I made a grave mistake this morning. As I was trolling on some feminist blog sites, I found the article “Will the teen mom shaming ever stop?” Like a train wreck, I couldn’t look away.
Apparently, May is “National Teen Pregnancy Prevention Month”. The images are below, but the ridiculousness is clearly in the text. It seems as though the author is upset by the apparent insinuation that mother’s can’t change the world. Wrong. I believe the message depicted is targeted at teen mom’s not changing the world. Which is a substantial claim. The blogger is also upset about the particular comments about the cost of raising a baby because it doesn’t matter what age you are, it’s still expensive a raise a baby. We all know this is true, but how many teenagers do you know that make enough money to support themselves WITHOUT a baby?
This brings me to my confusion with feminists. There are so many types yet they don’t adequately identify themselves. There are those that don’t see ‘sex’ at all and define women as the same as men, despite a few physical differences. We can think of them as the ‘feminist jihadists’. There are the feminists who believe that career trumps family, these are the ‘orthodox feminists’. And there are the feminists who simply think that they are always right regardless of topic. These are the ‘feminist ignoramuses’. (Point of information: the word ‘feminist’ separates you from being a ‘male’ equal just by default use of the term.) All types wear pant suits.
Despite the ‘type’ of feminism said blogger is aligned with, I can come up with several hypocritical and contradictory notions based off of just these few statements.
1). If the idea of feminism promotes the idea of being career oriented and not being in the home,
2.) Weren’t they the same people lobbying to have Plan B Emergency Contraception available over-the-counter to young girls?
3.) Teenagers engaging in sexual activity is not about love. (They may think it is, but it is not.) That means that the acts are simply meaningless, experiments on account of both parties. Doesn’t this also contradict the idea of respecting women and making people aware of your ‘value’?
4.) Feminists want women to be career-driven and independent. At what point would a teen mother be independent if she can’t afford to care for her child and herself and is pushed to collect social benefits?
5.) Why are we upset about discouraging children from having children?
Being a mother is supposed to be a heart-warming experience (until they hit the teenage years, of course). Being a teenager is supposed to be fun and about finding yourself. You can’t find yourself if you’re caring for a baby. These advertisements are not about shaming, they are about prevention. Hence the name of the awareness month: National Teen Pregnancy Prevention Month. The reality is that teenage pregnancy DOES affect the outcomes of your life. And if you’re doing it alone, as feminists would expect, that creates even more hardship. It’s time that feminists stop looking for problems when there aren’t any. They are lookin’ for love in all the wrong places.
Time Magazine just released their ‘Person of the Year’ and it was revealed to be none other than…Barack Obama. I feel like naming Obama as ‘Person of the Year’ is just plain lazy. Selecting the President of the United States? A plan and boring figurehead? Is that the best you can do? And not only that, but this is the 2nd time they’ve named him the POTY. (ha- great acronym.)
I can think of SEVERAL other people who made more of an impact (whether positive or negative, Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, , American or foreign, famous or not famous, political or apolitical) on society.
Malala Yousafzai, the teen Pakistani advocate for education for girls who was shot by the Taliban? (awarded 2nd place)
One of our Gold Medal Olympians?
An American Soldier?
Someone who helped in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy?
A business owner?
A Patriot?
An Executive Director of a NonProfit Organization?
Aside from Solyndra, Benghazi, telling Americans “You didn’t build that’, Fast & Furious, Class Warfare, the defense of Big Bird, his endless golfing, the Fiscal Cliff debacle, the credit downgrade, unemployment rates, the increase in the national debt, “We’re doing just fine”, the spending, the handouts, the mediScare, the bailouts, the tax increases, the NDAA, the gun control talk, Obamacare, and the total disregard for the American people…is that REALLY the best you could do, Time Magazine?
I’m pretty vain. Not about you or the guy down the street but I care a lot about how I look. I’d say my expectations for myself are likely more unrealistic than “what society expects of me”. I often wonder what makes me that way. I wasn’t abused as a child, I wasn’t bullied, and I didn’t have any other “triggers” that would make me focus on my appearance–other than the fact that I spent some time in my teen years a “bit” overweight. (No need for numbers here, they don’t matter now. It’s a thing of the past. I’ve also burned every picture from that era so don’t expect some lovely before and after creation.)
I played with Barbie, was a tennis player who loved the cute outfits and when I receive the Victoria’s Secret catalog in the mail, I still have about 3 minutes of unrealistic goal setting which usually ends with me heading to the gym.
This all has nothing to do with the societal movement to be thin or fit or whatever the trendy phrase is today. Playing with Barbie as a child did not incline me to believe a certain body type was “right” and I never believed that people on TV were what I was supposed to look like. That’s why the yearly outrage over the Victorias Secret fashion show makes me SO mad.
Maybe when we were all still in the dark about modest airbrushing, maybe when we shifted pant sizes make the former size 4 a size 2 to mess with women’s minds and maybe when Jane Fonda was the leader in fitness, I could understand the “pressure”. Maybe.
But now we know that magazines shape things up to make the models look better. (Sometimes they even airbrush limbs off on accident). Now we know that the average female is not going to look like something from Victoria’s Secret without working out 3 hours a day, every day, and eating minimally. And we know many guys who there who don’t even appreciate such a body type. We know all of this. And people are still very, very angry. You sound like feminists.
If you want to live your life making choices by whether or not a Victoria’s Secret model would do it, then that is your right. It is also your right to eat as you please, not exercise and deal with the ramifications of that. And every lifestyle in between.
My point here is that YOU are in control of YOU and a girl in lingerie shouldn’t irritate you, infuriate you or send you into a rant. If you’re comfortable with yourself, then it “ain’t no thang”. We claim that the media shouldn’t dictate aspects of our lives (political, monetary, etc.) What is the difference here? Why are people so intimidated by a company that historically portrays LINGERIE on skinny MODELS? You don’t have to watch it, you don’t have to buy it, and you don’t have to look like them.
For the record, if I looked like a Victoria’s Secret model…I’d walk around wearing wings, too.
My new favorite trolling place is the Planned Parenthood Facebook page. I stumbled upon it while I was cross-posting my blog on contraception last week and have been absolutely fascinated (read: shocked) by the vile and nasty things they post that are completely unrelated to the sexual health and preventative care agenda they claim to carry out (Surprise!). It’s more of place to bash conservative legislators and a safe haven for sexual preference discussion (and I’m not talking about preference of partners).
One of their recent posts implied that in order to be 100% American woman, you need to believe in options and (absolute) freedom of women’s reproductive health.
It seems to be a widely held notion by the left that access to free stuff is what makes America, America. Naturally, I was irritated by this logic, so I asked some folks from near and far, of different political affiliations, races and religions what being an American means to them. Here are a few of the responses:
“It means i among the luckiest people to have ever lived in the history of the planet.”
“Really soon, I think it will mean ‘a fight to the death’.”
“Being American, to me, means being free to earn one’s future through hard work, intellect, and a little bit of luck without having an overbearing government changing the rules every inning.”
“Well to me… being an American means being free. I know that sounds so generic, but there’s a reason that I don’t live in the Middle East. I want to have the ability to be with and love whomever I desire, practice whichever religion I feel drawn to or maybe practice no religion at all. In my opinion, part of being an American is accepting other people for who they are and who they aspire to be. I’m not saying that everyone lives by this principle, but I feel and hope that our country continues to grow into it. One of the things that I love about our country is the amount of diversity that is among us. And I believe that is what it means to be an American.”
“Being an American is being in an exceptional position that no other peoples in the history of Mankind have had the privilege. It is knowing that you are free. Free to succeed – or fail. Free to create – or not. Free to speak, think, interact, worship without suppression from any form of government.”
Interestingly enough…not one of those answers mentioned anything about reproductive health choices being a prerequisite for Americanism. I find it interesting that in a time when we are so divided, organizations are looking to ‘unite’ people over reproductive issues and claim a basis for being an American based on “freedoms” from consequences (abortion). Social issues in general need to be placed on the back burner while we work to revive our economy and restore our core principles that make America great. The last election is a prime example of misplaced priorities and a misunderstanding of Americanism. Before we can rebuild, it looks as if we need to re-teach 62,611,250 people (the number who voted for Obama) what it means to be an American.
This morning on CBS Sunday Morning, Bill Flanagan of MTV did a segment on the death of the Twinkie. (You can see the full clip here). These 3-minute commentaries leave me yelling, shouting and throwing things at the television almost every Sunday morning. The intensity of the ’tilt’ to the left is beyond my comprehension. Here is a small excerpt of the commentary:
“Is it possible in this noble Constitutional republic…corporate interests intent on breaking every last union have stooped so low as to cancel production of the Hostess Twinkie, the Devil Dog, and the Reindeer? Has Capitalism sunk this far? Will the President bail out Hostess as he did General Motors?…Who is the heartless corporate CEO who pulled the plug…”
At least he got the first sentence right…”Constitutional republic”…that we are. Aside from that, it really got me thinking…why do liberals hate success so much…but not celebrities?
Every where you turn, there is a shaming for success. Liberals hate pretty much all wealthy white men. They are blamed for most of the issues concerning American right now. They have stigmatized the “1%” because they have worked hard…and often times play hard. But why the disconnect?
Someone posted a picture of a Twinkie funeral on my Facebook page with the caption “The Truth Will Come Out. Unions: Hostess CEO received 300% raise before bankruptcy. Labor blasts ‘myth’ that union strike killed Twinkies” Then, in a back and forth, came to this: Somewhere, someone, decided that it’s not okay to be successful. Someone decided that it’s wrong for a CEO to make more money than a blue collar worker. Someone decided that we need unions to constantly challenge executives because they earn more. Someone decided that it’s not okay to have more money than someone else …but ONLY on the basis that they also don’t have that same large amount of money. And what’s more interesting is that they don’t want to be equal on a high earning scale, they want everyone to be equal on a low-earning scale. They want upper middle class and upper class people to be yanked down to their level.
But why are liberals so angry? It can’t be because conservatives don’t share their earnings. They do. It’s called a donation. (Here is the definition, since many liberals don’t understand the difference between a tax and a donation) There have been several articles describing the charitable giving on behalf of conservatives and it’s a known fact that liberals prefer the oh-so-trustworthy, ever-so great-at-handling-cash government to redistribute funds as opposed to nonprofits. In fact, research says wealthy AND red states are much more likely to donate to charity. Even the Huffington Post tried to twist conservative giving by unsuccessfully trying to claim that donations to churches don’t count. So what of it? If they’re sharing –just not with the government- why do liberals hate success? And why do they give a pass to the entertainment industry?
And why do they give a pass to the entertainment industry? Why don’t they go after their ‘own’? Take a look at someone of the wealthiest liberals:
Bill Gates $54 billion
Larry Ellison of Oracle $$27 billion
Michael Bloomberg $18 billion
Jeff Bezos of Amazon $12.6 billion
Anne Cox Chambers of Cox Enterprises $12.5 billion
George Soros- $14 billion
Barack Obama
Bill & Hilary Clinton
Not to mention the plethora of celebrities that endorsed the Democrat platform during the last election: 50 Cent, Lady Gaga, Ellen Degeneres, Will Ferrell, Brad Pitt, Vanessa Williams, Reese Witherspoon, Bill Cosby…here is the list of HUNDREDS of them.
Someone, please tell me why. Why are liberals shaming success? And why are they so forgetful of all the ‘success’ on their side when they’re criticizing and degrading successful conservatives? Who do they think is paying for all their dependency and entitlement programs? Why is it okay for Bill Cosby to rake in millions but not a CEO?
Have you ever thought about how incredibly exhausting it is to argue with a liberal? Besides the name-calling and the lack of logical reasoning, sometimes their irrationality can make it feel like you are the crazy one. But that’s simply not true. First, you have to strike the word ‘liberal’. The official definition of liberal is “Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded, lacking moral restraint.” While the ‘lacking moral restraint’ is correct, a more appropriate term is ‘progressive‘ (a very thorough definition). So, here are a few reasons why just listening to a progressive will make you go cuckoo.
10. They will tell you that everyone should be more tolerant, just not of God or Christianity.
Tolerance is defined as ‘a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one’s own.’ Ever been called a racist (see #7) or a bigot by a progressive? Their mantra is ‘tolerance with exceptions’. If you’re white or male or Christian, you are scum. In the 1960s, the atheists and the ACLU combined to convince the Supreme Court to ban both formal prayer and Bible reading from the public education process, then they took the 10 Commandments out of Courthouses while attacking the US Dollar and the Pledge of Allegiance. War on Women? How about the War on God.
9. They will tell you that you should join a union.
Yes, we see how well that worked out for GM, Chrysler, the Chicago Public School Children and Wisconsin. John Hawkins outlines why unions are bad for America here but he says they damage entire industries (true), they ruin public education (double-true), unions cost taxpayers billions (yes, also true), they are anti-democratic (couldn’t be truer) and they are bankrupting cities and states (yep, true too). Some also say that unions lead to unemployment. Instead of demanding collective bargaining rights, why don’t you try working hard, receiving raises and promotions because you earned them and have some personal responsibility. You may find out that you’re more reliable anyways.
8. They will tell you that corporations aren’t people.
And that is true. But who creates a corporation? Who runs a corporation? Who invests in a corporation? Who PROFITS from a corporation? Who gets in trouble when something goes wrong? That’s right, people do all of those things! So why should you tax a group of people different than one individual person? Please distinguish, my progressive counterparts. Back. Up. Your. Statements.
7. They will tell you that the Republican party is only rich, old, white men.
Allen West, Marco Rubio, Sarah Palin, Artur Davis, Nikki Haley, Clarence Thomas, Renee Armore, Janice Rogers Brown, Keith Butler, Jan Brewer, Herman Cain, Michele Bachman, James Weldon Johnson, Martin Luther King, Sr., Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Susanna Martinez, Mary Fallin, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowksi, Olympia Snowe. Shall I continue on?
How can progressives claim this is so when they are represented by people like Harry Reid, (formerly) TED KENNEDY, Bill Clinton, Mike Beebe, Jerry Brown and Andrew Cuomo (to name a few)? Instead of r-i-c-h, o-l-d, w-h-i-t-e, it should say h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e!
6. They will tell you that we should just open the borders and welcome everyone with open arms and a smile.
Please tell me what happens when you illegally cross the border of another country? Israel, Mexico, Iran? Russia? Canada? Shall we revisit the case of the hikers in Iran? Give me a break. Our current debt is over $16 trillion. Do we need to be responsible for more handout recipients? The short answer is ‘no’. If it’s that important to come to the United States, do so legally. There is not a valid argument that states otherwise.
5. They will tell you that there is a War on Women.
Abortion. Equal pay. Working outside the home. Progressives will try anything to say the GOP tactic is to keep women barefoot in the kitchen with a baby and a submissive attitude. Think again. Republican women are powerful, too. They just don’t wear pant suits.
4. They will tell you that gun control will make our communities safer. First things first: there should be NO restrictions on a 2nd amendment right guaranteed by the Constitution. But, since our government seems to be hell bent on ensuring we have as few rights as possible, let’s review why gun control won’t help. If someone shoots at me, I’m shooting back. If ‘legal’ gun owners are forced to surrender their guns, they will be sitting ducks for the ‘illegal’ gun owners. There will still be a black market for guns. It’s very simple and people have the right to protect themselves. Progressives just don’t think so. Georgia Tech campus ring a bell?
3. They will tell you that we can tax our way out of debt…and we must tax the rich the most!
They’ve got to share! Correct? NO. According to Mary Katherine Ham’s article in the Daily Caller, “The grand total of the combined net worth of every single one of America’s billionaires is roughly $1.3 trillion. It does indeed sound like a “ton of cash” until one considers that the 2011 deficit alone is $1.6 trillion. So, if the government were to simply confiscate the entire net worth of all of America’s billionaires, we’d still be $300 billion short of making up this year’s deficit.” And what about the notion that 60% of collected taxes come from the top 5%? This goes back to number 8. Yes, it’s true that some wealthy people are taxed at a lower rate, but they also pay taxes as a corporation, on investments and other earnings. They contribute significantly to our economy and the government black hole. Paul Ryan told Hardball in 2011, ‘several small businesses file as individuals. Small businesses are the largest source of employment in our country. If we taxed the “wealthy” any more, these companies would have to lay more people off and stop hiring. This would be disastrous for the middle class in our country.’ Need I say more?
2. They will tell you that Obamacare is not a tax increase.
This one is my favorite. Especially since the Supreme Court just ruled in June that it is, in fact, a tax. Oopsie daisy…now what do they say? It’ll save money in the long run. Everyone needs health care. WAKE UP, FOLKS. Healthcare and health insurance are two very different things. No one is owed anything in this world. All of this is besides the point because this is something people are being forced to pay in an effort to redistribute to those in need. That is a tax. (a tax is a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.) Ding ding. We have a winner. $788 billion isn’t going to just ‘appear’.
Another fun point to this argument is the notion that insurance companies support Obamacare. How about this whistle blower illustrating how much was spent lobbying AGAINST the healthcare bill. No private company wants this. Consider today’s news with Darden and employee hour cutbacks.
And the number one reason you can’t talk to a liberal… 1. They will tell you that George W. Bush is responsible for everything wrong in the world.
I will call a spade a spade. George W. did a lot of things wrong. A lot. I won’t get into specifics because this blog isn’t about him. It’s about what he didn’t do. He did not create the housing crisis single-handedly, he did not ring up more debt than all other previous presidents combined, he didn’t kill our soldiers and for the-love-of-pete, he did not make Hurricane Katrina happen.
So there you have it. Anytime you hear any of the above 10 phrases, it’s best to just walk away. Because you won’t win.
No really, they are. Okay, not ‘ugly’. Less feminine. Last week, UCLA released a study showing that the GOP has a more feminine face. Their findings seemed significant: “Female politicians with stereotypically feminine facial features are more likely to be Republican than Democrat, and the correlation increases the more conservative the lawmaker’s voting record,” said lead author Colleen M. Carpinella, a UCLA graduate student in psychology.
Did we really need a study to tell us that conservatives tend to be a bit more on the feminine side?
So why is this so? Upon my immediate desire to research this further, I was impressed by the plethora of results already on Google regarding this topic. Things like ‘Ugly Comments by Ugly Liberals, LiberalsAreHypocrites.com, and ‘Why are Liberals So Butt- Ugly?’ But I wanted to stick to liberal and conservative politicians and figureheads, not people who mouth off to stir controversy. Some people said it was because ‘conservatives have more wealth’. I thought that was funny. I had no idea Hilary and Bill were scraping for groceries or that Elena Kagan was receiving WIC benefits. Another ‘reasoner’ stated that liberals look the way they do to appeal to the people they want to vote for them. What? There really isn’t a ‘reason’ except that ‘people think so’. But that’s reason enough for me.
I’m going to go ahead and make my own associations here: class & femininity. I’ll also fully disclose that I am a bit old-fashioned. I like long hair, skirts and dresses and looking like a woman. I don’t know about you, but I haven’t spent any time around men who said “Man, did you see how good that chick looked in her pant suit?” Love ‘em or hate ‘em, you cannot deny the class that conservative women exude.
But you can’t tell me that you have to have a pixie hair cut, wear a pant suit and a pinkie ring to be powerful and successful. It sometimes seems like liberals get so hell-bent on being pro-choice, pro-equal pay, pro-free-birth-control, anti-objectivity feminists, that they forget to be feminine. They forget that they are actually women.
Would it kill you to put on a skirt or a shift dress? Would using a hair dryer and a curling iron mean you no longer believe in equality? A little blush? I don’t think so.
What happened to frilly tutu’s and tap shoes? When I was in dance classes, it was a big deal when I was allowed to wear a little blush and lipstick to my recital. Not anymore.
The TV Show, ‘Dance Moms’, which airs on Lifetime and has an outrageous-over-the-top instructor, had its’ contestants perform in nude bathing suits and perform a burlesque dance. The costumes consisted of a shirt that made it appear as if the girl had no clothing on top and bathing suit bottoms. They were instructed to “act like men can’t afford them” while dancing in a sexually suggestive manner. Some of the girls were as young as 8.
Before we move on, let’s review the definition of burlesque: “an artistic composition, especially literary or dramatic, that, for the sake of laughter, vulgarizes lofty material or treats ordinary material with mock dignity; striptease acts, and a scantily clad female chorus”.
I have a hard time believing that most parents, regardless of the age of their child, would be proud or would encourage burlesque dancing for a female. (Hold your breath, here comes a bit of feminism…)Burlesque is objectifies, demoralizes and lacks class. Now apply those concepts to children!! It’s true that the parents in these cases are just as guilty as the teacher. But no parent stormed out and Lifetime-a network that is dedicated to empowering women- thought it was okay to film and air.
And they wonder why CHILDREN are becoming sexually promiscuous, demanding birth control for free and are upset when they are called ‘sluts’. Our society is a mess.
“Children are great imitators. So give them something great to imitate. ~Anonymous
————————————————————————————————————————————–
**I chose not to post pictures or a video. Even with “nude-colored tops” and bathing suit bottoms, it is exploitation. There are some sick people out there and this is just breeding that kind of behavior. If you need proof that this took place, it’s all over Google.
What a fabulous story: The Little Red Hen plants, reaps, and carries the wheat as everyone sits around watching and unwilling to help. When it is time to sow, turn the flour into dough and bake it, still-no one offers to help. But when the bread is warm and ready, EVERY ONE is willing to come join and enjoy the feast. Sound familiar?
How about the 47% of Americans who don’t pay income taxes? Many of them contribute NOTHING to the government money pit and reap significant benefits. They wait for the 53% to plant, water, reap, carry, transform and bake. They expect the wheat to be morphed into warm bread and then they are willing to help consume! Much like when those dependent on social services watch as entrepreneurs, business persons and blue collar workers alike work tirelessly day in and day out to support themselves and their families. They form companies, establish business relationships and are the powerhouses of the private sector. 53% have to cook the bread but are forced to feed the remaining 46%. My favorite part of the story? When the hen says, “NO! I’ll eat it all myself”. I wish that would happen here on a larger scale.
Why do I have to share my bread? I grew my own wheat! What happened to ‘every man for himself’? When did we become victims of a nanny state and country full of people who cannot manage for themselves?
Maybe a simple story of capitalism, such as this, would make it easier for people to understand. It’s certainly better and more informative than ‘The Lorax’ or ‘Dear President Obama: Letters from Children Across America’. The Little Red Hen is a fantastic analogy to the foundations of our country and economic system. The only difference is that now we aren’t allowed to hoard our own bread. We have to give upwards of 30% of it away.
Conservatives and proponents of Capitalism should push harder to distribute this book. I want to see it in all preschools and elementary schools across the country. I’ve got a copy! Maybe I can volunteer to read it at the next Democratic National Convention? Can I get an Amen??
I was reading an article on the Huffington Post about what parents owe their children and it was just joyful! With a failing economy and high unemployment, it seems that many college graduates are forced to move back home. The article discussed the intense pressure a lot of parents feel to pay for their children’s college, graduate school, cars, weddings and home down payments. Like I’ve said before, the comments on the articles are more discouraging than the actual article because the views of readers really shine through.
Here are some of the more disturbing comments:
“I will owe my kid everything. A baby doesn’t ask to be brought into this world. Why would anyone? Except for a privileged few, the mass of men live lives of quiet desperation. Parents force life upon their kids. It’s their duty to ensure the quality and happiness of that life. Whether my child goes to medical school or ends up living their life in an institution for the mentally challenged, I can and will gladly pay in full for it. It’s not a question of who owes what to whom. It’s a question of taking responsibility for one’s actions. Procreation is MY action. I can choose abstinence. I can choose birth control. I can choose abortion. Creating life is my decision – not my child’s, not society’s. Why should anyone else foot the bill for it?”
“Parents who love their children give their children as much help as they can. If your parents don’t help you, please Google: Ultra Emapthy. The very first Google listing is mine. Become part of a family where people help each other. Michael”
“Parents don’t think they “owe” their kids? Fine. Then kids don’t “owe” their parents seeing their grand kids ever. Parents don’t think they “owe” their kids? Fine. Then kids don’t owe their parents when they’re adults finding them hospice, or Senior Citizens homes, or taking them in if some how they can’t manage. Parents don’t think they “owe” their kids? Fine. Then kids don’t owe their elderly parents any concern if mom and dad get duped by scammers who pray on seniors. They’ve got their own financial worries. Parents don’t think they “owe” their kids anything? Fine. Then when parents die the kid can just as easily demand the state bury their parents at state expense. Kids don’t “owe” parents burial. Parents think they don’t “owe” their adult children anything? Well they should’ve thought of that before they had kids. Your kids don’t stop being your kids just because they’re 30 or 40.”
What the?? Most right-minded people don’t believe anyone should foot the bill for anyone else. They simply want PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Do you really need that iPhone? Or that Louis Vuitton bag? How do you feel good about purchases like that when you can’t afford rent, utilities or school?
Nowadays, “children” can stay on insurance plans until they’re 26…that’s EIGHT YEARS PAST ADULTHOOD!! And whether you want to or not, when you apply for graduate schools, your parents incomes and credit is factored in when determining financial aid and student loans. We as a society don’t encourage self-reliance…we encourage dependence. And it starts way too young.
When will my generation learn that you can do it all? When will people stop being so lazy and work their way through school and stop relying on mommy and daddy? When will social programs stop reinforcing gifts and entitlements? It circles back to the notion that people my age think they are above bagging groceries or working at Five Guys to make ends meet. They would rather move home and collect unemployment than work a job they are overqualified for.It’s one thing to be in transition or to be getting started. But getting on your feet doesn’t take 5 years on mom and pops dime! I can assure you that when the recession is over, you will still be behind the people who worked their asses off to keep the train moving.
