U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 09-23-2016, 06:23 AM
 
8,504 posts, read 2,387,119 times
Reputation: 8123

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
This sounds like you're changing the topic. Could you sum up clearly what your topic is, please?
I think he is fairly clear. He ain't feeling good about things.

"But the point remains; Both greater options for single women, and the deindustrialization of society increase the pressures faced by the "traditional" male. Demands for physical strength and stamina have given way to demands for an ability to handle stress, and both agrarian and heavy-industrial settings (not to mention the lessons given in both contact sports and the military) conditioned that male to react both quickly and physically; now we're conditioned to "suck it up" and the resentments build along with the blood pressure."

I really hate to break it to him that in the good ole days - only a couple "jocks" ever made it deep into those contact sports....nor that today many males engage in tennis, racquetball, etc.

Other than forced conscription during the Civil War, it's likely that a very small percentage has ever served in the military - and most who have done so have never seen much physical training after a few weeks of boot camp.

These pressures have been ongoing for 100's of years - for all people. Women and children were ripped out of their houses in industrial Britain (1830's) and suffered an average life span of less than 30 years. No pensions, little medical care and very little food (dole as it is called over there).

Changes in the last 100+ years have made the plight of the industrial worker much better - at the same time the masses have lost a lot of the identity formed by villages, trades, agriculture, church and tribe - and, as a result, don't know what to cling to.

Maybe their guns and religion? (that's a pun).....

In any case, it is what it is. Our generation(s) (baby boomers) have changed a lot of things and an overview will probably show many to be positive. "dance to a different drummer, do your thing, follow your bliss" and many other phrases point to the fact that many have choices that were not available before.

If, however, a male (or female) decides to cast their lot in with the Rat Race, they are likely going to get eaten by the sharks...or become a shark themselves.

Ruth, to answer what the OP is/was, I have to think it's guys that listen to talk radio or read books by certain pundits and then spend their time lamenting the good ole days when men were men. Heck, I enjoy reading about Teddy Roosevelt as much as the next person, but he was one of the .01% and is in no way indicative of what things were like for the working stiff. Oh, and the Waltons was not really the way things were for everyone during the depression.

 
Old 09-23-2016, 12:47 PM
 
Location: Nescopeck, Penna.
11,361 posts, read 6,783,711 times
Reputation: 14407
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri View Post

Greater common good. Sorta sounds like the Constitution - General Welfare and Happiness. I like that.
And as soon as I hear it, I know it's time to

(1) lock up the liquor, weapons and valuables,

(2) keep a close watch on whoever brought up the subject and,

(3) keep a closer watch on the people (s)he is trying to attract, in order to form a coalition and enrich themselves at the expense of those who have no faith in such a scheme (because they're already making ends meet while playing by the rules).

Don't get me wrong. I've always lived by Voltaire's credo of "I disagree with what you say, but won't deny you the right to say it". But the people who fall through the cracks usually do so because of faults in their own education, character, or both.

In a mature society, we can easily provide the losers with a fresh start, and enough to sustain themselves until then (especially if we control access to the "safety net" at a local level -- in order to exclude and blacklist the people who make a career of indolence, such as "Justin". But in return, they should have no further say in the process unless and until they clean up their act, and their "thinking".
 
Old 09-23-2016, 01:06 PM
 
Location: Nescopeck, Penna.
11,361 posts, read 6,783,711 times
Reputation: 14407
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri View Post
I think he is fairly clear. He ain't feeling good about things.

"But the point remains; Both greater options for single women, and the deindustrialization of society increase the pressures faced by the "traditional" male. Demands for physical strength and stamina have given way to demands for an ability to handle stress, and both agrarian and heavy-industrial settings (not to mention the lessons given in both contact sports and the military) conditioned that male to react both quickly and physically; now we're conditioned to "suck it up" and the resentments build along with the blood pressure."

I really hate to break it to him that in the good ole days - only a couple "jocks" ever made it deep into those contact sports....nor that today many males engage in tennis, racquetball, etc.

Other than forced conscription during the Civil War, it's likely that a very small percentage has ever served in the military - and most who have done so have never seen much physical training after a few weeks of boot camp.

These pressures have been ongoing for 100's of years - for all people. Women and children were ripped out of their houses in industrial Britain (1830's) and suffered an average life span of less than 30 years. No pensions, little medical care and very little food (dole as it is called over there).
Every industrialized society gets there through a period of forced saving. The peasants who used to be enslaved to the land were disallowed (or didn't qualify for access to the common grazing lands) so many of them drifted to the cities. France, Paris in particular, was the first civilizing nation to offer them sustenance in the form of daily handouts of bread or a small amount of coin (which is probably the reason why metro Paris dwarfs all other French cities -- Marseille is the "second city", with about one-twelfth the population). The French are big believers in the centralization of power and authority.

I don't know exactly how the process was accomplished in, for example, Germany; an examination of the root causes of the uprisings of the late 1840's (which, BTW, along with military conscription, was a factor in the German diaspora of the 1850's, with many of my ancestors among them) would probably provide some answers.

But a man named Stalin had an even more effective "answer"; when the former peasantry in Ukraine balked at being forced onto collective farms and turning over the fruits of their labor to feed the cities, Stalin seized it (like a proper believer in the "greater common good") and left them to starve. In the early thirties, people in my home town of Ukranian descent sometimes simply saw the letters from relatives "back home" stop coming.

We Americans had it a lot easier, because until the closing of the frontier, people who didn't agree with forced industrialization could simply find a piece of land somewhere around the 100thc parallel, and go their own way; the role to which they would have been directed under the rules of supposedly-more-civilized Europe was taken up by immigrants.

Quote:
Changes in the last 100+ years have made the plight of the industrial worker much better - at the same time the masses have lost a lot of the identity formed by villages, trades, agriculture, church and tribe - and, as a result, don't know what to cling to.

Maybe their guns and religion? (that's a pun).....

In any case, it is what it is. Our generation(s) (baby boomers) have changed a lot of things and an overview will probably show many to be positive. "dance to a different drummer, do your thing, follow your bliss" and many other phrases point to the fact that many have choices that were not available before.

If, however, a male (or female) decides to cast their lot in with the Rat Race, they are likely going to get eaten by the sharks...or become a shark themselves.

Ruth, to answer what the OP is/was, I have to think it's guys that listen to talk radio or read books by certain pundits and then spend their time lamenting the good ole days when men were men. Heck, I enjoy reading about Teddy Roosevelt as much as the next person, but he was one of the .01% and is in no way indicative of what things were like for the working stiff. Oh, and the Waltons was not really the way things were for everyone during the depression.
FWIW, I listen to Rush Limbaugh occasionally -- maybe about every other week, and usually can't stand it after a few minutes because of the "simple answers" most of his sycophants push that won't work (and because most of his advertising is geared to the same sort of thinking). But the conservatives aren't gunning to harness the government's legal monopoly on coercion to force their plans on anyone else -- and that is the essential difference between Limbaugh vs. George Soros, Rachael Maddow, and the rest of the oh, soooo p/c crowd.
 
Old 09-23-2016, 01:12 PM
 
Location: Eugene, Oregon
7,086 posts, read 2,207,882 times
Reputation: 9617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve McDonald View Post
I can imagine that the birth-rate will drop sharply in the U.S.
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri View Post
And should we complain.

Would you prefer more traffic, more developed land, more energy use and less space?

I meant that to be an optimistic prediction.
 
Old 09-23-2016, 01:13 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,115 posts, read 9,199,435 times
Reputation: 8983
BLAME SOCIALISM

We know that one of the pitfalls of socialism is the precipitous drop in birthrate. When people believe that government (and other people’s children) will care for them (via taxes), they avoid the trouble and expense of a large family. This results in genocide, and an aging population with less young to support it. Europe (and Russia, in particular) is suffering from that fact.

http://mic.com/articles/9624/declini...m-of-socialism
Yardeni notes that, "Socialism may breed infertility. In the past, people relied on their children to support them in their old age. Your children were your old-age insurance policy. Over the past few decades, people have come to depend increasingly on social security provided by their governments. So they are having fewer kids."
- - - -
Socialism’s negative effect on family size will result in its inevitable collapse, as not only did they run out of “other people’s money,” they also ran out of “other people’s children.”
Who else would be taxed to support the ever disproportionate number of dependent elderly and infirm?
Foreign immigrants? (Like those pouring into Europe?)

In a future after the collapse of socialism, where there is no public charity, no retirement pensions, and one’s family will be the only means of support when one is old and infirm, a large brood of children will be a necessity, to minimize the burden.

When women have 4 to 10 children, it’s more practical and logical for them to remain at home, as mothers, care givers, and teachers, than to seek careers outside of the home. Men will resume their role as sole providers, supporting their wives and children. The traditional family and gender division of labor will become the norm, not the exception. The days of career women and mothers, working outside the house will be over.
 
Old 09-23-2016, 01:15 PM
 
Location: Nescopeck, Penna.
11,361 posts, read 6,783,711 times
Reputation: 14407
And at any rate, I have to thank both of the ladies for the reasonable discourse in their posts.
 
Old 09-23-2016, 01:17 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
72,647 posts, read 64,111,757 times
Reputation: 68384
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri View Post
I think he is fairly clear. He ain't feeling good about things.

"But the point remains; Both greater options for single women, and the deindustrialization of society increase the pressures faced by the "traditional" male. Demands for physical strength and stamina have given way to demands for an ability to handle stress, and both agrarian and heavy-industrial settings (not to mention the lessons given in both contact sports and the military) conditioned that male to react both quickly and physically; now we're conditioned to "suck it up" and the resentments build along with the blood pressure."


.
Not feeling good about what things? He keeps talking around whatever his complaints are, with more and more verbiage, without actually naming them. "Suck it up"? Suck what up? He's upset because the economy shifted from agriculture and industry to an information age, and desk jobs? Is that the topic? What does that have to do with "increased Feminization"? I thought the topic had something to do with women having kids out of wedlock. Now it's about the shift away from agriculture and industrial work?
 
Old 09-23-2016, 01:24 PM
 
6,307 posts, read 7,129,660 times
Reputation: 8048
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
When women have 4 to 10 children, it’s more practical and logical for them to remain at home, as mothers, care givers, and teachers, than to seek careers outside of the home. Men will resume their role as sole providers, supporting their wives and children. The traditional family and gender division of labor will become the norm, not the exception. The days of career women and mothers, working outside the house will be over.
Wow, nothing like the idea of going back to the days where half of society had few rights of self-determination to set the heart all aflutter.

I suppose too, in getting rid of taxpayers taking care of some elderly people, there will also be a law enacted that will provide that children will be required to take care of their parents in old age?
 
Old 09-23-2016, 02:14 PM
 
Location: Cumberland Co., TN
20,014 posts, read 20,504,984 times
Reputation: 20369
Quote:
Originally Posted by mishigas73 View Post
Wow, nothing like the idea of going back to the days where half of society had few rights of self-determination to set the heart all aflutter.

I suppose too, in getting rid of taxpayers taking care of some elderly people, there will also be a law enacted that will provide that children will be required to take care of their parents in old age?
It will never happen. Women, especially poor women, have always been in the workforce, they just weren't getting paid squat.

The only women having 4-10 children are on the wealthy end and have a husband making bank and they weren't going to be seriously in the workforce anyway or the very poor living off welfare and not working anyway. I think its gone form roughly 7% of mothers in the workforce in the mid 1800's to ~52% today. The average middle class working mother will probably have 2-3 children and continue to work at least until their children are pre-K age. As we have seen a single breadwinner can hardly cut it and since we have shifted away from industrialization to "soft jobs" and from discrimination to equal opportunity and equal pay, more women are filling the ranks in traditionally held "men's jobs".

You cant put the Genie back in the bottle.
 
Old 09-23-2016, 02:32 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,115 posts, read 9,199,435 times
Reputation: 8983
Quote:
Originally Posted by mishigas73 View Post
Wow, nothing like the idea of going back to the days where half of society had few rights of self-determination to set the heart all aflutter.
Perhaps you misunderstand.
Everyone had rights - and everyone had duties.
Before socialism, the Feds taxed 0.09 % of the GNP.
After socialism, the Feds taxed 24% of the GDP.
Aggregate taxes consume 44% of the GDP.
If you think that working almost HALF your life for the benefit of another is "SELF DETERMINATION" we will have to agree to disagree.

US Per Capita Government Spending for 2016 - Charts
2012 GDP: $15.6 T, U.S. population : 314.1 M, Per Capita : $49665.71

★ Federal spending, per capita : $12,083.0 (percentage of GDP: 24%)
★ State spending, per capita : $ 4,454.10 (percentage of GDP: 9%)
★ Local spending, per capita : $ 5,308.4 (percentage of GDP: 11%)

Summed up, combined government spending takes (approx) 44% of the GDP. In contrast, Pharaoh’s serfs only had to pay 1 part in 5 (20%).

If you’re one of the donors (tax payers), you’re working 44% (or more) of your life to support “their spending habit”.

Of course, if you're a recipient, HUZZAH!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top