Community Chat

[colliegirls]

I have good memories of growing up in a more simple time. People watched out for each other, kids played outside all day and felt safe. Children were not home alone. There were no entitlement issues.  There are a lot of wonderful things that we have today, but not all of it is actually for the better.

[NoelSeven]

---

@151949 wrote:

---

@NoelSeven wrote:

---

@151949 wrote:

Actually , as far as duel incomes go - by the time women pay for work appropriate clothing, a second car & it's maintainence , insurance and operating cost plus add lunches and child care costs. Subtract that from that second salary and consider that your children are being partially raised by someone other than you & you may decide you don't really need to work. yes, one income families must watch their expenses but it is do able, esp. when you consider what is best for your children.

As for my personal choice to have a career - along with that choice was the fact that I was not able to have children. if i had a child I would have stayed home. I stayed home with my stepchildren when my first  husband was alive and I was able to do so, I worked only 2 shifts a week and they were nights when their father was home with them.

---

..................................

You have to catch up, HH.   My MD is a woman, our family lawyer is a woman. Both are mothers.  Women are CEOs now, technology leaders.  They aren't a second income as you think in many cases.  They can be the main source of income.  

What is best for children is having good role models and happy and fulfilled mothers and fathers. Sometimes that means staying home with children, sometimes it means working outside the home.

Back in the really old days, women worked on the family farm, they worked full time.

---

So because the mother is a professional person with a high income does that mean her children do not need their mother at home for them???? Do you have a clue the hours these professional women work per week ? And the effect on their children of hardly ever seeing their mother? Most professional women are married to professional men so , in those cases, neither now parent is home with them. We will NEVER agree on this - IMO - if you have a child then you have a responsibility to raise them. If your career is more important - maybe you should not have children.

---

********************************

I do have a clue, I have been a professional working woman and a mother.  I went back to work when my daughter was in school.  She is a brilliant young woman now and we are very close.  I write about her here often.  Both of us are happy people and think more of women and their capabilities than you do.  

[Lacey1]

 Noel-Geez, you would think HH would be more careful about repeating old mistakes. I guess some people never change.

[SaRina]

There's nothing wrong with being nostalgic and savoring the good memories.  After all, it's part of the cycle of life.  Every generation does it and will continue to do it.   Part of it is also a longing for one's youth.

( @Reiki  ....good to see you here!  )

[mstyrion 1]

---

@sidsmom wrote:

Geeze guys, the OP is just wanting to wax poetic on a quiet Saturday afternoon. 

Relax.  

Take a deep breath.

I can't help but think for some posters you could give them a couple million $$...and the only thing they would get out of it is bi*ching about the taxes.

---

____________________________________________________________

Geeze sidsmom.

Haven't you been here long enough to recognize the OP's mode of starting a baiting thread with the thinly-velied intention of hurling insults.

Women of "duel" income families are only second earners. Women who work don't take care of their kids ergo working women are the cause of most of the problems today.

Blah blah blah.

It's an old song on a new day.

[Blahblahvampemer]

---

@NoelSeven wrote:

Most parents nowadays have to be dual income because the cost of everthing is so much more.

And... many women want to work, become professionals.  I know you did.

---

Actually, WHAT we buy makes it a requirement.  Some items we now consider vital didn't exist, but no one said you had to subscribe to every channel on earth.  Other items are a choice.

It is a choice to buy more house than you can afford, to put $90,000 worth of cars in your  garage, to have full walk-in closets, to travel more expensively than our parents did, to redecorate on a whim, to update a cell phone constantly, to have a $150 cable bill, to eat out constantly, to pay more for things because of convenience...etc.  

Credit is also a big issue that helped us get into a financial mess, but people can live quite well on a lot less.  

[Blahblahvampemer]

---

@sidsmom wrote:

Geeze guys, the OP is just wanting to wax poetic on a quiet Saturday afternoon. 

Relax.  

Take a deep breath.

I can't help but think for some posters you could give them a couple million $$...and the only thing they would get out of it is bi*ching about the taxes.

---

Since 50% of it would be gone in most states, it's not exactly something you can ignore.

[Blahblahvampemer]

---

@colliegirls wrote:

I have good memories of growing up in a more simple time. People watched out for each other, kids played outside all day and felt safe. Children were not home alone. There were no entitlement issues.  There are a lot of wonderful things that we have today, but not all of it is actually for the better.

---

I was talking to someone whose daughter graduated from the same high school I did over 30 years ago, and she'd get reports of who was arrested that day, who got suspended for major illegal activity and so on.  That just didn't happen in my day, and I can't recall a single time the police were called to the school.  There was a little illegal drug use, and two unplanned pregnancies (one adoption, one marriage), but the violence wasn't there at all.  

[RoughDraft]

I see the other shoe has dropped.