Starving Artist Fact-shields up and working at 100% efficiency!
You deny this?
You really shouldn’t have edited that. You might have gotten credit for the one of the greatest dismissals in the history of this board.
It all went to hell in the Sixties, with all those damn dirty hippies. Ahhh for the golden Fifities :rolleyes:
And nobody even thanked us.
The real bitch of it is that I agree with you, Starving Artist. At least partially. I would love to see less children born into broken households. My own parents divorce had a substantially negative effect on me, and it truly breaks my heart to see such high rates of single parenthood and divorce. But what do we do about it that improves the situation? Voting for the Republican Party and spending hours on message boards railing against liberal permissiveness doesn’t seem to be getting results, now does it? 
On the bright side though, roughly 50% of those births are female. All the more women for Republicans to kill in the future. :rolleyes:
And just think, the kind of idiots who say stuff like that are the same kinds of people who were somehow able to determine how society should operate in the sixties.
And with predictable results.
No, but at least it gives me a chance to try to get people to think about how society operates these days, and about the kind of thinking that caused it. Who knows? Maybe someday things will actually start to change for the better.
You mean we will go back to the tax rates we had under Eisenhower?
Benefit of marriage? You mean the benefits of forced marriage right?
Also note that if marriage were a benefit, Republicans would want same-sex couples to benefit from it as well, right?
And McCarthyism and the Red Menace and the Yellow Peril and atomic attack drills and crewcuts ???
Oh HELL no.
If only you yourself were willing to think, maybe, just maybe, we could make some change.
Starving Artist, have you noted my citations above—particularly that the rate of teenage virginity is about the same now as it was in the fifties (and has declined since the seventies and eighties)? Combined with the fact that the likelihood of teenage pregnancy has declined dramatically, this should be rather heartening for you.
If you have any contrary numbers (or something other than scattered anecdotes) I’d be very interested in seeing.
Duck and cower.
Abortions were available in 1963 too . . . ask me how I know. 
CMC fnord!
So you think that forced teen marriages are BETTER? The marriages weren’t that great, or that lasting.
And IUDs were around since the 1930s, at least. They weren’t generally available, but my grandmother had one. Abortions have been around forever. The rich had safe abortions, and the middle class and poor had coat hangers or someone with a little medical training, and usually no painkiller.
Making abortions illegal just makes them unsafe. If you want to reduce abortions, then giving girls higher education and career opportunities will reduce early pregnancies, and giving ALL kids COMPREHENSIVE sex ed will reduce early pregnancies too.
Naw. That was back in the crazy days when people knew that if you bought something you had to pay for it.
The “lower my taxes” crowd does not want to pay for anything. They don’t even realize how they directly benefit from government services. (eg tea partiers riding around on Medicare-purchased scooters) And especially true for indirect benefits (eg children and teen support services that ensure that little Johnny has alternatives, and does not grow up to car-jack you).
Government = Bad
All taxes = Bad
Yeah let’s go back to that kind of thinking.
When my own mother – a grown woman working full time – wasn’t allowed to open up a bank account in her name without my father’s permission because she was married.
:rolleyes:
So there was no way to change that but to create a country where drugs and crime and STDs and a screwed up educational system and single-parent births ran rampant?
I should probably add that women were somehow able to get the vote without all that having to happen. I would think that checking accounts would be a relatively small accomplishment compared to that.
And besides, those practices weren’t born of a desire to oppress women. In those days, by and large, women took care of things on the home front and men took care of earning the money needed to support the family. Thus men had property and the likelihood of a continued income. Many women, if they worked, didn’t stay on the job as long as did men due to pregnancies and so forth. Plus in those days people were largely kept track of and identified by their names, and a woman could completely avoid a bad credit history by marrying or remarrying. So it was a risk to grant women credit in those days. Those practices had nothing to do with the common feminist fantasy that men were out to oppress women and/or deny them their rights.