Yeah I know those as well. A good friend of my mother, back in The Netherlands, choose to live off social security with her kids. My mother hated that, but still remained friends.

Still begs the question, is she doing her kids better by staying home (single mother) and caring for them, raising them. Or is she a 'pariah' letting others pay for her life.

On the other side, my parents both worked and were hardly ever there for us. After school I either went to a friends place, had the cleaning lady look after us or were just home alone. I turned out all right I think (not so sure about my sister lol) but as a family we're not very close at all. I had no issue moving to Canada and hardly have any contact with my sister and father. (Mother deceased, but was same situation) My sister moved out at age 16, about same time I moved out at age 18.

My wife has a very close relationship with her parents (hence I moved to Canada, rather than her to The Netherlands) where there was always someone home. Her mother worked as well but supplemental work from home. It was a revelation to me how different her parents are towards having children than mine.


I don't think it's brainwashing, more like you do as you have experienced growing up.

Anyway our kids are barred from having sex until they're 36 lol ;) We're not ready! I had my first child at age 35, put my career first. (Not consciously, just was addicted to work, software developer) Now I'm 50 and get to deal with teenagers hmm. Grand children by the age of 70 if my kids follow my 'path'. I was already called their grandfather when I took my toddlers to the park...

Was it selfish of me to now maybe be too old to help out my kids when they have kids later?
Put their kids through facing the death of their grandparents at a young age?

Or selfless to seek financial stability, stable relationship and a good place to live first to bring up my kids.


Stay in school, work hard, you'll be too tired to date / breed lol.
(And wtf am I paying taxes for, to bomb children in Gaza...)

You're looking at the good in people and I admire that as there are genuine scenarios out there. I have no problem with women staying home for the right reasons if there is other family support there to look after that family. If cost of living wasn't so high I am sure most families would do the same, one work one stay home.

But the guy in this thread called women selfish if they want to work to provide for their family or have a career. In essence you can still have children and send them to day care. The man can also be the stay at home parent after the baby does not need the tit no more, so is he being selfish to want a woman to stay home for the next 10-15 years breading and him go off to work and build a career? 

The people I am talking about are the ones who play the system and actually use verbal language to put down their own children.

i.e. both mother and father don't work, or a single mother who has kids with 6 men, all saying "I don't want to work the government will provide for me".

When their kids try to get out of that life style they say things like "You are the black sheep of the family", "Why you trying harder no need to work government gives us a wage" constant negative language, instead of encouraging them to do better. I've even got into arguments with parents like that when they trying to bring their kids bac down to their standard of living as a lot of them are actually smart just are made to feel useless. 

It is not a strawman argument... Because I am literally not making an argument, I am asking a question.
I highly suggest you look into what logical fallacies are and how they are applied in regular arguments... Don't use those buzzwords without actually understanding their ramifications to leverage them as a scapegoat.

A strawman argument is where I am refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion... And that simply is not the case as the topic has been and remains what is/isn't selfish.
Sorry to school you on this, but it had to happen.

Not once did I assert that someone giving everything up to assist their family is either selfish or selfless.
That's your argument, not mine... I tend to refrain from such silly judgement as we all walk a different path in life.

This wasn't a chosen calling, as a kid I was pushed into the cadet fire service by my parents.. Just like how many kids are pushed into Churches or other organizations to get the kids out of the house.
The fact I have a passion for fire and rescue probably helps, but that came later.

Originally I wanted to be a chip designer, unsurprisingly... But back in the 90's computers weren't seen as "cool" and my parents tried their hardest to limit screen time.

But let's talk a little bit about what would happen if people like myself decided "not to be selfish" and decide not to choose the fire and rescue career path.

I wouldn't be there to cut out a parent who left their child at home with a baby sitter out of the crashed car.
I wouldn't be there to absail down the face of a cliff to rescue a mothers fallen child with broken legs.
I wouldn't be there to jump in the rescue boat to rescue a family who got washed out by a freak wave out at sea.
I wouldn't be there to run inside a burning building to grab the trapped family inside.
I wouldn't be there to literally save entire towns and cities from bushfires which have been known to kill and destroy livelihoods.
I wouldn't be there extricating people from collapsed buildings.

Someone has to do this job and I have done all the above as I am technical rescue. - It's not selfish to do it or want to do it, it's literally the best job in the world as I am allowing other families to stay together.

Climbing Mount Everest isn't what I would class as selfish.
You only have one life to live. Live it. Explore our amazing planet and what it has to offer... There is literally risk with everything we do in life.

For example... Any time you drive your car on your road, there is a probability that you are going to get involved into an accident and die. - That's life, shit happens, under your example, that would also be selfish? Am I right in that presumption?

Just food for thought.

Biden needs to go. Ever since the debate this campaign has been derailed away from Policy to just being about him not being fit to serve. That's all i've seen making the round son the news and whats even worse is that he's playing right into it because it obvious he's not fit. He made a joke the other day about fucking someone from NATO's wife. Him and his family of narcissist need to go one way or another. Its time to put the country first because we can't allow MAGA to be elected.

"Not once did I assert that someone giving everything up to assist their family is either selfish or selfless.
That's your argument, not mine... I tend to refrain from such silly judgement as we all walk a different path in life."

Preaching to the choir.

Not once did I assert that your job was a selfish job. Hence strawman. Not once did I assert that women exist to serve men. Hence strawman. Not once did I assert that men should demand women to serve them. Hence strawan. Not once did I assert that women should just be breeders. Hence strawman. Not once did I assert that women and men shouldn't work together to raise their family. I think you get the picture now.

"This wasn't a chosen calling..."

You are an adult, you can make your own choices. So it definitely was chosen by you and continues to be. Nothing wrong with that as I said in my 2nd post.

"Climbing Mount Everest isn't what I would class as selfish..."

I think we clearly have different definitions for selfish. Yes all risk taking is selfish if people care about you or someone would be bothered if you died. Again there is nothing wrong with being selfish.

Anyways nice talk, I understand how you feel better now.

Again. Not a Strawman. Seems you don't actually know what a Strawman is, I suggest you read my definition in my prior post for an educated rundown.

Your argument was those who prioritize careers over raising children as selfish. - Which is what I am refuting, that isn't a strawman... That is you being upset over being challenged.

You basically did say that women need to serve men, because if a woman who focuses on their own education and career instead of their husbands education and career is selfish:
And here is the evidence that you did actually say it, so don't lie:

********************************************************

I am an Adult now. At the time I wasn't. Hence my entire damn point.

There is only a singular definition, it's application is what can vary and you obviously have a very skewed and incorrect perspective on what constitutes an act of selfishness.

Ergo... Why your Mount Everest example is a joke... When you literally put your life at risk every single day and don't even realize it.

Wow.....Meltdown in full view.

Ah gotcha. Unfortunately those playing the system ruin it for everyone.

A no longer school friend of my wife is one of them. She first dumped her 3rd kid on the father (2nd husband) after she left him, now wants custody again only for the government assistance as he's a special needs kid, extra money. She's only making it worse for him, completely changing his living environment again. (And she's one to take her frustrations out on her kids as well, ugly)

Her parents left her after she got pregnant as a teenager (moved to the other side of the country) and my wife's parents pretty much filled in for many years. (They still 'babysit' her special needs kid, best friends with our youngest, similar age)

Now she's a grandmother already (kid from teenage pregnancy) That's kinda of a problem. Mistakes reproduce faster with more off spring than more responsible adults :/ Hopefully her son does better at raising his kid(s) instead of continuing the cycle.

And agreed, parents that put their kids down because their own life sucks / can't get their own life together should not have kids in the first place.



Anyway lot of derailment :)

The real issue is between 2 dysfunctional presidential candidates :/

Enough with the age stuff

https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/biden-harris-administration-announces-47-million-new-funding-support-school-infrastructure-investments

https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/three-years-bidens-american-rescue-plan-buoys-millions-students-and-educators

This is what will help provide better lives for all kids.

Not this

https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/what-the-2024-gop-platform-says-about-k-12-and-what-it-would-mean-if-trump-wins/2024/07

Once again for the third time. I did not say that women need to serve men.

"Women who focus on their own education and career instead of their husband's is indeed more selfish." Focusing on yourself is more selfish than focusing on others.

Let's put it another way.

"Men who focus on their own education and career instead of their wife's is indeed more selfish." By your logic I am now saying men need to serve women? Nonsense. Strawman.

About Mt. Everest, I think that is all I need to know about your outlook.

to be fair your original post on this seemed pretty trad con and so one would assume you would expect men to focus on their career over their wife's. If that's not the case and you think no spouse should focus on themselves at the detriment of their spouse you really could have worded it way better. So for instance, is a man who won't be a stay-at-home dad for his wife selfish?