Cultural programming at its finest...

I've been told the woman's rights movement was funded by the Rockefeller or whatever. On the surface apparently it looked like it was about woman and them being equal, but the only thing the movement did was create a situation where the household generally the man only paid taxes now had two tax payers doubling the tax influx. Idk how true or to what extent that is but I wouldn't doubt it one bit. That's when he family structure started going down hill, now parents dont have time for heir kids cause hey both gota work n pay hem taxes and all that.

a reply to: onequestion

Have you looked back to before mass production came about? Families stayed together through economic necessity. But with the advent of mass production, the producers could produce more product, refrigerators, toasters, cars, etc than were necessary for a large family unit. So their ability to produce vastly out stripped the demand for the product.

Enter the advertising industry. Based on the revelations about human psychology, the advertising business set about convincing each and every son and daughter that they did not need to live at home and raise their children in grandmas house, but rather they could now afford to go out and buy their own refrigerators and toasters and cars. It was at the behest of American manufacturers that the large, extended families dwindled down into the more recent nuclear families, mom and pop and kiddies. Now we had two or three households instead of one.

Following the great depression came WWII, and all of those warriors came home and were promised a nice little house of their own. They found spouses as fast as they could cuz they were all horny as hell after the war, had kids and settled into their mortgages.

I will repeat that last bit. They came home and got married to the first person who showed any interest in them. Brothers would introduce their sisters to a war buddy and they would get married. Sisters would marry the cousin of a friend just because he smiled at them. The promise was nice little families in nice little houses in nice little neighborhoods and all would be well and happy in the American dream.

But that was all just a dream, an illusion perpetrated by the manufacturing industry. Advertising is built on the assumption that people are shallow, and enough people have fallen for it so that it still goes on today. But people are not shallow enough. These little families are to vulnerable to economic fluctuations and as the halcyon days of post war 1950's began to shred, as all illusions eventually do, the people who got married to the first person who would sleep with them began to crumble. They either began to divorce or as in more cases, stayed together for the benefit of the children and fought all the time and raised kids who had to live with parents who did not really like each other and swore to not get trapped into the same kind of chains that imprisoned their parents.

Sure this is a simplistic version of things but at least, I hope makes the point. The family that we are now grieving for was a temporary illusion which fit the agenda of the ruling elite. Now it no longer does.

Here read this, I think this explains what I was saying earlier a lot better then I could have on my own.
Link

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: schuyler

[snipped]

Why so snarky?

I happen to agree as a 52 year old. Millennials, aren't trailblazers by any means to what is trendy thinking on humanities evolution. Do you not think us now old farts didn't do pretty much the same thing the teenagers are doing today? Grant you, to US it seems to be taking certain things to extremes, but for those who were blessed with parents as I was, that busted by balls as a youth, it was just as much about they knew I was not telling them the truth because they were my age once and knew damn well what I was up too?

You seem very into philosophy type stuff, why not open your mind further and try to understand the youth of today are not anymore special or brilliant than us old folks who sit and chuckle thinking about how life hasn't hit ya'll young uns in the ass hard enough.

Family and a loving, nurturing and disciplined environment is very important in raising a child. Unfortunately, too many adults are too engrossed in acting cool to the new generation and their own selfish fantasies rather than setting an example.........

originally posted by: Brotherman
Here read this, I think this explains what I was saying earlier a lot better then I could have on my own.
Link

( Off topic)Ain't that a picture from the Dragonlance novels?

I agree with your assessment anyway.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: intrptr

Media is obviously used to change our culture and sway public opinion.

Very sad.

One has to wonder how long some of this technology has really been around and if it's just the serfs who are being exposed.

I had a picture stashed someplace that answered that but I cant find it at the moment, but it basically pointed out that the poor have a telly, and the rich have a library.

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: intrptr

Media is obviously used to change our culture and sway public opinion.

Very sad.

One has to wonder how long some of this technology has really been around and if it's just the serfs who are being exposed.

I had a picture stashed someplace that answered that but I cant find it at the moment, but it basically pointed out that the poor have a telly, and the rich have a library.

You are right!

Then at that time we assumed those who went to college to get "educated" were the ones to follow, and we see how our college system became pretty much the same thing as television of old?

Think about it, if you were in a bad neighborhood with a few friends, would you rather be with a "book smart" person or a "street smart" person who knew the hood you were in?

Crazy world we live in today.....

The world may be full of ideals; but since few actually live by any children are often lost in the shuffle as many children are conceived by no more thought than: I'm horny lets do it... a pregnancy test later and good luck if anyone wants to take responsibility; since it's likely none occurred before the conception took place.

When a whole group no matter the population makeup is having unplanned children with no resources or contingency to care for them... we end up as a society full of children that are just along for the ride of whatever situation the parent(s) happen to be in... even if this is the majority; it does not mean every single parent is going to be self centered to their own needs, wants and desires ahead of their children's welfare.

So family unit together or not; economically stable or not, planned or not it is possible to set ones own needs wants and desires of life away and instead focus on what ones children need in order to be happy and well adjusted for life, as the new goal. This of course may be ideal for every child but not the majority of parents with children.

Aside from that, many parents desire to raise a mini me version of themselves creating a ground for the child to rebel against later creating more stress and disharmony in the home than if one were to guide their children with their own wisdom learned the hard way on the kids level of understanding rather than simply dictate to them in a totalitarian household.

The irony is this actually occurring is few and far between... this was the plan for my son before the wife cheated and handed me divorce papers because she didnt want to feel like utter crap every time she looked at me for the sake of letting it all go for his sake. Well, I signed them and gave her the house, accounts etc. all but one car a few personal effects, clothes and entered into the world of depression and homelessness to have the family I was working so hard for to be torn apart so easily in a single act of selfish indiscretion.

In the time since... nearly 2 decades later, friends, family etc have always stated "oh you should have taken it to her ass, court etc and whats wrong with you that you would just hand over every single last thing except basically the clothes on your back and transportation out of there. The answer has always been the same at the time and every time someone has asked: So my son could have as much stability and the least amount of stress as possible. I simply told her that after I leave any discussion will be about our son and him alone, anything of a personal nature good or bad between ourselves such as anger and resentments have nothing to do with him and arent going to do anything but destabilize even more the structure children so desperately need... she agreed and that's how it's been.

But as a single man 7 years after the divorce and ready to try dating again... it was more common to run across single mothers in my age bracket than not; it was a heart wrenching thing in some sense, the idea to be in a random childs life instead of the one that was planned... brought out thoughts I hadn't considered, unfortunately the couple females I dated with kids both had 2 children from 2 different men... were embroiled and bitter at their exs leaving them in such a state to raise and fend on their own... not to mention the steady torrent of men happy to sex up a single mom but have no interest in being the childs male parental role model, creating so many walls and hoop after hoop of tests to jump through to sort you from all the previous game players including dad number 2 for the second that didn't stick around like the first.

Then of course trying to date a single woman without kids and they ask if you have any and it's time to tell a story that still cuts rather deeply even years later, only to get lumped as yet another dad that didnt stick around as the snap judgment why didnt seem to matter as answering yes to do you have children already subconsciously hammered in the stereotype of dead beat dad. So too old for single women that want children as I am now past that stage, and too many hoops and hurdles for women with children to drop walls and give someone a chance(dont blame them really just coping from old wounds) to waiting around to grown children or none at retirement age, while I just focus on my business and looking forward to spending more time with my son during his upcoming formal college(already a 2 year degree while school in HS) and his adulthood years.

The family unit is basically a crap shoot... my parents were horrible human beings with every abuse imaginable , that had said they stayed together for us children, but if you ask anyone of us children they stayed together for... we'd have agreed a split would have a better circumstance all around for all involved just to get away from the constant abuse as one abuser is better than two even though it is still a crappy situation for helpless children involved.

Of course as I aged this whole parents staying together for childrens sake even though they hate each other seemed to be the normal majority leading to all sorts of dysfunctional households.

I suppose the point being dysfunctional can occur whether no parents, single parent, or both parents... that it is really the commitment of those involved in care to make sure the child is raised in as stable and consistent an environment as possible... so in my experience the family unit is simply an ideal in theory that may be beneficial to the child in regard to ones parent(s) or guardian(s) as an exception but not the rule... since human nature is involved. I've always made it a point to get down on my sons level when speaking to him remembering what it was like at his age... due to this he and I are on terrific terms and he has never had any issues telling me anything including the very things that most children are apt to hide and needlessly stress over internally.

The result has been a very intelligent thoughtful and emotionally responsible child with all the tools to enter adulthood successfully, with that single hiccup called a divorce which itself did not carry one single argument just my absence from the daily picture.

So OP while I understand what you mean about the programming of society... the family unit being beneficial to children takes a bit more commitment than just two people simply present in the home, called parents.

Food cost per month for a grown person living with you equals what? I am going to say $200 for myself. 200 x 12 = $2400 per year. Assuming they can't qualify for food assistance obviously. Add in some utilities increases or maybe more food or whatever, let's call it $3000 per year to make sure your child doesn't die on the streets homeless and unfed?

I think I can swing that for my own child. So I see your point about the programming affecting people... who are these people who WOULDN'T let their child move back in with them if they needed help? (I do not have a grown child for the record, but if I did I would obviously help them if they needed it.)

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

I agree it takes more commitment.

It doesn't help when you add the factor of making money in and managing a career on top of that.

Our society isn't built for family and for human beings it's one big machine we just keep running like little batteries.

I felt like I was reading a book reading your reply but I appreciate it.

a reply to: VoidHawk

What's a telly? Television?

a reply to: seeker1963

I have no faith in the youth of today what are you talking about?

I see a bunch of men who look like girls, can't fight, can't swing a hammer, grow beards but can't swing an axe more than twice, but they can write software better then the best programmers at Google for fun!

There many challenges in today's world.


And yes I agree that we have children raising children.

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: onequestion

Did you notice how the author places the importance of retirement over the importance of the family?

It's called being self-sufficient so that you do not become a burden on others. If you have the kids raiding the fridge long after their pull date, it puts a crimp on finances. The western nuclear family was never intended to support grown children. This is not a new phenomenon, but is in fact centuries old. And further, it isn't even confined to the human species. From birds to bears, parents kick the kids out of the nest.

The most amazing thing here is that these kids actually have the expectation that their parents are obligated to support them seemingly forever with no corresponding obligation on their part. They present their parents with a fait accompli just assuming it's their right to move back in. They present their case as the inability for them to find employment when, in fact, it is their unwillingness to seek alternatives and develop their own self-sufficiency that is the issue. (Some of those alternatives have already been presented here in this thread.)

I find it amazing that these parents allow themselves to be brow-beaten by these children into letting them back in. It's hardly the "destruction of the family" if you're not expected to be living in your Mom's basement when you are 30. And if, in fact, that is what is happening, that does not mean the family is destroyed--it's still intact--far longer than was intended.

The fact is people often do not pay attention to their own retirement because their energy and resources are directed toward raising the children in the manner to which they have become accustomed. To then rag on them for trying to finally pay attention to their own needs for once is selfish in the extreme. Just whose life is it, anyway? You cannot claim that emotional word "family" when all you see your parents for is a meal ticket.

Being an empty-nester might just be a very good thing and something your parents deserve. The best thing you could do for your parents is move out. Yeah, you might have to put off buying that Corvette for a few more years, but that's what your parents did when they married and had you. Why can't you do the same thing?

If you want to talk "destruction of the family," look no further than the inner city where fathers are absent and single mothers exist on welfare from the state for generations. Now THAT'S destruction of the family, not preventing some sniveling middle class kids from moving back home where they've worn out their welcome.

Well, that's not entirely accurate about the nature of family, even in the west. In fact, it is a very recent, modern, and industrialization-related concept.

In much of the world to this day, all generations of one family may live in a home. Moreover, there is NO social stigma nor push to have everyone live independently. In fact, many people from other countries might ask "why would you want to live by yourself away from your family." The statement "Oh he still lives with his family or parents" is only an insult in a few countries in the world....

You might not realize this either, but in most countries of the world poverty is much higher and standards of living are lower. You can't afford to have everyone living alone in most countries.

Furthermore, this was true in America and Europe not too long ago. Around the time of the American colonies, the economic level was such that people living there had the average income, including purchasing price parity, of Africans today.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

You might not realize this either, but in most countries of the world poverty is much higher and standards of living are lower. You can't afford to have everyone living alone in most countries.

Furthermore, this was true in America and Europe not too long ago. Around the time of the American colonies, the economic level was such that people living there had the average income, including purchasing price parity, of Africans today.

Thanks for those gems. See my sig.

originally posted by: TycoonBarnaby

who WOULDN'T let their child move back in with them if they needed help? (I do not have a grown child for the record, but if I did I would obviously help them if they needed it.)

Obviously. That's a fairly comfortable position for you to take. That's called "having no dog in this fight" but weighing in anyway at no cost. You SAY you'd do that, but what if you had to, and you did not have an extra couple of grand to feed them? You're being pretty cavalier with my money. The issue is not just providing needed help. The issue is a lifestyle choice not based on need, but based on attitude. I see a lack of ambition, a lack of wanting to tackle the issues because it's just easier to live with Mom & Dad. In other words, is that "help" necessary, or is it just the path of least resistance? Is this the result of nefarious NWO conditioning or is it simply bad choices? Did you take out student loans to get a B.A. in English only to turn up your nose at a job with McDonalds? Like John Wayne said. "Life is hard. It's harder if you're stupid."

The parents did their job. They raised the kids. They didn't think they'd have to raise the kids until age 50 and jeopardize their own retirement to do so. That's what the original article was addressing. It doesn't really matter what some "other" cultures do or did. An "extended family" situation is probably more common than not, anthropologically speaking, but that's not the way it is here.

What I see is kids making stupid choices where the parents have been careful and frugal. Then the kids turn around and see the parents are doing okay and expect the parents to bail them out. So the parents wind up losing their own position to bail the kids. And the kids have learned nothing.

I don’t think there is anything new about how the author is placing the importance of retirement over the importance of the family. In the American Culture (as well as other western cultures) family has not been centrally important paradigm for last 50 years and even longer.

The Difference “Now” vs “Then” is completely economical. Now Children and Parents are facing the reality that there is a lot less opportunity for the Child than the Parents experienced and that added pressure is leading to more turmoil than in the past; and so we are reading about it more (ie the WSJ article).

For example for me (and my culture) its weird to read that there is something “wrong” with living with your parents after a certain age. It’s even more odd that the WSJ finds it so wrong that they think there is an epidemic going on that is hurting whole generations of people.

As I was growing up there where three generations in my home; my Parents lived with my Grandparents and I and my siblings came along somewhere along the way. This arrangement (as is the case with many Millennials today) was born out of necessity; my immigrant family did not have the resources to have multiple homes to split amongst themselves and so had no other choice but to pool their resources and live under one roof. However by the time I became “Of Age” the situation had changed; my parents moved into their own place (bought in part with money my grandparents had saved) and it was my Parents and I’s turn to make such decisions as to where I would live. I could have set out on my own and gotten an apartment somewhere, a slightly different situation than my father faced. But that life choice wasn’t even a choice for my Parents and I; I did not seek to set out on my own and my Parents would have disapproved if I did. The fact of the matter was that experience had taught us pooling our resources was much more favorable to us than dividing them. By living with my Parents when I could have move out I was able to go to college and graduate with no debt; I was able to save to buy a house for myself at an age much younger than my father was when he bought his house (and the same can be said for my siblings). These events might have put a “burden” on my Parents retirement savings; but they have yielded a much greater stability for my family than any money they might have saved would have. In other words the return on investment was worth the venture for my Parents, Grandparents, Siblings and myself. Because of this pooling of resources any member of this unit has a safety net that would not have existed had we all cut off on our own the moment we could have. For example I know that if the SHTF for me tonight and I lose my job, my home, even my ability to function that there is at least four places I could go live tomorrow and my showing up wouldn’t be seen as a burden but as a home coming.

On the flip side I was just having a conversation with older colleague of mine who related a story to me about how once he was old enough he couldn’t wait to move out of his parents’ house. Naturally given my own experience I assumed, and asked him, if his parents were not very nice people … in other words was that the reason he “couldn’t wait” to move out. The answer was that his parents where great; he just felt the urge to move out. And so the point is this feeling is nothing new; for many people the idea of dividing your family is nothing new.

What’s new is the rate at which pooling resources is happening now due to necessity in a culture that doesn’t value the pooling of resources. The result is a young generation resentful of the fact that they are made to move back in with their parents and act out accordingly and an older generation resentful of the fact that they must put up with their children longer than they expected. This resentment is causing some people to see dome and gloom and write articles like the WSJ article.

Perhaps what IS needed IS a cultural change; one where families value the situation and use it to their advantage. The plan is for my children to be ABLE to move out of my house as soon as they turn 18; but I know that when that day comes I will do everything in my power to make sure they think twice about moving out so quickly; and try to explain to them investing a little bit of their “FREEDOM” now will yield a lot more “STABILITY” for them later. My fear is that the culture I grow up with will be too diluted in them by the time they come of age.

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: TycoonBarnaby

who WOULDN'T let their child move back in with them if they needed help? (I do not have a grown child for the record, but if I did I would obviously help them if they needed it.)

Obviously. That's a fairly comfortable position for you to take. That's called "having no dog in this fight" but weighing in anyway at no cost. You SAY you'd do that, but what if you had to, and you did not have an extra couple of grand to feed them? You're being pretty cavalier with my money. The issue is not just providing needed help. The issue is a lifestyle choice not based on need, but based on attitude. I see a lack of ambition, a lack of wanting to tackle the issues because it's just easier to live with Mom & Dad. In other words, is that "help" necessary, or is it just the path of least resistance? Is this the result of nefarious NWO conditioning or is it simply bad choices? Did you take out student loans to get a B.A. in English only to turn up your nose at a job with McDonalds? Like John Wayne said. "Life is hard. It's harder if you're stupid."

The parents did their job. They raised the kids. They didn't think they'd have to raise the kids until age 50 and jeopardize their own retirement to do so. That's what the original article was addressing. It doesn't really matter what some "other" cultures do or did. An "extended family" situation is probably more common than not, anthropologically speaking, but that's not the way it is here.

What I see is kids making stupid choices where the parents have been careful and frugal. Then the kids turn around and see the parents are doing okay and expect the parents to bail them out. So the parents wind up losing their own position to bail the kids. And the kids have learned nothing.

I do not have “Grown Children” ether – so I guess I do not have any dogs in the fight either.

But I can tell you right now that I don’t just SAY I would let my grown children move back in with me if they needed to; I PROMISE them I will. I will show them the same love and attention my parents show me because that is how my parents raised me. I know if I needed too I can go live in my parents’ house, I wouldn’t even have to ask, I would just need to show up and there would be a place for me to sleep and a plate for me at the dinner table. My children will know that the same will be true for them once they are old enough to live on their own. At the jeopardy of my own retirement I will be raising my kids until the day I die; not until they are some age deemed “Old Enough” by others.

You talk about bad choices and lake of responsibility being the cause of these young people “needing” to move back in with their parents. And how these parents did their job raising their kids and how that job should be over once the kid is old enough. I’d ask you who taught these kids to make bad choices? Who taught them to live irresponsibly? Maybe if these parents did a better job preparing their kids for adulthood, a better job teaching them responsibility, than maybe their kids wouldn’t have to move back in with them. Maybe these parents are just reaping the rewards of their own irresponsibility and bad choices.

What if my kids still make bad choices despite all my efforts to teach them responsibility and how to make good choices? Their bad choices in life doesn’t negate my responsibilities as their parent. I brought them into the world I am responsible for them. Now to be clear this doesn’t mean I am obligated to make life easy for them; if making life hard for them is what they NEED than I would be obligated to make life hard for them. If turning them away is the correct solution for a given situation, than that is what I would be obligated to do, even if it broke my heart to do so. What I am responsible for is NOT turning my back on them; even if I had to turn them away I wouldn’t be turning away from them.

a reply to: DanDanDat

Here's my question for you..

How do you tell the difference between your kid really needing help and your kid needing to learn responsibility in today's world?

Wheres the line drawn?

When you draw the line do you involve yourself in your child's life or do you send them off on their own to solve their problems alone?