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.
I think White folks use Asians and their apparent success as a way to bash blacks and hide their racism and their complacency against any change that would threaten white power and domination. It’s call divide and conquer and it’s a old and cheap trick.
Those white folks are amusing. When it comes to black people, they try to focus on the problematic minority of black people to justify their racism. But then when they see black people doing well and especially if they are doing better than them as a white person, they are jealous and angry and accuse them of not achieving by their own merit. At the end of the day, those folks (like the OP) have an racist obsession with black people and so have black peoples in their mouths all day. Nothing more, nothing less.
Indeed, government as provider for all citizens is a root cause of the societal ills. Single parent households are yet another symptom of societal breakdown.
If the movement of women in the work force and equal pay meant women were no longer dependent upon men to provide for them., as you assert, then money concerns would not be the number one concern of women post divorce or the post-divorce poverty rate for women would not approach 30%. I'll provide one source document, but there is a plentitude of proof literature that your argument is simply wrong. Better today, then 50 years ago? Sure. Hardly supports your obnoxious B.S. retort, though. https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/bank...-in-a-divorce/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indentured Servant
That is BS. The movement of women in the work place and equal pay meant women were not longer dependent upon men to provide for them. The traditional role of the man was provider and protector. Allowing women's rights in employment and pay meant that women could provide and protect themselves without a man.....as well as have kids without a husband. The assumption that the government took over the role of provider totally ignores single parent homes among the middle and upper class, which has been increasing.
Are you gaslighting me? Now you're telling me if I disagree with you, I can't and should move along ?
I'm saying that you brought up something that had nothing to do with the conversation, as an attempt to deflect from what I was talking about. That is called a red herring. It tells me you disagree with me but you can't refute me. Instead, you bring up an unrelated subject.
Indeed, government as provider for all citizens is a root cause of the societal ills. Single parent households are yet another symptom of societal breakdown.
If the movement of women in the work force and equal pay meant women were no longer dependent upon men to provide for them., as you assert, then money concerns would not be the number one concern of women post divorce or the post-divorce poverty rate for women would not approach 30%. I'll provide one source document, but there is a plentitude of proof literature that your argument is simply wrong. Better today, then 50 years ago? Sure. Hardly supports your obnoxious B.S. retort, though. https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/bank...-in-a-divorce/
You are correct. I should not have implied that women entering the work place meant that women were now TOTALLY financially independent. You have to word things carefully on these forums, like a legal contract, otherwise people will take your words and create a breach of contract....lol.
It was not my intent to imply that WOMEN ARE NOW FINANCIALLY INDEPENDENT. Thus, I stand corrected and will clarify what I meant. I simply meant that women gains in the workplace has allowed them to be LESS dependent upon a man for sustenance.
Now, of course, during the marriage of two working adults, the expenses and budget is going to be based upon the dual incomes and shared assets. However, once divorce happens, both genders will take a financial hit and struggle, typically. Furthermore, the fact that the poverty rate of divorced women approaching 30 percent.....is a big improvement over what that figure would have been before women rights, which was my point. In other words, 70% of women still keep their family above poverty.....despite divorce. Of course, there is alimony and child support helping out too.
The biggest reason that marriage has declined in America is due to changing gender roles. Its also worth nothing that racial oppression changed gender roles for black families long ago. Black women were working outside the home for a long time....often as domestics taking care of white households, even though the white women did not have a job and was home all day. Due to the level of fear and oppression and discrimination against the black man in the work place, the black women often had to provide for the family. There use to be an old saying by black women "I can do bad all by myself". In other words, the family was struggling WITH A MAN IN THE HOUSEHOLD as the women was often holding things down with her employment and why should she put up with a bad behavior from a man when she was holding things down?
Last edited by Indentured Servant; 06-23-2020 at 12:52 PM..
This would mean black americans would have to find some better country and immigrate there with everything already setup by another group. Black people would have to go to that country and start tapping into the grants and scholarships meant for some oppressed group that was already in that country. Blacks would have to go to that new country and side with the dominate society against that oppressed group. Blacks would have to go to that new country and use that oppressed group as their financial base by opening up little restaurants and beauty supply shops...nothing actually worthwhile or nutritious. Some blacks would have to cheat on exams as well.
I'm saying that you brought up something that had nothing to do with the conversation, as an attempt to deflect from what I was talking about. That is called a red herring. It tells me you disagree with me but you can't refute me. Instead, you bring up an unrelated subject.
I brought up something that had everything to do with the conversation, of using groups to bash another group. You either don't know what a red herring is or are being deceptive.
No racial group needs to adopt anyone else's culture. African Americans have made a huge impact throughout US music, art, literature, and society in general, and it sure as hell didn't happen by emulating anyone else.
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.
?
I never would have guessed that. Dam msm never mentions that.