Boomer Hate Thread

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

I can't find any nice charts but I did find an LA times article that states: "Between 1950 and 1970, the proportion of wives with paid jobs rose from 23% to 39%. By 1995, it was 61%"

I'd call 61%-77% the majority.

Taking care of a household without appliances is a full time job. Who do you think watched the kids? Before daycare for people who couldnt afford a nanny? Did the man bring him to work?

"With paid jobs" =/= working 80 hours/ week. And mom with paid work =/= neglected kids.

Stupid and shallow perspective, on both that and on the generation you are claiming to describe.

 

[Hopkinsville Goblin]

IDK, 1946-1956 maybe? It just doesn't make sense to lump people like me into the same generation that was entering college when I was just starting elementary school.

It is very similar for Millennials. The youngest Millennials barely remember 9/11 and have always had the Internet around. The oldest ones largely had to get through high school without much computer technology.

 

[Attempt Turd]

"With paid jobs" =/= working 80 hours/ week. And mom with paid work =/= neglected kids.

Stupid and shallow perspective, on both that and on the generation you are claiming to describe.

What the hell are you talking about?

"It's the ten PM. Do you know where your children are?"

Neglect.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

What the hell are you talking about?

"It's the ten PM. Do you know where your children are?"

Neglect.

I SAID that a data point of people "with paid jobs" does not mean they are full-time jobs. And a previously fully SAHM working 4 hours/day 3 days/ week while her high school kids are at school has a "paid job" (i.e., is part of the data set) that in no way means her kids are being neglected. "In the workforce" and similar statistics are based on any participation whatsoever.

You didn't bother to link the LA Times article (poor form), but I found it, and it did not provide an original source for the data, but it's more or less correct on that statistic, not that you'd know. It is also from 1997, 2 years before women's participation in the workforce peaked.

As to the merits of women working, a more recent (as in not 30 years old, rather 1) source notes (rejoice! It's declined and now more or less leveled off):

The rapid increase in the share of women entering the labor force between 1950 and 2000 boosted overall labor force participation and spurred an increase in living standards (as measured by gross domestic product per person). The decline in participation since 2000 has worked to the opposite effect, depressing economic growth.

Further, even a person working full-time is not ipso facto neglecting anyone.

The point is you are stupid not to investigate data, especially if you let it influence (or reinforce) your beliefs and wishful thinking, doubly so if you decide to cite it to make some incorrect point.

There are many other potential points, but given your demonstrated inability to inquire or think critically, I've kept it simple.

But one small addition: at 10 pm, it is both parents' responsibilities to know where their children are.

 

[Attempt Turd]

Further, even a person working full-time is not ipso facto neglecting anyone.

The point is you are stupid not to investigate data, especially if you let it influence (or reinforce) your beliefs and wishful thinking, doubly so if you decide to cite it to make some incorrect point.

There are many other potential points, but given your demonstrated inability to inquire or think critically, I've kept it simple.

But one small addition: at 10 pm, it is both parents' responsibilities to know where their children are.

My inference is the other way. It's very difficult to neglect kids for normal people if you are home all the time. In a work day you spend an hour or two in the morning getting kids ready for school/daycare. When you get home you need to cook, do the chores and get them ready for bed. You have maybe an hour or two per work day to spend quality time with your kids. I consider that neglect. It's not voluntary neglect but still neglect.

This thread is a testament to the fact that boomers neglect their kids. That is not in question, I hope.

Someone said the boomers and the Xers were alike and I say that's impossible because the boomers had stay at home moms and the Xers didn't. We also haven't begun to scratch the increase in divorce and single households that happened under boomers.

You think I was arguing for women to be barefot and pregnant in the kitchen. Which could be done but not something that is within the scope of this thread.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

My inference is the other way.

I was not primarily talking about inference, but rather data. You initially cited statistics without acknowledging (or knowing) what that data was. That is either disingenuous or negligent or ignorant - take your pick.

It's very difficult to neglect kids for normal people if you are home all the time.

Lol. Though you did say "normal.". OK, sure, but negligent people are negligent, regardless of where they spend their time.

In a work day

Again you are assuming a full 8/9-5 (pick your hours; full time work) and without conceding the point about ft work + neglect, I repeat that your "data" was not about that. So it's a perception, opinion, or experience. Not inherently wrong, but also not inherently correct.

you spend an hour or two in the morning getting kids ready for school/daycare. When you get home you need to cook, do the chores and get them ready for bed. You have maybe an hour or two per work day to spend quality time with your kids. I consider that neglect. It's not voluntary neglect but still neglect.

This thread is a testament to the fact that boomers neglect their kids. That is not in question, I hope.

Someone said the boomers and the Xers were alike and I say that's impossible because the boomers had stay at home moms

and the Xers didn't.

Most of us did.

We also haven't begun to scratch the increase in divorce and single households that happened under boomers.

Most boomers' kids are millennials +/-, so yes, we have more than scratched it.

 

[behavioral swamp thang]

You have maybe an hour or two per work day to spend quality time with your kids. I consider that neglect. It's not voluntary neglect but still neglect.

Love the way you put this.
I don't want the majority of mothers to be SAHMs because I'm sexist, I want them to be because kids only getting 30 hours/w of quality waking time with their parents is neglect on a mass scale.
I really don't know how women bought into the working is best crap originally, knowing that it would lead to so much less time with their kids. And now you have to work AND raise the kids and do the chores. How is that a win?
Gen X were brainwashed under the threat of "he could just leave you in the divorce, you'd have no job skills or work history." Millennials onward are given the same brainwashing but also need two incomes to afford a family.
Feminism was such a fucking scam. Now pretty much every parent in the USA is outright neglecting their children because of it. And kids are growing up exactly how'd you expect- looking for other outlets to be mommy and daddy- andrew tate, lib politics, gangs, etc.

 

[Paper Machete]

No mother has spent hours and hours of every waking day tending to her children. Aside from infant and toddlers (and even then). Childrearing is ideally spread out between the mom and grandmom and any other extended family. She would then get on with whatever needed to be done for her village or home like gathering, weaving, etc. Before industrialization what she was doing depended on her class and who she married, but she'd be working. After industrialization this work was increasingly outside the home and not connected to her husband's job. Keep in mind that also before industrialization that many kids would be apprenticed or more self-sufficient by their teenage years than what most would expect in the current day.

It is not the norm. Certainly not historically. For childrearing to be the only thing a woman did. I definitely agree that mothers shouldn't be in positions to put careers over children but the opposite extreme isn't the way to go.

It's clear that being isolated to the home with no other female family members coming and going to help out or socialize literally drives women that try that lifestyle mad. Modern society isn't set up for that to be a realistic or healthy option. This goes especially for if the family does the thing a lot wants and has their babies as early as possible because she won't even be into her thirties before they're going into school, and most people will send them to some sort of school and not keep education in the home, where she will spend all day just moseying about the house.

Again, I also cannot stress enough how women living that lifestyle in today's world are socially isolated.

And this is honestly a great tie in to boomer hate because they're the ones who created or at least bought in and pushed that as an ideal. And as an ideal it's great...but it's not realistic. And almost every single happy housewife has a way to be incredibly busy and engaged with her community and always has projects at the very least. Most after the kids are young pick up some kind of work or start a business out of the house.

And that's not even going into how unsustainable it is from and economics perspective. Few families in today's economy can afford that even if they wanted to.

 

[i440BX]

No mother has spent hours and hours of every waking day tending to her children. Aside from infant and toddlers (and even then). Childrearing is ideally spread out between the mom and grandmom and any other extended family. She would then get on with whatever needed to be done for her village or home like gathering, weaving, etc. Before industrialization what she was doing depended on her class and who she married, but she'd be working. After industrialization this work was increasingly outside the home and not connected to her husband's job. Keep in mind that also before industrialization that many kids would be apprenticed or more self-sufficient by their teenage years than what most would expect in the current day.

It is not the norm. Certainly not historically. For childrearing to be the only thing a woman did. I definitely agree that mothers shouldn't be in positions to put careers over children but the opposite extreme isn't the way to go.

It's clear that being isolated to the home with no other female family members coming and going to help out or socialize literally drives women that try that lifestyle mad. Modern society isn't set up for that to be a realistic or healthy option. This goes especially for if the family does the thing a lot wants and has their babies as early as possible because she won't even be into her thirties before they're going into school, and most people will send them to some sort of school and not keep education in the home, where she will spend all day just moseying about the house.

Again, I also cannot stress enough how women living that lifestyle in today's world are socially isolated.

And this is honestly a great tie in to boomer hate because they're the ones who created or at least bought in and pushed that as an ideal. And as an ideal it's great...but it's not realistic. And almost every single happy housewife has a way to be incredibly busy and engaged with her community and always has projects at the very least. Most after the kids are young pick up some kind of work or start a business out of the house.

And that's not even going into how unsustainable it is from and economics perspective. Few families in today's economy can afford that even if they wanted to.

Pretty much what I wrote here:

This debate is a psy-op because tptb love a divided society.

I think feminism has always been a grift to make women riled up against men, and men feel angry at women for being priviledged. Feminism has effected negatively the fabric of the society. But women have to understand that Feminists aren't their friends, they are subversives.

But Incels are wrong too. We must not forget, Hitler won by having the women support.

The solution isn't rejecting women rights, but to eliminate the bullshit concepts of modern civil rights, positive discrimination and Marxism.
I see some ways of solving this:

1. Sexes equal under the law, with very few exceptions (such things as bathrooms, pregnancy, military conscription etc).
2. Not shoving this bullshit called gender parity in employment. Being a housewife should be seen positively again, without any shame.
3. No double standards in employment. (Such as physical strength tests in army, police force).
4. Bringing back the concept of grandparents taking care of kids again. This has been an old thing. Young women and men at countryside were working in fields and the grandparents were taking care of the kid.

 

[Candlelight Desolation]

Social Security is also basically stealing

You didn't create the ponzi scheme but you've had how long since the age of majority to do anything about it? You kept it going and you didn't have enough kids to keep it going. How are you Innocent in this?

Social Security is a legalized pyramid scheme. I've been thinking about the state of the American economy lately, and I wonder when it's inevitably going to cave in on itself given all factors here. Youth cannot afford to continue to fund the ponzi scheme of two generations of people (Silents and Boomers) who outnumber us.

Part of their worldview makes sense given the political idolatry of FDR among those generations. Talking about removing Social Security or at least deceasing it is kicking a golden calf. And now the younger generations largely aren't having children themselves because of the world the Silents and Boomers created. So who's going to be paying for it if global populations are dipping?

 

[Hopkinsville Goblin]

Social Security is a legalized pyramid scheme. I've been thinking about the state of the American economy lately, and I wonder when it's inevitably going to cave in on itself given all factors here. Youth cannot afford to continue to fund the ponzi scheme of two generations of people (Silents and Boomers) who outnumber us.

Youth could afford to keep it going if they weren't being pulled in other directions. For example, if housing and transportation were affordable, that would help. If unions hadn't been demonized and destroyed, maybe wages could have kept up with inflation. If the US hadn't started needless forever wars that only served to further enrich the wealthy, there would be resources for things like healthcare for all. If you get a high school diploma, you should be employable at a job that can turn into a career that supports you and a family. Now, not even a bachelor's degree will guarantee any sort of employment.

 

[KTA]

Youth could afford to keep it going if they weren't being pulled in other directions. For example, if housing and transportation were affordable, that would help. If unions hadn't been demonized and destroyed, maybe wages could have kept up with inflation. If the US hadn't started needless forever wars that only served to further enrich the wealthy, there would be resources for things like healthcare for all. If you get a high school diploma, you should be employable at a job that can turn into a career that supports you and a family. Now, not even a bachelor's degree will guarantee any sort of employment.

Unions? Healthcare? You stupid socialists are literally stupider than the boomer himself. Lemme guess "free" healthcare, so a fucking subscription scam that automatically deducts 30% from a pay check for a service you dont need for 99% of the time, that banks literally on the pay piggy dying before it can cash-in on the paid for service, to secure the profits of an inefficient shyster business model, mostly pharma.

And on "Unions", aha, so I am supposed to pay protection to a mafia ring, because YOU want to sit on your fat socialist bastard ass an profit of me.

Seriously just fucking KYS, or go to Europe and pay per year 25K on a 40K/year paycheck for your "free" fucking healthcare, and have your potential income capped by "unions" that at one hand have their fingers in your pocket and on the other their fingers in the employees pockets, with "union" contracts that havent been updated for 30 years

 

[Sargon's wife's son]

Unions? Healthcare? You stupid socialists are literally stupider than the boomer himself. Lemme guess "free" healthcare, so a fucking subscription scam that automatically deducts 30% from a pay check for a service you dont need for 99% of the time, that banks literally on the pay piggy dying before it can cash-in on the paid for service, to secure the profits of an inefficient shyster business model, mostly pharma.

The reason I'm not part of any blue collar unions is fundamentally. I don't want to be lectured by some fat pink haired dyke about. LGBT, BBQ and How we need to work them, how we go immigrants Fuck. Call. If it was just about collectively bargaining for higher wages, I'd gladly join Carpenters slash general construction union.
That's the fundamental problem with humans. It stopped being about the general members, who were overwhelmingly right wing, but for some reason leadership with a bunch of left wing.
Probably because the general just wanna go home to the families and enjoy the weekends And not spend all that time climbing faggots.

 

[HerTea Pants]

I don't want to be lectured by some fat pink haired dyke about. LGBT, BBQ

Me neither. That sounds so horrible!

 

[Hopkinsville Goblin]

Unions? Healthcare? You stupid socialists are literally stupider than the boomer himself. Lemme guess "free" healthcare, so a fucking subscription scam that automatically deducts 30% from a pay check for a service you dont need for 99% of the time, that banks literally on the pay piggy dying before it can cash-in on the paid for service, to secure the profits of an inefficient shyster business model, mostly pharma.

And on "Unions", aha, so I am supposed to pay protection to a mafia ring, because YOU want to sit on your fat socialist bastard ass an profit of me.

Seriously just fucking KYS, or go to Europe and pay per year 25K on a 40K/year paycheck for your "free" fucking healthcare, and have your potential income capped by "unions" that at one hand have their fingers in your pocket and on the other their fingers in the employees pockets, with "union" contracts that havent been updated for 30 years

People in the countries without our disastrous practices do not want to accept an American style insurance system.

 

[KTA]

People in the countries without our disastrous practices do not want to accept an American style insurance system.

I invite you bastard socialist to Europe, come on dirty socialist nigger faggot, put your fucking spine where your mouth is. Immigrate to Europe, how about France, get extorted by up to 55% as a wage cager to pay for "free healthcare" ponzis that have been bankrupt for 40 years and only alive through hyper fucking inflation, and wait for up to 3 years to get an appointment with a specialist if you actually should need it.

Chances are you die before anybody looks at you for a service you paid for.

 

[Halbschwanz]

I really don't know how women bought into the working is best crap originally, knowing that it would lead to so much less time with their kids.

Many women ended up working jobs men left behind when the US got involved with WWII and many didn't want to leave the new positions. Income tax wasn't even three decades old at that point and it would not take a genius to figure out doubling the number of working adults means Uncle Sam gets to eat twice as many tax dollars. That's without getting into certain types of (((social engineering))) and the reasoning behind that.

for some reason leadership with a bunch of left wing.

Entryism. It's been the playbook since day one. Force people to play by your policy or their wallets get raped.

 

[PixarsTedKennedy]

Alright, I've been red-pilled on hating boomers and apologize for my previous dig that it's some reddit tier shit.
Not sure if it's been brought up before, but it's crazy how many boomers fell for Indian scammy shit. I recently watched the documentary Wild Wild Country and realized that I knew way too many boomers who fell for this type of garbage. I'm not sure if it's The Beatles fault, but I'm thinking it may be, or what. Even Steve Jobs chose to have some shitty jeet rub his feet instead of just getting surgery to save his life.

 

[Slap47]

I'm not sure if it's The Beatles fault,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexy_Sadie

To be fair, the Beatles literally made a song mocking an Indian guru for being a sex pest.

They apologized to the Indian later though..

 

[DumbDude43]

I'm not extorting you, the Federal Government is. If I just decided to quit collecting my Social Security, you would still have to pay part of your paycheck into it.

I "get to go to the doctor for free" because the government forced me to enroll in Medicare the day I started collecting Social Security. In reality, it's not free; Medicare Part A and Part B both cost a monthly premium, and have co-pays.

I empathize with you and I was not happy about the 50+ years that the government stole part of my paycheck, but the government owes me and everyone else who paid into it that money. Unlike the Illegals and the welfare moochers, I worked for over 50 years, served my country for 20, and probably paid more in income taxes and property taxes than some people make.

I was not old enough to vote any of this nonsense into law, and I was on board back in the early 2000s when then president Bush wanted to enable some people to opt out of a portion of their Social Security so that they could invest it in some sort of private retirement account.

You complain about the boomers thinking they know everything, but I would say the same about some of the people in this thread.

nobody gives a shit if you keep collecting your boomergibs or not
we give a shit if you defend the boomergibs system as a whole and support its continued imposition on future generations