C
Calliso
Guest
Yes birth rates are down some…but that is far from no one having children. Plenty of people still have kids…
- Status
V
Vladi
Guest
1.) Ban abortion and contraceptives.
2.) Deport all Islamic immgrants. Encourage/pressure other Third worlders to leave.
3.) Give greater incentives for women to have children.
In Russia we have conception days would not be a bad idea who wouldn’t want to?
V
Vladi
Guest
Many of those people are Muslims though. We want Westerns to have children.
M
marietta
Guest
Are you for real? First it’s “women are too stupid to foresee” any consequences of the votes they cast, then it’s “feminist stupidity” that Muslims immigrate to the United States.
There are plenty of people on this forum who will tell you that if abortion became illegal again tomorrow, the birth rate would not rise. * "Yeah but the problem is our whole civilization *is not having children!" you claim. Somehow I don’t think that genuinely sums up “the problem”.
Your profile says that some of your interests are history, politics and philosophy. May I suggest a bevy of tutors? Tonight’s lesson: “Women Are Not Incubators”.
marietta
S
Salonika
Guest
Could start by continuing some of the practices that are intended to provide people with a better work life balance so that it is easier to be parents and a working person. Also continue to encourage parents to see that child rearing is something both parents should do.
This would include flexible working hours so parents do not have to put children in child care for long hours, if both work. Look at more flexible ways of providing child care, including more child care centres in work places, so that parents can see their young children during the day. Longer maternity and paternity leave would also help.
I’m totally against forcing people to have children - it may increase the numbers of children but what about children brought up by unwilling or people for whom bringing up children would be too much of a challenge. Children are too important for this.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
That’s a wish-list - there’s no chance whatsoever of a politician winning an election with a program of banning contraception for a start.
As for deporting all Islamic immigrants - it does echo the famous ‘Final Solution To The Jewish Problem’.
What kind of incentives?
V
Vladi
Guest
Marietta! again nonsense sigh*
M
marietta
Guest
Why do you believe anything need be done? The world is not running out of people. And pardon me, but your views regarding other races and religions is truly offensive.
marietta
V
Vladi
Guest
Or women cold just not work and take care of the kids…there I said it.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
How would you propose a political program to that end that would make a politician electable?
M
marietta
Guest
M
marietta
Guest
S
Salonika
Guest
Yes, it should be made easier for women to do this IF THIS IS THEIR CHOICE but for the father to care for them, for someone else to care for them and not to have children, are equally valid choices.
E
estesbob
Guest
The problem with this thread is there is no agreed on definition of feminism. On one side we see those who view feminism as abortion, promiscouity , single motherhod, etc. On the other side we see people thinking feminsim is simply a matter of equal rights and eqaul pay for equal work . Since everyone is arguing based on their perception of feminism the discussion causes a lot more heat that light.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
I want a smiley that leaps ‘up’ on the page yelling 'BINGO!"
You got it, Bob.
That is exactly it.
What GOD makes of feminism is not what ‘we’ make of feminism.
God is perfectly aware of all the good things that come from having women viewed as equal to men in the way that GOD views women as equal to men.
He is also perfectly aware of all the BAD things that come from having women viewed as equal to men in the way that many of us view women as equal to men.
Some view women and men as 'interchangeable in form and function."
Some view women as innately ‘superior’ but long ‘kept down’ by men.
Some view women as never having had ‘choice’.
Some view men as innately superior and being ‘threatened’ by women.
Some view men as always wanting to be ‘above’ women.
Some view men who want to do ‘nontraditional work’ as wimps and sissies, and women who want to do nontraditional work as unnatural.
And of course, everybody disagrees about what ‘interchangeable’, "form’, "function’, ‘superior’, ‘kept down’, ‘choice’ ‘Inferior’, ‘threatened by’, ‘above’, ‘nontraditional’, ‘wimps’, ‘sissies’, ‘unnatural’ --and, heck, even what ‘men’ and ‘women’ MEAN.
More heat than light, assuredly.
A bunch of people who have their own ‘idea’ of what a given word or topic ‘means’, have a rote ‘set’ of ‘kudos’ or ‘putdowns’ to give to people who agree with them or disagree with them, and who will argue about ‘relativity’ and ‘reason’ and 'there isn’t any specific teaching that contradicts what I AM SAYING", yadda yadda yadda. . .
And one or two people who have ‘lit a fuse’ and are sitting back chortling over the ‘idiots’ who actually think that there is a real answer to the question, and smugly mock any answer given, secure in the knowledge that there is no ‘thing’ as knowledge, nothing but to eat, drink, and be happy for tomorrow we die–and what fools Christians are to argue when they should be out ‘having fun’ by ‘making fun’, the way they are.
E
estesbob
Guest
I doubt if it stops the heat however-I said much the same thing in posts #37 in this thread and you can see how well that worked.
M
marietta
Guest
No, there is no agreed-upon working definition of “feminism” here, but some of us are trying to give some shape to it and should not be chided for doing so. We are all living within our own skins and learning through our own experiences, so a universal definition would seem fairly elusive.
“And one or two people who have ‘lit a fuse’ and are sitting back chortling over the ‘idiots’ who actually think that there is a real answer to the question, and smugly mock any answer given, secure in the knowledge that there is no ‘thing’ as knowledge, nothing but to eat, drink, and be happy for tomorrow we die–and what fools Christians are to argue when they should be out ‘having fun’ by ‘making fun’, the way they are.” - what does this mean? Who are you referring to? Should we not respond to a new thread because we’re being set up to look foolish? And estesbob, you know perfectly well that even you don’t have the power to slap some “sense” into people. :nope:
marietta
“And one or two people who have ‘lit a fuse’ and are sitting back chortling over the ‘idiots’ who actually think that there is a real answer to the question, and smugly mock any answer given, secure in the knowledge that there is no ‘thing’ as knowledge, nothing but to eat, drink, and be happy for tomorrow we die–and what fools Christians are to argue when they should be out ‘having fun’ by ‘making fun’, the way they are.” - what does this mean? Who are you referring to? Should we not respond to a new thread because we’re being set up to look foolish? And estesbob, you know perfectly well that even you don’t have the power to slap some “sense” into people. :nope:
marietta
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
I doubt it will stop the heat for some. . .but then again, I think that a lot of the heat is generated from only a few anyway. And that when ‘new’ people come onto the thread, they get caught up until they get ‘burnt’, leave, and then in come more new people. . .
Oh well. I try to tell myself that even ‘heat’ is better than ‘lukewarm’. Although sometimes I will get ‘heated’ when I have to deal with exactly that --the supreme relativist “catholic” whose faith is so elastic that he will accept almost anything (except an absolute truth–no such thing for him!) as long as it is so watery and ambiguous and ‘inoffensive’ a saying that it really says and means nothing–or ‘anything’! The kind of ‘tolerant Catholic’ who is welcome EVERYWHERE because he is so ‘reasonable’ and loving that he wouldn’t dream of ever insisting that there is a ‘wrong’ or that people can ‘sin’. Ugh!!!
Oh well. I try to tell myself that even ‘heat’ is better than ‘lukewarm’. Although sometimes I will get ‘heated’ when I have to deal with exactly that --the supreme relativist “catholic” whose faith is so elastic that he will accept almost anything (except an absolute truth–no such thing for him!) as long as it is so watery and ambiguous and ‘inoffensive’ a saying that it really says and means nothing–or ‘anything’! The kind of ‘tolerant Catholic’ who is welcome EVERYWHERE because he is so ‘reasonable’ and loving that he wouldn’t dream of ever insisting that there is a ‘wrong’ or that people can ‘sin’. Ugh!!!
E
estesbob
Guest
I wstn chiding -just pointing out that for the most part people re arguing past each other is this thread
I have two daughter and believe me for most of their teen years it seemed like I had no power at all-but it all turned out OK.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
*It means that I believe there are one or two people on this thread. . .or in these forums. . .who are not here to give their opinions on the topic but only to ‘fan the flames’. Quite often a poster will come on once onto a thread, making an outrageous or exaggerated or inflammatory statement, and then ‘disappear’. And then they will appear with a new account, often to give an ‘opposing’ idea. The fact that this happens has been discussed on these forums more than once (enough, in fact, that a certain word has been banned from use–not because the ‘troublemakers’ did not exist–they do–but because some people were using the word indiscriminately and accusing people by name.) *
I merely acknowledge that it is more than likely that there has been at least one person who has ‘fanned the flames’ deliberately in some way, as this is a situation which occurs in quite a few threads which are popular and lengthy, often simply because the threads ARE popular and lengthy.
- Status