Mothers now top earners in 4 in 10 US households

ChuckBerry said:

So if Hitler and Eva Braun were the only parents available for your child (assuming the child isn't Jewish), why would you NOT want them to adopt?

Click to expand...

You've GOT to be kidding.

ChuckBerry said:

oh horse**** you're trying to turn this in to a gay marriage thread

Click to expand...

Ok that's why I said "partners" and not "marriage". It's just hypocritical people always say oh 2 parent families are so good and blah blah blah but don't apply that to all 2 parent families. Has nothing to do with gay marriage- we are discussing families. Can you understand that now?

Erod said:

I tell my daughters often that the single most important decision they will make in life is who they decide to marry and have children with. Marry well - meaning someone is who is responsible, committed to the marriage, and driven to provide - and life is relatively straightforward and easy to manage. Latch on to a loser, or get knocked up by a neanderthal, and life will be a difficult struggle to the end of their days.

Whether or not they work is irrelevant (my wife and I do, and my daughters are go-getters and probably will, too), and not the real point of this story, imo. It's about having two parents to tackle the daily needs and challenges of finances and raising children PROPERLY, not to mention the invaluable example of 'family' that is set for their kids.

Click to expand...

Do you have sons? If so, tell you sons.

Erod said:

I tell my daughters often that the single most important decision they will make in life is who they decide to marry and have children with. Marry well - meaning someone is who is responsible, committed to the marriage, and driven to provide - and life is relatively straightforward and easy to manage. Latch on to a loser, or get knocked up by a neanderthal, and life will be a difficult struggle to the end of their days.

Click to expand...

You'd think it would be to find a path in life that they love. Or that they choose their friends wisely. Or that they always be honest with themselves. Nope, the most important thing is to be a proper breeder. Because that's what women are for, right? Marriage and babies. You don't say "be careful with sex, use protection, and choose your partners wisely", you couch it in an antiquated female duty to marry and reproduce. Even if you mean well, and I actually think you do, you're still reinforcing the system that keeps women subservient. You shouldn't do that to people you love.

ecofarm said:

Shouldn't women be the top earner in 5/10 households?

Click to expand...

That depends on their ambition, we're not interested in outcome based results. They must achieve it. Can they achieve it, of course! Will they achieve it (like men have to)? It depends on them. Just remember there is no lifeline for men, if they don't achieve they fail. There is almost no chance (or very little) for men to marry up. Why is that? Two big reasons 1) successful women don't tolerate losers, and 2) there aren't enough successful women around who make that much more. Many men are even willing to be the sole bread winner, how many women do you know that will do that? I challenge you to find one, my guess is they are extremely rare. I don't care how progressive she is, women expect men to provide.

Paschendale said:

You'd think it would be to find a path in life that they love. Or that they choose their friends wisely. Or that they always be honest with themselves. Nope, the most important thing is to be a proper breeder. Because that's what women are for, right? Marriage and babies. You don't say "be careful with sex, use protection, and choose your partners wisely", you couch it in an antiquated female duty to marry and reproduce. Even if you mean well, and I actually think you do, you're still reinforcing the system that keeps women subservient. You shouldn't do that to people you love.

Click to expand...

Women getting married to a good hard working man and having kids = subservient?

I'm not seeing your logic there :shrug:

joko104 said:

You've GOT to be kidding.

Click to expand...

Erod said:

Yep, every thread here tends to devolve into gay marriage or Hitler. LOL

Click to expand...

I'm sad that I have to point out to you that I was making a joke. Your response indicates that you aren't really reading the thread.

ecofarm said:

Shouldn't women be the top earner in 5/10 households?

Click to expand...

No.

...

Erod said:

News from The Associated Press



Staggering is that 63 percent of these mothers are single, and that the income gap between a single working mother and married couples is enormous - $23K versus $80K.

This percentage is rising fast and will become an increasing burden on social welfare programs and entitlements in the future.

I tell my daughters often that the single most important decision they will make in life is who they decide to marry and have children with. Marry well - meaning someone is who is responsible, committed to the marriage, and driven to provide - and life is relatively straightforward and easy to manage. Latch on to a loser, or get knocked up by a neanderthal, and life will be a difficult struggle to the end of their days.

Whether or not they work is irrelevant (my wife and I do, and my daughters are go-getters and probably will, too), and not the real point of this story, imo. It's about having two parents to tackle the daily needs and challenges of finances and raising children PROPERLY, not to mention the invaluable example of 'family' that is set for their kids.

This is exactly what is crippling America's black community and keeping it from participating in the American dream. And it is exactly what Democrats prey on for their voting base. Minorities, struggling single mothers, and the possible influx of suddenly legalized illegals, and the socialized state of America will be set in concrete. The numbers will be too great for the bootstrappers and real 'pillar' Americans to ever lead again.

What a sad, needy, dependent country this has become.

Click to expand...

I would never want to be married to a woman who makes more than I do. Too weird.

The points were made on MSNBC this morning by Lisa Brzezinski that one huge reason for this is women are getting paid less then men and so they become the illegal alien types. One would think more women in the workplace is justice but is it simply another way to get more for less. How old is women's lib and the suffrage movement? What a joke and it's being played on women.....still. This is in line with pushing kids to graduate high school so they can enjoy a career in fast food.

Paschendale said:

You'd think it would be to find a path in life that they love. Or that they choose their friends wisely. Or that they always be honest with themselves. Nope, the most important thing is to be a proper breeder. Because that's what women are for, right? Marriage and babies. You don't say "be careful with sex, use protection, and choose your partners wisely", you couch it in an antiquated female duty to marry and reproduce. Even if you mean well, and I actually think you do, you're still reinforcing the system that keeps women subservient. You shouldn't do that to people you love.

Click to expand...

Let me re-quote the comment you responded to:

Erod said:

I tell my daughters often that the single most important decision they will make in life is who they decide to marry and have children with. Marry well - meaning someone is who is responsible, committed to the marriage, and driven to provide - and life is relatively straightforward and easy to manage. Latch on to a loser, or get knocked up by a neanderthal, and life will be a difficult struggle to the end of their days.

Click to expand...

Where in there is he explicitly stating that a man has to be involved at all?

I suppose the "knocked up by a neanderthal" comment can be perceived that way but it isn't a necessary conclusion.

A lesbian woman can get involved with a loser lesbian who has neanderthal-like conceptions of what a relationship should be and that's likely to turn out as baddly for her as if she had gotten involved with a neanderthal-like man.

I think he's giving his girls some awesome advice: don't get involved with an a$$hole or you're likely to suffer for it.

joko104 said:

Do you have sons? If so, tell you sons.

Click to expand...

No, and I would. The same EXACT advice goes for boys, too. Who you make these kinds of life-altering decisions with will have a tremendous impact on your happiness for the rest of your days.

Paschendale said:

You'd think it would be to find a path in life that they love. Or that they choose their friends wisely. Or that they always be honest with themselves. Nope, the most important thing is to be a proper breeder. Because that's what women are for, right? Marriage and babies. You don't say "be careful with sex, use protection, and choose your partners wisely", you couch it in an antiquated female duty to marry and reproduce. Even if you mean well, and I actually think you do, you're still reinforcing the system that keeps women subservient. You shouldn't do that to people you love.

Click to expand...

No, I didn't say that at all, but your response is predictable. It's about making critical decision as to who you marry and have children with. Not having kids at all is certainly part of that choice. Having kids with the wrong person, and you'll be playing catchup the rest of your life.

Paschendale said:

You'd think it would be to find a path in life that they love. Or that they choose their friends wisely. Or that they always be honest with themselves. Nope, the most important thing is to be a proper breeder. Because that's what women are for, right? Marriage and babies. You don't say "be careful with sex, use protection, and choose your partners wisely", you couch it in an antiquated female duty to marry and reproduce. Even if you mean well, and I actually think you do, you're still reinforcing the system that keeps women subservient. You shouldn't do that to people you love.

Click to expand...

Takes two to tango. If I tell my sons the same exact advice nobody would fly off the handle about it.

Peter Grimm said:

I would never want to be married to a woman who makes more than I do. Too weird.

Click to expand...

I'm married to a woman who makes more than I do.

Different strokes for different folks and all but I don't have the slightest problem with it. I'm actually very proud of her.

It was said earlier in the thread that you need a two-income family to properly raise children in today's society/economy.

While I don't necessarially think that you need two salaries it certainly doesn't hurt.

Now obviously there are all sorts of reasons why a couple might decide, or might have to accept, that it's for the best if one of the parents stays-at-home but let's ignore them for the moment because they're immaterial to my point.

Let's start with the premise that we have a couple that has decided that it is in the best interest of their family (as a matter of choice or necessity) for both to work.

Given that, wouldn't more income be better, regardless of who is bringing it into the home?

Looking at it from a different perspective, renumeration is a measure of success in a given career (any career). It's not the only measure, but it is certainly a measure.

Since I love my wife and want her to be as successful in her career as she can possibly be why would I begrudge her increasing renumeration for any reason?

From still another perspective, my wife and I have different careers. Her market range salary is necessarially going to be different than mine and her progression up the ladder is necessarially going to be different than mine.

Comparing my salary to hers is about as useful as comparing apples to oranges.

Finally, last perspective, I happen to have one of them big dicks and I happen to be a man's man, so I don't really need to compare myself to women in order to establish some base rate degree of manliness. And it doesn't hurt that, despite the fact that she earns more than me, I'm not doing too baddly in my own right.

None of this is meant to change your mind.

If you think it would be wierd to be married to a woman who earns more money than you then, like I said at the outset, different strokes for different folks.

I'm just offering an alternative view/opinion on the matter.

American said:

Many men are even willing to be the sole bread winner, how many women do you know that will do that? I challenge you to find one, my guess is they are extremely rare.

Click to expand...

Got the t-shirt.

MaggieD said:

It is sad and discouraging. Our inner-city poor (black/white, doesn't make a lot of difference) are family-berift. Women picking gang-bangers to have children with, not caring if they have jobs, not even wanting a partner, babies by various babies' daddies. These women are idiots.

Prediction: Thread degrades to accusations of racism in 5...4...3...2...1!

Click to expand...

I recently read an article (no link) that said that as a result of the gentrification of many inner-cities, combined with the lower real estate values of suburban markets, more poor people live in suburbia than in cities.

ChuckBerry said:

I'm sad that I have to point out to you that I was making a joke. Your response indicates that you aren't really reading the thread.

Click to expand...

You're right, I hadn't. Sorry.

Erod said:

No, and I would. The same EXACT advice goes for boys, too. Who you make these kinds of life-altering decisions with will have a tremendous impact on your happiness for the rest of your days.

Click to expand...

Virtually nothing will more affect a person's life than who she/he marries and has children with. No doubt about it. I don't think many couples really realize that.

Erod said:

Not what I wrote at all. Not by a long shot. It's about choosing who you have children with if you have them.

Read the article.

Click to expand...

We can't look to the government for forced sterilization programs or any similar solution. You're blaming women and minorities for poverty and a host of other social problems.

Some people would rather argue in favor of a pro woman work setting, where there are daycares and shorter work days so they can spend time doing homework and other activities with the kids.

As more women become CEOs, hopefully these things will change.

But as always, I am pro choice. I don't like abortion, but I can still respect minority women for choosing to parent over deciding to abort. I consistently and always save judgment of women becoming pregnant in any situation. It seems like our values strongly differ here.

You're judging these women for reproducing and having babies, and you would still negativity judge them if they got an abortion. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. As somebody else said, this isn't the 1800s.

First a person has to meet the basic necessities of life - what in the military is called the hierarchy of needs. Beyond that point a person has discretion.

My wife's goal was to have lots of children and ultimately "a homemaker," but to begin as school teacher. An injury obliterated that plan so she directly went to homemaker/housewife. Wanting to earn some pocket money of her own - though not necessary - she started selling a little product line on ebay. Made maybe $10 or $20 a day. But at the Jon Stewart rally, she met the trophy wife of a extremely wealthy man of a very wealthy family - and she felt the same way about wanting some money of her own. Otherwise they both shared much in common and both had been on the now defunct Stewart forum, so wanted to meet. She became a partner of my wife. Apparently her husband thought this was cute, so threw his empire and money-might into it. Beyond witnessing the power of raw, massive amounts of money and influence in relation to business, competitors and government, it became extreme profitable very fast. Money just raining down.

But it was consuming my wife's life and keeping her from what she'd rather do with and in her life. 12, 14 hours a day, endless government intrusions and endless business chores. So after having major remodeling done to part of the house, her putting 1/3rd of the initial house costs into the collective family fund, and socking the other 50% away mostly offshore in the Bahamas, she just shut it all down. The trophy wife certainly didn't want the chores of it either. So like an AA fuelie dragster, her income went from $0 to 7 figure and back to $0 for her priorities. All about a year and a half.

Money is a necessity and for family people there are BIG and REAL feeling of insecurity and shortcomings if you are financially insecure - because a lot is depending upon you as a provider. Desperate hand-to-mouth money stress is hard on parents and relationships. Women possibly more sense the necessity of being a provider than men, since divorce and other factors mean she can not totally rely on a man - and society tends to ridicule women who do now too.

Personally, I think "homemaker" if children involved is the hardest job on earth if done right. Most, not all, are women. It also is the most important job. "The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world."

joko104 said:

Virtually nothing will more affect a person's
life than who she/he marries and has children with. No doubt about it. I don't think many couples really realize that.

Click to expand...

Pregnant teens especially don't realize that. They think they are going to live happily ever after with their high school sweety and baby.

Naming a baby can be fun and trendy, and some of them want to raise their babies with their teeny values. Like raising a kid up jugglo, redneck, etc.

Erod said:

News from The Associated Press



And it is exactly what Democrats prey on for their voting base.

Click to expand...

So the democratic party is a predator and they are the prey? Seriously? I've seen some crap in my opinion but that beats all. Did it ever occur to you that there is no reason to join the republican party because the republican party categorizes all blacks as deadbeats as you do in your comments? I can show to same problems and issues among whites in poor Appalachia. Deadbeat fathers, reliance on welfare, drug and alcohol abuse, etc, etc. It has nothing to do with color it has everything to do with socioeconomics.

arranged marriages ftw.

that'll irritate the PC police that swooped down on this thread

EnigmaO01 said:

So the democratic party is a predator and they are the prey? Seriously? I've seen some crap in my opinion but that beats all. Did it ever occur to you that there is no reason to join the republican party because the republican party categorizes all blacks as deadbeats as you do in your comments? I can show to same problems and issues among whites in poor Appalachia. Deadbeat fathers, reliance on welfare, drug and alcohol abuse, etc, etc. It has nothing to do with color it has everything to do with socioeconomics.

Click to expand...

Nice attempt, but fail. The Democrats base EVERYTHING in their strategy on making victims out of minorities and telling everyone in a bad way that it's not their fault, it's the fault of rich, white people. That's their platform, forever, without a single ounce of substance beyond that. Just keep feeding programs and handouts and feel-better speeches to buy votes.