There's nothing wrong with having a gay child. But a gay child may not be super happy living in a conservative, pro-life, religious household.
[Report Post]

This thread somehow got on religion and being gay.Not the original topic...which was narcissism.

Yes, I have read her work. She criticizes women who ask if a career is family friendly. She feels that women are putting their family first even before they have kids which undermines their career trajectory. She also is fixated on women in leadership positions, as if that is the way one should be defined. I think that is a poor mindset for anyone in a career- women and men; unless one is rising to the top and in a position of leadership, they aren't fully embracing their career. Hence, leaning in.

She comes from a life of privilege- a full ivy league education fully funded by her wealthy family. She can lean in because others are leaning in while diapering her kids. Are those career choices- the nanny, the maid, are their choices less than hers? I find that ironic.

I am not suggesting that women need to stay home. I am saying that yes, it's time our focus return to the family, not the quest for corporate power and money. If that's your thing, then great, but there is a sacrifice somewhere. It isn't a universal goal for everyone to achieve. If I am a woman and I want to work for any reason, please do not impose societal requisites on what I should be doing to prove my worth...it's just as wrong as applying those same restrictions on women who wanted to be in fields that they couldn't be in in the 60s. That's why it sets the whole enlightenment back- its about what works for the family, for you...not what it SHOULD be. And for the STEM poster- forget it. It has to be a real interest for a person to be a STEM field, not a "should."

If I decide to work part time, if I decide to stay home, or whatever, please do not require that I prove I am worthy of such. If I decide to have kids, yes, it is Ok to ask" How will I manage my family and this career."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think everyone has confused working with life. It is not your life...you have a job in order to make money.
Philosophies from people like Sheryl Sandberg and the Yahoo CEO have actually set women backwards. ..not forward. It's actually a backlash against the life of a woman. Family life has been vilified. Things are not easier for women..they are harder. You have to prove yourself all the time. Even if you are a SAHM...you have to account for your time and prove your worth.

Yes...I think all our kids are, and will likely continue to be fucked up as parenthood is not the priority. .it's narcissm that is the priority.

I am a liberal agnostic and I cringe when I read or see the Duggars...crazy belief system, but, yeah, they have great well adjusted kids. All 19 of them. I wonder. ....

I agree completely. We now vilify anything considered traditional women's work and we only value traditional men's work - work outside the home for money, preferably lots of money. Sitting in an office pushing paper and sending emails for ten hours per day is considered more important than your children or quality of life.

Have you actually read anything by Sheryl Sandberg? I would hardly say her work is vilifying family life. What are some examples?

"work outside the home for money" well, how else do you propose people pay for necessities to afford quality of life? Is it OK if the man is staying home and doing 'womens' work and the woman is working?

Anonymous wrote:So now the priorities are more about work and money -- the kids will still turn out fine.


No evidence that today's kids are fine. They are seriously involved with themselves and the parents blame everyone but themselves. Teach school for awhile, and you will worry about humanity.

Yes, I agree with you about the education, the courting, etc.I said I cringe when I see that, but I am talking about other things. Where's the sweet spot some where between the polar opposites?

Did you teach in the 70s, 80s or 90s? Were the kids appreciably different then besides being less self involved bc they couldn't post selfies all day long? Or are you saying the self involvement has really changed kids? I'm not arguing I'd really like to know how today's kids are different than say the ones who were in my high school freshman class in 1994. Is it just about social media or has money etc. changed kids too?

So now the priorities are more about work and money -- the kids will still turn out fine.


No evidence that today's kids are fine. They are seriously involved with themselves and the parents blame everyone but themselves. Teach school for awhile, and you will worry about humanity.

Yes, I agree with you about the education, the courting, etc.I said I cringe when I see that, but I am talking about other things. Where's the sweet spot some where between the polar opposites?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think everyone has confused working with life. It is not your life...you have a job in order to make money.
Philosophies from people like Sheryl Sandberg and the Yahoo CEO have actually set women backwards. ..not forward. It's actually a backlash against the life of a woman. Family life has been vilified. Things are not easier for women..they are harder. You have to prove yourself all the time. Even if you are a SAHM...you have to account for your time and prove your worth.

Yes...I think all our kids are, and will likely continue to be fucked up as parenthood is not the priority. .it's narcissm that is the priority.

I am a liberal agnostic and I cringe when I read or see the Duggars...crazy belief system, but, yeah, they have great well adjusted kids. All 19 of them. I wonder. ....

I don't think parenthood was a priority in the 60s or 70s either -- even though it was more about SAHMs back then; most households would throw a casserole on the table at dinner time, but aside from that the kid were roaming the streets and playing in the neighborhood all day long. I don't know what the priorities were back then, but people did NOT dote over kids the way they do now -- and those kids who are now middle aged are pretty much doing fine. So now the priorities are more about work and money -- the kids will still turn out fine. Though I think it's the narcissism and obsession with picture taking that'll f-- them up more than women having careers that are not merely 9-5 jobs; sorry but I feel like most people can't live their life unless they're showing you on FB/IG what they ate, when they went to the bathroom etc.

I suggest you look into the Duggars before you hold them up as a paradigm of well adjusted. I'm sorry they're totally uneducated (and no I don't think all homeschool has to be ineffective); you've got 12 yr olds reading at a 5 yr old level and kids roaming all day when they should be learning. Then when they turn 18 -- bam -- time for a courtship to a similar guy with a belief that they should procreate as much as possible and God will provide. Not the greatest way to raise kids at least not in 2015.

+1 I think the Duggars are a nightmare. If the kids seem more mature, it's because they've basically had to raise their younger siblings- what kind of childhood is that?
Being almost completely unfamiliar with anything secular, marrying at 18/19 and having kids at 20- I want so much better for my kids than any sort of existence like that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am a liberal agnostic and I cringe when I read or see the Duggars...crazy belief system, but, yeah, they have great well adjusted kids. All 19 of them. I wonder. ....

I'm waiting for at least one of them to break out in a big way and write a tell all book. There is at least one gay child - there's got to be. My money is on whichever one that may be.

So, there is something wrong with heaving a gay child? Did you ever think, PP, that you may have a gay child too? Would you be similarly concerned and expect your gay child to write a tell all book about how he was raised by you?

There's nothing wrong with having a gay child. But a gay child may not be super happy living in a conservative, pro-life, religious household.

To be a SAHM or WOHM should be an option that a woman should be free to choose. This choice can only come if they can afford it financially. Which means that women should get into high paying jobs in the STEM field. The implication of a female child being a poor Math student is much more dire than that of a male student.

I think foodies are pretentious and silly.

Anonymous wrote:I think everyone has confused working with life. It is not your life...you have a job in order to make money.
Philosophies from people like Sheryl Sandberg and the Yahoo CEO have actually set women backwards. ..not forward. It's actually a backlash against the life of a woman. Family life has been vilified. Things are not easier for women..they are harder. You have to prove yourself all the time. Even if you are a SAHM...you have to account for your time and prove your worth.

Yes...I think all our kids are, and will likely continue to be fucked up as parenthood is not the priority. .it's narcissm that is the priority.

I am a liberal agnostic and I cringe when I read or see the Duggars...crazy belief system, but, yeah, they have great well adjusted kids. All 19 of them. I wonder. ....

I don't think parenthood was a priority in the 60s or 70s either -- even though it was more about SAHMs back then; most households would throw a casserole on the table at dinner time, but aside from that the kid were roaming the streets and playing in the neighborhood all day long. I don't know what the priorities were back then, but people did NOT dote over kids the way they do now -- and those kids who are now middle aged are pretty much doing fine. So now the priorities are more about work and money -- the kids will still turn out fine. Though I think it's the narcissism and obsession with picture taking that'll f-- them up more than women having careers that are not merely 9-5 jobs; sorry but I feel like most people can't live their life unless they're showing you on FB/IG what they ate, when they went to the bathroom etc.

I suggest you look into the Duggars before you hold them up as a paradigm of well adjusted. I'm sorry they're totally uneducated (and no I don't think all homeschool has to be ineffective); you've got 12 yr olds reading at a 5 yr old level and kids roaming all day when they should be learning. Then when they turn 18 -- bam -- time for a courtship to a similar guy with a belief that they should procreate as much as possible and God will provide. Not the greatest way to raise kids at least not in 2015.

Anonymous wrote:I think everyone has confused working with life. It is not your life...you have a job in order to make money.
Philosophies from people like Sheryl Sandberg and the Yahoo CEO have actually set women backwards. ..not forward. It's actually a backlash against the life of a woman. Family life has been vilified. Things are not easier for women..they are harder. You have to prove yourself all the time. Even if you are a SAHM...you have to account for your time and prove your worth.

Yes...I think all our kids are, and will likely continue to be fucked up as parenthood is not the priority. .it's narcissm that is the priority.

I am a liberal agnostic and I cringe when I read or see the Duggars...crazy belief system, but, yeah, they have great well adjusted kids. All 19 of them. I wonder. ....

I agree completely. We now vilify anything considered traditional women's work and we only value traditional men's work - work outside the home for money, preferably lots of money. Sitting in an office pushing paper and sending emails for ten hours per day is considered more important than your children or quality of life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am a liberal agnostic and I cringe when I read or see the Duggars...crazy belief system, but, yeah, they have great well adjusted kids. All 19 of them. I wonder. ....

I'm waiting for at least one of them to break out in a big way and write a tell all book. There is at least one gay child - there's got to be. My money is on whichever one that may be.

Ok, I am the first poster here responding to the second poster. I think some of those kids might be gay- and frankly, who cares other than the Duggars? If some were gay, they would still be lovely kids, but yes, they would have a hard time in their own culture, obviously. My point was this- they are all family oriented, articulate, and thoughtful- as much as I can tell from what I understand considering that it is a reality show with editing. I've read that folks involved in the show's production also indicate that these kids are stand-up people, and mature beyond their years and they are around them when the cameras aren't running. Yes, it could obligatory- who knows...

I am not suggesting that all other parents raise their kids in a culture of narcissism, but we do live in a culture of narcissism,regardless of how hard we try to avoid this. I think the results are devastating long term for our overall society.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am a liberal agnostic and I cringe when I read or see the Duggars...crazy belief system, but, yeah, they have great well adjusted kids. All 19 of them. I wonder. ....

I'm waiting for at least one of them to break out in a big way and write a tell all book. There is at least one gay child - there's got to be. My money is on whichever one that may be.

So, there is something wrong with heaving a gay child? Did you ever think, PP, that you may have a gay child too? Would you be similarly concerned and expect your gay child to write a tell all book about how he was raised by you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am a liberal agnostic and I cringe when I read or see the Duggars...crazy belief system, but, yeah, they have great well adjusted kids. All 19 of them. I wonder. ....

I'm waiting for at least one of them to break out in a big way and write a tell all book. There is at least one gay child - there's got to be. My money is on whichever one that may be.

Yeh, please -- one of them is gonna talk about how they always had to look perfect, be perfect, act perfect for the camera no less. Shit ain't like that.

Anonymous wrote:

I am a liberal agnostic and I cringe when I read or see the Duggars...crazy belief system, but, yeah, they have great well adjusted kids. All 19 of them. I wonder. ....

I'm waiting for at least one of them to break out in a big way and write a tell all book. There is at least one gay child - there's got to be. My money is on whichever one that may be.