Jupta,
Childcare.
Ok, but like, for the third time, I do not understand your point. Women don't
take childcare, they pay it. This contributes to the economy I suppose. In many European countries, childcare is supported by tax dollars. I don't see this as bad, but it distributes the responsibility for childcare to the adult population at large. This may seem unindividualistic, but really we humans are tribal creatures, and in tribes there is a lot of shared responsibility along with a lot of democracy and egalitarianism. So that is really the human norm.
It is healthier for society to support families, to support infancy and young childhood. If the women are going to work then this should be done. In most European countries, the travesty of women working long shifts while trying to use their break time to pump milk and coming in to work exhausted with a 3 month old infant at home does not happen, because staying home for six months to a year is supported. Also, working part time, which I think is a real good compromise for young mothers, is supported. This is why I laugh when people say America is child oriented. We are not. We are corporate, male oriented.
To be fair that was quite low. I think it's more like 5000 -8000$. Either way, men pay 115% of IRS taxes in US. And the workforce is 56% women. That just blares out - FAIL.
Oh, come on now! This is nearly equal! What do you want? Women still stay home with their kids a fair amount, and many of them still put less effort into their careers, sufficiently so that overall, they still make less than men, even if they are 56% of the workforce. I hardly see that as a failure, 115 vs 85.
But how do you account for them being 56% of the workforce when the population is not even that skewed toward female, and not all young mothers work? Is it because more men are misfits?
Besides, women work in sectors which are primarily fund operated,
This seems like an exaggeration.
Like I said, men HANDLE the pressure better. That does not mean we have less pressure. Our physical and mental superiority is there for a reason. Periods and childbirth are a problem of course, but they are kinda weighed out by the things that men go through. I'm not complaining, just pointing it out.
They handle it better because they are stronger and have a different hormonal mix. This means that an equal pressure is not equal in how it effects men and women. If the man can handle it, then it is not undue pressure. Besides, much of that pressure is sought out by the men. They deliberately put themselves into positions in which there is pressure and danger.
I'm not saying men don't contribute more and have more pressure, at times they definitely get themselves into a loss situation, because they took the risk. But I don't see why you think women have it better.
I just pointed out some facts which were against women. That doesn't mean that I am anti-woman.
I would consider it anti-woman when all the opinions are such that women are worthless in every single possible way, rather than seeing a wise balance of attributes. This is the QRS attitude, and I have never taken them seriously because of it.
I don't understand what you mean here. Are you saying that public schooling should be abolished? If you are serious, then I agree with you.
Well, perhaps we need states rights and get the federal out of everything. I do have a problem, which you probably don't, with letting whatever goes in inside of families be their business. Again, as a person with a tribal perspective, there should be limits to the amount of abuse which can occur simply because the neighbors will put a stop to it. I'm afraid some kids would grow up with an alcoholic parent or two, and little care or education. And many people don't want to educate their kids for years on end, so I think we should probably bring back the little red school house.
I'm totally and completely aghast at the public school system, and hated nearly every day of it myself. I consider it a crime of major proportions the way they wasted my time and held me back until it was too late. It's an institution for raising laboratory rats.
I'd make a fantastic teacher and I would enjoy doing it, but I'll never make that switch because of the arduous requirements of a 5 year degree. Plus, having to comply with the propaganda machine.
They are countered by other men, and sometimes cooperate to prevent any single one getting all the power(see economics of John Nash.)
Yet there is another side to men. It does contribute to structure, and perhaps to getting things done, although always at great pain and loss, and that is the alpha-male, beta-male problem, inbuilt into the male psyche, and which women don't have. It is primate behavior. Chimps do it, and men do it. Men bow and lick the boots of those in authority, almost literally, with their butt upturned in the air and kiss the hands of kings and popes. This is really sickening behavior, when you find out that this is the same, I mean the
exact same bodily movements that beta male chimps do to the alpha male when he throws his weight around.
So long as a man agrees that someone is alpha, he is happy to become one of a large group of servile betas, such as soldiers. You won't ever get women to obey like that.
All in all, I think the motto of everyone during this crisis should be - "Disregard females. Acquire currency."
I rather think the motto should be to stop being such a gullible bunch of sheep waiting to be fleeced by the banking industry.
Currency? What currency? People call paper dollars currency, don't they? Whereas paper dollars are inferior even as toilet paper. Good kindling though.
Truth is a pathless land.