 |
|
 |
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Not really. The worst thing Obama could do is "give a man a fish"
instead of "teaching him to fish" (and making sure he really learns
it, not just go through the motions to collect a check at the end).
Perhaps Obama will be in a position a la "Only Nixon could go to
China", to teach personal responsibility where others, like Mayor
Street and school truancy, and Bill Cosby and household spending
priorities, didn't sink in.
But I'm afraid the current economy will be a grand excuse to
perpetuate the failures of the past, just handing out money for
nothing, as an entitlement.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:32:54 -0500, Art Clemons <...@aolSPAM.com
I suggest that providing jobs that improve the infrastructure isn't giving a
man a fish, it is allowing said man to fish for himself. How can working
at a productive job be considered the equivalent of charity?
Stop trying to impose your beliefs on others! The President-Elect is not in
a position to start the equivalent of a moral jihad on things you do not
like. I also suggest that defining personal responsibility for a graduate
of most Philadelphia public schools as getting an education capable of
supporting college education is pretending that the school system really
works.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Nov 10, 5:32 pm, Art Clemons <...@aolSPAM.com.
But it CAN work. I sited two examples where it can work.
Both of those kids went to city schools. I'm positive they're
not the only ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:57:05 -0500, Art Clemons <...@aolSPAM.com
But not most or indeed a significant minority of the students in the Philly
public schools.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Nov 11, 2:57 pm, Art Clemons <...@aolSPAM.com
If we can't fix the teacher shortage, then you are right: it
all just makes the task of achieving all that much harder.
You probably saw the article in the Inky of the teacher
who WANTS to teach in the inner city who couldn't wait
for all the bureaucratic stuff to transpire. She accepted
position somewhere else. Sigh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 17:27:25 -0500, Art Clemons <...@aolSPAM.com
Frankly I don't know how big city schools are going to improve without a lot
more in the way of resources and a better educational plan than the one
which is now failing. Some charter schools for example seem to work, while
others are miserable failures at best. The method of funding most public
schools couldn't be better designed to produce failure in big cities. Good
teachers in big city public schools can usually find higher paying jobs in
nearby suburbs with better funded schools and the middle-class parents so
desired by some "experts" who point to parent failure as a major source of
trouble.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Nov 12, 5:27 pm, Art Clemons <...@aolSPAM.com
The article about this teacher indicated that the steps
to apply and be accepted in the Phila School Dist. are so slow
and so odious that she got tired of waiting and went elsewhere.
This treacher had all the credentials/certifications and
the response from the city was nonexistent.
So we end up, in the city, with a lot of vacant teacher slots
not just because teachers don't want the jobs but because
the bureaucracy to employ them moves at snail's pace.
The article also said that the teacher vacancy problem
is worse here than it is in other cities.
Isn't part of why they hired the current CEO is to get
rid of some of these bootlenecks? God knows the
the District is paying her enough.
If you can't even get more qualified teachers in city classrooms
who actually want to teach in them, then the problems are much larger
than "parent failure".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Nov 12, 5:27 pm, Art Clemons <...@aolSPAM.com
Camden and Newark have plenty of resources, but . . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:27:40 -0500, Art Clemons <...@aolSPAM.com
Camden and Newark have LESS per pupil than the nearby suburban districts in
NJ with working education. I keep on noting that comparisons have to be
based on valid comparable locales. Thus for example comparing some town in
Idaho with Camden isn't a good idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Nov 10, 5:32 pm, Art Clemons <...@aolSPAM.com
When I am fully relieved the tax burden of the result of others'
irresponsibility, let me know. Until then I will demand such
responsibility.
Likewise, when I have to suffer the cons
The President-Elect is not in
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:57:49 -0500, "D.F. Manno" <...@mail.com
In article
That's a two-way street, you know.
Allowing governments to regulate people's behavior because failing to do
so might at some time in the future impact the treasury is a dangerous
idea. It's a license to regulate virtually any human activity, because
carried to logical conclusions a connection to tax money - no matter how
tenuous - can be found just about anywhere. It's already happening with
smoking, on the grounds that smokers cause added government expenditures
due to higher health-care cost. You can expand that reasoning to
drinking alcohol, eating unhealthy food, participating in extreme
sports, rock climbing, riding motorcycles, having unprotected sex, etc.
Here's an analogy: John Doe has $100,000 in his kids' college fund. One
day he decides he'd really like to buy a Porsche with that money. What
the hell, the kids can go to state schools, or apply for financial aid,
or take out student loans. By your reasoning, the government should have
the authority to step in and tell him to keep his hands off the money,
because if he buys the Porsche the taxpayers might have to pay part of
the cost of putting his kids through college.
--
D.F. Manno | dfma...@mail.com
This time _we_ won. This time _you_ get over it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Nov 11, 7:57 pm, "D.F. Manno" <...@mail.com
We do it all the time in all sorts of ways. You're a lousy driver,
you will pay more for insurance.
Pretty much all human activities are regulated now.
If he buys that Porsche he will reduce the opportunity for
scholarships.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 17:27:28 -0500, Art Clemons <...@aolSPAM.com
With some insurance companies there is a higher toll for poor credit than
for poor driving.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
REPOST Part 2
Actually, according to his campaign speeches, he does not like them
either.
Perhaps if the parents of Philadelphia students made the effort to
teach their kids to show up in school every day and behave
responsibly, instead of getting into fights and constant violence, the
education would be better. Recall the article you posted that
compared a city school to the suburbs and the difference in violence
between the two. Note that until recently city schools were hamstrung
by the courts in discipline; thank you Public Interest Lawyers!
Irresponsibility does not stop at the city limits or at wealth. It's
a problem in the suburbs too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:23:03 -0500, Art Clemons <...@aolSPAM.com
Most students are showing up, just as most students aren't involved in
constant fighting and crime, the school system fails those who attend
regularly in multiple ways including not offering a real education.
The nonsense you keep on raising about being hamstrung by Public Interest
Lawyers is just that absolute nonsense. The school system just couldn't
continue doing things that had never worked and likely never would have
worked. I suggest you need to do more research on how public schools in
big cities fail.
Incidentally comparing one failing school to one successful school isn't a
good idea unless they're comparable. If you look at the entire public
school system, you can note several things, first at least a quarter of the
school age don't attend public schools, 2nd, most students are still
getting an inferior education, and 3rd, as I've repeatedly noted, you
cannot expect the offspring of poorly educated people to behave like the
offspring of the well educated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Nov 11, 5:23 pm, Art Clemons <...@aolSPAM.com
The Inqr and your own posts has well documented the constant violence
in city schools committed by the students. The failure is not
removing the trouble makers.
I've done the research, I've been there. Schools in big cities fail
partly because of PIL lawyers interfere, in ways they do not in
suburban schools. Suburban schools have troubled kids too, but they
are dealt with.
Why not? Plenty of kids from desperately poor and uneducated
(illiterate) parents, particularly in the Depression, strived and
excelled.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 17:27:32 -0500, Art Clemons <...@aolSPAM.com
Nope, I haven't documented constant violence in Philly public schools. It's
not constant violence, it's isolated incidents and bluntly school is likely
the safest locale for most students for the whole day.
Said schools are invariably under-funded, poorly run with no attention paid
to methods likely to succeed with the student population present.
Curriculum too plays a major role in such failures. Legal restrictions on
discipline like for example paddling doesn't seem to affect successful
public school system, nor does requiring public schools to educate the
handicapped. You're trying to blame what you dislike for a failure that
has more to do with how teachers are selected, how pupils are instructed,
and how planning to teach said pupils is substandard.
Because most of the desperately poor kids didn't succeed. The US also had
the GI Bill and a desperate need for employees right after WWII. You're
trying to compare one era improperly with the present one. Statistically a
graduate of the Philadelphia public schools won't succeed academically.
Philadelphia doesn't have a major industry with a big need for lots of
semi-educated folks either.
A lot of the success stories came from families that in 1929 would have been
considered strivers, a lot of folks ended up classified as poor. I also
note that the offspring of educated immigrants were more likely to succeed
than the offspring of folks who had been let's say farmers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Nov 12, 5:27 pm, Art Clemons <...@aolSPAM.com
Except the student population is _not_ present; they're truant and the
parents see nothing wrong with that.
Unless you want a dictatorship, the schools cannot accomodate the
facts that (1) students move constantly during the school year, some
schools have a 100% turnover rate. The School District spends a lot
of money just trying to deal with that. (2) students guardians
constantly change, from a parent, to a grandparent, to an aunt,
friend, etc. No stability, no consistent parenting.
The school district curriculum evolved over time to educate students
to work in industry or go on to college. Social advocates claim such
curriculum is "irrelevent" or "racist". Nonsense.
You expect the entire world to change to support dysfunctional
families and lifestyles, rather than the dysfunctional families change
to be productive in the real world. Guess what--the world has moved
on. As mentioned before, many jobs (of all levels) are NOT in China
as claimed, but just outside the city limits in the 'burbs or
Jersey. Service jobs have replaced many of the industrial jobs.
Wawa, to give one example, doesn't care about one's education or
background; they have highschool dropouts with criminal records, and
they can, and do, work up to management. As others mentioned,
hospitals/colleges need people of all skill levels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:37:37 -0500, Art Clemons <...@aolSPAM.com
The last time I saw figures, (Philadelphia Weekly
http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/articles/13598/cover-story) there were
16,800 students absent on any given day from the public schools. Thus on
any given day, most of the student population is present.
I don't know of a single school with that high a turnover rate. The figures
on students not living with a natural parent or adoptive parent seem to
suggest that most are living with the same parent said student was living
with the year before.
If the curriculum doesn't educate most of the students enrolled, and most of
the students are not white, how else do you describe the curriculum? A
curriculum is supposed to be a guide to education, not some unchanging and
ineffective tool that doesn't work.
The supply of workers though greatly exceeds the supply of available jobs.
You don't seem to get it. If there are lots of jobs, most people will
choose to work, even in low paying jobs. The other issue you never address
is how many of said jobs actually pay a living wage?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:18:02 -0500, Art Clemons <...@aolSPAM.com
Want to measure which has and will cost you more, people who have children
in what you consider an irresponsible manner, or those executives who are
now getting their banks and firms bailed out, or at the very least backed?
In this society, having children is considered a right, if you don't like
it, argue with the Supreme Court!
If you actually were suffering rather than just responding to lousy
propaganda, you might have a point. Most poor children for example are not
on welfare, their parent(s) work to support them. You aren't in any way
supporting most of them. Your high moral stance is just pretense and based
on false assumptions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Nov 11, 5:18 pm, Art Clemons <...@aolSPAM.com
We're talking about one issue. If you want to raise a separate issue,
do so in a new thread.
Where does it say that? In any event, it is a legal responsibility.
My taxes pay to feed such working poor children in school. (Something
I do not object to, BTW). Of course, now we're told that their
parents are too incompetent to fill out a lousy form for the food.
Children of unfit parents are far more likely to commit crimes that
victimize the rest of it. That is how we suffer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 17:27:36 -0500, Art Clemons <...@aolSPAM.com
Same pile of money and it's more costly. Those payments also in part
determine just how much tax money is available for other things. It's also
more akin to welfare than most folks want to admit!
Skinner vs State of Oklahoma and Griswold vs Conn. establish said right.
Supporting children is a legal responsibility, it frankly isn't always
working and probably won't ever work.
Not all pupils get a free lunch. The Philadelphia program in question took
census data and eliminated paperwork. The fact parents don't want to fill
out paperwork is nothing new. Incidentally the statement in the media was
that it was difficult getting 100% compliance establishing eligibility.
Gee, now you're trying another eugenics approach, so far the Supreme Court
won't allow such an approach, guess you'll have to find another claim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Nov 12, 5:27 pm, Art Clemons <...@aolSPAM.com
Once again you are putting words where they never existed.
Why are you so against raising the bar for people to function properly
in society? Why do you always have an excuse for irresponsible
behavior?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:39:50 -0500, Art Clemons <...@aolSPAM.com
Nope, I'm not putting words in your mouth. Consider the implications of
stating that some people should not have children and then claiming that
unfit parents produce children who commit crimes.
When the society is already making it difficult for said folks to function
within the society, how can I rationally accept that making things even
more difficult will be beneficial?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:08:06 -0500, Art Clemons <...@aolSPAM.com
At one time, a 16 year old could drop out of school and find a job
sufficient to support a family. If the job was good enough, that same
someone could expect to stay with the same company (while gradually earning
more) until he retired. Expectations about waiting have changed while
bodies still begin to produce sexual desire at an earlier age.
I'm suggesting that we've produced an expectation of delayed gratification
for people without improved prospects if they wait
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Nov 10, 2:08 pm, Art Clemons <...@aolSPAM.com
That was 40/50 years ago.
It hasn't been true, at least not in Phila., since about 1970.
Like I said it all was changing long before these people
were born.
If they would turn off the hip-hop and television
and God knows what else they think they need out
of pop culture and concentrate on what it means
and is required to live in today's service economy
they'd have a much better chance.
It can be done even among not so rich people.
I recall reading an article a few months back about a young kid
who had perfect attendence in school. Of course he's now
going to college. I read another article about a recent grad
from Masterman(yes, I know it's hard to get in there)
who got a scholarship to Penn. Both young men
were black and both young men know that you can't
get ahead by having babies before you have the means to
support them.
Please. I had a young body. I had sexual desires. I still
do. You had a young body. Did you
have 2 children before the age of 21? It's just another
self-sabotaging bit of nonsense that a lot of people
can't seem to avoid. And then they wonder
why they find it impossible to get ahead.
They have improved propects. I mean NOW there's going to
a guy who LOOKS LIKE THEM(or us... meaning you and me)
in the fucking WHITE HOUSE. If they can't use *that* as a role model
then I don't know what there's left for them except continued
failure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 17:27:12 -0500, Art Clemons <...@aolSPAM.com
Karen, I suggest you're ignoring that said folks aren't educated to do as
you're claiming. Those folks who claim it's good all too often never even
address those to whom the message is allegedly addressed. Consider where
for example Bill Cosby delivers his message and the audience present.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Nov 12, 5:27 pm, Art Clemons <...@aolSPAM.com
I KNOW they aren't, Art. Isn't that plain enough?
What I'm suggesting is they *avoid* that education
and the role models that would help them succeed
and help lift themselves out of poverty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 09:03:08 -0500, Art Clemons <...@aolSPAM.com
I don't know about you, but I wasn't influenced by role models. I'm also
suggesting that telling young people to wait and try harder is a foolish
strategy, when the same young people have watched others on tv and around
them get what they want. Sex is relatively cheap, then again so is working
a job when a student should be studying or alternatively hanging out with
folks when studying should be done. There is no obvious reward in most
Philadelphia public schools for studying hard or putting off having sex,
and in fact being a studious individual doesn't make said student very much
more likely to go to college or get into a training program for a
profession like being an electrician, mason or plumber.
It's simpler for someone with an apparent way out of poverty to put off
gratification although bluntly from personal experience, things sometimes
don't work out that way. Poor folks only get one opportunity to succeed,
if they aren't on the correct path in the 10th grade, only the really
statistically unlikely paths to success are then available. It also
doesn't help that outdated pedagogy is still driving the Philadelphia
public schools.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Nov 10, 2:08 pm, Art Clemons <...@aolSPAM.com
Society has always had rules about expressions of sexual desire, and
still has them today. We can't express our "desire", for example, on
the subway, or with an unwilling stranger, someone who we hold power
over, etc.
Making babies one is not in a position to properly raise is
irresponsible. "Sexual desire" is just a lame excuse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:29:21 -0500, Art Clemons <...@aolSPAM.com
I didn't suggest rape was permissible, nor were the individuals in the
NYTimes article and photos seducing whomever was available. Instead one
individual had two offspring whom he wished to support. You're trying to
interject considerations that had no place.
I suggest you review census data from 1920 or 1930. Pay really careful
attention to the age when a woman had her first child or was married. I
suggest that telling people to wait until let's say age 25 to have sex did
not work then or now. I mention 1930 for a reason incidentally, by that
time, the economy of the US was beginning the almost fatal decline of the
Great Depression.
I also suggest that lots of folks with children work harder and take jobs
that others would not to support said children. I also suggest you are
being hypocritical, first you criticize those fathers who abandon their
offspring and then you criticize those who at least try to take some
responsibility for them. Which option are you selecting?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Nov 10, 5:29 pm, Art Clemons <...@aolSPAM.com
The offspring didn't appear by magic. Yet so many media articles about
single parents or the poor refer to children as something that just
sort of happened by themselves.
People have a responsibility to be able to properly raise their
children--to provide the financial, physical, and emotional care--
before they go and have them.
So many news media articles portray someone as "wishing" they could do
better. Well, "wishing" is real easy. Doing is harder.
Above you say you are opposed to rape. But here you say you can not
tell people not to have sex. Contradictory.
Not having them in the first place. People can say no. Under certain
circumstances they are required by law to say no even if approached.
There is also a thing called a 'drugstore'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:31:16 -0500, Art Clemons <...@aolSPAM.com
It's amusing to me that this seems inconceivable to you. Certain acts get
performed and a woman is pregnant (I'm trying to be polite), certainly
pregnancy doesn't result from every performance of said acts.
In other words, you're claiming that most of the US shouldn't have
offspring, since most don't have the money or assets to raise children when
they first get said children. Further as to physical and emotional care,
you're ignoring for example all of the childcare facilities now in
existence. I suggest your standards would lead to people having a first
child at about age 40, which is risky for the offspring, and statistically
more likely to produce offspring with various and sundry health problems.
I often wonder just what you mean by doing. You seem to be inconsistent in
your definition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Nov 11, 5:31 pm, Art Clemons <...@aolSPAM.com
Acts performed by choice, by two people, and are optional. Something
current writings imply is not the case.
No, they are _your_ words, not mine.
Really?
18-22 is too young in modern society for most people to have
children. For some people, the wait is later.
Typically a couple moves up in the workforce, whatever their line is,
from trainee to intermediate in their 20s. Further, they are able to
save some money, get to know each and get used to being a couple, all
of which are critical to child raising and a healthy couple.
Tonight on TCM they have WW II movies and they mention soldiers
getting married before going to war. The truth is that many wartime
wives had a rough time of it raising babies by themselves. Many of
the wives back then were girls themselves (eg age 17) and even in
those days facing a very tough time of it.
As Obama repeatedly said during the campaign, raising a child
responsibly requires two parents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 17:27:21 -0500, Art Clemons <...@aolSPAM.com
This same society markets sex and even without marketing in earlier times,
humans found ways of having sex at ages when they were expected not to. I
also suggest that part of delaying sex is that such practices won't work
for most people. Celibacy isn't exactly a favored option.
I also note that there are implications that waiting to have a child passes
on a risk of infertility in future generations:
http://www.corethics.org/index2.php?d=news&sb=1&item=5
Yes really, using your logic at age 40, a couple has likely waited too long
and won't have enough money anyway. Children are always more expensive
than prospective parents imagine.
Yet biologically, women likely should have their first child in that range
or only slightly later. If the society is forcing a delay or encouraging
one, while at the same time making sex highly desirable, it does indeed
have a problem. It's also raising the risk of complications for the woman
and the offspring.
I suggest that focusing on how much money is only one factor. Considering
how well most folks save money, what you're in effect really saying is that
people should not ever have children.
Well, I don't normally rely on TV for entertainment or news, however note
the societal expectation portrayed in WWII movies, early marriage and
pregnancy, aren't you sort of defeating your point?
Gee, that's nice, only problem is that you're first of all assuming that
once a couple is together, it will remain together. Even with a much
enhanced child support mechanism, both parents aren't always involved once
the relationship terminates.
You're also assuming that the women having children and raising them as
single parents wanted to wait but didn't. It doesn't really work that way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Nov 12, 5:27 pm, Art Clemons <...@aolSPAM.com
Marketing is irrelevent.
As mentioned before, celibacy is certainly an option, and required by
law in many cases. The partner must be willing. Indeed, one must
decline advances from even a very interested worldly teenager lest one
desires prison and a life of ruin. There are now today many
situations where two adults are forbidden to have a relationship on
account of 'power' or conflict of interest; boss/employee, doctor/
patient, etc.
Also, there is a thing as a 'drugstore', and contraceptives are more
freely available than ever, even for free. It is terribly sad that
people resist utilizing them.
I am not talking about age 40, you are.
The age of biological physically maturity has grown younger over the
years; my generation matured on average a full year earlier than my
parents, and kids today another full year earlier than my generation.
By your logic, middle school kids have start their family.
While we're speaking of biology, also remember people live longer;
that was a factor years ago in having children young. No more.
In any event, productive functioning in society today requires more
development than in the past.
No, it is not.
People should save more money. Failure to save is irresponsible
living. Most people could save more; they just don't want to give up
luxuries they can't afford in the first place.
Years ago a young couple starting out was overjoyed to have a spartan
600 sq ft house and to gradually improve it and move on up, today that
is seen as not acceptable, they want the big house now.
But you're citing marketing as a justification for lifestyles.
Why is that an unreasonable assumption? Certainly not all couples
will make it through, but responsibility demands (1) couples get to
know each other well before permanent coupling, and (2) couples work
through life's challenges along the way.
One thing potential partners must do before coupling up is to know the
responsibility potential of their partner. Years ago that was a
prerequisite for marriage--would the man be a good provider, would the
woman be a good mother/wife. While gender roles have changed, that
responsibility issue hasn't changed. A partner with a propensity
toward poor job habits, violence, substance abuse, or crime should be
avoided; as used to be the case. This served as a social enforcement
that discouraged undesirable behavior.
Today sadly nothing matters and irresponsible behavior has
skyrocketed. It is blamed on external factors, rather than a lack of
character.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 23:55:38 -0500, Art Clemons <...@aolSPAM.com
How do people learn what to desire, what to buy, what to work harder for if
marketing isn't involved. It's not irrelevant, it's part of what makes
this society run.
Long term celibacy doesn't seem to work for most humans, even the Roman
Catholic church apparently has problems with its vows of celibacy for its
religious folk. I didn't mention rape (statutory rape for an adult being
sexually intimate with a minor), nor did I mention sex between power
unequals.
Condoms and contraceptive foam are the only two common forms of
contraception available without a medical professional somehow getting
involved. Both have known failure rates, and you're also ignoring the
cost of getting contraceptives.
You said folks should wait until they had accumulated enough money and time
to have children. I pointed to age 40 as the age most likely to meet your
criteria.
No, but we shouldn't be surprised that sexually maturing adolescents will be
more likely to experiment sexually either, especially with a society that
sexualizes even young children in many ways. I didn't say people should
have sex at age 13 or so, I said that given this society and its marketing,
I'm not surprised it happens.
There are all kinds of stats about for example older fathers i.e. older than
40 being more likely to sire children with problems, adding in females
above 40 also being more likely having children also produces a greater
likelihood of children born with things like Downs Syndrome (just for
example note how old Palin was when she had her son Trig). Living longer
doesn't extend the biologically desirable age for reproduction.
Incidentally you might want to look up the claims that for example women
who have children at earlier ages are less likely to develop breast
cancer--please note I said less likely, not that it was a preventative.
Extending childhood while an adolescent is already likely to be interested
in sex is not a wise approach. It's predictable that if something can be
tried, it's desired by many and marketed to all, it will be tried.
The longer a woman waits to have offspring, the more likely birth defects
and some diseases are. Older women are also more likely to require more in
the way of obstetrical care, more likely to have complicated deliveries as
well as risking problems for the offspring. There sure is a cost for
delay.
Nice statement yet realistically most people do not save enough, and somehow
you expect folks who respond to marketing, who also often don't really make
enough to pay rent, pay utilities and then save to save.
That's part of why the US economy boomed for so long, people bought that
which was marketed to them until finances and lack of credit made it
impossible.
I'm pointing out that marketing works, and not all marketing is on
television. Magazines, newspapers, radio, billboards, on hold messages and
the like all market to people. For that matter younger folk seem to be
marketed to in bars by folks approximately their age using some supposedly
desirable drink.
You're offering an idealistic outdated approach to marriage. It's not the
approach taken by the law or most married couples. I also note that long
courtships don't seem any more likely to produce longer marriages than
shortened courtships. Divorce is relatively easy to obtain in most states,
and that ease isn't likely to go away. Incidentally for boomers,
and those more elderly, dissolution of 30 year and up marriages isn't
uncommon these days over irreconcilable differences or people just wanting
to move in different directions. Societal expectations changed and so has
societal behavior. The majority of society seems to accept this behavior
and that's not likely to change.
People don't behave as you're suggesting. People don't accept or choose
mates as you suggest. Even those who use computer dating services aren't
checking on each other to the extent you're suggesting. I also suggest
that the practice of hiring investigators to check out a potential mate
hasn't worked out very well either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|