It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What's worse for Society????

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 10:54 AM
link   
I'm somewhat offended by people that assume I'm not a good parent because I chose a career.
When my oldest was born, I made the most money in the relationship. We were renovating a house so her father stayed home for a few years. He worked part time outside of the home and we were blessed to have my parents to fall back on during those times. He is a good parent and I see the benefit of him having stayed home with her often.
When my next daughter came along, we both worked full time and my parents weren't available to help out so we hired someone until she was school aged. That person taught her a lot of things besides the usual and we were very lucky and blessed to have her be part of our lives. I was still a parent when I came home from work...I suppose I could have stayed home and "raised" her myself but, I enjoyed working also. So far, my children seem well rounded and okay for me not having chosen to be a housewife but, I suppose we won't really know until they are older. We like to have money in the bank and savings we like nice things. We like to be comfortable, sometimes I feel that people think THAT makes me a bad person! So does that make me a bad parent?
WE are busy as a family, I do admit that. We run a tight ship and are on a strict schedule. There's after school activities, homework, dinner, laundry....we relax on the weekends and do fun things together. We go to new places and explore. My children are in school all day and I don't think it's necessary for me to be at home. That is just MY OPINION.
I would never fault someone who chooses to stay home and raise their children. I think it's a personal decision. I don't think it makes you a bad person or parent necessarily either way.
It is necessary, however, to make the most of the time you do spend with them to try to instill some values, help them with their moral compass, help in the reading, writing, and arithmetic, we have hours of homework MOST nights X 5 children. I believe you should assist them with growing up to become productive members of society, whatever that means to you whether it means holding down a 9-5 and being the breadwinner or being the one who takes on more of the responsibility of the child rearing....personal choice...

edit on 17-3-2015 by TNMockingbird because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Entreri06

In my opinion if someone chooses to compromise wealth or (perceived) societal success to spend time with their family that is a good moral choice. As long as they can provide appropriate nutrition and shelter then there is no societal drain and the choice that they are making will pay dividends for their children and society at large. Kids can be happy and well adjusted even if they are poor. It can be more difficult, poverty is associated with depression, drug use, crime and even divorce; so it is naïve to completely discount the stress and pressures that can be associated with that. With a slight variation on the scenario, if they are choosing not to work and support their family with welfare programs, than that is a societal drain in an economic sense but it may still pay off in the moral sense for society as a whole with their children.

You are of course comparing these poor-folks-by-choice to a construct that is clearly a poisonous influence on society (wealthy taker, cheater, liar). The deck is stacked more than a little in your scenario. I don't think it's as simple as Rich People are Bad and Poor People are Good. I will admit that our current social and economic culture tends to reward some narcissistic and even sociopathic tendencies, so there are plenty of successful people that aren't very nice or moral. I have met plenty that are as well.

There are too many conflicting and contradictory pressures and motivators, both external and internal, to make your cut and dried circumstance all that plausible.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: TNMockingbird

This is a bit off-topic but I think that you are running into an issue with how women are perceived. If we choose to stay home with the kids we are lazy. If we choose to have a career we are selfish. These days we must be all things to all people. An excellent housekeeper, an active, attentive and kind mother, a devoted wife and a successful driven career-woman.

I chose to stay home when my daughter was diagnosed as being on the autistic spectrum. I was still harangued for being "selfish" by family because I chose not to have more children. This hurt me a great deal because I did want more kids but I felt that my daughter would benefit from my undivided attention.

Can't win for losing sometimes. Society judges women very harshly no matter which life-path decision she makes these days.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Entreri06

Full-time moms have been dealing with this attitude for years and years. The general consensus seemed to be full-time moms were too lazy or too stupid to work.... and that we spent our days baking cookies, having teas, and laying on the couch watching soaps while eating bonbons.

Hillary Clinton:


I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession which I entered before my husband was in public life.


Not to say that I didn't bake a lot of cookies! And cupcakes and brownies and anything else that could be sold at school/church bake sales. I also did a lot of volunteer work in the community. While other moms were working, I was volunteering at school teaching their kids to read and write. And the few other full-time moms I knew were doing the same.

In hindsight, better understanding how our debtor nation works, I now realize I was the bad guy because no one was making any money off of me. No taxes, no interest, no nothing. I think it really is that simple. If I had gone to work, then we could have gotten a bigger mortgage... fancier cars... and lots of other goodies bought on credit. And today our adult kids would also be credit-card consumers instead of responsible adults who live within their means.




Well said!



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: redhorse
a reply to: Entreri06

In my opinion if someone chooses to compromise wealth or (perceived) societal success to spend time with their family that is a good moral choice. As long as they can provide appropriate nutrition and shelter then there is no societal drain and the choice that they are making will pay dividends for their children and society at large. Kids can be happy and well adjusted even if they are poor. It can be more difficult, poverty is associated with depression, drug use, crime and even divorce; so it is naïve to completely discount the stress and pressures that can be associated with that. With a slight variation on the scenario, if they are choosing not to work and support their family with welfare programs, than that is a societal drain in an economic sense but it may still pay off in the moral sense for society as a whole with their children.

You are of course comparing these poor-folks-by-choice to a construct that is clearly a poisonous influence on society (wealthy taker, cheater, liar). The deck is stacked more than a little in your scenario. I don't think it's as simple as Rich People are Bad and Poor People are Good. I will admit that our current social and economic culture tends to reward some narcissistic and even sociopathic tendencies, so there are plenty of successful people that aren't very nice or moral. I have met plenty that are as well.

There are too many conflicting and contradictory pressures and motivators, both external and internal, to make your cut and dried circumstance all that plausible.



The deck is supposed to be stacked. It's the exteme of both situations. Great at home and horrible at money vs. Great at money and horrible at home. Which is IMHO a way to see what we truely think of as important. When the chips are down what's best?


I really think that's the problem. Instead of family first and buisness second. Now it's buisness first and family second. Hell people will check a potential dates credit rating!! (Maybe a bad example)

Some one bad at the 9 to 5 thing is instantly looked at as a mooch and worthless. No matter there value to friends and family on a social level.

However horrible people who are good buisness men have their asses kissed at every turn.... And I'm not even talking about items really either. But societal reaction. If your dressed like your a stock broker people will take any cocky snide remark with a smile. But some average joe who's dressed normal deserves no respect specifically.

If you succeed in buisness your a success! Take care of your kid? Nothing "your supposed to take care of your kid anyway. So shut up about it."


Isn't taking care of your kid the imortant part. Weather you do it on welfare or not. Shouldn't that be the first thing we as tax payers should be down to pay for? Since obviously it improves the chance the kid won't be damaged goods once we get to deal with them.



I'm not talking about the worse case senerio welfare queen. Who isn't good to her kids and doesn't take care of them. I'm talking about the ones who are great parents but are really crappy at the whole career part.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 01:28 PM
link   
The stay at home/hands on parent needs someone else to financially raise their kids.
The good provider/absent parent needs someone else to physically raise their kids.
It's the same difference really.
You could say both fail their kids in some way.
You could say both meet the needs of the kids in some way.
It represents an imbalance that today's society seems unable to fix, to our own detriment.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: redhorse
a reply to: Entreri06

In my opinion if someone chooses to compromise wealth or (perceived) societal success to spend time with their family that is a good moral choice. As long as they can provide appropriate nutrition and shelter then there is no societal drain and the choice that they are making will pay dividends for their children and society at large. Kids can be happy and well adjusted even if they are poor. It can be more difficult, poverty is associated with depression, drug use, crime and even divorce; so it is naïve to completely discount the stress and pressures that can be associated with that. With a slight variation on the scenario, if they are choosing not to work and support their family with welfare programs, than that is a societal drain in an economic sense but it may still pay off in the moral sense for society as a whole with their children.

You are of course comparing these poor-folks-by-choice to a construct that is clearly a poisonous influence on society (wealthy taker, cheater, liar). The deck is stacked more than a little in your scenario. I don't think it's as simple as Rich People are Bad and Poor People are Good. I will admit that our current social and economic culture tends to reward some narcissistic and even sociopathic tendencies, so there are plenty of successful people that aren't very nice or moral. I have met plenty that are as well.

There are too many conflicting and contradictory pressures and motivators, both external and internal, to make your cut and dried circumstance all that plausible.



My point is shouldn't being a good family man be what gains the best social status. Shouldn't that be what we glorify if that's what we want from people?



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join