I don’t know where to suggest that you go to be able to understand, or perhaps it is just remember, you own posts. You do need to go back and see that eugenics was not the only thing you said - you also included “class-based” and “strong racial implications”.
Of course, since my belief that people who cannot afford them shouldn’t be making babies has zero to do with any of that, I suppose it isn’t surprising that you would think my response was a non sequitur.
Heh, so every SAHM is also a parasite in your eyes, simply because she relies on her husband for income? There is no possibility that I am of any, ahem, use to my husband other than a paycheck? (Other than that - get your mind out of the gutter. :D)
No, sweetheart, class-based (with strong racial implications) was a description of the eugenics you promote, not standalone concepts. Reading for context is your friend. Did you ever learn how to diagram a sentence? Do you understand the difference between independent clauses and adjectives?
Well, a SAHM actually does bring a demonstrable value into the relationship that cannot be duplicated by a hired third party. You’re not raising any kids, so what exactly do you do that a paid housekeeper couldn’t?
Well, I could say that you spent all that time talking about a “Culrcoat” but that would be too easy. Also, your very first point is wrong.
Since I understand many things that you do not, I would never assume anything about what you post. Particularly since you have been known to pull a word or two out of a post of mine and make a huge, out of context, deal out of it.
I see. The only value a wife has is to raise children and clean house?
I do, it is tumbleddown who seems to think that the only options for women are working outside the home or staying home raising kids. Perhaps she is just trying to justify herself, I don’t know, but it really wasn’t that long ago that women choosing not to work wasn’t evil, or lazy, or whatever her issue is.
No, she’s saying that other women who stay at home generally provide something of value, and that you provide nothing. Which would be fine if you weren’t such a hypocrite about it.
Tell us then, if poor people *can *afford to have kids, who can’t? Who are all these selfish leeches having children they can’t afford, if they aren’t from the poor section of society?
Well she is wrong. Not that I have any idea why should would think that, other than what I’ve already said. She seems to think that the only way that women can “provide something of value” is to have children or work outside the home. The fact that I no longer work and never had children is basically all tumbleddown knows about me.
I’m not. I have zero problem with people who have to retire early and end up taking their Social Security early.
:rolleyes: Did you read the quote or just rush to show you have no clue? To help you, this is what it was - “People who could potentially find that are unable to afford them should not have kids”. Now, explain to me how you came to that meaning “poor people”, whatever your definition of that is…
A SAHM is doing a job - raising the kids. As for other stay at home wives with no kids, I have no idea if they are providing a valuable service to the household or not, but I imagine many are trophy wives like you who do absolutely nothing, and are therefore indeed parasites. I realize that it used to be common for women to stay home with or without kids, but it also used to be common for normal housekeeping to be much more labour intensive. Unless you are spending all day scrubbing your husbands undies on a washboard then I doubt you are all that useful to him. I would say that he could survive just fine without you, but I fear he may be just as dumb as you and it actually might require the both of you to figure out how to start the dishwasher.
You are barking up the wrong tree here. There is no way she knows what these things mean.
Whilst many women nowadays are indeed parasites, it was not uncommon for ‘ladies’ in earlier times who did not need to find paid work, to commit to providing voluntary services for the many charities. Hospital auxilliaries, orphanages, raising funds for the Red Cross were among the many beneficiaries of this vast reserve of unpaid labour. Without these women, the social fabric as we know it would be very, very different.
Somehow though, I doubt curlie is one of those ladies.
Since you also know zero about me other than I no longer work and never had children, you have no basis for saying I do “absolutely nothing”. But then, making shit up and being a ragged bitch is the last ditch strategy of the stupid.
I know that no one is actually going to make the mistake of coming right out and saying it, but you might as well since you’ve done everything but - you believe that the only “use” women have is to either bring in a paycheck or pop out the kids. That’s just pathetic and I do hope not a common belief these days. If nothing else, what are you going to do with all of these SAHMs who can’t get a job after their kids are grown?
Yeah, I think you make a pretty terrible trophy too, but he must see something in you.
So, you want us to believe that you’re so disabled you can hardly do anything and couldn’t possibly earn money, but you also do lots of useful stuff at home, or volunteer, or something? And you want to claim that nobody should ever fall back on the social security system because then they’re parasites, but it’s also perfectly okay to be a kept woman who does nothing? You can’t have it both ways, buttercup.
I have no idea why you’re making this about ‘the use of women’ as though the rest of us are a bunch of misogynists. Women can do whatever the hell they want, just like men can. Personally, I don’t have much respect for women who just laze around the house and let their man bring home the bacon, but I wouldn’t much respect a man who did that either. I also wouldn’t like myself too much if I didn’t do something useful like study, work or raise kids (although I have no plans to do the latter).
The point isn’t about the ‘use’ of women, it’s about the sheer hypocrisy of you railing against the filthy poor people who dare to use the systems available to them while you survive entirely on the generosity of others. But this has been explained to you time and again and you just don’t get it.
Actually, by your logic you already do. You believe people should support themself, but acknowledge your husband supports you. Presuming his mental stance is similar to yours, I presume you’re providing some form of service or recompense for that?
As to whether providing a sex chat or sex cam is prostitution is a different question though. That’s beside the point. The question is whether physically you’re capable of doing it? If so, then if we are to accept your belief that people should support themselves, it’s your moral imperative to set one up immediately and stop mooching off the state and your poor husband (unless, as mentioned above, you’re providing services rendered)
If you want to argue that my inclusion of potentially was incorrect (even though you seem to say that other places), than feel free to eliminate that. it doesn’t change the rest of my logic. Note I’m not arguing one way or another was to whether your beliefs are correct, merely that they are pretty much by definition class based eugenics.
Oh no, I know quite a few things about you. And here’s what I know.
You have no children, so you’re not parenting, so your role within your household beyond that of spouse, is limited to housekeeping and household administrative duties. This is stuff that can be done by a paid employee.
You disdain public schools, so you’re clearly not volunteering in classrooms at your local schools, or likely, since they’re typically joined in purpose if not legal status, your local libraries.
You eschew religion, so you’re not involved in your community via a church, synagogue or other faith-based group.
You’re fond of repeating utter untruths and misrepresentations of the healthcare system that would be obviously wrong to anyone who’s spent any time within the same, so you’re not volunteering at a hospital, hospice or nursing facility.
Your perspectives about the less fortunate amongst us makes it clear that you’re not involved in charitable outreach amongst the poor. If you were, you wouldn’t repeat the caricatures of low income Americans that you’ve mythologized time and time again in thread after thread.
Your disability, as you’ve described it (which I have complete sympathy for, as an arthritis sufferer myself) seems to rule out the idea of being a museum or zoo docent or any other community involvement with a physical component.
Despite having ended your education with just a high school diploma and plenty of time on your hands, you’re not improving your own education.
So unless this assessment is incorrect, you’re not doing substantive work in the home, in the community or even for yourself. Unlike the working poor parents you so regularly and disreputably castigate, you’re not doing anything that has any individualized, positive impact on the life of anyone.
I’m looking hard for the value there. I’m not seeing it. Feel free to explain how I’m wrong.
There are very strong and influential voices today insisting that the psychological concept of self-esteem itself is hollow, clueless, and artificial - and furthermore, that the cruelty of the world is* natural,* and the only self-confidence worth having comes from early and unmediated exposure to it.
How do you account for such a position? How would you rebut such a position?
Twit. The point is, I’m not a trophy wife under any definition - I certainly don’t look like one and I definitely don’t act like one. Apparently you think that any wife who isn’t working must be one that the husband has to treat like an object in order to keep, which is quite sad.
No, I have never said any like that, it is merely something that you all seem to believe - that disabled must equal bed ridden or at least house bound. Some, maybe even many or most, disabled people can still work - I did for at least 10 years after I technically qualified for SSDI.
I haven’t said anything like those either. For one thing, one cannot “fall back” on social security, certainly not as easily as parent can fall back on the multiple government handouts that are available to them. As for kept women, I have no opinion on them at all.
And once again, as I have said time and again and you all just don’t get it - many if not most people living off of WIC, food stamps, etc have paid little or nothing into the system, but they get these benefits simply because they created more people for the government to support - their kids. You keep saying “poor people” as if these benefits were available to all poor, but they aren’t, only to those with children. It might be called Women Infants and Children, but they really only mean Infants and Children. Why do you think it’s a good idea to reward people for making it even harder for them to climb out of poverty, by having children they cannot afford? Why aren’t we spending any of this money to give a leg up to childless poor teens and young adults?
For more than any prostitute does. Besides, I do not believe that people should support themselves, I believe that they should not expect and demand that the government do so. As I said above, if men want to have trophy wives, I couldn’t care less as it doesn’t affect me in any way. Same for rich people who support their kids with big allowances - none of my business.
It isn’t just the children, tho that is the one that gets the most benefits. There is also the bailout of all the people who bought houses they had to have known at the time they couldn’t really afford. There is also all the people who run up credit card debt and then just declare bankruptcy. The attitude is the same across all of these - no need to be responsible, the government will step in and take care of it.
Actually, it’s not. There is no reason why I should be expected to engage in cyber prostitution to earn money I have already earned.
I have no idea since I don’t know what is involved in it. If it requires any sort of ongoing commitment and/or any need to hit deadlines, then no.
The rest of your post is invalid since it makes assumptions not based in fact.
Two ways. One is I am saying that people who cannot at that time afford kids shouldn’t be making babies. The other is your use of the word potentially, which indicates a far wider range of circumstances than I consider realistic.
:rolleyes: All classes can have as many kids as they want, as long as they don’t expect others to pay to raise them. Not that forbidding poor people to have children really qualifies as eugenics since “poor” is not a genetic condition. So, that dealt with, why do you think that the rights of the poor should supercede the rights of the taxpayers?
Uh, yeah. We should hire, lets see, a housekeeper, a personal aide, a gardener, a trainer instead of me doing these things? Because?
I snipped out all the parts that were irrelevant - how many of your SAHMs volunteer?
And, simply because I don’t volunteer in areas that you are aware of and/or approve of doesn’t mean I don’t.
Explain to me why I should spend money on “improving my own education”? I cannot get a job with it. I do actually continue my education, but not in any schools.
Well of course it is. As I said, you are completely clueless and just continue to repeat the same tired blind bias that you always do
Because you willfully ignore the fact that I did work for almost four decades and during that time I paid in a substantial amount in taxes and took very little out. I am still paying tax on my retirement income. Unlike your glorious working poor who most likely had their kids in high school or just out of it and so are taking more out of the system than they put in, perhaps for most of their lives, and then they take our their Social Security. If they had not had kids, had just one or waited until later, it is far more likely that they would be able to put into the system at least as much as they take out and they might have been able to move up the economic ladder as well. Instead of raising another generation of people whose likely best outcome will be to become more working poor. Yet you support their selfish decision to have kids that others support, and most likely condemn those kids to living poor when they become adults.
Decisions regarding whether to have children shouldn’t be left to hormonally challenged women.
Clearly not, as you can’t be arsed to support yourself. Still, if you’re happy with your sex for benefits arrangement, good for you. Do you believe children should find a similar arrangement? That would be rather icky, even by your standards.
