|
Post by Liberator on Oct 19, 2009 2:48:46 GMT
I realise that because I've been away from the board for a while, I've put my link to forcing women to de-sex themselves and have abortions to fit into a man's world under its own heading of Playing the Choice card to prevent choice.
Still, it is all there for anybody who wants to remember that as well as the side of denying women control over their own fertility if contraception goes wrong, there is also the side of enforcing control over women by making contraception and abortion a practical necessity so they can fulfill their duties to The System like men instead of liberating men to be free from their duties to The System to fulfill personal commitment to their personal relationships like women used to be free to do. "Women's Liberation" once said "The Personal is the Political".
I guess that is when they first showed they had changed from a progressive force to a conservative one, because it is the Political that is the Personal; personal relationships and commitments should always direct and predominate political and economic motives and structures, not the other way round as is the case in industrialist and slave societies. The Political is the Personal. What is forced upon us from above dictates our private relationships. So in order to remain human instead of economic machines, we must ensure that the Political remains part of the Personal, never the Personal as [part of] the Political.
|
|
|
Post by chefmate on Oct 24, 2009 12:30:36 GMT
I had my children at ages 35 and 37 years of age; I was in many ways a superior parent than a teenager or early twenties as I had wisdom aquired plus the running around and partying was out of my system so I was more than content to spend time with my babies rather than tyring to find some dick to stick between my legs or spend time at the latest wateringhole designed with the young in mind.
My boys had their dad and mom there for them and I believe it made a far better situation than only one parent.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2009 19:51:53 GMT
I had my children at ages 35 and 37 years of age; I was in many ways a superior parent than a teenager or early twenties as I had wisdom aquired plus the running around and partying was out of my system so I was more than content to spend time with my babies rather than tyring to find some dick to stick between my legs or spend time at the latest wateringhole designed with the young in mind. My boys had their dad and mom there for them and I believe it made a far better situation than only one parent. I didn't marry until I was 35 and was 37 when I realised we just didn't have the energy (even if we had wanted to) for children! But you make a good point. Kids have a tough enough time with two parents who love them, so don't stand much chance with only one, who doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Oct 30, 2009 15:37:49 GMT
I had my children at ages 35 and 37 years of age; I was in many ways a superior parent than a teenager or early twenties as I had wisdom aquired plus the running around and partying was out of my system so I was more than content to spend time with my babies rather than tyring to find some dick to stick between my legs or spend time at the latest wateringhole designed with the young in mind. My boys had their dad and mom there for them and I believe it made a far better situation than only one parent. That's a damning and horrible description of young single mothers. It took me until my thirties to understand the wisdom I'd acquired and by then my daughter was in double digits. I saw completely that the things that had been so difficult for me as a young single mother - things such as how to discipline, how to guide, how to balance - would still be difficult for any first time mother but a lot easier and clearer with the wisdom of age and a full time co-parent. I got in trouble with my friends for suggesting that two parents was a vastly superior situation than one, they thought I was just beating myself up but I wasn't, I really saw everything very clearly. Now I see things even more clearly -- two parents is not anywhere near enough, you need the aunts and uncles and grandparents and cousins and friends-with-kids infrastructure too. You get some of that even if you are a young single mum but not quite at the same level as far as I can see. There are so many factors involved that just listing the mother as a young flippety-gibbert is a cop-out.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Oct 30, 2009 15:44:17 GMT
Cheffy, this truly isn't aimed at you (because you haven't ranted!) but your views are similar to many people who have ranted elsewhere on this topic, so that's why I am prompted to say the following now -
One of my pet hates is that the people who find abortion so repellant that they feel they must rage against it are the same people who tut and wag fingers and despair whenever the topic of single parenting is raised.
They seem to despise that a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy and despise her even more for not terminating but for struggling through without enough lifeskills to do a brilliant job of it.
Damned if you do and damned if you don't...
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Oct 30, 2009 18:13:49 GMT
I'm divided on the issue of single Mums.
I don't demonise them (how could I? My own sister was one till she got married recently - and NOT to the father of her first kid - and now her and hubby have anothe son!) but
My sis had a good bloke as her boyfriend who was a good Dad and because he wasn't earning enough money she chucked him out.
Then she got on the council as a single Mum and got rehoused later to an even bigger place when she had her second kid.
It's just not fair that some of us have to work and slave to pay a mortgage and other people have homes handed to them on a plate.
My sister earns £18,000 a year and her husband (who only works part-time as a barman in a country club) makes £10,000.
Yet they're living in a 3-bed council place when they could well afford (they live in Leeds) to buy a place of their own.
Mike and I have had to do things the hard way - borrowing money, taking out mortgages, buy to let and so on.
I wish there was a level playing field in life.
|
|
|
Post by chefmate on Oct 31, 2009 0:25:39 GMT
Cheffy, this truly isn't aimed at you (because you haven't ranted!) but your views are similar to many people who have ranted elsewhere on this topic, so that's why I am prompted to say the following now - One of my pet hates is that the people who find abortion so repellant that they feel they must rage against it are the same people who tut and wag fingers and despair whenever the topic of single parenting is raised. They seem to despise that a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy and despise her even more for not terminating but for struggling through without enough lifeskills to do a brilliant job of it. Damned if you do and damned if you don't... I was a single mom but not by choice........I had to spend six years raising two sons alone after their dad died. I am still suffering the effects of the stress and anxiety because of those years.....we made to much to get help but not enough to really be comfortable but we survived. I was offered the chance to have a test which would have told me if something had been wrong with my first child as my sister had a child that died at birth but we decided against the test as we would not abort our child and he was okay I know it is a hard place to be for these women and I wish they would use birth control so they don't land in that hard place.......there are so many good arguements for and against abortion and a good deal many more for bringing a child into this world that is going to suffer the effects of poverty because the mother wasn't prepared for all the expenses and the taxpayer shouldn't be expected to carry the load either. Glad I never had to walk the road and can only sit and type a judgement on a blank piece of computer space in a forum.
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Oct 31, 2009 2:26:22 GMT
I think it quite straightforward that the bottom line of life is more life. There have been male tyrants and female abusers but overwhelming is individuals who wanted to make a life together and rase kids to better than they ever hoped for.
Teenage mothers end up in a hard place because we choose to persecute them. We choose to decree that everybody should serve what in the USSR was 'The State' and with us is vaguer, run by more shadowy corporate clowns behind the scenes. It's a man' world where men must serve, but we long ago stopped asking why men must serve or why women must ape them instead of offering an alternative.
There has been an alternative. That is, that women admit to reproduction instead of suppressing it to be like their male superiors, and women demand society recognise their ability to do something men cannot and support their freedom and right to do it, and men's freedom and right (and duty) to be their close supporters instead of always thinking how women can suppress themselves to join in men's suppression.
I was watching some stirring nostalgia about the USSR a couple of days ago when it stuck me how macho the whole thing was, all about heroic soldiers and workers, nothing about loving friends building a home together. That is why it failed - it was in the end an ideal of macho men or macho men that allowed women equality only as far as they worked as macho men. It denied sexual equality, just as its feminist successor has and held one single masculine ideal up as the impersonal unemotional ideal that women must conform to instead of women having any equal value of worth for men to learn.
Where is the tenderness of lovers together loving their children together in any political dogma (including feminism)? It's like in th musical 'Hair' when she sing about his abstract impersonal idealism "Do you only care about the bleeding crowd?" What about me? What about one real individual caring relationship? If you can't feel it for one, how dare you speak for millions?
How dare we organise and judge what teenage girls should be doing to fit into a man's world instead of liberating males to equality with females and those girls from having to conform to exploitative demands upon males incapable of their superior pregnancy and under their control to be allowed to 'serve' them?
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 31, 2009 10:35:30 GMT
My sister earns £18,000 a year and her husband (who only works part-time as a barman in a country club) makes £10,000. Yet they're living in a 3-bed council place when they could well afford (they live in Leeds) to buy a place of their own. With that level of income, surely they are paying rent?
|
|
|
Post by chefmate on Oct 31, 2009 11:03:30 GMT
My sister earns £18,000 a year and her husband (who only works part-time as a barman in a country club) makes £10,000. Yet they're living in a 3-bed council place when they could well afford (they live in Leeds) to buy a place of their own. With that level of income, surely they are paying rent? I had to do some converting but come up with a figure of about 45000 a year which would get them a decent house in the states or at least rent a very nice apartment and there would be no help as they make to much for section 8
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Oct 31, 2009 16:57:10 GMT
They are paying rent but of course it's not the market rent for what they'd pay for a private property in the same size and so on.
On top of that, they get all their decoration, repairs and stuff done for them while we have to pay for all that or do it ourselves (which is OK with small stuff but not electrics, gas, plumbing and things like that all of which my sis and her hubby get done for them at no charge!)
|
|
|
Post by chefmate on Oct 31, 2009 17:03:40 GMT
damn, I'm living in the wrong country!!!
I have a friend who works for some social service agency in Britain and she gets so upset that so many get a free ride without doing anything
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 31, 2009 17:16:22 GMT
Council housing isn't a 'free ride'.
And Lin, you could have applied for a council house yourself if that was what you wanted.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2009 17:44:41 GMT
Council housing isn't a 'free ride'. And Lin, you could have applied for a council house yourself if that was what you wanted. There is no council housing where I live... only "social housing". It is granted to the homeless, and even then only to those deemed to be in priority need; families with children and the vulnerable. Everyone else has to make do with private rented (no security) homes or buy. Those who can afford to buy will, if things work out, have a capital asset. If they don't work out, they end up in serious debt.
|
|
|
Post by chefmate on Oct 31, 2009 21:49:33 GMT
is a council house the same as section 8 where you get housing for a certain percentage of your income?
How come we do that?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2009 22:19:18 GMT
is a council house the same as section 8 where you get housing for a certain percentage of your income? How come we do that? Council house are a bit like Model T Ford cars, chefmate: some still exist and they are highly sought after! They were built by local councils after the war for people with housing needs. But Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher decided they weren't a good idea and let tenants buy them at very low prices; she also refused to let councils build any more - though that moratorium has now been lifted. Housing Associations (which are non profit making) came along and began building, and their homes are filled by people the councils need to house; homeless families and vulnerable people. There aren't enough of them so some families have to go into private rented accommodation, which offers no security. People on low income get some or all of their rent paid from taxes. Can you explain about section 8 housing? It sounds interesting.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Oct 31, 2009 22:37:07 GMT
Council housing isn't a 'free ride'. And Lin, you could have applied for a council house yourself if that was what you wanted. I applied for council housing once, but it was only slums. Preferred to take my chances in the free market than take a low-rent slum.
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Oct 31, 2009 23:35:17 GMT
As of this year, in order to get private rent allowance it has become compulsory to apply for public housing - thus adding people to the list who do not necessarily want it. It's not the accommodation as such - it's the people in some of these blocks!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2009 8:02:30 GMT
As of this year, in order to get private rent allowance it has become compulsory to apply for public housing - thus adding people to the list who do not necessarily want it. It's not the accommodation as such - it's the people in some of these blocks! Where is that, ratarsed? I've forgotten where you live. It certainly isn't the case in England. Social housing isn't everyone's first choice. Often it is taken by people who simply wouldn't get a tenancy in the private sector however hard they tried!
|
|
|
Post by chefmate on Nov 1, 2009 16:16:59 GMT
is a council house the same as section 8 where you get housing for a certain percentage of your income? How come we do that? Council house are a bit like Model T Ford cars, chefmate: some still exist and they are highly sought after! They were built by local councils after the war for people with housing needs. But Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher decided they weren't a good idea and let tenants buy them at very low prices; she also refused to let councils build any more - though that moratorium has now been lifted. Housing Associations (which are non profit making) came along and began building, and their homes are filled by people the councils need to house; homeless families and vulnerable people. There aren't enough of them so some families have to go into private rented accommodation, which offers no security. People on low income get some or all of their rent paid from taxes. Can you explain about section 8 housing? It sounds interesting. www.affordablehousingonline.com/section8housing.asp
|
|