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.
That is one of the most ot-of-the-box and best analyses I have read, and it makes sense.
My out-of-the-box and politically incorrect view is that woman's suffrage and woman in the workplace has played a role as well. Both of these, I consider, to have been constructive changes. However, the diminution in the gender divide at the polls and in the workplace allows for some increased tolerance of fluidity. For example, when was the last time you have heard of a stag party? On the other hand there is "lady's night out."
As far as women in the workplace, I feel that it maximizes the ability for all people to give their best. Abigail Adams was as smart as any person in the Continental Congress or in her husband's Cabinet, but she had no way to give of that except as an advisor. What a waste.
On a personal note, my mother graduated Syracuse in 1954. She was c*m (filtered word edited) laude in psychology and wanted to get a Masters, to go into testing. My wife's great aunt graduated with similar honors at Cornell. Both were, at least in their younger years, consigned to the kitchen. When my Dad died in 1973, she had no profession. Again, what a waste.
For all the good things, we must recognize the drawbacks that censusdata points out, i.e. the lowering of boundaries.
My mother graduated from Vassar with the same honors around the same year. She studied Art History and English Lit. She had some interesting jobs after college that she enjoyed greatly. They were as a result of her education. Directly and indirectly. Copy Writer for a well-known advertising firm, TWA flight attendant, - she was fluent in French, and art curator.
After she married, there was no financial need for her to work. She was involved with volunteer work, The Junior League, and was a regular contributor to a local newspaper.
Her education was not "a waste" at all. She was very proud of her degree; she used her degree in raising her children. She raised four voracious readers. She was an intellectual, and she contributed to our community in many ways - as a Girl Scout Leader, as a volunteer in the historic society, and by tutoring disadvantaged students in our school district.
Among woman of that generation, it was normative and preferred to stay home with your children, if at all possible, then. I still think that if at all possible, it is better for one parent to be home mostly.
1. All of your complaints about gender fluidity and mass immigration are not at all unlike the same type of complaints people used against segregation, the free dumping of pollutants into the air and waters, and universal suffrage...basically stating that change was profoundly destabilizing.
2. There's a heck of a lot of difference between the real consequences (if any) of gender fluidity and mass immigration. Whether my neighbor thinks he or she is male or female really has little impact on my life. Oh, I may or may not like it, but ultimately other than personal taste...it's their personal business. On the other hand, mass immigration is a totally different situation. If there is mass immigration, what does that do to consumption of our natural resources, import/export balances, housing availability, food production. Those and more such things are not simply a personal taste issue.
3. I have long advocated that Congress should not be able to pass 'omnibus' legislation. Bill should only be able to be submitted that stick to one specific topic.
Except gender fluidity destroys stable family unit which is the scaffolding of societal structure.
Devil's Advocate here or Don't kill the Messenger Please
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa
The problem is that the Left wants to let people in before they are "vetted", knowing full well that the "vetting" won't occur until years down the road. Those that would not pass the "vetting" will have disappeared into the woodwork. The idea of borders where people are vetted is a fantasy if they come rushing in. As far as the U.S. destabilizing these countries, they were never "stable" in the first place. They were banana republics, where the upper class did fine, everyone else, not so much.
The problem is if they and their children don't learn English they'll never really get ahead. Back in the 1890's and early 1900's the immigrants' first task was to learn English, at night school. Thus, maybe the first generation occupied the jobs no one would want but their children would go on to higher education and a better life. Nowadays we simply accommodate foreign languages too much, primarily to empowertheir "community leaders." The actual people need to be able to speak English. Instead we provide bilingual and in some cases uni-lingual signage in foreign languages for many functions, including voting, motor vehicle bureaus, supermarkets and drug stores. If people want to come here, learn the language.
Open Borders
The Left before they flipped, were against illegal immigration, all for the same reasons that the Right is now contending. So looking at it from the progressive democratic perspective, it was bad, now its good. The Left contends various reasons why it is good, but one they held on to was that its racist and immoral not to have open borders.
Everybody agrees that the folks who swim the Rio Grande come from "hell holes" and once they make it into the U.S. they are guaranteed a decent, safe, and sanitary life with basic benefits paid for by the American tax payer. So it occurred to me, if we want to eliminate the root of the problem, these "hell holes," why don't we just invade these "hell holes," annex them and put a stop to this illegal immigration? Bing, bang, bung!
Otherwise, the US is opening itself up for balkanization. Balkanization is where you have a huge rush of non-americans into the U.S. of one or two ethnic groups who march under a foreign flag. Bye, bye melting pot. Hello civil unrest.
I'm new to this thread and have much to digest before I can respond but I have often thought one of the areas we rarely address is the psychological effect on individuals and society of having a generation or two of men raised by women. So I'm adding to the issues at this point rather than arguing for solutions.
As far as immigration goes this country has always been based on accepting new people. As a grateful American citizen
I have no issue with that. What concerns me is that we aren't moderating the flow. We are not giving newbies sufficient time to adjust and I see evidence of a "Tower of Babel" effect.
Except gender fluidity destroys stable family unit which is the scaffolding of societal structure.
Which leads to government takeover of all.
I haven't seen a single case of that. I have seen many cases of hetero marriages that have failed, that included spousal abuse and child abuse, murder-suicides. But of course, those are okay since they are straight people?
And what has gender fluidity got to do with "government takeover"?
I haven't seen a single case of that. I have seen many cases of hetero marriages that have failed, that included spousal abuse and child abuse, murder-suicides. But of course, those are okay since they are straight people?
And what has gender fluidity got to do with "government takeover"?
I've never seen the gender fluid destroying society or taking over the government, either. Not once.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lodestar
I'm new to this thread and have much to digest before I can respond but I have often thought one of the areas we rarely address is the psychological effect on individuals and society of having a generation or two of men raised by women. So I'm adding to the issues at this point rather than arguing for solutions.
As far as immigration goes this country has always been based on accepting new people. As a grateful American citizen
I have no issue with that. What concerns me is that we aren't moderating the flow. We are not giving newbies sufficient time to adjust and I see evidence of a "Tower of Babel" effect.
Edited to add: Echoing Mistermobile!
Yes. I always thought we were a nation of immigrants. I love Emma Lazarus' poem "The New Colossus".
Last edited by Mike from back east; 11-25-2022 at 07:51 PM..
Reason: Merged 2:1
I haven't seen a single case of that. I have seen many cases of hetero marriages that have failed, that included spousal abuse and child abuse, murder-suicides. But of course, those are okay since they are straight people?
And what has gender fluidity got to do with "government takeover"?
When people cease to be loyal to family they turn to the government for support since hey have no family support. Which allows the government to happily enslave the people.
What's the marriage rate among nonfluid binary people?
What is the stable societal unit within human life? Family.
When people cease to be loyal to family they turn to the government for support since hey have no family support. Which allows the government to happily enslave the people.
What's the marriage rate among nonfluid binary people?
What is the stable societal unit within human life? Family.
It's not "gender fluid" which disrupts society.
That's just baloney.
Everyone doesn't have to live in the style in which you live. I'm gay, and I have never known a single gay person who has turned to the government for support. Not saying it doesn't happen, but the vast majority of the people I've known on food stamps and such, and on free and reduced lunches in school...were from typical heterosexual families.
As far as the US goes, the Statue of Liberty is our beloved nation's symbol. Being welcoming of immigrants is clearly the American value here, and all this MAGA and right-wing nativism, is not. "The Latinos are rapists"... brought to you by the same type of mindset of such classics as "The blacks are raping our white women... got to lynch them", and various slurs about the Italians and the Irish in New York and Boston.
We need to hand everyone who's in this country illegally, a work visa. Then nobody will be in this country illegally. But also make it one strike, you're out. If they commit a crime, kick them right the hell out. We want the peaceful, not the criminals. But the idea that we're going to deport millions of hard-working, peaceful people, is ridiculous. Just because they can give a lower quote on roofing or whatever. That's not taking anyone's job- that's the free market, that we're supposedly all about.
Most of the violence around the border and in Mexico, is because of the horribly stupid, ineffective international war on drugs. End that damn war, decriminalize all drugs nationally, and the gangs will lose most of their fuel. Border and immigration type issues need not be a conversation about violence, or making this some kind of walled-in hell-hole.
Border security and enforcement should be all about keeping criminals out, not keeping immigrants out. Again, just document all the people who are coming in, so that they're legal, and we know who's coming in and we can keep track of it. Run a quick background check, to make sure they're not a dangerous person, but forget the quotas and all that. Legalize legal immigration and make that easy and streamlined, and the dangerous illegal crossings will have less and less appeal.
It doesn't make anyone a citizen. That would still be a lengthy process, for those serious about pursuing it. But the border needs to be a line that is moving, and people can come in as long as they're here for good reasons. Like, work, is good. Reuniting with family, etc. Hand them a document, make it a legal process. That's how we get rid of illegal immigration.
No sniper rifles and barbed wire. This is the land of the free. That's both offensive and ineffective. A 10ft wall just requires an 11ft ladder. All this "tough on the border" talk, is just escalating the danger and the border issues. These people are harmless. They're just pursuing the same basic values and the same basic dreams that we all have. The process to come here legally is ridiculous, and they can't stay in their country of origin that's not a safe place, they want economic opportunity, so they're left with the option to come in illegally. It's human nature, and anyone in their shoes would do so.
Make them taxpayers. Then "open borders" doesn't sound so bad- more tax revenue for us. Hand them a visa and a social security card at the border, then taxes would be getting paid. Make more taxes based on sales tax and other such things. In general, reform the system. Let the border enforcement be totally freed up to be about just that- enforcing and protecting and defending against the small handful of them who are bad. Make the process quick and smooth for everyone else.
I've never seen the gender fluid destroying society or taking over the government, either. Not once.
Yes. I always thought we were a nation of immigrants. I love Emma Lazarus' poem "The New Colossus".
Using Emma Lazarus's poem "The New Colossus" found on the Statute of Liberty as the basis of Immigration law and regulation in the USA makes as much sense as using Robert Frost's poem "The Road Less Traveled" as the basis of highway signage and regulation in the US.
Both are bananas. But it's all about feelings isn't it?
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.
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.
Devil's Advocate here or Don't kill the Messenger Please
