What is happening to our society!
- Thread starter wantin150
- Start date
- Status
First the lack of hummers and now this!
But he is just an 11 year old child and doesn't know any better.
Taser time?
You all have just now noticed this? What a revelation!!!
"They" keep telling us things like:
"only some rules matter"
"you can be parented by __________________ and it doesn't matter"
"divorce is OK in most all cases"
"kids will figure it out eventually"
"don't be so harsh"
"moral character doesn't matter"
And seem to push that government and science will always trump God and tradition, and anything goes and down with keeping up with marriage as valuable part of our societal glue.
Butterfly effect and unintended consequences.
No this is not saying everything was perfect in the past. Far from it. But I think combining the above with a lazy TV driven overfed (spoiled) society is a lethal cocktail. A seemingly unrelated comparison - see how the sycophantic press compares this economic slowdown with the Great Depression.... most people today seem to have no idea of the past....and that is one thing that "is happening to our society".
"only some rules matter"
"you can be parented by __________________ and it doesn't matter"
"divorce is OK in most all cases"
"kids will figure it out eventually"
"don't be so harsh"
"moral character doesn't matter"
And seem to push that government and science will always trump God and tradition, and anything goes and down with keeping up with marriage as valuable part of our societal glue.
Butterfly effect and unintended consequences.
No this is not saying everything was perfect in the past. Far from it. But I think combining the above with a lazy TV driven overfed (spoiled) society is a lethal cocktail. A seemingly unrelated comparison - see how the sycophantic press compares this economic slowdown with the Great Depression.... most people today seem to have no idea of the past....and that is one thing that "is happening to our society".
Very true, and it seems to be this bleeds over into most of what is going on in our country/socity. During WW2 most everyone got/was involved in the war effort if for no other reason than because of rationing. Today for most life just goes on and a large portion do not even know whare this war is going on.
Same with the kids as long as it doesn't touch my life it's of no concern, life just goes on.
This doesn't mean we should only consentrate on the news we wish not to hear about, but we need to make ourselves more than just aware of it. After all tell me how can things be turned around and be made better it we ignore the problems.
Isn't it odd how this problem really manifested itself when something was taken out of the public schools during mid last century.
Same with the kids as long as it doesn't touch my life it's of no concern, life just goes on.
This doesn't mean we should only consentrate on the news we wish not to hear about, but we need to make ourselves more than just aware of it. After all tell me how can things be turned around and be made better it we ignore the problems.
Isn't it odd how this problem really manifested itself when something was taken out of the public schools during mid last century.
Geez, I wasnt gonna say it so blunt. But it is all part of the syndrome. One way or another for whatever reasons. About the same time our society headed down the tubes it became necessary to have 2 wage earners in the average family. Kids were being raised outside of the fasmily unit in day care, often by a single parent. Day care and single parents are a majority. I have no solid proof of this malaise, but it cant be good for society long term.
Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
Taser time?
He is too old. After 10, it is gun time
Taser time?
He is too old. After 10, it is gun time
Originally Posted By: andyd
Geez, I wasnt gonna say it so blunt. But it is all part of the syndrome. One way or another for whatever reasons. About the same time our society headed down the tubes it became necessary to have 2 wage earners in the average family. Kids were being raised outside of the fasmily unit in day care, often by a single parent. Day care and single parents are a majority. I have no solid proof of this malaise, but it cant be good for society long term.
It became "necessary" to have two wage earners in the family because of radical feminism coaching so many women to charge off to work.
With a suddenly much larger pool of worker candidates, companies could afford to be picky, and could keep wages low. For some reason, women were willing to work for less than men, and this played right into the companies' hands. Wages have stagnated, prices have not, and so to keep their heads above water both the husband and wife have had to work. Thanks, Friedan, Greer, Steinem, et al.!
Without a stay-at-home parent, the kids in the last thirty to forty years have had no stability. Fathers are often considered optional in our welfare and single-mom society, so many kids have had no male role models.
And yet nobody is willing to take an honest look at this, the first society that has ever tried this sort of large-scale restructuring, and to say, "Clearly, it ain't working!"
Geez, I wasnt gonna say it so blunt. But it is all part of the syndrome. One way or another for whatever reasons. About the same time our society headed down the tubes it became necessary to have 2 wage earners in the average family. Kids were being raised outside of the fasmily unit in day care, often by a single parent. Day care and single parents are a majority. I have no solid proof of this malaise, but it cant be good for society long term.
It became "necessary" to have two wage earners in the family because of radical feminism coaching so many women to charge off to work.
With a suddenly much larger pool of worker candidates, companies could afford to be picky, and could keep wages low. For some reason, women were willing to work for less than men, and this played right into the companies' hands. Wages have stagnated, prices have not, and so to keep their heads above water both the husband and wife have had to work. Thanks, Friedan, Greer, Steinem, et al.!
Without a stay-at-home parent, the kids in the last thirty to forty years have had no stability. Fathers are often considered optional in our welfare and single-mom society, so many kids have had no male role models.
And yet nobody is willing to take an honest look at this, the first society that has ever tried this sort of large-scale restructuring, and to say, "Clearly, it ain't working!"
With ex Woodstock hippies running the country one would think there would be NO problems. Gosh, I think I've been had. John--Las Vegas
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
Quote:
It became "necessary" to have two wage earners in the family because of radical feminism coaching so many women to charge off to work.
I don't believe this to be the case. Where I grew up there were tons of sweat shops where almost all employees were women. Buxton Box ..Swank Jewelry ..
Most of your class rings were made by Balfore industries in Attleboro, Mass (if you graduated before somewhere in the late 70's) ..and most of the positions were filled by women.
Textiles ..you name it ..women..candy factories ..
The feminist movement moved women from the sweat shop to the supervisor position ..which was always filled with men.
Back then there were "man jobs" and "women's work". Men weren't on the small part assembly line doing redundant tasks for low pay. They were on the "man's" assembly line doing "man" things.
This happened (the ending of the one paycheck household) around the mid 70's where the traditional household stay at home mom went into the work force. It was also when we had depleted our revenue surplus as a product of the post WWII influx of revenue for a globe that had no competition for our goods. When they caught up, we end our Fair Trade Laws which had contained our global wealth internally.
We became a less wealthy nation and real costs started to climb. The reaction was to work harder ..hence more people entering into the squirrel cage.
Doing 200% the effort for 110% of the benefits. It's a formula that's loosely played out over time. For example, the cost of quality daycare neutralized most of the income that a working mother made ..but the need for that fractional gain made it a sensible thing to do ..just due to arbitrary goals of what was "good enough".
It became "necessary" to have two wage earners in the family because of radical feminism coaching so many women to charge off to work.
I don't believe this to be the case. Where I grew up there were tons of sweat shops where almost all employees were women. Buxton Box ..Swank Jewelry ..
Most of your class rings were made by Balfore industries in Attleboro, Mass (if you graduated before somewhere in the late 70's) ..and most of the positions were filled by women.
Textiles ..you name it ..women..candy factories ..
The feminist movement moved women from the sweat shop to the supervisor position ..which was always filled with men.
Back then there were "man jobs" and "women's work". Men weren't on the small part assembly line doing redundant tasks for low pay. They were on the "man's" assembly line doing "man" things.
This happened (the ending of the one paycheck household) around the mid 70's where the traditional household stay at home mom went into the work force. It was also when we had depleted our revenue surplus as a product of the post WWII influx of revenue for a globe that had no competition for our goods. When they caught up, we end our Fair Trade Laws which had contained our global wealth internally.
We became a less wealthy nation and real costs started to climb. The reaction was to work harder ..hence more people entering into the squirrel cage.
Doing 200% the effort for 110% of the benefits. It's a formula that's loosely played out over time. For example, the cost of quality daycare neutralized most of the income that a working mother made ..but the need for that fractional gain made it a sensible thing to do ..just due to arbitrary goals of what was "good enough".
You can still have a single income (even $35-50K) and still live well. Living within your means and not keeping up with the Jones' is a gigantic step. But when credit based society gave shorterm gains with longterm consequences, kids were getting put into daycares 1, 2, then 5 days a week as big debt and moms working to feed the credit monster became socially accepted way of life. Then the Jones' mom went to work and dragged all their proteges with them and upped the game.
Compared to 1 or 2 generations ago, we live like kings. Shelter, food, good health and strong families are the things that our forefathers worked for and were happy with....not us, we want the greener grass on the other side of the castle walls.
Compared to 1 or 2 generations ago, we live like kings. Shelter, food, good health and strong families are the things that our forefathers worked for and were happy with....not us, we want the greener grass on the other side of the castle walls.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
It became "necessary" to have two wage earners in the family because of radical feminism coaching so many women to charge off to work.
I don't believe this to be the case. Where I grew up there were tons of sweat shops where almost all employees were women. Buxton Box ..Swank Jewelry ..
Most of your class rings were made by Balfore industries in Attleboro, Mass (if you graduated before somewhere in the late 70's) ..and most of the positions were filled by women.
Textiles ..you name it ..women..candy factories ..
The feminist movement moved women from the sweat shop to the supervisor position ..which was always filled with men.
Back then there were "man jobs" and "women's work". Men weren't on the small part assembly line doing redundant tasks for low pay. They were on the "man's" assembly line doing "man" things.
This happened (the ending of the one paycheck household) around the mid 70's where the traditional household stay at home mom went into the work force. . . .
Partly. But women factory workers in those days tended to quit work (and raise the children on the man's income) if and when they married. Work was something they did until marriage, not instead of it. They dreamed of marriage and children, not sweaty drudgery in a factory or mine.
Women only began to move into the work force in droves when (a) Friedan et al. told them they were missing out on something, and (b) when the work became much less dangerous and dirty. Once jobs became safer and more comfortable (air-conditioned offices, typing and filing, and now with computers), the idea of a career suddenly became much more attractive. (They've been sold a bill of goods, of course.)
It's still this way today. How many female garbage collectors, heavy machinery operators, and miners do you see?
Quote:
It became "necessary" to have two wage earners in the family because of radical feminism coaching so many women to charge off to work.
I don't believe this to be the case. Where I grew up there were tons of sweat shops where almost all employees were women. Buxton Box ..Swank Jewelry ..
Most of your class rings were made by Balfore industries in Attleboro, Mass (if you graduated before somewhere in the late 70's) ..and most of the positions were filled by women.
Textiles ..you name it ..women..candy factories ..
The feminist movement moved women from the sweat shop to the supervisor position ..which was always filled with men.
Back then there were "man jobs" and "women's work". Men weren't on the small part assembly line doing redundant tasks for low pay. They were on the "man's" assembly line doing "man" things.
This happened (the ending of the one paycheck household) around the mid 70's where the traditional household stay at home mom went into the work force. . . .
Partly. But women factory workers in those days tended to quit work (and raise the children on the man's income) if and when they married. Work was something they did until marriage, not instead of it. They dreamed of marriage and children, not sweaty drudgery in a factory or mine.
Women only began to move into the work force in droves when (a) Friedan et al. told them they were missing out on something, and (b) when the work became much less dangerous and dirty. Once jobs became safer and more comfortable (air-conditioned offices, typing and filing, and now with computers), the idea of a career suddenly became much more attractive. (They've been sold a bill of goods, of course.)
It's still this way today. How many female garbage collectors, heavy machinery operators, and miners do you see?
- Status
Similar threads
