djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,434
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 17, 2015 17:43:39 GMT -5
When it comes to Family Values, Conservatives talk a good game, but when push comes to shove.... If you actually want to raise a family without being harshly penalized, you're on your own. rich folks like me, who can afford a SAHM, that's fine. everyone else should starve and hand their kids off to a rickets infested day care joynt, or not have kids. i love America.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,434
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 17, 2015 17:44:35 GMT -5
you are either missing the point, or intentionally evading it. there are things that are necessary for our survival. those things are not really choices, zib. It is not necessary for anyone's survival to have children. it is necessary for the survival of the species, zib. that is actually somewhat more serious than the survival of individuals.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,873
|
Post by zibazinski on Dec 17, 2015 17:45:07 GMT -5
When it comes to Family Values, Conservatives talk a good game, but when push comes to shove.... If you actually want to raise a family without being harshly penalized, you're on your own. You're not harshly penalized. I wasn't. I had two and planned well. Well, not the first one but he was a summer baby so I had 6 weeks to recover.
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,596
|
Post by Ombud on Dec 17, 2015 17:45:08 GMT -5
Consider: Orthodox Jews and Christians who observe the seventh day Sabbath (of which I am one) cannot work at our customary jobs from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday. There are no exceptions. If you adhere to the religion, if you believe in it, you cannot break the rule. Jewish doctors, nurses, soldiers work on Shabbat
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,596
|
Post by Ombud on Dec 17, 2015 17:46:32 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure you didn't intend for your post to be insulting, but I wasn't 'funneled' into anything. It's a free country and I was free to choose as was my mother (business woman who owned 5 stores & authored 2 books) as was her mother (farmer) as is my DIL (owns her own small company) i meant it to be hypothetical. i stated that very very clearly. hypothetical meant "not real". which also means "NOT YOU". mmkay? My entire generation wasn't funneled into anything. Stay at home mom's were the rarity.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,873
|
Post by zibazinski on Dec 17, 2015 17:47:48 GMT -5
It is not necessary for anyone's survival to have children. it is necessary for the survival of the species, zib. that is actually somewhat more serious than the survival of individuals. People aren't going to stop having children regardless of whether they can care for them or not. The species will survive just fine. Or maybe not. Maybe they're be more stupid people being born because intelligent people won't have them. Maybe more welfare recipients will be born than taxpayers to support them. Maybe the jihadis will take over and it'll be a non issue
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,434
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 17, 2015 17:48:46 GMT -5
i meant it to be hypothetical. i stated that very very clearly. hypothetical meant "not real". which also means "NOT YOU". mmkay? My entire generation wasn't funneled into anything your entire generation is real, not hypothetical. please stop making this personal. it isn't.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,434
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 17, 2015 17:51:40 GMT -5
it is necessary for the survival of the species, zib. that is actually somewhat more serious than the survival of individuals. People aren't going to stop having children regardless of whether they can care for them or not. The species will survive just fine. Or maybe not. Maybe they're be more stupid people being born because intelligent people won't have them. Maybe more welfare recipients will be born than taxpayers to support them. Maybe the jihadis will take over and it'll be a non issue it is a reducio ad absurdum argument, zib. it is not intended to be "realistic". it is intended to test whether your idea of procreation is logically valid. if your idea of maternal volunteerism and choice is logically valid, then it needs to be applied in ALL cases. but it can't be. so it isn't. what this means is that there is actually an agenda being suggested by your logic- and that is that only people that can "afford" kids should have them. i know that is what you think. it is in every third post you make, probably. but there is a lot of baggage in that idea that needs to be unpacked. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/cool.png)
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,873
|
Post by zibazinski on Dec 17, 2015 17:52:46 GMT -5
In your opinion. Which you're entitled to. I'm entitled to mine.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,434
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 17, 2015 17:55:43 GMT -5
In your opinion. Which you're entitled to. I'm entitled to mine. no, not in my opinion. logically. what follows logically from your position is that "extinction is a choice". i would be surprised if that idea didn't strike you as odd.
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,596
|
Post by Ombud on Dec 17, 2015 17:58:07 GMT -5
I willingly admit that it's necessary for the species to reproduce. Also necessary for the economy. But in that stay at home mom's were an oddity, I don't understand why FMLA is insufficient. It's 12 weeks. And there's always grandparents / siblings on rotating schedules / sacrifices being made. What's the big deal? Or is this just another version of SAHP vs Working Mom but with a 2015 twist?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Dec 17, 2015 17:58:26 GMT -5
it is necessary for the survival of the species, zib. that is actually somewhat more serious than the survival of individuals. People aren't going to stop having children regardless of whether they can care for them or not. The species will survive just fine. Or maybe not. Maybe they're be more stupid people being born because intelligent people won't have them. Maybe more welfare recipients will be born than taxpayers to support them. Maybe the jihadis will take over and it'll be a non issue Why WOULDN'T women in the US go on welfare? There's no mat leave, no job security, and daycare is prohibitively expensive. Better to go on the dole. At least with our system, women go back to work. They remain productive. They know they'll get mat leave, they know their job will be waiting for them when it expires and they know they'll be able to afford the $140 a month for daycare.
You're going to be paying one way or the other.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Dec 17, 2015 18:01:19 GMT -5
In your opinion. Which you're entitled to. I'm entitled to mine. Yes, and it's clear that your opinion is that only the rich should have kids.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,434
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 17, 2015 18:01:27 GMT -5
I willingly admit that it's necessary for the species to reproduce. Also necessary for the economy. But in that stay at home mom's were an oddity, I don't understand why FMLA is insufficient. It's 12 weeks. And there's always grandparents / siblings on rotating schedules / sacrifices being made. What's the big deal? Or is this just another version of SAHP vs Working Mom but with a 2015 twist? i can't tell you why without making this personal, but i will simply say this: i had ONE grandparent when i was born. he was the estranged father of my mom. he held me once before he died. i could add a lot more, but it is immaterial, as i could afford for my wife to stay at home until my son was weaned.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,434
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 17, 2015 18:02:19 GMT -5
In your opinion. Which you're entitled to. I'm entitled to mine. Yes, and it's clear that your opinion is that only the rich should have kids. this is precisely where the logic takes us, imo.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Dec 17, 2015 18:03:20 GMT -5
I willingly admit that it's necessary for the species to reproduce. Also necessary for the economy. But in that stay at home mom's were an oddity, I don't understand why FMLA is insufficient. It's 12 weeks. And there's always grandparents / siblings on rotating schedules / sacrifices being made. What's the big deal? Or is this just another version of SAHP vs Working Mom but with a 2015 twist? Really? Always?
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,873
|
Post by zibazinski on Dec 17, 2015 18:17:16 GMT -5
In your opinion. Which you're entitled to. I'm entitled to mine. Yes, and it's clear that your opinion is that only the rich should have kids. Well, I wasn't rich and I had two. Managed to pay for them, too.
|
|
bean29
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:26:57 GMT -5
Posts: 10,012
|
Post by bean29 on Dec 17, 2015 18:17:22 GMT -5
People aren't going to stop having children regardless of whether they can care for them or not. The species will survive just fine. Or maybe not. Maybe they're be more stupid people being born because intelligent people won't have them. Maybe more welfare recipients will be born than taxpayers to support them. Maybe the jihadis will take over and it'll be a non issue it is a reducio ad absurdum argument, zib. it is not intended to be "realistic". it is intended to test whether your idea of procreation is logically valid. if your idea of maternal volunteerism and choice is logically valid, then it needs to be applied in ALL cases. but it can't be. so it isn't. what this means is that there is actually an agenda being suggested by your logic- and that is that only people that can "afford" kids should have them. i know that is what you think. it is in every third post you make, probably. but there is a lot of baggage in that idea that needs to be unpacked. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/cool.png) How many people do you know that wanted to have children and didn't because they couldn't afford them? I have to say - I know 0 people in that boat. I know plenty of poor people with children, and they had them despite the hardships. Many of the ones I know are hard line republicans, so they aren't looking to change family leave or daycare in this country. My sister was back at work 2 weeks after she had her daughter. She works for a very small employer and she was there to do payroll. She didn't work full time, she didn't have PTO but she did have flex scheduling and vacation time banked.
I am not totally against starting an insurance type program to provide family leave, but given how the ACA has gone over, how do you think a new payroll tax to pay for family leave will go over? Remember Medicare and Medicaid are under funded too. I think if we want to mandate paid leave it has to be an insurance program - but hey - I work for a small employer and we don't have any sort of STD - so can we provide STD and or LTD for everyone while we are at it? I looked at the cost of a policy for DH and Holy Moly - we are just as well off to invest those $$ in the stock market.
|
|
verrip1
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:41:19 GMT -5
Posts: 2,992
|
Post by verrip1 on Dec 17, 2015 18:18:51 GMT -5
you are either missing the point, or intentionally evading it. there are things that are necessary for our survival. those things are not really choices, zib. It is not necessary for anyone's survival to have children. To avoid the reducio ad absurdum fallacy contention (as expressed), just use a minor edit for clarification of your sentence to read, "It is not necessary for anyone's individual survival for them to have children.". All better! It often takes just a little wordsmithing to successfully circumvent fallacy allegations.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,873
|
Post by zibazinski on Dec 17, 2015 18:20:43 GMT -5
Maybe the majority, not for long, are tired of being taxed to death to pay for choices they don't agree with. What happens when you run out of taxpayers to fund everyone's pet programs?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Dec 17, 2015 18:57:04 GMT -5
it is a reducio ad absurdum argument, zib. it is not intended to be "realistic". it is intended to test whether your idea of procreation is logically valid. if your idea of maternal volunteerism and choice is logically valid, then it needs to be applied in ALL cases. but it can't be. so it isn't. what this means is that there is actually an agenda being suggested by your logic- and that is that only people that can "afford" kids should have them. i know that is what you think. it is in every third post you make, probably. but there is a lot of baggage in that idea that needs to be unpacked. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/cool.png) How many people do you know that wanted to have children and didn't because they couldn't afford them? I have to say - I know 0 people in that boat. I know plenty of poor people with children, and they had them despite the hardships. Many of the ones I know are hard line republicans, so they aren't looking to change family leave or daycare in this country. My sister was back at work 2 weeks after she had her daughter. She works for a very small employer and she was there to do payroll. She didn't work full time, she didn't have PTO but she did have flex scheduling and vacation time banked.
I am not totally against starting an insurance type program to provide family leave, but given how the ACA has gone over, how do you think a new payroll tax to pay for family leave will go over? Remember Medicare and Medicaid are under funded too. I think if we want to mandate paid leave it has to be an insurance program - but hey - I work for a small employer and we don't have any sort of STD - so can we provide STD and or LTD for everyone while we are at it? I looked at the cost of a policy for DH and Holy Moly - we are just as well off to invest those $$ in the stock market.
Who watched the 2 week old infant, or was she allowed to bring it to work with her?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,434
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 17, 2015 19:22:02 GMT -5
Maybe the majority, not for long, are tired of being taxed to death to pay for choices they don't agree with. What happens when you run out of taxpayers to fund everyone's pet programs? i got that. you are all about responsibility. so am i, actually. but this goes way deeper than that issue, imo. way deeper. as deep as humanity.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,434
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 17, 2015 19:23:10 GMT -5
it is a reducio ad absurdum argument, zib. it is not intended to be "realistic". it is intended to test whether your idea of procreation is logically valid. if your idea of maternal volunteerism and choice is logically valid, then it needs to be applied in ALL cases. but it can't be. so it isn't. what this means is that there is actually an agenda being suggested by your logic- and that is that only people that can "afford" kids should have them. i know that is what you think. it is in every third post you make, probably. but there is a lot of baggage in that idea that needs to be unpacked. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/cool.png) How many people do you know that wanted to have children and didn't because they couldn't afford them? I have to say - I know 0 people in that boat. I know plenty of poor people with children, and they had them despite the hardships. Many of the ones I know are hard line republicans, so they aren't looking to change family leave or daycare in this country. My sister was back at work 2 weeks after she had her daughter. She works for a very small employer and she was there to do payroll. She didn't work full time, she didn't have PTO but she did have flex scheduling and vacation time banked.
I am not totally against starting an insurance type program to provide family leave, but given how the ACA has gone over, how do you think a new payroll tax to pay for family leave will go over? Remember Medicare and Medicaid are under funded too. I think if we want to mandate paid leave it has to be an insurance program - but hey - I work for a small employer and we don't have any sort of STD - so can we provide STD and or LTD for everyone while we are at it? I looked at the cost of a policy for DH and Holy Moly - we are just as well off to invest those $$ in the stock market.
i am trying to avoid making this personal, but i honestly don't know. i don't ask people why they don't have kids.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,434
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 17, 2015 19:26:14 GMT -5
/Sroo ponders something We seem to have lots of elections in this country. With all the people who want these types of things (mandatory 6 year paid maternity leave, a chicken in every pot, etc).. Wonder why we don't have them. Could it be that majority of American's don't want it? hmmmmm... if you could stop exaggerating for a second, i could answer your post, but i doubt you would like the response. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/wink.png)
|
|
bean29
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:26:57 GMT -5
Posts: 10,012
|
Post by bean29 on Dec 17, 2015 19:29:13 GMT -5
How many people do you know that wanted to have children and didn't because they couldn't afford them? I have to say - I know 0 people in that boat. I know plenty of poor people with children, and they had them despite the hardships. Many of the ones I know are hard line republicans, so they aren't looking to change family leave or daycare in this country. My sister was back at work 2 weeks after she had her daughter. She works for a very small employer and she was there to do payroll. She didn't work full time, she didn't have PTO but she did have flex scheduling and vacation time banked.
I am not totally against starting an insurance type program to provide family leave, but given how the ACA has gone over, how do you think a new payroll tax to pay for family leave will go over? Remember Medicare and Medicaid are under funded too. I think if we want to mandate paid leave it has to be an insurance program - but hey - I work for a small employer and we don't have any sort of STD - so can we provide STD and or LTD for everyone while we are at it? I looked at the cost of a policy for DH and Holy Moly - we are just as well off to invest those $$ in the stock market.
Who watched the 2 week old infant, or was she allowed to bring it to work with her? IDK, yes, she could have taken her DD to work, but she prolly didn't Sis works for a contractor with a showroom, she is a bookkeeper and handles customer service. I do think she should not have had to go to work, but I do payroll too and it really isn't that big a deal if that is all you are doing. My MIL was my babysitter and my DS had her MIL as her primary babysitter. When Sis's DD was born her MIL had shoulder surgery. My MIL was the babysitter while her MIL was in rehab - it was about 15-20 miles from where they live. Her husband drove their DD back and forth. I have a SIL that was a SAHM, she did back up babysitting for us occasionally if our Mom could not. I usually took vacay for my MIL's conflicts. I took time off to take my nieces and nephews to the doctor occasionally too b/c if grandma needed to take the kids to the Dr, or go to the Dr herself, someone had to watch the kids. My employers were always accommodating.
|
|
bean29
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:26:57 GMT -5
Posts: 10,012
|
Post by bean29 on Dec 17, 2015 19:31:02 GMT -5
How many people do you know that wanted to have children and didn't because they couldn't afford them? I have to say - I know 0 people in that boat. I know plenty of poor people with children, and they had them despite the hardships. Many of the ones I know are hard line republicans, so they aren't looking to change family leave or daycare in this country. My sister was back at work 2 weeks after she had her daughter. She works for a very small employer and she was there to do payroll. She didn't work full time, she didn't have PTO but she did have flex scheduling and vacation time banked.
I am not totally against starting an insurance type program to provide family leave, but given how the ACA has gone over, how do you think a new payroll tax to pay for family leave will go over? Remember Medicare and Medicaid are under funded too. I think if we want to mandate paid leave it has to be an insurance program - but hey - I work for a small employer and we don't have any sort of STD - so can we provide STD and or LTD for everyone while we are at it? I looked at the cost of a policy for DH and Holy Moly - we are just as well off to invest those $$ in the stock market.
i am trying to avoid making this personal, but i honestly don't know. i don't ask people why they don't have kids. I actually don't know a lot of Married people who don't have kids, of the ones that don't usually if they don't want to ever have kids they are vocal about it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,434
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 17, 2015 19:32:56 GMT -5
i am trying to avoid making this personal, but i honestly don't know. i don't ask people why they don't have kids. I actually don't know a lot of Married people who don't have kids, of the ones that don't usually if they don't want to ever have kids they are vocal about it. i just have never asked that question: "why don't you have kids". i guess i know the answer to that question just as well as i know the answer to the question "why did you have kids". i wouldn't think to ask either because of that. so, my response is: insufficient data.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,434
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 17, 2015 20:01:33 GMT -5
if you could stop exaggerating for a second, i could answer your post, but i doubt you would like the response. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/wink.png) Who is exaggerating. It's a pretty basic concept. what is?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 22, 2024 22:39:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2015 20:36:20 GMT -5
On a serious note...this has been bugging me since I read it and I haven't been able to put my finger on why. It finally hit me. I find grievances like this to be totally counterproductive to what people are trying to achieve. Let's step back for a minute. The goal is equality, right? So how is it logical to demand special treatment in order to get equality? Doesn't that inherently unbalance things? Then you add in what are increasingly becoming IMHO ridiculous slights, the whole message becomes diluted and a parody of itself. doesn't what inherently unbalance things?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 22, 2024 22:39:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2015 20:52:38 GMT -5
Because it's a choice. I regret not choosing a career where I made big bucks but I chose a more family friendly career. That choice led to a lifestyle that I made do with but always wished for more. I had my kids several years apart because daycare was an expense I needed to consider. It's a choice I made and no one else is responsible for my choices but me. i will grant that the timing is a choice, but not that getting pregnant is. the human race REQUIRES women to get pregnant. our existence depends on it. therefore, it is right up there in the "commons" with air, food, etc- the very TOP of Maslow's pyramid. it is not just "convenience", it is necessity. i get what you are saying, zib- but i think there is an aspect of maternity that is consistently mischaracterized in popular culture, and economics. It is a requirement for the continuation of our race that many females get pregnant... It's not a requirement that any specific females get's pregnant. It's still a choice.
|
|