On females

It was a tragedy, what happened a hundred years ago. From the woman got the right to vote, our entire soiety has gone in the direction of less independence. Many are not even capable of imagining a society today without Mother State.

From the very start of human history, woman have had the tradition of living as parasites. Without a male, she would simply not manage. And so it is today. Even though that's not easy to see in these feminist-radical tractor lesbian times. Her parasitism today takes a detour through a proxy.

The state steals money for her and the money comes from her husband who contributes to real production of wealth. There's a clear difference though. Her parasitism today happens through force and theft. In the past it was voluntary.

Isn't it comical, you guys, women thinks they have reached independence, but they are less independent than ever before. Just a few of them are capable of getting a work where their pay does not come from voluntary trade. In the past, they always had consent from their husband.

Woman - a creature without honour.

We shall rejoice that the social-democracy, the feminist-radical project, is on its way off the cliff. It didn't succeed. Every week, a new service is privatized, which before was done by the state. Next, we will go from a privatized society where the state is responsible for collecting the money to pay for the privatization. Then the state will lose it's role of collecting money as well, and we will get a society with freedom to trade, and above all - not to trade. The solution is not to remove female suffrage, but to remove voting rights, period. Take away the majority's right to coerce and tyrannize the minority. We simply do not need coercion to have a society with each other, and definitely not as a standard, but as an exception.

Why is the woman not ashamed of living from theft?

Does she lack the necessary intelligence?

Something is wrong with your sense of humor.

You've taken a very narrow point-of-view here, HoreTore. I mean sure, I like being "On females" too, but sometimes you've got to switch it around, you know? Underneath, beside, behind, heck there's so many more positions on this matter than just "On females".

You're either a complete idiot or a crap comedian. Either way you deserve scorn and ridicule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

It was a tragedy...

---

Hmm, where'd you find this?

Who are you and how did you hack HoreTore's account?

Considering the fact that the voting population almost doubled all of a sudden, womens suffrage had remarkably little impact on politics.

One thing I do regret in terms of 'feminist progress' is the fact that so many women work nowadays. Not because I oppose women working on principle, since the idea of a housewife is really a pretty modern innovation anyway. The problem is that society wasn't ready for it. The reality is that the family is the basic social unit - so the problem is we have all these two-income households, and then a bunch of no-income households.

As so often is the case, 'liberation' in one sphere often causes a far worse sort of oppression in another.

It's HT and this is just the one of his "experiments". He probably copy-pasted or translated the text from somewhere, posted it here and now wants to see reactions.

Just say no...

It is an attempt to stir up debate. I know it isn't his real position, because his real positions are more subtle yet more irritating.

Surprised no one put in the obvious:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w

HT is free from the eyes of a gf.

2/10 would not read again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

It's HT and this is just the one of his "experiments". He probably copy-pasted or translated the text from somewhere, posted it here and now wants to see reactions.

Just say no...

---

I was collecting possible material for next years classes when I stumbled upon this gem in the commentary field below an article on the (lack of) minority representation during the womens suffrage anniversary(it's been 100 years this year). I found it fascinating and disgusting at the same time, and thought I'd see what you guys make of it ~;)

I would like to agree but my wife wont let me.

It sounds like it was written by someone who has very little to do with women, and dislikes them to an intense degree.

Can’t identify with any of it.

Plane creepy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

It sounds like it was written by someone who has very little to do with women, and dislikes them to an intense degree.

Can’t identify with any of it.

Plane creepy.

---

Is that the phantom 747 or the ghostly DC-9?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Considering the fact that the voting population almost doubled all of a sudden, womens suffrage had remarkably little impact on politics.

One thing I do regret in terms of 'feminist progress' is the fact that so many women work nowadays. Not because I oppose women working on principle, since the idea of a housewife is really a pretty modern innovation anyway. The problem is that society wasn't ready for it. The reality is that the family is the basic social unit - so the problem is we have all these two-income households, and then a bunch of no-income households.

As so often is the case, 'liberation' in one sphere often causes a far worse sort of oppression in another.

---

You are aware that one of the early driving forces for women on the workplace were male unemployment? As in the male unemployment came first, causing men to marry later, -> women marries later and their middle class dad can't support them for that long.

Unemployemnt compared to the workforce is quite a bit more complex than a simple ratio.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

You are aware that one of the early driving forces for women on the workplace were male unemployment? As in the male unemployment came first, causing men to marry later, -> women marries later and their middle class dad can't support them for that long.

Unemployemnt compared to the workforce is quite a bit more complex than a simple ratio.

---

Rhy's argument isn't about unemployment - it's about Class.

The central thesis being (not without merit) that middle class women are more likely to, say, get places at good universities than working-class men. That means that people from the working class actually have fewer opportunities to better themselves than they did when fewer women worked. Those few working-class people who do better themselves then marry within their profession (teachers marry teachers, solicitors marry solicitors) rather than in their community, i.e. they marry someone outside their own class.

The net result, the theory goes, is a reduction in social mobility.

As I said - some merit - but the counter point is that if women didn't work or go to university, our universities would not be the same size as they are now, and not all men would have a degree.

As a found supporter of women's rights I just have to say that feminists can't control themselves sometimes. Horetore succeeded I had to say that.

It was a tragedy, what happened a hundred days ago. From the posters got the ability to thank people for their posts, our entire forum has gone in the direction of complete crap. Many are not even capable of imagining a forum today without the Thank You Button.

The end is nigh, I tell you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Is that the phantom 747 or the ghostly DC-9?

---

ac-130u spooky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Next, we will go from a privatized society where the state is responsible for collecting the money to pay for the privatization.

---

Although the sentence is a little mangled this is the only nugget of truth which I could find. The increasing use of PPI (Public-Private Initiatives) is not, in my view, a good thing. It just means that the taxpayer pays twice. I'm not sure it has anything to do with the gender of those involved though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slyspy

Although the sentence is a little mangled this is the only nugget of truth which I could find. The increasing use of PPI (Public-Private Initiatives) is not, in my view, a good thing. It just means that the taxpayer pays twice. I'm not sure it has anything to do with the gender of those involved though.

---

With a woman you always pay twice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

You are aware that one of the early driving forces for women on the workplace were male unemployment? As in the male unemployment came first, causing men to marry later, -> women marries later and their middle class dad can't support them for that long.

Unemployemnt compared to the workforce is quite a bit more complex than a simple ratio.

---

All of which is of course obvious. The problem is that solutions to short-term problems (eg the need for women to work in factories during WWI) have been applied to wider society on a much longer term basis when it simply wasn't ready for it. Particular economic 'blips' aside, we had an economy based on one-income households. If two people from certain households get jobs, then that is going to result in households where nobody works.

As Philipvs said, it's a class issue, and that's why I always think it strange that self-identifying socialists should rejoice in the situation.

Of course, we then get a situation where the disgruntled working-class men are dubbed sexist for pointing out this issue, in much the same way they are dubbed racist for pointing out the impact of immigration on jobs. I will grant that often they are sexist and racist, but that is really just a knee-jerk way of expressing real grievances.

For all the talk about racism and sexism keeping the masses down, in a rather roundabout way, we've got to the stage where anti-racism, anti-sexism and the like are actually used by mainstream, middle-class society to demonize the underclass and justify their wealth by their moral superiority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

As I said - some merit - but the counter point is that if women didn't work or go to university, our universities would not be the same size as they are now, and not all men would have a degree.

---

I rarely hear positive things about universities and social mobility these days, so I question this as a counter-argument.

Double-post my mistake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slyspy

Although the sentence is a little mangled this is the only nugget of truth which I could find. The increasing use of PPI (Public-Private Initiatives) is not, in my view, a good thing. It just means that the taxpayer pays twice. I'm not sure it has anything to do with the gender of those involved though.

---

The original Norwegian sentence was mangled as well - I tried hard to keep the bungled sentences there(as I feel it adds to the flavour) without my translation making them even worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

All of which is of course obvious. The problem is that solutions to short-term problems (eg the need for women to work in factories during WWI) have been applied to wider society on a much longer term basis when it simply wasn't ready for it. Particular economic 'blips' aside, we had an economy based on one-income households. If two people from certain households get jobs, then that is going to result in households where nobody works.

---

And here it is where the complexity sets in. A double household will also have increased wealth so it will in turn have a higher consumption, which in turn produces more jobs. If the long term unemployed simply vanished, it wouldn't take that long before it would regrow from the working population.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

As Philipvs said, it's a class issue, and that's why I always think it strange that self-identifying socialists should rejoice in the situation.

---

Repeat after me. To be independent, I'll need my own income. Otherwise I'll need to pray that my provider is both reasonable and not unlucky.

That should cover why socialists prefer it.

And you're barking up the wrong tree when it comes to the reason why UK has so low social mobillity. The UK aren't in any way special when it comes to women in the workforce, many countries with much higher social mobillity have more.

Oh good heavens please don't take my woman out of the work force, we'll be living on teachers pay. Our kids will qualify for free lunch. Don't punish the rest of us just because he of the stolen reply has not yet figured out how to take advantage of well employed females.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

And here it is where the complexity sets in. A double household will also have increased wealth so it will in turn have a higher consumption, which in turn produces more jobs.

---

If there are four people spread across two households, then if any two of them work the total wealth will be no different regardless of which two they are, so I don't see how it affects total consumption.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

If the long term unemployed simply vanished, it wouldn't take that long before it would regrow from the working population.

---

Why would this happen?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Repeat after me. To be independent, I'll need my own income. Otherwise I'll need to pray that my provider is both reasonable and not unlucky.

That should cover why socialists prefer it.

---

I don't have a problem with the woman working if the man is not. The problem is that a lot of the time women take jobs purely just to give them a bit of pocket money and maybe something to do all day, even when their husband already has a good wage.

Of course because this woman* gets pocket money, another family is left jobless. And that's why socialists take the wrong approach to this issue.

* I do not mean to sound chauvinistic, I am simply pointing out the trends that exist in our culture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

And you're barking up the wrong tree when it comes to the reason why UK has so low social mobillity. The UK aren't in any way special when it comes to women in the workforce, many countries with much higher social mobillity have more.

---

You are attributing things to me that I never said. Of course there are a lot of things that affect social mobility, and indeed I never said anything about the UK specifically. My point was simply that the education system, or at least higher education, no longer does much for social mobility. That's a whole separate issue from female employment.

Employment can be a positive feedback.

Look at a gold rush for instance.

Prospectors rush to the gold fields. They then need goods and services so around mining camps you had laundries, general stores, pubs/saloons, churches, gambling dens, houses of ill repute and banks.

All these employed more people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

If there are four people spread across two households, then if any two of them work the total wealth will be no different regardless of which two they are, so I don't see how it affects total consumption.

The problem is that a lot of the time women take jobs purely just to give them a bit of pocket money and maybe something to do all day, even when their husband already has a good wage.

---

First of all, even a unemployed household spends money, otherwise it wouldn't be a household, but street beggars (and since they're alive even those spends some money). Second and more important, the nature of the spending would vary. The higher income household would have a more varied spending, thus creating more jobs.
It's really complex stuff, but I'll summarise it like this: The problem of unemployment was about as big now as it was before women entered the workplace, despite a 90% increase of the working population. They UK aren't running around with a 45-50% unemployment aren't they? That's what the 1:1 numbers would give.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Of course because this woman* gets pocket money, another family is left jobless. And that's why socialists take the wrong approach to this issue.

* I do not mean to sound chauvinistic, I am simply pointing out the trends that exist in our culture.

I don't have a problem with the woman working if the man is not.

---

Describing it as pocket money isn't exactly helping. And lets see what happens if we make the Rhyfelwyr law. Two single households needs their own income correct? That's stage A. These two have now found eachother and wants to live together. If they move together, then one needs to quit his/her job at the same time as their expenses increases (living 2 together is more expensive). Add having children, an extra expense. Basically, you'll encurage them to live separatly, the child came from "a one night" stand, daddy gets to pay child support and they live together unofficially. Marry? Hell no!!!

To prevent this, you'll need to prevent stage A. And how to that workingly? Gender lines!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Why would this happen?

---

The consumption of the dissappeared wouldn't exist, causing work redundancy -> unemployment. Some unemployed aren't that much related to the market, so they would appear by people growing up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

You are attributing things to me that I never said. Of course there are a lot of things that affect social mobility, and indeed I never said anything about the UK specifically. My point was simply that the education system, or at least higher education, no longer does much for social mobility. That's a whole separate issue from female employment.

---

No, but you're generalizing from a UK perspective, which influences what you're saying.

For example, using your and Philivps words. but in another way than you expected.

You expect higher social mobillity by letting men work for "women middle class pocket money" and at the same time supporting his now unemployed working class wife (the working class women are a larger group than working class men). Of course that will never happen because he can marry upwards in class because of the status of your wife's dad (since the woman no longer works, any class she has related to her work is gone) and there's a huge excess of middle class women.

oh man, horetore must be laughing himself into a fit.

A world famous think tank has recently dealt with a very similar question and I think the result is very relevant for this topic as well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v093dn5OKuE

Some parts of my body want to stand up for her right to say that.
Well, they would, if I didn't have a cold, but that's irrelevant.

The problem with female voting rights is that men don't like it. As such the men are the problem but since men own the rights to production they can't have their voting rights taken away which brings us right back to not allowing the unemployed to vote. Which would then hurt mostly women because they can't get jobs so it's a misogynistic policy even though we mostly think of male couch potatoes when we want to hate on the unemployed because if we think of unemployed women some parts of our bodies want to stand up for them again because we're all men arguing over this and women don't care. Which is why women shouldn't be allowed to vote because they don't care.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

That's it, you may now try to resume a normal life. Thank you.

Quote:

---

Some parts of my body want to stand up for her right to say that.

---

Quote:

---

Main Entry: erect
Part of Speech: adjective, verb
Related
Adjectives:
bolt upright, erect, erigible, freestanding, hunched over, ithyphallic, normal, perpendicular, plumpendicular, pritchkemp, rampant, rectangular, sejant, standing up, statant, straight, upright, vertical

---

aww, now I get it!

although, I don't get how that part would have a cold though. If its leaking, then you have more serious problems

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

A world famous think tank has recently dealt with a very similar question and I think the result is very relevant for this topic as well:

---

She haven't taken enough levels in "politician speak", aka pretend that you know something about a topic you know nothing about and sound like you actually do. Not to confuse with "internet debate" which is thinking you know about a topic when you really don't. We all have that one very high I think.

Ugh, I had a proper point-by-point reply written out, that I have lost to the forum playing up.

Anyway, the gist of it was this: That the variety of consumption is far less important that its sum total, that the sum total does not change depending on who holds a job; and even then, petty gains in circulation do not excuse reducing whole households to poverty. Even such gains are questionable, since higher income households are more likely to save up and take money out of circulation.

As for criticism of the "Rhyfelwyr law", it is unfair because it is not intended as an isolated policy. And even if it did have the effect of many women choosing to leave work, I do not see that as a failing, since it is not the job of governments to take artificial measures to forcibly change cultural norms.

To address one point specifically...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

You expect higher social mobillity by letting men work for "women middle class pocket money" and at the same time supporting his now unemployed working class wife (the working class women are a larger group than working class men). Of course that will never happen because he can marry upwards in class because of the status of your wife's dad (since the woman no longer works, any class she has related to her work is gone) and there's a huge excess of middle class women.

---

I'm not entirely sure I get what you are saying here. But, if a working-class man should gain middle-class employment and marry within the middle-classes, is that not the definition of social mobility? An unemployed woman married to a middle-class man is still middle-class herself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Not to confuse with "internet debate" which is thinking you know about a topic when you really don't. We all have that one very high I think.

---

I think it is probably a more general human trait that the internet exposes, rather than being a product of the internet or the types of people that frequent it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

She haven't taken enough levels in "politician speak", aka pretend that you know something about a topic you know nothing about and sound like you actually do. Not to confuse with "internet debate" which is thinking you know about a topic when you really don't. We all have that one very high I think.

---

What makes you think you are an authority to make such a statement?!?!

...Please don't advocate inaction, we should be working towards eliminate all gender obsticles on both sides, accepting it is giving up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

The whole notion of "Middle-Class Women are taking Lower-Class Men's jobs" might be true, but it is totally irrelevent. How would you fix it? Disallow half the population from working?

---

Well, so long as we have large numbers of unemployed couples and singles, a good start would be penalties on the second income of any household.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

...Please don't advocate inaction, we should be working towards eliminate all gender obsticles on both sides, accepting it is giving up.

---

Removing obstacles is fine. But if you actively attempt to engineer things to create a situation of equality when neither the culture nor the employment situation tends toward it, then you're just going to create much more real obstacles for another set of people.

There will always be obsticles... So what? Equality is a lie, says who?

People can change, obsticles can be removed and equality can be made, when people worked hard enough they have moved mountains, we fly, we outpace sound and left the earth. We freed slaves, gained votes, rights, oppertunities. If people work towards something, they'll get it, be it immediately or after 100 years and the only obsticle that matters is a lack of motivation.

So if you are going to disparage the persuit as impossible, please, shut up, get out of the way and keep watching, maybe you'll last long enough to see it happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Well, so long as we have large numbers of unemployed couples and singles, a good start would be penalties on the second income of any household.

---

Sounds good unless you're a family with two low-wage incomes that has to count every cent.

Put a cap on the total income of a household you say? Well, first of all that's communism and secondly people won't get together so fast anymore. The advantage of living together has to outweigh the financial penalty. ATM there are even tax breaks for married couples because noone would marry otherwise. A population reduction is the worst that can happen in a financial system that is based on continuing growth.

--------------

There can also never be equality in a system that is based on the basic human instinct of wanting to be superior. Communism tried to work against that and failed. Even while it supposedly worked there was no real equality as people with power put themselves above the rest.
Humans will decide for the worse option as long as it means someone else is even worse off. It's in our nature and everyone here is like that. You will prove it by debating my point in an attempt to appear like you are a superior thinker in comparison to me and I just write this in an attempt to show the opposite. :sweatdrop:

And how is a prediction more real exactly? I cite the precident of civil rights and the enfranchisment of women, all decried as an equally impossible end goal and all ultimately successful. We'll always have creases to iron out, true perfection is impossible after all but I believe it's a worthy end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I'm saying that there are real differences between men and women that can't just be overcome by wishing it. If the end-result of forced equality is a lowering of standards across the board, you have a problem--we see this in microcosm with the military. However, the other part of my point was that you can't mistake differences for inherent superiority or inferiority. You can acknowledge differences and inequalities without being discriminatory about it.

To be bigoted or to pretend we're all equal--both are childish ways of looking at the world.

---

That's... damn man, what can I say to that, it seems less like equality and more pandering to the unfit. I'd understand if women were being expected to be able to carry more than the male recruits before being signed on or something, but this is... wierd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I'm saying that there are real differences between men and women that can't just be overcome by wishing it. If the end-result of forced equality is a lowering of standards across the board, you have a problem--we see this in microcosm with the military. However, the other part of my point was that you can't mistake differences for inherent superiority or inferiority. You can acknowledge differences and inequalities without being discriminatory about it.

To be bigoted or to pretend we're all equal--both are childish ways of looking at the world.

---

Lies, all lies. YOu don't have to lower the standards. This is 2013 you backwards barbarian. Just give the women some HGH in their morning coffee and everything is fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

The problem is that you're being all figurative and soap-boxy, and I'm being literal. Want to see how equality is a lie? Look at how the US Army is implementing gender-nuetrality. In ten years new recruits probably won't even have to be able to do 50 Push Ups. :shrug:

---

How many push ups does a drone pilot need to do to be successful?

In fact how many push-ups do your drones need to do?

The ability to text and maintain multiple communication lines at once is going to outrank swords and sandals pretty soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

There will always be obsticles... So what? Equality is a lie, says who?

---

I am saying that in driving towards gender equality, you are increasing class inequality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

People can change, obsticles can be removed and equality can be made, when people worked hard enough they have moved mountains, we fly, we outpace sound and left the earth. We freed slaves, gained votes, rights, oppertunities. If people work towards something, they'll get it, be it immediately or after 100 years and the only obsticle that matters is a lack of motivation.

So if you are going to disparage the persuit as impossible, please, shut up, get out of the way and keep watching, maybe you'll last long enough to see it happen.

---

I said nothing to indicate that I see the pursuit as impossible - I said I see it as undesirable. The pursuit that is, not the goal. I would have reservations about the goal as well, but that is a separate issue and not something that I mentioned.

If you advocate taking artificial measures to promote gender equality in the workplace, you have to oppress one group of people with political measures to balance against the prevailing order. The thing is that this inequality might be down to culture and not active discrimination. But then you want to steam on ahead with positive discrimination. And positive discrimination in favour of one group is of necessity negative discrimination towards those excluded from it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Sounds good unless you're a family with two low-wage incomes that has to count every cent.

---

You can be pragmatic. Only apply it to those above a certain wage level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Put a cap on the total income of a household you say? Well, first of all that's communism and secondly people won't get together so fast anymore. The advantage of living together has to outweigh the financial penalty. ATM there are even tax breaks for married couples because noone would marry otherwise. A population reduction is the worst that can happen in a financial system that is based on continuing growth.

---

It is what it is. As for the supposed damage to the institution of marriage, there are countless economic realities doing infinitely more damage than anything I am proposing. Like I said it is not a policy I would pursue in isolation, it would work as part of a package.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

There will always be obsticles... So what? Equality is a lie, says who?

People can change, obsticles can be removed and equality can be made, when people worked hard enough they have moved mountains, we fly, we outpace sound and left the earth. We freed slaves, gained votes, rights, oppertunities. If people work towards something, they'll get it, be it immediately or after 100 years and the only obsticle that matters is a lack of motivation.

So if you are going to disparage the persuit as impossible, please, shut up, get out of the way and keep watching, maybe you'll last long enough to see it happen.

---

obstacles so what indeed, but freedom through equality is an ideology, and it is best if people realize that. ofcourse no problem when you believe in it and want to see it realsized but it is still an utopia (which doesnt make it without value or without a core of truth).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Ugh, I had a proper point-by-point reply written out, that I have lost to the forum playing up.

Anyway, the gist of it was this: That the variety of consumption is far less important that its sum total, that the sum total does not change depending on who holds a job; and even then, petty gains in circulation do not excuse reducing whole households to poverty. Even such gains are questionable, since higher income households are more likely to save up and take money out of circulation.

---

My apologies for not going in to this earlier. Does 5 small factories employ more or less than 1 big one? They employ more. That's why employment increases. And money put into the bank isn't out of circulation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

As for criticism of the "Rhyfelwyr law", it is unfair because it is not intended as an isolated policy. And even if it did have the effect of many women choosing to leave work, I do not see that as a failing, since it is not the job of governments to take artificial measures to forcibly change cultural norms.

---

Well excuse me for not liking the idea of regress away 200 years and creating a system that promotes oppression when there's a conflict.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

I'm not entirely sure I get what you are saying here. But, if a working-class man should gain middle-class employment and marry within the middle-classes, is that not the definition of social mobility? An unemployed woman married to a middle-class man is still middle-class herself.

---

The desirable middle class women will be in a minority compared to the middle+working class men, making it similar to the aristocracy, who aren't exactly known for strong social mobillity. It will enforce the status quo social layers rather than generating more social mobillity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

I think it is probably a more general human trait that the internet exposes, rather than being a product of the internet or the types of people that frequent it.

---

And "politician speak" is a mixture of being forced to answer a question you don't have an answer on, while not lying (since they'll smack you down after a factcheck).

It's more of a reference of were the behavior most obviously appears.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

What makes you think you are an authority to make such a statement?!?!

---

That would be my title in bullshitium. :book2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

a good start would be penalties on the second income of any household.

---

You do realize that this, besides being in contradiction with every legal and moral norm, is impossible in practice?

taxation will find a way!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

My apologies for not going in to this earlier. Does 5 small factories employ more or less than 1 big one? They employ more. That's why employment increases. And money put into the bank isn't out of circulation.

---

Well, regarding banks, I was wrong to phrase things in such an absolute way, but as I understand it they can only use part of a persons savings for their own investments, they have to keep some away. I think your point with the factories is irrelevant in a real world setting since the breakup of an individuals spending on particular goods does not directly correspond to the size of the factories that produce them.

But even then, I don't get the point in quibbling about these minor things, because petty economic gains aside, the dealbreaker is this - people are being needlessly reduced to poverty and endless unemployment. This is not an acceptable cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Well excuse me for not liking the idea of regress away 200 years and creating a system that promotes oppression when there's a conflict.

---

And yet I would say that you are advocating the exact same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

The desirable middle class women will be in a minority compared to the middle+working class men, making it similar to the aristocracy, who aren't exactly known for strong social mobillity. It will enforce the status quo social layers rather than generating more social mobillity.

---

An aristocracy without economic or political power isn't much of an aristocracy at all. Society tends to reflect its economic realities, not the other way around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Well, regarding banks, I was wrong to phrase things in such an absolute way, but as I understand it they can only use part of a persons savings for their own investments, they have to keep some away. I think your point with the factories is irrelevant in a real world setting since the breakup of an individuals spending on particular goods does not directly correspond to the size of the factories that produce them.

---

And that's the point. The increased variation causes a higher need of more workplaces, while very low variation has only a few very specialized companies. And I've pointed out that the world doesn't run on 1:1 conditions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

But even then, I don't get the point in quibbling about these minor things, because petty economic gains aside, the dealbreaker is this - people are being needlessly reduced to poverty and endless unemployment. This is not an acceptable cost.

---

"Therefore, to solve this problem I will reduce people to poverty and endless unemployement."

BTW, could you point out the difference of your idea and lowering the retirement age when it comes to the available workforce?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

And yet I would say that you are advocating the exact same thing.

---

Last time I checked, unemployed has slightly more variation then gender.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

An aristocracy without economic or political power isn't much of an aristocracy at all. Society tends to reflect its economic realities, not the other way around.

---

So middle class women, desirable because of their economic status aren't having any economic power at all. The aristocracy kept to itself to maintain their power, so upping the importance of strategical marriages would increase the effort to keep status quo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

You do realize that this, besides being in contradiction with every legal and moral norm, is impossible in practice?

---

I am theorizing, so the practicability of getting it put into practice is not something I am concerned about. I also reject these legal and moral norms and as they are, by their own traditions, in fact illegal and immoral.*

*I am not just being outrageous here. Traditional western schools of thought on the legal acquirement of property through individual labour are entirely out of wack with modern property and labour laws. Equally, the moralisation of labour and women's role in it are entirely modern innovations that diverge hugely from traditional moral thought. I am therefore the last one to respect moral and legal norms; the voice of one crying in the wilderness in a world full of ideologues and fanatics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

How would such a thing account for room-mate situations? I know one person my age who lives alone or has a family or for whatever reason has chosen to no longer live with their parents and pays for it with one income.

This is why you can't social-engineer around the middle-class. The middle-class lives in a perfect balance of circumstances and what works for them doesn't apply to either the rich or the poor. Its like quantum physics and normal physics; the rules just aren't the same.

---

While I agree that social engineering is of itself something undesirable and generally causes more harm than good, I think that things can also reach a stage where the entire system becomes so engineered and artificial, that it takes equally engineering and artificial measures to dismantle it. I think we reached that stage a long time ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

And that's the point. The increased variation causes a higher need of more workplaces, while very low variation has only a few very specialized companies. And I've pointed out that the world doesn't run on 1:1 conditions.

---

Indeed it doesn't, most particularly because it is not individual patterns of spending but collective patterns of spending that are relevant in this regard. But I think this point is so minor that it is not even worth discussing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

"Therefore, to solve this problem I will reduce people to poverty and endless unemployement."

BTW, could you point out the difference of your idea and lowering the retirement age when it comes to the available workforce?

---

Well with the upcoming pensions crisis lowering retirement age is obviously not an option.

I just want you to acknowledge that there is a trade-off here - women's liberation in the workforce has created opportunity at the expense of workers as a whole, and in particular young and poorly qualified workers - in other words, the most downtrodden and vulnerable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Last time I checked, unemployed has slightly more variation then gender.

---

Of course, but something does not have to be the sole factor to be a relevant factor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

So middle class women, desirable because of their economic status aren't having any economic power at all. The aristocracy kept to itself to maintain their power, so upping the importance of strategical marriages would increase the effort to keep status quo.

---

Right, but in this case the power of the women doesn't derive directly from their economic status, but only the social status that is confers. They have no economic stranglehold over anybody. If men should prefer them for their social status, that is a matter of personal taste and irrelevant for our purposes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

I am theorizing, so the practicability of getting it put into practice is not something I am concerned about. I also reject these legal and moral norms and as they are, by their own traditions, in fact illegal and immoral.*

---

It's not just putting it into practice. Economy simply doesn't work that way. Even if we leave aside for the moment the trouble of defining what exactly a household consists of and ignore the problems of roommates, brothers or sisters living together, adults living with their parents... there are more important economic issues.

You can not lumber people with an increased amount of work and expect them to maintain same productivity. If I own a cafe with 10 tables and two waiters, I'm operating at optimal efficiency. If I fire one, the other won't get twice the salary because he simply can not wait 10 tables. Level of service drops and I start losing customers and eventually I downsize to 5 table. So, instead of me paying two salaries (2X), I'm now paying just X. Actually, in all probability even lower than X, since other expenses were factored when I had ten tables. Now, because the business is only half of what it used to be and my fixed expenses are the same (I still pay the same rent, electricity, insurance, various licenses and permits...) my profit margins are lower so I have to reduce the wage of the remaining waiter to keep my profit margins.

Secondly, you have to consider that not all jobs are the same. Some jobs are simply part time jobs. Some jobs are seasonal jobs. They aren't enough to provide support for a family, but they are needed. Your idea would throw it all out of whack.

The most important part of capitalism is efficiency. If they could reduce the workforce and keep the same profit margins, trust me, they would in a second. But, they can't. If they reduce the number of workers, their profits are gonna take a drop. So, in the end, you'd make all of us poorer.

Quote:

---

*I am not just being outrageous here. Traditional western schools of thought on the legal acquirement of property through individual labour are entirely out of wack with modern property and labour laws. Equally, the moralisation of labour and women's role in it are entirely modern innovations that diverge hugely from traditional moral thought. I am therefore the last one to respect moral and legal norms; the voice of one crying in the wilderness in a world full of ideologues and fanatics.

---

I'm not really sure I understand what you're trying to say here. You're saying that woman's right to work isn't in accordance with legal and moral norms? And that true legal and moral norms should reflect more traditional role of women of taking care of a household? Or am I missing the point?

Sarmatian, all I am suggesting is some sort of tax incentive/penalty to favour a disadvantaged group. This is already common practice and can be seen in tax breaks/income support for married couples, those with children, the disabled etc. These have never caused problems along the lines you are suggesting; or at least, if they have, they have been very minor.

I am not suggesting that we reduce the workforce, I'm talking about the distribution of the jobs.

Female employment is only part of the issue. Consider for example stay-at-home students, who work retail jobs purely for pocket money, while working-class families lose out on the potential for a living because of this. I am saying that there is a disconnect between those getting jobs, and those who need them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

I'm not really sure I understand what you're trying to say here. You're saying that woman's right to work isn't in accordance with legal and moral norms? And that true legal and moral norms should reflect more traditional role of women of taking care of a household? Or am I missing the point?

---

I am saying that the idea that the sum of female empowerment might be found in white-collar wage-labour is a very modern innovation, and as such not in accordance with moral norms. Even in today's drastically altered moral climate, I think there is a realization that if a woman wants to focus on a career, she will have to make sacrifices with her role as a parent. I do not think this is because women are not designed to work. Rather, I blame the nature of employment these days, which mostly forces women to spend all day in an office and often have a hefty commute on top of that - naturally this means they can't be very good mothers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Sarmatian, all I am suggesting is some sort of tax incentive/penalty to favour a disadvantaged group. This is already common practice and can be seen in tax breaks/income support for married couples, those with children, the disabled etc. These have never caused problems along the lines you are suggesting; or at least, if they have, they have been very minor.

I am not suggesting that we reduce the workforce, I'm talking about the distribution of the jobs.

---

You're talking about penalizing second income in a household, to encourage one income per household as you believe it will lead to more equal distribution of jobs and income on a larger scale. I am right?

Most households have two earners in an average western country. By taxing that second income you're making the second earner quit his/her job in favour of staying at home, thus you're reducing the workforce. And, since not all jobs are your typical nine to five, career jobs, you're making those other jobs highly unatractive. Who's going to work a part time job when it's not enough to support a household and when additional taxing makes it pointless?

Quote:

---

Female employment is only part of the issue. Consider for example stay-at-home students, who work retail jobs purely for pocket money, while working-class families lose out on the potential for a living because of this. I am saying that there is a disconnect between those getting jobs, and those who need them.

---

And those students are generally needed. Who's going to work come the summer in Greece? All those tourists arrive, there isn't enough workers. Students fill that gap. An office worker won't quit his full time job for a seasonal one. Someone needs to work in all those other jobs that nine to five, full time jobs.

Quote:

---

I am saying that the idea that the sum of female empowerment might be found in white-collar wage-labour is a very modern innovation, and as such not in accordance with moral norms. Even in today's drastically altered moral climate, I think there is a realization that if a woman wants to focus on a career, she will have to make sacrifices with her role as a parent. I do not think this is because women are not designed to work. Rather, I blame the nature of employment these days, which mostly forces women to spend all day in an office and often have a hefty commute on top of that - naturally this means they can't be very good mothers.

---

Just like as if father focuses on a career, but this is more about sociology than economy. Your idea wouldn't solve this problem anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Indeed it doesn't, most particularly because it is not individual patterns of spending but collective patterns of spending that are relevant in this regard. But I think this point is so minor that it is not even worth discussing.

---

It's the reason why the UK aren't having 45-50% unemployment. It's one of the components that makes modern economics work aka, Fordism, aka paying your workers a decent salary. Minor point indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Well with the upcoming pensions crisis lowering retirement age is obviously not an option.

---

And that should tell you the economical feasibillity of your ideas. So, now that we have concluded to your ideas doesn't work economically, we return to compare your ideas to lowering the pension age.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

I just want you to acknowledge that there is a trade-off here - women's liberation in the workforce has created opportunity at the expense of workers as a whole, and in particular young and poorly qualified workers - in other words, the most downtrodden and vulnerable.

---

No, and that's because it's much more complex than that. According to what you say, increasing the pension age will permanently increase unemployment. That also means that the goverments are suffering from economic death spirals that they can't get out from (not even immigration, since an immigrant always steals a job, rather than creating new ones), due to people getting older.

Sure, sudden changes will cause an effect, but it will diminish in time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Right, but in this case the power of the women doesn't derive directly from their economic status, but only the social status that is confers. They have no economic stranglehold over anybody. If men should prefer them for their social status, that is a matter of personal taste and irrelevant for our purposes.

---

What happens is that their importance for social status goes up and the consequences would rather be that social mobility goes down rather than up.

It's amazing that most countries didn't grant women the right to vote until the 20th century. New Zealand is the first and the only one who granted that right during the 19th century, but that was only a few years before the 20th. There was a time during prehistory in certain cultures when women had high status. Even after prehistory, everyone in certain native American nations had the right to participate in national (tribal) decision making gatherings. However, most modern countries didn't have that right for a long time.

That being said, we still live in an unequal society for the genders. It's because there are some characteristics that still exist. One is that women are the gender who give birth. Thus, they feel more responsibility and more concern about raising children. And giving birth isn't an easy task. So it's always them who end up on leave from work and who take care of the children. Despite the fact that women are becoming more independent, we still live in a society in which women seek a smart bf/husband who can take care and protect them. This has been ingrained into them since prehistoric times. Men still have the pressure to show that they're strong and capable of taking care of his future family. We still live in a society in which women feel the pressure that they shouldn't be the instigators of being the first to approach a man or being the one to start sex. These factors make the two genders think differently in general. Maybe in the future, technology will be so advanced that women won't feel the burden of child birth. Maybe the fetus could be surgically moved outside to an artificial womb. Maybe they'll be a safe form of steroids and growth hormones that would help make women feel more physically powerful. Then the future would be a very equal society.

I used to wonder why a lot of the attractive women with good personalities chose the worse men. Now I think it's because they seek someone who's smart and could protect and take care of them. However, it's usually the worse guys who act as if they have these traits the most. My sister's friend was one of the most attractive girl at our school. She told my sister that her ideal type is a guy who was actually the bully of our school. She didn't see him bully the weaker guys (and even some of the teachers) because she was in a different grade. He was one of the alpha males, and she mainly saw him when he was with his "cool" friends. In her eyes, that guy looked like the one who could protect and take care of her the most. His marriage life later on is another story. I know this because his wife is my sister's other friend. There's a saying that nice men finish last, but many people forget that this is a competitive world in which the one who takes the chance early on finishes first. (But the story doesn't end with that competition).

maybe they can invent a brainwashing machine that makes every human a brainless drone, that society would be very equal and boring. It would actually seize to be a society, society is political and when all difference seizes to exist there no longer is need of any politics.

freedom through equality is an utopian ideology, and while it seems quite attractive at first, it has some very dangerous consequenses. we should find a way in which we can be different and still free, or in name of equality we should give up our freedom, i dont really see a way to truly have both.

Ironside, I believe that I have already addressed these complexities you mention, and stated why they don't take away from the individual factors I've been trying to raise. As things stand, I think we are at something of a stalemate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

You're talking about penalizing second income in a household, to encourage one income per household as you believe it will lead to more equal distribution of jobs and income on a larger scale. I am right?

Most households have two earners in an average western country. By taxing that second income you're making the second earner quit his/her job in favour of staying at home, thus you're reducing the workforce. And, since not all jobs are your typical nine to five, career jobs, you're making those other jobs highly unatractive. Who's going to work a part time job when it's not enough to support a household and when additional taxing makes it pointless?

And those students are generally needed. Who's going to work come the summer in Greece? All those tourists arrive, there isn't enough workers. Students fill that gap. An office worker won't quit his full time job for a seasonal one. Someone needs to work in all those other jobs that nine to five, full time jobs

---

Regarding your initial question - yes, that is largely correct. Although I don't think all households need to have only one income; just enough so that all households have at least one income.

As for your objections... firstly, the penalties do not have to be so extreme that all second incomes would become unviable. They can be targeted against particular wage brackets or types of employment so that a) the most vulnerable do not suffer and b) they are the sort of jobs the current unemployed will be suited for. Since we would only aim to lose as many employees as we could replace, there would be no total loss to the workforce.

Regarding part-time, temporary jobs etc - like I said we could show some pragmatism in how any reforms are applied.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Just like as if father focuses on a career, but this is more about sociology than economy. Your idea wouldn't solve this problem anyway.

---

Sociology and the economy can impact each other quite severely. Fathers are less important in the day-to-day care for children for obvious reasons, never mind of course bringing them to term.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

maybe they can invent a brainwashing machine that makes every human a brainless drone, that society would be very equal and boring. It would actually seize to be a society, society is political and when all difference seizes to exist there no longer is need of any politics.

freedom through equality is an utopian ideology, and while it seems quite attractive at first, it has some very dangerous consequenses. we should find a way in which we can be different and still free, or in name of equality we should give up our freedom, i dont really see a way to truly have both.

---

You just have a fear of muscular women.
Women will always feel unequal unless they have all the same advantages of men. If you don't think so then you haven't talked to a lot of women.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Ironside, I believe that I have already addressed these complexities you mention, and stated why they don't take away from the individual factors I've been trying to raise. As things stand, I think we are at something of a stalemate.

---

Fair enough. I can even give you an answer on your question. Yes, it would be worth higher unemployment to remove the systematic oppression your suggestion would create. What I'm saying is that due to how the world works, I'm not choising between those two options. And even if it was, earlier retirement age would be a much more fair system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaka_Khan

I used to wonder why a lot of the attractive women with good personalities chose the worse men. Now I think it's because they seek someone who's smart and could protect and take care of them. However, it's usually the worse guys who act as if they have these traits the most. My sister's friend was one of the most attractive girl at our school. She told my sister that her ideal type is a guy who was actually the bully of our school. She didn't see him bully the weaker guys (and even some of the teachers) because she was in a different grade. He was one of the alpha males, and she mainly saw him when he was with his "cool" friends. In her eyes, that guy looked like the one who could protect and take care of her the most. His marriage life later on is another story. I know this because his wife is my sister's other friend. There's a saying that nice men finish last, but many people forget that this is a competitive world in which the one who takes the chance early on finishes first. (But the story doesn't end with that competition).

---

Yep, it's earliest and most obvious alpha behavior (that's why it gets less obvious or dies out, except fo regions that are or feels insecure). Notice that it applies to both genders. That's why the evil girls are sexy (although the enforcement that only evil girls can be that kind of sexy is probably from the church's "sex is evil" thing). That many of that type has poor self-control and are powerjunkies makes them bad partners though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

maybe they can invent a brainwashing machine that makes every human a brainless drone, that society would be very equal and boring. It would actually seize to be a society, society is political and when all difference seizes to exist there no longer is need of any politics.

freedom through equality is an utopian ideology, and while it seems quite attractive at first, it has some very dangerous consequenses. we should find a way in which we can be different and still free, or in name of equality we should give up our freedom, i dont really see a way to truly have both.

---

And that's why most feminists are talking about freedom as an induvidual, instead of a gender. How to put it. If the mother stays at home with the child, it fine. If the father does it, it should be equally fine, outside the bias right after birth due to the mother recovering from the pregnancy. It should not be influenced by genderbiased laws, salaries or neighbours.
Of course it's gonna take a while and you'll have problem areas, in for example jobs requiring very high physical strength (since they will be very male biased by default), but that should sort out in time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaka_Khan

You just have a fear of muscular women.
Women will always feel unequal unless they have all the same advantages of men. If you don't think so then you haven't talked to a lot of women.

---

what bullshit is that... do not presume to know my taste of women.

we cannot ever be truly equal (not the general gender stereotypes of man and woman, even less so individuals where there exist an even larger wealth of difference)... women can give birth for example as you have already noticed. what if we make everyone "physically" equal, then women still have the burden or the gift to give birth, to carry their child into the world.

we cannot become equal by some artificial way of "eliminating" physical (and what about mental?) differences, true emancipation is learning to live with the differences, to eliminate them by not making them matter anymore, not to make everyone a clone of each other, that is not only impossible, it is also, atleast imo, not desirable...

i have talked to plenty of women, to take an example from my own life, i know a woman who wants to have a career, her head is telling her that it is also the wisest thing to do, yet she also says that her body is craving to become pregnant and to raise a little kid, something that she feels even more strongly whenever she sees a little baby. please enlighten me as to how we can ever become equal in this regard? and why this is even remotely important... or to talk about my sisters, they are both beautiful women, they are also both very muscular (pro basketball players both). In fact, they are both more muscular than I am, i have a quite slender build. I dont see why my sisters would be more equal to men than my girlfriend who is slender as well (or any other non-muscular woman in that case) just because they happen to be muscular. Why is this important for both having equal value in the eyes of the law, in the eyes of society, and in the eyes of each other? Equality is not eliminating all difference, it is applying the same value to people or animals or things for that matter, despite the differences. To say that I am your equal does not say that i am your exact replica or that I have exactly the same abilities or potential as you do, it is saying that all of that does not matter.

what you are proposing is like trying to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination and tension by painting ever person one color, because negroes will always feel inferior to whites as longs as they do not have the same skin color...

Quote:

---

And that's why most feminists are talking about freedom as an induvidual, instead of a gender. How to put it. If the mother stays at home with the child, it fine. If the father does it, it should be equally fine, outside the bias right after birth due to the mother recovering from the pregnancy. It should not be influenced by genderbiased laws, salaries or neighbours.
Of course it's gonna take a while and you'll have problem areas, in for example jobs requiring very high physical strength (since they will be very male biased by default), but that should sort out in time.

---

i would agree with that, but its not what shaka is proposing... what hes saying is basically to create just 1 gender. and he claims it as feminist, while it is imo not feminist at all (atleast not what modern feminists want afaik). Instead of focusing and highlighting the fact that while woman and man are different they both have their qualities, hes basically saying men are superior and the only way for women to catch up is to artificially buff their bodies so that we can all be equal. thats not what equality is, thats eliminating all difference, it is pure totalitarianism.