All legislation is someone’s idea of morality. The left is trying to knock us off of our moral foundation and supplant it with their’s is all. They’re doing a great job so far, family-wise. In 1955 the average age of a convict was 45. Now it’s 20. Sorry to repeat myself, but this has a lot to do with the left’s morality.
In order to blame the left for the prison age change since 1955, which of course is completely unrelated to this article, you would have to assume that they had been in control for the last 50 years. I don’t think that’s the case at all. Both sides have shared power over the last 50 years and if one side was overwhelmingly better, it would have dominated. It takes a tremendous amount of engergy to keep a bad ideology in vogue ( think of the Soviet defense budget ) If either the “left” or the “right” had all the answers, they would have solved all the problems, won the heart’s and minds of the country, and the other side would have vanished by now. If you thinks the solution to anything is simple partisan ideology, the only simple thing is you.
Mothers should take care of thier children and fathers should support their families. When they don’t there’s trouble. We agree, right?
This woman wants her employer to bite the bullet for her life-choices. This is a symptom of family breakdown, even in an intact family, because the desire of a woman to work rather than nurture her four kids, including 6 year-old triplets, doesn’t happen in a vaccum but in a society that casts little aspersion on a decision to ignore one’s kids in favor of “self-fulfillment” in the career world.
Does she need to work? Then buy a smaller house, drive used cars, turn down the AC, whatever. Her interests should be subordinate to her kids’ wellbeing. If you don’t get it, sorry.
I will only agree to part of your statement. Kids should be cared for, and families should be supported….most of the time that works out to the mother taking care of the kids and the father providing financial support. But there are times when that’s not the case and this woman may be one of them. Maybe she has a PhD and the husband is a high school dropout. Certainly she would have a higher earning power in the workplace than he would. If the woman is a better caregiver and a better financial provider, perhaps the family situation is better off with the “inferior” caregiver ( ie: the dad )and higher income of a working mom.
However, none of this is relevant. What’s best for her kids, the country, and mankind in general, is not the issue here. Her employer appears to have made a judgement for her, that they wouldn’t have made for a man. That’s unfair.
“Her employer appears to have made a judgement for her, that they wouldn’t have made for a man. That’s unfair.”
It isn’t unfair that women are different than men. The irony is that having four children is an asset for a man in the eyes of an employer because it denotes need, responsibility, dependability, etc. For a female employee it means that she is going to be off a lot taking care of sick kids. If a Ph.D. marries a dropout, should her employer foot the bill and live with the inconveniences that her choices have caused.
..but there wouldn’t be any consequences. That was my point in using that example…the “dropout” husband is the one providing care for the kids.
She is already employed at the firm, so they know her attendance history. If her past attendance has been OK, ( bear in mind she had been given good performance reviews and told she was getting a promotion ) then how “full her plate is” shouldn’t have been a concern for the firm.
“Her employer appears to have made a judgement for her, that they wouldn’t have made for a man. That’s unfair.”
That is so true. It is unfair. You know in Sweden the woman have higher job positions and the men stay at home and don’t they mind it. What does this tell us? This tell’s us that we’re behind the times. One for all and all for one. ERA!
The pussification of men and the ERA have ruined America as to what is was and we are now faced with a society that believes entitlements are now mandatory and that someone else is always to blame for their shortcomings. I pray for the day (and it will happen), when we go back to better days of personal responsibility and raising your children with decent family values and not expecting day care or other dregs of society to pacify us.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
All legislation is someone’s idea of morality. The left is trying to knock us off of our moral foundation and supplant it with their’s is all. They’re doing a great job so far, family-wise. In 1955 the average age of a convict was 45. Now it’s 20. Sorry to repeat myself, but this has a lot to do with the left’s morality.
In order to blame the left for the prison age change since 1955, which of course is completely unrelated to this article, you would have to assume that they had been in control for the last 50 years. I don’t think that’s the case at all. Both sides have shared power over the last 50 years and if one side was overwhelmingly better, it would have dominated. It takes a tremendous amount of engergy to keep a bad ideology in vogue ( think of the Soviet defense budget ) If either the “left” or the “right” had all the answers, they would have solved all the problems, won the heart’s and minds of the country, and the other side would have vanished by now. If you thinks the solution to anything is simple partisan ideology, the only simple thing is you.
Mothers should take care of thier children and fathers should support their families. When they don’t there’s trouble. We agree, right?
This woman wants her employer to bite the bullet for her life-choices. This is a symptom of family breakdown, even in an intact family, because the desire of a woman to work rather than nurture her four kids, including 6 year-old triplets, doesn’t happen in a vaccum but in a society that casts little aspersion on a decision to ignore one’s kids in favor of “self-fulfillment” in the career world.
Does she need to work? Then buy a smaller house, drive used cars, turn down the AC, whatever. Her interests should be subordinate to her kids’ wellbeing. If you don’t get it, sorry.
Sarah,
Why so angry? Aunt Flo in town?
I will only agree to part of your statement. Kids should be cared for, and families should be supported….most of the time that works out to the mother taking care of the kids and the father providing financial support. But there are times when that’s not the case and this woman may be one of them. Maybe she has a PhD and the husband is a high school dropout. Certainly she would have a higher earning power in the workplace than he would. If the woman is a better caregiver and a better financial provider, perhaps the family situation is better off with the “inferior” caregiver ( ie: the dad )and higher income of a working mom.
However, none of this is relevant. What’s best for her kids, the country, and mankind in general, is not the issue here. Her employer appears to have made a judgement for her, that they wouldn’t have made for a man. That’s unfair.
“Her employer appears to have made a judgement for her, that they wouldn’t have made for a man. That’s unfair.”
It isn’t unfair that women are different than men. The irony is that having four children is an asset for a man in the eyes of an employer because it denotes need, responsibility, dependability, etc. For a female employee it means that she is going to be off a lot taking care of sick kids. If a Ph.D. marries a dropout, should her employer foot the bill and live with the inconveniences that her choices have caused.
I’m outa here.
Willy – That is the best think you posted…
..but there wouldn’t be any consequences. That was my point in using that example…the “dropout” husband is the one providing care for the kids.
She is already employed at the firm, so they know her attendance history. If her past attendance has been OK, ( bear in mind she had been given good performance reviews and told she was getting a promotion ) then how “full her plate is” shouldn’t have been a concern for the firm.
“Her employer appears to have made a judgement for her, that they wouldn’t have made for a man. That’s unfair.”
That is so true. It is unfair. You know in Sweden the woman have higher job positions and the men stay at home and don’t they mind it. What does this tell us? This tell’s us that we’re behind the times. One for all and all for one. ERA!
Besides the employer should myob.
The pussification of men and the ERA have ruined America as to what is was and we are now faced with a society that believes entitlements are now mandatory and that someone else is always to blame for their shortcomings. I pray for the day (and it will happen), when we go back to better days of personal responsibility and raising your children with decent family values and not expecting day care or other dregs of society to pacify us.