Sergeant Stinger1
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2007
- Messages
- 2,877
- Reaction score
- 181
- Location
- Warren and Barrington, R.I.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
---I think that the traditional values of the woman being the housewife and the man being the money maker are breaking down. In my opinion this is mainly due to more women having jobs and waiting to marry. Now that they are almost expected to go out and get jobs they can support themselves and therefore don't have to marry.
Much respect and thanks.
There are many families where both parents absolutely have to work but there are many more where one parent could stay home but that would mean giving up some material things and many are too selfish to do so.
talloulou--Is this from a source or is it opinion?
talloulou--Is this from a source or is it opinion?
talloulou--Is this from a source or is it opinion?
I don't really feel that way and so I don't really quite understand it or get it. But I think their desire for self sufficiency is more of a factor than their desire for all the luxuries. They like knowing that leaving would be easy and doable if leaving ever becomes necessary.
There are many families where both parents absolutely have to work but there are many more where one parent could stay home but that would mean giving up some material things and many are too selfish to do so.
I'm trying to figure this post out, so bear with me.
Are you saying women who work (for whatever reasons), while they have children living at home, are selfish?
No, not all of them. But some of them definitely. But then again my reasons for staying home are selfish as well.
I think it's beneficial for someone to stay home particularly and especially when the kids are very young. Many many people will say it's financially impossible for someone to stay home. In a good portion of those cases, that's simply not true. They are selfishly choosing to both work because they want to, which is distinctly different from "needing" to.
I still don't see it.
I know your opinion is that it's beneficial for someone to stay home with young children.
You also said there are differences in wanting to work and needing to work.
Neither of those statements answered my question.
Are you saying that women are selfish if they work (for any reason) when they have children living at home?
If the family can financially afford for someone to stay home and no one does then yes. Absolutely. Kids who are too young for school need a full time parent. They simply aren't going to get the same level of care at a daycare then they would get from a parent who committed to giving them the time and focused on making them the number one priority.
I recognize that I am entering this late, so if I am taking this out of context, forgive me. Respectfully, Bodi, I disagree. I hate hearing statements like this. I am not a parent. Yet, as an adolescent therapist, I often must help parents with ways to help parent their children. I am very good at it and use my knowledge of being parented, my knowledge of relationships between people, and my knowledge and observations of both the kid and the parents. Making suggestions is not something I take lightly. I don't adhere to the adage that if you've never walked in my shoes, you can't give me advice. Perhaps my training gives me a leg up, but when a parent says something to me like, 'well you're not a parent, so what do you know', I'll often say, 'well you are and things aren't going well...don't close your mind to a suggestion.'
In my opinion, it is the high level of stress placed on survival needs combined with consumerism and the emphasis being placed on consumer productivity that has greatly broken down the family structure. At first glance we could easily say that this is the final outcome of the civil rights movement but I don't think it is at all. Civil rights and specifically gender equalization are not about abolishing families but about making roles more dynamic and interchangeable. People have more pressure put on them to make money so they can accumulate goods than ever before.
If you live in a big city or suburb, it takes so much effort to just survive that the idea of raising children sounds preposterous. Relationships break down easier because there is less time for bonding and establishing deep connections; people have to balance their survivalist lives with maintaining functional, productive and satisfying relationships.
Well stated. I wonder if the state of society is not something that, since we created it, we can alter? Why do families need two incomes? Because they want and want. This is mostly a middle class thing, to be sure.
Families don't "need" a nice two stroy, four bedroom house with a drying machine for their clothes if they have a mom and dad and one kid. They don't need an Audi or a Volvo. They don't "need" a big TV or Stereo system. They "want" that stuff. Materialism... like you say.
It does take effort, but why don't people stop trying to Keep up with the Jones's? Be content with what they have and/or minimalize their wants so that one parent can stay home for the first five years and be home when the kids get home from school, etc? It isn't that hard to do really, and the value to the kid is basically infinite.
Well stated. I wonder if the state of society is not something that, since we created it, we can alter? Why do families need two incomes? Because they want and want. This is mostly a middle class thing, to be sure.
It does take effort, but why don't people stop trying to Keep up with the Jones's? Be content with what they have and/or minimalize their wants so that one parent can stay home for the first five years and be home when the kids get home from school, etc? It isn't that hard to do really, and the value to the kid is basically infinite.
However, I am worried about family dynamics. Ensuring that kids are raised in homes with supportive parents and financial security is important to society as a whole. I'd suggest the we move towards a lot more part time jobs. This would allow both parents to work and raise kids. Kids would get attention from both parents and financial issues would be more stable because of 2 sources of income.
In my opinion, it is the high level of stress placed on survival needs combined with consumerism and the emphasis being placed on consumer productivity that has greatly broken down the family structure. At first glance we could easily say that this is the final outcome of the civil rights movement but I don't think it is at all. Civil rights and specifically gender equalization are not about abolishing families but about making roles more dynamic and interchangeable. People have more pressure put on them to make money so they can accumulate goods than ever before.
If you live in a big city or suburb, it takes so much effort to just survive that the idea of raising children sounds preposterous. Relationships break down easier because there is less time for bonding and establishing deep connections; people have to balance their survivalist lives with maintaining functional, productive and satisfying relationships.
America is becoming the epicenter of material excess. People are obsessed with accumulating possessions and increasing their "status". They confuse these things with fulfillment because the mass media has essentially brainwashed them with non-stop advertising.
If I ever have kids I'm going to limit their TV intake. Allowing impressionable young children to sit in front of a glowing propaganda box for hours at a time can't be healthy.
You can't blame the TV!!! The parent support needs to be there for the children. Parents don't want to be parents thats why society is failing. I thought you knew this?
For example, back when I was a kid we all watched the simpsons and one day we found out that this kid wasn't allowed to watch the simpsons because his parents feared that he would learn "bad things," from the simpsons like swear words and violence. Well what happened? He learned swear words from us because we always used them. And we enjoyed playground fighting everyday after school which he a lot of times participated in them.
The answer to your questions, it's that we (and by "we" I tend to refer to North America) have created a culture of entitlement, and then supplanted the economy of that culture into other parts of the world via globalization, where is now proliferates. It's why we are facing global financial collapse: the culture of material accumulation at all costs.
I worked on an organic farm in Ontario a few years ago, just for a few weeks, and they have a self-sustaining system there where the vast majority of their needs were met. While my life revolves around more than life on the farm, I can't help but wonder about how humanity is being ghettoized in this creation of ours. The majority of the world's populations now live in cities. Coincidence?
To answer your question about reversing this trend... yes, we did create it, with our very imaginations. It didn't just come out of nowhere. But to change it... hmmm... that would be complicated at this point. There first must be awareness, which is lacking, followed by will to change, which is lacking even more. Like most human eras, I suspect the shift will happen traumatically after the next financial collapse, which will be happening within the next few years.
I agree, and this was essentially my point, i.e., parents should raise their children instead of sitting them down in front of a TV until they're eighteen.
I was just pointing out why TV and other forms of mass media can be so damaging to the psyche of an impressionable young child. Whenever I see a product being marketed specifically to children the commercial is always slightly off-putting; it's like mental sludge is being pumped into your brain.
Parents need to get their kids away from the TV set and involve them in some real activities where bonding can occur more effectively. Camping, sports, reading, etc.
I'm not saying I'm going to restrict TV altogether, but I'll certainly moniter and manage their TV-watching habits.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?