The modern woman has a career and children, all without the help of any man...

[Lysistrata]

A woman can have a career and children without the help of any man, but in the vast majority of such cases either the career or motherhood (or both) will be shortchanged and the kids will suffer, as will society as a whole. Kids suffer enough with both parents working, but with just a career-orienter mother? What a fiasco.

Remember Murphy Brown and Dan Quayle? Her decision to have a kid without a husband was a huge, selfish mistake, and it was RIGHT to point that out.

Why can't the father stay home and raise the kid? He should not be so "career-oriented."

 

[there4eyeM]

Questioning the practices of the past is fine. Trying new things is fine. Simply changing without regard for the consequences is unintelligent.

 

[initforme]

Perhaps it's the fact that many women aspire to more than staying home and being a homemaker that bothers some men. I'm not saying all, but a growing number. They aspire to have nice things just as men do and know they aren't going to afford those nice things staying home. In many cases they have decided to forego kids to get the nice things and be able to travel, etc. Can we blame them for wanting a lifestyle of THEIR CHOICE? There's lots of nice things out there and a big world to go see. A growing number are choosing that and if they are working to attain those goals I say good for them. Some don't like it. It's called freedom.

 

[Correll]

There were no good old days.

Bullshit. United States roared after WW2.

For a select group of people. Yep, girls who were pregnant still went to the country to visit relatives. Whole lot of stuff you are ignoring.

Yes, things were a lot closer to idyllic if you were White and straight, but every American benefited from the post-WWII boom.

That women who put out & got pregnant "went to the country to visit relatives" instead of unabashedly having children out of wedlock or unashamedly having the children's lives terminated was, overall, a good thing sociologically.

It is pretty insulting the way liberals, assume that anyone they disagree with, knows nothing of nuance.


Making a statement about "the good old days" does not imply that a person is unaware that "good" does not mean "perfect" or "utopia".

It's not insulting. People don't change. Technology changes.

No, your point wasn't about technology, but about your assumption that someone else, was completely lacking in nuance or understanding of complexity.

That was you being insulting.

And what is with this need to tear down the past like you are doing?

 

[Bush92]

Perhaps it's the fact that many women aspire to more than staying home and being a homemaker that bothers some men. I'm not saying all, but a growing number. They aspire to have nice things just as men do and know they aren't going to afford those nice things staying home. In many cases they have decided to forego kids to get the nice things and be able to travel, etc. Can we blame them for wanting a lifestyle of THEIR CHOICE? There's lots of nice things out there and a big world to go see. A growing number are choosing that and if they are working to attain those goals I say good for them. Some don't like it. It's called freedom.

It’s 2019. It takes two paychecks in order to maintain a household. Men expect their wives to get a job. In some cases women will stay home until kids start school. Where do you get your information from? Old editions of Good Housekeeping circa 1958?

 

[Bush92]

Questioning the practices of the past is fine. Trying new things is fine. Simply changing without regard for the consequences is unintelligent.

Tell it to my boss. Change for change sake is useless.

 

[Bush92]

A woman can have a career and children without the help of any man, but in the vast majority of such cases either the career or motherhood (or both) will be shortchanged and the kids will suffer, as will society as a whole. Kids suffer enough with both parents working, but with just a career-orienter mother? What a fiasco.

Remember Murphy Brown and Dan Quayle? Her decision to have a kid without a husband was a huge, selfish mistake, and it was RIGHT to point that out.

Why can't the father stay home and raise the kid? He should not be so "career-oriented."

Because it is his responsibility to go out and get a job. It’s called ”being a responsible adult male.”

 

[KissMy]

,,,the modern man remains boy-like, perpetually playing video games and hopping from woman to woman but never settling down.

This is the world liberal Democrats have created.

It’s why even liberal suburban women like guys in jeans and cowboy boots or men in uniform. Not the cafe latte drinking dorks they find at Starbucks. When I was in the Corps scoring with these chicks was not hard. It’s what they were looking for, a one night stand with a real man. They knew they could marry a dork and live in the burbs someday.

No idiot, she knew government would take care of her If she married a soldier & has his baby. She was hoping you got killed or got drunk & killed yourself!

 

[Bush92]

,,,the modern man remains boy-like, perpetually playing video games and hopping from woman to woman but never settling down.

This is the world liberal Democrats have created.

It’s why even liberal suburban women like guys in jeans and cowboy boots or men in uniform. Not the cafe latte drinking dorks they find at Starbucks. When I was in the Corps scoring with these chicks was not hard. It’s what they were looking for, a one night stand with a real man. They knew they could marry a dork and live in the burbs someday.

No idiot, she knew government would take care of her If she had a soldiers baby. She was hoping you got killed or got drunk & killed yourself!

No, she was hoping to finally have some great sex and an orgasm.

 

[Bush92]

At one time the suffix "wing" indicated the extreme of a party. Now, it is used merely as the tendency, the simple position of even slightly "left" or "right" of "center".
The usefulness of these terms is deteriorating at an increasing rate.

People are moving away from the center and further to the more solid “left” or “right.”

 

[Disir]

Bullshit. United States roared after WW2.

For a select group of people. Yep, girls who were pregnant still went to the country to visit relatives. Whole lot of stuff you are ignoring.

Yes, things were a lot closer to idyllic if you were White and straight, but every American benefited from the post-WWII boom.

That women who put out & got pregnant "went to the country to visit relatives" instead of unabashedly having children out of wedlock or unashamedly having the children's lives terminated was, overall, a good thing sociologically.

It is pretty insulting the way liberals, assume that anyone they disagree with, knows nothing of nuance.


Making a statement about "the good old days" does not imply that a person is unaware that "good" does not mean "perfect" or "utopia".

It's not insulting. People don't change. Technology changes.

No, your point wasn't about technology, but about your assumption that someone else, was completely lacking in nuance or understanding of complexity.

That was you being insulting.
And what is with this need to tear down the past like you are doing?

The OP indicated that all of those problems are the result of Democrats. There is not one speck of nuance or understanding of complexity indicated in that diatribe. The Democratic Party sucks, no doubt about it, but don't pretend that all of the woes are because of them. The issues that he pretends to want to discuss are repetitive because people don't change, technology changes. There is not one time period in history that you do not run into the same crap.

The 1950s are referred to as a dichotomy. Insulting? Too bad.

 

[Bush92]

Because they started this a generation ago by teaching white kids in the burbs to be PC pussified and play video games all day while living with mommy and daddy until they were 27.

Do you think that's why they are doing that?

Nope. They are doing that because, more often than not, they are six figures in debt after college and can't afford their own place until then.

Better go out and get a fucking job and start learning how to live as a poor person. Time to grow-up and get tough. I had three jobs at one point in my young life to support a family and pay the bills. Was in the National Guard and going to college at same time. Shit man.

 

[Bush92]

,,,the modern man remains boy-like, perpetually playing video games and hopping from woman to woman but never settling down.

This is the world liberal Democrats have created.

There were no good old days.

Bullshit. United States roared after WW2.

For a select group of people. Yep, girls who were pregnant still went to the country to visit relatives. Whole lot of stuff you are ignoring.

Select group? Oh...you mean the vast majority of Americans. I see. Not supposed to get pregnant outside marriage. You can screw all you want (I’m all for it ), drug stores back then, like today, have these things called “condoms.” The pill was in United States in 1963.

 

[Lysistrata]

What is glaringly missing from this discussion is that women, like men, have interests outside of family and raising children. A man can still raise a family while pursuing his interests in medicine, astrophysics, the law, engineering, politics, the gamut of whatever they are interested in and floats their boat, while women are attacked for having family and pursuing their individual interests at the same time. Both men and women are entitled to the half-and-half between being family people and pursuing their own interests.

 

[Disir]

,,,the modern man remains boy-like, perpetually playing video games and hopping from woman to woman but never settling down.

This is the world liberal Democrats have created.

There were no good old days.

Bullshit. United States roared after WW2.

For a select group of people. Yep, girls who were pregnant still went to the country to visit relatives. Whole lot of stuff you are ignoring.

Select group? Oh...you mean the vast majority of Americans. I see. Not supposed to get pregnant outside marriage.

Again. Dichotomy. Not supposed to do a lot of things. I'll be sure to codify that as soon as I have completed my takeover of the universe. Here is the reality. There were just as many shiftless men in the 1950s as there were in the 1910s etc.

Here is the really fun part. Women that are further down the socioeconomic ladder have a limited pool of men to partner with. So, at the bottom we have mentally ill men, felons, sex offenders, ongoing addictions, intellectually disabled men, etc. and so on. They are just as susceptible today as they were 60-100 years ago to the whole concept of a knight in shining armor and the fairy tale romance. You still have a very large percentage of young girls that drop out of high school and want to be stay at home mothers and wives. That is what they want to do.

The "modern woman" has a career and children today for the same damn reason that they had children and a career 100 years ago without a man. Rent and food. The number of women that make a "lifestyle choice" are few and are usually independently wealthy or financially stable in established careers.

 

[bodecea]

Yeah, if you were a white male the 1950s were great. For independent women and people of color, not so much.

Better than the 40s, or 30s.

Which were better than the 1870s, but it still wasn't great for those groups.

1. It was great for them, relative to the last 2 decades, just like for straight white males.

2. Why the need to deny any past good times?

I am not denying the 1950s were good for some. But for others, it was not the same. In 1955 Rosa Parks was arrested for not giving up her seat on a bus to a white man. No first come first serve. No men giving up a seat for a black women. He got on the bus and demanded she give him her seat.

In 1955 Rosa Parks had the luxury of moving on to higher concerns on Malow's hierarchy of needs. In the 40s, she would have just been beaten by cops and ignored by a society consumed by fighting against the Nazis. In the 30s she would have been more concerned with where dinner was coming than, her status in society.


I ask again, why the need to deny any past good times?

Fascinating.

 

[Correll]

Better than the 40s, or 30s.

Which were better than the 1870s, but it still wasn't great for those groups.

1. It was great for them, relative to the last 2 decades, just like for straight white males.

2. Why the need to deny any past good times?

I am not denying the 1950s were good for some. But for others, it was not the same. In 1955 Rosa Parks was arrested for not giving up her seat on a bus to a white man. No first come first serve. No men giving up a seat for a black women. He got on the bus and demanded she give him her seat.

In 1955 Rosa Parks had the luxury of moving on to higher concerns on Malow's hierarchy of needs. In the 40s, she would have just been beaten by cops and ignored by a society consumed by fighting against the Nazis. In the 30s she would have been more concerned with where dinner was coming than, her status in society.


I ask again, why the need to deny any past good times?

Fascinating.

Thanks. I think so to. There is a lot to unpack here. I hope that he answers seriously and honestly.

I not going to waste my time asking for anything like that from you.

 

[Bush92]

,,,the modern man remains boy-like, perpetually playing video games and hopping from woman to woman but never settling down.

This is the world liberal Democrats have created.

There were no good old days.

Bullshit. United States roared after WW2.

For a select group of people. Yep, girls who were pregnant still went to the country to visit relatives. Whole lot of stuff you are ignoring.

Select group? Oh...you mean the vast majority of Americans. I see. Not supposed to get pregnant outside marriage.

Again. Dichotomy. Not supposed to do a lot of things. I'll be sure to codify that as soon as I have completed my takeover of the universe. Here is the reality. There were just as many shiftless men in the 1950s as there were in the 1910s etc.

Here is the really fun part. Women that are further down the socioeconomic ladder have a limited pool of men to partner with. So, at the bottom we have mentally ill men, felons, sex offenders, ongoing addictions, intellectually disabled men, etc. and so on. They are just as susceptible today as they were 60-100 years ago to the whole concept of a knight in shining armor and the fairy tale romance. You still have a very large percentage of young girls that drop out of high school and want to be stay at home mothers and wives. That is what they want to do.

The "modern woman" has a career and children today for the same damn reason that they had children and a career 100 years ago without a man. Rent and food. The number of women that make a "lifestyle choice" are few and are usually independently wealthy or financially stable in established careers.

The women at the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum are no different than the men who are there. But those people worked hard in the 1920’s and 1930’s despite their so-called “white privilege” and carved out a living. No social safety net back then. Husband and wife worked together for survival. Then they went on to win a world war, defeat fascism, liberate concentration camps, and make the United States a superpower. I don’t think anyone felt like or waited on a knight in shining armor. Where do you get this from? Education...fucking liberals politicizing our schools. People, my grandparents, parents, and that includes me, just fought to survive on a substandard family income. “Modern women?” What is that supposed to mean? Women in past generations were victims or idiots? Typical liberal narcissism.

 

[whitehall]

"Hopping from woman to woman" is hardly "boy like".

 

[Bush92]

,,,the modern man remains boy-like, perpetually playing video games and hopping from woman to woman but never settling down.

This is the world liberal Democrats have created.

There were no good old days.

Bullshit. United States roared after WW2.

For a select group of people. Yep, girls who were pregnant still went to the country to visit relatives. Whole lot of stuff you are ignoring.

Select group? Oh...you mean the vast majority of Americans. I see. Not supposed to get pregnant outside marriage.

Again. Dichotomy. Not supposed to do a lot of things. I'll be sure to codify that as soon as I have completed my takeover of the universe. Here is the reality. There were just as many shiftless men in the 1950s as there were in the 1910s etc.

Here is the really fun part. Women that are further down the socioeconomic ladder have a limited pool of men to partner with. So, at the bottom we have mentally ill men, felons, sex offenders, ongoing addictions, intellectually disabled men, etc. and so on. They are just as susceptible today as they were 60-100 years ago to the whole concept of a knight in shining armor and the fairy tale romance. You still have a very large percentage of young girls that drop out of high school and want to be stay at home mothers and wives. That is what they want to do.

The "modern woman" has a career and children today for the same damn reason that they had children and a career 100 years ago without a man. Rent and food. The number of women that make a "lifestyle choice" are few and are usually independently wealthy or financially stable in established careers.

So your a lesbian. That’s fine.