Steve Sailer on Africa and genetic selection. Take away concept: no Malthusian trap.
Article at First Things: Was The Reformation Necessary? A commenter quotes a personal fave of mine, Jaroslav Pelikan that it was a tragic necessity. The idea put forth about culture dividing at the Rhine was intriguing as well.
The Goofy and the Serious. The Bible’s silence about life on other planets.
Crusty old Spengler finds someone he agrees with. Doesn't stop him from grousing about others, though. Love that guy.
Why Republicans will not shrink government.
61 comments:
You should label that las link: liable to make certain people's heads explode
I read most of it...but couldn't get past the lionization of Republicans as "white knights" and "chivalrous" and always pointing out the left's hypocrisy in a "polite manner".
Never mind the idea that the economy is all about transferring the wealth of men to women.
Or the misunderstanding that the interplay between Democrat, Southern, and Black...is very complicated and not as simple as pointing out that Wallace was a Democrat...so therefore that means African Americans are joining a part that inherently racist and segregationist.
I'm off to look at some LOLcats now in the hopes that I can scourge my mind of such things!
:-)
The reformation was often in response to a lot of Catholic corruption and favor buying (pardons).
I can clearly see parallels with the modern world on that matter.
Global warming, after all, is nothing more than dressed up bribery in return for salvation.
How can you purchase salvation? Really. It's nothing more than what they used to do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther#On_Islam
terri,
70-80% of all government spending is a transfer of wealth from men to women, even if not officially declared as such.
And Republicans are not 'lionized' in that article - they are actually being bashed.
If your vacant little head implodes based on poor reading comprehension, then you aren't that smart.
Anonymous,
Thank you so much for your polite, chivalrous, knightly response to my comment.
Yes. Republicans are being bashed in that article...bashed for being too kind and good and noble to realize how badly they are manipulated by the evil lefties. They are so pure they can't comprehend the wickedness that devours them.
And I find it interesting that government spending is all about transferring wealth from men to women. It assumes firstly that most wealth belongs almost exclusively to males(I wonder how all those males' wives and daughters feel about that), and secondly that women alone are the beneficiaries of government spending.
Maybe, if you want to say women and children....or more specifically...poor women and children(whom I will assume are equally male and female, unless the poor have taken a strict Amazonian birth control policy)...then I would give the point some consideration.
As it is...it makes a gender issue of something that is way more complicated than that.
Oversimplification seems to be this author's key tool.
If only Republicans, presumably wealthy, male ones, would stand up to the feminists who are rotting this country to the core and stealing what rightfully belongs to men...then that would be a wonderful promised land for all!
It assumes firstly that most wealth belongs almost exclusively to males
It is produced mostly by males, yes.
Aren't you someone who whines about the 'pay gap' and 'glass ceiling'?
Also, women live 7 years longer than men, and thus collect far more SS and Medicare than men (even though men pay most of the taxes that finance this).
The fact that you feel entitled to the fruits of a man's labor, and that he should get nothing in return, is telling. And abhorrent.
I agree with the author - single mothers are, for the most part, government-funded parasites.
I could not believe that link on Republicans that turned into a rant about transferring the wealth of men to women...I could only conclude that the author has had really bad luck with women. And pray for him. He sounds like those lost souls who comfort each other on Dr. Helen's blog by trashing women.
As for me, I love men, specifically my husband of 23 years, my teen son, and before them my father, brother, etc. I was raised to support myself and to be a social and econonomic helpmate to my man, to be a full time mother to my children during their early years, but have been the primary breadwinner for the last 13 years, as the economy around here has been brutal for men in my husband's profession. Marriage is a partnership, about mutual aid and comfort thru hard times at least as much as it is about love, companionship and joys like having children together.
I am offended by people whose bitterness about their personal tragedies blinds them to the fact that many of us married couples love and help each other, and do NOT exploit each other. And so far as transfers of funds? I earn the salary, I buy the big ticket items, and I am thrilled to be hunting for a wonderful Christmas present for him right now. When I was an at home mom, I had the time to make him something.
.I could only conclude that the author has had really bad luck with women.
I disagree - your knee-jerk shaming tactic is merely the tired old way that women try to shout down any legitimate questions about feminism going too far (which it has).
Overall, I agree with that article, and found it to be far more well-reasoned than the comments of the women who can't be held accountable.
Your drive-by of Dr. Helen, one of the few women who grasps this issue, tells us even more about your anti-male bigotry. You are almost as bad as Beth Donovan.
Well, the other side of that wealth transfer to single women is that there are presumably males in that conception picture who seem to be providing no support.
There are also many other recipients of wealth transfer other than the SS/Medicare and the state & town welfare systems. Some of those are male dominated. Head-injured, prisons, what is called corporate welfare.
And some have been relatively even-handed. Student loans, mortgage deductions.
As to the white knights and chivalry, I see no white knights or black knights. I do see public Democrats as far grayer. In terms of public manipulation and deceitfulness, I think it's no contest. This may have large elements of confirmation bias left over from the 80's, when I increasingly broke with the left I agreed with because they we so prejudiced, dishonest, and so completely unaware of how demeaning they were to those they disagreed with. They felt completely justified. I didn't find a promised land on the right, but I found relatively more politeness. Not enough, but still a big improvement.
Anonymous, I hardly think that a conservative married wife and mother can be accused of anti-male bigotry because she pities misogynist men in basements who abuse women anonymously (too cowardly to identify themselves...).
It's not shaming to say that one is sorry for a person who has failed in their relationships with the opposite sex. It's simple recognition of the fact that romantic failure leaves people bitter and hurt. However, just because one woman hurt a person doesn't give them the right to insult all of them.
Anonymous, as someone who has corresponded with both of your disputants in other contexts, I can assure you that anti-male bigotry and refusal to hear the other side doesn't apply. It is thee who art guessing and stereotyping.
Hint: the phrase "vacant little head" might be fun to write, but if you can't back it up, it's best to stay away from it. I know, I know, you're just telling it like it is, completely justified, and other people are just unable to hear the truth.
presumably males in that conception picture who seem to be providing no support.
Why should he have to provide support if SHE ends the marriage? In a fair world, the person ending the marriage would get no custody.
It is quite common for women to trick men by poking holes on condoms, in order to get 21 years of child support (which is really alimony for the mother, since the mother is not accountable for proving she spent it on the child).
The 'deadbeat dads' myth is among the most bogus of all myths in America today.
No, Retriever, your dig at Dr. Helen (who is far more knowledgeable than you), combined with how you have to word 'misogynist' on the tip of your tongue, effectively out you as someone who is trying to get away with cheating men.
How about addressing the very real points about feminism becoming a hateful, supremacist ideology that is dominating and more of America today?
Aren't you someone who whines about the 'pay gap' and 'glass ceiling'?
No...not really.
Also, women live 7 years longer than men, and thus collect far more SS and Medicare than men (even though men pay most of the taxes that finance this).
Damn those sneaky women!! Even God seems to be against men...letting those stealers of wealth and general female evil-doers live longer and therefore have more time to suck the life out of the virile male citizenry of America.
Something must be done about this.
Maybe if we start strangling every third girl child born we can somehow rebalance things to bring back the good old days of the patriarchy...when women could only steal wealth by marrying old codgers and killing them off.
Anonymous....I think you have proven my point about that particular post. If anything I would be willing to place a bet that you might even be that author, following the link to your blog back here.
I could be wrong though. I am addled with these inferior female brains.
Maybe if we start strangling every third girl child born we can somehow rebalance things to bring back the good old days of the patriarchy...
Yet you have no problems with feminists pushing for more male babies to be aborted, than female.
No more Patriarchy.....Oh, so you prefer a world of players instead? Just so that we are clear on that.
Your inability to address the main points effectively proves my points against you to be valid.
No, I am not the author. But I wish I could have written that same argument myself..
Yet you have no problems with feminists pushing for more male babies to be aborted, than female.
Evidence please? Are we talking just about America...or globally. Because in places like China and India...where they know how to keep the wealth with men...there are millions of baby girls aborted every year.
And yet...I really don't think that there is a push for women to abort male babies...here or anywhere else. If you can show me some evidence for your statement...I will gladly read it....even though you think I have such poor comprehension skills.
No more Patriarchy.....Oh, so you prefer a world of players instead? Just so that we are clear on that.
No we're not clear on that. It's satire/humor/sarcasm. Maybe your comprehension skills are as poor as mine.
As far as SS and medicare go...Evidence that "mostly males" pay the taxes for those? Anyone who works pays for SS and Medicare, even low-paid workers, who may be exempt from income taxes, pay SS and Medicare through FICA.
The employers also pay an equal amount of FICA. Employers which are frequently part of large corporations which have male and female shareholders and executives.
You have a nice little story in your head that is little more than a story....with some nasty overtones.
If you want to talk about facts then actually present some!
Evidence :
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/08/is-war-between-generations-inevitable.html
Here is a detailed report, from the Cleveland Fed and Boston U, of how women get a lot more out of the government than they put in, while for men, it is the reverse.
Read this slowly so that you don't get overwhelmed. Then, you can admit that you were wrong.
I note here that the link is evidence for a separate, earlier point, not the one requested.
Admit that I was wrong.
How was I wrong? I already told you that it is God's fault that women live longer...causing women to benefit more than men. Take that up with Him.
That link leaves a few things out. For instance the fact that many women stay home and contribute economically through unpaid work and removing the cost that a male would have to pay for someone to raise his children and manage a home. Never mind women who take care of their ailing parents and their husband's ailing parents...at no cost and with no compensation.
It would be interesting to know how much wealth high-powered men with families would have if they didn't have wives and family supplying all their support services for free.
I guess if we really want monetary equality we should just start eliminating the old people anyway. They are a huge drain on the economy with all their medical bills and inability to work.
Here's another thought about SS inequality. Women whose husbands have dies after paying into the system may be reaping their husband's benefits....in the form of survivor's benefits. So some of that inequality isn't the transfer of wealth from miscellaneous males to miscellaneous females...but a direct benefit link to marriage rights and laws.
Maybe we should just take the widows benefits and find some more deserving males who could use them.
"died" not dies
Yeah, anonymous, I think you've missed some major intellectual steps if you think that women are getting the better end of the "absent father" deal.
But way to win friends and engage in thoughtful discussion. Are you obnoxious so you don't have to engage people in substantive debate, or do you actually think you are providing useful information?
terri and retriever- it's OK, I had to read the article slowly so my vacant little head didn't explode too :)
Jonathan,
So happy you survived reading it! ;-)
On a tangential note...I think we have proven this post:
Flaming drives online social networks
From the post:
They have found that long conversation threads are overwhelmingly more emotionally negative than short ones, with happiness scores decreasing logarithmically with the number of messages. What's more, long conversations almost always start with negative comments.
See my one initial negative comment is contributing to starting along thread that will eventually build a cohesive community.
You're welcome!
;-)
I liked that article about Republicans being loserish men. Jonathan appears to fit that description - he thinks acting heroic will (someday) get him somewhere with women.
He clearly has no sympathy for the rampant abuse of taxpayer money conducted by unwed mothers, as well as the entrapment of men by such women (the other commenter noted poking holes in condoms).
Feminism is a major factor in most of the economic, social, and cultural troubles that plague America today. The inability of most women to even discuss this meaningfully, says a lot about modern women, none of it good. When future historians debate why the West declined, topics like women's suffrage will be seriously discussed as contributing factors.
I already told you that it is God's fault that women live longer...
Heh. It is also God's fault that men can reproduce at a much later age than women, and that men overwhelmingly more capable of inventing things than women.
The inability of most women to even discuss this meaningfully, says a lot about modern women, none of it good. When future historians debate why the West declined, topics like women's suffrage will be seriously discussed as contributing factors.
Yeah. OK. Sure.
Now, seriously...you claim women can't discuss these things intelligently...but I haven't seen anything really intelligent about the original post, Anonymous' comments, or your comment.
What I have read is an assumption of "the way things really are"...with no real evidence that delves into the complexity of the issues.
It's all about Men vs. Women...or Women vs. Men...leaving out the fact that men and women have relationships and families and work together in ways that are not equal at all times. So women benefit more in their last days compared to men in their last days, at least that is the premise. If we take a snapshot earlier in life...I wonder how that equality works out.
That post is girded with a general hatred of women. Women are the ones who push fathers away from their children...because women want to live high on the government hog.
Tae Party women want men to "man up"...but in the comments section those same women are criticized as being just another form of feminists emasculating men.
That author's view is so suffused with his gender polarization that there is little to discuss there.
I want a serious answer to this question.
How do you envision what a correct, good, fair relationship between men and women should look like?
Dorion,it's interesting that you view a man's good manners as a sign of romantic desperation instead of as (probably) a good measure of his character, and predictor of the future health and happiness of his private life. Kind, intelligent and chivalrous men tend to have few difficulties romantically if they aren't living on desert islands.
I actually agree with you on some of your points about feminism and unwed mothers except that you really should remember that it takes two people to make a baby. Talk of entrapment seems to neatly avoid the fact that we are none of us brute beasts. Nobody forces a man to have sex with a woman. It's not physically possible, unlike the reverse. Nobody has a right to eternal recreational sex. Even the Peter Pans who talk about game and treat women and conquest of them as sport will eventually grow old, sick and lonely. By contrast, chivalrous, loving and kind men will have wives to love and cherish them for the rest of their lives.
You are really setting up a straw woman, tho, when you condemn women and claim that we do not speak out against the excesses of extreme feminism and the terrible difficulties faced by children of unwed parents. You're preaching to the choir here, to people who believe in the sanctity of marriage, to people who love children, to people who support their own children, and (tho you may not know it) to people who have worked professionally and personally caring for children who have grown up without fathers or with broken families.
And women's suffrage as a factor? I have to go to work, so don't have time to wonder why you brought that up...
But I do agree that extreme feminism has a lot to answer for. Was just frothing at the mouth about some of the idiocy promulgated by HuffPost (if you want to get really mad go read their female columnists). Perhaps I am protected in everyday life from the worst of it because I live in a suburb where 95% of the people are married with kids...
Anon and Dorion, how would relationships between men and women work in your ideal world? Not a trap, just genuinely confused.
Anon and Dorion, how would relationships between men and women work in your ideal world? Not a trap, just genuinely confused.
Read this.
Much like how they work outside the Anglosphere today, and how they worked in the US 50+ years ago. Men and women have different talents and different specializations. Both specializations were equally valuable.
Feminists decided that this role for women was 'oppressive'. Yet, most would argue that women are worse off today than they were in the past, since fewer men want to marry them, work for them, and keep them safe.
terri,
The link I posted shows how most government spending is a transfer from men to women. This is not very big secret.
Discussion with you is not meaningful until you concede at least that one point, based on the facts shown. AVI also said that this addresses one of the earlier points.
LOL!!!!!
You couldn't be more wrong. That may have been true a century ago when society kept female sexuality in check, but female sexuality kept unchecked leads to women chasing criminals, thugs, and pickup artists.
You really have no idea.
Discussion with you is not meaningful until you concede at least that one point, based on the facts shown.
First of all, I never said that your link was wrong...I just don't see what the point of it is. Women benefit more from SS because they live longer. They use more Medicare resources because they live longer.
What is the solution that you propose? How would you make this "equal" in your eyes? I explained about women receiving their husband's SS benefits, probably also contributing to the numbers being greater for women....but you didn't acknowledge that or admit that women are at the short end of the financial stick in many, many ways throughout their lives. So, taking a financial snapshot of the last years of male and female lives hardly gives the full picture of financial equality between the sexes.
You still have not provided evidence that feminists are pushing for more male babies to be aborted than females....a claim you asserted confidently and yet have made no effort to justify.
What I read in your links is a lot of assertions and very little actual evidence. That Spearhead post makes all sorts of claims...but doesn't prove a single one, or even provide links to places that could provide the raw data to even analyze.
No, almost all the links are to equally repulsive blogs where another male is singing the same tune...that women are predatory, stupid, thieving, whorish people.
It's seriously disturbed. The dregs of the Internets.
And I think I am done with the conversation now.
Because how can I converse with someone who already has his mind made up, has already decided that discussion is unproductive and is convinced that women are out to get him and every other male on the planet.
Women benefit more from SS because they live longer. They use more Medicare resources because they live longer.
So these programs are, in fact, transfers from men to women.
There is no equivalent transfer from women to men.
Period.
And I think I am done with the conversation now.
Because you have been proven wrong. Women of yesteryear would have been graceful in this admission, but you are not.
Projection (the core of female psychology). I provided backup, you did not. And you think you are capable of debating with men......Hah!
terri- good thought. As we say on the WoW forums... don't feed the trolls.
Jonathan,
So the person who provides solid research is a 'troll', while the person who dodges, refuses to acknowledge the research, and changes the subject is not?
AVI pointed out that the research did prove the point about government spending flowing from men to women, so terri and apparently Jonathan are disagreeing with the host as well.
And Jonathan, that article I linked is quite good and well-argued. You haven't said otherwise, because you don't want the women to see you agreeing with something they don't approve of.
If that is your moral code, Jonathan, you will never actually get a woman to love you. Hint : being a suckup to women will not get you anywhere.
As we say on the WoW forums...
World of Warcraft?
LOL!! There is almost nothing that has a bigger inverse corelation to a man's success with women as playing World of Warcraft.
Dude, I'm trying to help you. Sucking up to women will never get you laid. Ever. Women hate a man who obediently sucks up.
Anonymous, I am unfortunately not shocked that, despite having lost the argument - lost it stunningly and badly - you continue to labor under the delusion that you have won.
When I noted that you provided evidence for an earlier point, it wasn't a congratulation for your brilliance, it was pointing out that Terri had asked for evidence on one point and you had retreated to providing evidence for another. It was a slam. It was an announcement: "Judges score minus one to anonymous." You didn't pick it up. For one in my profession, that speaks volumes about you. There are fairly basic social skills that you have not mastered. It is not mere politeness that you have offended against, but basic rules of debate and discourse.
In simplest form: you made an initial claim about wealth transfer. It had some truth values, but I believe I countered it fairly effectively. There was much more I could have mentioned in counterargument. But you would have none of that, wandering off into holes pricked in condoms - hardly a statistically significant addition to the discussion at hand. By that evasion You have declared yourself unable to respond.
I say this not to convince you, for you have already declared that futile in a dozen ways you simply cannot see, because you will not see. You have no points left standing, only the mere reitieration that all the rest are too stupid to see the obvious, combined with guesses about the personalities of those here that are laughably inaccurate.
The floor is yours. to sum up if you wish.
Anonymous - I think Jonathan's wife would disagree with you there.
The above 1:34 AM comment was from me, Dorion.
No Dorion, Anon provided a link, which highlighted a disparity between what men receive in SS vs women - which I don't think anyone on the thread doubted - and treated it as something more than a tangent. It doesn't address the main point, and not the the insane one for for which terri said quite loudly "Evidence please?" The statistic is about men and women after age 65. Read louder.
As for Jonathan having a wife, I'll leave that one set up on the tee for him.
Yeah, when I drop his granddaughter off so that I can take my wife out for her birthday this weekend, I'll mention to my dad that he has no way of knowing if I'm married or not.
Also terri, in support of your link on comments... http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/
My link specifically states the following :
"On average, 65-year old men today will receive only 43.6% of the net benefits that women receive, and young men today can expect a net tax burden over their lifetimes that will be 3.4 times greater than for women. "
You people are trying very hard to avoid this. While I don't expect the likes of terri to be fair or reflective, I certainly expect more from AVI.
So why is AVI trying to hard to avoid a solid fact.
Oh, and claims that 'women are getting the short end of the child support' racket have not been supported. You need to provide support.
I also see that my basic question goes unanswered by AVI :
"Why should he have to provide support if SHE ends the marriage? In a fair world, the person ending the marriage would get no custody if no fault can be proved".
Why are you avoiding these huge points? Is the need to have a different standard of conduct for men and women SO important to you? And you call yourselves proponents of equality....
Why has my comment been deleted???
Anyway, I will repeat what I said :
Apologies to AVI, but I gotta agree with Anonymous here.
He was told to provide a link supporting his statement that government spending has a one-way flow from men to women, and he did provide it.
Honest people would acknowledge that, but Terri not only did not acknowledge this source, but both she and AVI then make the unsupported claim that men are skipping on child support, but don't seem to think that THEY have to provide any sources.
Anon did not provide support of his claim of male babies being aborted. But given the conspicuous dishonesty of terri and even AVI in admitting the government spending point, while also not provided anything to support their own claim that men are deadbeat dads, makes them lose credibility in their attempts to point the finger at Anon.
This proves Anon's point. For some reason AVI does appear to want to excuse women from wrongdoings that men would never be excused from. Gee, I wonder why....
The only reason for this is because he does not want terri to disapprove of him. In this, I agree with Anon.
While I don't expect any honesty from Terri, I thought AVI was better than that.
Hahaha.
That's hilarious Dorian!
First of all...I never said anything in any of my comments about child support. Go back and read them. I haven't brought that into the conversation at any point...so it's funny that you say that I used it to derail the conversation.
And...I never asked for a link about government spending either. I never, at any time, said that SS was equally fair. I admitted the point and offered some reasons as to why it might be unbalanced.
Your accusations are completely without merit and have little to do with anything that I have actually said.
And...I really don't think that I have the power that you think I do over AVI and his ability to disagree with me.
If AVI had something to say...he would say it. And he still may.
I have more to say on another comment.
A relevant post by Cassandra: http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2010/01/fact_checking_t.html
Now, moving to actual substantive remarks about the topic at hand, rather answering stupid, pointless insults that I seem to be attracting.....
Whatever stats were used for the study about SS benefits, they are old stats. The study came out in 2001, which means that any stats concerning actual past taxes vs. benefits that are used in the study had to be accumulated prior to then.
Let's assume they were calculated in 2000.
In the year 2000, a 65 year old adult would have been born in 1935. So the stats are reflecting values of people and economic situations of people who were born before 1935.....because the longitudinal compilation of stats about retirees and women living about 7 years longer than men--and thereby automatically using more benefits than men, simply from the fluke of differing life expectancies--must come from people who were born at least 7 years earlier than 1935...so maybe births around 1928.
From what I can find, Full benefits of. started around 1940, though taxes began being collected in 1937.
The importance of this? Those generations who used SS up through 2000 come from generations of much more traditional households than what we could probably expect today. Many women from those generations did not work outside the home, earn income, pay taxes, or have a huge share in the economy.
So....naturally...for women like that...they are automatically, at the end of their lives, going to reap benefits that they haven't paid into.
On the other hand....that is not our present situation. At this point in time about 75% of women, between 25-54, work outside of the home.
And more women in the workforce means more women paying into the system and the shrinking of the discrepancy between men and women on down the road....assuming that by the time this generation reaches 65 that SS will even be around n some form.
more in a minute.
Something else I would like to point out.
On the original post that AVI linked to....there was a link describing how feminists had manipulated the stimulus to favor women. That post didn't link to anything while making the claims that it did...so I went looking for the evidence myself and it does seem as if NOW actively tried to influence the stimulus to be mindful of women and not just consider jobs that are predominately done by men.
I am not a member of NOW and don't know any real life women who is.....so I think it is fair to say that they don't represent a large majority of women.
However, I thought this was an interesting development. Because in the midst of "the futurist" whining about women stealing wealth from men....he also whines about women getting more jobs.
Wouldn't the best thing for "making things equal" be for women to work more? Or to earn more money?
The more they earn, the more they pay in taxes. Problem mostly solved......except for those pesky extra years of life expectancy. Well, maybe we can kill them off after a certain age...implementing a strict Logan's Run policy.
And this is why I think that that post and others like it are not really based on a perceived inequality of the sexes, but are tied to much more ingrained anti-female feelings. Because it doesn't really matter what women do.
The general sentiment seems to be that if a woman isn't at home pregnant, barefoot and serving her man...then she is just messing things up somehow.
Lovely attitude.
Last Point.
Despite what all of these female bashing comments and posts say....women, by and large, are not out to get men. They are not out to get money.
Are there gold-diggers?....there surely are...just as there are men who mooch off women.
Are there manipulators?...there surely are just as there are male manipulators and users.
This is not male-female issue. This is an issue about virtue and respect....and both genders represent the highs and lows in the population.
Women have always been in more financially precarious situations. A hundred year ago it was because they had very few options. They were completely dependent on the health, kindness, and abilities of the men in their lives. Marry a jerk who was lazy, cruel, had no prospects, or maybe just became severely ill or died and you were in big trouble...because you were mostly powerless to do very much about it or find a way to make up for your partner's failing or bad fortune.
The situation is not quite the same today. However, women frequently sacrifice their financial well-being for their families by staying home to raise their children, or working lower-paying, part-time, jobs in order to be available to their families.
Most of those jobs don't have benefits, or retirement savings opportunities.
I realize that anonymous and Dorian probably thinks this is worth very little....that women shouldn't be compensated in some way for the lack of money they have because of being mothers and wives and serving their families.
If a woman, my age, with young children, like mine, dies. The financial implications are huge for the husband and family. All of a sudden, the husband has to pay for childcare for two children....a princely sum. All of a sudden the husband may have to cut back his hours, losing income. He may lose the opportunity to advance and earn more in the future because he is less available to meet his company's demands.
He may have to pay for all sorts of incidental costs that the wife took care of. Like my husband would have to pay someone to cut the children's hair, or to clean the carpets every once in a while. He might need to pay a maid to clean up every once in a while because a single parent working full-time, can't do it all.
The financial contribution a woman like me makes to her family, by removing costs, is hard to put a value on....never mind the social network and stability that she provides to the family, giving them a healthy emotional start in life.
I know this is worthless to people like anonymous who equate worth with wealth....but what can be done with people like that?
sorry for my horrible punctuation!!
Note: I did not delete any of your comments, Dorion.
To keep it simple, I will only repeat: the evidence cited was about women over 65 receiving more in benefits than men over 65. That does not remotely prove a unidirectional general transfer of wealth from men to women.
AVI,
I read anon's link, and it says plain as day :
"The future looks more than three times as bleak for her male cohort, who can expect to pay $312,000 more in taxes than he will ever receive in benefits."
It says women will pay $92,000 vs. $312,000 for the man.
So you are outright false about your claim that it only refers to 65-year-olds. Why would you make such a misrepresentation?
Also, I am still waiting for AVI to support his claim that men skipping out on child support is somehow more prevalent than women abusing the system.
I really thought AVI was better than that. I don't expect anything reasonable from the likes of Terri, but AVI should be better.
It says women will pay $92,000 vs. $312,000 for the man.
So you are outright false about your claim that it only refers to 65-year-olds. Why would you make such a misrepresentation?
You don't seem to understand my point. That link gets that information from a study that uses information from past generations about real, actual discrepancies...in other words hard data of what men and women actually paid and received in benefits up until that point, in 2000. That data would have come from generations of people who lived much more traditional lives than present-day men and women, with women who, in general, stayed at home raising children and managing households...not earning income and paying taxes.
That snapshot is not representative of my generation, or many of the other generations immediately before and after mine.....because women work in much larger numbers now than they have in the past.
As long as women stay home and raise families more than men do, or work part-time for the same reasons....there will always be a discrepancy between what men and women pay into the system.
I would like to see how exactly that study calculated future discrepancies, because predicting the future is not such an easy thing. The economy is always in flux, SS and Medicare may change or be eliminated in the future, even more women may join the workforce or the differences in pay between men and women may fluctuate.
My point is that the study's information about the past reflects economic situations of the past....as such, that same data aren't good predictors of the future.
Do you understand?
You can't predict the future using the past as a pattern, especially when you know that current situations are not the same as the past.
And...if you can be so certain that something is true just because you read it on a blog...or because someone else just confidently asserts that it is true...well then...what hope is there for discussion?
The truth is that even if you follow the link in that blog post to the study it assumes a lot of things. All of the tables and charts are based on pre-Bush era tax cuts...the tables clearly say this. Tax cuts that will have existed for almost 10 years. For all I know that could make the discrepancy larger, or smaller.
The study also reflects a pre-recession era economy and all of the assumptions that go along with it about income, tax revenue, and the trajectory of the country's economy and the unemployment disparity between genders...during this current time in which more men are unemployed than women...as a whole.
But the truth is that you, personally, don't know any of these things...because you haven't taken the time to look into it or think critically about it.
All you know is that women pretty much suck and are out to get men...preferably through government legislation.
The irony is that if you want less discrepancy, then the feminists are your best friends, seeing how they are always pushing for equal pay and more opportunities for women.
They want things to be as "equal" as you do. That is what you want, right?
If that's the case...then it's really all the stay-at-home moms and women with traditional roles who are milking the system and benefiting from it.
Maybe we can all jump on our husbands' funeral pyres when they die...just like they used to do in India...so as not to be a burden to society.
Why is terri still talking? Didn't 'she' promise to make her last response several times over?
My link shows that women, over their lifetime, receive much more from the government than men, so men are paying and women are taking.
Anyway, terri is not capable of rational discussion. Nor can she keep her promise to quit responding incoherently to this thread. The truth is, she couldn't stop commenting even if she were paid to do so. She is that turned on (heh).
I am only interested in getting AVI to admit that he can't back up his speculation that men are skipping out on child support.
It is what he wants to believe, not what the facts support. He just can't support his point with actual stats.
I also see that my basic question goes unanswered by AVI :
"Why should he have to provide support if SHE ends the marriage? In a fair world, the person ending the marriage would get no custody if no fault can be proved".
AVI definitely wants different standards of accountability for men than for women.
They want things to be as "equal" as you do. That is what you want, right?
Since when was feminism ever about equality? Even feminists themselves no longer hide the fact that they are about absolute female supremacy.
Anon..
Well I do like to bang my head against the wall every once in a while...just to get it out of my system.
Thanks so much for the opportunity. I think I've purged myself of the urge to actually try to talk meaningfully with someone who doesn't really want to.
You've cured me!!
Now back to less tedious things for me.....
You are correct, I'm not going to back it up, though it is trivially easy, since I grew up with it, adopted into it, and am living with it with my nephew here. You changed my initial descriptor to "deadbeat dads;" I felt that was a significant misrepresentation, calculated to bring the discussion to items that you wished to talk about rather than the one at hand, and I said no more about it. Nor shall I.
Oops. Dorion, you have also misrepresented what the claims of your disputants are, rewording them to make them seem to be making arguments they are not. Then you attack the arguments they are not making. You don't see distinctions others are making. I don't know why, and I see no way to fix it.
It is funny how females like terri are unable to exist without a constant stream of male attention, as evidenced by her repeated inability to make good on her promise to not clamor for attention.
Without such a stream, their mind collapses in on itself.
Wow. Devastating logic.
You are correct, I'm not going to back it up, though it is trivially easy, since I grew up with it, adopted into it, and am living with it with my nephew here.
So in other words, you made a claim that you can't support, and continue to make it.
You say it would be 'trivially easy', but won't do it, because you are desperately hoping that I cease pinning you down and embarassing you.
This, despite me actually providing a sound link about LIFETIME transfers of wealth from men to women by the govt.
This is only because you are terrified of having a woman disapprove of you, even at the expense of facts and moral duty.
How do you live with yourself?
Yes, that must be it. I am completely unable to counter your logic and brilliant analysis.
I should never have allowed this to go on so long. I thought the arguments that others provided deserved answers, and polite answers at that. I threw in a few of my own. You have answered virtually none of the objections, only insults. I should have deleted you at the first insult, actually.
But here is the reply: Your original comment was that 70-80% of all government spending is a transfer of wealth from men to women.
My town's budget is $55M. Of that, $36M is schools, and most of the rest is police, fire, public works. So at the local level, the "to women" part is simply insane.
My county's budget is $87M. Of that, the $24M big ticket is the nursing home. As 62% of the residents are female, I suppose you could say that's an inequitable wealth transfer. But the next items are corrections, sheriff, and courts, which are certainly spending far more money on males. They total over $37M together. Then there are roads, deeds, and smaller stuff. So at the county level, the "to women" statement is also insane.
The State of NH budget is $10B. Of that, $3.6B is Education, $1.4 is health, $.8B is protection, $.8B is transportation, the rest scattered but including courts, safety, liquor. You're not getting near 70% to women on that. At the state level, your statement is insane.
The US Gov. Here's the graph:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_STOlzDbuO7E/RzfMQ1JqReI/AAAAAAAAAC0/yJnBPXyq0gk/s1600-h/Fbs_us_fy2007.png
So that 17% Defense isn't likely to get you much of a wealth transfer to women, I don't think, nor is the 9% that's debt. The 16% of smaller pieces might employ more women, but I don't think employment is quite what you meant by wealth transfer. The four big wealth transfer items total 58%. All skew to females, and as best as I can tell, anywhere from 55-75% each. We've already discussed that much of the skew in receiving by women comes from living longer. Unemployment and disability certainly aren't going there. Among women under 65, within that is whatever is spent on children they are caring for, 50% of which are male.
So maybe totaling up all that US spending, giving every possible break to your POV, the feds may give women more by 55-45. Making your 70-80 only mildly insane. All four levels of government, that's three insanes and a mildly insane.
Against this you have a nice little link that shows that men pay more into one part of the system, excluding entirely whatever value even a never-employed-outside-the-home woman provides which allows some men to make more income, and that women receive more of one specific type of benefit, excluding the things that we all receive like defense, infrastructure, and courts, largely on the strength of living longer. And even in that narrow area, it never touches 80%.
Additionally, you frame the discussion as if some group called men give this money to some group called women, conveniently neglecting to notice that these are all individual accounts. Many men pay in nothing, many women pay in well more than they receive, but you choose to see them as vast organised groups that are uniformly givers or receivers.
So all in all, from your first sentence, you were making insane statements, which everyone could see were insane, offering at least 30 possible correctives for you to consider that might weigh against your argument, none of which you took the slightest interest in considering. Instead, you made wild accusations and imagined ill motives for which you had no basis other than that they fit your existing stereotype, and delivered these in a consistently insulting manner.
I will be quicker on the trigger next time. Comment where you will, but insulting comments will simply be deleted.
Post a Comment