Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2014 19:42:47 GMT -5
Women aren't doing well by it, either. They take the brunt of the burden single parenthood. And their economic status almost always declines after a divorce. Daughters also benefit from involvement of fathers- and wives from support of husbands, emotional, financial, and practical- also helps to have an extra person who can pick up the kids from daycare if you're stuck working late. Sure... but an awful lot of women have been programmed not to believe that... and to see Uncle Sam as their provider - see Sandra Fluke. From my social working experience, that's mostly amongst upper middle class and wealthy women. Poor women are desperate for men-- and the income they can bring. They debase themselves in unbelievable ways for that sense of stablity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2014 19:43:12 GMT -5
It is nice how Moses likes to entertain us! Can't explain his behavior any other way- he takes self-deprecation to a new level!! And self-parody too. It's hard to tell if he's actually a liberal, or a conservative creating a cartoon-character liberal. Hmmm...I doubt he knows himself!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2014 19:44:24 GMT -5
I'm glad they are anti-gun. When civ falls to pieces, they'll be the first ripped up by the ravening illiterate hordes. Well they are only anti-gun for everyone else, not for themselves. They want EVERYONE disarmed. Except their bodygaurds. And they pee their pants around guns.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Feb 18, 2014 19:44:32 GMT -5
Sure... but an awful lot of women have been programmed not to believe that... and to see Uncle Sam as their provider - see Sandra Fluke. From my social working experience, that's mostly amongst upper middle class and wealthy women. Poor women are desperate for men-- and the income they can bring. They debase themselves in unbelievable ways for that sense of stablity. I'd have to agree with you on that. Which is odd... because a girl who can afford Georgetown Law shouldn't need the government to buy her birth control.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2014 19:50:25 GMT -5
From my social working experience, that's mostly amongst upper middle class and wealthy women. Poor women are desperate for men-- and the income they can bring. They debase themselves in unbelievable ways for that sense of stablity. I'd have to agree with you on that. Which is odd... because a girl who can afford Georgetown Law shouldn't need the government to buy her birth control. I don't think those wealthier women want the money- they want the sense of independence, and get pissed when it's not as fulfilling as they thought. Poor women want both- government money, and a man. That's why welfare discourages marriage. If they get married, they lose the benefits. But they need the men for emotional support, as well as financial assistance to fill the gaps welfare cant' provide. Men become a sought after commodity- and without marriage to tie them down, they bang as many women as they can. Women can't count on one man because of that, so they end of having kids by multiple men. It's a big part of urban dysfunction. Folks that don't work with poor people usually can't believe how convoluted and utterly dysfunctional their family relations truly are.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Feb 18, 2014 19:59:49 GMT -5
I'd have to agree with you on that. Which is odd... because a girl who can afford Georgetown Law shouldn't need the government to buy her birth control. I don't think those wealthier women want the money- they want the sense of independence, and get pissed when it's not as fulfilling as they thought. It's not really independence when it's being paid for by someone else. Which is probably part of the reason why they find it unfulfilling. This part is right on:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2014 20:06:53 GMT -5
I don't think those wealthier women want the money- they want the sense of independence, and get pissed when it's not as fulfilling as they thought. It's not really independence when it's being paid for by someone else. Which is probably part of the reason why they find it unfulfilling. This part is right on: Yep- you can't believe how happy we are when a big family has the same last name-- makes the paper work so much simpler than tracking down 4 different men for 7 different kids, some of the kids out of sequence (Daquon was Jaquon's dad, then they split up, she had Shamera with a different dad, then got back with Daquon and had Shaquon) -- and sometimes the mom uses her last name, sometimes the dad's- not uncommon for her to have used her name for Jaquon, then to celebrate being re-united Daquon's last name for Shaquon. Lordy that makes the paperwork tricky!!
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Feb 18, 2014 20:29:53 GMT -5
My goodness. Reading the collapse of society into a commercial for laundry detergent. If this is what amounts to right-wing thinking, we can expect them to be less and less important on the political stage.
|
|
|
Post by dogbert on Feb 18, 2014 22:07:34 GMT -5
My goodness. Reading the collapse of society into a commercial for laundry detergent. If this is what amounts to right-wing thinking, we can expect them to be less and less important on the political stage. You my normally astute friend missed the point. Why should they have to say something that is so common sense that if you went out and found a guy living under a rock in some remote, backward country and asked him he would tell you it's insane. Why in America today a company would have to say something so idiotic? What else can it be but the breakdown of American society? OBTW now that I live outside the bubble I have met many, many people that feel this way and I think that the bubble crowd is going to be in for a rude awakening come November.
|
|
|
Post by kemmer on Feb 18, 2014 22:36:29 GMT -5
My goodness. Reading the collapse of society into a commercial for laundry detergent. If this is what amounts to right-wing thinking, we can expect them to be less and less important on the political stage. Threads are like conversations. One thought leads to another, no matter which wing one's standing in.
|
|
|
Post by kemmer on Feb 18, 2014 22:45:13 GMT -5
My goodness. Reading the collapse of society into a commercial for laundry detergent. If this is what amounts to right-wing thinking, we can expect them to be less and less important on the political stage. You my normally astute friend missed the point. Why should they have to say something that is so common sense that if you went out and found a guy living under a rock in some remote, backward country and asked him he would tell you it's insane. Why in America today a company would have to say something so idiotic? What else can it be but the breakdown of American society? OBTW now that I live outside the bubble I have met many, many people that feel this way and I think that the bubble crowd is going to be in for a rude awakening come November. They write it for the same reason my hairdryer says not to use it in the shower. Fear of litigation. The "single load" laundry products have been a problem. P&G was accused of making them "too pretty," so children ate them. Everyone knows the first rule of households with small children is to keep potential poisons out of reach, but accidents do happen-- even to concientious parents. Lawyers are always standing by. The other problem with "single load" products, is the drop in sales. It seems that many women don't bother to measure, and so pour WAAAAY too much detergent into the machine. This actually gives them a poorer outcome for the laundry while simultaneously (in some cases) damaging the washing machine. P&G is actually doing non-measurers a favor (at company expense) with these products. Ironic that they must also look over their shoulders for eager lawyers, no?
|
|
|
Post by kemmer on Feb 19, 2014 0:05:53 GMT -5
I'd have to agree with you on that. Which is odd... because a girl who can afford Georgetown Law shouldn't need the government to buy her birth control. I don't think those wealthier women want the money- they want the sense of independence, and get pissed when it's not as fulfilling as they thought. Poor women want both- government money, and a man. That's why welfare discourages marriage. If they get married, they lose the benefits. But they need the men for emotional support, as well as financial assistance to fill the gaps welfare cant' provide. Men become a sought after commodity- and without marriage to tie them down, they bang as many women as they can. Women can't count on one man because of that, so they end of having kids by multiple men. It's a big part of urban dysfunction. Folks that don't work with poor people usually can't believe how convoluted and utterly dysfunctional their family relations truly are. The dysfunction is largely caused by the devaluation of the men in question. Let's remember that the original purpose of Welfare was to allow widows and deserted wives to remain OUT OF THE LABOR FORCE so they could raise their children. (It was kinda a given, back then, that children needed mothers, and "latch-keys" weren't good for the kids.) It was a matter of PRIDE for a working man, to be able to relieve his wife of the necessity of working outside the home. (It used to be common knowledge that wives and mothers actually worked-- even if they weren't paid.) Our society really hates giving any aid whatsoever to able-bodied men. Even the EITC requires children. A temporarily unemployed husband automatically restricted Welfare-- to the point of men being given the choice of deserting their families, or watching them go hungry. Social Workers were forced to do "midnight raids" to see if the husband hadn't REALLY deserted his wife and children. This was demeaning to men-- and social workers were more than a litlle bit queasy about it, too. We said-- and I remember being a vocal proponent of this-- that Welfare should seek to keep families together. We meant husbands shouldn't have to desert their families during hard times. Then, somebody decided that a "family" could consist of a 16-year-old girlchild and a newborn infant. Anybody who said, "No, no, NO!" to that was an anti-feminist troglodyte refusing to embrace the new, modern definitions of "family" that were just beginning to crop up. (If the archives of the Phil Donohue Show are still available, you can watch the audience being excoriated for calling 15-year-olds who'd chosen to keep their babies-- on Welfare-- "girls" instead of "women". As though having sex automatically turns the female of our species into full-funcioning adults.) No 18-year-old boy, just starting out, can compete with Uncle Sam as a provider. No 18-year-old boy, with his first legal job, can compete with the "bad boys" in the drug trade when it comes to trading bling and a good time for date. Girls could go for the "bling", without having to consider whether the guy in question would turn out to be a steady mate. The days when being able to keep a steady job, no matter how lowly, put a fella a cut above the low-lifes who'd likely wind up in prison, someday, were OVER. We have, now, created a large cohort of proto-men who aren't needed. Nobody depends on them, not their mothers, their grandmothers, their crippled uncles, their elderly aunts... and certainly not the mothers of their children. They find it impossible to satisfy a basic human NEED, ie, to be "needed" by others. Let us remember that the concept of "chivalry" still exists in our culture. A MAN is someone who provides for and protects the weak. A MAN is someone who has responsibilities and meets them, best he can. Yes, poor women are still looking for that support and protection-- the whole "soul mate/ helpmate" thing. But, sadly, that role is now denied to poor men. They know their contribution is no longer necessary. They are simply redundant. And so they remain in suspended adolescence, hanging out and playing all day. But they do have a lot of girlfriends, now, without too much effort. *sigh*
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2014 8:17:50 GMT -5
I don't think those wealthier women want the money- they want the sense of independence, and get pissed when it's not as fulfilling as they thought. Poor women want both- government money, and a man. That's why welfare discourages marriage. If they get married, they lose the benefits. But they need the men for emotional support, as well as financial assistance to fill the gaps welfare cant' provide. Men become a sought after commodity- and without marriage to tie them down, they bang as many women as they can. Women can't count on one man because of that, so they end of having kids by multiple men. It's a big part of urban dysfunction. Folks that don't work with poor people usually can't believe how convoluted and utterly dysfunctional their family relations truly are. The dysfunction is largely caused by the devaluation of the men in question. Let's remember that the original purpose of Welfare was to allow widows and deserted wives to remain OUT OF THE LABOR FORCE so they could raise their children. (It was kinda a given, back then, that children needed mothers, and "latch-keys" weren't good for the kids.) It was a matter of PRIDE for a working man, to be able to relieve his wife of the necessity of working outside the home. (It used to be common knowledge that wives and mothers actually worked-- even if they weren't paid.) Our society really hates giving any aid whatsoever to able-bodied men. Even the EITC requires children. A temporarily unemployed husband automatically restricted Welfare-- to the point of men being given the choice of deserting their families, or watching them go hungry. Social Workers were forced to do "midnight raids" to see if the husband hadn't REALLY deserted his wife and children. This was demeaning to men-- and social workers were more than a litlle bit queasy about it, too. We said-- and I remember being a vocal proponent of this-- that Welfare should seek to keep families together. We meant husbands shouldn't have to desert their families during hard times. Then, somebody decided that a "family" could consist of a 16-year-old girlchild and a newborn infant. Anybody who said, "No, no, NO!" to that was an anti-feminist troglodyte refusing to embrace the new, modern definitions of "family" that were just beginning to crop up. (If the archives of the Phil Donohue Show are still available, you can watch the audience being excoriated for calling 15-year-olds who'd chosen to keep their babies-- on Welfare-- "girls" instead of "women". As though having sex automatically turns the female of our species into full-funcioning adults.) No 18-year-old boy, just starting out, can compete with Uncle Sam as a provider. No 18-year-old boy, with his first legal job, can compete with the "bad boys" in the drug trade when it comes to trading bling and a good time for date. Girls could go for the "bling", without having to consider whether the guy in question would turn out to be a steady mate. The days when being able to keep a steady job, no matter how lowly, put a fella a cut above the low-lifes who'd likely wind up in prison, someday, were OVER. We have, now, created a large cohort of proto-men who aren't needed. Nobody depends on them, not their mothers, their grandmothers, their crippled uncles, their elderly aunts... and certainly not the mothers of their children. They find it impossible to satisfy a basic human NEED, ie, to be "needed" by others. Let us remember that the concept of "chivalry" still exists in our culture. A MAN is someone who provides for and protects the weak. A MAN is someone who has responsibilities and meets them, best he can. Yes, poor women are still looking for that support and protection-- the whole "soul mate/ helpmate" thing. But, sadly, that role is now denied to poor men. They know their contribution is no longer necessary. They are simply redundant. And so they remain in suspended adolescence, hanging out and playing all day. But they do have a lot of girlfriends, now, without too much effort. *sigh* Well said- sad but true.
|
|
|
Post by dogbert on Feb 19, 2014 12:15:49 GMT -5
You my normally astute friend missed the point. Why should they have to say something that is so common sense that if you went out and found a guy living under a rock in some remote, backward country and asked him he would tell you it's insane. Why in America today a company would have to say something so idiotic? What else can it be but the breakdown of American society? OBTW now that I live outside the bubble I have met many, many people that feel this way and I think that the bubble crowd is going to be in for a rude awakening come November. They write it for the same reason my hairdryer says not to use it in the shower. Fear of litigation. The "single load" laundry products have been a problem. P&G was accused of making them "too pretty," so children ate them. Everyone knows the first rule of households with small children is to keep potential poisons out of reach, but accidents do happen-- even to concientious parents. Lawyers are always standing by. The other problem with "single load" products, is the drop in sales. It seems that many women don't bother to measure, and so pour WAAAAY too much detergent into the machine. This actually gives them a poorer outcome for the laundry while simultaneously (in some cases) damaging the washing machine.
P&G is actually doing non-measurers a favor (at company expense) with these products. Ironic that they must also look over their shoulders for eager lawyers, no? So you know my wife?!?!?!?
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Feb 19, 2014 13:11:55 GMT -5
My goodness. Reading the collapse of society into a commercial for laundry detergent. If this is what amounts to right-wing thinking, we can expect them to be less and less important on the political stage. You had to come in and ruin the fun. I really, really was liking this thread. I just love when right-wingers go off on their stream of consciousness!!!
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Feb 19, 2014 13:12:46 GMT -5
My goodness. Reading the collapse of society into a commercial for laundry detergent. If this is what amounts to right-wing thinking, we can expect them to be less and less important on the political stage. Threads are like conversations. One thought leads to another, no matter which wing one's standing in. Are you kidding me? LOL
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Feb 19, 2014 18:06:06 GMT -5
My goodness. Reading the collapse of society into a commercial for laundry detergent. If this is what amounts to right-wing thinking, we can expect them to be less and less important on the political stage. You my normally astute friend missed the point. Why should they have to say something that is so common sense that if you went out and found a guy living under a rock in some remote, backward country and asked him he would tell you it's insane. Why in America today a company would have to say something so idiotic? What else can it be but the breakdown of American society? OBTW now that I live outside the bubble I have met many, many people that feel this way and I think that the bubble crowd is going to be in for a rude awakening come November. Indeed. I have a theory that the decline of a civilization can be measured by the length of the term they use for where they put their garbage. 100 Years ago, we called it a 'dump.' 65 Years ago, we called it a 'landfill' 30 years ago, it was a 'sanitary landfill' Now it's a 'solid waste management facility.' In a century, we've gone from four letters to four words because for some reason, society has decided we need a very complicated euphemism for a very simple concept.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2014 18:33:53 GMT -5
Threads are like conversations. One thought leads to another, no matter which wing one's standing in. Are you kidding me? LOL Kid a kidder like you?? Heavens to Betsy how cools anyone not take such deep thoughtful posts seriously?
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Feb 19, 2014 20:49:08 GMT -5
Kid a kidder like you?? Heavens to Betsy how cools anyone not take such deep thoughtful posts seriously? New material time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2014 21:15:50 GMT -5
Kid a kidder like you?? Heavens to Betsy how cools anyone not take such deep thoughtful posts seriously? New material time. No!! Stick to your old stuff! You play dumb so well!!!
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Feb 19, 2014 21:16:49 GMT -5
No!! Stick to your old stuff! You play dumb so well!!! Okay, not only is it new material time for you, but reading comprehension time also
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2014 21:24:09 GMT -5
No!! Stick to your old stuff! You play dumb so well!!! Okay, not only is it new material time for you, but reading comprehension time also Repeated phrases and insulting statements!! You just keep rising the forum to new intellectual heights!!
|
|
|
Post by dogbert on Feb 19, 2014 21:49:08 GMT -5
My goodness. Reading the collapse of society into a commercial for laundry detergent. If this is what amounts to right-wing thinking, we can expect them to be less and less important on the political stage. You had to come in and ruin the fun. I really, really was liking this thread. I just love when right-wingers go off on their stream of consciousness!!! Yeah it points out liberal stupidity or evilness or both.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Feb 19, 2014 22:05:19 GMT -5
You had to come in and ruin the fun. I really, really was liking this thread. I just love when right-wingers go off on their stream of consciousness!!! Yeah it points out liberal stupidity or evilness or both. Yeah it does! Good job! Go get em tiger!!!!
|
|