lady comic readers. do you guys run into this problem a lot?
- Thread starter Jak
- Start date
I hope this is some kind of social satire based on the economy making it hard for parents to stay at home to raise children.
What you are suggesting sounds like the state should pay for all of this considering it would only benefit them by producting workers. This does not benefit parents at all if they are going to have their children grown in labs by the state, cared for by strangers and then shipped off to school. These would not be children. They would be little more than worker bee drones being moulded by the government. Therefore, the government should pay, not the parents.
This sort of idea was proposed in novels like Brave New world and Orwell's 1984. What you're suggesting seems quite damaging to babies and children. It is scientifically proven that a foetus gains more than just nutrition in utero. It forms a bond with its mother. To grow a foetus in a sterile environment like a machine would take away that bond.
The closest example I can think of to this in the modern world would be premature babies. They're taken out of their mother early and effectively grown in incubators, fed via a feeding tube and have little human contact. Studies have shown that premature babies do have attachment and trust issues, even into childhood and adulthood as a result of this.
And what about the moral and eithical concerns of mass producing humans in a lab environment? It devalues human life.
As for implanting an embryo into a man...it would kill him. The male body is not made for pregnancy for birth. Even if they implanted an embryo into the abdominal cavity and the embryo established a blood supply from the male, it would kill him. This has happened to women where the fertilized egg has slipped through the falopian tubes and found its way into the abdominal cavity. The pregnancies ended in the death of the foetus and the mother.
Society doesn't have time for babies anymore. It's very hard to earn enough to run a household without two wages these days. However, seeing parents a little is much better than being raised by a bunch of strangers forever. It's not that parents don't want to see their children (they wouldn't be having them if that was the case). It's just that society makes it very hard to have a family and earn enough to keep that family.So parents have to spend a lot of time at work.
Letting a child be raised by strangers all the time with no parental contact is a bad idea.
You just end up with children with attachment and behavioural problems due to not being with parents. Have you seen orphanages...children there have hardly any hugging or loving contact. It messes up a child for life.
This is also not a good idea. A lot of adults say that school was the worst time of their lives. Some people are even permenantly psychologically damaged by school, especially if they were sent to boarding school. Those places are harsh and cruel, full of bullying, and have turned out some pretty messed up people.
I'm wondering, do these children have a choice as to which job they have? Or are they forced into a specific traning?
Children should have the option of being taught in a classroom if they are academically able. If they are not, then they should apply for a vocational course of their choosing.
Like I said earlier, what you are proposing benefits neither children or parents. It sounds like a scheme from Orwell's 1984 where the party ran peoples lives and made people have babies out of duty for the country, not love. If that is the kind of world you think people should raise children in, then I think a lot of people would ask to be sterlized to spare their future children from this kind of terrible existence.
Wait, hold on.
I said that this should be optional. I also meant that that all of this should be privately paid for. It's no different than having a sitter or an after-school program; the only difference being, that it lasts for as long as the parents are able to pay for it.
A year-round 'summer camp' isn't such a bad idea. Especially if it's modeled after the Jedi Academy.
http://www.techeblog.com/index.php/tech-gadget/real-life-star-wars-jedi-academy-opens-in-new-york
None of this should be mandatory or run by the government. None of it.
I also said that this could also be affordable if we had a better economy and the prices were reasonable. You could choose not to do it, but you could also afford to do so if that's what you think is best.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.malepregnancy.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
And as for the "Sanctity of Life"--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
You gotta admit, the man has a point.
I'm not saying that we're completely worthless, I'm just saying that we might be placing a little too much value in ourselves.
Especially since, our base primordial survival mechanisms overdrive everything else.
I said that this should be optional. I also meant that that all of this should be privately paid for. It's no different than having a sitter or an after-school program; the only difference being, that it lasts for as long as the parents are able to pay for it.
A year-round 'summer camp' isn't such a bad idea. Especially if it's modeled after the Jedi Academy.
http://www.techeblog.com/index.php/tech-gadget/real-life-star-wars-jedi-academy-opens-in-new-york
None of this should be mandatory or run by the government. None of it.
I also said that this could also be affordable if we had a better economy and the prices were reasonable. You could choose not to do it, but you could also afford to do so if that's what you think is best.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.malepregnancy.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
And as for the "Sanctity of Life"--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
You gotta admit, the man has a point.
I'm not saying that we're completely worthless, I'm just saying that we might be placing a little too much value in ourselves.
Especially since, our base primordial survival mechanisms overdrive everything else.
But what you are proposing is a program which benefits the government, not the parents and not the children. Therefore, parents should not pay for it. What kind of parent would want their child grown in a machine, raised by strangers as an infant, sent off to boarding school....that's over 18 years of their child's life that they have not been a part of. The child might as well be a stranger. The only benefit a program like this has is for the government, and I do not see parents endorsing an idea like that at all.
Even if this was optional, then it would create children who had the benefit of being with their parents, being grown naturally, VS the children grown by a machine and deprived of basic human needs like parental love and affection.
Have you read the Harlow studies? They took monkeys from their mothers at birth and gave them a mother substitutes. One had soft cloth, the other food. The baby monkeys always wanted the cloth mother substitute, even if there was no food there.
Now imagine taking a human child from its mother. Sure, you give it the basics, food, shelter and education, but you will be left with a very messed up individual who has never know parental affection. It's highly detrimental to the bonding and attachment process to take babies away from their parents, let alone grow them in a machine.
Wait... so are you for or against the government paying for us? (medicare, food stamps, etc.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit:
In my humble opinion, a school that lasts all day (or maybe even lets the child go home at the very end of it to not interfere with their work schedules) wouldn't necessarily benefit the government.
It would give the parents free time, and would allow more study time for the child as well.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And if you don't like that idea, how about this?
Home school. Have the certified (by the parents association in that town) teachers go and teach at the children's residences instead?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or, have the stay-at-home parents teach the children instead of banging the PC repair guy (or girl)? :troll:
Joking of course. Nothing wrong with staying at home.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This way, nothing interferes with the parents' career building (whether it's at work or at home) or professional interests (like art, for instance).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit:
In my humble opinion, a school that lasts all day (or maybe even lets the child go home at the very end of it to not interfere with their work schedules) wouldn't necessarily benefit the government.
It would give the parents free time, and would allow more study time for the child as well.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And if you don't like that idea, how about this?
Home school. Have the certified (by the parents association in that town) teachers go and teach at the children's residences instead?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or, have the stay-at-home parents teach the children instead of banging the PC repair guy (or girl)? :troll:
Joking of course. Nothing wrong with staying at home.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This way, nothing interferes with the parents' career building (whether it's at work or at home) or professional interests (like art, for instance).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't live in America, so I have no opinion on that. I was simply saying that the program you are suggesting involves so much government interference that they should pay.
I am also curious to know what you thought of my response to your idea about growing children artificially and then rearing them without their parents.
[/quote]
How about this: Why do people go to school? Modern society needs educated workers. Education is not for the benefit of children, but for society. We are forced to go to school, there are laws in place where I live to put parents in prison if children do not attend classes. As other people have pointed out, school is like an indoctrination camp. Our day is planned for us, scheduled, forced to sit still for hours on end and learn things that we do not want to learn. Very few children actually like school.
A school which lasts all day would benefit the government because it give the parents more time to work for them, more productivity, and it further separates parents from their children so that the children can be moulded to whatever the government wants them to be.
As for home schooling, either way you slice it, both parent and child lose.The only winner is the state.
The alternative to this is to go back to a time where children worked instead of learned. I can't decide which is worse.
Well... in my opinion, as long as there is at least one responsible individual (parent or no) available to raise each child (privately, within their own home), then I don't see a problem.
Well, I had another option in mind, but chances are, you probably won't like that either.
Complete anarchy (or enhanced libertarianism). Nomadic life. Or mass rule, whatever you want to call it.
I like to call it, complete (but harsh) independence.
The children form gangs and fend for themselves through hunting, building their own wilderness shelters, and basically just fending for themselves.
Whether or not they choose to be nomadic is entirely up to the group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know what you're thinking.
It's too dangerous.
Well, I think that's the only solution that could really work outside of parental and government control.
Just let them fend for themselves.
Yes, a lot of them will die from the numerous perils of the wilderness. But that's life. A person can take care of another for only so long before it's time for that person to take care of themselves.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok Loopy. Let it all out. I'm out of ideas and I'm hungry, so I'm gonna go eat and live my socialist life because deep down, I'm a lazy bum who's also a hypocrite.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please be gentle... no...? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do however, like the fact that you don't like the idea of overbearing control.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Way to dodge the bullet there, loopster.
"1984 WASN'T MEANT TO BE AN INSTRUCTION MANUAL."
When you said raising children with carers, I had this image of child care en mass in some kind of huge facility with no access to parents because they were busy working. Especially since you coupled it with growing children artificially.
I think if children are cared for in their own home, and are allowed to see their parents every day, then I would be okay with that. But I am still wary of growing children artifically. There are too many dangers that we do not know about yet, and we would only find out when these artifically grown babies are adults. By then it would be too late. We would have ruined lived.
However, if it could be proven that children could be grown with no negative physical or phsychological problems, then I would be okay with that so long as it was used for people would could not carry a baby naturally due to health problems.
So, this is as an alternative to parents raising children?
Where are the parents while the children are in gangs? Are the parents in the city working? If so, then how are these wild children going to adapt to getting a job when they are adults? There would be a small chance of success making a wild child in to an acceptable member of the work force.
It is dangerous, especially if they are left to survive by themselves. How old are these children? 6, 10? And do you mean they are raised in society until they reach, say 10 years old, and then thrown into the wildreness until they turn 20 and are old enough to get a job?
My concerns would be:
- Dead children, waste of life.
- How would you train a feral child to function in society if they have no education? That is assuming that they will be returning to society as adults.
Have fun eating.^_^ As for hypocrite, I think everyone is like that on some level.Ok Loopy. Let it all out. I'm out of ideas and I'm hungry, so I'm gonna go eat and live my socialist life because deep down, I'm a lazy bum who's also a hypocrite.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do however, like the fact that you don't like the idea of overbearing control. I hate control and pretty much will do whatever it takes to fight against it. Even if it means being a total douche. :troll:
I think there's a fine line between government controling people and government involving themselves in peoples lives to ensure healthy and educated people. But there's no way I would live in a place like Orwell's 1984 or Huxley's Brave New World books. They treat people like slaves, devalue human life and take away all free will, deciding a persons future before they are even born. A world like that is not worth living in.
Personally, I think we're already in 1984 (which is why I moved out of the U.S.), but to each their own.
Anyway, I only suggested the wilderness option because children can't be homeless in the city (I mean they can, but their lives are really screwed if that happens), so, they live in the wild.
Here's the thing. At age 14 (I think) Native Americans would teach their children how to survive in the desert (or whatever forest nearby) with nothing but a knife.
I'm thinking, if certain children have problems with their abusive parents, they have the option of running away and being able to take care of themselves.
All of these solutions I presented above are just ways to see if there's any way to achieve independence, whether inside or outside the city.
And I ordered my food, it'll be here soon.
Anyway, I only suggested the wilderness option because children can't be homeless in the city (I mean they can, but their lives are really screwed if that happens), so, they live in the wild.
Here's the thing. At age 14 (I think) Native Americans would teach their children how to survive in the desert (or whatever forest nearby) with nothing but a knife.
I'm thinking, if certain children have problems with their abusive parents, they have the option of running away and being able to take care of themselves.
All of these solutions I presented above are just ways to see if there's any way to achieve independence, whether inside or outside the city.
And I ordered my food, it'll be here soon.
UK has too many security cameras, like the 1984 big brother is watching you idea. But we haven't yet got to the stage where people are told to have children for the sake of the government. The again, I don't think people need to be forced to have children when there are so many adverts and women's magazines glorifying babies and motherhood, making it out to be a magical experience when the reality is post natal depression and misery.
The Native American idea would be all well and good if we lived in a society that lived off the land and survived in the wild. But modern society has no need for children to prove themselves in the wilderness. Children prove themselves in school tests.
I wonder what is worse: Abusive parents who could kill you...or living in the wilderness which could also kill you. It is a losing situation. Either way, a child might end up dead.
It is very hard to live outside society. It is dangerous and deadly. Plus it would take ages to undo all of the societal conditioning. People can't live without phones, computers and internet. And what about medicine and health care. It would be a very short life in the wilderness.
There's no easy solution to any of it. Any option is fraught with moral and eithical dilemas.
Reminds me of what Dr. Manhattan said about mankind.
-paraphrased-
I really applaud you.
I think that's why Feminism exists today.To give women rights,not to have power over men,but over themselves.
In fact,as a movie producer said : "Women are people too"
When I tried to make myself a boyfriend,he felt uncomfortable because I happened to know a lot of things that he didn't know.
So,I tried to restrain myself a little so I won't make him feel this way again,but I simply felt like I wasn't true to myself,because I loved having a smart conversation and talk about a lot of things but he told me that he doesn't search for a girl smarter than him,and then was when I realised that usually men are searching for beautiful women and only this,no brain,no personality,just beauty and someone they can feel superior to,and some are even way too dominating,and this is bad.
And this one,was told to me by my dad,a man,because he knows how it is and I felt like it was this way too.
Why can't there exist equality? More than this,respect between people not because of their anatomy,gender,sexuality and so on,but for who they are.
The anatomy of someone shouldn't define them for who they truly are inside.
I actually want a smart (but still reasonably attractive-- yes, I know, I'm pure scum) woman who knows what she's talking about.
The "less smart" ones (yes, even the pretty ones) are beyond boring. I'd rather stick a fork through my eye.
Presumably you are making some sort of sweeping generalisation there, yes?
I actually want a smart (but still reasonably attractive-- yes, I know, I'm pure scum) woman who knows what she's talking about.
The "less smart" ones (yes, even the pretty ones) are beyond boring. I'd rather stick a fork through my eye.
http://persona4.wikia.com/wiki/Naoto_Shirogane
http://ouran.wikia.com/wiki/Haruhi_Fujioka?file=Episode2-06.png
Reverse traps are so awesome.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=reverse trap
Then it means guys like you are rare.I've only seen dumb ones,and the smart ones were either at a long distance from me,either too old,either had a girlfriend.What's life..
I don't say to be good-looking means nothing,because it does,a well-kept person is a respected one.But if there's nothing in your head,you don't do much with that beauty,because it fades.:/ And of course,you will only be considered a 'pretty face' and only this,not respected for how much you've done but only looked as a 'lucky person'.
In fact,I love to take care of how I look and how I dress,but I don't wanna be considered only a pretty face,I'd feel truly generalized and random.
When I see girls from my neighbourhood spending 3-4 hours only to do their hair and make-up I'm really like: What do you do with your life? Your life consists only of that? You can't fake who you are even with tons of make up and jewerly.:lol:
I'd like to think,the simple,the modest. Sure,I have nothing against those persons,but they put price on their appereance more than anything else in life,and it's not that good because they live with their mommy and daddy who gives them money,but I'm curious how they'll live once they will be on their own,since they're not that smart.But I guess they'll find some douchebag with a lot of money in searching for a Barbie doll to make himself look good in front of his other douchebag friends. Some kind of "Jersey Shore'' .
Ohh,Persona 4 and Ouran good good.I like them,even though I didn't watch so many episodes from Ouran I know what it is about.
And thanks for that.New stuff in my english vocabulary.
(I actually reversed roles for fun as well with my friends xD)
Indeed. I am a rare breed.
I am the first to admit that I am very shallow and vain, but I also know that no matter how much we try, our looks will all eventually fade. These people will only be "lucky" for so long. Once their luck runs out (and it will), they'll be screwed beyond recognition.
I'll admit it... I try to, sometimes. Whenever I see someone I admire, I attempt to act like them sometimes.
You could consider it fake, but that doesn't mean that I can't incorporate some of their better traits into my own personality (a drive to exercise more and fight better from an underdog victim of bullying (Karate Kid), for example)
That's probably the best way to live life. But little things get in the way (internet, music, movies, etc.). One can easily become distracted and complicate their lives this way. It's important to focus on your own simplicity and be satisfied with what you have.
Hm... I know what you mean. But it's so easy for these people to live the easy life because it's so attractive. But no matter. It'll only hurt them in the end, so everything works out for the best, eventually.
Yeah, but then the douchebag will just leave her for another Barbie Doll eventually. Happens all the time. See? I told you these people eventually get what they deserve.
They're both extremely good shows, with positive role models as well. I don't watch a lot of anime, but when I find one I like, I obsess over it like nothing else.
Anytime.
Reverse roles?
You mean, you're kind of a tomboy as well? That's good to hear. The world needs more women willing to act less... helpless, and take more of an initiative when it comes to dealing with their own lives.
Whether improving one's strength, intelligence, or both, it's important to improve oneself on a regular basis.
Naturally - I have been on both sides with each of my children. But I could never state that parenthood is just misery and postnatal depression
If you contrast those adverts of perfect happy baby, no crying and mother looking beautiful, young and relaxed with what I have seen, then the adverts do seem like they are selling a lie. I really don't think they should have those kind of adverts on TV anyway consiering how one of my friends actually cited one of the adverts for why she felt so miserable.>_<
I know this is anecdotal, but the only information I have on what it's like to be parents comes from my friends who have them.
I have too many friends with children who keep telling me not to have them because it's too hard. One friend cried down the phone saying it was the biggest mistake she ever made.I really hope her child doesn't hear her say that.
I'm like the go to friend for venting about how terrible parenthood is. It mostly seems to be my female friends who are so overwhelmed and upset.
Then there's the friend with the 6 month old who suddenly left her husband and began to hate him for allegedly talking her into having a baby. She's been diagnosed with depression and hardly leaves the house. She's not wanting anyone to visit her right now. It's quite worrying.
It also doesn't help that one of my friends announced they are getting divorced. It's so sudden. The reason was he couldn't cope with their child anymore. I thought they were doing great, but obviously there were things going on that I wasn't aware of. I just hope they can stay friends for the sake of their son.
Maybe if I saw some happy parents it would make me think differently, but my friends with babies and toddlers are either depressed, suddenly getting divorced, or regretting what they have done.
All I can suggest is maybe my friends are just going through a very rough few months or something. I'm hoping for their sakes and their childrens that parenthood does turn out to be a wonderful experience for them. But I'm just not seeing that right now...:/ It's hard to think that parenthood is an enriching experience when people around you are telling you the opposite.