Posted on 12/28/2004 3:03:45 AM PST by Woodworker
Sounds like MY family,very self reliant and frugal.
But that was then,this is now.These college girls go around strutting like a bunch of sluts and often cuss worse than the young men.They are ultra materialistic and want it all NOW.
You can't blame these yound men for being reluctant to get caught up in these females unreal vortexes.Its nothing but a lige guaranteed to be full of stress and unrelenting drama.
For the past 40 years,the old,languishing FREE LOVE MOVEMENT took off,so sex can't really be the reason men marry now....The "what one is supposed to do"? doesn't work either.Time was,when both were a valid supposition;not now.
Oh yes, I don't agree with this part. I think that men still marry for sex, despite the whole free love thing of the sixties (which was actually tied to technology, but that's another discussion).
"if we stopped giving student loans to people who major in worthless subjects like history, sociology, and poli sci, and then go on to law school"
I'd say your list of worthless subjects is rather subjective. I find history a subject that should be required throughout K-12 along with certain required history courses throughout college. Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it. Plus, I find history fascinating. It would be a sad world if everyone in it was some technocrat, MBA, or math or science major. There is room for all subjects in our society, in fact, it is a moral imperative. The Liberal Arts"s degree that our forefathers thought so very important as one major component to the survival of our nation. Do you slam "conservative" historians, of which there actually are many, as having studied a worthless subject? Do you find the books historians write to enlighten us about our past, European history, U.S. history, Asian history. how our country was formed, how WWI and WWII were fought, about democracy in ancient Athens, the laws of Hammurabi, the Napoleanic Code, the history of Free Republic which was recently resurrected and posted again, the history of, the history of, you get the idea, a waste of time? Do you think the history degrees that many of our "conservative" politicians have, are worthless? By the way, history includes those subjects it appears you seem to value, the history of Math, the history of all things scientific and the discoveries throughout the ages, the history of business, inventions, medicine and its break-throughs,and even the history of high tech stuff, computers, etc.
Be careful in what appears to be your desire to slam college educations unless only in those subjects you see fit for study. You leave out a whole world of endeavor and value by doing so. Music and art usually don't get you much money in life, but I would be horrified at a life that didn't include both of them, and I value those that have the expertise to convey both to us. And English, would you prefer that there have been no experts (teachers) to have taught you the King's English? While you were going through K-12, would you have wished to learn nothing from those who had the degrees to teach you about music, art, english, philosophy, you know, all those so-called worthless subjects? It appears you have some reverse form of elitism, and look down your nose at the liberal arts part of an education.
I think I know where you are coming from, as you equate the liberal arts with LIBERALS, and in a certain sense the liberal arts have oftentimes been co-opted by way too many people of the liberal persuasion. The cure would be for more conservatives to get involved in these subjects, rather than ceding them to the left. More conservatives need to become lawyers and journalists, so that we can again better combat the leftists. It's not the subject matter, it's the people who abuse their areas of expertise for political gain (like most of the MSM journalists). We must fight fire with fire, by getting more of our own kind into those fields generally sought out by the liberals. That is how they have gained control of the cities (using their poli-sci degrees); the courts (using their law degrees); the news (through their journalism degrees), while conservatives ignore those areas and pay a steep price by emphasizing only business, science, and math. Thank goodness conservatives do pursue those degrees, because we keep the engine of the economy running, but the liberals, using their chosen degrees, limit, infringe, intrude upon, and destroy our businesses and scientific endeavors, via lawsuits, propaganda through the MSM, and by rules and regulations created by too many liberal administrations of politicians, using those poli-sci degrees against us. We'd better do something fast.
At least we are getting more conservative lawyers now to go up against the environmentalist whackos, the politically correct crowd, the anti-religion nuts, etc. We desperately need more conservatives to go into areas normally the turf of the liberals in order to beat them at their own game.
The consequences of LIE's suggestion are actually more interesting than you suppose. What you would get -- eventually -- is history, law and literature not being practiced by the best and the brightest, but those who could afford to indulge in those pursuits.
Anyway,look at early talkies and movies through say the very early '60. Boys learned how to be suave from the likes of Cary Grant,Fred Astaire,David Niven,and many whose names you may not even know.Boys and girls learned how to kiss from watching it done on screen.People looked at how the homes of the very rich were decorated,Hollywood style,and as with clothes and hairdos and yearned to copy them in real life,as best they could.Parents were fonts of wisdom,bad behaviors only gave one grief or worse...death!Movies were a BIG thing and they greatly influenced ALL Americans!
And people DRESSED UP to go to the movies,it was a social event;unlike today.They didn't talk to each other,they didn't talk at the screen,they didn't fight,and there were ushers who ejected people,if they acted up.
Fast forward to today and the movies are garbage,full of technical effects,lousy acting,worse scripts,and the audiences don't know how to behave at all.
T.V. has been used as a babysitter for longer than the late '70s.
The death knell to a civilized America was the damned hippies,but the rot began to seep on a bit earlier than that.
And popular culture has actually been excruciatingly pervasive,for more than 100 years here.But we can talk about that another time.
Sex is part of it,but since people openly live together now and have sexual flings,both of which was almost unheard of 40 years ago,on this scale,I think that you are over emphasizing that part of it in today's reasoning.But,not being a man,I may be deemphasizing it a bit more than needs be.We need a happy medium and a ref here. LOL
That's a lot to think about (and I don't say this often) but you may be right. I'm not giving in just yet, but you may be right about a lot of that.
For the record, I sometimes go to movies at a certain "ghetto theater" here in NYC because I know that some movies will inevitably benefit from the yelling at the screen. I see it as "value added."
As for the acting -- I continue to see a lot of fine acting. Edward Norton is a terrific actor. So is Jennifer Jason Leigh. Denzel Washington is also good, as is Brad Pitt (I know, I know too pretty for movies). The problem with movies isn't primarily the acting, it's the material.
Not only the pill, but also eradication of most known STDs via antibiotics.
The feminazis (always hated that word) arrived, if my analysis is correct, following the affluence of the 50s,which allowed more women to attend college and the tight economic times of the 70s, which forced more women back into the workforce.
In any event, I always felt women not working -- as in the 1950s -- was an anomaly. Prior to the 50s, they worked in the war effort. Prior to that, America still had a large agricultural segment in which they worked in the home/factory either feeding something or killing something.
Lastly, men as old as forty or so (and maybe older) are capable of being completely and utterly blinded by romance. I have seen this and it's both touching and disturbing. Conversely, women over the age of 18 or so tend to have a secret calculator running. Not that this is a bad thing, since they require a "home" for the children, etc. etc. and guys certainly aren't going to think of that...
In the early silent era,Theda Barra,who was a "nice Jewish girl",portrayed overtly seductive women.She was often shown in still photos,to promote herself and whatever movie she was in,sitting on a male corpse,or on bones,starring out at the viewer.She was the very incarnation of a succubus and as such,called a "vampire",from which the word "VAMP" was introduced into American's vocabularies.
A bit later,Rudolph Valentino stared in a movie called "THE SHIEK".Women swooned,men fumed,and teens-twentysomethings called each other "SHIEKS" and "SHEBAS"!And because of Valentino,men began to wear wristwatches,even though they made fun of him,in the beginning,for wearing one...calling him a "powder puff" and worse.
I could go on and on and on and on......but it's rather too late for me to do so right now.
You don't really add any "value" at all,by yelling at the screen.Sorry,but all you are adding,is more incivility and and gutter behavior.Yeah.......I really AM that hidebound and persnickety about such things.LOL
As for acting,I suggest you watch a LOT of old movies,because you really are quite mistaken about what good acting is. Denzel Washington isn't bad;however the names of those listed,that I recognizes,can't act their way out of a wet and torn brown bag from Gristedies!
I have to get to work -- damnit!
There were also teachers who helped in the intergration of immigrations into the New World. The charities taught the Irish, then the Irish taught the Jews, etc. etc. And, too, there were local papers that gave tips on "being American." Lastly, there was a deep and abiding desire to "be American" cause for many of these folks, there was no going back.
But I agree that movies helped to teach a generation and they do contribute to setting a certain amount of style that appears in pop culture.
As for the acting style in old, old movies, I find it more closely related to the stage than to modern films. It's what I like to think of as "big acting" with those big gestures. Brando, et al busted it wide open in the 50s, even though he started as a stage actor.
I'm not going to argue the point on yelling at the screen. I just kind of like it for some movies. I wouldn't particularly like it for, say, The Bicycle Thief, but for movies like Gangs of New York, it's a hoot. And the shouts from the audience are often better than what's on the screen. In point of fact, it actually dates back to th rowdy theaters up in Harlem, I believe. It still exists today at the Apollo.
I don't feel strongly enough about the actors I named to argue the point, except for one: Jennifer Jason Leigh. Watch Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle (warning: it's a bit racey) and tell me she's not a terrific actress.
Hope to finish this conversation with you later on.
TheLioness:
I would have hoped that it was obvious that my very general remark was obviously not meant to indicate the relative -voluntary- responsibility of a divorced man and woman. You'll have good and responsible men and women, and you'll have bad and irresponsible men and women. My comment was talking about the LAW, at least as it is applied here in New Jersey.
You've informed me that your ex is an irresponsible cad. I understand, and I commisserate. However, unless the laws are significantly different where you are than where I am, I suspect you fail to appreciate that, as a result of that irresponsibility, you have it in your power at any time to absolutely, completely, utterly destroy him. To strip from him his freedom, his wealth, his reputation, his good standing in society, and anything else you want to. That's the ways the laws are set up in this here blue state, anyway. Now, perhaps your situation was different. Perhaps you were in a situation where he had a great lawyer and you had a crappy one, and he managed to do an end run. Perhaps you weren't aware of what options you had, and your lawyer wasn't savvy enough to inform you. Or perhaps it's as simple as the laws here being tougher on the guy than where you are. But here, a man in family court, unless he's going in with Johnny Cochran, -is- essentially viewed as nothing but an open wallet. And I'll explain how in my answer to the next person who just flamed me:
nopardons:
Were my parents divorced? No.
Have I ever been married? Yes.
Here's one you didn't ask me: Have I ever been divorced? Yes. But I'm extremely lucky - I get along with my ex. And I love my daughter to death, and do everything I can to provide for her (in fact I generally get to spend about $10 a month on entertainment, the rest goes to my ex). My ex is extremely understanding if I have any reason to be late. My issues are in no way personal to me... but I also appreciate that that's because I AM EXTREMELY LUCKY. If she were, instead, a cold blooded b*tch like some of my friend's ex's have been, then she could easily be raking me over for child support, for alimony (even after less than a year's marriage, yes, I've seen it happen), and with almost no visitation rights. And I've seen guys who have to pay upwards of $250 per week for one child, again, with almost no visitation rights and to children whose mother has poisoned into hating him.
For the record, I myself pay $200 a week, and that was a voluntary agreement, but that isn't much more than what the state -absolutely required- based on the fact that I made a whopping $40,000 a year at the time of the divorce. I think the state MINIMUM was $182/week at that salary.
Now, I'm not arguing against my own responsibilities - I love my daughter and have no desire to squeeze out of them. But isn't that figure a bit ridiculously high? I mean seriously? If I'm supposed to provide for -half- of that child's upbringing, well, I don't know that many 5 year old completely healthy children who require $364/week to raise. I don't spend that much on myself as an -adult. Do you think that's reasonable as a MINIMUM? Maybe for someone who makes $100k+ a year. But $40k a year? That's almost a third of their take-home pay.
Now, I've had periods in the time since when I made less than $200/week, for various reasons. Sh*t really does happen sometimes, and it's not all because of flagrant irresponsibility. Would the State reduce the amount of $200/week for me based on that? Well, luckily, I haven't had to find out, because like I said I'm lucky to have an ex who knows that I'm doing my best. But they didn't reduce it for my friend who was paying $250/week. According to the State, only the child's standard of living matters, and if the child has gotten used to a lifestyle of $250 a week from Dad, then that's what the State says it must remain. If you're not making that much anymore, tough. And if you don't pay it, well, too bad, go directly to jail, do not pass Go, and most amazingly of all, DO NOT THINK THAT YOU WON'T STILL BE REQUIRED TO PAY THAT $250 A WEEK. But wait, you ask... how is it remotely possible for someone in jail to make $250 a week? Doesn't matter, says the State. You'll owe the amount, in full, one month to the day after you're released, and if you can't pay it, back in jail you go for another year, where you can then accumulate another $10,000 worth of debt without any possibility of actually earning it. How can one possibly extricate themselves from this, even if they have the skills to get a decent job and who honestly want to pay? Well, in at least one case I know of (not a close friend of mine in this case, thank God) he can't, and he's been in jail for several years now. The mother doesn't need the money - she's got a rich daddy who spoils her. But she gets her kicks knowing he's rotting in prison. She's just that kind of person.
You don't think that's indentured servitude? I do. See, if I was still married, and I lost my job, my child's standard of living (and mine) would decrease, would they not? The State couldn't come and throw me in jail for it though. But once divorced, yes they can. And if the woman is vindictive, God help you.
You guys may all have different experiences, you may live in states with different laws, and if so, fine, we know where our disagreement comes from. But to simply assume that I need to "grow up", when I'm doing everything I can to meet my obligations to my daughter and I in fact consider that responsibility a greater priority than -anything- beyond bare sustenance for myself, is a bit presumptuous of you. And I feel that way, not because the State requires me to, but because I know it's the right thing to do. I'm not excusing fathers who don't try. But I -am- pissed off for the sake of guys I know who are doing their best and their b*tchy wives abuse the laws in order to make their lives a hell for fun and profit.
Yes, there are men who run from their responsibility. And you probably exist in a legal system where you can castrate him, incarcerate him, etc. for doing so. What I find repugnant is when women who are responsible (such as you, TheLioness) for whatever reason still get screwed despite the overwhelming force of law you've been given precisely in order to prevent deadbeat fathers from doing what they do, while simultaneously caring fathers who really are struggling and who get pretty damn difficult demands made of them from the State ($200-250/week after taxes ain't easy for everyone to earn consistently for 18 years without interruption) are then screwed to the wall by vindictive b*tchy ex-wives who abuse those laws in order to "get even" for whatever bugs them.
One of the worst cases I've seen of it is where she had an affair with some French guy, he only found out about it because she got pregnant with the other guy's kid, she ran off with his kids, and then he was expected to pay -her- $180/week when he was only making $26k a year. And then - get this - he had to pay a lawyer thousands in order to keep the State from forcing him to pay for the child of the French guy who was screwing around with after he went back to France!! (because he was married to her when she got pregnant, so it's his responsibility, so says the all-wise State)
I feel great sympathy for mothers when the father runs off and abandons their responsibilities. Seriously. But, in those cases, two things. 1) The man's crime, while significant, is passive - he's not helping as he should, but he's not actively harming either. 2) The State, at least my State, gives MASSIVE amounts of legal remedies to the woman to extract those funds from him, from garneshing wages to incarcerating him, and honestly I've never personally met a woman who couldn't get the State to go to those lengths to nail the deadbeat if she wanted to, no matter who he had as a lawyer. On the other hand, the men whose lives I've seen ripped apart by vindictive women who will run screaming to the State over a check one day late in the mail, and who abuse the law (and even deliberately lie) in order to get the State to destroy the guy, well, A) that ain't a passive crime, no ma'am, and B) the guy doesn't have a chance in hell, because as you guys have demonstrated, when a woman wails, he won't get a single ounce of sympathy or even a hearing.
Howlin:
"HorseS**T!"
Case in point.
Thus ends my extremely long rebuttal for which I'm sure I'll get flamed again.
Qwinn
Many younger people are realizing their mistakes, but usually only after they are already paying half their take home pay to credit cards and such.
Within ten years, the only debt I will have is possibly a reasonable mortgage. That's one of my goals.
Many younger people are realizing their mistakes, but usually only after they are already paying half their take home pay to credit cards and such.
Within ten years, the only debt I will have is possibly a reasonable mortgage. That's one of my goals.
It is sad how divorce is so common. My son was asking me the other day about what will happen if his dad and I get a divorce. I told him it wasn't going to happen. It would have to be something major for that to happen.
1) The man's crime, while significant, is passive - he's not helping as he should, but he's not actively harming either.
____________________________________________________________
While I agree with most of your post, I take severe issue with the part above.
Speaking from personal experience...when a father abdicates his reponsibilities to his children-whether financial or otherwise-does severe harm to those children. As children, we may or may not be aware of child support issues (although it's hard to not notice) we are very aware when one of the people who are supposed to love you don't care enough to call, send birthday cards, or even visit. Kids like that often struggle later on with promiscuity, drugs and alcohol, and/or depression. These things can affect them for the rest of their lives. Just because the father isn't there beating on them with his fists or his words doesn't mean he's not causing active, lasting harm to his children.
With the child support non-payment, there are plenty of reasons why some women will not have their deadbeat ex's thrown in jail. One reason is one you pointed out...how can he pay if he's in jail? What purpose does that serve? To be vindictive, that's all. There isn't much you can do, either, if the man claims he isn't working (while getting paid under the table, or claiming less that he actually makes). How can the courts collect then? Simple, they can't.
Your dismissal of the father's crimes as passive is way off-base, my friend. You may think of it as benign neglect, but let me assure you, when it comes to fathers (or mothers) and their children, there is no such animal. Just because you don't see bruises doesn't mean kids don't hurt.
Well a buddy of mine was into theo. nuclear and I did wonder if he'd ever find a job. Went academic. I guess other than working for the gov't, that's about the only place he could go...
It would?
Of course it would. Who'd pick up the garbage?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.