Republican Conference Tells Young Women to Give Up Their Dreams & Their Birth Control

[yuna628 9,671]

11 hours ago, laylalex said:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/republican-conference-tells-young-women-221000348.html

 

I don't disagree with one thing here -- it's a lie to tell women that we can have it all. At least with the way that our society doesn't provide enough support to working families -- whatever those families happen to look like -- to enable them to make choices about which parent or parents want to work. There's nothing wrong with a woman wanting to be a SAHM, or a man being a SAHF, just like there's nothing wrong with a parent wanting to work in addition to parenting. But the choice to be a full-time parent can be out of reach when there's not enough money to pay the bills or put healthy food in hungry bellies.

 

Access to affordable childcare and subsidies for nutrition are places to start, if politicians want to be serious about supporting families. Work and children shouldn't be an either/or proposition, and having a parent stay at home without stressing about affordability shouldn't be reserved for the wealthy. 

Seen Mrs Maisel? After five seasons there's been one thing I always noticed - how the kids of the story are always in the background, abandoned, lonely, and usually a punchline to a joke. This final season showed there were consequences to that - these kids were raised by their dysfunctional grandparents, a part time dad, and a mom that chose career over her kids. The result left these now-adults dysfunctional, disturbed, and resentful of their mother. The lesson was their mom got rich and famous, gained the world, but lost the relationship with her kids. Women cannot have it all. Not exactly a feminist way of thinking for a show that's supposed to be about a woman deciding to follow her dream. In a way, it shows that men are the ones that want to have it all, and often seem to get away with it, by dumping a great deal of burdens on our shoulders. It's the husband of the story that has it all and screws up constantly, and ultimately pushes her onto this path. He does seem to try to be around for the kids, which cannot be said for other fathers out there. Not all fathers of course. But if we're going to say a woman cannot have a career and a family, so to perhaps a man cannot either - it is a partnership thing where both sides have to step up. Of course, there are many single moms out there that do manage to wrangle career and family and the kids turn out just fine. It's difficult for many, for others there's a lot of privilege involved in just how successful they are. I think a lot of kids are dysfunctional these days, because both parents aren't really interested. They aren't even trying. They never wanted the kids anyway, and the kid knows it. I knew it growing up, and I had a SAHM and my mother knew it and she had a SAHM. 

 

I've never looked at birth control as just something a woman should take on a whim. Of course it is a miracle drug, and does give women a choice. The side effect profile though and lack of knowledge from the underfunded and outdated OBGYN system leaves a lot to be desired. The people that speak at these conferences though and say 'women can't have it all' and 'don't take birth control' and 'SAH and have babies' are not interested in a world that is better for women nor are they interested in a world where every child feels wanted and loved. They are career individuals and are too busy making money to care. They are part of the quiverful movement repackaged into glitzy influencers for a purpose. A speaker that tells the audience to strive to be like their grandmother? Ooooh boy. No thank you ma'am. I think some influencers don't understand how far back the generational rot goes. There are many people thankfully blessed with good mothers.... and there are also many people that do not belong ever ever being a mother. Telling a woman that they should just SAH and be mothers will never make them get a cluephone at how to be an actual mother. They should only be stopping birth control because both adults have decided they are ready to have kids and put in the work. Affordability, except for the wealthy isn't going to change any time soon. We should not expect government to take care of it. It's a pipedream.

 

At the store the other week, and there was this one mother who was screaming at her daughter (maybe 7?) for just touching a couple items and asking about them. I mean she went from an ok to a teeth gritting murderous tone of voice pure frothing hatred for her kid in public loudly. I do not get it. If you do not want kids and do not want to do the work and love them, please stop having them. Currently society wants to blame every other thing for 'ruining' their kids, instead of taking responsibility for their own failings.

[Mike E 11,739]

5 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

This final season showed there were consequences to that - these kids were raised by their dysfunctional grandparents, a part time dad, and a mom that chose career over her kids

spoiler alerts for those who have not seen the show.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

”Chose”? What show were you watching?

 

Midge never wanted to “have it all”. In the pilot she thrived being a SAHM who doted on her kids, parents, husband, temple, community. 

 

In her mind she had the perfect life.

 

But it was an illusion. 
 

Dad abandoned the family for an office girl. Grandpa had late  life crises and blew two superb jobs (professor and private sector researcher) to be a theater critic and had not a pot to urinate in. He was in debt to the hilt and lost his home.

 

 Grandma was rich as Crassus, and was a narcissist  who pretended to be poor and bled her daughter dry.  

Dad was a ne’er do well: failed comic, failed bar owner, ex-con
 

Ex-father-in-law cut mom off: her ex did not own his home. 
 

Mom had no choice but to work, supporting 5 people including her self. 6 including her manager who stole from her. 7 including the house keeper her parents could not do without.
 

Being a  shop girl or a switch board operator was not going to cut it. Her kids went on to amazing child hoods by the end of elementary school.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

1 hour ago, Mike E said:

So many jars would never be opened. This would thrill archeologists. Entire pantries of never opened food items in the ruins of homes.

Not to mention I would not have my wife to find stuff that is right in front of me, for me

[yuna628 9,671]

8 minutes ago, Mike E said:

spoiler alerts for those who have not seen the show.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

”Chose”? What show were you watching?

 

Midge never wanted to “have it all”. In the pilot she thrived being a SAHM who doted on her kids, parents, husband, temple, community. 

 

In her mind she had the perfect life.

 

But it was an illusion. 
 

Dad abandoned the family for an office girl. Grandpa had late  life crises and blew two superb jobs (professor and private sector researcher) to be a theater critic and had not a pot to urinate in. He was in debt to the hilt and lost his home.

 

 Grandma was rich as Crassus, and was a narcissist  who pretended to be poor and bled her daughter dry.  

Dad was a ne’er do well: failed comic, failed bar owner, ex-con
 

Ex-father-in-law cut mom off: her ex did not own his home. 
 

Mom had no choice but to work, supporting 5 people including her self. 6 including her manager who stole from her. 7 including the house keeper her parents could not do without.
 

Being a  shop girl or a switch board operator was not going to cut it. Her kids went on to amazing child hoods by the end of elementary  school.

It's great you got all that out of watching it, but it's very clear that the kids were fundamentally a mess once they grew up based on the choices of their parents. Yes, her husband blew up her life as she once knew it, but she ultimately made the choice to get into the comic business. She chose not to take him back several times. She had tons of opportunities to go back to the ''happy new life'' or even a hybrid of such. Remember the exceedingly rich doctor that seemed to support her that she dumped not because she didn't love him, but because she just assumed he had a fragile ego like her ex? When she finally got it all, it makes clear she lost a lot. She's a great feminist character, but she certainly makes the choice to be selfish for her own dreams and desires. And when her children are grown, she criticizes their own choices in finding happiness. Being a selfish type of woman interested in ones own happiness - that's the type of feminist woman ideal that women are told that they should aspire to be, but the reality is a lot more complex. There's nothing wrong with that, but it should be remembered there's always consequences to actions you choose. She's a mother because of circumstances, not because she really wants to be - and for a great deal of it, she is absent.  An ambitious woman that pursues selfishness cannot have everything, and there are tradeoffs. In the show, Mei Lin makes a choice - ambition or a family. Afterwards she's largely forgotten about and that's kind of sad, because her story is similar to many women back then. That's why I agree with these articles on the show on both sides 

https://reason.com/2023/06/02/the-marvelous-mrs-maisel-celebrated-selfishness-as-a-virtue/

 

https://www.themarysue.com/the-marvelous-mrs-maisel-is-a-less-than-marvelous-mom/ 

[TBoneTX 45,259]

3 hours ago, Mike E said:

So many jars would never be opened.

And so many spiders would never be killed.

[laylalex 7,284]

13 hours ago, Dashinka said:

Why should society be the provider using money it takes from other producers?  

What's your answer then? What we have now doesn't work. Should parenthood be reserved only for people who can afford childcare, whether paid or unpaid? That seems like a way to perpetuate the huge divide between the classes, and to stoke resentment even more. 

 

We need to think holistically, outside of right and left, and be child-focused in this approach. What could we do besides allocating more towards parental support in the form of better access to childcare, nutrition, healthcare? It's one thing to take pot shots and another to look for solutions, even if those solutions don't necessarily sit well with our political views.

[TBoneTX 45,259]

18 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

One big help would be to synchronize school hours with work hours.

I still think that the above would solve a LOT of problems.

[Boiler 45,449]

I do not know what the answer is but yes you can come up with a long list of somewhat expensive things that ultimately are not affordable.

 

Childcare is an interesting one, we have moved to a place where regulations, standards etc have made it pretty much unaffordable. I was listening as usual to NPR who were discussing this, short version a lady who wanted to focus on pre school child care but they pay very little as who could afford their fees? So she was going to become a regular teacher.

 

 

[TBoneTX 45,259]

Child care, nutrition, and health care will all suffer strain in a poor or inflationary economy.  A lot of these tensions are subordinate to how the economy is doing overall, because everyone at every income level shares in it and there's a cascade effect.

[laylalex 7,284]

3 minutes ago, Boiler said:

I do not know what the answer is but yes you can come up with a long list of somewhat expensive things that ultimately are not affordable.

 

Childcare is an interesting one, we have moved to a place where regulations, standards etc have made it pretty much unaffordable. I was listening as usual to NPR who were discussing this, short version a lady who wanted to focus on pre school child care but they pay very little as who could afford their fees? So she was going to become a regular teacher.

 

 

Other nations can do these things, even through things like incentivizing private institutions to have on-site or nearby subsidized childcare. We can't just say "it's too expensive" and write it off -- there are so many, many things our government subsidizes or pays for for which too much is never enough. What would work? We're just spitballing on an internet forum, we can think big.  

[TBoneTX 45,259]

7 minutes ago, laylalex said:

We're just spitballing on an internet forum, we can think big.

Now I'm thinking about a gigantic spitball, LL ma'am!   

[Dashinka 24,481]

41 minutes ago, laylalex said:

What's your answer then? What we have now doesn't work. Should parenthood be reserved only for people who can afford childcare, whether paid or unpaid? That seems like a way to perpetuate the huge divide between the classes, and to stoke resentment even more. 

 

We need to think holistically, outside of right and left, and be child-focused in this approach. What could we do besides allocating more towards parental support in the form of better access to childcare, nutrition, healthcare? It's one thing to take pot shots and another to look for solutions, even if those solutions don't necessarily sit well with our political views.

How is making decisions on how to raise children something that perpetuates some form of class divide?  People of all classes raise children and some succeed and some don’t.  Look at the likes of Clarence Thomas, Tim Scott, Barack Obama and many others that did not come from high class families and yet they made it.  Despite what some people like to say, it does not take a village.  My parents raised eight children in a middle class family and we are all doing well.  My parents did not rely on public school even though their taxes went to them, but they took a first hand approach at raising us, not relying on the village.  Sure we did not have a huge inheritance when my parents passed, but we learned how to take care of ourselves.

 

Why do the Democrats now feel we need government to raise our children?  Are people not able to do it on their own?

[Mike E 11,739]

22 hours ago, yuna628 said:

She chose not to take him back several times

You expect her to over look what he did?

 

Besides which he was useless.

 

22 hours ago, yuna628 said:

back to the ''happy new life'' or even a hybrid of such. Remember the exceedingly rich doctor that seemed to support her that she dumped not because she didn't love him, but because she just assumed he had a fragile ego like her ex?

She had relied on three men in her life to date, and all 3 had left her holding the bag. This doctor guy was going to support her, her kids, her parents, and their housekeeper? Midge could count on that? And what happens when he divorces her too? Alimony laws in the 1960s were not as generous to women as they were today. 

 

Besides which, the guy would have wanted her to make mire babies.

 

Her path was the least evil one she had ahead of her.

 

22 hours ago, yuna628 said:

it's very clear that the kids were fundamentally a mess once they grew up based on the choices of their parents

They were alive, not starving, and high functioning.

 

Esther was a “brilliant scientist”. Ethan was studying to be a rabbi. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[laylalex 7,284]

20 hours ago, Dashinka said:

How is making decisions on how to raise children something that perpetuates some form of class divide?  People of all classes raise children and some succeed and some don’t.  Look at the likes of Clarence Thomas, Tim Scott, Barack Obama and many others that did not come from high class families and yet they made it.  Despite what some people like to say, it does not take a village.  My parents raised eight children in a middle class family and we are all doing well.  My parents did not rely on public school even though their taxes went to them, but they took a first hand approach at raising us, not relying on the village.  Sure we did not have a huge inheritance when my parents passed, but we learned how to take care of ourselves.

 

Why do the Democrats now feel we need government to raise our children?  Are people not able to do it on their own?

Absolutely people can successfully raise children, no matter what their wealth. But the world that allowed people like Thomas, Scott, Obama, you, even me to be raised on a middle class or working class salary or wages no longer exists. Childcare is absurdly and prohibitively expensive now; it can cost as much to put an infant in daycare than it costs to go to college. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2022-03-31/states-with-highest-and-lowest-cost-of-daycare 

 

Being a SAHM or SAHD isn't even an option for many single parents either -- they have to work. What if there is no family around to provide free or cheap childcare? Something has to give. I guess what you're saying is that everything works now because it has worked for some people against great odds, but that just isn't the reality these day. I see my own friends struggle with childcare costs, and know people who have chosen not to have kids because they don't think they can afford to be present for their kids in the way they believe is right. We're not talking about "oh no, we can't go on three holidays to Gstaad this year" but "how are we going to save enough for our retirement and for the kids' college fund if we have to pay all this money just so we can work?" 

 

I think we just have to disagree that not doing anything is an option now.  

[yuna628 9,671]

21 hours ago, laylalex said:

What's your answer then? What we have now doesn't work. Should parenthood be reserved only for people who can afford childcare, whether paid or unpaid? That seems like a way to perpetuate the huge divide between the classes, and to stoke resentment even more. 

 

We need to think holistically, outside of right and left, and be child-focused in this approach. What could we do besides allocating more towards parental support in the form of better access to childcare, nutrition, healthcare? It's one thing to take pot shots and another to look for solutions, even if those solutions don't necessarily sit well with our political views.

In a nutshell, and this is going to sound really harsh... in a perfect world parenthood should be for anyone. In this world though? Parenthood should be for those persons that can love, raise, and afford everything involved with caring for a child. I cannot imagine choosing parenthood when you cannot do any of these things... and that is largely why we have a lot of kids suffering today. My parents could barely afford anything when they started having kids, and things did not improve much by the time they got to 'accident baby'. I'm not just talking physical money here, but emotionally and mentally too. There are kids that grow up filthy rich and given the best of everything and their parents are a mess and cannot provide emotional love and support. Privilege only gets you so far. Still, the women at this conference are not interested in promoting a world with free and or better childcare options, ensuring that parents are ready to have kids, excellent schools, or better work-life balance support systems. 

5 hours ago, Mike E said:

You expect her to over look what he did?

 

Besides which he was useless.

 

She had relied on three men in her life to date, and all 3 had left her holding the bag. This doctor guy was going to support her, her kids, her parents, and their housekeeper? Midge could count on that? And what happens when he divorces her too? Alimony laws in the 1960s were not as generous to women as they were today. 

 

Besides which, the guy would have wanted her to make mire babies.

 

Her path was the least evil one she had ahead of her.

 

They were alive, not starving, and high functioning.

 

Esther was a “brilliant scientist”. Ethan was studying to be a rabbi. 

 

 

 

To a degree, she overlooked things Joel did, on a pretty consistent basis. To point that she pretty clearly still loved him deeply in every way but in just being legally married. Sorry but, I think we got something different out of this show. I even asked my husband and he agreed.

 

3 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Absolutely people can successfully raise children, no matter what their wealth. But the world that allowed people like Thomas, Scott, Obama, you, even me to be raised on a middle class or working class salary or wages no longer exists. Childcare is absurdly and prohibitively expensive now; it can cost as much to put an infant in daycare than it costs to go to college. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2022-03-31/states-with-highest-and-lowest-cost-of-daycare 

 

Being a SAHM or SAHD isn't even an option for many single parents either -- they have to work. What if there is no family around to provide free or cheap childcare? Something has to give. I guess what you're saying is that everything works now because it has worked for some people against great odds, but that just isn't the reality these day. I see my own friends struggle with childcare costs, and know people who have chosen not to have kids because they don't think they can afford to be present for their kids in the way they believe is right. We're not talking about "oh no, we can't go on three holidays to Gstaad this year" but "how are we going to save enough for our retirement and for the kids' college fund if we have to pay all this money just so we can work?" 

 

I think we just have to disagree that not doing anything is an option now.  

Are there parents saying that these days? Not only did my parents not plan or think about money for retirement but college? They thought that idea a pipe dream. A completely silly idea that they wouldn't have ever thought to save money for nor would they ever want their kids to entertain the concept. Living life was a day to day thing that you weren't sure if you'd have food on the table or even electricity. Whatever savings eventually went on more important things. I could debate on if those things were more important than say oh having money for your future life when you are old and expecting your kids to care for you... but this isn't too odd a thing to hear about from my generation. Adults struggling with their elderly parents and trying to deal with the choices they didn't care to make. Ultimately, people do not need kids to be happy or have a fulfilling relationship. People at these conferences are putting high emphasis on procreation for purposes other than what is the norm.