Will Sarah Palin be elected President of the US in 2012?

[Watchman]

IF PALIN WIN PRESIDENT 2012 IT MEAN AZTECS CORRECT NOOOOOOOOOO

Mayas. [/nitpick]

[Scienter]

And no, a feminist would be the worst thing for both men and women. What we need is either a man or a woman who do not see themselves in terms of men or women, but of humans.

And that person could be a feminist. The most basic definition of feminism is a belief in social, economic, and legal equality of the sexes. Feminism does not mean a bunch of rabid man-haters who want to subjugate men.

Feminists define themselves first and foremost as women, and only create divides and problems.

This statement is incorrect. There are several different schools of thought within feminism, as there are in all ideologies. Some are more radical than others. Most feminists simply argue that people of both genders (including transgendered people) should be treated equally socially, economically, and legally. If this causes problems, it's because of bigotry, not feminism.

The patriarchy hurts us all.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Most of Palin's appeal to U.S. conservatives stems from two factors:

1. She's not a Bush.

2. She talks like a Reagan.


RE 1)

Bush was NOT the "person we wanted" for the Conservatives even in 2000. He was the person who played up the social conservative/religious right component most effectively in the primaries and easily the best-funded candidate for nomination. McCain had a number of supporters, but did NOT appeal to the conservative wing of the party on anything aside from security issues. Moreover, since it was 2000 and not 2002, security issues took a back seat to economics and -- courtesy of Clinton's lack of restraint with his dalliances -- "moral" issues.

In office, Bush quickly alienated most of the Conservative wing of the GOP with his "compassionate conservatism." They liked him on tax reductions, but found most of his efforts on education etc. to be annoying. Without 09-11-2001, Bush would have ended up a one-term President. With 09-11-01, and the Dems choice to oppose him with Kerry , Bush played the security angle (with some fear appeals) into a return to the oval. He then blew most of his political capital from that win in an effort to do one thing that DID appeal to conservatives -- dialing back Social Security -- and then reverted to type. Like his Dad, Dubya never wanted to dial back government and ended up spending like a drunken sailor even though we were (and are) in the midst of a war.

RE 2)

Sarah Palin has, so far, been far more articulate about wanting to decrease the size, scope and role of government -- particularly in economics -- and this DOES appeal. Most GOP conservatives are economic conservatives first and social conservatives second, even though the latter are more vocal. Palin is harkening back to the Reagan years with her "get government out of people's way" stance.

What's harder to gauge, based on her record, is the degree to which she really would push for policies that were Reaganesque in character. Reagan took clear stances in California that made his conservatism easy to evaluate. Alaska -- its economy pivoting on oil revenues and production -- is a lot harder to use as clear evidence.


Thoughts:

One horrific interview cannot be validly used as the sole criterion for evaluating a person's intelligence. NONE of our GOP politicians are as stupid as their DEM opponents virtually always label them (and every GOP President since Nixon [who was called a crook] has been accused of stupidity). On the other side, NONE of the Dems are anywhere near being the neo-marxist lefties that the GOP typically tries to paint them as being (though to be fair, they really didn't label Carter as a socialist so much as they derided him for being a wimp).

Eisenhower wasn't a liberal. Ike wasn't a conservative. Ike was a centrist who was one heck of a bureacratic manager (that's WHY Marshall tapped him for SHEAF, not because he was a brilliant strategist). There are those who consider his Presidency to have been one of the best precisely BECAUSE so little appeared to be happening.

There is virtually no way to evaluate Palin's chances at this juncture. She is the presumptive nominee simply and solely because she is the previous VEEP nominee and because current political wisdom precludes a defeated nominee from trying again. There are no other persons currently in the spotlight. As Sec. Clinton's experience suggests, being the presumptive nominee three years out has only a limited impact on one's acquiring the nomination. Even if selected, she would then face an electoral contest against a person who is: The incumbent, America's first Black President, a good campaign speaker, very well funded, and an experience Chicago-school pol. Odds makers would not give her a winning chance at this stage.

For those of you considering an exo-terran migration should Palin be both nominated and elected to the Presidency, apply the following old saw: This too shall pass.

[Lemur]

And that person could be a feminist. The most basic definition of feminism is a belief in social, economic, and legal equality of the sexes. [...] Most feminists simply argue that people of both genders (including transgendered people) should be treated equally socially, economically, and legally.

Sorry to keep this OT bit alive, but I feel this needs a response. Scienter, if you've known and worked around dedicated, self-described feminists, then you know your statement is untrue. People who desire equal opportunity are called "egalitarians" or "classical liberals." People who call themselves "feminists" are explicitly in favor of empowering women, either because women are chronically disadvantaged by the "patriarchy," or because women are superior, or both. And there's often a very strong puritanical angle with self-described feminists.

No man ought to ever call himself a feminist. You can be an egalitarian, great. You can be a classical liberal, great. But avoid the F word like the plague.

[TinCow]

No man ought to ever call himself a feminist.

Scienter is a woman.

[HoreTore]

Sorry to keep this OT bit alive, but I feel this needs a response. Scienter, if you've known and worked around dedicated, self-described feminists, then you know your statement is untrue. People who desire equal opportunity are called "egalitarians" or "classical liberals." People who call themselves "feminists" are explicitly in favor of empowering women, either because women are chronically disadvantaged by the "patriarchy," or because women are superior, or both. And there's often a very strong puritanical angle with self-described feminists.

Wow, I never knew that was my view of the world, Lemur. Thanks for making it clear to me!

[Louis VI the Fat]

Scienter is a woman.

Which consequently makes Lemur a sexist.

[Major Robert Dump]

Mayas. [/nitpick]

Mayans/Aztecs....Earthquakes/Nukes....
Catholics/Lutherans......Sarah Palin/Rick Moranis.......

[Ronin]

Thoughts:

One horrific interview cannot be validly used as the sole criterion for evaluating a person's intelligence. NONE of our GOP politicians are as stupid as their DEM opponents virtually always label them (and every GOP President since Nixon [who was called a crook] has been accused of stupidity). On the other side, NONE of the Dems are anywhere near being the neo-marxist lefties that the GOP typically tries to paint them as being (though to be fair, they really didn't label Carter as a socialist so much as they derided him for being a wimp).

One horrific interview? During the campaign the could hardly ever open her mouth without putting a foot in it. And that was reflected in a very clear and transparent attempt from the campaign managers of keeping her away from the press as much as possible during the final phase of the campaign.

[Scienter]

Sorry to keep this OT bit alive, but I feel this needs a response. Scienter, if you've known and worked around dedicated, self-described feminists, then you know your statement is untrue. People who desire equal opportunity are called "egalitarians" or "classical liberals." People who call themselves "feminists" are explicitly in favor of empowering women, either because women are chronically disadvantaged by the "patriarchy," or because women are superior, or both. And there's often a very strong puritanical angle with self-described feminists.

No man ought to ever call himself a feminist. You can be an egalitarian, great. You can be a classical liberal, great. But avoid the F word like the plague.

I'm a self-described feminist and a woman. I find your remarks a little disturbing. Some feminists are in favor of empowering women to the detriment of men, but they are a minority. Just like some conservatives are also Christian dominionists. They're a noisy minority who are perceived as louder because they get a lot of attention.

Feminists aren’t man-hating harpies who think they’re superior to men. The majority of feminists want to be treated the same as men are in society. Equally. So yes, feminists believe in the empowerment of women, but not as you’ve described it. Not at the detriment of men.

A person can be a feminist and an egalitarian. But, feminism (a separate school of thought/area of activism) is necessary to combat misogyny. While egalitarians support the idea of equality for everyone, feminists look to the specific concerns regarding women: equal pay, bodily autonomy, rape and victim-blaming, the sexualization of girls, to name a few. Feminism is not just about equal opportunity, it’s about how society perceives women, how they are treated differently in society and by the law.

Patriarchy is not a word feminists like to throw around as an excuse for how women are treated. It’s the disproportionate conferring of leadership status on men. Maleness is assumed as the standard; women are seen as different, other, and thus, inferior or at least separate. Look at Congress, boards of major companies, other leadership positions, etc., women are not well represented. Our interests are not well represented.

I’m not arguing that all men support the idea of patriarchy, but it does exist in our society. It’s in our laws, who our leaders are, how our culture treats women.

[HoreTore]

I'm a self-described feminist and a woman. I find your remarks a little disturbing. Some feminists are in favor of empowering women to the detriment of men, but they are a minority. Just like some conservatives are also Christian dominionists. They're a noisy minority who are perceived as louder because they get a lot of attention.

Feminists aren’t man-hating harpies who think they’re superior to men. The majority of feminists want to be treated the same as men are in society. Equally. So yes, feminists believe in the empowerment of women, but not as you’ve described it. Not at the detriment of men.

A person can be a feminist and an egalitarian. But, feminism (a separate school of thought/area of activism) is necessary to combat misogyny. While egalitarians support the idea of equality for everyone, feminists look to the specific concerns regarding women: equal pay, bodily autonomy, rape and victim-blaming, the sexualization of girls, to name a few. Feminism is not just about equal opportunity, it’s about how society perceives women, how they are treated differently in society and by the law.

Patriarchy is not a word feminists like to throw around as an excuse for how women are treated. It’s the disproportionate conferring of leadership status on men. Maleness is assumed as the standard; women are seen as different, other, and thus, inferior or at least separate. Look at Congress, boards of major companies, other leadership positions, etc., women are not well represented. Our interests are not well represented.

I’m not arguing that all men support the idea of patriarchy, but it does exist in our society. It’s in our laws, who our leaders are, how our culture treats women.

Well said!!

Now please explain why your post count is as low as 39....

as for myself, I find that my feminism ties in nicely with my social anarchism, as feminism to me is to abolish society's written and unwritten laws and allow people do to whatever the heck they like with their lives, instead of being confined to a role based on your social class/birth/gender/whatever

[Samurai Waki]

I always like it when we get a woman's perspective around here...






...I still hate Palin.

[drone]

Now please explain why your post count is as low as 39....

Scienter is just Prole's alt account, the location gives it away.


2012, or rather late 2010 given the current creep of presidential election campaigning, should be interesting. The GOP does not really have a visible potential candidate that stands out, apart from Palin. She strikes me as more of a populist than a conservative anyway, and she is going to rub party leadership the wrong way all throughout the primaries. Odds are she will not win the nomination, but it will be entertaining to say the least. If she gets the nomination, she'll (hopefully) get crushed in the general election. If she runs third party, we'll get 4 more years of a Democrat in the White House.

I'll be even more curious about the Democrats. If the economy does not get turned around by the end of next year, I think there will be a serious challenger to Obama for the nomination. It's rare for the sitting prez to get bumped this way, but these are strange times. A lot will depend on the results of the midterms. If the GOP claws back one house of Congress, Obama will be a lame duck 2 years into his first term.

[Scienter]

I always like it when we get a woman's perspective around here...
...I still hate Palin.

I don't want her as President for two main reasons. First, I think she lacks the experience necessary to participate in the international community. She doesn't come across as intelligent. The President should be pretty ing smart. I don't get that feeling from her. I don't think any amount of coaching or advisers could prop her up when she has to act on her own. Second, I strongly disagree with her stances on social issues that are important to me. She definitely does not represent me! I think it would be awesome for this country to have a woman president. Just not her. I'd rather wait for someone who is qualified for the job.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm a self-described feminist and a woman. I find your remarks a little disturbing. Some feminists are in favor of empowering women to the detriment of men, but they are a minority. Just like some conservatives are also Christian dominionists. They're a noisy minority who are perceived as louder because they get a lot of attention.

Feminists aren’t man-hating harpies who think they’re superior to men. The majority of feminists want to be treated the same as men are in society. Equally. So yes, feminists believe in the empowerment of women, but not as you’ve described it. Not at the detriment of men.

A person can be a feminist and an egalitarian. But, feminism (a separate school of thought/area of activism) is necessary to combat misogyny. While egalitarians support the idea of equality for everyone, feminists look to the specific concerns regarding women: equal pay, bodily autonomy, rape and victim-blaming, the sexualization of girls, to name a few. Feminism is not just about equal opportunity, it’s about how society perceives women, how they are treated differently in society and by the law.

Patriarchy is not a word feminists like to throw around as an excuse for how women are treated. It’s the disproportionate conferring of leadership status on men. Maleness is assumed as the standard; women are seen as different, other, and thus, inferior or at least separate. Look at Congress, boards of major companies, other leadership positions, etc., women are not well represented. Our interests are not well represented.

I’m not arguing that all men support the idea of patriarchy, but it does exist in our society. It’s in our laws, who our leaders are, how our culture treats women.

You know, one of the most damaging things I have come accross in Femenism is the devaluing of the traditional female role as a raiser of children. As though that wasn't a big enough job, femenists expect women to go out to work at the same time.

If you are an Egalitarian you don't need to be a femenist. Egalitarianism means valuing people for their merits, and treating everyone by the same stardard. Under egalitarianism men and women are treated by the same stardards, so if a woman works the same job as a man for the same number of years she will be payed the same for that work.

She won't get the same as a man if she takes two years off to have a baby that he doesn't.

[HoreTore]

You know, one of the most damaging things I have come accross in Femenism is the devaluing of the traditional female role as a raiser of children. As though that wasn't a big enough job, femenists expect women to go out to work at the same time.

The kindergarden was invented as a more efficient way of raising children.

....And as it turns out; it is!

Anyway, it's not the feminist in me that objects to people deciding not to work and raise children instead; it's the social democrat in me who objects to that. I believe people should be working, and if people have so much money they can decide to stop working, well, then they have too much money.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Sorry to keep this OT bit alive, but I feel this needs a response. Scienter, if you've known and worked around dedicated, self-described feminists, then you know your statement is untrue. People who desire equal opportunity are called "egalitarians" or "classical liberals." People who call themselves "feminists" are explicitly in favor of empowering women, either because women are chronically disadvantaged by the "patriarchy," or because women are superior, or both. And there's often a very strong puritanical angle with self-described feminists.

No man ought to ever call himself a feminist. You can be an egalitarian, great. You can be a classical liberal, great. But avoid the F word like the plague.

I very much agree. The very use of the term feminism implies the targeting of only one sex. I am for equality, but I would never call myself a feminist for the reasons described.

The kindergarden was invented as a more efficient way of raising children.

....And as it turns out; it is!

Nothing can replace the love and care of dedicated parents. Kindergarten may be more efficient, depending how you define efficiency, but it is not a useful substitute for proper parenting.

Anyway, it's not the feminist in me that objects to people deciding not to work and raise children instead; it's the social democrat in me who objects to that. I believe people should be working, and if people have so much money they can decide to stop working, well, then they have too much money.

So your life should be one of toil until you die, with nothing to aspire to but more work. And the more people can work without collecting enough to stop working, the less they get to think. Very useful for keeping the masses under control. Of course, your only problem with that would be that they would need to be kept away from images of people who can work hard and earn enough to live and retire comfortably, and therefore you would need to strictly control the media. But I'm sure you've thought it through.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The kindergarden was invented as a more efficient way of raising children.

....And as it turns out; it is!

Anyway, it's not the feminist in me that objects to people deciding not to work and raise children instead; it's the social democrat in me who objects to that. I believe people should be working, and if people have so much money they can decide to stop working, well, then they have too much money.

So people should always be kept working, and never earn enough to stop working?

Interesting.

I agree with Lemur as well; I'm an egalitarian. Equality is important.

I'd also argue you don't have to be the same race/gender/whatever of someone to represent their interests.

CR

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Anyway, it's not the feminist in me that objects to people deciding not to work and raise children instead; it's the social democrat in me who objects to that. I believe people should be working, and if people have so much money they can decide to stop working, well, then they have too much money.

Then you should not be on your computer talking, but working Comrade!

Foward, for the Glory of the Revolution!

[Scienter]

Feminists don't all agree on the work/life balance debate. Some feminists feel that feminism is about choice, and others think that women who stay home are harming all women. I believe that it's about choice, or at least that I need to respect others' choices, so you know where I'm coming from here.

You know, one of the most damaging things I have come accross in Femenism is the devaluing of the traditional female role as a raiser of children. As though that wasn't a big enough job, femenists expect women to go out to work at the same time.

If a woman chooses to stay home and raise children, more power to her! But, not all women want to stay at home and raise children, and it's just as insulting to tell women who want careers that they should be home as it is to tell a stay at home mom to get back to work. Some women who stay home don't actually want to be there. They can't afford day care, or they stay home because it's what's expected of them. There are women who work because they have to, and would rather stay home with their kids. Regardless, the notion that the "traditional" role of woman as homemaker needs to fade into obscurity. Telling women that they, in general, belong in the home is harmful to women and to society, unless you believe that women have nothing to offer society but free childcare and maid service.

I've never said that women have to work and raise children alone. But, for women who want to work and have a family (like men!), feminism stands for the idea that they should be able to do this, and that this should be an acceptable choice in society. Society and my country's laws should not force women into traditional gender roles. Personally I don't believe women are any more inherently able to parent than men just because we can get pregnant. Since I don't believe in traditional roles, I expect my partner to do his share in raising a child. We both work, we both actively parent. I believe dual working families who actively share parenting responsibility are happier and more economically secure.

If you are an Egalitarian you don't need to be a femenist. Egalitarianism means valuing people for their merits, and treating everyone by the same stardard. Under egalitarianism men and women are treated by the same stardards, so if a woman works the same job as a man for the same number of years she will be payed the same for that work.

It's not just an issue of work/life balance. The rights of single mothers, abused mothers and children, pregnant women, pregnant women and mothers in prison, and same sex couples who wish to be parents are all feminist issues related to motherhood. Some feminists may rail against the stay at home mom, but I think both choices acceptable. Feminism is about choices, and the context in which those choices are made. It's about women being as free to choose their roles as men are.

She won't get the same as a man if she takes two years off to have a baby that he doesn't.

A woman should be paid the same as a man if they work the same hours and do the same quality work. End of story. Otherwise, it's discrimination and should be illegal. I'm not comparing someone who has been absent in from the work place to someone who has not. A person who takes two years off can't expect to pick up right where they left off. But, if a woman has a child, and returns to work full time, she should not be paid less than a man for doing the same amount of work. Nor should women without children be paid less than their male counterparts.

[Watchman]

So people should always be kept working, and never earn enough to stop working?

Most people don't, and never did. Moot point. The ones who *do* manage it tend to get referred to by monikers such as "the idle class" - and then have issues with excessive free time...

Anyway, kindergartens and other such family support measures have the quite considerable benefit of allowing both parents to keep working and earning money to support the family with minimal distruption (which makes for a generally higher standard of living and more accumulated resources to spend on the child's education), and without making one of them largely a pariah on the job market due to an extended break of many years spent caring for the children.
Also helps prevent one of the couple (namely the one who stays home to look after the kids) from becoming excessively economically dependent upon the other (the "breadwinner"), something that I consider a Very Good Thing...

Oh, and then there's the bit that such collective subvention of childcare etc. contributes to birth rates, because they actually make it an economically feasible option for people to have children in the first place.

[HoreTore]

So people should always be kept working, and never earn enough to stop working?

Interesting.

I agree with Lemur as well; I'm an egalitarian. Equality is important.

I'd also argue you don't have to be the same race/gender/whatever of someone to represent their interests.

CR

....Until you retire in your later years of course, but I thought that much was obvious, actually.

Then you should not be on your computer talking, but working Comrade!

Foward, for the Glory of the Revolution!

I actually just got out of the shower, and I'm now off to work shortly

Also, you're confusing "everyone should be working" with "everyone should be working constantly". Quality matters too you know, not just quantity. Without proper rest the quality of work is reduced significantly, and nobody benefits from that.

Just as nobody benefits from having half the workforce sitting at home watching Oprah.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Feminists don't all agree on the work/life balance debate. Some feminists feel that feminism is about choice, and others think that women who stay home are harming all women. I believe that it's about choice, or at least that I need to respect others' choices, so you know where I'm coming from here.

That's fine, I can respect that point of view.

If a woman chooses to stay home and raise children, more power to her! But, not all women want to stay at home and raise children, and it's just as insulting to tell women who want careers that they should be home as it is to tell a stay at home mom to get back to work. Some women who stay home don't actually want to be there. They can't afford day care, or they stay home because it's what's expected of them. There are women who work because they have to, and would rather stay home with their kids. Regardless, the notion that the "traditional" role of woman as homemaker needs to fade into obscurity. Telling women that they, in general, belong in the home is harmful to women and to society, unless you believe that women have nothing to offer society but free childcare and maid service.

I didn't say that at all. You're over-reacting (sadly, predictably). I said that women should not be made to feel that they are required to have a family and a career. Your objection to the "traditional" role of a woman devalues the raising of a family. My own mother would tell you that raising two children of her own was harder and more demanding than working as an accountant or a primary school teacher.

I've never said that women have to work and raise children alone. But, for women who want to work and have a family (like men!), feminism stands for the idea that they should be able to do this, and that this should be an acceptable choice in society.

"Have a family" is a conveniently bland statement. Men make fathers, women make mothers; that's basic biology. Only women can concieve, carry, birth, and feed an infant. Anecdotally, women wake when their babies cry, men don't. It's also been shown scientifically that when women hold babies their brains release a hormone that creates a sense of "bliss", the same hormone is released when breastfeeding. These things don't happen to men.

Society and my country's laws should not force women into traditional gender roles. Personally I don't believe women are any more inherently able to parent than men just because we can get pregnant.

I dissagree vehemently. I have never found a "mother" figure in a man, or a "father" figure in a woman. Men should obviously be involved in the raising of their children, but shoehorning them into the maternal role seems unfair, and doesn't play to most men's strengths in my opinion.

Since I don't believe in traditional roles, I expect my partner to do his share in raising a child. We both work, we both actively parent. I believe dual working families who actively share parenting responsibility are happier and more economically secure.

I believe most three year olds would rather run to "mummy" when they cut their knee than "daddy" or "nanny".

It's not just an issue of work/life balance. The rights of single mothers, abused mothers and children, pregnant women, pregnant women and mothers in prison, and same sex couples who wish to be parents are all feminist issues related to motherhood. Some feminists may rail against the stay at home mom, but I think both choices acceptable. Feminism is about choices, and the context in which those choices are made. It's about women being as free to choose their roles as men are.

All of which is covered under egalitarianism. Except this; you seem to think women should be able to choose to be like men. That simply isn't possible on a lot of levels, and it begs the question of why on Earth you would want to in the first place.

I am reminded of The Life of Brian and a man demanding the right to have a baby.

A woman should be paid the same as a man if they work the same hours and do the same quality work. End of story. Otherwise, it's discrimination and should be illegal. I'm not comparing someone who has been absent in from the work place to someone who has not. A person who takes two years off can't expect to pick up right where they left off. But, if a woman has a child, and returns to work full time, she should not be paid less than a man for doing the same amount of work. Nor should women without children be paid less than their male counterparts.

You've skipped over my point. Legally, women who work the same job for the same number of years are due all the benefits of men. However, in many cases if you take maternity leave you fall behind in the payscale because you weren't working when the men were.

I can't think of a recent instance of a woman without children being paid less than a man; for all the rhetoric. Such a case would have made the national news and yet no femenist in Britain has ever produced an example.

[Watchman]

Jeez, not this parent-figure crap again. Look, quite a few kids don't even have one or the other and still grow up decent human beings; quite a few more would be considerably better off if they didn't have one or the other, or in some cases, both, of their parents...

And back in the day when men worked and women looked after the kids, it's not like most children saw much of their fathers anyway as they tended to be so busy working, what with being the sole breadwinner and all (and period cultural norms tended to prescribe something of an "aloof patriarch" model of behaviour); if anything, the modern "role-sharing" pattern means they interact more with both of their parents, or at least, more equally.

Merely not seeing the parents for the portion of each day the kids are in daycare, kindergarden or whatever matters little. Plus it could be argued the resultant socialising large numbers of their peers and adults outside the amily (ie. the staff of such facilities) is only positive...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

A feminist is someone who has firm beliefs about the state of women in society today, and takes some action towards changing that. I don't see why a man can't be a feminist, or why feminism would be objectionable. It's not inherently different from any other specific interest group.

You can argue about the merits of feminism of course


^^ I also agree with watchman, welcome back btw.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Jeez, not this parent-figure crap again. Look, quite a few kids don't even have one or the other and still grow up decent human beings; quite a few more would be considerably better off if they didn't have one or the other, or in some cases, both, of their parents...

For the psychological development of a child it is extremely important to have either parents or parental figures instead of merely plunking them in a facility. That isn't to say that children can't grow up to be normal and healthy people without a parent or parents, just that they would have been better off to have them.

Besides, doesn't wanting to entrust all child-rearing to the state make anyone nervous?

[Crazed Rabbit]

....Until you retire in your later years of course, but I thought that much was obvious, actually.

Just as nobody benefits from having half the workforce sitting at home watching Oprah.

So you would take the wealth of anyone who was successful enough that they could stop working before old age? Gee, that would encourage hard work.

And who are you to judge what people should spend their time doing? Who are you to judge one personal benefit above another?

It is a personal decision for every single human how much they want to work, and all choices will be different because we are all different. If a person is alright with working less, and therefore earning less money, would you force them to work however much you deem ideal?

Most people don't, and never did. Moot point. The ones who *do* manage it tend to get referred to by monikers such as "the idle class" - and then have issues with excessive free time...

If a person earned so much wealth that they could retire early, then they likely did so by providing a service or a good that a lot of people want.

I certainly wouldn't call such a person part of some "idle class".

And it's certainly not a moot point. You and Horetore want to take away the reward for hard work - larger rewards. In other words, you want to remove part of the foundation of any sane economic system.

Funny how some of the socialists here want so much control over our personal lives.

Society and my country's laws should not force women into traditional gender roles.

Do they? That is, the US? And if our laws do, then how so?

CR

[Watchman]

For the psychological development of a child it is extremely important to have either parents or parental figures instead of merely plunking them in a facility. That isn't to say that children can't grow up to be normal and healthy people without a parent or parents, just that they would have been better off to have them.

Besides, doesn't wanting to entrust all child-rearing to the state make anyone nervous?

You state-phobics are tiresome. And silly.

Look, I went through the full welfare-state childcare assistance routine, kindergartens and all, both parents working long hours to make ends meet (and don't get me started on "father figures" - I've bad personal experience in the field), the works. What it meant in practice was that I was dropped off at the 'garten in the morning, played with the other kids etc. until something like four in the afternoon with mealtimes inbetween and so on, after which parents got home from work and fetched me (or I went home or to play with friends by myself, when I got older). Evening was then obviously spent with family or alternatively friends, and of course there were weekends and holidays and so on.

Do explain to me what part of that equals "not having parental figures" (nevermind now that the better of the 'garten staff made decent enough temporary substitutes) and "entrusting all child-rearing to the state"...?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

You state-phobics are tiresome. And silly.

Hardly. When the state becomes too powerful the results are never good for society as a whole. We aren't scared of a state which has clearly defined roles and limits and a mandate not to exceed those limits except in specifically defined circumstances. I am not scared of the state having some programs for daycare for those who legitimately require it, but I am opposed to the state raising children in all cases except the most dire (where the parents are clearly unfit), in which case foster homes are preferred.

Do explain to me what part of that equals "not having parental figures" (nevermind now that the better of the 'garten staff made decent enough temporary substitutes) and "entrusting all child-rearing to the state"...?

It doesn't, that isn't what I was discussing. I'm sure all of us went to some form of daycare at least occasionally. I was discussing HoreTore's claim that it was better for children to be raised in a kindergarten than by their parents, which I fundamentally disagree with.

[Louis VI the Fat]

A woman should be paid the same as a man if they work the same hours and do the same quality work. End of story. Otherwise, it's discrimination and should be illegal.

Strong words. Does you husband know you are posting subversive material on the internets?