Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "BALLERINA FARM's Hannah Neeleman Defends 'TRAD WIFE' Life Saying It's NOT MISOGYNY" video.

@FishareFriendsNotFood972 Fair enough. The irony of people calling this "trad" and then broadcasting their family life and their very young children to a global audience . . . Wow. I have no words. Everyone tells you not to do that. It should be plain as day why it's unwise.
4
No, she said men opting not to go to college is starting to affect the economy and the earning power of families.
4
@dustinbaker8272 I agree -- so, why are they exposing their most private lives to this? My parents would not have dreamed of it. They would not have believed any family would.
3
@FishareFriendsNotFood972 You could be right. On the other hand, maybe she's just acting for the camera to stoke controversy and gain more attention and . . . make more money. This is the Internet = we can't tell. (I'm an attorney, too.)
3
"Taken over the Internet?" I didn't know what it was. Is it traditional to expose your family life to the press? No, it's a new, illegitimate way to make money. Exposing your minor children to the media when they cannot consent is a disgrace. If the reporter participated in it, he's part of it as well. I don't know whether she is oppressed, but the children are.
3
@elisereynolds945 There is evidence of that. We need to consider every possibility with an open mind. School is supposed to welcome everyone.
3
@MichaelSmith-lr8cp And this problem started . . . When? Back when one income not far above the minimum wage was enough to start out in life, and a summer job covered a year of in-state tuition, people got married and had kids. Those kids are now in their 40s and 50s. And their kids face a different world.
3
I can't fathom why someone would broadcast this, or permit a reporter to come into their home.
2
Since when is it "traditional" to talk about your intimate family life on the new global media, and expose your young children to this level of scrutiny without their consent? I had traditional parents. They didn't even speak English to me.
2
Who's delusional? 😂
1
Great observation. So . . . Why is this family exposing their lives and their little children's lives to Internet scrutiny? Did the kids consent? Trick question, they can't. I say the same about gender mania. By the way.
1
 @p.w.352 It was never considered normal to expose your family and kids and intimate life to the Internet and global scrutiny, until very, very recently.
1
Is it traditional to expose your intimate family life to the press? No, it's a new, illegitimate way to make money. Exposing your minor children to the media when they cannot consent is a disgrace. If the reporter participated in it, he's part of it as well. I don't know whether she is oppressed, but the children are.
1
@sanjivjhangiani3243 Well then the premise is flawed that fewer men going to college is hurting the economy. Maybe they are wise to pick careers that can't be off-shored and that technology cannot replace. Do people in the trades work until 70? If they retire at 55, how will they make up those 15 years? Do they save more? Or do they switch to management? Can they?That's what's facing people. But there is a bigger picture here: China, Russia, India, and so forth are training scientists, engineers, and mathematicians. The US isn't.
1
@utah_koidragon7117 And some "cat lady" is the problem, not the fact that $3,000 per month is insufficient in most cities to provide for a family, even at a very modest standard of living? (That's 15% above "the fight for fifteen.") Or should moms be forced to work even if half of what they make goes to child care, because that other half is essential to cover the soaring rent? But the problem is other people's "happiness," influencers, and memes. Well, that's easy. Then the political leaders don't have to do anything except invent slogans and sic people on one another.
1
@user-hf2dr7sh4y Vance claims he supports a $5000 per child annual income tax credit. I do as well -- and I'd extend it any dependent child to age 21. I support it wholeheartedly. So, Vance is building support by attacking people without kids? Nearly 1 in 4 adults don't have kids, although some of them eventually will. If you add in those with grown children, that must be a huge number. They're going to want to see someone else get lower taxes? 😂 Either he's a doof, or he wants credit for the proposal while making sure it will never pass. (He's Yale Law. Which way would that cut?)
1
@utah_koidragon7117 My comment above about my support for the child tax credit is directed at you as well. Hope it shows up . . .
1
@utah_koidragon7117 No. I think his "cat lady" rhetoric and his "sociopaths" rhetoric is an attack on people without children, who will then be all upset and ill-disposed to listen to the good reasons for increasing the tax credit per child, which really does need to be increased. The childless won't take kindly to a tax cut that is only for people who have kids, now will they? Vance can be praised for the suggestion, while not having to actually work to get it passed. Clever move. Welcome to 2024 America.
1
@utah_koidragon7117 Were you allowed to see what I posted?
1
@utah_koidragon7117 Answer was for bidden . . . Again
1
@utah_koidragon7117 No. I think his "cat lady" rhetoric, etc., is an attack on people without children, who will then be all upset and ill-disposed to listen to the good reasons for increasing the tax credit per child. They won't take kindly to a tax credit that is only for people who have kids, now will they? Vance can be praised for the suggestion without actually having to build support to get it passed. Clever move. Welcome to 2024 America.
1
@utah_koidragon7117 Not if the main spokesman for the idea starts by insulting them, they won't. You must not know what most people are like. People get mad if their brother or sister gets a tax break they didn't. (Playing coy again, I see.) As for me, no one has to convince me. I supported it yesterday. I had no idea it was so low in the first place. I think Vance is best defined by his PayPal links, frankly. He could have done anything with his degree, such as representing the indigent like Michael Ratner (who was #1 at Columbia Law) did. PayPal is what he chose.
1
@utah_koidragon7117 So . . . He's a poor politician. Saying divisive things is more important than keeping it cool to build broad support for a much-needed tax credit for children. Got it. I believe it, too. On a related note: are you catching on about how low our standards are now? They're in the sub-basement. Speaking of, have you read Glenn Greenwald, With Liberty and Justice for Some? I'm rereading that now. You must know Greenwald from Tucker and Laura Ingraham. It's a staggering book, and remarkably patriotic. (For example, he praises the Founders and Teddy Roosevelt without presenting their flaws, as these are not relevant to the specific issues he discusses.)
1
Did anyone peek into her window, or is she broadcasting this? Why?
1