The 1950s are coming back

Getting out of a bad marriage is not a choice. If your husband was verbally and/or physically abusive would you stay in that marriage? Yes or no.
Poor married people with children can qualify for welfare. Just sayin

 

You're asking how I would shut the stable door after the horse has bolted.

The RIGHT question to ask is, would I marry a man who has the potential to be abusive. And pretending that stuff is invisible isn't going to wash. Such overtly dysfunctional people announce themselves loudly and clearly, long before they reach such depths.

Who we marry is a choice. The sane thing to do is to choose wisely. But evidently this comes as surprise to you. Perhaps you feel we shouldn't have to make wise choices? We should be free to marry on a whim, or lust, and not suffer the consequences of such irresponsible life choices?

 

Nope. I asked the right question as not everyone shows their true colors early on. Some people do change for the worse. Meaning, not everyone who's ever been in an abusive relationship saw it coming.
The overall point is many people think each is perfect for each other and fall in love get married have kids and then later things change. There are many reasons couples end up falling out of love. The worse thing they can do is stay in a loveless marriage just for the sake of keeping the family together. That kind of marriage can really mess kids up. Apparently you don't care about that.
The bottomline is you want to punish people for not staying in a bad marriage. That's just bad form on your part.

 

Except for the fact that it indeed is an outside circumstance.

 

I don't mean to be rude, but is this for real?

Is there seriously no little voice of reason agitating at the back of your mind with "hold on .. why would any sane person CHOOSE to stay in a 'bad' marriage, yet also CHOOSE not to make very very sure that it didn't remain bad?" Are you suggesting that such people are sado-masochists? And also don't love their kids enough to heal a bad marriage? I hope you're able to see the nonsensical nature of your proposition.

 

No it isn't. It's entirely a matter of choice .. from the choice of a partner onwards.

 

Just as it is a choice for a woman to give birth to multiple children from multiple partners, and raise them by herself so that she is provided with a larger welfare check for each and every child she has.

 

You don’t think people who end up divorced didn’t try to make it work? Really?

 

You didn't just say that out loud ... did you?

Giving up is the opposite of 'trying'. Obviously!

 

what we the op was talking about, having single bread earner households again

 

My lord. I’ll walk you through it. A couple starts to have marital issues. They try to work on things and even try marriage counseling. They try to work things out but in the end they aren’t happy and divorce. So yes, people can try to make things work but sometimes things just don’t work out. Do you really believe no one should ever get divorced?
Did you marry the first person you were in a relationship with?

 

I taught in one of the most difficult schools in inner city Brooklyn, New York.I am curious how exposure to the lower classes made her go to the right. I doubt if she was a true left winger.I stayed where I developed compassion for the lower classes, I saw social reality, my students were mostlypoor black and Puerto Rican and I saw the bigotry directed to them.and the poverty they endured. I didn’t quit, I stayed and made a difference. When I work with new teachers I tell those who are like your friends daughter, they should get out of education. People would ask me why I stay in the most difficult school and my answer always was, “how can I not?“ teachers often quit because they just don’t have the talent...and yes, I thinking teaching is a talent

 

Obviously you don’t understand how little a welfare check is. It keeps her very comfortable...if you think living at the poverty level is a reward

 

Teachers like you are worth their weight in gold.

I believe teachers who stay on in 'difficult' schools are either saints -- and I'm not using that term disparagingly -- or people who can't find a better job. I absolutely agree about teaching being a talent. I often tell parents that what makes a good teacher is one-third subject knowledge, one-third pedagogical-subject knowledge, and one third psychological insight, which has to be centred around empathy.

As for whether my friend's daughter was a true left winger -- which I suppose means that one must believe that all bad behavior on the part of the poor is simply a result of capitalism, and over which they have no control -- probably a lot of young people who start out on the left, eventually move right, partly as a result of their experiences with the real world. I don't know her personally, so I cannot say. She did also become religious, which probably had something to do with it.

However, it's not very interesting to exchange expressions of our mutual political beliefs, which we both have probably heard innumerable times.

I'm interested in your own experience -- so I ask you: how would you change the American education system? (And the environment from which poor children come?)

What do you think of the Harlem Children's Zone? And did you look at the link I posted, to Michaela School in the UK? And do you know about 'Operation Follow Through'? What do you think of Common Core?

If you were proposing some links, or articles, or books, for hard-hearted conservatives like me to read, that might move us in the right, I mean Left, direction, what would they be?

I'm personally very interested in education, which I think is one of the keys to changing the world for the better, but we seem to get few people with direct experience of it on this board.

Your own observations would probably be, certainly should be, of great interest to anyone interested in politics.

 

That is what parents are for. If they can't provide, they shouldn't have kids. If the state has to pay to provide for and support the kids, the kids should be taken from the parents and placed in an adoption facility until they get parents who can provide for them.

 

This is one of the big dilemmas for conservatives.

On the one hand, we don't want to keep inflating the power of the state -- and the power to take away your children is a very large power indeed. Give the state that power -- to remove children from unsuitable parents -- and, given the kind of people who gravitate to 'social services', it won't be too long before parents are seeing their children removed because the parents are teaching them 'hate' -- for example, opposing gay marriage. This is already beginning to happen in Europe. (The Council didn't get away with it this time. But you can see how the Left thinks. And note, this is the council that actively protected Muslim sex-abuse gangs because it was afraid it would be politically-incorrect to intervene. The self-righteousness of the Left has to be seen to be believed.) If children are to be indoctrinated, it must be done by state schools, which is why the many on the Left, and not just the mouthpieces for the teachers unions, generally hate homeschooling.

On the other hand, an innocent child growing up in 'the Projects', with a crack-whore mother who has a different male drug-dealer boyfriend living in every few months, is guaranteed to bring up a child in her own image.

What to do?

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
CHILDREN NEED food, clothing, shelter, heat , electricity...and THAT is what welfare pays for ….but seems righties aren't too concerned about those "PRECIOUS LIVES" once they leave the womb...and thank you for being yet another righty who helps me prove it

BUT THEY DO and saying something like , "they shouldn't have kids" doesn't do much for the KIDS....

GOODGAWD, would you watch a kid starve to death while you stood over him saying, "Your parents shouldn't have had you so you have to die " ??? WOULD YOU!!!!!!!!

Which, DUH, will cost taxpayers MORE ...Gee, such a great plan!!



Besides our government only abducts kids from immigrants..

 

Good GAWD! You expect a woman who is beaten by her husband to STAY and eventually be killed just to pay for her CRIME of marrying him !!!!

OHMYGAWD!

Only a complete idiot doesn't rectify their mistakes.

And NO, people don't say to a prospective partner, " as I grow older I'll change and become abusive".

Often there is NO warning beforehand and people change as they age...


WHY do you feel that is someone makes a mistake they should be punished for life???


Have YOU punished yourself for life for YOUR mistakes? Or are you claiming you never made any???

 

Why do some choose to remain single while having multiple children from multiple partners?

 

Ask THEM.

 

WHO wants the 50's to come back ?

From wiki: ""A 1955 lynching that sparked public outrage about injustice was that of Emmett Till, a 14-year-old boy from Chicago. Spending the summer with relatives in Money, Mississippi, Till was killed for allegedly having wolf-whistled at a white woman. Till had been badly beaten, one of his eyes was gouged out, and he was shot in the head before being thrown into the Tallahatchie River, his body weighed down with a 70-pound (32 kg) cotton gin fan tied around his neck with barbed wire. His mother insisted on a public funeral with an open casket, to show people how badly Till's body had been disfigured. News photographs circulated around the country, and drew intense public reaction. The visceral response to his mother's decision to have an open-casket funeral mobilized the black community throughout the U.S.[112] The state of Mississippi tried two defendants, but they were speedily acquitted by an all-white jury.[113]"""


Segregation was the norm.

Women being beaten by their husbands(weak, frightened little "men" ) was accepted.


If you heard your neighbor's screams of pain while she was being beaten you could NOT legally interfere. You wouldn't call the cops because they would say it's a matter between husband and wife.
A wife had to die before she got the "protection" of the law.


Women could NOT get a bank loan without a male co-signor.....limiting their opportunities and giving men an advantage.

Women were not encouraged to become anything but homemakers, teachers or nurses ….and IF they had a career they were expected to abandon it if they married.

Women had no recourse to an unwanted pregnancy ( something men NEVER had to worry about) but to find someone who performed abortions on the quiet....and they suffered horribly because of not having access to safe abortions....they even died …


That's just a short list of the "glories of the 50's""....it wasn't all rock and roll and "Leave it to Beaver"...



IF you respond to this post I will NOT address single points.


Agree you LIKED the 50's or didn't like the 50's.....any excuses and denials will be ignored as they should be...

 

Also a pretty good time. So were the 60's.

 

I do. I'll take the '50's over this trash society we now have because of LBJ and other leftist policies since then. I'm white, straight, and I'm proud of it. I know that burns the left. I don't buy into your baloney.

We still have defacto segregation. People tend to stick with their own kind. Forced integration was one of the dumbest things the government ever tried.....of course an idea of the left. Unlike Kamala lying Harris, I rode the bus to the dark side of town.

Yeah yeah yeah, emmit till, big deal. That could never happen in modern times....ooooops O.J. Simpson.

Black on white crime is way worse than white on black so get that garbage out of here.

Women weren't beaten like you make out but with the lefts embrace of Islam I kinda find that hypocritical.

Sorry not sorry I don't adhere to the commie left's ways of PC.

 

"""" I'm white, straight"""....says it all...…..(along with denigrating and minimizing what blacks and women endured,"" " It wasn't ME so who cares!"")

 

There are things here I cannot share but I wrote a book on classroom management 20 years ago and it has been a best seller for 18 years. It has been translated into Chinese and Indonesian. As a result of the book I have Keynoted all over the country and hear the problems of teaching. I don’t mean to sound like I’m bragging, but I think it’s relevant
I am retired for many years(I’m old...but gorgeous, one is true)
I don’t know about many of the things that you asked about
My daughter is a high school counselor and she told me that I would hate teaching today because of the lack of spontaneity.
The Harlem children’s zone sounds so interesting. But let me share my opinion about making a school successful. The school I was in was failing and it was very hard to learn. ..and to teach. The school had about 900 kids, grades six ,seven and eighT (I call it the age of agony) The chancellor gave us money and told us to create three mini schools within this three-story building. One school was the Academy, another was a business focus and of course me being an old hippie was the school for social action. The kids within the building applied to the school they wanted and now instead of 900 kids wandering around. There were 300 on our floor. It was phenomenal.! we knew every kid and we were able to do incredible things. The janitor would have to kick the teachers out at night because we were so motivated. The kids didn’t want to leave.
I used to walk out and there would be kids surrounding my car to make sure no one damaged it.
But typical of bureaucracy, as soon as the school was showing to be a great success… The funding disappeared