MK5 Golf GTI
General => Random Chat => Topic started by: Poverty on October 06, 2011, 11:17:09 pm
-
Ban all women apart from those with specialist expertise from working. That way there should be enough work for all men, and we wouldnt have unemployment and fecklessness.
Then all those women would be encouraged to be home makers.
Take the kids to school, clean the home, make 3 hot dinners, go shopping, pickup the kids, take the kids to after school activities, make sure they do their homework, greet the husband and ask how his day went, put the kids to bed, and lastly please the husband.
A return to traditional wholesome western life of which the foundations this great nation was built upon. The future generations would be decent human beings, and no longer would the scum be disproportionally having more children than decent men and women who are too busy at work to start and afford a family whilst we pay for the scum to drag up more scum.
This could work right? Family is number one :happy2:
-
Couple of small flaws in your theory.
Unemployed nurseries, childminders
Single parents
Not going to mention the other 63,000,000 flaws. :P
-
Couple of small flaws in your theory.
Unemployed nurseries, childminders
Single parents
Not going to mention the other 63,000,000 flaws. :P
Women would be allowed to be bakers, nurses, and nursery/primary school teachers and childminders wouldnt be required as you could leave the kids with their grandma or friends if need be for the day or so as we will be a family loving big society.
Single parents, they would be subsidised untill the children are 16, we would be able to afford it easily seeing as there would be no layabouts.
-
Wow I started reading that as if it was a copy and paste joke from some other forum but your actually serious aren't you?
-
Ok I'll be the one to say it, that's a very sexist view. I don't even know where to begin, seriously.
All I'll say is this, women working in certain fields is not the problem at all (can't believe I've had to type that).
-
I take it MR Pov that this is were you live. :star:
-
Ok I'll be the one to say it, that's a very sexist view. I don't even know where to begin, seriously.
All I'll say is this, women working in certain fields is not the problem at all (can't believe I've had to type that).
Ok it needs some tweaking. Families with children below the age of 17 would be required to have a housewife/house husband to stay at home.
Now its no longer sexist, albeit I believe in 90% of cases the man would want to take the bread winner role.
I just think women working so much has been to the negative detriment of society. Most women these days cant even cook! My great grandmother and grandmother could bake cakes and pastries at home, which I can now only get by going to specialist bakeries and get charged obscene amounts. Thats not right! If I wanted beans on toast for dinner we wouldnt need a wife right guys? We can easily make that ourselves :signLOL:
-
I take it MR Pov that this is were you live. :star:
No sound on my laptop, will have to watch this later on the iphone!
-
Say what? Is this for real?
-
Say what? Is this for real?
well its either this or job sharing in the future as robots increasingly take over the roles previously done by humans. There will be a job shortage in the future!
End result of Capitalism - "instead of growth serving life, life must now serve growth, perverting the very purpose of existence"
So forcing women to stay at home and making babies is just another way instead of job sharing in freeing up the employment marketplace!
-
Say what? Is this for real?
well its either this or job sharing in the future as robots increasingly take over the roles previously done by humans. There will be a job shortage in the future!
End result of Capitalism - "instead of growth serving life, life must now serve growth, perverting the very purpose of existence"
So forcing women to stay at home and making babies is just another way instead of job sharing in freeing up the employment marketplace!
OK, so let's say in a family only one member is now earning money.
Many families require two incomes to meet the mortgage, bills, etc. Suddenly with this law you've passed they are receiving only half the income. What's the solution? You can't just double the pay of the one person who is working, and a government subsidy for the second partner wouldn't work either (where will all the money come from). So what's the way out of that problem?
-
Now I dont agree with the OP, but on your point Neo the mortages and housing market is so massively over-priced due to people having large household incomes and the over leveraging of those incomes by the mortage companies that has created the problem, which leads everyone to have to money grab.
I for one would be happy to stay at home if and when I had a child and look after it and run my own cottage industry part-time and let my partner go off to work but if I ever want to be able to afford a house which means saving up a deposit which is nearly equivalent to an RS3 I have to sell my sole to the dolar. And by the time I do the 25-35 year mortage term I will be lucky to pay the mortage off (let alone move up the ladder) before I retire by then probably in my 70's :sad1:
-
(https://www.mk5golfgti.co.uk/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdaz.co%2Fmedia%2FRedRobin_05%2FRED_INK%2FRR_GodisBusy.jpg&hash=7b2a96dcbc06450990e8ea8c60634c85ff4013d2)
So am I the only one who has a degree of agreement with Poverty or at least the principle of what he is wanting to achieve?
I suggest that the point he is making is that if a society had the structure which he suggests (which is only a structure which used exist) most of today's society's problems wouldn't exist. He's advocating a return to traditional values. Look at those societies in other parts of the world which still have such values: Far less problems with youth, stronger sense of family, more caring, etc etc etc.
Chasing money is the real problem. Current Western society places far too much importance on it. It's the fault of those who invented the banks <-- Now someone can call me anti-semetic as well as a sexist :evilgrin: [But those who know me personally know that isn't the case].
-
Many families require two incomes to meet the mortgage, bills, etc.
....That's mostly because they choose to buy beyond their real means. In choosing that both partners go out to work they sacrifice their children (if they have any). It's a breakdown of family values and a tragedy.
But I don't know the answers and no longer need to worry about it.
-
other small flaws in your plan include:
what about lesbien couples??? should they both stay at home instead of working and earning a living and paying taxes? Does that mean that gay couples, where both men are allowed to work can be wealthier then a female couple?
Women who are un married?Should they live at home with their parents for the rest of their lives?
This is obviously totally ignoring the fact this is an extremely outdated sexist view that actually defies belief!
-
@ Poverty - have you been mentally assesed?
-
Now I dont agree with the OP, but on your point Neo the mortages and housing market is so massively over-priced due to people having large household incomes and the over leveraging of those incomes by the mortage companies that has created the problem, which leads everyone to have to money grab.
I for one would be happy to stay at home if and when I had a child and look after it and run my own cottage industry part-time and let my partner go off to work but if I ever want to be able to afford a house which means saving up a deposit which is nearly equivalent to an RS3 I have to sell my sole to the dolar. And by the time I do the 25-35 year mortage term I will be lucky to pay the mortage off (let alone move up the ladder) before I retire by then probably in my 70's :sad1:
I dunno if they're overpriced because of larger incomes, it falls down to supply and demand. Real estate is limited through virtue of living on an island. Either way it'd be a massive paradigm shift to change things.
(https://www.mk5golfgti.co.uk/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdaz.co%2Fmedia%2FRedRobin_05%2FRED_INK%2FRR_GodisBusy.jpg&hash=7b2a96dcbc06450990e8ea8c60634c85ff4013d2)
Dear Lord, that's terrifying on so many levels! :scared:
So am I the only one who has a degree of agreement with Poverty or at least the principle of what he is wanting to achieve?
I suggest that the point he is making is that if a society had the structure which he suggests (which is only a structure which used exist) most of today's society's problems wouldn't exist. He's advocating a return to traditional values. Look at those societies in other parts of the world which still have such values: Far less problems with youth, stronger sense of family, more caring, etc etc etc.
I'd suggest that such an idealised society never existed, except in 60s American sitcoms. In Medieval times, peasant men and women would go out together to tend to the fields. Only the noble ladies would not be working, and they didn't look after their own children - they were only there to breed, really. Servants looked after the children. What parts of the world are you referring to Rob? These days there's a problem with youth everywhere. I mean, I think the nuclear- or extended-family is probably better, but I'd hardly suggest there's anywhere with fewer problems with the yoofs.
Chasing money is the real problem. Current Western society places far too much importance on it. It's the fault of those who invented the banks <-- Now someone can call me anti-semetic as well as a sexist :evilgrin: [But those who know me personally know that isn't the case].
That'd be the Dutch. They invented "high finance" so a pissant little country with no economy could build a fleet of warships and thereby claim an Empire.
-
Wow I started reading that as if it was a copy and paste joke from some other forum but your actually serious aren't you?
Ditto, I've read some pretty weird views on this forum but that takes the biscuit.
Personally I'd have this thread deleted so as not to offend any female members we have here.
If you want to lose any respect people might have for you then you're going the right way about it.
-
Having less Mobile Hair dressers around would mean less TTRS's on the road aswell :chicken:
-
other small flaws in your plan include:
what about lesbien couples??? should they both stay at home instead of working and earning a living and paying taxes? Does that mean that gay couples, where both men are allowed to work can be wealthier then a female couple?
Women who are un married?Should they live at home with their parents for the rest of their lives?
This is obviously totally ignoring the fact this is an extremely outdated sexist view that actually defies belief!
....I agree with you about the flaws you point out in Poverty's plan. However, whether a view is 'sexist' or not doesn't matter. We all live in a country which allows freedom of thought and opinion. Just stop for a moment and consider that at sometime in the future the ideas and opinions you (and others, this isn't personal) have now may be viewed as not 'politically correct'. That's all the crap about sexism etc is all about - It's just what happens to be 'politically correct' now.
Besides which, regardless of age or background, prejudices are very common among people - Experience working on a factory floor and you'll soon find out, for example.
Folks who are heavily into being 'PC' take themselves and life far too seriously in my opinion.
-
Personally I'd have this thread deleted so as not to offend any female members we have here.
If you want to lose any respect people might have for you then you're going the right way about it.
....Absolutely no need to do that as any self-respecting well-balanced female would simply form her own opinion about the OP and other people's posted opinions.
Having respect for someone, regardless of gender, entails having respect for their views and opinions irrespective of them being different from your own!
It would reflect very badly on this forum in my mind if this thread got locked or closed just because we are politely and openly discussing such a subject.
-
Having less Mobile Hair dressers around would mean less TTRS's on the road aswell :chicken:
.... :signLOL:
-
totally agree that PC-ness can and often is taken way too far. However PC-ness and equality arent the same thing
Freedom of speech is a right, and should be carefully used. It shouldnt be used to offend other ppl. If this was a racist mark for example, would the thread not be deleted?
unfortunately prejudices still exist, and this is proof! this is where you q the one day in a dream world speech....
-
If this was a racist mark for example, would the thread not be deleted?
....The post might be deleted but the thread wouldn't be deleted by me on a forum where I am a Moderator. I think it would be wrong to shut down a discussion just because of one contributor. PM's first etc and practice a bit of diplomacy and don't be as bigotted as those you would censor. By closing/locking, at least without warnings, you're then as bad as they are.
If I say I generally don't much like most people of a certain race or from a certain country, does that make me a racist? - I hardly think so. I don't respect what any authority determines is 'PC' - I can decide for myself what's right and wrong and also apply intelligence regarding its context. And if I then think I got it wrong I can say sorry and possibly revise my opinion, or not.
-
Poverty, does your girlfriend know about these opinions?
Do you have a girlfriend?
-
Poverty, does your girlfriend know about these opinions?
Do you have a girlfriend?
....Are you suggesting that if someone doesn't have a girlfriend, they are either a failure or inferior in some way?
-
Poverty, does your girlfriend know about these opinions?
Do you have a girlfriend?
....Are you suggesting that if someone doesn't have a girlfriend, they are either a failure or inferior in some way?
Logical fallacy there Red. Andrew is only asking if Poverty has a girlfriend (and therefore has the benefit of a female view to his proposal) or if said girlfriend knows about these views (and what her thoughts on it would be). Nothing said or implied about failure or inferior. That's something you've read in there yourself.
-
Poverty, does your girlfriend know about these opinions?
Do you have a girlfriend?
I wasn't going to reply to this topic till I was at home and could throw some statistics about, but seeing as my sanity and integrity as a person is being questioned I would just like to clear this up.
1. This originally started as a facebook joke, naturally some women bit and it turned into a debate. However it then did get me thinking tbh as I do believe society is better off with traditional family values and because job sharing could very well become a reality throughout the course of capitalism.
The GF wants to be a stay at home mum. She's currently a children centre manager and thinks it's sad that so many young children get stuffed by their parents into these places from 8-5, or longer.
I posted this partly as a pee take but it's progressed from that now. Alot of women would happily be house wifes and then there are others who think I'm an idiot.
Personally I don't care whether it's the man or woman who stays at home, but in my ideal world this would be a reality, along with families being able to spend more time together whilst working slightly less.
-
Poverty, does your girlfriend know about these opinions?
Do you have a girlfriend?
....Are you suggesting that if someone doesn't have a girlfriend, they are either a failure or inferior in some way?
Logical fallacy there Red. Andrew is only asking if Poverty has a girlfriend (and therefore has the benefit of a female view to his proposal) or if said girlfriend knows about these views (and what her thoughts on it would be). Nothing said or implied about failure or inferior. That's something you've read in there yourself.
....No, Andrew's words are ambiguous and open to interpretation. I merely challenged one interpretation of them. You have chosen to take his words on a very literal level with a big spin of giving him any benefit of the doubt. Fair enough of course :happy2:
-
Poverty, does your girlfriend know about these opinions?
Do you have a girlfriend?
....Are you suggesting that if someone doesn't have a girlfriend, they are either a failure or inferior in some way?
Logical fallacy there Red. Andrew is only asking if Poverty has a girlfriend (and therefore has the benefit of a female view to his proposal) or if said girlfriend knows about these views (and what her thoughts on it would be). Nothing said or implied about failure or inferior. That's something you've read in there yourself.
Exactly. Thank you.
-
Blokes that want their women to be stuck at home, looking after kids and being home makers, have some serious self esteem and security issues.
Why would you not want the woman you love to have experiences outside of the house?
I love the fact that my Mrs will soon be earning more dosh than me as a Developer.
-
1. This originally started as a facebook joke, naturally some women bit and it turned into a debate. However it then did get me thinking tbh as I do believe society is better off with traditional family values and because job sharing could very well become a reality throughout the course of capitalism.
The GF wants to be a stay at home mum. She's currently a children centre manager and thinks it's sad that so many young children get stuffed by their parents into these places from 8-5, or longer.
I posted this partly as a pee take but it's progressed from that now. Alot of women would happily be house wifes and then there are others who think I'm an idiot.
Personally I don't care whether it's the man or woman who stays at home, but in my ideal world this would be a reality, along with families being able to spend more time together whilst working slightly less.
....That's exactly how interpreted your first post and i happen to wholeheartedly agree with you about this aspect of family values. When I was married my wife didn't want to work and we both made do without her doing so. Our children are (were, because one has passed on) all the better for it - We all are. In fact, considering that our son passed on at 4yo it would have been absolutely sickening to have missed out on the fullness of those 4 short years.
Bottom line is that we're all different and can make our own choices - We don't have to be sheep and do what we think society or our peer group expects of us. Be brave enough to be different! Think Different like the late Steve Jobs did.
-
Blokes that want their women to be stuck at home, looking after kids and being home makers, have some serious self esteem and security issues.
Why would you not want the woman you love to have experiences outside of the house?
I love the fact that my Mrs will soon be earning more dosh than me as a Developer.
....It's not necessarily a case of what the blokes want as you put it. Different women want different things and usually get what they want.
Once she becomes a mother, isn't it more natural for a woman to want to give everything she can for her children rather going out to the rat race of work?
Have you got children? Believe me when I advise that dosh isn't everything and don't fall into that viscious circle trap of earning more for the sake of your children. Often so called 'poor' families have a much greater family bond.
-
Blokes that want their women to be stuck at home, looking after kids and being home makers, have some serious self esteem and security issues.
Why would you not want the woman you love to have experiences outside of the house?
I love the fact that my Mrs will soon be earning more dosh than me as a Developer.
....It's not necessarily a case of what the blokes want as you put it. Different women want different things and usually get what they want.
Once she becomes a mother, isn't it more natural for a woman to want to give everything she can for her children rather going out to the rat race of work?
Have you got children? Believe me when I advise that dosh isn't everything and don't fall into that viscious circle trap of earning more for the sake of your children. Often so called 'poor' families have a much greater family bond.
Nope, and we never, ever want to have any either. Personal choice, long discussed and for a multitude of reasons. Mostly because we think this planet, sadly, is a complete sh*t hole and a bad environment to bring even more people into. I love the idea of having kids, but just dont want to bring any into this world. Also, the wife and i want to enjoy the rest of our lives together and live for the moment. Childbirth is dangerous, in spite of modern medicine being great also.
My mother and me both were on the cusp of death during my birth. She lost 6 pints of blood.
I agree, some women would "rather" stay at home and look after the kids, and if their partner can earn enough to support this arrangement, then fair enough.
But to specifically prefer your woman to be stuck at home is selfish and ignorant. In my honest opinion.
I was brought up by a single mum. She worked her arse off to bring us up as best she could, paying for expensive child care when necessary. I love her for all the sacrifices she made.
-
I'd say 90% of problem youths are from a home where the parent/s are at home all day, because they're out of work.
The problem isn't parents not being around, the problem is parents not being up to the job.
-
The problem isn't parents not being around, the problem is parents not being up to the job.
+1.
Both my parents worked and this didn't have any (obvious) detrimental effect on me. They still brought me up relatively strictly which I think helped. We were educated on rights and wrongs, appropriately disciplined when we were very naughty etc.
You could have the mother at home all day but if there's no discipline, education and love from the parents, the child will more likely be dysfunctional.
-
I'd say 90% of problem youths are from a home where the parent/s are at home all day, because they're out of work.
The problem isn't parents not being around, the problem is parents not being up to the job.
....True, but I think that it depends on the attitudes of those parents who are at home all day. Which in a way is the same as what you're saying. It's the 'ignorance' factor.
I don't know the answers, or at least the answers are either too impractical or impossible to apply, and so I say to myself "I don't care enough about everyone else and I'll look after myself and daughter the best I can without being greedy - Just keep life simple and happy".
-
You could have the mother at home all day but if there's no discipline, education and love from the parents, the child will more likely be dysfunctional.
....Exactly! :happy2:
But discipline (the schools no longer give it) and love can be greatly diminished if the parents are absent a lot.
-
I completely agree with the sentiment of bringing back traditional family values, but we live in an equal society. We're better off for that.
My wife works. She has a degree, and as a Producer for BBC Current Affairs earns quite a bit more than I do. But we're not chasing money, we both have ambitions and interests, a life beyond the family. We're a fairly liberal but our whole family life is still based around those traditional family values. Our child goes to nursery 3 days a week, something we would have chose to do regardless of whether we both worked or not.
I think an end to Sunday trading would be a step in the right direction personally.
-
I think an end to Sunday trading would be a step in the right direction personally.
Although it really bugs me at times (mostly when needing a tool on a sunday or out of bread or bacon) You are probably right. Over here typically families go out together, strole into town for a café or pub restaurant visit, visit a local point of interest together etc etc on a Sunday. Quality time spent together rather than going out for material things in the shops usually out of boredom (we would regularly visit Asda at the end of the road for something to do Sunday if bored when we lived in England...)
-
Hmmm, how dare they!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15211861 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15211861)