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.

 

A Feminism Conspiracy?

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 08:48 AM
link   
One of the obvious benefits for the elite (NWO) with feminism is the doubling of the available workforce. Thus, the rich industrial owners would have a bigger pool of unskilled labor to choose from. Today, the take-home pay made by a working couple is approaching the same that a single worker earned previously. (A new equilibrium) I believe this is one of the main reasons the elite supported and funded feminist organizations.

So essentially, they got 2 for the price of 1. Meanwhile, our kids or being raised by strangers.

I’m not saying that it’s either the man’s job to go to work, nor am I saying that it’s a woman’s job to go to work. What I’m saying is that one of them should be able to stay home with the kids. Comments/opinions?




posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 08:59 AM
link   
Surely, if they supported it than it would have happened?

Sorry to let you know, but women earn less, do more domestic labour and a placed in a duel burdon. They gained no equality from the Feminist Movement because the Government hi-jacked it. The legislation that grants Equal Rights and Pay, doesn't hold up in court and in fact in the U.K. the Equal Pay Act doesn't mention anything to do with Gender which could be enforced in Court.

Edit:

Also if they are earning the same as one person, it means they are spending the same as one person was back then and thus buying the same amount. Meaning? We don't have an increased level of productivity, due to lack of demand.

[edit on 29/3/2006 by Odium]



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Surely, if they supported it than it would have happened?

Sorry to let you know, but women earn less, do more domestic labour and a placed in a duel burdon. They gained no equality from the Feminist Movement because the Government hi-jacked it. The legislation that grants Equal Rights and Pay, doesn't hold up in court and in fact in the U.K. the Equal Pay Act doesn't mention anything to do with Gender which could be enforced in Court.

Edit:

Also if they are earning the same as one person, it means they are spending the same as one person was back then and thus buying the same amount. Meaning? We don't have an increased level of productivity, due to lack of demand.

[edit on 29/3/2006 by Odium]


duel? Spelling mistake or freudian slip? LOL. In addition to adding to the taxrolls, the feminist movement also began the destruction of the family unit. Children are raised by strangers, and soon the state will swoop in benevolently and begin brainwashing the children even earlier in universal day care centers - this will of course be to alleviate the burden on two-income families.

I do have to contest your comment about purchasing trends, Odium. If there was no such thing as credit you would be right. However much like the governments that 'lead' them the bulk of the populace is living off of next year's income today (buy now, no interest for 48 months!).



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Just a typo, I have far too many threads on the go at once.


You forget, that credit actually existed long before women had equality. In one way or another, people have been able to buy on credit for hundreds of years [if you were part of the Elite] and from the early 1900's if you were not. In the U.K. women didn't begin to move into the Labour Market till around the 1960's/1970's.

However, credit still is dependent on your income and always has been. So if teh two of you earn 40k, and one single person earns 40k banks can still give you both the same amount. Where as, if they both made 40k [80k together], they'd gain more credit and thus increase the amount they could purchase.
The only thing that has changed is the amount of people using credit, not the chance to get it or the gross income of the family unit.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 09:41 AM
link   
Surely you're not saying that the availability of credit has been static all this time. There's much more credit available today than in years previous - there has to be as the cost of living has increased so substantially, while the wages earned have not kept up. Credit fills this gap.

While I agree partially that credit availability is based on income, that doesn't explain why the people I know that are in the most debt get the most offers for credit cards.

There was a funny skit on SNL not too long ago, informercial style. How to get out of debt. It's a one page book called 'Spend only the money you have'.

Married Couple: So let me get this straight - if I see something I want I put it on credit?

Author: No.

Married Couple: Oh so we borrow the money?

Author: No.

Married Couple: So how do we buy it then?

Author: Save the money up and buy it when you have enough.

Married Couple: WOW what an ingenious idea!

(paraphrased of course)



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 10:30 AM
link   
jimmytango, here is one of the best no-nonsense article I’ve read about finance.

Is anyone familiar with the history of the feminist movement? All I know is Emma Goldman, (sorry) Who are the biggies? The big names and the big movements? And are there any obvious ties between them and the elite families.

Keep in mind that this is only a hypothesis, (a thought really
) even if they are ties, it would still be conjunctions. (logical fallacy)

But has jimmytango eloquently summarized previously:



In addition to adding to the taxrolls, the feminist movement also began the destruction of the family unit. Children are raised by strangers, and soon the state will swoop in benevolently and begin brainwashing the children even earlier in universal day care centers - this will of course be to alleviate the burden on two-income families.


All these DO benefit the NWO.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Well,if one looks at the feminism movement of today,it's not that popular amongst modern women. Women that are 30 and younger are not very supportive of the feminist agenda....really.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Yes, that is what I am saying.

You take for example the housing market, the rise in prices is linked to the rise in income. However, the rate at which you aquire your house [15 to 25 years] hasn't changed. This period is the same for my Grandfather as it was my parents and then me, the difference being my Grandfather purchased it without the income of his spouse in the 1950's.

Also many of your points, Jimmy, is based upon the culture and nation - many have kept up with the cost of living. However, you make one vital mistake - the one based around children. You massively over-look previous years, although women were at home they were not just taking care of children. Women tended to work by collecting goods, such as fire-wood, or helping in the farmers the only difference was that the children were taken with them or used to help them. They didn't just sit around and do nothing.

As for those families? Mine get offers for credit constantly and they've not been in debt for decades now - in fact, my mother and step-father don't borrow money with the exception of when they bought their house. The thing is credit companies, banks, etc, all share information if you're not careful and don't make sure they can't.

As for your points, Conspiracy, how has it benefited the N.W.O? Surely, the whole basis of allowing women into the Labour Market has been destroying the Traditional view of the N.W.O. [White-Male-Upper Class]. AS for who was a biggie? Which Nation and which period? The Feminist Movement itself is hundreds of years old...



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
the difference being my Grandfather purchased it without the income of his spouse in the 1950's.


Another example of purchasing power for a family remaining essentially the same.

how has it benefited the NWO? (using Jimmy’s example and one of mine)

1. Doubles available workforce Gives the NWO more bang for their bucks! (2 for 1)

2. taxrolls: More tax money to funnel back to their corporations.

3. destruction of the family unit. destroying traditional support system. (replace by gov’t or private corporation program)

4. Children are raised by strangers Educate (brain wash) better more docile consuming workers


AS for who was a biggie? Which Nation and which period? The Feminist Movement itself is hundreds of years old.


I’d say post-industrial revolution USA, would be the easiest to gather data for.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium

You take for example the housing market, the rise in prices is linked to the rise in income. However, the rate at which you aquire your house [15 to 25 years] hasn't changed. This period is the same for my Grandfather as it was my parents and then me, the difference being my Grandfather purchased it without the income of his spouse in the 1950's.


OK then please explain to me why it takes two incomes today to buy what one income bought then.


Originally posted by Odium
...However, you make one vital mistake - the one based around children. You massively over-look previous years, although women were at home they were not just taking care of children. Women tended to work by collecting goods, such as fire-wood, or helping in the farmers the only difference was that the children were taken with them or used to help them. They didn't just sit around and do nothing.


I over-looked no such thing. I was thinking in terms of 50 years ago, not 100+.


Originally posted by Odium
As for your points, Conspiracy, how has it benefited the N.W.O? Surely, the whole basis of allowing women into the Labour Market has been destroying the Traditional view of the N.W.O. [White-Male-Upper Class]. AS for who was a biggie? Which Nation and which period? The Feminist Movement itself is hundreds of years old...


Let's see - the mother's place was once to raise their children, instill family morals and credos, educate their kids. Now this is done by the state, as both mom and dad have to work. The state instills THEIR morals, their beliefs, the teachings they want your children to know. I don't know how old you are Odium, but I'm in my 30s and I can see how much the youth has suffered intellictually and morally since I was a kid.

Anecdote - my mom lives in a nice area of town, where homes go for near a million bucks (she bought a looooong time ago). Most of the time when you see a baby carriage being pushed in the neighbourhood it is by a nanny, not one of the parents. These parents are paying the nannies minimum wage in most cases, and as the adage goes, you get what you pay for. Children are at their most formative stages when infants, and thus these folks have passed up this important time so they can afford their 2 Volvos and a massive house they have no need for. Buy a smaller house in a slightly-less affluent area and mom or dad could stay home to look after their kids. Our programming has told us to keep up with the Joneses, to have the latest gadget, have the cottage, have the club membership. Because one income (in most cases) can barely afford the necessities of life, both parents have to go to work and STILL go into debt.

This allows the state to ensure a simple, compliant population for the future by taking over what was once the parent's domain. From what I can tell they are doing a good job. The feminist movement of the late 50s early 60s and onward was a huge step in making this possible.

Conspiracy - enjoyed that finances link. Everyone should read it. Gloria Steinem is probably the most well known for promoting the feminist movement - check into her history (or should I say her-story?).



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 11:22 AM
link   
According to these guys -
www.cia-on-campus.org...
and
portland.indymedia.org...

She might have been a CIA agent, if this is legit, it certainly smells like the NWO.

next.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 03:48 PM
link   
ConspiracyNut23, you raise some interesting points however I’ll go through them each in turn:
1 :The Level of the Work Force isn’t important, especially when you yourself admit that the PP of the family unit is still the same. So although you might have both of them working and earning, it doesn’t mean they can buy anymore. You also forget what areas women generally work in - however, I’ll come back to this later.
2 :Tax level is dependent on the society, due to the differing levels World over, this is hard to link to being a reason for the New World Order - a One World Government would likely use one system of taxation. In fact, if they are the Elite - the Rich, they’re punishing themselves in a lot of Nation’s.
3 :What is the Traditional Family Unit? This again is era and culture dependent. What you define as the TFU [TNF] isn’t what I would see as a Traditional Family Unit.
4 :Children were traditionally raised by one person in the village, while the other women did a set job. [Getting back to the older point] They were used to help look after old people, the children [not just their own], the infirm, mentally ill, etc. While also working at the home to help grow food and to cart the food they grew between the houses - what has changed? Women are primarily part of the care-labour force, now just earning for it [although many cases they do not.]


Thank you for taking the time to reply, Jimmy however you seem to be over-looking what I am saying. The reason that it now take’s two people to afford a house is due to the devaluing of the income. In the early part of the 1960’s and before that, what one person earned would be the same value as what two people do now. When more people began to work, this trend sped up and placed us in a situation where we need two providers - if only one person still did and women did their traditional role, value/income would be completely different.

Furthermore, I was also speaking of 50+ years ago - after World War Two [and one], people were encouraged to grow food in their gardens while rationing lasted and then to continue on after this. These policies were only removed in Europe in the later stages of the 1970’s - so women were in fact, still working at home. They also were helping to care after elderly relatives on both sides of the family - this is work [be it paid or unpaid].

As for the morality of children, and how parents raised them - I can see period’s where children were sent to war, were taught how to kill people, I can see people being taught that blacks, Asians, etc, were inferior to them that homosexuality was immoral. Sorry, but the Traditional Family Unit was also a very poor system of education that led to an immoral society but by my morals. So why should your views, your opinions be forced upon any children I do or do not have? Why should mine be forced upon yours?

In addition, childhood education is claimed to be at one of the highest levels in the Western World at present with much higher numbers passing through both Colleges and Universities. Moreover, your statements are era and culture dependent and also based on the parents themselves - who is to say they do not agree with the State’s Morals? Furthermore, many Nation’s give maternity leave that cover much of the period the child is an infant. As well as many companies beginning to take internal care centres, for free as well as the reduction in women’s hours because it has been accepted this time is important.

You guys might have had a point if this didn’t differ World over, as well as the fact in many Nation’s these problems do not exist. As well as the historical holes and the whole idea of morality being dependent on the individual.

Take care,
Odium

[edit on 29/3/2006 by Odium]



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
1 :The Level of the Work Force isn’t important, especially when you yourself admit that the PP of the family unit is still the same. So although you might have both of them working and earning, it doesn’t mean they can buy anymore. You also forget what areas women generally work in - however, I’ll come back to this later.


The point is they get 2 workers for the price of one. That is good for them. Cheaper labour. (the current salary inequality is irrelevant to them, since the individual still ends up working, and her time becomes a purchasable commodity.)


2 :Tax level is dependent on the society, due to the differing levels World over, this is hard to link to being a reason for the New World Order - a One World Government would likely use one system of taxation. In fact, if they are the Elite - the Rich, they’re punishing themselves in a lot of Nation’s.


The first step is to get everyone on the taxrolls everywhere. Again good for the NWO. – And yes I’m sure they are planning a one world tax system. There are already a lot of agreements between countries for taxes. (for foreign workers and such) But the NWO seems to be consolidating everything. (maybe so they can attend fewer meeting?
)


3 :What is the Traditional Family Unit? This again is era and culture dependent. What you define as the TFU [TNF] isn’t what I would see as a Traditional Family Unit.


The point of this was to illustrate that we are loosing traditional support systems. (family) The NWO quickly provided an alternative. (ie Factory Schooling) which is more suitable to their needs.


4 :Children were traditionally raised by one person in the village, while the other women did a set job. [Getting back to the older point]


That’s a good point, I will need to reflect more on this.


Women are primarily part of the care-labour force, now just earning for it [although many cases they do not.


Another goal of the elite is that everything most become a tradable commodity. Everything must have a price tag so that they can control it. (Since they control money) I imagine care-labor force would be another example of this.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Well,if one looks at the feminism movement of today,it's not that popular amongst modern women. Women that are 30 and younger are not very supportive of the feminist agenda....really.


As much as i would love to believe the majority of women realize the feminist agenda (as you put it) is a negative agenda i can`t seem to,maybe its me i just dont believe there are that many sensible women in existence,though when i hear one say its negative to women and or to families i`m always impressed with such women or men for that matter

Though when men say it, it always will attract the women calling us women bashers,So i assume a lot of men would`nt touch this subject with a ten foot pole.

[edit on 29-3-2006 by gps777]



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by gps777

As much as i would love to believe the majority of women realize the feminist agenda (as you put it) is a negative agenda i can`t seem to,maybe its me i just dont believe there are that many sensible women in existence,though when i hear one say its negative to women and or to families i`m always impressed with such women or men for that matter

Though when men say it, it always will attract the women calling us women bashers,So i assume a lot of men would`nt touch this subject with a ten foot pole.

[edit on 29-3-2006 by gps777]


As a woman, wife and mother of adult children, I'm sad to say most women don't even want to hear these facts from other, older, wiser women who can remember how things were and what caused the changes.

P.C. 'Group Dynamic' garbage, spewed from every 'recognized' source, just has too much power against those without that extra dose of spirit.

When I fell pregnant with my third child, EVERYONE advised me to abort her so I could stay at work to help pay the 17 1/4% mortgage, for the 'living' childrens future.

How bad would their future, doubting teen years, be if they knew I killed their sibling for more money? No, growing up KNOWING they are all loved and wanted saved them from the dispairs that literally killed a number of their friends.
I kept the child and the home by giving up 'stuff' other women kept telling me I 'needed' and she's now the 'favourite' of those relatives who told me to abort her.

The kids grew up with their, live in, maternal grandmother. They were never left with babysitters. Aunties and grans proudly did that for each other because the family unit was intact. Yet saddly I'm now the only one left in the family, other than my children, who believes this system is sound, sane and just.

I just pray that when I'm a grandmother, it won't be illegal for the old woman who lovingly raised their parents, to help care for them. The massive child care industry has already been lobbying to have 'certain' people declared 'unfit' to care for children. "Old women", keep being mentioned as an example.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 01:27 AM
link   
Wow, I'm a single mother who has worked my daughter's entire life. I worked nights so that I was home during the day and slept when she was either sleeping or in school. We lived with my sister who was at home while she was sleeping. When I had to she went to a very fine private day care. I guess you could say I'm a feminist I bought my own home and do my own repairs, by the end of this summer I will only have a car payment and my mortgage, my daughter will be attending a good college (only number 11 in the country) and I've done this without her father's help or the help of any man. I'm very very tired of being told that I as a single working Mother have helped cause the decline of the American Family. My daughter is Honor Roll, Who's Who for the past 3 years and was awarded most outstanding senior 4-H girl in our county. I did not date while she was growing up out of choice not because I like to bash men but because she was and is my primary responsbility. And yes folks I do believe in equal pay for equal work regardless of sex, creed, or lifestyle. My daughter has not been brainwashed by the government or any other organization but has grown into a self-confident independent young lady who will be able to handle anything thrown at her and all this has been accomplished while I worked 40-56 hours a week. Believe me ladies and gentlemen I know kids from the traditional family unit who have not accomplished the things my daughter has, who have gotten in serious trouble and yet they had a stay at home mom. My point is; kids will follow examples and live up or down to expectations no matter whether Mom works or not. Am I a feminist? I don't know I just know that I have for the last 18 years taken care of my family and tended to business. I also coached her soccer team, and attended all her sporting or 4-H events and assisted at her schools it's all about setting priorities. She was and always will be my priority and that is what kids need. It doesn't really matter if there is a stay at home parent as long as the kids know they are the parents' priority.

[edit on 30-3-2006 by gallopinghordes]



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by gallopinghordes
Wow, I'm a single mother who has worked my daughter's entire life.

Commendable imo,a lot of mothers see children as a way of income,or the income someone else`s responsability, anyone but theirs.


I guess you could say I'm a feminist I bought my own home and do my own repairs, by the end of this summer I will only have a car payment and my mortgage, my daughter will be attending a good college (only number 11 in the country) and I've done this without her father's help or the help of any man.

This imo does`nt immediately make you a feminist,though you guess it could?


I'm very very tired of being told that I as a single working Mother have helped cause the decline of the American Family.

I doubt and find it hard to believe anyone would say that to you simply because your a single working mother.


I did not date while she was growing up out of choice not because I like to bash men but because she was and is my primary responsibility.

Totally lost here sorry,by not dating, why did you think anyone would think its because you like to bash men?


And yes folks I do believe in equal pay for equal work regardless of sex, creed, or lifestyle.

Cool, if you can do equal the work? why not get payed the same.


My daughter has not been brainwashed by the government or any other organization but has grown into a self-confident independent young lady who will be able to handle anything thrown at her and all this has been accomplished while I worked 40-56 hours a week.

It could be debated,but without knowing her or you who could really tell for sure regarding brainwashing,explanation at the bottom of this post.


Believe me ladies and gentlemen I know kids from the traditional family unit who have not accomplished the things my daughter has

No quarrel here either, with this, though irrelevant to the topic.Because i`d bet their are children from good family units that have done better.


My point is; kids will follow examples and live up or down to expectations no matter whether Mom works or not. Am I a feminist?

This is your most important quote imo.

What i got from your entire post(not individual quotes of it)was that men are irrelevant and you have given this example and put in onto your daughter.So i`d say yes to your question,imo your a feminist based from the little i have read anyway.

Read your post and replace you with a male father,how would you feel as a women reading women are irrelevant to a childs life,if you saw this as important you would also see this should also be a priority.This is where i can understand why people have said "you have helped cause the decline of the American Family".


I don't know I just know that I have for the last 18 years taken care of my family and tended to business.

I also coached her soccer team, and attended all her sporting or 4-H events and assisted at her schools it's all about setting priorities. She was and always will be my priority and that is what kids need. It doesn't really matter if there is a stay at home parent as long as the kids know they are the parents' priority.

Sincerely good for you,without really knowing (nor am i asking)your relationship you have with your daughters father,there are 2 parents not 1.The father is important to either a daughter or son,especially when they`re young.

This is a type of brainwashing the feminists and government have fed into society going back 40-50 years?,first with the increase of divorce and the relevance of marriage or the vows to the marriage being to God who is constantly being attacked more and more,then after the divorce the children the majority of the time are given to the mothers care and responsibility only,just so`s women more and more say see! you dont even need them (husbands fathers males).Reducing fathers in most cases to little more than an ATM card and visitation rights.

As hard as it has been for you,remember that a father would have loved the same opportunities courts give the mothers,I would only hope if that were the case (yeah as if)men would see mothers as important to their children also,more than what seems to be the norm nowadays from women regarding fathers.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by gallopinghordes
I'm very very tired of being told that I as a single working Mother have helped cause the decline of the American Family.

It doesn't really matter if there is a stay at home parent as long as the kids know they are the parents' priority.

[edit on 30-3-2006 by gallopinghordes]


Well how do you think the women, who work full time at parenting, feel constantly being told to go out and work so they can afford to pay a stranger to play at being Mum and that if they don't they are making a BAD EXAMPLE for their children?

I feel I should praise you for what you've done. Doing the best with what you've got must be acknowledged, reguardless of whether others see your best as high or low. Kudos to you!

Now I do hope you can share the same respect for those women who know through life experiance, that paedophiles seek out careers with children to access them and so chose not to employ others to do what instinct calls them to.

When you are always there to listen, comfort, praise, correct etc. at the random times these things are called for, they have no choise but to know they are wanted, loved and secure because those times you can't be there for them (as happens in every life), they also know is not your choise.

I was an unwanted, latchkey kid, who always assured my mother I was happy despite many horrible, dangerous experiences I kept from her so as not to make her feel guilty. I admired her for working so hard, praised and defended her to everyone, but swore I'd never do the same thing to my children.

It isn't the individuals who's lives cause them to go out to work, who are tearing apart families, but many other groups of men and women who have brought in a sick system of society for the purpose of creating those causes.
They should be recognized for who they are, instead of being admired as 'experts' who are 'teaching us a better way'.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by suzy ryan
As a woman, wife and mother of adult children, I'm sad to say most women don't even want to hear these facts from other, older, wiser women who can remember how things were and what caused the changes.

Yeah Suzy and its been inch by inch.


When I fell pregnant with my third child, EVERYONE advised me to abort her so I could stay at work to help pay the 17 1/4% mortgage, for the 'living' childrens future.

I cant ever imagine you going along with the flow if its not correct.So it goes without saying good choice.


I just pray that when I'm a grandmother, it won't be illegal for the old woman who lovingly raised their parents, to help care for them. The massive child care industry has already been lobbying to have 'certain' people declared 'unfit' to care for children. "Old women", keep being mentioned as an example.


Hey careful Suzy,i`ll be there yelling for that not to happen with you,just remember to yell for me as a granddad as well


Edit to fix the quote thingys

[edit on 30-3-2006 by gps777]



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 04:51 AM
link   
gps777, I'm so glad you mentioned the father issue.

When my husband finally proposed it wasn't exciting. We went straight into discussing what a marriage was, again.
My first and last condition for accepting, was his agreeing that it ment all and any children produced would be treasured for life, reguardless of any problems.
Always wanted and welcome at home even if illness or injury caused us to have to give up all, to care for them for life.
That should he ever 'slip' and father a child with someone else, our children should be able to know their sibling even if it was kept from me.
And other such conditions.

My only reason for marriage is to build a family, not decorate your lives with alot of stuff that you top off with a kid or two to prove your normal.

Everybody will have a time in their lives when they need help. Isn't it better to build a family you can trust to take their turns at sharing loads life sends everyone's way.

It astounds me that people who admire my children's character and intelligence still tell me I "wasted my brain" by working around having children. Now there are three people, better than my best, because I chose to invest my brain and heart in them.
How is that a waste?
Doesn't the world need more just, kind people than the illusion of more wealth by producing stuff that's obsolete before it hits the market or selling advice that wise old family members used to give for free? Not according to most, who like to tell me I'm "socially irresponsible" for not feeding the economy.

Last week I caught my eldest son telling someone, he wanted to marry and have kids one day, "Doesn't everyone"... Sorry son, no, but I'm so glad you do and are waiting for a woman who wants to raise a family and not just get married.

It is such a rare delight to catch the young man you raised being 'clucky' and responsible. I wish more people could experience it.

P.S. gps777, my Grandfather was the greatest influence in my life. Saddly my kids didn't have living grand dads so I taught them what mine taught me. My eldest's favourite photo is of him at 4, in a blooming apple tree my Grandfather planted when I was a baby, in a home we bought a generation later.

Kids need Grands! Kids need Grands! Kids need Grands!

[edit on 30-3-2006 by suzy ryan]




top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join