Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (267366)	9/10/2008 2:53:46 AM
From: Whitebeard	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794561

Yup. But it wasn't until the single-earner male couldn't support his family because the system was no longer capable of paying him a sufficient salary. When that happened, the powers that be got behind feminism. Political support didn't come because of the frustrated aspirations of a few women. It got behind the movement because capitalism wasn't going to pay the middle-class male worker enough to support a stay at home mom and kids anymore. the model changed. Betty Friedan happened to be lucky enough to publish her book at the time. It was cribbed from the party manifesto. It all works together, but some social planner screwed up and a decade later checked out the birth rate, and whoops, they destroyed the family unit (along with laws like no-fault divorce), and realized they had a problem replacing the population. All these rationalizations like how unfair and oppressive paternalism had been is just that, rationalizations, for social planning done for so called "practical reasons." Means some kind of consensus about social issues for business reasons comes out of the major corporations that then convinces the stupid politicians to act on it. The media lackies then sell it to the sheeple. Gees, Orwell was right. Gives me the creeps. Especially if I'm right.