The Destruction of Gender Roles


I hate the word, so I try not to use it at all, but allowing myself to indulge in using it, no, FDR wasn’t a socialist.

And my fault for being flippant.

Are you saying that you are using the word “welfare” to refer to programs that are somhow similar to New Deal programs? Is that what the word as used by everyone else means? Are New Deal “welfare” programs all that different from earlier “welfare” programs?

Social Security is not often grouped with welfare. People will talk about how they’ve “paid into” it and will distinguish it from TANF, WIC, and so forth.

I’m more interested in rules than I am in welfare, UHC, and the like. Maybe I’d be okay with it, depending on the details. Maybe I’m actually more favorable to Scandinavian programs. I’m undecided on the matter.

This isn’t my argument, but the most sophisticated response to this from the people that this is told to is that it sweeps the question of distributive justice under the rug. If we have a person who favors various programs like universal healthcare or a basic income on the grounds that the magnitude of the difference between the top and the bottom is immoral, then relying on possessors of wealth to give it away is non-starter.

Their position would be that the money/wealth/resources that can be directed toward poorer people through charities should actually be in the hands of the poorer people right NOW and that waiting on charity means permitting an unjust distribution to exist.


Statist? What? He was all about controlling the means of production.


Im not talking about social security, or any social programs created by the new deal, I was talking about modern welfare and where it started.
And many of his programs were and are “socialists” in nature.


“Statist” is even less applicable. I never hear anyone describe themselves as a “statist” and it doesn’t describe any policy. It’s used to mean “control by the government”, but that is distinct from the any particular policy.


Middle and low income earners has nothing to do with family values. Are you implying that “policies” teach morals and values?


Survival of the fittest. Were it not for that harsh reality neither you nor I would be here.


What “welfare programs” existed when the United States was founded.:rofl:


I never said they federal, silly goose.


I apologized for it.


I don;t see the word “federal” in my post.


I think you just joined this board and with that kind of attitude still think you amongst your Hannity liberal gang.

Lest you forget you’re in someone else’s house now.


Would the “entitlement class poor” of today actually go out to the crops to gather the food?


It was also signed by a bunch of abolitionists who were very practical men focused on a single goal. There were also some who refused to sign it.


Interesting statement.


Is how they describe themselves more important than what they do?

Any policy that uses or puts the state first at expense of the private sector.


In that case, I’m still right.

What “kind of attitude”? What I stated was a political truth.




The way I see it, there are women out there with the instinct to be a provider and protector. How they end up like that is variable, much the same as men with a submissive instinct. Some males are just not alpha types, some females are. It’s my opinion that lacking an alpha-figure in the household is what destroys most relationships, especially committed ones like marriage.


“Teach” is probably not the best word. Impose to the point of acceptance, perhaps.


I would agree with that…