to understand that?
Good lord, this thread feels like it was written in about 1967. And some of it by insane people
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
PN
So you've met my friends Rockefeller, Rothschild and Company. Yes, you are correct on their bottom line. No argument here.
It's not too late, but it's getting late... I think that the proper countermove would require a great deal more discretion.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Magonsdaughter,
You missed the tactical tool of inflamatory rhetoric.
The point here is the very real threat to the human race posed by RR&Co. Far from being insane, we are very very informed. I can question PN's tactics, one of which is posting the most inflamatory thing possible to generate traffic, but I can't question his motives or understanding of the situation.
Also, bear in mind, the inflamatory topic tactic is well exploited by the media. Who hear did not read the story of the "Happy Birthday Adolph Hitler" story? The point of that story was to attack WalMart. Methhead Nazis are everywhere, that's not even news. But they used it to get almost everyone to read the story. So, I'll grant that it works.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I can question PN's tactics, one of which is posting the most inflamatory thing possible to generate traffic, but I can't question his motives or understanding of the situation.
Actually, that whole "most inflammatory thing possible" part of his posts is EXACTLY what makes me question his motives and understanding of the situation.
Look, if I say I'm pissed because I ordered a Domino's pizza and it took them 45 minutes to deliver it, that's a legitimate gripe. If I post, however, that I ordered a Domino's pizza from those money-grubbing big-nosed Jews who run the World Pizza Order, and that they genocided 50 million Italians to get it to my door in 30 minutes and then demanded payment in the form of their FedNote scrip and wouldn't take my legal gold, which is the ONLY form of money that's real and legal, I just come across as batshit crazy.
It really is just that simple. Not EVERYBODY is out to get you. Conspiracies happen, but not EVERYTHING is a conspiracy, much less a part of a larger "uber-conspiracy".
Mike
"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Yes, you are correct on their bottom line."
To go back to some earlier posts - the 1950's were all about getting women out of the factories and back into the home. That was to make room for returning GI's in the workplace. Increasing the tax base had nothing to do with it. Women NOT working - which WAS the goal - would decrease the tax base, not increase it.
Despite that, lower class women have always had to work, no matter what kind of low-paying 'female' jobs they were relegated to (domestic/ maid, waitress, retail sales etc). For them, the 1950s through 1970s were about 'help wanted, female' ads for book-keepers, and 'help wanted, male' ads for accountants, 'help wanted, female' ads for waitresses and 'help wanted, male' ads for bartenders. A 'trained' woman could be a secretary, not an executive assistant. An 'educated' woman could be a nurse but not a doctor, or teacher but not a professor, or librarian. Women did not get union apprenticeships, nor did they get admitted to medical school.
For better or worse, the 1960's 'women's liberation' movement was started by white, middle-class women who were unhappy with being trapped in the limited role of wife and mother. It did do some good things - though it took decades, in some cases - it opened up a few real opportunities for women.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Not everything is a conspiracy.
But, there are conspiracies.
Its only after the event happens, that we know what really was the truth.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Of COURSE rich people try to run things so as to make themselves even richer.
DUH !
But chasing after non-existant conspiracies when there are real ones to address doesn't help any.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It opened up opportunities at the cost of the lives of the children that these women would abandon for their own wants.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
For better or worse, the 1960's 'women's liberation' movement was started by white, middle-class women who were unhappy with being trapped in the limited role of wife and mother. It did do some good things - though it took decades, in some cases - it opened up a few real opportunities for women.
Women's Lib was started by Jewish CIA agent Gloria Steinham, as a nefarious plot to overthrow USA.
Just like CIA agent Timothy Leary gave CIA LSD to the sheeple.
And CIA agent E Howard Hunt helped blow JFK's head off.
And military killers landed on the "moon", as military killers genocided 2.5-million Vietnamese allies.
Now 17-year-old girls are getting their heads blown off as machinegunners for the US military in combat zones.
No one is more hopelessly enslaved as she who thinks she is free.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"It opened up opportunities at the cost of the lives of the children that these women would abandon for their own wants."
And all these women had those children without a man ?
Why are you saying the women HAS to be the one to give up personal opportunities and look after the kids - and the man doesn't have any responsibility to them at all ?
Wulf, what I get from you posts is that you have a serious problem with feeling entitled. And you are mad at the non-white-male-us-born world - at blacks, at women, at Polacks - b/c you didn't get those things to which you feel entitled.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wrong.
I don't feel "entitled" to ANYTHING. I worked for what I have. Suffered, bled and killed part of my heart to gain what I have.
In THIS thread, I have issue with the idea that people can create a life, but then are so spoiled that they don't want to take care of it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Then don't go blaming women and not men.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't blame women.
I blame the idea behind.
Rue,
You and I can go head-to-head on another thread, if you wish. I welcome the challenge.
But, in THIS thread, I am saying that men or women need to be home for the children they create.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"It opened up opportunities at the cost of the lives of the children that these women would abandon for their own wants."
It looks to me like you do blame women.
No, I have no interest in debating you. I find your thinking limited, and driven by assumptions and personal issues you don't even know are there. Digging through your demons seems like an unpleasant task.
In the strictly biological sense, women are only required to look after children for the first 6 months to a year, depending on weaning. Many societies - from the Fijiians to the Israelis - do perfectly well with communal child care. The idea that children need to be raised by parents in the home is a recent notion.
That's not to say that children don't need care - but the level of care and its providers are far more flexible than you think.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"It opened up opportunities at the cost of the lives of the children that these women would abandon for their own wants."
It looks to me like you do blame women.
No, I have no interest in debating you. I find your thinking limited, and driven by assumptions and personal issues you don't even know are there. Digging through your demons seems like an unpleasant task.
In the strictly biological sense, women are only required to look after children for the first 6 months to a year, depending on weaning. Many societies - from the Fijiians to the Israelis - do perfectly well with communal child care. The idea that children need to be raised by parents in the home is a recent notion.
That's not to say that children don't need care - but the level of care and its providers are far more flexible than you think.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
"No, I have no interest in debating you. I find your thinking limited, and driven by assumptions and personal issues you don't even know are there. Digging through your demons seems like an unpleasant task."
I can say the same to you.
But I have the balls to do it for you.
Whatever.
Level of care? Let me guess, Rue. You have no children, and you don't have any clue as to what you are speaking about.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
It opened up opportunities at the cost of the lives of the children that these women would abandon for their own wants.
You say you are in favor of equal responsibility between men and women yet then you post sentences like the one above.
WHY do you never argue in terms of how BOTH genders could have handled this rightful levelling of career and life opportunities better? You only blame women for rightfully wanting the options that men have always had!
You'd be a lot more credible if you for once focused on what men could have done or could still do better, to ensure this optimal child care you reasonable expect to be provided.
You ignore those opportunities for the purpose of repeating over an over again your anger at women. That's unproductive.
Are you seriously saying that it's the fault of 1960's/70's women only? SOMEtime it had to change. Do you ever even try to put yourself into the shoes of women back then?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So, in your Einsteinian wizardry, how do you NOT have both parents working to financially support a household in this day & age? How about instead of having the government raise kids for peeps, they make it easier (possible) for one parent to be home with the kids? Uh-oh...socialism again. So, die out as a species in America then? Why do you hate women, kids & America, Wulf?
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Fucking socialists think that the government can raise their kids for them. They forget that a kid needs more than a PS3 to grow up right. He/she needs loving PARENTS, to grow.
You fucking make them, you better fucking raise them right.
The sly Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Level of care? Let me guess, Rue. You have no children, and you don't have any clue as to what you are speaking about."
How little you know.
I was HOPING to expand your thinking beyond your childhood hurts and disappointments. There is a whole world out there that's different from the one you grew up in, and hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution and history to learn from. But, nevermind. Keep on thinking the way you always have.
ETA: "But I have the balls to do it for you." Well, I have no idea what this means, except that somehow I'm supposed to out-macho you or be defeated by you trying to out-macho me. What do you want to do next ? Compare chest hair ? Arm-wrestle ? Have a burping contest ?
And, unless I'm one of those horrible emasculating, selfish women you complain about, why would I bother ?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"If a marriage certificate is a license to rape a woman, I firmly stand by my choice to never sign one."
Who said/believes that horseshit?
Did you... read the initial post of this thread?
Allow me to refresh for you.
Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:
Referring to the news 'Man raped wife,' first of all she failed in her primary duties as a wife in this case.
Denying sex to the partner stands valid for a divorce.
Secondly he has not gone to anybody else but approached his wife that is his right as a husband.
Thirdly God has created women in a way to satisfy an average man so that he need not bother to look at any other woman with the wrong intention provided the so-called wife takes care of him.
Naturally men are more aggressive in terms of sex compared to women, while the latter will find ample reasons for postponing it.
Finally I would like to say that this case should be treated as 'Wife refused to have sex with her husband.'
For the record, I know more than a few women who want more sex than they're getting, and are more aggressive than their husbands or boyfriends, but that's neither here nor there.
Yes, I'm glad you agree that it's horse shit, but this was the original topic of conversation, and has become an equally horse-shit topic that a woman belongs in the home, cooking and cleaning and bearing children.
I do not disagree that children need care.
My mother worked, and worked hard, and raised me herself, and never left me alone. She was off work in time to pick me up from school. Sometimes I had babysitters, but it wasn't all that common and they were people I actually liked. On the weekends I saw my dad, and the one summer I spent with him he left me alone far more than she ever did. She did what she had to do. She was a good mom, and don't you dare say otherwise just because she wasn't home every hour of every day.
[/sig]
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Swish,
Shut-up.
My point was not that women should be barefoot. pregnant, and in the kitchen.
But rather,
SOMEONE NEEDS TO BE HOME WITH THE CHILDREN.
Whether its the father, or the mother.... if you have kids, someone needs to be there for them.
Stop allowing schools, and expensive day-care to raise them.
The problem, as I see it, is that people have forgotten that it is a RESPONSIBILITY to have children. Not a right, or a status symbol.
You are responsible for bringing the child up to adult-hood.
NOT just by buying them the best toys. But by raising/teaching them to be GOOD people.
Fucking socialists think that the government can raise their kids for them. They forget that a kid needs more than a PS3 to grow up right. He/she needs loving PARENTS, to grow.
No wonder our society is so screwed up. You have a bunch of kids raised by the streets, or by schools, or just left to fend for themselves.
You fucking make them, you better fucking raise them right.
Dammit, why is this concept so hard for you lazy bastards?
much Wulf?No, actually, you've convinced me. I had been leaving my twelve kids scrounging in the trailer park garbage dump for the past two years while I sucked down skunky beer and bitched about how small my welfare checks are, but now I see the light!
*rolls eyes*
Seriously, Wulf, is that what you think everyone but YOU is like? Where do you make this shit up? How did you get from me saying that women don't need your high-handed permission, to the completely over-orated preaching of the obvious above?
What a ma-roon.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Wait - I thought this wasn't just about women? Admit it Wulf - you're a sexist old coot, aren't you? Be a REAL man and own up to it!
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
It opened up opportunities at the cost of the lives of the children that these women would abandon for their own wants.
Hmm. Or were you just treated like shit by your own mother and that's why you make these assumptions? If that's the case, I'm truly sad for you. Bad parents suck. But all women aren't like that, and you do yourself and women a disservice by projecting the blame.
(And if this offends you, tough. The tone of your post above doesn't encourage me to be gentle with you. Consider it a fuck-you-very-much.
)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Kwicko,
ROFL.
Quote:
Actually, that whole "most inflammatory thing possible" part of his posts is EXACTLY what makes me question his motives and understanding of the situation.
Are there 50 million italians?
My point exactly, I'm not sure that "fucking jews" is an approach that adds to your credibility, but his point would be that it attracts attention and responses, which gives him audience, which is true. He knows it sounds batsh*t crazy, and doesn't care, because it works.
I think the point was about how the new society has mandated everyone's time, and there is no free time, and no time to raise children, so they're being raised by the public school and the idiot box, but I have learned from experience that such a post doesn't generate the same level of response.
I still think there's another way, I just haven't found out what it is yet.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Phoenix,
PN was trying to attract responses with absurd remarks. It's not new. but arguing whether that is a good tactic is probably more fruitful than arguing whether it's a good position. I'm guessing no one, including PN supports the position. A lot of people might support the mild, non-reponse getting "someone other than the state or TV needs to take care of the kids"
Personally, I'd propose some sort of communal organization, I don't have great faith in parenting. But that's a whole other story
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Kwicko,
I think the point was about how the new society has mandated everyone's time, and there is no free time, and no time to raise children, so they're being raised by the public school and the idiot box, but I have learned from experience that such a post doesn't generate the same level of response.
I still think there's another way, I just haven't found out what it is yet.
You are getting close there.
Fifty years ago, the average U.S. family made the same as the average family now, adjusted for inflation - but now we need 2 income earners to make that same wage. Other countries/economies do not.
The women's 'equal pay' baloney has traded the pay for one income earner for the same pay split between 2 earners, subsidising the maternity leave and transient worker (work this year, not last year or next year) with the actual worker, so that all get "equal pay" whether they do the work or not.
So that now, the same pay out from companies/businesses is half as much per person, so most families MUST have 2 earners to keep up with the Joneses.
Other countries/economies do not have that disadvantage, so our economy slips farther behind (the rest of the world), despite the superior economic model of Capitalist Free Enterprise.
Some think that it is better to require 2 income earners per family. Some think it is better to require only one, and have the second optional, like 50 years ago. The benefit (some view) of the second is that when a single parent is a female, there is not as much stigma or as many obstacles in the path - many different jobs in many different fields are available to women now, for the women who chose to work them.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
jewelstaitefan
That's a pretty good analysis.
I'd only add that many of other countries have a similar situation and similar problems, but as we approach a one world economic scheme of socialist-capitalist hybrid, there is only one economy.
Capitalism is inherently evil, but it's infinitely better than socialism. Everything needs to be looked from our perspective, which I think it's safe to say, if someone enjoyed firefly for some reason other than that they were stoned, a part of them is either libertarian leaning or a complete anarchist.
That said, Capitalism is better because it coerces the population into slavery. The wage slave system is actually better than slavery itself from the point of view of the masters, because no whipping is required, or relatively little, and the cost of labor is below the cost of supplying food housing and medical care.
Dodging the argument that slaveholders throughout history ducked those responsibilities to their subjects, just suffice it to say that not only do employers duck them, so do service providers.
The main point here is that the cost of maintaining those basic services is now pushed off on the worker, and in order to get them, the worker has to a) give up on some of them, and b) go into debt.
Nazi work camps shirked on the cost until everyone died. They were stupid. The new masters not only shirk, but they get the workers owing them. (Everyone recalls the "Truck System") So, okay, not directly, but often indirectly, you may work for a corporation, but that corporation's major shareholders are the banks than loan the money for mortgages, credit cards, etc. The banks become the masters, and your boss is only the whip holder.
The reason that capitalism is infinitely superior for our purposes is that it is coercive, but by choice. We can opt out of it. Socialism is universal slavery by law. There is no option. And any socialists on the board, spare me the euro-socialism argument, those countries are 90% capitalism or more, more probably than the us, if you look at govt. control % of the economy.
At the moment, the scariest "change we can believe in" is Obama's idea that "You must buy health insurance for your children." Sounds good if you're not listening, but what it's really saying is "here's a very expensive bill that you will now have to pay to buy a consumer product which is a middleman for another consumer product that has no net benefit, if you want to have kids." That's another way of saying "You can opt out, or you can have kids." Not allowing people the freedom of having children under their own terms, a path that we embarked on with the introduction of Clinton and Waco, have carried on through Bush, and now will potentially complete with Obama, falls under the UN charter of genocide.
So, our ability to opt out will soon have to adapt, by creating its own insurance company, a shelter for those who choose freedom over slavery, so that they can have a right to have children.
Even with all of this evil about, it still does take only 20 hours a week of work to keep yourself afloat, if you do it right. This hasn't changed since the dawn of the human race. The only thing that changes is whether or not you have the freedom to make that choice.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
At the moment, the scariest "change we can believe in" is Obama's idea that "You must buy health insurance for your children." Sounds good if you're not listening, but what it's really saying is "here's a very expensive bill that you will now have to pay to buy a consumer product which is a middleman for another consumer product that has no net benefit, if you want to have kids." That's another way of saying "You can opt out, or you can have kids." Not allowing people the freedom of having children under their own terms, a path that we embarked on with the introduction of Clinton and Waco, have carried on through Bush, and now will potentially complete with Obama, falls under the UN charter of genocide.
I keep reading this thinking I'm missing something... are you equating his desire to see that all children get insurance with Genocide?
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Pizmo
Read the UN charter on genocide. I'm not equating anything, it's already there. He can provide children with healthcare all he wants. But that's not what he proposed. What he proposed was that "if you have children, you must buy them health insurance." That's intentionally discouraging the birth rate. Go read, learn.
It's not the only genocidal policy by our govt, against its own people, but at least we don't have a "one child policy" ... yet.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Pizmo
Read the UN charter on genocide. I'm not equating anything, it's already there. He can provide children with healthcare all he wants. But that's not what he proposed. What he proposed was that "if you have children, you must buy them health insurance." That's intentionally discouraging the birth rate. Go read, learn.
It's not the only genocidal policy by our govt, against its own people, but at least we don't have a "one child policy" ... yet.
I'll give the UN Charter a check in a few - I sincerely doubt any of it's authors would agree with your characterization though.
Just checked his site because, quite frankly I could not remember the details:
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Obama08_HealthcareFAQ.pdf
"When children are born, their parents will be assisted in signing them up for affordable, high quality coverage, either through their own employer-sponsored insurance plans, through Medicaid or SCHIP, or through options established by the Obama plan.
We will continue to make sure that children are covered, which may include verification when parents sign them up for daycare or school. Obama’s plan will help parents make sure their children get the care they need, at the time they need it."
Seems like a noble endeavor to me IF it can be done. I don't see any language that discourages having babies (if anything, it might encourage since they will be taken care of).
It's probably a little too early to tell - especially that part, "or through options established by the Obama plan."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Pizmo
Read the UN charter on genocide. I'm not equating anything, it's already there. He can provide children with healthcare all he wants. But that's not what he proposed. What he proposed was that "if you have children, you must buy them health insurance." That's intentionally discouraging the birth rate. Go read, learn.
It's not the only genocidal policy by our govt, against its own people, but at least we don't have a "one child policy" ... yet.
I'll give the UN Charter a check in a few - I sincerely doubt any of it's authors would agree with your characterization though.
Just checked his site because, quite frankly I could not remember the details:
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Obama08_HealthcareFAQ.pdf
"When children are born, their parents will be assisted in signing them up for affordable, high quality coverage, either through their own employer-sponsored insurance plans, through Medicaid or SCHIP, or through options established by the Obama plan.
We will continue to make sure that children are covered, which may include verification when parents sign them up for daycare or school. Obama’s plan will help parents make sure their children get the care they need, at the time they need it."
Seems like a noble endeavor to me IF it can be done. I don't see any language that discourages having babies (if anything, it might encourage since they will be taken care of).
It's probably a little too early to tell - especially that part, "or through options established by the Obama plan."
50-million illegal aliens need free medical care, er, 100-million. They average 6 anchor babies each... Billed to YOU.
And everyone will be forced at gunpoint to take the bioweaponized vaccines, that include live HIV and cancer virus. Same vaccines that infected 50% of Africans with AIDS. Just like the military is already forced to do by socialized medicine.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There is no freedom without the freedom to say no.
F.I.W.
http://www.abelard.org/e-f-russell.php
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Pizmo
Read the UN charter on genocide. I'm not equating anything, it's already there. He can provide children with healthcare all he wants. But that's not what he proposed. What he proposed was that "if you have children, you must buy them health insurance." That's intentionally discouraging the birth rate. Go read, learn.
It's not the only genocidal policy by our govt, against its own people, but at least we don't have a "one child policy" ... yet.
I'll give the UN Charter a check in a few - I sincerely doubt any of it's authors would agree with your characterization though.
Just checked his site because, quite frankly I could not remember the details:
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Obama08_HealthcareFAQ.pdf
"When children are born, their parents will be assisted in signing them up for affordable, high quality coverage, either through their own employer-sponsored insurance plans, through Medicaid or SCHIP, or through options established by the Obama plan.
We will continue to make sure that children are covered, which may include verification when parents sign them up for daycare or school. Obama’s plan will help parents make sure their children get the care they need, at the time they need it."
Seems like a noble endeavor to me IF it can be done. I don't see any language that discourages having babies (if anything, it might encourage since they will be taken care of).
It's probably a little too early to tell - especially that part, "or through options established by the Obama plan."
50-million illegal aliens need free medical care, er, 100-million. They average 6 anchor babies each... Billed to YOU.
And everyone will be forced at gunpoint to take the bioweaponized vaccines, that include live HIV and cancer virus. Same vaccines that infected 50% of Africans with AIDS. Just like the military is already forced to do by socialized medicine.
PN - my hat's off. I am amazed at how many buttons you can push in the space of 3 sentences. You should teach a class! Maybe you do?
I especially love, "forced at gunpoint to take the bioweaponized vaccines." Nice, but I really think it's missing some Hulking Demonic Nazi Nurse imagery (just guessing your style).
Whatever, you regain your stride with *somehow* (magic? witchcraft?) being able to add the words, "HIV" "cancer" "virus" "African" "AIDS" and the recently made toxic "socialized" all in just 2 sentences - f*cking amazing, tour de force English.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
There is no freedom without the freedom to say no.
F.I.W.
http://www.abelard.org/e-f-russell.php
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
I appreciate the link. I'm here to learn. "There is no freedom without the freedom to say no" SOUNDS like a no brainer, but I don't think it's that simple, it sounds like "never ask a No question," salesmen speak, and I don't trust it.
I will try and read the link.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In the campaign he said he'd mandate it. The message was clear: If you couldn't afford health insurance, you had no business having children. You must buy the product. And yes, lots of luck in those free programs still being around after a national program is established. He's so NWO, and it's so NWO to control population. The world becomes very simple once you see it. And it's not a conspiracy theory, it's out there in the open. Reduce the world populaton to one billion, it was in the mission statement of the CFR when Obama joined. He's on board with global population control.
My favorite was Nick Rockefeller on the subject:
"So that means 5 billion people have to do, who cares how they die?"
Oh, have fun, hope on. Some of us my fight against our extinction, but don't mind us, we're just finicky conservatives objecting to our extermination, it's just a little nitpick of ours. How quaint
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I highly reccommend the Asimov short story "The Winnowing" at this time.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:
50-million illegal aliens need free medical care, er, 100-million. They average 6 anchor babies each... Billed to YOU.
And everyone will be forced at gunpoint to take the bioweaponized vaccines, that include live HIV and cancer virus. Same vaccines that infected 50% of Africans with AIDS. Just like the military is already forced to do by socialized medicine.
PN - my hat's off. I am amazed at how many buttons you can push in the space of 3 sentences. You should teach a class! Maybe you do?
I especially love, "forced at gunpoint to take the bioweaponized vaccines." Nice, but I really think it's missing some Hulking Demonic Nazi Nurse imagery (just guessing your style).
Whatever, you regain your stride with *somehow* (magic? witchcraft?) being able to add the words, "HIV" "cancer" "virus" "African" "AIDS" and the recently made toxic "socialized" all in just 2 sentences - f*cking amazing, tour de force English.
Here ya go, for you folks who love strangers sticking needles to inject you with chemicals not on the label. Note the starvation is a common tool for serial killings in "hospices" in USA today, with folks of all ages strapped to gurneys begging for food, when their insurance money runs out, or when their doctors steal their million-dollar accounts (Terri Schiavo).
Quote:
Nurses' Participation in the Nazi Euthanasia Programs
Professor Susan Benedict, CRNA, DSN, FAAN
College of Nursing, Medical University of South Carolina
Western Journal of Nursing Research, April 1999
During the Nazi era, so-called "euthanasia programs" were established for handicapped and mentally ill children and adults. Organized killings of an estimated 70,000 German citizens took place at killing centers and in psychiatric institutions.
The end of 1996 marked the 50th anniversary of the Doctors' Trial in Nuremberg in which physicians were convicted of crimes against humanity.
At the specialized centers, children who were designated by the Reich Committee for euthanasia were killed shortly after arrival by medication or were starved to death. In the pediatric unit of Haar, for example, 332 children died of deliberate starvation or by an overdose of Luminal [Phenobarbital]. This drug was mixed into the children's food every morning and night until they became unconscious and developed pneumonia. Some were also given injections of morphine and scopolamine.
The doctors sometimes received a 250RM [approximately $800 US] Christmas bonus. In some clinics the tensions of the job were soothed by a visit to the wine cellars to mark every fiftieth killing with copious amounts of wine and cider.
Although the children were killed with injections or starvation, these methods were not efficient for the large number of adults at the killing centers. In these locations, gas was used. Patients were transported by bus from local and regional hospitals to the killing centers. "At the killing center, the arriving patients were met by the staff and led to the reception room by a male or female nurse, who might have accompanied them on their trip". They were then taken to gas chambers which were disguised as shower rooms.
Hitler ordered the organized euthanasia program for the adults to end in August 1941. The killings had become public knowledge and opposition to the programs came from individuals and churches; however, the children's euthanasia program continued without interruption and the stop order applied only to the killings in the gas chambers of the killing centers. "As with the children, after the stop order, physicians and nurses killed handicapped adults with tablets, injections, and starvation. In fact, more victims of euthanasia perished after the stop order was issued than before".
Fraudulent death certificates were prepared and the bodies were cremated. Families were notified of the deaths of these relatives and could receive an urn of ashes purported to be those of their loved one. In re
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yep, and having learned from some of the finest sleaze this world has ever produced, who were in fact idolized by the western world quite openly, and still are, secretly, in many political factions here even today...
Then went on to apply those same methods to others, having learned NOTHING from the experience but how to emulate it, in the same fashion an abused child often grows up to be an abusive parent.
From the Irgun-Etzel brownshirts to the Palestinian ghettos and "detention" camps, to the ethnic cleansing of the Sephardim, it's all the bloody same, and yet we're supposed to look the other way because they were victimized ?
And then did so to the point where they have a goddamn noose on our political process by rerouting foreign aid monies to buy and suborn our politicians who then vote them MORE foreign aid moneys to speed and continue the process, all the while spying on and sabotaging us at every turn and corner, up to and including taking out one of our naval vessels that saw a little too much ?
How blind does someone have to be to NOT call them out on this crap ?
I still say we need to cut em off, whatever it takes, AMDOCS, COMVERSE, The ZoneAlarm trickery, USS Liberty, the "Dancing Arabs", Urban Moving Systems, the "Art Students", AIPAC, The Lavon Incident, The false flag attack on the hotel in Kenya, Nov 2002, Adam Pearlman, Dov Zackheim and a lotta missin money, The Libya bait and switch that caused Reagan to bomb Quadaffis office, The King David Hotel, The high likelyhood that Entebbe was a false flag (raised by MI6), I mean hell folks, that's just the *documented* stuff, if you include events that cannot be substantially proven but most of the evidence points to em, this'd go six pages easy.
That doesn't make other assholes like the Tali-tubbies or the Northern Opium Alliance, or MEK or any of the others any better, but we do not (for the moment) consider them "friendly" as official policy, despite our idiotic support of BOTH Afghan factions busy thrashing each others brains out.
And we don't have signed treaties carrying Constitutional power with the others, especially not ones that demand we service their petroleum needs even at the expense of our own.
Think I jest ?
Do your homework and see for yourself.
To sum it up, folks, as clear as I can put it.
They. Are. Not. Our. Friends.
And every time we treat them like they are we get another knife in the back.
Isn't anyone else tired of that shit ?
Cause I know I am.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I can't believe the BS posted here.
Women have NEVER had a free ride, historically or during evolution.
Look at more primitive societies - you will find females provide roughly 80%+ of the food through gathering and primitive agriculture, males provide 20% or less through hunting.
It is common for women to do all the farming AND cooking AND child minding AND fetching - water, firewood, goods - women are often treated as beasts of burden.
Girls are treated as trade goods, sold into prostitution, often to fund the father's drug habits.
Islam is the driving force of female mutilation. Hey guys, how would you like to have YOUR parts dug out with a rusty razor blade in order to be considered 'clean' ?
As for Islam - the more restrictive it is - in say Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Morocco, Nigeria, Western Sahara - the higher the female suicide rates, mutilation rates, abuse rates. Uuhhm, yeah, women really must like that.
When it comes to childcare, in Fiji today (an egalitarian society) the older people look after the children, men fish, and women plant, harvest and cook taro and other vegetables. Food is too hard to come by to waste the time of able-bodied adults in looking after children.
The idea of the delicate flower staying at home is a recent Western notion, spawned in the late 1800's, and only for high class consumption, as women in lower classes still did the farming, worked in mills and sweatshops, as housemaids etc.
And y'all need to read the book 'Mother Love'. It's historically common (in Europe through the 1200's to currently, for which data is available) that when females have social opportunities other than child-bearing, they choose those things other than child-bearing.
Female choice is the driving force of the 'demographic transition' - the reliable change to smaller family size as overall prosperity goes up, education goes up, and people move to cities.
A male dominated society in which females are restricted has never been a good things for women. And given the choice, women choose otherwise.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
Hey, good post. Said everything I believe but am too lazy to write.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Oh, have fun, hope on. Some of us my fight against our extinction, but don't mind us, we're just finicky conservatives objecting to our extermination, it's just a little nitpick of ours. How quaint
Having read a few of your posts I completely understand why you'd be extremely suspicious of these kinds of medical plans.
In the meantime, all children already have some form of mandated health insurance/care by virtue of simply being alive: some of it is the traditional kind, some is "Health Care by ER," and some is just neglect, zero care. What kind of solution is that? Is that a civilized, advanced society? You see Genocide and I see the first steps to providing every citizen with some kind of health care, starting with children.
I'd love to hear a better option.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Oh, have fun, hope on. Some of us my fight against our extinction, but don't mind us, we're just finicky conservatives objecting to our extermination, it's just a little nitpick of ours. How quaint
How does population control equal extinction? Why must less humans on this planet (easily accomplished by having less children, not by killing off living humans) necessarily be a bad thing? The way I see it, we're quite a large number already, consuming, consuming, consuming, and not at all threatened by extinction except through overpopulation or our own aggressive tendencies in the first place.
And if someone can't afford health insurance for their kid maybe they SHOULD think twice about having a baby. Children deserve good health care.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just thought I'd post this here, to finish up an old topic.
The FLDS men who were found guilty of underage marriage are now in the sentencing phase. Others are still either on trial or waiting for their trials.
As I have said before and still maintain, this is not about them being punished for being 'different'. It's not about 'a few bad apples'. Grooming girl children and giving them no other choice but to be underage brides to much older men in polygamous marriages is DOCTRINE.
This thing is bent by its very nature.
http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2009/dec/17/keate-trial-state-rests-it
s-case-in-punishment/
SAN ANGELO, Texas — n Sentencing phase continues in sex assault
ELDORADO — Lead Prosecutor Eric Nichols will continue today offering further evidence and calling witnesses to testify in the sentencing phase of the trial of Allan Eugene Keate, a member of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints found guilty Tuesday by a Schleicher County jury on a charge of sexual assault of a child.
Keate elected before the trial began Dec. 7 to have his sentence determined by the jury rather than the judge, if convicted.
Wednesday began with jurors hearing testimony from prosecution witnesses. Documents saying Keate had married off his teenage daughters were entered into evidence.
Rebecca Musser, a former FLDS member, returned to the witness stand to testify about her life in an FLDS community. Musser had testified earlier in the trial.
She said she was “placed” with Rulon Jeffs, who was prophet of the FLDS community at the time.
The FLDS practice polygamy by arranging “spiritual” or “celestial” marriages that are not recognized by civil authorities.
Musser said that she was 19 years old and that Jeffs was 84. She said she was Jeffs’ 19th wife.
Nichols used a projector to show jurors a picture showing dozens of women clothed in white surrounding a man in a black jacket.
“These are all his wives at the time of the wedding photo,” Musser said.
Nichols then brought stacks of manila folders to Musser and had her verify the types of documents contained in them: personal records, priesthood records, marriage records and other categories.
Musser also explained the phrase “house in hiding,” which would later appear on pictures shown to the jury.
“We were taught that God would sweep the wicked off the face of the earth and ... a part of that group would come against (the FLDS), so they would need to hide their way of life,” Musser said.
The prosecution also called Carolyn Jessop as an expert witness on the sect, having lived in an FLDS community for 35 years. She left in 2003, she said, because she disagreed with the marrying age dropping to 14.
Jessop said she was among six wives and her husband fathered 54 children.
Life was convoluted and contentious in a polygamist household, she said.
“There was conflict with who got what jobs,” Jessop said. “There was a lot of contention among the wives. ... A lot of our religion was about how to keep sweet.”
Lead defense attorney Randy Wilson asked Jessop if she had any connection to Keate’s family life. She said she did not.
“She has no close or direct link,” Wilson said.
Nichols brought in an investigator with the Texas Attorney General’s office, Sgt. Wesley Hensley to comment on the contents of the evidence shown to Musser. He read off marriage records and personal records to show that Keate had multiple nonlegal wives and children by them and that he had taken a wife previously “sealed” to another man.
Nichols also questioned Hensley about the children.
“Did you find records that would indicate that these children were placed in a spiritual or celestial marriage?” Nichols asked.
“Yes,” Hensley said.
The prosecution then displayed a variety of documents indicating that Keate had participated in marrying off three of his daughters, two of them 15 and one 14.
Nichols later showed letters, also seen during the verdict phase of the trial, from Keate to FLDS prophet Warren Jeffs that complain
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
As I have said before and still maintain, this is not about them being punished for being 'different'. It's not about 'a few bad apples'. Grooming girl children and giving them no other choice but to be underage brides to much older men in polygamous marriages is DOCTRINE.
All religions and creeds practice polygamy every day. It's renamed adultery, fornication and divorce.
Doctors make trillion$ by selling contraception and aborticide DOCTRINE.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
"When children are born, their parents will be assisted in signing them up for affordable, high quality coverage, either through their own employer-sponsored insurance plans, through Medicaid or SCHIP, or through options established by the Obama plan.
We will continue to make sure that children are covered, which may include verification when parents sign them up for daycare or school. Obama’s plan will help parents make sure their children get the care they need, at the time they need it."
Seems like a noble endeavor to me IF it can be done. I don't see any language that discourages having babies (if anything, it might encourage since they will be taken care of).
It's probably a little too early to tell - especially that part, "or through options established by the Obama plan."
Here's the problem, Pizmo. No public option means people have to pay for that insurance outta their own pockets. Raising kids already costs a crapload of money. Now it costs more, which means people have an incentive to have fewer kids, because they can't afford them when before they might have been able to.
There's a movement out there associated with the globalist movement that wants to see a decrease in human population. The most obvious and likely reason from this is there's less people to share resources with for the people still around.
A decrease in population sounds like a good thing, they say "none of us live forever," and "this is for our children." But considering the manipulative way they go about discouraging the birth rate and other forms of social engineering... Well, there's of course the obvious question, when a prominent leader talks about how reducing global population should be a goal (often under the facade of environmentalism - which isn't a bad cause, it's just been co-opted), the average citizen and their families should ask if they're considered to be part of that group, or whether that leader is thinking about his peers and their families (the social elite). Probably it's the later. Second, the secrecy and underhandedness about the decreased/controlled population movement suggests to me they have other reasons for wanting smaller populations that they want to conceal. And third... I don't like their methods. More than enough reason for me to oppose the movement.
DT once sent me some information about the very first feminists, who were also very into eugenics. Disturbingly so.
I consider myself feminist, I'm female, I work, and I have no intention of having children. Pregnancy looks very painful and gross. I support any woman who wants to work, they have the right to make that choice. Hopefully they would do so in a manner that does not neglect the children they have at home, it is possible, just as you would hope fathers who work don't go out and spend all their cash gambling and drinking.
I don't know if the feminist movement is still an ally of eugenics. I hope not, because the stated goal, equality between sexes, isn't a bad one. Unfortunately, there's also feminists who seem to think equality means they're entitled to a little revenge on men, which is a hateful attitude, as bad as any racist. And I have to concede that a reduction in childbirth is a result of feminist attitudes, and reduction in childbirth is one of the interests of the crowd so keen on social engineering, so that element could very well still exist.
It does no good to join in a cause that sounds worthwhile if you don't know who is directing you and why. That's how people get scammed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"There's a movement out there associated with the globalist movement that wants to see a decrease in human population."
That movement must not be very strong in well-off European countries where having children is heavily supported through medical and social policies.
"And I have to concede that a reduction in childbirth is a result of feminist attitudes ..."
No, it is mainly due to the 'demographic transition' wherein, through improved economics, women find better things to do than have children.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And it is with much satisfaction that we're watchin em fry, Rue.
A much better result than drowning their victims in the foster care system - we've recently reached a tenative alliance with the Rebecca Project due to having mutual issues with how our legal system treats victims of this kind of abuse.
http://www.rebeccaproject.org/
Tenative cause my penchant for playing rough bothers em, but I ain't in charge no more, so no matter.
Thankfully the original El Dorado case which was so badly poisoned got dropped, otherwise many of these asshats would have walked, and I was very concerned some of em mighta got a free pass outta that, but thankfully once the folks who DID wanna make it a theological war got shut out of it, things have gone a lot smoother.
I still don't buy your still-unproven assertion that it was doctrine till you find it in their own records, but in practice one can certainly make the case - but then again, any biblical based belief can be called on a number of rather nasty things from the gruesome work of torture-porn they call a Bible anyhows.
Disagreement aside though, doctrine or not, anyone deliberating acting in an exploitive or abusive fashion to kids is gonna get short shrift from me, or even whatever flak I can help toss upon them, cause some of those jackasses in texas got fried on stuff their own handed over when it came clear what the game was.
(Where exactly do you think they got the documents in question, given that the original warrants for that mess got tossed ?)
Any belief system can be exploited in such a fashion once folk start settin it above their own human instincts - and frankly, neither one of us are completely without at least a mild dash of ulterior hostility towards them and their religion even if it weren't abusive, and as such we should not pretend that we are.
That said, I do believe we can agree that these bastards aren't going to pay nearly enough for their misdeeds, but having them out of the community is progress, and it's not like the place isn't still under watchful eyes.
I just wish to hell they'd bagged these guys up by the book in the first place instead of trying to kick off a Baptist-Mormon crusade, but one can thank Judge Walther for that, grrr.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Reading thru old posts, just my $0.02: Wulf hates his mom 'cause his dad wasn't even around to take the flak.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Another topic for another day.
I must try to bow out for the rest of the day, as my holiday vacation has left me with a post-vacation load of work !
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You and me both, I'm such a slacker..
We're *still* integrating that Canadian database cause the damned thing had to be rewritten almost entire due to compatibility issues, damn Excel all to hell.
I'll roast a couple bad actors in effigy for ya over lunch, tho.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:Quote:
"When children are born, their parents will be assisted in signing them up for affordable, high quality coverage, either through their own employer-sponsored insurance plans, through Medicaid or SCHIP, or through options established by the Obama plan.
We will continue to make sure that children are covered, which may include verification when parents sign them up for daycare or school. Obama’s plan will help parents make sure their children get the care they need, at the time they need it."
Seems like a noble endeavor to me IF it can be done. I don't see any language that discourages having babies (if anything, it might encourage since they will be taken care of).
It's probably a little too early to tell - especially that part, "or through options established by the Obama plan."
Here's the problem, Pizmo. No public option means people have to pay for that insurance outta their own pockets. Raising kids already costs a crapload of money. Now it costs more, which means people have an incentive to have fewer kids, because they can't afford them when before they might have been able to.
There's a movement out there associated with the globalist movement that wants to see a decrease in human population. The most obvious and likely reason from this is there's less people to share resources with for the people still around.
Hi Byte - I made those comments over a year ago (Dec 2008) before mandated insurance was even a glint in Big Ins' dirty rotten eye.
Fwiw, I can see your logic, but I don't agree with your suspicions or conclusions. You can't have exactly the same number of people on the planet year to year, so which is better for those that are alive, less or more?
I applaud China's one child policy, and by extension a reduction in future child births around the world so long as it's upfront and voluntary. Trouble is, much like there was with birthers and death panel believers, there are movements that want to make it seem like anyone who talks in favor of it is part of some kind of baby eating cult.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
No, it is mainly due to the 'demographic transition' wherein, through improved economics, women find better things to do than have children.
Same end result, a decrease in childbirth. Do you disagree? Women go to work, have less children. Demographic shift. The going to work part is part of equality of the sexes (and I admit this!) and therefore women going to work is encouraged by feminism, which causes a demographic shift. Is this WRONG?
Quote:
That movement must not be very strong in well-off European countries where having children is heavily supported through medical and social policies.
And what's the average birth rate of Europeans despite that? Low, is it? Perhaps because of social pressures and even subconscious messages about having less children for the better of the world, or even worries about the state of the world and bringing children into it?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah, I know those were a year old, but it had some bearing on the topic I wanted to discuss, so I addressed the comments about Obama's healthcare plan.
The problem with those policies is who it benefits, and it's not the populations the policy is instituted on.
The way I see it, it benefits the rich and those already in power, because those already in power are not having as many children anyway, so they aren't affected by the policies. But the lower classes that live a harder life and where it is less certain that their children will live to adulthood, these policies cause direct harm to them, and also exist to prevent the lower class population from exceeding a certain number that the powers that be think they can control.
That's how it is in China, the urban areas where all the power groups are (where they have undergone something like Rue's demographic transition) are unaffected, but rural areas and areas that are not Chinese ethnically but that the Chinese government claims are part of China, they are very much affected, and it is really almost a form of ethnic cleansing. The rural people of China do NOT like the one child policy. Perhaps they are selfish for wanting to have progeny that live long enough to reproduce themselves, but I don't think so.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
DT, the reality is that there are too mnay people for the earth to support. It may not feel that way since you live in the North American West, but you have not been to Europe, China, Japan, India, Bagladesh, Indonesia etc where any land that is even marginally arable is farmed, and every even semi-horizontal piece of land is occupied with something.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
DT, the reality is that there are too mnay people for the earth to support. It may not feel that way since you live in the North American West, but you have not been to Europe, China, Japan, India, Bagladesh, Indonesia etc where any land that is even marginally arable is farmed, and every even semi-horizontal piece of land is occupied with something.
Is DT ByteMite? It makes a kind of sense...
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
DT is male, and lives somewhere in the midwest. But we talk via e-mail. You should hear him mock me when I first told him I didn't want to have kids, or the thread he made last night where he keeps insisting that I've entirely misinterpreted Orwell. No, I GOT the point about the political rhetoric, but I still think that was just a small part of the link DT posted.
He also seems to think that I'm some kind of flirt, which, no. Just no. I'm not defined by his female-male axis, I deliberately took myself out of it, and it is frustrating as hell when someone condescends to me to say EITHER "You don't want kids or a romantic partner? Oh, it's just a phase!" OR "You don't want kids or a romantic partner? You've just been brainwashed by TPTB!"
But I think he has points about population control. He and I have been talking for a while about what the end goal of the leaders who want population decreases might be, it doesn't seem to me to be the stated goal of protecting the environment and building a future for our children. When has government or industry (one and the same) ever given a good GORRAM about the environment or the future? It's profits profits profits, how do I get me the biggest share?
And I like to confuzzle those assholes at every possible turn. So I try to figure out what they're up to. My theory on what their goal for population control might be changes from week to week based on whether a simpler more obvious reason occurs to me. This is my latest one.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Yeah, I know those were a year old, but it had some bearing on the topic I wanted to discuss, so I addressed the comments about Obama's healthcare plan.
The problem with those policies is who it benefits, and it's not the populations the policy is instituted on.
The way I see it, it benefits the rich and those already in power, because those already in power are not having as many children anyway, so they aren't affected by the policies. But the lower classes that live a harder life and where it is less certain that their children will live to adulthood, these policies cause direct harm to them, and also exist to prevent the lower class population from exceeding a certain number that the powers that be think they can control.
That's how it is in China, the urban areas where all the power groups are (where they have undergone something like Rue's demographic transition) are unaffected, but rural areas and areas that are not Chinese ethnically but that the Chinese government claims are part of China, they are very much affected, and it is really almost a form of ethnic cleansing. The rural people of China do NOT like the one child policy. Perhaps they are selfish for wanting to have progeny that live long enough to reproduce themselves, but I don't think so.
It doesn't seem like ethnic cleansing if it pertains to Chinese as well - it's everyone equally.
I can conceive of an argument for Rich People wanting more working class so they can tax them more or find other ways to charge them fees and create even greater wealth.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Except you forget Marx and Orwell, which TPTB certainly have read. Get enough proletariates, and they overthrow the powers. It's the dialectic. The powers do not want that, so they want us to stay as stagnant intellectually and numberwise as possible. Or, if they can get us to be less smart and more controllable (either through a smaller population or just so dumb and unresisting and cattle-like that population size doesn't matter), then so much the better for them.
The industrial revolution made mass production a possibility via taking a long skilled process and cutting it down into small parts that can be overseen by unskilled (expendable) labourers. The cost was that a process required a larger labour force and more wages, something they've been trying to get around ever since.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
DT, the reality is that there are too mnay people for the earth to support. It may not feel that way since you live in the North American West, but you have not been to Europe, China, Japan, India, Bagladesh, Indonesia etc where any land that is even marginally arable is farmed, and every even semi-horizontal piece of land is occupied with something.
You directed this to me, first of all. I'm not DT. He lives in the Midwest, like Iowa or something, I live in Utah. Right location, wrong person.
Now. We don't WANT to use up all the land. That's a bad idea. You want to destablize as few ecosystems as possible (none would be best), because if you have no biodiversity, and something hits that crop hard, you're screwed. And that's not even considering the ethics of just letting (or actively making) millions of species extinct. No one is arguing that we should populate so that we use up every square inch of the Earth.
But if we had some improvements, we could cut down on a lot of the land being used, and increase our output. And if we were to actually invest in establishing some freaking off world colonies, the human race might have some long term potential without having to make any potentially murky decisions.
Yes, you're right, population decrease would ALSO make us use less land, but if you go that route, you still have to ask yourself, "what populations do we decrease?" That's not a decision that I think anyone should make, because it's impossible to be neutral when it's your nation, YOUR people's reproductive future at stake. Furthermore, without force (China), the population is unlikely to accept such a measure because it goes against basic instincts. Unless it's whitecoated, or they're preconditioned to accept it, a population will always choose survival over lofty sounding noble goals.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Reading thru old posts, just my $0.02: Wulf hates his mom 'cause his dad wasn't even around to take the flak."
WTF Sig?
Ahem. I wasnt even in this..
Wow...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And well, just ONE more post ...
"And what's the average birth rate of Europeans despite that? Low, is it? Perhaps because of social pressures and even subconscious messages about having less children for the better of the world, or even worries about the state of the world and bringing children into it?"
Your logic escapes me. Everywhere across the world, and even through history, when women do better economically they have fewer children. This was true in 14th century France, in 20th century China where the greatest birthrate decline took place BEFORE the one URBAN child policy (as a result of improved economics), in 21st century Iraq, and in historically frozen areas of Ethiopia.
So are you saying that women are COERCED into having fewer children when the economy becomes too NICE to them ?
Or that the government COERCES them into having fewer children as part of some grand conspiracy with policies that make having kids EASIER ?
NAaaaaahhhhh - that CAN'T be what you're saying. 
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
So are you saying that women are COERCED into having fewer children when the economy becomes too NICE to them ?
Or that the government COERCES them into having fewer children as part of some grand conspiracy with policies that make having kids LESS of a burden ?
Neither. I'm saying that there's factors, even when times are good and there's help available, that make people cautious about how many children they have. "What if something happens to the economy/the environment and we can no longer support them? That would be bad, never mind the social welfare programs. How do I know those programs could help all of my children? I've never been on social welfare before"... And so on. Parents are always worrying about their children, about their children not being injured and getting enough to eat. Recently, the "getting enough to eat" part has become a question of how much money people have, and how much supply of food there is. By supply I mean in the sense of supply and demand. How many farmlands there has been has been a factor in the past to supply and there have always been concerns about that, but capitalism introduces a whole new level to that regarding price fixing for food stuffs.
The government policies I'm talking about make having children harder. Policies that make it easier are only a bandaid for a broader problem, caused by capitalism and need. The government gives, but the government and the system takes a heck of a lot more.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
OK - one LAST one and then I'll have to continue this later.
You fudamentally misundertand the mental equation, I think b/c you assume that your thoughts represent the thoughts of others.
In poor agricultural countries everywhere, children are social security. The drive is to have MORE children ESPECIALLY in the face of poverty and scarce resources. Even in poor urban areas (think of the dump-dwellers of Manila, or the cardboard shack-dwellers of Rio, or the slum-dwellers of Jakarta 
),
children are the only socially available option to women. (BTW, there is an interesting neurological article on why being socially excluded is so extremely painful. And why doing the ONE thing society will recognize you for is so emotionally compelling.)
In fact, you have not begun to think about what drove that fact to be true even in 14th century France (Source: Mother Love). Or when the society's best rewards for women come from being mothers (China 19th century).
Come to think of it, you have really not presented anything like a historical trend, or cross-cultural comparison, or ... anything ...
You need, I think, to break out of your own head - it's really small in there and the only thing you'll find is yourself ! - and realize that other people do NOT consider the 'fate of the planet' or 'what will happen to my grandchildren ?' when THEY have children, or not. In many cases, they are making the only choice available to them. And, as can be seen from MANY other situations (some of which I have referenced), not having children when other options are available and more rewarding is the driver behind the demographic transition.
Do some research on 'the demographic transition' - OK ?
And, uhm - WHICH government polices are making it harder ? Be specific !
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
And, uhm - WHICH government polices are making it harder ? Be specific !
Rue, what started this whole conversation? If there is no public option to help people pay for insurance they can't afford, and it is against the law for them to not have insurance, then they must buy insurance from the insurance companies. If they can't afford this, then how can they afford to have (more) children?
Quote:
you have not begun to think
Quote:
You need, I think, to break out of your own head - it's really small in there and the only thing you'll find is yourself !
I've shown you respect, Rue. Well, except for the potato thing, that was kinda sassy, but I took it back and I'll also apologize for it. Calling me a pea brain is unnecessary, we knew you disagree with me. You could also choose more accurate insults that I couldn't breathe a word against. I mean, you haven't even called me bat shit crazy yet. Am I not bat shit crazy? o_0 @_@ Wheee!
You seem to think that when a culture experiences demographic transitions that places within the culture don't lag behind. There's poor in America and Europe too, and they tend to have more children. Probably because they can't afford birth control. Oh, look, benefits for the better off for conforming to the system.
I guess China isn't cross culture enough though.
Anyway, it looks like you're very interested in squishing me right now, and I'm not interested in a flame war and sort of would prefer to remain unsquished.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Byte
I did not call you a pea brain. I think your POV is limited to an extremely small group of people and not representative of millions, perhaps billions, of people. I was hoping you would expand you dataset to include those many you seem to have ignored, who represent many cultures across the globe, many eras - and many people in fact who had no thought to the fate of the planet (b/c culturally, it was not an issue).
Where I work and in my neighborhood there are several Hispanic families I know quite well. The parents came from Mexico and from families with 9, 11, 14 children. ALL of their children, who are educated, had had zero, one or two children - no more. Here we have the demographic transition in one generation - despite the fact that culturally, they were raised to value family. My Ethiopian coworker came from a family of 14 children as well as another couple dozen 'adopted' children. He and his wife (also Ethiopian) had exactly two children. He was explicit in stating that the reason to have so many children 'back in Ethiopia' (in the backwaters where he came from) was b/c they were considered social security. BTW It was his wife who wanted fewer children for her own personal reasons.
Out of the dozens of couples I know very well - all highly educated - I only know of one couple who had no children strictly out of concern for the planet.
And while the poor in thhe US many not be able to afford birth control - the poor in Europe have free access to it b/c they have their health needs provided for (Ireland making an exception for birth control).
And, as you seem to have slid past, China had its GREATEST reduciton of birth rate BEFORE the one urban child policy (a polciy you insist on mischaracterizing and which has the support of 80% of the population)) - due completely to improving economics.
I have pointed out the fatal flaw in your logic stating that people who are concerned about being able to afford children have fewer as a result - by highlighting the FACT that the poorest people who can afford them the least have the most. And paradoxically, the better-off who can afford them the most have fewer.
As for your proposal that it was EUROPEANS who were making it harder to have children by their polices, and having family-friendly polices was only a 'band-aid', you STILL have not provided any kind of data, evidence, or, anything ...
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oops, sorry Byte. A serious brain fart induced by scanning too many posts too quickly. (Still, you and DT are very much alike in this, so the mistake is understandable.)
Quote:Doubtful. We would have to invent essentially closed-cycle human production.
But if we had some improvements, we could cut down on a lot of the land being used, and increase our output.
Quote:The problem is now, Byte, not in the distant future when we "might" go off-world. And if we had the $$ and the will to go off-world, wouldn't we have the $$ and the will to improve our earth?
And if we were to actually invest in establishing some freaking off world colonies, the human race might have some long term potential without having to make any potentially murky decisions.
Quote:Pacific Islanders ... faced most immediately with the quandary of limited resources and exponential population growth, chose survival BY population control. It was either that, or face complete social and biological catastrophe, as the Easter Islanders did. The earth is just a bigger island; its not infinite. Survival and population control are not "opposing" forces, I see them as synergistic.
Yes, you're right, population decrease would ALSO make us use less land, but if you go that route, you still have to ask yourself, "what populations do we decrease?" That's not a decision that I think anyone should make, because it's impossible to be neutral when it's your nation, YOUR people's reproductive future at stake. Furthermore, without force (China), the population is unlikely to accept such a measure because it goes against basic instincts. Unless it's whitecoated, or they're preconditioned to accept it, a population will always choose survival over lofty sounding noble goals.
The reason why people have so many children is severalfold:
1) As long as you have sex, in the absence of birth control, you will have children. Children are born in concentration camps, in famine, as a product of rape. They're automatic, just as shitting follows eating. They come, whether you want them or not.
2) In farming societies, children are a resource: hands to work the land, and a cushion for your old age. Because so many children died young (~50%) parents planned on "extras". Once clean water and sanitation are introduced, those "extras" pile up.
The conditions for low birthrate are also severalfold
1) As soon as labor is no longer manual labor, children become a drain. Long years of support and education, with no productivity in the meantime, makes children an economic bust. Such is modern life!!
2) Once women have a chance NOT to have children, and they have other things to do with their lives, they stop. Children are not as much fun as being a child yourself.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My data was that the birthrate of European nations is low despite government aid (which I never denied existed)and my conclusion was that 1) the government programs are not helping the birthrate, even the ones that are incentives for more children, 2) there are other factors at work, or 3) both.
Quote:
I have pointed out the fata flaw in your logic that people wo are concerned about being able to afford children have fewer as a result - by highlighting the FACT that the poorest people who can afford them the least have the most.
It's not a fatal flaw, it's a question of demographics. As I said above, the poorest of Americans tend to have the most children. I don't disagree with you there. It's as true world wide as it is here because it IS a form of social security, whether the parents expect the children to take care of them, or whether mortality rates are just that high. But the people who are the most educated and have the most resources have the least children. This is because they feel like they want to focus all those resources on those one or two children (and because pregnancy really is a bitch). But it's also still a question of resources and economic security. They don't have more children because resources are limited by a capitalist system. These family level considerations are easily converted into arguments about the resources and population and environmental problems faced by humanity. Hence the reason I extrapolated.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The problem is now, Byte, not in the distant future when we "might" go off-world. And if we had the $$ and the will to go off-world, wouldn't we have the $$ and the will to improve our earth?
I think we should try to do both.
I don't disagree with any of the facts you posted.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"My data was that the birthrate of European nations is low despite government aid (which I never denied existed)and my conclusion was that 1) the government programs are not helping the birthrate, even the ones that are incentives for more children, 2) there are other factors at work, or 3) both."
There IS something going on - and it's a completely natural phenomenon called the DEMOGRAPHIC TRANSITION, which happens everywhere and across the ages. I keep pointing this out. It doesn't require a massive conspiracy to consider that maybe, just possibly maybe, given a choice women find better things to do than have children. 
"... even the ones that are incentives for more children ..."
Are there others that DISincetivise having children ? A question you have yet to answer.
As for whether or not the programs are helping, the only way to know that is to stop having them and seeing if the birth rate drops.
"This is because they feel like they want to focus all those resources on those one or two children (and because pregnancy really is a bitch)."
And THIS is completely unproven on your part. Whereas I have shown that IN CASES WHERE THIS DYNAMIC DOESN'T HOLD lower birth rate is STILL the outcome.
"But it's also still a question of resources and economic security. They don't have more children because resources are limited by a capitalist system. "
And resources AREN'T limited even more by the capitalist system in Bangladesh ? You simply can't say that A (lack of recoures) is a cause of B (fewer children) when MORE of A (poverty) causes LESS of B (more children).
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Government here introduced a pretty hefty baby bonus to combat aging population situation which did result in an increase in the birth rate - it has also increased the number of people who have babies for a bit of a quick cash injection which I'm pretty certain is not a great motivation for having children
I don't believe in global conspiracies to increase or decrease populations - the world is too complex and chaotic for anything like that to happen
i think there is a tendancy in the west to have fewer children because we are largely motivated by materialism and having children takes money from the pot - both in earning capacity and what you have to spend to rear them. Other less individualistic cultures tend to value children more because they tend to expand the economic pot rather than reduce it and because culturally people's expectations focus on family a lot more - which increases status and so on - whereas in modern western cultures, family tends to be a sideline to career and money
As for the alleged utopia that was the 1950's and 60's - I'm pretty sure that the whole nuclear family - dad at work and mum at home - was a kind of blip in history - it was a time of unprecedented prosperity and also a time when the world (perhaps as a subconciously unit) was seeking to replenish its population after many years of war and hardship.
Prior to that, wealthy women stayed at home - often along side their wealthy husbands - to pursue a life of leisure - whereas the bulk of the population - men, women and children worked hard and made do with all sorts of circumstances to have and care for children.
As for the original riduclous post - women of course can be totally subservient to their husbands in terms of their sexual needs and to society for its reproductive needs if you consider that women needs, desires and wishes are of less importance than men's - in other words that their value as human beings is less.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That doesn't make sense. On the one hand, you agree that poor people have more children, even in capitalist societies. On the other hand, you say that under capitalism people are limited by resource considerations from having children. Both statments can't be true, so you must be pointing to something else.
But it's also still a question of resources and economic security. They don't have more children because resources are limited by a capitalist system. These family level considerations are easily converted into arguments about the resources and population and environmental problems faced by humanity. Hence the reason I extrapolated
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Are there others that DISincetivise having children ? A question you have yet to answer.
I already told you, this conversation started out discussing one such program, mandatory health care with no public option.
I feel like I'm not getting anywhere in this discussion, or maybe am being ignored now.
Quote:
maybe, just possibly maybe, given a choice women find better things to do than have children.
Did I ever argue that they didn't? Did I ever say that I don't think that some of the things we do instead are good things? I'm talking cause and effect. What ideology that I see, and how it effects birthrate. You're the one bringing all this other stuff in.
Quote:
"But it's also still a question of resources and economic security. They don't have more children because resources are limited by a capitalist system. "
And resources AREN'T limited even more by the capitalist system in Bangladesh ? You simply can't say that A (lack of recoures) is a cause of B (fewer children) when MORE of A (poverty) causes LESS of B (more children).
DIFFERENT DEMOGRAPHICS. A rural and or poor group is going to have a different response than a middle class group, because they have different survival tactics.
I'm just repeating myself now.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME