The 1950s are coming back

It's unlikely that any reasonable female would make career decisions based on 'loyalty to gender'. Or rather, any female who does actually insults her gender, and screws with her own life.

 

I agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, there are a growing number of people who either can't do this, or won't do it because to do so would endanger some end game (votes, maybe?). Consider the rise of Identity Politics. The polar opposite of 'living together as equals'.

And let's not even start on respect (for different opinions). That's another growing problem!

 

You want the govt to give every family a bonus for home schooling their kids? How much is this bonus you want the govt to dole out and how do you plan on funding this bonus?

 

A few comments.... Of course men and women or not the same but it does not mean they are not equal. Two nickels equal one dime though they are not the same.
Women should not have to worry About their income source when they are homemakers.That is a full-time job. I remember when a man could just leave and the woman was not entitled to any kind of pension and now with thr Internet men just can’t leave without paying child support now alimony
I see a contradiction where you were saying you want a female nurse because they are more caring and kind. I guess I’m just lucky because I know so many men who are caring and kind and it has nothing to do with biology. Using that logic you should only go to a female doctor
I wrote a book for teachers and as a result I Keynote throughout the country and I am called in June to try and persuade teachers that are leaving. The disrespect they get is not worth the income they get which is not enough

 

You see, it's that little word 'equal'. Two nickels equal one dime, with respect to how much they will buy, but not in respect of their mass or their size.
Women and men should have equal rights. They should be equal with respect to the law, except insofar as their biology requires some legal recognition.

Yes, men can be caring and kind, but I don't want a male nurse, and I'd be willing to bet most other men would not either. I can't speak for women. The reasons lie deep within our biology, and perhaps in our social conditioning, and have to do with how males relate to each other, and to females. This is something which, like all our mental functioning, is not yet well understood. We cannot yet go from axons and dendrites and neurotransmitters, to behavior. Someday we will be able to, and then we'll know what is biology and what is ideology. In the meantime, we have our responses, whether or not these have been shaped by natural selection or the bedtime stories we were read as children.

For a doctor, all else being equal, I want one who is kind and caring, sure. But that is entirely subordinate to competence in diagnosing and prescribing and if necessary cutting. Surgeons are notoriously NOT kind and caring -- whether or not this is always, or even sometimes true is not the point. If I'm going to be operated on, I simply want to the most skillful surgeon, and I care not for their sex or sexuality or anything else besides whether or not they can do the best job.

I happen to know several female doctors, including a surgeon, and I would be perfectly happy under their care. (A tip from the female surgeon: when delivering leaflets or newsletters -- something I do for my wife's church from time to time -- do NOT put your hand through the mail-slot on the door -- a common feature in Britain -- as she frequently has to operate on the hands of people who have done that, with an angry dog on the other side. Maybe she was just joking, but I no longer deliver newsletters the way I used to.)

As for paying women -- as it would overwhelmingly be in practice -- to stay home and raise their children, this is quite common in Europe and in other places. It's called "child benefit" in some places and "family allowance" in others. In the UK it was the Left who proposed it originally, as an explicit alternative to the minimum wage with the latter's distortion of the labor market. The amount paid is actually not great and the minimum wage was brought in finally.

In other countries, such as Sweden, it was seen as way to prevent a shrinking population, although the influx of Third World immigrants into Europe has put a different light on this. The problem with it is that the money tends to go to the poorest people -- who reproduce themselves and their behavior in their offspring, and thus the problems that led to their needing the money in the first place.

Thus the Clinton Welfare Reforms in the US, which aimed to discourage poor women from having lots of children, and to get them back into employment and evidently did so. I've frequently urged people who are seriously interested in this question to read a book by Robert Cherry, called Welfare Transformed -- Family Policies that Work. He is a liberal who originally opposed the Clinton reforms, but after study of their actual effects, changed his mind. I wonder if you are familiar with it, and if so, what you think about it?

My own belief is that state intervention should be in the areas of quality child care and education in general, and in making work pay, and in making the working environment congenial for mothers with children. I believe it's very important for self-respect for everyone who is able to work, to have a job and an independent income. A topic for another thread.

As for teaching: I agree completely with you. It's not mainly the pay, it's the lack of respect, first of all in the classroom. (I live in the UK and the problems here have a lot in common with the problems in the US. We lose a large percentage of 'NQTs' -- Newly-Qualified Teachers -- after their first few years in the classroom. i have a friend whose daughter was very left wing at college. She became a teacher, quit after three years, and is no longer left wing. Actual exposure to the lower classes gave her a valuable lesson in social reality.)

I would be interested in your comments on this school.

 

Send her back.
Speaking of hatred and speech they disagree with.
Ya baby send her back to 1950 and make her white again.

 

What is "real America"?

 

What? Where did you get that from?

I'm saying take welfare from the voluntary sole parents (anyone not widowed), and give it to those remaining in stable marriages, and ensure their kids graduate from high school with at least a Pass, and little or no absenteeism or disciplinary action.

 

How utterly boring & stupid.

 

Do you really believe that because they speak Spanish & have dark skin, they don't know who their parents are? Has American respect for humans & human rights declined to this low level?

 

In many situations, there truly is no racism.

 

If children are being raised by a single parent, who is single by their own decision rather than due to outside circumstances such as death or divorce, then they indeed do not know who their family is. It has nothing to do with race or language, but rather personal decisions..

 

I

 

I doubt America will ever head back to the 1950's

 

I think we’re going to find that out.

I sincerely hope that Trump and his mob are severely disappointed.

 

I think you are right.
In many ways, life is like a journey- driving across country or something. First you have to learn how to control the process. You need to learn to pay attention, recognize obstacles, have the judgment to make the right choices. And you have to get your butt in the drivers seat, if you ever want to control your own destiny. Then you find that you often over-correct, and have to make adjustments and corrections- both to your course, and to the way you think,. If you are wise, you learn from experience, and you listen to those who have already been where you are going, so that you don't have to make the same mistakes out of ignorance. The key is that we must be moving forward, improving- and teaching the next generation to take the wheel and continue when their turn comes. That in particular is perhaps the greatest threat to progress; that we hand over the navigation of our journey to someone who still thinks like a 16 year old, who knows those who have come before are stupid and he already knows everything.....

Yet, we seem to have put a number of such people in congress in the last election. As always.... we need to learn from our mistakes and correct them.

 

So the children of a sole parent should be punished WHY?

Those "precious lives" who YOU think CHOSE to have a single parent should be punished by having no food, shelter, schooling ???

Goodgawd...What should the country do with them, throw them in cages???

 

CHILDREN make a personal decision to have a single parent???


What is this trend with righties to dump on kids with one parents?

Do they REALLY think CHILDREN CHOOSE to have ONE parent??? WTF!!!!

 

They are already being punished by their parent choosing to be single in order to exploit them for greater governmental funding.

 

What is the trend of yourself to completely misinterpret and misrepresent what is stated, in order to present an entirely off topic and factually incorrect position?

 

So punish people who don't want to stay in a bad marriage? Got it.
BTW...you didn't explain how your plan will get paid for.

 

Of course, the children are not making the choice- at the same time, rewarding the parents for failing to make responsible choices insures that there will be more children in such circumstances, which may not only be poverty- but a leaning environment that will lead them to behave just as the parents have. That becomes generational welfare. It's not all single parents of course, it is irresponsible parents.

While this is fantasy..... How about we create a treatment given to newborns, where instead of having to take a pill to avoid getting pregnant, you had to get a prescription for a pill that would allow you to get pregnant? Getting pregnant is usually a choice- meaning that if you choose to be irresponsible, you have made the choice to be careless and assume the risk. Unless of course you assume society will become the "parent" substitute, and that careless choice imposes that on the rest of us when we have no role in it at all.

Somehow, while it's not fair to the unwanted child-it's also not fair to the society that will have to deal with the consequences of that carelessness.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
So the children of a sole parent should be punished WHY?

Those "precious lives" who YOU think CHOSE to have a single parent should be punished by having no food, shelter, schooling ???

Goodgawd...What should the country do with them, throw them in cages???

Oh, what a flimsy excuse for punishing those " INNOCENT precious lives".

Doesn't take away from the FACT that some here think punishing "innocent precious lives" is acceptable


WHY are they ONLY "innocent precious lives" when in the womb and NO WHERE ELSE???????????????????????????????????????????

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
CHILDREN make a personal decision to have a single parent???


What is this trend with righties to dump on kids with one parents?

Do they REALLY think CHILDREN CHOOSE to have ONE parent??? WTF!!!!

OH? SHOW me what I "misinterpreted" ????

Posters here clearly showed children of single parents should NOT receive welfare....

 

If they have observed the west over the past 25 years, they will know it is a bad idea.