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, 03:35 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,136 posts, read 9,219,999 times
Reputation: 8990

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mishigas73 View Post
... there will also be a law enacted that will provide that children will be required to take care of their parents in old age?
Apparently you are unaware of civilization.
But that's the fault of the glorious socialist propaganda ministry.
From antiquity, children cared for their aged parents... and inherited their properties upon their death.

Thanks to socialism and death taxes, gubmint takes a hefty cut... D'oh.

 
Old 09-23-2016, 03:38 PM
 
6,307 posts, read 7,142,643 times
Reputation: 8048
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
Perhaps you misunderstand.
Everyone had rights - and everyone had duties.
Nope, don't think I "misunderstand" at all.

If you believe that "everyone had rights", then my portion of this conversation is over.
 
Old 09-23-2016, 03:39 PM
 
987 posts, read 399,630 times
Reputation: 2484
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
If you think that working almost HALF your life for the benefit of another is "SELF DETERMINATION" we will have to agree to disagree.
It sure beats spending my whole life cooking/cleaning/child-rearing for the benefit of the husband I would otherwise be completely dependent on.
 
Old 09-23-2016, 03:42 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,136 posts, read 9,219,999 times
Reputation: 8990
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares View Post
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.
Perhaps that is your experience.
From what I researched, BEFORE SOCIALISM (1933) wealthy families didn't need to rely on children for old age security, and usually had the smallest families. Whereas the poorest families had prodigious broods.
From my own experience, we had 3 children, the two parental families had a combined 8 children, their forebears had a combined 20 children, and 16 children, respectfully, etc., etc.
None of them were on the "wealthy end."
And before socialism, they cared for their own.
My grandmother took care of her retarded brother till the day he died. Not one dime of gubmint support, did she ever receive. Civilized people took care of their own kinfolk.
 
Old 09-23-2016, 03:52 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,136 posts, read 9,219,999 times
Reputation: 8990
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndyDancer View Post
It sure beats spending my whole life cooking/cleaning/child-rearing for the benefit of the husband I would otherwise be completely dependent on.
Yeah, it was a tough life . . . having a poor schnook be legally obligated to support and defend you and yours with his whole life. . . and endow you and the kids with the fruits of his labor upon his death.
Women sure had a raw deal.
[tiny violins playing pitifully in the background]
. . . .
So you think it's okay to be dependent upon anonymous taxpayers, who are compelled to support you by force of government?
Isn't slavery - even part time slavery - a bit immoral?
You don't have to answer that... it's rhetorical.
. . . .
 
Old 09-23-2016, 03:53 PM
 
6,307 posts, read 7,142,643 times
Reputation: 8048
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
From what I researched, BEFORE SOCIALISM (1933) wealthy families didn't need to rely on children for old age security, and usually had the smallest families. Whereas the poorest families had prodigious broods.
I don't doubt that this could be accurate. It wouldn't surprise me that the poorest people of the time would want more hands to help the family out.

Philosophically speaking, however, I have a difficult time accepting in our modern times the idea that people should be bringing children into the world simply to help them out in their old age. Treating women like broodmares, whose only duty in life is to raise those who will help her and her husband when they are elderly is extremely distasteful to me, to put it mildly.

I fundamentally believe that all people should have the right to choose the path that they want in life. If a woman wants to stay at home with 10 kids, great. If that's what she wants.
 
Old 09-23-2016, 03:58 PM
 
6,307 posts, read 7,142,643 times
Reputation: 8048
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
Yeah, it was a tough life . . . having a poor schnook be legally obligated to support and defend you and yours with his whole life. . . and endow you and the kids with the fruits of his labor upon his death.
Women sure had a raw deal.
[tiny violins playing pitifully in the background]
. . . .
Yup, that same "poor schnook" who had every legal right to treat you as his property- to beat and rape you at will, among other things.

That same "poor schnook" that you probably had absolutely no choice in marrying.

Oh, and that same "poor schnook" whose labor fruits were likely to have been inherited by his first born son, and only his first born son.

Yeah, it certainly sounds like a fabulous time.
 
Old 09-23-2016, 04:03 PM
 
Location: Nescopeck, Penna.
11,401 posts, read 6,809,992 times
Reputation: 14464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
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?
I've tried to provide "food for thought" -- a couple of points where you can do a little more reading and then re-evaluate, or retain your own conclusions. But they might not be in synch with the "pop wisdom" provided by the crowd at MSNBC, HuffPost, and the Daily Kos.

Conservative media are far less prone to the oversimplification and spoon-feeding of pre-formed dogma; intended example: the refinement of climate change (a real phenomenon) into "global warming", with its emotional advertising aimed at 14-year-olds.

Last edited by 2nd trick op; 09-23-2016 at 04:21 PM..
 
Old 09-23-2016, 04:20 PM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,505 posts, read 49,604,613 times
Reputation: 24548
I grew up in a distorted version of jetgraphics' idealized world. My mother and I had duties like her doing all the cooking and cleaning and me all the maintenance and building on his amusement park railroad once I was big and skilled enough to do the work. His duty was to go to work and earn (?) enough (?) money to keep the place afloat and buy all the booze he needed as well as smacking us around to maintain his "male supremacy". I do not believe that would fly in our current society. Once I got big enough it did not fly in his world either.

One of the major factors in the somewhat larger numbers in society since the Civil War has been the vicious industrializing of WAR. Most soldiers are still men and most of the dying, with the exception of atrocities like Syria, is done by young men. Hundreds of thousands of males were killed in our Civil War, millions in the WW1 and many millions more in WW2. Oddly enough overall casualties have diminished since the Korean and Vietnam wars. Still young men have a greater propensity to get themselves dead than young women. Note: draconian population control measures like the Maoist Chinese has resulted in a population heavily biased toward the now middle aged men.

So I am still wondering what the OP is calling "feminization". Is it having more women around instead of locked up in their suburban houses in Tinkerville? Is it more women competing for brainy jobs? Is it society beginning to solve some problems without violence. Or could it be simply that more women are complaining about rape?

I have no problem with this "feminization". I like to have more women around. I like women. I am retired and no longer worrying about competition for jobs. I am pleased by society finding nonviolent and un macho ways of solving problems. Everyone should complain about rape.

I do not accept that any of these diminish my having been and still being a man. I will always be a man and will also be, as a woman friend calls me, a "danger man". I like fast cars, good handling motorcycles and taking risks. Anything to get some adrenaline flowing.
 
Old 09-23-2016, 04:48 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
72,884 posts, read 64,340,187 times
Reputation: 68768
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
Perhaps that is your experience.
From what I researched, BEFORE SOCIALISM (1933) wealthy families didn't need to rely on children for old age security, and usually had the smallest families. Whereas the poorest families had prodigious broods.
From my own experience, we had 3 children, the two parental families had a combined 8 children, their forebears had a combined 20 children, and 16 children, respectfully, etc., etc.
None of them were on the "wealthy end."
And before socialism, they cared for their own.
My grandmother took care of her retarded brother till the day he died. Not one dime of gubmint support, did she ever receive. Civilized people took care of their own kinfolk.
Before "socialism" (1933) my paternal grandmother, a widow, had to feed her two kids on a domestic servant's wage. No gubmint help, just like you said. Needless to say, the kids only got one meal a day, if that, living in Chicago's southside ghetto (I'm talking about White people). No doctors; conveniently, she was Christian Scientist. She couldn't have afforded a doctor if she'd needed one. That's "civilization" for you.

P.S. Need you be reminded that "socialism" came about in the middle of the worst economic crisis in American history, the Great Depression? Civilized people weren't able to take care of their own, because so many had lost their jobs. People were living in tent cities. "Hoovervilles", they were called. Soup kitchens were keeping people alive. It's' very easy to pontificate about "socialism" (TM) from the comfort of one's chair nearly 100 years later.
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