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.
Of course men do not give birth. For pretty much the beginning of mankind, whats "has been" a women role ?
To birth and take care of the children? Correct? What has been a mans role? Well, it was to gather resources and protect. This has been the staple fore 98% of mankind. This has changed in the 20th century. Why? What has changed significantly in the 20th century? Well, the women's right to vote has. This is where we see a social change of women's roles. Women want to be taken care of. Well now thats why a lot of women vote socialism so the "government" can take care of them , instead of a "man".... problem is. Thats someone else money thats being used to take care of them.
This is your hypothesis- can you prove it? Do you know if women have had roles to play in their society other than giving birth and taking care of children? Can you prove that all women want to be taken care of, either by a husband or a government? You are taking your notion of the roles of men and women and trying to tie them to the rise of the welfare state. One of the most important things that you learn in statistics is that correlation does not imply causation- just because two events occur together doesn't mean that one is the cause of the other.
Of course men do not give birth. For pretty much the beginning of mankind, whats "has been" a women role ?
To birth and take care of the children? Correct? What has been a mans role? Well, it was to gather resources and protect. This has been the staple fore 98% of mankind. This has changed in the 20th century. Why? What has changed significantly in the 20th century? Well, the women's right to vote has. This is where we see a social change of women's roles. Women want to be taken care of. Well now thats why a lot of women vote socialism so the "government" can take care of them , instead of a "man".... problem is. Thats someone else money thats being used to take care of them.
Wait... your contention is that in a time when women have fought for and won the ability to work and support themselves, to be educated, to purchase and sell property, to have credit in their own names, own and run businesses, etc., they now suddenly have an increased desire to be "taken care of?" What?
I think with my brain just fine, thankyouverymuch.
My brain tells me that, in the most prosperous nation on the planet, children should not be going hungry, shouldn't be cold in the winter, shouldn't settle for substandard education. My brain tells me that all of us in society must care for the next generation until they're old enough to stand on their own. My brain tells me that it costs much less to educate a child than to incarcerate an adult 15 years later.
Then why say it?
Come again? Who's "they", and how did "they" swing that?
If you're talking about women as "they", then you need a seriously history lesson.
Either you don't know what socialism is, or you misunderstood the post you were responding to, because that poster said no such thing.
People change. The decision may not have been a bad one when it was made.
But nice try, blaming women for something they have no control over. What was that you were saying about not being sexist? LMAO ...
I'm for a basic social safety net not because my heart bleeds for others, but because it's a proven necessity for maintaining basic safety, order, and stability in a society.
It's an investment to increase the number of decisions people make that are long term decisions rather than decisions motivated by immediate survival.
When people don't have to hustle through three jobs just to get by, they can educate themselves or create new things or get more involved in their communities in positive ways.
If the US had Medicare for all, we'd likely see many more small businesses and a reallocation of labor based more on optimal fit (and hence productivity) rather than on perceived job security.
I'm a woman and I voted yes because I think women are contributors for sure. I am. Therefore after women could vote, you would naturally up the vote for welfare programs. There is no way it couldn't make a difference.
I don't think the O.P. is being sexist though. I see it as a question and discussion of curiosity. Not a degrading stab on all women but then again, I'm an Independent so I lean towards that line of thinking. I rarely jump on a bandwagon.
There is nothing wrong with an open discussion. I don't take this as an insult at all.
If only it really was an open discussion. That's the problem, isn't it?
A good starting point for an honest discussion would be to ask women what issues matter most and why.
The OP clearly believes that women are more likely than men to support welfare, which may or may not be true. It becomes a real obstacle to an honest conversation when you delve into a posting history that is clearly hostile towards welfare (and pretty much anything else that is considered "too leftist.") At that point, the implied logic, so-called, becomes quite obvious: A is likely to support B. B is bad. A should be silenced.
The question, as presented, also suggests that women in general are single-issue voters. Most aren't.
The Great Depression is what caused the creation of today's welfare state. Before the Great Depression, women and blacks tended to vote Republican while Catholic men and southern white men tended to vote Democrat.
The Great Depression is what caused the creation of today's welfare state. Before the Great Depression, women and blacks tended to vote Republican while Catholic men and southern white men tended to vote Democrat.
Yes, until the parties effectively switched platforms...
I never head of this being preached in Black Church's, but it is somewhat common knowledge that once Poverty Programs took off during the LBJ's "Great Society" many welfare service providers mandated that women with children could not receive aid if there was an adult male living in the home.
it became a general belief that you no longer had to be married or cohabitating in order for women to have children, and that in many cases having MORE children brought you more benefits. Many [black] women at that point began procreating with the lowest common denominator in the community because "quality" (in the traditional sense) was no longer a necessity. The poorest amongst us are still til thisday, stuck within the form of practice.
Prior to that, black families were probably far more religious, independent and therefor more traditionally nuclear with an integrated protestant work ethic because of these circumstances. Funny enough, the were far more conservative and Republican supporting in those days as well.
Get everyone dependent on the government.
Have workers pay for it.
And if you can't get enough people to buy in than start importing new voter blocks regardless of the rule of law.
It's the communist way and the way to destroy a society.
And millions of useful idiots support 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.
