Originally posted by barrydidit
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
What the f**K???
Collapse
X
-
-
for someone who calls out sexism against women all the time on here you're pretty dumb with your male generalisationsOriginally posted by SueEllen View PostIt's the norm with boys/young men.
What the media are now showing is girls/young women are just as mean.Comment
-
Probably true. The extended family provides a lot of care and it's reasonable for the state to assist them with that. Morally right and economic sense. The immediate family provides even more care.Originally posted by SueEllen View PostYou actually want extended families so when there is illness, disability, death or whatever people take up the challenge rather than expecting the state to look after their parent or other relation. In encouraging that you also get people looking after their neighbours.
Some of the kids who end up in foster care do so because there is no relation, neighbour or family friend to look after them due to their parent being ill or dead. Others you don't tend to hear about have escaped it simply because they have got this.
I realize that not everyone has a family, or a capable one. But all people had 2 parents, and the state should focus more on promoting and encouraging the nuclear (and thereby the extended) family. Unfortunately, the Left spent 40 years ('65 to about '05) denigrating the family, mistaking it for an "oppressive" or "patriarchal" structure, when in fact it is key to the human condition and is the solution to many social problems.Comment
-
These days both parents often have to work to pay the bills. Could this have a negative impact on raising kids?Originally posted by unixman View PostProbably true. The extended family provides a lot of care and it's reasonable for the state to assist them with that. Morally right and economic sense. The immediate family provides even more care.
I realize that not everyone has a family, or a capable one. But all people had 2 parents, and the state should focus more on promoting and encouraging the nuclear (and thereby the extended) family. Unfortunately, the Left spent 40 years ('65 to about '05) denigrating the family, mistaking it for an "oppressive" or "patriarchal" structure, when in fact it is key to the human condition and is the solution to many social problems.Comment
-
Two words... income shiftingOriginally posted by PurpleGorilla View PostThese days both parents often have to work to pay the bills. Could this have a negative impact on raising kids?
Comment
-
Those parents have chosen to have a number of children that requires them both to work. That will make their lives more difficult and enable them to spend less time with their children. In their position I would have chosen to have fewer children, or tolerate a materially poorer life style. However, it is their choice and they are free to make it.Originally posted by PurpleGorilla View PostThese days both parents often have to work to pay the bills. Could this have a negative impact on raising kids?
The default expectation that many parents will both work is an indicator of the way society regards the nuclear family.Comment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers

Comment