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

[laylalex 7,284]

Certainly my friends are thinking about how to save, but they are middle class. Like me, my friends are generally mid- to late 30s, so peak time for having fairly young kids. They have the luxury of having to choose between prioritizing their children's future or their own. What a luxury that is! 😕At least they can put food on the table every day and afford to keep a roof over their heads without much strain. It is the future that is uncertain, not the present. 

 

I agree people don't need kids to be happy -- I am very happy not having any kids of my own. I have a stepdaughter whom I love so much it hurts sometimes, but to be honest, I could never be her full-time parent. It's not something I want for my life. I have been judged, sometimes pretty harshly, by people older than me but honestly, most of my friend group still don't have kids and don't know if they ever will. None of us are relying on our kids to take care of us; all we have at the end are ourselves.

[LucindaLou 43]

 

Quote

I could never be her full-time parent. It's not something I want for my life. I have been judged, sometimes pretty harshly, by people older than me but honestly, most of my friend group still don't have kids and don't know if they ever will.

And this is exactly the issue at hand, women should be able to make that choice. It should not be dictated by random laws made by old white guys, by the super religious, the inlaws, .... it must be the choice of the woman. 

As far as the financial side of things goes, some people manage to be happy with what they got, however especially in the US the neighborhood you grow up in will to some degree be responsible for how hard you have to fight in life to get to a better place. And as long as we, as a society, are not willing to pay a few more cents in taxes to provide decent schools to all neighborhoods, I don't think women should be forced to have children. At the very least a child should have the right to be a wanted addition to a family.

[Dashinka 24,481]

15 hours 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.  

Then why is there so many folks on the Left saying we need to depend on the government instead of promoting the family.  This thread was started because some Right of Center folks seem to be promoting a return to the nuclear family and apparently that is seen as sexist or something like that.  I am not saying families should revert back simply to a SAHM template, the father can do that now, and it generally takes two to raise a family (before you say it I am not saying a single parent cannot raise children successfully).  In my eyes, the issue is many people are looking for some sort of handout or safety net when they should be focusing on the most important aspect of parenthood, raising the children.  If that means going without some of the luxuries in life like vacations, expensive phones, etc., then that should be the choice.  Society in the US seems to be all about personal joy, but people have forgotten the greatest personal joy is raising kids to be more successful.  

[Dashinka 24,481]

13 hours ago, laylalex said:

Certainly my friends are thinking about how to save, but they are middle class. Like me, my friends are generally mid- to late 30s, so peak time for having fairly young kids. They have the luxury of having to choose between prioritizing their children's future or their own. What a luxury that is! 😕At least they can put food on the table every day and afford to keep a roof over their heads without much strain. It is the future that is uncertain, not the present. 

 

I agree people don't need kids to be happy -- I am very happy not having any kids of my own. I have a stepdaughter whom I love so much it hurts sometimes, but to be honest, I could never be her full-time parent. It's not something I want for my life. I have been judged, sometimes pretty harshly, by people older than me but honestly, most of my friend group still don't have kids and don't know if they ever will. None of us are relying on our kids to take care of us; all we have at the end are ourselves.

Some people don't want to be parents, and that is just fine and certainly a valid choice, but I do disagree with your end sentence.  Sure in the end we die by ourselves, but it is much nicer to have the support of our family as we go through it.  When my mom and dad reached the end, we took turns with them at the hospital and when the end came, we supported each other which is what families do.

[Mike E 11,739]

15 hours ago, yuna628 said:

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.

I complete agree.

 

The above was the situation Midge thought she was in when she married Joel and permitted him to impregnate her.

 

15 hours ago, yuna628 said:

To a degree, she overlooked things Joel did, on a pretty consistent basis.

Joel was a child, and she chose poorly. 

15 hours ago, yuna628 said:

 

To point that she pretty clearly still loved him deeply in every way but in just being legally married.

It is not unheard of for people to love their abusers. The Joel I watched in season 1 was a wife abusing,  lying, lazy loser. The Midge in the pilot was a sweet and adorable, mom, wife, and daughter. She was damaged by Joel, and her father and father in law delivered the coup de grace to her soul. 
 

15 hours ago, yuna628 said:

Sorry but, I think we got something different out of this show.

Back at ya.

15 hours ago, yuna628 said:

I even asked my husband and he agreed.

It appears your husband and you figured Midge should have married another man child, made two more babies, and then watched while he got his head nurse knocked up.
 

And then repeated the cycle with a third man child. Maybe a lawyer or stock broker.  In her late 30s or early 40s? Women that old were considered washed up in the 1960s. 

 

Ethan and Esther would be in worse state if Midge followed your advice.

 

Midge did have a character flaw: she was was blind to character flaws in others.  She could not see that Joel was a dud before marrying him. She thought her father was a super hero. She thought her father in law had her back or at least that of his grand children. She was blind to Suzy stealing from her.

 

In the flash forwards we learn that she married countless losers and divorced them. But by that time she married them with sizable wealth in her own right, no doubt with prenups.

 

 I think you night have to have been born in North America in the 1960s or before to fully understand the TV series.