"It Takes a Family" - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-12-2005, 08:14 AM   #31
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 01:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy


Ever occur to you why adolescent delinquency has sky-rocketed since the 1950's in most Western countries?
Do you really believe such a complex question has so simple an answer as "not enough mothers stay home with their children"? And if so, on what basis do you make that claim?
__________________

__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 07-12-2005, 08:14 AM   #32
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 02:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy


Ever occur to you why adolescent delinquency has sky-rocketed since the 1950's in most Western countries?
You have found a causal correlation between the two?
__________________

__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 07-12-2005, 08:15 AM   #33
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
Actually, I feel that in an economically perfect world, one of the parents should stay home with the kids. I think it is very beneficial to the kids' upbringing - it's a lot better than leaving them with day care. However, this is no perfect economically perfect world, and I'd sy that in most situations, both parents have to work just to stay alive.
It's complicated. On one hand, women shouldn't be compelled to stay at home by default. It should be their choice to stay home and raise children. On the other hand, adding all those women to the workforce had, essentially, given business an excuse to slice the average salary in half, since two adults were now working in a household. Thirty years later, it now takes two people to earn the standard of living that one person had in 1972, the height of labor's earning power. We've since reverted somewhere in between the earning power of 1929 to 1950. And massive personal debt makes up the difference.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-12-2005, 08:21 AM   #34
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy
Ever occur to you why adolescent delinquency has sky-rocketed since the 1950's in most Western countries?
Skyrocketing media attention and skyrocketing law enforcement. In the 1950s, bullying was a "rite of passage," rather than what it really is: "assault and battery." Plus, we since decided that crowds of angry whites dragging blacks out of jail and hanging them to death was a crime, although there were several years where Congress refused to schedule a vote to make it a crime.

Our perception of the past is based on fluff Hollywood musicals and TV series like "Leave it to Beaver," which are all flat out romanticist.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-12-2005, 08:25 AM   #35
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:49 AM
If Rick Santorum wants to return to a single-income society, he should push for the reinstatement of the Windfall Profits Tax, which assessed a 25%+ corporate tax on excessive profits and was created to encourage business to avoid the tax by raising wages and company reinvestment--and worked like a charm until it was repealed in 1986. After 1986, watch as salaries were slashed and companies now are so unstable that a stock market rumor can now send many of them into bankruptcy.

But no. It makes it all so convenient to blame everyone else but himself and his party for America's ills.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-12-2005, 08:26 AM   #36
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 01:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
Skyrocketing media attention and skyrocketing law enforcement. In the 1950s, bullying was a "rite of passage," rather than what it really is: "assault and battery."
Do you reject the idea that there has been an increase in violent behaviour, vandalism, and other forms of "anti-social behaviour" (to use one of the British government's current buzzwords) among young people in the last 50 years?

I do agree that to an extent the problem is exaggerated but I think there is enough evidence to suggest that it does at least exist, even if not to the extent that the media would have us believe.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 07-12-2005, 08:26 AM   #37
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 09:49 AM
I love when Melon debunks bullshit CW.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 07-12-2005, 08:28 AM   #38
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 01:49 PM
<idiot cap on> wtf does CW stand for? </remove idiot cap>
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 07-12-2005, 08:41 AM   #39
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 09:49 AM
conventional wisdom.

Hey, welcome back, by the way...where've you been?
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 07-12-2005, 08:43 AM   #40
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees
Do you reject the idea that there has been an increase in violent behaviour, vandalism, and other forms of "anti-social behaviour" (to use one of the British government's current buzzwords) among young people in the last 50 years?

I do agree that to an extent the problem is exaggerated but I think there is enough evidence to suggest that it does at least exist, even if not to the extent that the media would have us believe.
50 years ago, when we think about society, I wouldn't doubt that most people think of a 100% white society; and then when they think of the present, their view is multicultural. As such, the implication most always is that multiculturalism is the cause of crime.

The fact is that this is a fantasy. We've always had crime problems. Prior to 50 years ago, these were the days that mobs of white people lynched any black person that they wanted and there was no law enforcement and no media attention. In the 1920s and 1930s, we had plenty of gangsters--and they were all white. And rather than be hated as criminals, many of them developed a romanticist legend, forgetting that many of these people from Al Capone to John Dillinger and otherwise were robbers and murderers. And to get back on the topic, Al Capone started his life of crime while as a teenager by joining two gangs, then quit both to join a major gang in his late teens.

The funny thing about today's society is that teenage crime had actually declined dramatically up to the late 1990s, while media coverage had shot up exponentially. That is, the fewer crimes committed were now getting full media attention, leading people to get the impression that teenage crime had increased exponentially. It was during this time that the push for trying minors as adults and executing them happened.

Today, we've heard it so many times over the years now that we merely believe it without proof. It's assumed to be true. But, in fact, it is mostly a construction by the increasing number of 24 hour cable news networks that are looking for salacious filler to scare people into watching them.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-12-2005, 08:46 AM   #41
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 01:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by pax
conventional wisdom.

Hey, welcome back, by the way...where've you been?
Ah-ha, I should've guessed that, lol.

Thanks. I've just been busy, I guess. Studying, working, volunteering and spending time with a special person. But now I have some more free time I thought I'd check in on old Interland again.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 07-12-2005, 09:04 AM   #42
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
VertigoGal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: I'm never alone (I'm alone all the time)
Posts: 9,860
Local Time: 08:49 AM
What an idiot. Blame women for everything. Sometimes women need to work to support their families. Or, God forbid, maybe they just want to have a career. Who does he think he is, telling people how to run their families, telling women with jobs that they're ruining society? The thought of this man becoming our president is frightening.

My parents both work, I'm not a delinquent...most of the other kids in my area have mothers who can stay home, and they're still into drugs and sex.

And the comment about schools...ridiculous. That's the kind of shit you'd expect in a third-world theocracy. It figures he wouldn't want people to be educated, they might not vote for him then!

Families are overrated, anyway.
__________________
VertigoGal is offline  
Old 07-12-2005, 10:03 AM   #43
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
u2bonogirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Back on the blue crack after a long break
Posts: 6,726
Local Time: 09:49 AM
I dont disagree that women are better mothers in general. Theres a reason you call women mothers and men fathers.
Theres basic emotional and biological things that make men and women different from one another and I believe that those things are in part what makes a woman better at "mothering" children.

I would never want to be a single mother, and I feel for anybody that has to do it out of necessity and not will.

We cant frown upon women who are happier working, or have no choice, but even just in thought, isnt it a better idea to have somebody at home nurturing the children, teaching them morals, right from wrong.
What my ideal would be is to go to college, learn a skill, have my career until i want to have children and then hopefully be able to stay at home with them as much as I can.
__________________
u2bonogirl is offline  
Old 07-12-2005, 10:12 AM   #44
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 09:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by u2bonogirl
I dont disagree that women are better mothers in general. Theres a reason you call women mothers and men fathers.
Theres basic emotional and biological things that make men and women different from one another and I believe that those things are in part what makes a woman better at "mothering" children.

Ah, but you're being an essentialist where gender is involved, a view that's being discredited by science and psychology more and more every day. I think we need to stop talking about "mothering" and "fathering" in terms of having children, and start talking more about "parenting"--involving both parents in all phases of raising children.

I feel very strongly that there's absolutely no reason a compassionate, loving man couldn't be a full-time parent (and a very effective one at that). As a society, we've got to get past gender labels and empower individual couples and families to decide what works best for them.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 07-12-2005, 10:19 AM   #45
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
u2bonogirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Back on the blue crack after a long break
Posts: 6,726
Local Time: 09:49 AM
Im not labeling, Im stating that women tend to be better mothers, men better providers, disciplinarians.
Fathers SHOULD be involved in every phase, I agree.
Something that will greatly affect a child is seeing their parents loving one another.
I cant emphasize that enough. Just having parents that do their thing separately and try to do a good job wont impact their child as much as parents that do their best, admit their flaws and love one another with tenderness and passion.
Without impacting your children you cant protect them. And you cant just shelter the kid.
So keeping them at home all the time wont do any good.
I just dont agree with the statement that theres no real difference between men and women. Its absurd to me because of the overwhelming evidence Ive seen around me.

A loving father is a wonderful thing! Its a natural thing. But a woman can nurture a child in different ways beyond the obvious physical realm.
I really wish that my dad hadnt had to be my mother. I really do
__________________

__________________
u2bonogirl is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com