The controversial Harrison Butker

[SimplyMe]

I personally was not of the opinion Kapernick should be fired(although I disagreed with him as the daughter and wife of veterans.) However a key difference here IMO is Harrison Butker was not on NFL time when he made this speech. He was on his own time as a Traditional Catholic making a speech at a Catholic college. He was at a Christian venue away from the field on his own time so he has a right to his speech, As posted above Kapernick was actually at a NFL event making a political statement. Again, within his first amendment rights, but will also attract more pushback that way. I personally was not a fan of Trump saying that, BTW.

Case in point: Should I, who have spoken about Christian marriage and the vocation of parenthood at my own church women's groups at a church function(I'm no celebrity)be fired or doxxed? I work with lots of people that aren't believers and don't agree with me, but I would never dream of telling them how to order their lives and I don't! None of that comes up at my place of work nor should it.
Butker was not endorsing a product, either. People have the right to boycott products if they want(I've done it.)Shutting down Bud light, no-boycott yes-it's the American thing to do.

Businesses often decide they don't care if you make the speech on or off of their time, just look up the number of people who have been fired from jobs for public comments/posts on their personal Facebook pages. That difference isn't what you think, particularly when you are in a "high profile" job and the company (or the sports teams) feels you represented their values poorly. Now, I'll admit that Butker will be a bit different because, if they try to retaliate, he will likely try to claim First Amendment protections for his speech.

But this doesn't change the point of my post, "the Right" (or Republicans, if you prefer, or even MAGA) are no less guilty of trying to "cancel" people for beliefs than the left. "Wokeism" appears, at least to me, to be a fake issue, given what various Republican and right wing political groups have done through the years and are still doing. And while a poor excuse for "wokeism," I actually believe a part of it is because of the right's use of "cancel culture" against gays in the last few decades -- where you have McDonald's boycotted because one of their executives held a position for a gay rights charity, Ford is boycotted for merely advertising in a gay magazine, the various Disney boycotts for their support of gay rights, etc. And that doesn't get into the number of gays fired when they were "outed" by others, or the support for laws trying to keep gays out of jobs in government, in particularly education and the military. From what I see, the only difference now is that some on the right are upset that their tactics of previous decades have started to be used against them.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Businesses often decide they don't care if you make the speech on or off of their time, just look up the number of people who have been fired from jobs for public comments/posts on their personal Facebook pages. That difference isn't what you think, particularly when you are in a "high profile" job and the company (or the sports teams) feels you represented their values poorly. Now, I'll admit that Butker will be a bit different because, if they try to retaliate, he will likely try to claim First Amendment protections for his speech.

He's also covered under a collective bargaining agreement, which has more explicit rules governing the termination of a player. If they tried to fire him, I'd imagine that he'd have some leverage regarding unequal enforcement given the other things the NFL has let slide in the past.

 

[LizaMarie]

Businesses often decide they don't care if you make the speech on or off of their time, just look up the number of people who have been fired from jobs for public comments/posts on their personal Facebook pages. That difference isn't what you think, particularly when you are in a "high profile" job and the company (or the sports teams) feels you represented their values poorly. Now, I'll admit that Butker will be a bit different because, if they try to retaliate, he will likely try to claim First Amendment protections for his speech.

But this doesn't change the point of my post, "the Right" (or Republicans, if you prefer, or even MAGA) are no less guilty of trying to "cancel" people for beliefs than the left. "Wokeism" appears, at least to me, to be a fake issue, given what various Republican and right wing political groups have done through the years and are still doing. And while a poor excuse for "wokeism," I actually believe a part of it is because of the right's use of "cancel culture" against gays in the last few decades -- where you have McDonald's boycotted because one of their executives held a position for a gay rights charity, Ford is boycotted for merely advertising in a gay magazine, the various Disney boycotts for their support of gay rights, etc. And that doesn't get into the number of gays fired when they were "outed" by others, or the support for laws trying to keep gays out of jobs in government, in particularly education and the military. From what I see, the only difference now is that some on the right are upset that their tactics of previous decades have started to be used against them.

I am in agreement that BOTH sides do it, and I don't think it's right when the "Right." does it either. My concern is that there are Western nations with Christian backgrounds that have charged and arrested people for hate speech and given them jail time for speaking out for traditional Christian or Biblical values. Not here in the U.S. as we do have the first amendment, but I think there are those who would like to see it here(and I'm not talking about anyone here on the forum!!) I believe in the First amendment, as long as people are peaceful, and I would certainly include non-Christian faiths as well. Butker was speaking on his own time in a Catholic college, he should have a right to do that. People have a right to complain and not like it. And again, I wasn't a fan of trying to get rid of Kapernick, either. I really don't like cancel culture. No matter who is doing it.

 

[BPPLEE]

Yes, Alex, 1962, but just as some Americans pine for the Ozzie and Harriet days, others pine for that old time religion.

Goldberg approached this as a free speech issue--both for Buttger and Kapernick. Kapernick took a knee for civil rights. Buttger made a speech trying to deprive women of their rights to careers...

A Tennessee University, perhaps Vanderbilt, has a female place kicker. Wouldn't it be amazing if the Chiefs became the first NFL team to have a female place kicker?

Is Buttger afraid he could be replaced by a woman?

A woman who never actually kicked a field goal. Yes, that would be a classic DEI hire

 

[BPPLEE]

Butker's faith is very different from the 1500 years of Benedictine spirituality.

It would be like comparing a 1960's telephone to the Samsung AI.

The sisters themselves denounced his speech, both fir its political and cultural content.

Do you know in the middle ages St. Hilda and others were abbesses supervising both men's and women's monasteries, and they vowed obedience to their abbess?

This entitled pro-athlete earns $4,055,000 a year. If he gave up $2 million of his salary, 1000 lower-level employees of the Kansas City Chiefs--groundskeepers, maintenance, concessions, ticket takers, office staff--could get $1 more an hour, based on 2000 hours of work a year. If he really wants families to be able to support themselves on one income, and if he really wants to give women an incentive to stay home with their children, let him put his money where his mouth is.

Athlete's salaries are obscenely excessive--ever since Michael Jordan got more money for being in ads for Nike than the combined salaries of every single Chinese employee making the Air Jordans.

Who knows? Ultra-conservative companies like Chic Fil A or Hobby Lobby may want him to be their spokesmen for a few mil more a year. If he really wants stay at home Moms he could donate his endorsement fees to the lower paid staffers, too.

How much are Whoopie and Behar giving up?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I'm serious, exactly what was radical or concerning in what he said?

a speech in which Butker managed to denigrate:

• Women who choose careers over family
• Gay Pride
• Transgender people
• Bishops and priests who supported the Covid lockdown
• Couples who conceive through in vitro fertilization
• Supporters of diversity and inclusion programs
• The current president of the United States

That’s just to name a few of his targets. In Butker’s view, society risks being overwhelmed by “degenerate cultural values.”

A Controversial Commencement Address and Being Benedictine

The commencement address given by professional football player Harrison Butker at Benedictine College, a small liberal arts college in Kansas, has generated some big social media buzz. The narrow v…

beingbenedictine.com

 

[Vambram]

Harrison Butker did not denigrate anyone. Instead, he talked about the benefits of traditional American family values.

 

[Pommer]

Harrison Butker did not denigrate anyone. Instead, he talked about the benefits of traditional American family values.

Which are best served when one has an income well above average.
People who will need two incomes to properly raise their children don’t have the luxury of “mom” staying in the home to raise the kids.

He was speaking from a place of privilege and was not aware of his privilege so his speech came off as “out-of-touch” with average folks’ situations.

 

[Fantine]

• Butker criticized President Joe Biden, who is Catholic, and other unnamed Catholic leaders for “pushing dangerous gender ideologies onto the youth of America” — an apparent reference to transgender rights. (CNN)

Critics of the term "traditional family" point out that in most cultures and at most times, the extended family model has been most common, not the nuclear family,[28] though the nuclear family has had a longer tradition in England[29] than in other parts of Europe and Asia which contributed large numbers of immigrants to the Americas. The nuclear family became the most common form in the U.S. in the 1960s and 1970s.[30]

The concept that narrowly defines a nuclear family as central to stability in modern society that has been promoted by familialists who are social conservatives in the United States, and has been challenged as historically and sociologically inadequate to describe the complexity of actual family relations.

In an extended family resources are usually shared among those involved, adding more of a community aspect to the family unit. This is not limited to the sharing of objects and money, but includes sharing time. For example, extended family members such as grandparents are able to watch over grandchildren, allowing parents to continue and pursue careers, and allows the parents to reduce stress levels.[16] Extended families also contribute to children’s mental health due to increased resources in terms of adult support.[16]

Nuclear family - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This really corresponds so strongly with my own life. Living in the NYC suburbs had its drawbacks, certainly--population density, cost of living, traffic, crowds--but when we relocated to the midwest with our three children after a corporate takeover our "nuclear family" lost a lot.
ife

Even though I was a stay at home mom with a beautiful home and far more disposable income, we lost so much as well. I missed my parents, my siblings, my children's cousins, who were all an air trip away. We visited frequently back and forth (especially my side of the family) but it was different. Holidays were difficult.

The expenses associated with raising a family; notably housing, medical care and education, have all increased very rapidly, particularly since the 1950s. Since then middle class incomes have stagnated or even declined, whilst living costs have soared to the point where even two-income households are now unable to offer the same level of financial stability that was once possible under the single income nuclear family household of the 1950s.[23]

I am curious, Republicans. Can you answer a question for me? If the nuclear family is so important and vital, what steps are your legislators taking to make medical care more affordable? (Last I counted, they tried to abolish the ACA about 80 times.) How supportive are your legislators of keeping college and post-secondary education affordable and accessible to all? (All across the land, state university tuitions are soaring while states lower subsidies to give tax cuts to the rich.) What do you do to make housing safe and affordable? (My very, very red state has the worst landlord tenant laws in the country.)

In coastal states with unbelievably high housing prices, how many young adults defer marrying until they are over 30 and live with their parents until then because if they had to pay rent they would never be able to afford a home or pay off college.

 

[Vambram]

Which are best served when one has an income well above average.
People who will need two incomes to properly raise their children don’t have the luxury of “mom” staying in the home to raise the kids.

He was speaking from a place of privilege and was not aware of his privilege so his speech came off as “out-of-touch” with average folks’ situations.

My income, and my parents income back in the 60s and 70s, were never ever above average. My mother stayed home to raise her children until all 3 of us were in school.

 

[Lukaris]

From post #.149:

Quote:


“coastal states with unbelievably high housing prices, how many young adults defer marrying until they are over 30 and live with their parents until then because if they had to pay rent they would never be able to afford a home or pay off college.”



It was the Clinton administration that sparked the real estate collapse in the early 2000s. A 2012 article from Reason (magazine):

Clinton's Legacy: The Financial and Housing Meltdown

Clinton sowed the seeds of the Great Recession by helping to inflate the housing bubble.

reason.com

 

[iluvatar5150]

My income, and my parents income back in the 60s and 70s, were never ever above average. My mother stayed home to raise her children until all 3 of us were in school.

Housing costs were quite a bit different then.

 

[probinson]

Which are best served when one has an income well above average.
People who will need two incomes to properly raise their children don’t have the luxury of “mom” staying in the home to raise the kids.

Back in 2003 when my son was born, I was making $13/hour and my wife was making $8/hour. When we decided to start our family, we sat down and considered the financial implications. My wife could have continued to work, but then we would have to take our child to daycare. And when we considered the costs of that, she would have been working solely to pay for daycare. So, we made the decision together that she would stay home with our son, and we would figure out how to survive on $13/hour.

We were nowhere near well above average income. In fact, we were well below the government poverty line.

Today, my son is nearly 21 and my daughter is 17, and my wife has stayed home with them the whole time. And though it was INCREDIBLY difficult for us financially for about the first 10 years of my son's life (that was the time my career started to really take off), there is NOTHING either of us would change.

 

[Vambram]

Housing costs were quite a bit different then.

Obviously, the costs of everything was much lower in the 60s and 70s than today. That still doesn't change the fact that my parents raised 3 sons and that my parents did so with below average income until my youngest brother was almost in high school. My mother returned back to working for an employer after my youngest sibling started 1st grade. My mother and father gladly made the financial sacrifice in order to allow her to focus mostly of her time in raising her children. My mother is the greatest woman I personally know.

 

[Pommer]

My income, and my parents income back in the 60s and 70s, were never ever above average. My mother stayed home to raise her children until all 3 of us were in school.

Wow, different times are different.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Obviously, the costs of everything was much lower in the 60s and 70s than today. That still doesn't change the fact that my parents raised 3 sons and that my parents did so with below average income until my youngest brother was almost in high school. My mother returned back to working for an employer after my youngest sibling started 1st grade. My mother and father gladly made the financial sacrifice in order to allow her to focus mostly of her time in raising her children. My mother is the greatest woman I personally know.

But housing is a specific problem that, in many locales, has way outpaced wages and inflation. It’s not feasible in a lot of places now to have a house on one income less than $150k/yr.

 

[Vambram]

x.com

x.com

Watch: Patrick Mahomes, Andy Reid Defend Harrison Butker After His Controversial Speech - ‘That’s a Great Person'

Chiefs coach Andy Reid said about kicker Harrison Butker: "We respect everybody to have a voice. That's a great thing about America, man."

www.westernjournal.com

 

[Vambram]

But housing is a specific problem that, in many locales, has way outpaced wages and inflation. It’s not feasible in a lot of places now to have a house on one income less than $150k/yr.

No doubt about that. In fact, the high costs of buying or renting a place to live is one reason why some voters between the ages of 21-35 have become disappointed and disillusioned with the establishment ruling class of America.

 

[Fantine]

From post #.149:

Quote:


“coastal states with unbelievably high housing prices, how many young adults defer marrying until they are over 30 and live with their parents until then because if they had to pay rent they would never be able to afford a home or pay off college.”



It was the Clinton administration that sparked the real estate collapse in the early 2000s. A 2012 article from Reason (magazine):

Clinton's Legacy: The Financial and Housing Meltdown

Clinton sowed the seeds of the Great Recession by helping to inflate the housing bubble.

reason.com

As I understand it, you are saying that deregulation is often harmful, and because it is almost always Republicans who deregulated, you needed to point out that this particular deregulation was signed by Clinton.
I am not so naive to believe that that is the only cause of high housing costs.
On the other hand, I am glad you recognize that the practice of deregulation is often very harmful to our country.

 

[comana]

Harrison Butker did not denigrate anyone. Instead, he talked about the benefits of traditional American family values.

Speaking the way he did by singing out the women graduates is the problem I have. While he does start out by acknowledging their accomplishments in their education, he quickly moves to devaluing that very same in favor of a ”traditional role” for women. It seems women need to be constantly convinced a traditional role is ideal instead of them being drawn to it. Maybe that is because the traditional roles have favored men and their aspirations.