This 1962 high-school textbook, “When You Marry,” is a long, mind-bendingly awful manual for marriage, including sticking to traditional gender roles, staying away from race-mixing, resisting communism and saving yourself for your wedding night.
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Kind Of Like The Current GOP Party Platform
October 26th, 2009
52 Comments
I liked this comment:
1. Every home had a mommy and a daddy who lived at the same address.
2. Wives stayed home all day.
3. Daddies, all by themselves, with just one job each, earned enough to pay all the family bills.
4. Everybody LIKED living that way.
I liked that comment too. You know, for its over-the-top ridiculousness. Nobody really believes that garbage, right?
1. Unless you were poor, not white, or both.
2. Again, unless you were not-white.
3. Yup, you can thank busting the unions, “free trade”, and massive
redistribution of wealth towards the rich for ruining that.
4. Not really. There’s reason why things changed in the 60’s. Women *gasp*
wanted their own lives beyond being babymakers.
Today’s new textbook says women should stay home unless they’re willing to show their legs on Fox News
Obama playbook:
“ I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she’s feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal,”.
“Hold on one second, Sweetie.”
“You can put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig.”
“You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It’s still gonna stink.”
“We’ve had enough of the same old thing.”
24 Obama golf outings this year so far, yesterday first time with a woman, after she requested coming along.
So concerned.
I belong to a golf club and thought I played a lot, but when my girls were that age I couldn’t get anywhere close to 24 rounds in, Indeed. And he’s the POTUS. WTF?
Already he’s played more than W did, who gave the game up for the sake of the troops.
And the no woman thing when he plays hoops and golf is weird. He’d have no problem finding women for both sports that could run circles around him. Or maybe that’s the issue with him.
who gave the game up for the sake of the troops
Bwwaaa-haa-haaa!
Hee hee.
hoooo.
(catching breath)
What? You mean you were serious?
When do you ever see men and women play hoops together?
Should he also accompany the women to the bathroom to stay consistent?
Aaaaaand, that’s it. There’s really no reason to take you seriously anymore, ever, Dennis. After howling about liberals’ accusations of Rush’s racism (even while putting aside the falsified quotes), you pull this turd nugget out of your ass. I’m done. You’re lost any credibility you once had. Good day, sir.
mambo,
You’ve made the claim that you were no longer going to take me seriously so many times now that I no longer take you seriously when you say that.
Yeah, Bush stopped playing golf out of respect for the war dead.
Read and learn.
I SAID GOOD DAY!
C’mon, mambo, I just wanna know if I lost your respect way back when you first said I did 15 times ago and that I got it back, only to lose it again today; or if I never really lost it; or if I just keep losing it. Is it a lost-found thing, or a lost-more lost thing?
Read and learn? How about reading this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/16/bush-lied-about-giving-up_n_102138.html
Wow. I am shocked. Shocked, I tell you!
So the F what, icruise. Do you know how idiotic that is. So he said he gave up golf and still played a round. Maybe he had it scheduled. Maybe he needed to as a special request from someone else that had been arranged a while ago. The fact of the matter is, he still gave the game despite playing a round after the date at which he decided to give the game up.
I saw Olbermann make a big deal out of that on his show and remembered what a complete douchebag he was for saying that.
The fact of the matter is, he still gave the game up despite
playing a round after the date at which he decided to give the game upnot giving the game up at all.Clown, I fixed that for you.
Also, clown, I should like to point out that giving up the game of golf (even though Bush didn’t do it) is a pathetically feeble and shallow tribute to the troops.
In case you didn’t notice, I’m going to refer to you as a clown from now on, just so you know that I’m not taking you seriously whatsoever. You might as well throw on a big red nose and a curly green wig.
Mambo,
You’re the clown.
Someone asks Bush in May 2008 why they don’t see him golfing anymore. He says he gave it up, says he made the decision after the August 2003 bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad, which killed Sergio Vieira de Mello, the top U.N. official in Iraq and the organization’s high commissioner for human rights.
“I remember when de Mello, who was at the U.N., got killed in Baghdad as a result of these murderers taking this good man’s life,” he said. “I was playing golf — I think I was in central Texas — and they pulled me off the golf course and I said, ‘It’s just not worth it anymore to do.’”
So according to you two jokers, he should’ve been more specific; that that was the day that he decided not to play any more, but then added, “Oh yeah, there was that one day a couple months later that I played” and then stated the reason why he played that day, all from memory from 5 whole years prior.
Idiot, mambo. “Oh he lied, he lied, he lied!!!”
You remind me of Olbermann.
And there is nothing at all wrong with that excuse. I know literally hundreds of golfers and giving up the game for something like that is entirely plausible and for him, the absolutely correct reason. Obama should cut his game back a little too. If it was a Republican president playing this much with the so many people out of work and two wars, you and Olbermann would be having conniption fits.
You’re the clown.
Well, I’ve got news for you! I am quick enough…. COCKBOY!
“Oh he lied, he lied, he lied!!!”
He seemed to do it quite a lot.
Clown.
mambo, you’re one of these guys who will never get over your Bush Derangement Syndrome.
“In August 2008 he said he quit playing golf in May 2003, but he actually quit in July 2003! He lied. Waah, waah, wahh. !
Unbelievable.
The criticism of clowns has no effect on me. I’m not going to even bother explaining to you why you’re wrong this time. Too much effort for too little return, as I don’t suspect that you’d understand me even if I typed it out in painstaking detail.
Maybe if you go back and read all these posts again, you’ll figure it out. But probably not. Clown college doesn’t attract the brightest students.
1. Unless you were poor, not white, or both.
Wrong.
Illegitimacy and irresponsible fatherhood didn’t start going through the roof until … take a guess … the introduction of “the pill” , and the legalization of abortion,
2. Again, unless you were not-white.
Wrong.
Hispanic families to this day have a remarkably low number of working mothers, and even though blacks had lower family incomes, Mom stayed home all day.
3. Yup, you can thank busting the unions, “free trade”, and massive
redistribution of wealth towards the rich for ruining that.
Wrong.
It still wasn’t necessary for Mom to work, until inflation lowered the purchasing power of the dollar, while taxes went up as LBJ slid money out of F I C A to the General Fund. Basically, Mom works to pay taxes on Dad’s income, and to take the sting out of inflation.
4. Not really. There’s reason why things changed in the 60’s. Women *gasp* wanted their own lives beyond being babymakers.
Wrong.
What they have now the problem of attempting to reconcile the conflict between satisfying their urge to succeed in a man’s world, and their nurturing desire to bear and raise children. Or did you thing that ever increasing rate of female depression, substance abuse, and suicidal ideation were due to being barefoot and pregnant?
their urge to succeed in a man’s world
Say no more, Frank. Your view is clear.
Wait… you’re opposed to the birth control pill too? Whoa, that’s a metric shit-ton of crazy. What is your feeling on condoms and IUDs?
Is that one of the legendary (between your ears) S Martin “gotchas”. I could have written “What they have now the problem of attempting to reconcile the conflict between satisfying their urge to succeed in [what they perceived to be as] a man’s world.. but I felt that would be awkward. The “man’s world” is not the whole world, obviously, or there would be no role for women in it at all.
But you knew that already, didn’t you?
there would be no role for women in it at all.
Right, Frank, and we all know what that role is: To birth babies and not get abortions. And to know their place, because men know what’s best for them. Amirite?
It’s up to me to correct for you and know what you meant to say when you choose to be less clear in your wording.
Got it. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
I could have written “What they have now the problem of attempting to reconcile the conflict between satisfying their urge to succeed in [what they perceived to be as] a man’s world.. but I felt that would be awkward.
Less awkward? Maybe. But no less patronizing. Putting aside your attempt to say you know what women of the time were perceiving you’re still saying their perceiving it as a man’s word. That the very women who are looking to succeed in the wider world, who are looking to show that it is NOT a “man’s world”, still believe it to be one.
Wrong.
Frank, would you care to source any of your claims?
No. No, he would not.
Frank wrote, “Illegitimacy and irresponsible fatherhood didn’t start going through the roof until … take a guess … the introduction of “the pill” , and the legalization of abortion”
The rest of your posts sound like possibly reasonable, though I think misguided opinions; this, however, sounds counterintuitive and counterfactual; Frank, could you explain or defend your statement?
Snurgly is all Hannity talking points on this thread. Shocking!!
Wait… you’re opposed to the birth control pill too?
Did I say I was opposed to the birth control pill ?
No, I did not.
Sean, if a large percentage of jobs were held by women, and you wanted one of them , wouldn’t you consider yourself as entering a “Women’s World”? I am not going to argue usage with you, as if somehow my choice of words reflects back to life in the early 50’s.
No. No, he would not.
Finally, you are correct.
I am sick of this game you play, where I prove you’re wrong, AND I prove I’m right. Nope, I’m not doing both.
Sean, if a large percentage of jobs were held by women, and you wanted one of them , wouldn’t you consider yourself as entering a “Women’s World”? I am not going to argue usage with you, as if somehow my choice of words reflects back to life in the early 50’s.
Oh, Frank. You’ll howl up and down that you’re as colorblind as they come but I guess gender is just something you can’t get beyond.
I am sick of this game you play, where I prove you’re wrong, AND I prove I’m right. Nope, I’m not doing both.
And Frank, saying a bunch of stuff that you believe is true without offering any authoritative evidence in support of it isn’t proof of anything.
You haven’t proved anything in this thread.
You’ve just written a bunch of stuff you think is true. Just because you think something is true, doesn’t make it so in this game we play called “Reality.”
You’ll howl up and down that you’re as colorblind as they come but I guess gender is just something you can’t get beyond.
You don’t need a cite for that, just translating it into comprehensible English would be useful.
Just because you think something is true, doesn’t make it so in this game we play called “Reality.”
And tu quoque. This thread seems woefully short on citations from anyone, including anyone. I have played this game too many times before. Just a few days ago, I was asked to document a statement that Darwin made about hospitals. A person said that Darwin had meant something else, and i should prove that Darwin said what I said he said. I found a commentater who recounted basically the same information.
That didn’t count.
I recalled that Margaret Sanger justify espousing forced sterilization by using Darwin as support.
That didn’t count.
Then I supplied the link to the horrifying case of Buck v. Bell, a case which defended eugenics , based on Darwin’ theory of natural selection,so well, that the Germans — the Nazis ! — used that case to support their pleas of innocence at Nuremburg.
But that didn’t count.
You’ve just written a bunch of stuff you think is true When I read something somewhere, and I hear or read something, and I hear it or read it again, yes, I will presume it’s true.
When I believe something to be true , I call it my opinion. When I know something to be true, I call that a fact.
For example, I have read in well over a dozen places, from “women’s magazines” to scholarly journals, that American women are conflicted about their roles: should they work, and then be moms, be moms, and then work, or should be both at the same time. You haven’t? Go look into it. You are apparently reading material that is concealing some important data — that women have bought into the myth of feminism, and are now seriously unhappy because they are conflicted.
I spent years, and time and money reading this material. I should re-research it for you ?
Fat chance .
Frank DiSalle: When I read something somewhere, and I hear or read something, and I hear it or read it again, yes, I will presume it’s true.
Not really a valid argument on its own for claiming something is actually true. For example, someone who watches only Fox News would hear over and over again that Obama’s legitimacy as President is questionable, but it really is not. Someone who grows up in North Korea would hear and read over and over again that people outside North Korea are far worse off, which is not true. To go Godwin for a moment, people in 1930’s Germany heard and read over and over again all sorts of things that I can’t imagine you’d actually want to defend as being true.
It really isn’t that something is said and written a lot that makes it actually true. The assurance you get depends largely on how diverse a group of sources you have and whether you ever hear or read something that presents an opposing view.
There were even more abortions before the pill, we just didn’t hear about them.
Jaim even knows how many women were having abortions, when nobody else knew.
Whatta guy!
MWAHAHAhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!
He knows what he knows, Frank. You know how that is.
Not really a valid argument on its own for claiming something is actually true.
He knows what he knows, Frank. You know how that is.
Don’t confuse reading things from differing sources with reading the same thing many times.
I am not surprised when Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity say the same thing.
But I find Micahel Barone and John Leo saying the same thing more credible.
As for “knowing what I know”, first you have to “know”. It can’t be a belief or an opinion, passed off as a fact.
For information on pre-abortion vs post-abortion America, I prefer Bill Baird and Bernard Nathanson to Jaim, any day.
Both Baird and Nathanson regretted their roles in getting abortion legalized, a few years after the fact. “Jane Roe” has become an anti-abortion activist.
There are hundreds of real, known and documented cases of post-abortion trauma, not hypothetical cases of X amount of unwed mothers being unhappy.
Do you really not remember saying “I know what I know,” just the other day, Frank?
I spent years, and time and money reading this material. I should re-research it for you ?
Only if you want to be taken seriously.
fafaroo: I could say , I’ll be taken seriously when you guys accept the information I provide from whence it come, and not just attack me — but I won’t.
I provide plenty of sources and plenty of links. Doesn’t help most times.
As for being taken seriously: I firmly believe that there are people here who hear what I say, and people who don’t. That won’t change , I think.
I could say , I’ll be taken seriously when you guys accept the information I provide from whence it come, and not just attack me — but I won’t.
Funny thing, frank. I didn’t attack you here. I asked you to source your claims. You refuse to. Who’s being unreasonable here?
Frank DiSalle: There are hundreds of real, known and documented cases of post-abortion trauma, not hypothetical cases of X amount of unwed mothers being unhappy
There are hundreds of real, known and documented cases of pregnant women being traumatized because of their unwanted pregnancies, not hypothetical cases of X amount of mothers suddenly being happy to have had the child after all.
It goes both ways, Frank.
Sean , indeed it does… I never said it didn’t. I was referring to the notion that the idea that some women having children they don’t want, and being unhappy about it, somehow justifies another women having an abortion.
No one is guaranteed happiness.
Before I married, my wife was ill, and the Doctor recommended she not have children, not because of any obstetric problem, but because she might be too fatigued at times to care for a child.
She chose to try and have children; you can’t choose to have them.
Another interesting point about abortion: The only interested party in an abortion that has no say in it, is the one that’s about to die.
And, foofaroo: Here’s what I found after one second , googling “post – abortion trauma” :
http://tinyurl.com /yk8reo6
Here’s an article on raising a child and work
PARENTING: Changing Role of Motherhood: Expectation vs. Reality
Here’s one on single parenthood
Shall I go on?
I have to make dinner, but I can come back and do this all night…
When it’s this easy, do I really have to provide you with a link?
Shall I go on?
Maybe you want to read some of the articles at the end of those links, Frank.
You suggested there are “hundreds of real, known and documented cases of post-abortion trauma, not hypothetical cases of X amount of unwed mothers being unhappy.”
From one of the links you googled up on post-abortion trauma:
And …
and …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_and_mental_health#Post-Abortion_Syndrome
And so on and so forth.
Nice work, Frank. Way to catapult the propaganda.
PARENTING: Changing Role of Motherhood: Expectation vs. Reality
Nice “article,” Frank. So, is a list of “Ready-to-Use Quotes” from “MojoMom” what constitutes an “article” in your mind?
Don’t forget, Frank: “Please credit quotes to Amy Tiemann, Ph.D. (say TEE-man)”
What an idiot.
fafaroo, you sicken me. I can’t even begin to explain the revulsion I feel for tight – ass intellectualoids like you. You are like the Pharisees of old, not seeking truth, but counting angels on the head of a pin. You are mambochicken without the obscenities.
We are posting on a blog, you pretentious windbag, not wtiting for the Policy Review.
We are posting on a blog, you pretentious windbag, not wtiting for the Policy Review.
Thank you, Frank. I’ll remember that the next time you back up an argument against health care reform with a link to “Quotable Quotes.”
Frank DiSalle: We are posting on a blog, you pretentious windbag, not wtiting for the Policy Review
Indeed, we’re just posting on a blog. So let’s all lower our standards, shall we? I mean, it’s just a blog. No need to actually try to make valid, supported arguments. Right?
I can’t even begin to explain the revulsion I feel for tight …
I just caught this. Hilarious. Frank, you have a hard time explaining a lot of things. Which is, of course, the larger point here.