[dampeoples]

Originally posted by :dragonflypro::
Jail should not, nor ever be like a hotel.

These people are criminals. Criminals. They are in jail. They are the BAD GUYS. Their 'comfort' and 'feelings' are completely irrelevant. They committed a crime, they are being punished. You do not pay your debt to society by watching Survivor.

These people should be living in the most basic, rudimentary lives. Jail should be hard, it should be barely tolerable. That is the deterrent. Jail should be scary.

I can't help but wonder that while he sits back and watches his new TV to the tone of 35K a year in tax payer expenses that his victim may now be struggling to pay his medical bills, do his job and possibly be trying to make do with a new injury that was life altering. I bet his victim would like a new LCD TV. Good behavior my ass! Good behavior would have been sending the money to his victim so he could buy his own LCD TV.

What about the people who work there? Who's going to keep them in prison, the ratio of guards to inmates is already way out of whack. Most prisons can be taken over with minimal effort, something has got to keep them in check.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
I think the US court system is clogged with people that do not deserve to be there, and thusly should not be in prison.

I am sure that 100% of inmates agree with you. "I didn't do it, my lawyer ****ed me"

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by Socially Awkward Solo:
America's inmate population grew by 2.9 percent last year, to almost 2.1 million people, with one of every 75 men living in prison or jail.

The nation's incarceration rate tops the world, according to The Sentencing Project, another group that promotes alternatives to prison. That compares with a rate of 169 per 100,000 residents in Mexico, 116 in Canada and 143 for England and Wales.

Wonder how many women are in jail in comparison.

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/sto...MPLATE=DEFAULT

Bet they wouldn't be there if they had not broken the law.

[Spliffdaddy]

We tend to pursue and punish criminals in the US.

Unlike most countries that simply ignore crime or under-report it. Calling a string of 31 simultaneous vandalizations "one" crime is a good way to reduce the crime rate - and make it appear that your country is in better shape than the US.

"Well, yeah, he stole 74 motor vehicles over a period of 6 years - but it was still one crime."

[itai195]

Originally posted by benb:
When the family breaks down, the society will soon follow.

But what's the solution? Isn't society to blame for the breakdown of the nuclear family?

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by itai195:
But what's the solution? Isn't society to blame for the breakdown of the nuclear family?

Which society? There are many around in which the family is still the main focus of one's life instead of collecting as many possessions as possible tends to be for the more industrialized societies.

Perhaps an emphasis on human beings first instead of what kind of car one drives would be a start.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by itai195:
But what's the solution? Isn't society to blame for the breakdown of the nuclear family?

No.

Women entering the workforce a few decades ago is the root cause of 'nuclear family' breakdown.

When the workforce grows by 100%, it stands to reason that wages would decline because of the surplus of workers. 'Supply and demand' legislation holds true in this case. Why would I pay you ten dollars an hour when a million other folks would do the job for six dollars?

Little by little, it became impossible for *one* income to support a family. Soon, both parents were employed - yet living no better than they were decades before...when one income was enough.

When you double the amount of something (ie, workers), a single unit is then worth half as much.


A single parent doesn't always have the luxury of 2 incomes by which to raise their children. They should, seeing as how both parents are legally responsible - even if they don't live together and aren't married or maybe only met that one time for sex ...but that's a topic for its own debate.


More women at work = less pay for workers and less time spent raising children.

[Spliffdaddy]

If one parent would simply stay at home, wages would double for the working parent.

But we hafta stick together on this...no fair if both of you work because you want a Cadillac Escalade.

[Spliffdaddy]

I think women should stay home because going to work sucks and I don't wish sucky things on women. I hold them in a higher regard than men. Men are mostly crap.

carry on.

[rambo47]

Originally posted by Diggory Laycock:
I remember reading just before the Millennium that if the USA continued to incarcerate people at the same rate as they were then - then by 2050 50% of the USA would be in Jail.

Yeah, but it would be the bad 50%.

Let's start dumping them in Australia again like the Brits used to do. Or bring back something like Devil's Island.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
Which society? There are many around in which the family is still the main focus of one's life instead of collecting as many possessions as possible tends to be for the more industrialized societies.

Perhaps an emphasis on human beings first instead of what kind of car one drives would be a start.

Well the focus of the thread is American society, so that'd be the one. Perhaps you are right, but I'd say that our workaholic society is mostly to blame.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by tooki:
That's insane.

The cost to taxpayers is probably not worth the tiny effect on crime that it has. There are better ways (*cough* good educational system *cough*) that have a far greater effect at a much lower cost.

tooki

That's ultimately what I've been reading too.

It's much cheaper to prevent it.

We have made progress in some cities. "Community Policing", among other tactics. Philadelphia is in the middle of a major decade long effort. The plan is to follow NYC. By cleaning up neighborhoods and parks, the criminals have no place to be. NYC had many dangerious parks 10-15 years ago. Cleaned up by local businesses and the community/city putting some money in, they are now some of the nicest around. And crime in the surrounding area drops quite a bit.

There was a bold statement made years ago relating grafiti to crime. Most considered it a load of BS. Someone decided to try it. NYC cleaned up the subway's a bit... suprisingly, crime actually did drop as the cleanup took place. Now all public transportation is grafiti-proofed. Windows have a laminant over it. So all those scratches you see (people carving their names), actually can just be peeled of and replaced. It's pretty thick, but with the correct tools comes right off revealing perfect glass. The subway cars are sprayed with a sealent to prevent paint from adhering to the surfaces. With the right solvent, grafiti that looks perminant comes right off. NYC has been doing this for years now, expanding the program to more and more equipment.

Education also has a big link. Communities with good education (regardless of income in the community) have lower crime. They also tend to be growing economically (incomes rising, new businesses etc.)


The US has a big problem in many cities with this issue. Rather than fix the problem... they just use a bandaid. Which ends up just being a long term investment.

Comes back to the old saying: Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he eats for life.

I'd personally much rather spend the cash to fix the problem, rather than use bandaids for generations. The same cash is spent (if not more)... why can't we just solve the problem?

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by benb:
When the family breaks down, the society will soon follow.

Exactly.

Then, communities fail as well, and the whole support system breaks down.

What appears to be a worrisome trends in the U.S. is the privatization of the prison system as economic development in some areas.

Although some may clinch at the "About Justice in America" thread I started a few weeks ago, some of the links there are pretty interesting.

Be my guest...

prison sucks

I don't want to reactivate the "hatred impression" I started inadvertently and unfortunately then, just the links.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by itai195:
Well the focus of the thread is American society, so that'd be the one. Perhaps you are right, but I'd say that our workaholic society is mostly to blame.

I'm not sure it's necessarily workaholics versus the insane drive to increase material wealth at the cost of social structure. When one tends to put the dollar and material belongings as a first priority then something has to suffer the consequences.

Asians are quite the workaholics but tend to have much stronger families than we Americans do now. I think our highly mobile society is partly to blame. How many of us live in the same community in which we were born?

[Saad]

There needs to be a comrehensive rehabilitation system in place in the prison system. As someone mentioned, most are probably harmless, so why don't we get an educational rehabilitation program in place in the prisons. I would also encourage the use of manual labor of prisoners for comunity service. Clean up cities across America. Take the money taxpayers spend on TVs, cigarettes, and all the other luxuries (I mean, come on, it's punishment!) and sink that money into rehab programs so they can actually get better, not worse when they come out.

I dont' even have cable or a weight room or central heat and air for that matter - something I am paying for prisoners to have! Somethings wrong here...

Yeah, something has to change. It would probably be easier to set up camps with a dormitory and factories (or other places of work). That way, you could focus the energies of the inmates oto something else. Also, in a dorm setting, there would be more respect (hopefully, if inmates find that this is their own property, and they must repair and clean it, it would stay in better shape) and educate the inmates in a profession (or degrees by mail).

[dampeoples]

Originally posted by Saad:
Yeah, something has to change. It would probably be easier to set up camps with a dormitory and factories (or other places of work). That way, you could focus the energies of the inmates oto something else. Also, in a dorm setting, there would be more respect (hopefully, if inmates find that this is their own property, and they must repair and clean it, it would stay in better shape) and educate the inmates in a profession (or degrees by mail).

It's already like this.

[Saad]

I thought most federal minimum security inmates (drug offenses) go to a prison. Certainly, most states send almost all of their inmates to a prison of some sort.

[dampeoples]

Yes, but they have jobs within the prison, TRICOR brings industry, they have a school within the prison. They also live in housing units/cell blocks whatever you want to call it. At the institution I worked at, they had their own key to their door, I had the key to the main door, they also cleaned it up, we sure were not going to

[Saad]

Oh, never mind. Was it a more 'productive' enviroment than a traditional prison?

[Socially Awkward Solo]

I rather pay high taxes to keep bad people off the streets then low taxes and a higher crime rate.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Socially Awkward Solo:
I rather pay high taxes to keep bad people off the streets then low taxes and a higher crime rate.

I'd rather keep them from getting on the street.

That means an even lower crime rate since we don't wait for their first crime. And no prison costs.

I'd rather taxes go towards prevention... benefits everyone.

[dcolton]

Sort of funny...now all of a sudden a bunch of you are pro-family. HOw can that be. You are pro-gay, pro-abortion, anti-christian, anti-religion...

But now, you say the degredation of the US is because of the lack of family. Here is a hint. Quit trying to destroy family and things will change.

[Saad]

How is being 'pro-gay' antifamily?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Saad:
How is being 'pro-gay' antifamily?

Think about it.

[Saad]

How do Gay people negatively affect the family?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Saad:
How do Gay people negatively affect the family?

How do they not? How can william be a mother? How can mary be a father?

Start with that

[Saad]

If marriage is a good setting for raising children, then it is a good setting for the children raised by gay and lesbian parents, too. While mother-father families can be wonderful for children, experts insist -- based on 35 years of study -- that the most important ingredient for children is that they have two committed and loving parents. The fact that a child has two mothers or two gay fathers simply does not matter in terms of normal child development. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Ass'n, the American Psychiatric Ass�n, the National Ass�n of Social Workers and many others unanimously agree that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are developmentally normal on every measure.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Saad:
If marriage is a good setting for raising children, then it is a good setting for the children raised by gay and lesbian parents, too. While mother-father families can be wonderful for children, experts insist -- based on 35 years of study -- that the most important ingredient for children is that they have two committed and loving parents. The fact that a child has two mothers or two gay fathers simply does not matter in terms of normal child development. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Ass'n, the American Psychiatric Ass�n, the National Ass�n of Social Workers and many others unanimously agree that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are developmentally normal on every measure.

That's ultimately the bottom line. Nobody reputable in this field has been able to show otherwise.

They have also shown that a child with 1 parent isn't necessarally worse off. It depends on the parent. One who is there for the child can more than provide a proper environment.


On the flip side, a child can have a mother and father... but still have many problems with development due to various aspects (parents ethics, job, whatever).


Also note quite a few children are raised by 1 parent, and a grandparent of the same sex. Post WWII, it wasn't to uncommon for a mother to raise a child with her mother (the child's grandmother). So all that data can back up the facts further. There are millions of people who grew up in such a situation. Thanks in part to war, or divorse, cancer, etc. I'd bet a few people in this thread fall into this group.


The biggest family problem a child can have is instability... being moved around a lot (military), or not having a steady home (up for adoption, in foster homes). Often children after a few years of those situations are considered to have learning and other social/behavioral problems. Healthy kids just develop them. Look at some adoption sites and their info on kids up for adoption... Removing orphanages where there was a rediculus adult:child ratio was a good step... but the current situation sucks too. It's really aweful what some of these kids go through.


THAT, is a problem. THAT breeds crime, and other social problems.

But being raised by 2 people of the same sex, is harmless. No doctor has sucesssfully proven otherwise on any basis.

But we ignore the problem, because nobody can think of a quick fix.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Saad:
If marriage is a good setting for raising children, then it is a good setting for the children raised by gay and lesbian parents, too. While mother-father families can be wonderful for children, experts insist -- based on 35 years of study -- that the most important ingredient for children is that they have two committed and loving parents. The fact that a child has two mothers or two gay fathers simply does not matter in terms of normal child development. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Ass'n, the American Psychiatric Ass�n, the National Ass�n of Social Workers and many others unanimously agree that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are developmentally normal on every measure.

Show me a link. (Did you think I wouldn't ask for a link or something to back up your assertions? Not calling you a liar, but I would like to see a study that began 35 years ago comparing children raised by gays to children raised by hetero's. Then I would like to see how the study was done. Did it only include a manipulated child who is forced to accept a suspect lifestyle because he/ she was forced into it by his/ her sexually perverted guardians? How old was the child when he/ she lost their virginity. How is the child's relationship with the opposite sex of the gay couple. Do men hating lesbians have an affect on their son? Show me a link.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Show me a link.

The American Psychological Association (I'm a member) has written a number of good amicus briefs for courts reviewing things like adoption by gays. Here's one good one that reviews the research on gay parents. Basically, there isn't any evidence that says that it does any harm.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by BRussell:
The American Psychological Association (I'm a member) has written a number of good amicus briefs for courts reviewing things like adoption by gays. Here's one good one that reviews the research on gay parents. Basically, there isn't any evidence that says that it does any harm.

Hmmm, a summary. No numbers. No details. Just a conclusion. They did a study on how many families. How was the study accomplished? Was everybody from the same socio-economic level? Numbers and facts please, not a 'bought' conclusion for the purpose of a custody hearing.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Hmmm, a summary. No numbers. No details. Just a conclusion. They did a study on how many families. How was the study accomplished? Was everybody from the same socio-economic level? Numbers and facts please, not a 'bought' conclusion for the purpose of a custody hearing.

The list of studies is in "Footnotes" in that link. Most studies like this are published in journals and not freely available over the internet, so you'll have to go to a University library to get most of them. And this was not a custody hearing - it was a state Supreme Court case - nor was the brief "bought" by anyone.

And the conclusion is that there is no discernible difference between being raised by gay vs. straight parents. Since your hypothesis is that being raised by gay parents causes damage, I think you should provide studies that prove your case.

[Saad]

The list of studies is in "Footnotes" in that link. Most studies like this are published in journals and not freely available over the internet, so you'll have to go to a University library to get most of them. And this was not a custody hearing - it was a state Supreme Court case - nor was the brief "bought" by anyone.

And the conclusion is that there is no discernible difference between being raised by gay vs. straight parents. Since your hypothesis is that being raised by gay parents causes damage, I think you should provide studies that prove your case.

He won't find any that are from as reputable a source as the APA, because they don't exist.

[Face Ache]

1 in 75 men in jail?

Do you still qualify as "Land of the Free" ?

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally posted by Saad:
How do Gay people negatively affect the family?

Good question. They have done studies and found that kids that come from same sex couples are more open minded and well rounded then "normal" families.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Socially Awkward Solo:
Good question. They have done studies and found that kids that come from same sex couples are more open minded and well rounded then "normal" families.

Junk Science. Just a bunch of gays with a degree trying to justify their deviance. How ridiculous to say that gays raise more rounded children.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Socially Awkward Solo:
Good question. They have done studies and found that kids that come from same sex couples are more open minded and well rounded then "normal" families.

Depends what you think "well rounded" is.

Open minded? Probably open minded to people who think like they do you mean.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Junk Science. Just a bunch of gays with a degree trying to justify their deviance. How ridiculous to say that gays raise more rounded children.

Just as ridiculous to say it harms the children. Just a bunch of religious homophobes trying to spread more hate in the name of God.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Socially Awkward Solo:
Just as ridiculous to say it harms the children. Just a bunch of religious homophobes trying to spread more hate in the name of God.

Who mentioned God?

It doesn't take a god to realize your statement was utter BS. Good try though!

[Saad]

Originally posted by Socially Awkward Solo:
Just as ridiculous to say it harms the children. Just a bunch of religious homophobes trying to spread more hate in the name of God.

It would seem that fundamentalists would be more likely allow God to judge other's sins. Guess not. (Incidentally, according to the Bible (Leviticus), anyone wearing a shirt of more than opne variety of fabric is condemned)

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Who mentioned God?

No one. He believes only Christians think this way.

[dcolton]

Irrlevant either way. 1 in 75 men in jail...70 in 75 resort to homosexuality (made up number...have no idea how many imprisoned men CHOOSE perversion or have the perversion forced upon them).

So I guess we can say that homosexuality is environmental...huh? But it is good. They go in because of broken families and they fulfill that emptiness of not having a nuclear family by having sex with other men.

Damn it...the prison system does work...these guys will come out better people once they engage in a little homosexual morality.

Darth Vader, Hans...whatever your name is...you are RIGHT. HOMOSEXUALITY is the key to the success of America. Everybody should be gay...it is the answer to all of our problems

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Junk Science. Just a bunch of gays with a degree trying to justify their deviance. How ridiculous to say that gays raise more rounded children.

Ladies and gentlemen... the reason behind every war: Religious freaks.

Just read some of dcolton's posts, and you see how events like the holocaust, or Saddam's regime were. Bigots with an agenda. That's all it takes to kill millions of people.

It's sad how vulnerable our world can be.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Ladies and gentlemen... the reason behind every war: Religious freaks.

Just read some of dcolton's posts, and you see how events like the holocaust, or Saddam's regime were. Bigots with an agenda. That's all it takes to kill millions of people.

It's sad how vulnerable our world can be.

I think that such a fixation on homosexuality hides a fair amount of denial about a very natural curiosity about same sex intimacy...

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Who mentioned God?

It doesn't take a god to realize your statement was utter BS. Good try though!

Statistics show that hedrosexual relationships are 100% positive.
Nothing wrong in those families, no unhealthy fighting and the kids don't get teased. Ever.

Also, Single mothers have a 100% healthy rate.

Same sex parents have 100% negative impact.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Ladies and gentlemen... the reason behind every war: Religious freaks.

WOW WWII was based on religion? NAM?

Just read some of dcolton's posts, and you see how events like the holocaust, or Saddam's regime were. Bigots with an agenda. That's all it takes to kill millions of people.

The Holocaust? How was that religious?

Bigots with an agenda indeed.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

WOW WWII was based on religion? NAM?

The Holocaust? How was that religious?

Bigots with an agenda indeed. [/B]

You may want to read a bit about Hitler. You know he actually wrote about himself. He also had people write about him. Thinking [somehow] he would be viewed as a hero by generatoins like ours. He actually was a religous zealot as well as power hungry. There's no question about it.

Christians may not consider him christian... but his influence was christian, and he felt he was devout.

It's that he was warped over religion that caused him to do exactly what he did. Note who the 'superior race' was. Catholic Germany. Note who they invaded first (Protestant France). Note the groups they systematically attacked in order: Handycap/mentally ill (not in Gods image), Athiests, Gypsies, Jews.

There was a reason why he stared in that order. There is a reason why he viewed England as their closest relatives in purity (though they fought against the Germans). Also note the makeup: Anglican and Roman Catholic 40 million.

There's no question religion was a primary factor in WWII. The cause of WWII was Hitler. The motivation of Hitler was hatred based on religous zealotry.


The only difference between Hitler and terrorism today is western culture allowed Hitler to get into power, and get quite far before attacking him. The middle east is still unsure which way to go with their problem.


Yes, Hitler didn't adhere to true Christian morals, ethics, and beliefs... but he was motivated by religion. Look at his own claims, and look at what he did. There's a clear pattern. But that doesn't change what his motivation is... religion and an agenda.

Unfortunately, nobody viewed it as a serious problem until to late.

People love twisted religion. They really do. It's sad, but religion creates a big loophole in society, that anyone can exploit. It says a lot for humanity only a few have actually expoited it. It's there for anyone with half a brain. It doesn't take much to build a following of a few million people who would go as far as kill themselves for a cause if they are asked. It's been done all throughout history. Now is no exception.

[Saad]

My feelings as a Christian point me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter... As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice...For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

-Adolf Hitler, 1922

[Zimphire]

Saad that was 1922.

http://answers.org/apologetics/hitquote.html

The claim is sometimes made that Hitler was a Christian - a Roman Catholic until the day he died. In fact, Hitler rejected Christianity.

The book Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof of Hitler's real views. The book was published in Britain under the title, _Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944, which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:

National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday:

Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)

14th October, 1941, midday:

The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)

19th October, 1941, night:
The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

21st October, 1941, midday:

Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)

14th December, 1941, midday:

Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

9th April, 1942, dinner:

There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)



And it goes on.

Hitler sounds like some of the Christian haters in here.

Hitler was no Christian. He wanted to do away with it.

Christians would never say those words above.

So Hitler was a Jew hating, Christian despiser.

That tells me a lot.

Anyone want to guess who is influence was?

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
No.

Women entering the workforce a few decades ago is the root cause of 'nuclear family' breakdown.

When the workforce grows by 100%, it stands to reason that wages would decline because of the surplus of workers. 'Supply and demand' legislation holds true in this case. Why would I pay you ten dollars an hour when a million other folks would do the job for six dollars?

Little by little, it became impossible for *one* income to support a family. Soon, both parents were employed - yet living no better than they were decades before...when one income was enough.

When you double the amount of something (ie, workers), a single unit is then worth half as much.


A single parent doesn't always have the luxury of 2 incomes by which to raise their children. They should, seeing as how both parents are legally responsible - even if they don't live together and aren't married or maybe only met that one time for sex ...but that's a topic for its own debate.


More women at work = less pay for workers and less time spent raising children.

That's actually a good point.

That's also the key point where the divorse rate went through the roof. Many think it's because of less time spent together (man works from 9-5, woman works from 12-8, the off time is spent sleeping for example).


But there's also a new thing going on: People are having kids later. Instead of getting married at 18, and having kids at 20, like generations of the past, it's not abnormal to wait until late 20's or 30's to have a child.

This method allows both sexes to advance in careers and save while young (as well as enjoy each other's company).... then slow down and have kids later on.

There's more and more people like this emerging now. Especially since investing money has come to the common man (50+ years ago, the average home didn't invest money anywhere but a bank, investments were for the rich).... a smart couple could invest some money, and be able to slow down a little several years later. Investments early on really snowball over the years. The prime reason why even the federal government tells people to start investing day 1 in the workforce. The first 10 years are more profitable than your last 15+ or so years. Simply because it snowballs. I've got a pretty chart from a financial planner sitting somewhere in my pile of stuff here. Perhaps I'll scan if I can find it and get my scanner going... real interesting tip.

That method, with a little luck allows someone to settle down later on, and live very comfortable and raise a family. Not such a bad thing.

What's a problem is when people have a family without the means to support it. And that's essentially the discussion here.

But it is 100% possible to both work and raise a family. Many do it successfully. It just requires some thinking. remember kids spend most of their day in school. I know many (including my own) mother who worked during those hours. I'd venture to say most of the people I know had a similar situation. One parent worked full time, the other worked part time. To me, I always had a fulltime parent home... there when I left, there when I was home... there many others with a similar situation.


It's not impossible, it's just different than it was 50 years ago.