Heh - s'alright, MisterE, I've called off the posse...
Seriously, thanks for replying to our concerns here. I'm entirely assured that when all's said, we have a lot of basic agreement.
To widen the debate, I know the reason MisterE's comment about mothers being allowed to work (since qualified by his later comments - can we settle on 'where possible children should be raised by their parents'?) is that in darker moments, I fear that in less stable times to come, puritan and repressive or fundamentalist views may gain popularity and some of the equalities only recently won by many sections of society may be rolled back without the option.
Of course it can be argued and with reason that some 'equalities' have brought more problems than they have solved.
(And, MisterE, I'm not picking a fight with you, OK?)
So I just have a few triggers about that... and I worry, sometimes. But mostly, I plan. (My OH is PO-aware but finds it hard to think about, so leaves the prep to me. He says 'How can you deal with all that worrying? and I say, 'I don't worry. I plan.')
Recession
Moderator: Peak Moderation
-
tattercoats
- Posts: 433
- Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
- Location: Wiltshire
- Contact:
Green, political and narrative songs - contemporary folk from an award-winning songwriter and performer. Now booking 2011. Talis Kimberley ~ www.talis.net ~ also Bandcamp, FB etc...
Thank god I could hear the ground shake with those horses, hell of a posse 
. Seriously though, I can defo settle on that. Lately probably due to working 14hours a day at the moment on renovation been over tired when posting and struggling to get the words out in the best manner. That said when tired, I tend to speak more open as if to friends.
Rofl hey if us lot cant discuss complex close to the heart grey issues then we really are lost God knows what the next years will bring I just think people in the past of both sexes were more prepared for hardship - how strange is that. I guess I look at their systems and take what I can from it . Nonetheless all vaild points, who know what roles we will play in the future
. Seriously though, I can defo settle on that. Lately probably due to working 14hours a day at the moment on renovation been over tired when posting and struggling to get the words out in the best manner. That said when tired, I tend to speak more open as if to friends. Rofl hey if us lot cant discuss complex close to the heart grey issues then we really are lost
God knows what the next years will bring I just think people in the past of both sexes were more prepared for hardship - how strange is that. I guess I look at their systems and take what I can from it . Nonetheless all vaild points, who know what roles we will play in the future "I'd put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don't have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that." — Thomas Edison, 1931
-
mikepepler
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3096
- Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
- Location: Rye, UK
- Contact:
The thing I've always wondered about is did the following happen:
- at the start, only one adult in most families earned.
- in some families, both adults started to earn.
- the extra cash allowed the families to buy bigger houses, spend more, etc.
- inflation of prices for certain things picked up.
- families with only one earning adult began to feel short of cash, either in real terms, or just in comparison to their neighbours with two earning adults.
- in the end, most families need to have two adults earning just to afford what they feel is essential in life.
What do you think? True or false, or much more complicated than that?
- at the start, only one adult in most families earned.
- in some families, both adults started to earn.
- the extra cash allowed the families to buy bigger houses, spend more, etc.
- inflation of prices for certain things picked up.
- families with only one earning adult began to feel short of cash, either in real terms, or just in comparison to their neighbours with two earning adults.
- in the end, most families need to have two adults earning just to afford what they feel is essential in life.
What do you think? True or false, or much more complicated than that?
Removing personal feelings about the sexes and talking ?on average? ie exceptions ignored, it sort of went along like this from the dawn of time.
Women worked far more than men. The reason for this is that women can out work men in fields and at many other tasks by a great deal. For a man to do the same amount of work as a women would most certainly kill him.
Women whilst working were also not seen as objects of beauty. Hence why prostitution is certainly not the oldest trade in town. In fact many mothers would request travellers to have sex with their daughters to get them preggers. Likewise virgins were looked down on, as if there was something wrong with them.
Whilst women worked they often had their children with them or took it in shifts to watch them. Rudimentary schools eventually spawned up from this. Plus elders would look after children. It was seen that children needed lots of training, care and attention until around 6yrs old.
This continued for many century?s. Eventually as more wealth came and civilisations grew. Women became the object of beauty. No insult intended but it?s a lot like the Edwardians and Victorians keeping a dog in splendour to show how wealthy they are ie they can keep this dog better fed, cleaner, beautified than a commoner ? hence they must be very rich.
So the old civilisations, all got into the beautification of women ? and why not I might add as they do scrub up well unlike us men Hence some, more like the very few, did not work manually. This was then echoed over time through the classes. Also throughout this period it was considered normal to start a family with your brother or sister to try and keep wealth in the family.
Over more time the ideal of women being beautiful and a mother who built a home filtered more and more into the classes. By the time we get to the last 200 years not only have we stopped eating the dead, but those with a bit of coin their women raised the children and made a home. Again though, with no modern gear you?d have to ask would you rather be in the field than have 6 kids etc. Through this came the industrial revolution and hence work was more physical than long hours. It really was the dawn of man as the worker. This pushed more women into the home as homemakers, until the war when women single handily saved this country by working non stop making every kind of item for the war effort whilst their men fought.
When the war ended everything was fubar. Prior to the war men worked women raised family. The men were all discombobulated, if fact society needed help to fall back into a system hence the Archers was spawned and soaps have been telling us what is normal ever since.
Time passes and women kick off because they want rights etc. They get them and not a lot changes most still raise a family and have a very strong drive that this is their role. The country is more or less run with men in work and there are plenty of jobs and opportunity, less crime, lots of respect, empty roads etc. One income can support a big family. Women gradually go into work, and this alters the market. Initially it is great because the money is ?extra? and it instantly could push you to middle class. Then during the Thatcher era, things changed. Thatcher told her close allays that she could get the whole country working, regardless of family bonds, could break down the person to an individual and have them competing with each other for less money and lots more tax for us and all they will want from me is a home, a car and one holiday a year and they?ll do anything. The loadsamoney was born and sharing your bread and milk with neighbours ended along with (after her time) not even knowing your neighbours. The women was a god damn genius, sadly towards their ends though and not ours.
Life went on like that and institutions got stronger mainly the media, corporations and schools. Choice was the new thing. If you wanted a can of pepsi at 2am its there for you. Likewise getting a degree became the normal and a massive money spinner along with high status, vocational training was viewed poorly and hence suffered. The last ten years seen a massive female work force this extra income was clearly their for the taking and the corporations did their thing best, house prices rose simply because people could pay lots more for them. When this extra income was finally tapped. It was then tweaked by pushing debt onto people, have now and pay for it later. People found this easy to cope with as one wage could go to paying off debt. In many respects it was a good trade, you get a better standard of living for you and your family ?now? and pay it off from the future.
This has now become a necessity for many. Both parties need to work to get on the property ladder. Hence the focus on work has now become the most important element of life. There is no extra income as such hence debt is now a tool of modern day survival. The corporations still try to tap every penny, and now that debt has peaked and the female worker has peaked for the government a new worker (cough tax payer) is needed. Crime is rife due to the focus on work and not family, the roads are crazy, homes are out of reach for our children and government does not exist only fat cats.
As you can see there is no right or wrong, just roles that we play. Many people get peed off when the topic of women and work is talked about, yet they don?t even realise that women played more of a role in work than men. Honest ? make the world turn ? type of work is never easy and seldom praised. Only the made up normally man type fat cat jobs are lol. I think both sexes working has been the downfall of this country in every possible way.
In a nutshell Mike your spot on. But what we have to remember is our beliefs are just a speck of sand on a beach if we put them into a time frame. Women have worked much more than men and for the best part of that beach were the main workers who did the real jobs so we could have law, philosophy, doctors, politicians etc. But in these modern times if we think of work in terms of resources being harvested then by creating a two partner workforce then effectively we just doubled our population and created a consumering monster.
Women worked far more than men. The reason for this is that women can out work men in fields and at many other tasks by a great deal. For a man to do the same amount of work as a women would most certainly kill him.
Women whilst working were also not seen as objects of beauty. Hence why prostitution is certainly not the oldest trade in town. In fact many mothers would request travellers to have sex with their daughters to get them preggers. Likewise virgins were looked down on, as if there was something wrong with them.
Whilst women worked they often had their children with them or took it in shifts to watch them. Rudimentary schools eventually spawned up from this. Plus elders would look after children. It was seen that children needed lots of training, care and attention until around 6yrs old.
This continued for many century?s. Eventually as more wealth came and civilisations grew. Women became the object of beauty. No insult intended but it?s a lot like the Edwardians and Victorians keeping a dog in splendour to show how wealthy they are ie they can keep this dog better fed, cleaner, beautified than a commoner ? hence they must be very rich.
So the old civilisations, all got into the beautification of women ? and why not I might add as they do scrub up well unlike us men
Hence some, more like the very few, did not work manually. This was then echoed over time through the classes. Also throughout this period it was considered normal to start a family with your brother or sister to try and keep wealth in the family.Over more time the ideal of women being beautiful and a mother who built a home filtered more and more into the classes. By the time we get to the last 200 years not only have we stopped eating the dead, but those with a bit of coin their women raised the children and made a home. Again though, with no modern gear you?d have to ask would you rather be in the field than have 6 kids etc. Through this came the industrial revolution and hence work was more physical than long hours. It really was the dawn of man as the worker. This pushed more women into the home as homemakers, until the war when women single handily saved this country by working non stop making every kind of item for the war effort whilst their men fought.
When the war ended everything was fubar. Prior to the war men worked women raised family. The men were all discombobulated, if fact society needed help to fall back into a system hence the Archers was spawned and soaps have been telling us what is normal ever since.
Time passes and women kick off because they want rights etc. They get them and not a lot changes most still raise a family and have a very strong drive that this is their role. The country is more or less run with men in work and there are plenty of jobs and opportunity, less crime, lots of respect, empty roads etc. One income can support a big family. Women gradually go into work, and this alters the market. Initially it is great because the money is ?extra? and it instantly could push you to middle class. Then during the Thatcher era, things changed. Thatcher told her close allays that she could get the whole country working, regardless of family bonds, could break down the person to an individual and have them competing with each other for less money and lots more tax for us and all they will want from me is a home, a car and one holiday a year and they?ll do anything. The loadsamoney was born and sharing your bread and milk with neighbours ended along with (after her time) not even knowing your neighbours. The women was a god damn genius, sadly towards their ends though and not ours.
Life went on like that and institutions got stronger mainly the media, corporations and schools. Choice was the new thing. If you wanted a can of pepsi at 2am its there for you. Likewise getting a degree became the normal and a massive money spinner along with high status, vocational training was viewed poorly and hence suffered. The last ten years seen a massive female work force this extra income was clearly their for the taking and the corporations did their thing best, house prices rose simply because people could pay lots more for them. When this extra income was finally tapped. It was then tweaked by pushing debt onto people, have now and pay for it later. People found this easy to cope with as one wage could go to paying off debt. In many respects it was a good trade, you get a better standard of living for you and your family ?now? and pay it off from the future.
This has now become a necessity for many. Both parties need to work to get on the property ladder. Hence the focus on work has now become the most important element of life. There is no extra income as such hence debt is now a tool of modern day survival. The corporations still try to tap every penny, and now that debt has peaked and the female worker has peaked for the government a new worker (cough tax payer) is needed. Crime is rife due to the focus on work and not family, the roads are crazy, homes are out of reach for our children and government does not exist only fat cats.
As you can see there is no right or wrong, just roles that we play. Many people get peed off when the topic of women and work is talked about, yet they don?t even realise that women played more of a role in work than men. Honest ? make the world turn ? type of work is never easy and seldom praised. Only the made up normally man type fat cat jobs are lol. I think both sexes working has been the downfall of this country in every possible way.
In a nutshell Mike your spot on. But what we have to remember is our beliefs are just a speck of sand on a beach if we put them into a time frame. Women have worked much more than men and for the best part of that beach were the main workers who did the real jobs so we could have law, philosophy, doctors, politicians etc. But in these modern times if we think of work in terms of resources being harvested then by creating a two partner workforce then effectively we just doubled our population and created a consumering monster.
"I'd put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don't have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that." — Thomas Edison, 1931
-
tattercoats
- Posts: 433
- Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
- Location: Wiltshire
- Contact:
Coo. Lots of food for thought.
Yay for open debate, though, huh? I'm a great believer in finding common ground.
I tend to blame the industrial revolution in the main, as it took work away from the community or home and split families up; shared childcare and community links suffered, I think.
Though I'll spit on Thatcher's grave any time you please. A role model for girls? Not for any daughter of mine, Mr Balls. Think again.
Yay for open debate, though, huh? I'm a great believer in finding common ground.
I tend to blame the industrial revolution in the main, as it took work away from the community or home and split families up; shared childcare and community links suffered, I think.
Though I'll spit on Thatcher's grave any time you please. A role model for girls? Not for any daughter of mine, Mr Balls. Think again.
Green, political and narrative songs - contemporary folk from an award-winning songwriter and performer. Now booking 2011. Talis Kimberley ~ www.talis.net ~ also Bandcamp, FB etc...
Heres an interesting opinion....
http://www.fdrs.org/brainwashing_women.html
Lets hope its all bol****s
http://www.fdrs.org/brainwashing_women.html
Lets hope its all bol****s
?? Rockefeller asked Russo what he thought women's liberation was about. Russo's response that he thought it was about the right to work and receive equal pay as men, just as they had won the right to vote, caused Rockefeller to laughingly retort, ?You're an idiot! Let me tell you what that was about, we the Rockefeller's funded that, we funded women's lib, we're the one's who got all of the newspapers and television - the Rockefeller Foundation.?
?Rockefeller told Russo of two primary reasons why the elite bankrolled women's lib, one because before women's lib the bankers couldn't tax half the population and two because it allowed them to get children in school at an earlier age, enabling them to be indoctrinated into accepting the state as the primary family, breaking up the traditional family model.
I think it was coming anyway gug, but that is probably the truth. Mind you I do believe in the NWO and the corruption, so I am biased. Read any of the neo con stuff and so much of what we are and see today was preplaned. That's not that worrying untill you read what they got planned for the future!
"I'd put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don't have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that." — Thomas Edison, 1931
MisterE,
That was one of the best posts on the web I have seen, I could not agree more.
A subject I have studied in some depth is equality and equal rights, even though since Bentham it has been known to be a flawed concept. The state still pushes the idea that we are all equal.
It reminds me of the scene in life of Brian, when Eric Idle announces he wants to be a woman and John Cleese retorts,
??what?s the point?
Or as Bentham states himself,
?Rights...is the child of law: from real laws come real rights; but from imaginary laws, from laws of nature, fancied and invented by poets, rhetoricians, and dealers in moral and intellectual poisons, come imaginary rights, a bastard brood of monsters.?
That was one of the best posts on the web I have seen, I could not agree more.
A subject I have studied in some depth is equality and equal rights, even though since Bentham it has been known to be a flawed concept. The state still pushes the idea that we are all equal.
It reminds me of the scene in life of Brian, when Eric Idle announces he wants to be a woman and John Cleese retorts,
??what?s the point?
Or as Bentham states himself,
?Rights...is the child of law: from real laws come real rights; but from imaginary laws, from laws of nature, fancied and invented by poets, rhetoricians, and dealers in moral and intellectual poisons, come imaginary rights, a bastard brood of monsters.?
-
RenewableCandy
- Posts: 12777
- Joined: 12 Sep 2007, 12:13
- Location: York
Now if there's one thing I remember about Thatcher and the 1980's it was that in fact the tories were very much against women taking jobs. That was one of the main things that the 'family values' stuff was all about. I remember some wit suggesting Thatcher herself should be first to set the exampleThen during the Thatcher era, things changed. Thatcher told her close allays that she could get the whole country working,
. Of course the family values stuff died the death because of the misbehaviour of large numbers of her Cabinet, but honestly if you read the newspaper coverage of the time there was a lot of talk about women staying at home. It's what the Right Wing's all about (at least, during the 20th century it was).
Last edited by RenewableCandy on 16 Dec 2007, 21:54, edited 1 time in total.
-
Totally_Baffled
- Posts: 2824
- Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
- Location: Hampshire
Chris
Reference the thread topic - what are your Recession preperations?
I havent seen you mention any sort of "back to the land" type of preparations - I just wondered what sort of things you have done to insulate yourself from recession/PO?
I wonder if they have changed much since the last time I asked a couple of years ago?
Reference the thread topic - what are your Recession preperations?
I havent seen you mention any sort of "back to the land" type of preparations - I just wondered what sort of things you have done to insulate yourself from recession/PO?
I wonder if they have changed much since the last time I asked a couple of years ago?
TB
Peak oil? ahhh smeg.....
Peak oil? ahhh smeg.....
Very true that was their ethic but i think it was more spin than anything for votes. But the freemarket etc was always going to involve more people in work. Still its a good point. The YTS took both women and men, so if they really wanted family values they would have restricted it. I think those family values were things of the last decade shouted about by tories as propaganda ie no no no we are all about the family. I was only in late late teens and up to my neck in training at the time so I dont recall that much, ie dont really watch the news then at that age I just observed what was going on in life in our area, and through music I guess.
I just observed what was going on in life in our area, and through music I guess."I'd put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don't have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that." — Thomas Edison, 1931
I agree entirely. I feel very sorry for young women these days. Many I know feel that they can't afford to have kids. They rely on both wages to survive, and have to rent, often with 'no kids' clauses in the rental contracts. - Is this really what the feminist movement set out to achieve? I don't think so, but it is what has happened. Women force into the work/money/wage slavery that previously only men were a part of.mikepepler wrote:The thing I've always wondered about is did the following happen:
- at the start, only one adult in most families earned.
- in some families, both adults started to earn.
- the extra cash allowed the families to buy bigger houses, spend more, etc.
- inflation of prices for certain things picked up.
- families with only one earning adult began to feel short of cash, either in real terms, or just in comparison to their neighbours with two earning adults.
- in the end, most families need to have two adults earning just to afford what they feel is essential in life.
What do you think? True or false, or much more complicated than that?
Jim
For every complex problem, there is a simple answer, and it's wrong.
"Heaven and earth are ruthless, and treat the myriad creatures as straw dogs" (Lao Tzu V.i).
For every complex problem, there is a simple answer, and it's wrong.
"Heaven and earth are ruthless, and treat the myriad creatures as straw dogs" (Lao Tzu V.i).
Well I've done all the basics - no debt - live on maybe 2/3 of my salary ? have savings. However I rent a flat with no garden and haven?t really done any ?physical? preparations. I guess while I?m still earning good money in a conventional ?old economy? job I?m happy to wait it out until I?m eventually made redundant then rearrange my life. Would I like to have a garden and grow food? Certainly. Does it make sense for me to do that today? Not really ? food is cheap and I?m relatively cash-rich and time-poor. One day that is likely to reverse, then I?ll become a farmer. How hard can it be!Totally_Baffled wrote:Chris
Reference the thread topic - what are your Recession preperations?
I havent seen you mention any sort of "back to the land" type of preparations - I just wondered what sort of things you have done to insulate yourself from recession/PO?
I wonder if they have changed much since the last time I asked a couple of years ago?
However, I'm not convinced "back to the land" is the answer - it certainly isn't the answer for most of us. If we can't find a way to make the London "work" with ~8 million+ people then we might as well give up now as the alternative isn't really worth thinking about or planning for.
One of my biggest concerns is that people with massive debts ? who have been spending money they don?t have to live a ?better? life than me this last 5 years or so are somehow going to get away with it. The difference between their reckless spending and my prudence will evaporate in a cloud of inflation. Worse still they will even end up keeping the hard assets like houses even when technically bankrupt. There isn?t much difference between being a little bit bankrupt and being very bankrupt.
Regarding the discussion about children and dual income households. I don?t understand how/why people do it. I grew up with both parents around, never remember any childcare or babysitters. I?ve been ?co-babysitting? a 6 month old and 6 year old for most of this last weekend, best fun I?ve had in ages, even if I didn?t get anything else done! I would never want to go to work to earn money to pay someone else to look after my children. I?d quite happily do without much money and stay at home. I guess the ideal situation is for both parents to work 2-3 days a week, earn ?enough? money and always be there for the children.
Got up at 5am this morning to start work. On our Radio either real or red dragon I cant remember but there was an appeal by childline asking could parents not throw their children onto the streets at this time of year! Then they said the demise of parenting is starting to show as they had 160 children evicted and tossed onto the streets - I thought hmmmm not nice, but then they said this is not the total amount this is ONLY the 11yr olds and lower!!!!!!!!!!!! I almost cried. I probably man cried ie felt winded inside and shocked. Then they stated that 1 in 6 children in Wales are phoning childline with serious issues namely, suicide, running away or getting battered in the house along with not fed and home alone and scared. WTF is going on. Plus I got me thinking what must the big cities and suburbs around the UK must be like - wonder what the levels to childline and evictions like there. It hurt me becasue I worked with kids evicted for a few year and taught them a trade, my youngest was 11 then and that shocked me but it was a one off, the normal was 15,16.
PS it probably will not come on again due to censorship. Anyone else notice that the news at 5am is not the same as the 5pm it always gets changed, watered down or interfered with. Its like they say some thing then the big guns phone up woe woe woe WOE you cant say that, that needs changing, word that different etc - we all laugh about it on site lol
PS it probably will not come on again due to censorship. Anyone else notice that the news at 5am is not the same as the 5pm it always gets changed, watered down or interfered with. Its like they say some thing then the big guns phone up woe woe woe WOE you cant say that, that needs changing, word that different etc - we all laugh about it on site lol
"I'd put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don't have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that." — Thomas Edison, 1931
The best broadcast news I've found is the 1am BBC Worldservice Word News. As you say, totally different to the regular morning and evening Radio 4 broadcasts.MisterE wrote:PS it probably will not come on again due to censorship. Anyone else notice that the news at 5am is not the same as the 5pm it always gets changed, watered down or interfered with. Its like they say some thing then the big guns phone up woe woe woe WOE you cant say that, that needs changing, word that different etc - we all laugh about it on site lol