Can you intelligently read this article and give me your opinion?

[slimreaper]

Not the same doesn't mean can't be equal

you are choosing to look at it on an individual level, and not as a population as a whole. The populations as a whole benefit from each doing what their *** does better.

 

[Power Bottom]

I read it and I found it pure bs

 

[Ripple Hole]

you are choosing to look at it on an individual level, and not as a population as a whole. The populations as a whole benefit from each doing what their *** does better.

This true ^ ^ ^
The sexes aren't equal.

I'd expect many female teachers, and less male teachers, at lower grade levels,
due to them being more accustomed to children.
I'd expect more males working in the field/heat, due to more endurance/strength.

Certain fields, will give one or the other *** an advantage/disadvantage,
people are better fit for different things.

 

[Punk Hazard]

you are choosing to look at it on an individual level, and not as a population as a whole. The populations as a whole benefit from each doing what their *** does better.

Okay...sounds fake but okay

 

[Cruciatus]

That's not equal and different and was never claimed to be, blacks were thought to be lower level beings

So were women at one point. For example, Victorian England lore held that women were naturally lustful and promiscuous. A more modern approach:not until 1920 in America were women allowed to vote, because even then women were still viewed as less intelligent and incapable of making decisions for themselves or understanding politics. :lol I'd like you to remember that the 15th Amendment, which gave blacks the right to vote, was passed 50 years prior to the 19th, which gave women suffrage.

And, yes, it was equal but different. Segregation was the idea that blacks and whites would have the same amenities without having to share them. However, pardon my French, blacks got ****ed over. Like I said, one side ends up not having the same representation. There really can't be "equal but different." There's only equality through unity––respect for gender differences, cooperation, and equal opportunities for both genders.

Deny it all you want, men and women aren't the same. All the evidence is against you.

Physically different, yes. Capable of different things, yes. I've had the birds and the bees talk, babe, I get the differences. But that doesn't deny women the right to same things men have. American gender roles are changing, and so is the American family. And it goes for both sides. There are more men nowadays who are taking care of kids while the women has a career. But men and women being different doesn't deny one rights and opportunities that the other is entitled to. We're all human.

There's no need to be afraid of that change. We should embrace equality.

 

[WreckRolled]

as a man you must be retarded to sell your soul in marriage with today's laws

 

[slimreaper]

So were women at one point. For example, Victorian England lore held that women were naturally lustful and promiscuous. A more modern approach:not until 1920 in America were women allowed to vote, because even then women were still viewed as less intelligent and incapable of making decisions for themselves or understanding politics. :lol I'd like you to remember that the 15th Amendment, which gave blacks the right to vote, was passed 50 years prior to the 19th, which gave women suffrage.

And, yes, it was equal but different. Segregation was the idea that blacks and whites would have the same amenities without having to share them. However, pardon my French, blacks got ****ed over. Like I said, one side ends up not having the same representation. There really can't be "equal but different." There's only equality through unity––respect for gender differences, cooperation, and equal opportunities for both genders.



Physically different, yes. Capable of different things, yes. I've had the birds and the bees talk, babe, I get the differences. But that doesn't deny women the right to same things men have. American gender roles are changing, and so is the American family. And it goes for both sides. There are more men nowadays who are taking care of kids while the women has a career. But men and women being different doesn't deny one rights and opportunities that the other is entitled to. We're all human.

There's no need to be afraid of that change. We should embrace equality.

That is 100% liberal BS. You want to make such a sweeping change just because it sounds right, without ever considering the consequences. As for saying there are more men raising kids nowadays, why are marriage rates down 21%? If gender roles are changing, why do men get ****ed in the divorce 90% of the time?

 

[Fresco]

I read the article, and its very stupid. First off, its a Fox News opinion piece, not a peer-reviewed article with multiple legitimate. Anyone who takes Fox News seriously is inherently biased to begin with. When someone comes from a place of inherent bias, its hard for me to "intelligently" take it seriously.

She quotes someone as saying,

The world as we’ve known it for a very long time—one in which a woman’s value was tied to her role as a wife—is ending, right in front of us. It is now standard for a woman to spend years on her own, learning, working, earning, socializing, having ***, and yes, having babies in the manner she—and she alone—sees fit. We are living through the invention of independent female adulthood.

Its stupid to conflate *** and having babies with learning and working, as I'll show later. Secondly, is the author implying that learning and working are somehow bad things because she doesn't have a husband?

Throughout the article, the author disingenuously acts as if female independence is a bad. The author provides no evidence for it being detrimental to society, and if you're last comment is any indication, you're probably trying to make the argument that female independence hurts family values. That argument is flawed to begin with given if women are truly independent, they're not going to have a child.

Let's clear up a couple things, though:

1. The
   You must be registered for see links
   for women and men who marry has risen to 26 and 28, respectively, and this is because college. More women are going to college (OMG SO BAD RITE?) and marrying afterwards. This skews marriage statistics to a certain degree, and that's why bringing up the 21% statistic can be wrong. Most people who graduate college eventually become married. People with only a high school education often have trouble finding good paying jobs so they're reluctant to marry.
2. Teen pregnancy rates are highest out wedlock with women who only have a high school diploma and are impoverished.

So, that's why its wrong to conflate learning and working with having *** and babies. The author ignores how education and poverty can effect when a women will have a baby and when they'll get married. She blankets all women under the veil of female independence without taking into account the numerous other factors that go into a woman's life. With that shit article out of the way, there's something else I want to bring up.

Its very funny how conservatives love to bring up family values and how they're being ruined. Its always feminists, gays, or liberal policies that are ruining them :lol: Its especially funny, and ironic, because conservatives are against paid maternal and paternal leave, workers unions, and minimum wage increases.

I mean, why did Ronald Reagan

You must be registered for see links

during his administration, when unions are vital in collective bargaining for wages and reasonable working hours? Isn't the increase in productivity yet stagnating wages hurting how a father or mother can see or care for their children? Why is the GOP

You must be registered for see links

? Wouldn't it be best if a woman could care for her child during the vital early stages of childhood? This goes for paternity leave as well since Republicans are against that too. Its because conservatives value the employer over the employee.

Then there's criminal justice reform that conservatives can't wrap their heads around. You, yourself, have brought up the whole absent black father thing (which is a myth), yet you ignore why blacks are arrested at a disproportionate rate.


SO please, quit posting these dumbass, biased articles and threads that complain about family values being ruined by women when the biggest threat to family values are conservative policies.

 

[slimreaper]

I read the article, and its very stupid. First off, its a Fox News opinion piece, not a peer-reviewed article with multiple legitimate. Anyone who takes Fox News seriously is inherently biased to begin with. When someone comes from a place of inherent bias, its hard for me to "intelligently" take it seriously.

She quotes someone as saying,

Its stupid to conflate *** and having babies with learning and working, as I'll show later. Secondly, is the author implying that learning and working are somehow bad things because she doesn't have a husband?

Throughout the article, the author disingenuously acts as if female independence is a bad. The author provides no evidence for it being detrimental to society, and if you're last comment is any indication, you're probably trying to make the argument that female independence hurts family values. That argument is flawed to begin with given if women are truly independent, they're not going to have a child.

Let's clear up a couple things, though:

1. The
   You must be registered for see links
   for women and men who marry has risen to 26 and 28, respectively, and this is because college. More women are going to college (OMG SO BAD RITE?) and marrying afterwards. This skews marriage statistics to a certain degree, and that's why bringing up the 21% statistic can be wrong. Most people who graduate college eventually become married. People with only a high school education often have trouble finding good paying jobs so they're reluctant to marry.
2. Teen pregnancy rates are highest out wedlock with women who only have a high school diploma and are impoverished.

So, that's why its wrong to conflate learning and working with having *** and babies. The author ignores how education and poverty can effect when a women will have a baby and when they'll get married. She blankets all women under the veil of female independence without taking into account the numerous other factors that go into a woman's life. With that shit article out of the way, there's something else I want to bring up.

Its very funny how conservatives love to bring up family values and how they're being ruined. Its always feminists, gays, or liberal policies that are ruining them :lol: Its especially funny, and ironic, because conservatives are against paid maternal and paternal leave, workers unions, and minimum wage increases.

I mean, why did Ronald Reagan

You must be registered for see links

during his administration, when unions are vital in collective bargaining for wages and reasonable working hours? Isn't the increase in productivity yet stagnating wages hurting how a father or mother can see or care for their children? Why is the GOP

You must be registered for see links

? Wouldn't it be best if a woman could care for her child during the vital early stages of childhood? This goes for paternity leave as well since Republicans are against that too. Its because conservatives value the employer over the employee.

Then there's criminal justice reform that conservatives can't wrap their heads around. You, yourself, have brought up the whole absent black father thing (which is a myth), yet you ignore why blacks are arrested at a disproportionate rate.


SO please, quit posting these dumbass, biased articles and threads that complain about family values being ruined by women when the biggest threat to family values are conservative policies.

You wanna go off on a tangent about conservatives and hating the employee when I personally shit all over you here

You must be registered for see links

. By all means counter my post and i'll destroy this one

 

[Fresco]

You wanna go off on a tangent about conservatives and hating the employee when I personally shit all over you here

You must be registered for see links

. By all means counter my post and i'll destroy this one

LMAO, you didn't shit over anything. Just taking a glance at it now, I can point out a few problems.

You start off by saying conservatives aim to help everyone as opposed to Liberals who only aim to help the poor and disenfranchised. I mean, I wasn't aware the rich needed help, but that's admirable. You can't enact the same policies for all income brackets, which is why people are taxed differently. About the War on Drugs thing, I'd agree with that. In that case, I don't see why you support the GOP in its current iteration.

Then there's the black unemployment thing. My point was minimum wage laws have only had marginal effects on unemployment, and many economists are starting to agree with that notion given the amount of economists who have came out in support of minimum wage increases. As far as higher black unemployment goes, most economists cite poverty or systematic discrimination in choosing job applications. Also, we're talking youth unemployment here. Many youths can't get jobs because of lack of experience, and opt into going into internships.

Switzerland is a bad example to bring up, lol. They have great labor laws and use labor unions for collective bargaining, just like the Nordic countries. Conservatives are against both labor unions and minimum wage increases, so you're making my point here.

2.9 billion is very small when we're talking about the budget of the US, which is in the trillions. This is also dependent on the state because not all states utilize the money they're given, and they'll often cut funds for education, like in my state. And you never actually brought up proof that funding for education was somehow a bad thing. You could maybe bring up teacher pay or how good teachers have a disposition towards richer schools.

Chances are, I'm not going to reply fully when it comes to anything you post because a lot of the things you say are ridiculous and show an underlying bigotry.

edit: formatting messed up

 

[slimreaper]

LMAO, you didn't shit over anything. Just taking a glance at it now, I can point out a few problems.

You start off by saying conservatives aim to help everyone as opposed to Liberals who only aim to help the poor and disenfranchised. I mean, I wasn't aware the rich needed help, but that's admirable. You can't enact the same policies for all income brackets, which is why people are taxed differently. About the War on Drugs thing, I'd agree with that. In that case, I don't see why you support the GOP in its current iteration.

Then there's the black unemployment thing. My point was minimum wage laws have only had marginal effects on unemployment, and many economists are starting to agree with that notion given the amount of economists who have came out in support of minimum wage increases. As far as higher black unemployment goes, most economists cite poverty or systematic discrimination in choosing job applications. Also, we're talking youth unemployment here. Many youths can't get jobs because of lack of experience, and opt into going into internships.

Switzerland is a bad example to bring up, lol. They have great labor laws and use labor unions for collective bargaining, just like the Nordic countries. Conservatives are against both labor unions and minimum wage increases, so you're making my point here.

2.9 billion is very small when we're talking about the budget of the US, which is in the trillions. This is also dependent on the state because not all states utilize the money they're given, and they'll often cut funds for education, like in my state. And you never actually brought up proof that funding for education was somehow a bad thing. You could maybe bring up teacher pay or how good teachers have a disposition towards richer schools.

Chances are, I'm not going to reply fully when it comes to anything you post because a lot of the things you say are ridiculous and show an underlying bigotry.

edit: formatting messed up

first point, helping all people is more noble than stealing from a select few to feed those who won't do for themselves.


second point, black unemployment has been tremendously. You say most economists site " Poverty, or systematic discrimination".

Black teenage unemployment in 1949 was 9%, it is now 43% after 50 years of your so called "help". Do you seriously believe that whites are more systematically discriminatory than in 1949? Do you believe blacks are poorer today than in 1949? GTFO with that bullshit. All these decreases coincide with the rise in minimum wage and the welfare state. Your so called "economists" are idiots. You also site inexperienced youths not being able to get jobs, yet like a buffoon you support the very program that prices their inexperienced asses out of the market.

What does having good labor laws have to do with maintaining low unemployment levels? If the employers can't afford it, people aren't getting hired... no union can change that. It is precisely them having no minimum wage that allows them to be so good to their people. They are scared someone will bid higher for their employee.

And no we shouldn't "tax people differently" we should tax people a flat rate because that's fair. Punishing success destroys incentive to be successful. Don't believe me? Name a big Russian can company... don't worry i'll wait


And by all means site my ridiculous underlying bigotry. You are just a blind liberal un-willing to see the facts.

 

[WalksInShadows]

Prior to the 1970s, people viewed gender roles as as equally valuable. Many would argue women had the better end of the deal! It’s hard to claim women were oppressed in a nation in which men were expected to stand up when a lady enters the room or to lay down their lives to spare women life. When the Titanic went down in 1912, its sinking took 1,450 lives. Only 103 were women. One-hundred three.

imo, this paragraph basically summed up why gender equality is a fantasy. One one hand, women before the 1970s were expected for the most part to be nothing more than homemakers, but men's lives were somehow seen as more expendable than women's if a ship was going down.

as a man you must be retarded to sell your soul in marriage with today's laws

You must be registered for see links

 

[Fresco]

first point, helping all people is more noble than stealing from a select few to feed those who won't do for themselves.

Apparently progressive taxation is theft now. If you just think for a second, you'd realize how stupid that sounds.

second point, black unemployment has been tremendously. You say most economists site " Poverty, or systematic discrimination".

Black teenage unemployment in 1949 was 9%, it is now 43% after 50 years of your so called "help". Do you seriously believe that whites are more systematically discriminatory than in 1949? Do you believe blacks are poorer today than in 1949? GTFO with that bullshit. All these decreases coincide with the rise in minimum wage and the welfare state. Your so called "economists" are idiots. You also site inexperienced youths not being able to get jobs, yet like a buffoon you support the very program that prices their inexperienced asses out of the market.

You must be registered for see links

Also, you're drastically overestimating the effects of teenage unemployment. Overall, it absolutely has to do with inexperience, especially since the statistic you're bringing up is teenage unemployment and not youth unemployment overall, the latter of which is

You must be registered for see links

. If we're talking about youths in the 16-19 age bracket in comparison to the 20-24 age bracket, then its understandable that the 16-19 age bracket will have more unemployment given the discrepancies in experience. Someone in their 20s will have had more jobs and experience than someone in their teens.

That aside, black unemployment is consistently

You must be registered for see links

as white unemployment across the bar, so you're clearly ignoring the other factors that might affect black unemployment such as discrimination and differences of education. I could understand if you're trying to make the case that minimum wage has affected unemployment as whole, but it simply does not indicate an effect on black unemployment in particular.

What does having good labor laws have to do with maintaining low unemployment levels? If the employers can't afford it, people aren't getting hired... no union can change that. It is precisely them having no minimum wage that allows them to be so good to their people. They are scared someone will bid higher for their employee.

Labor unions allow for better wages through collective bargaining. @Underline - that doesn't make any sense given companies have consistently shown they care about profits the most. Capitalism is about maximizing profits, so companies will look to decrease worker salary if that means an increase in profits. This was shown during the Gilded Age, and its precisely the reason why labor unions were created. Of course it meant more unemployment on a company-to-company basis, but overall the changes were necessary and beneficial.

I'm not familiarized with Switzerland's labor laws, but I'm almost positive they have government assistance programs to help them with getting jobs, though it works differently than welfare as far as I know. You can read a little about their labor laws

You must be registered for see links

.

And no we shouldn't "tax people differently" we should tax people a flat rate because that's fair. Punishing success destroys incentive to be successful. Don't believe me? Name a big Russian can company... don't worry i'll wait

And by all means site my ridiculous underlying bigotry. You are just a blind liberal un-willing to see the facts.

Oh, it sounds fair, but its probably the most unfair tax systems in practice. There's a reason why Russia and Saudia Arabia are like the only two major countries to utilize one.

Take for example these two graphs:

You must be registered for see links

vs

You must be registered for see links

. As you can see, people with more income are able to buy all the things they need, yet still not spend all of their wealth in comparison to middle and low income earners. A flat tax would only drastically make this worse.

This brings me to a second point: inheritance. Somehow it would be fair to impose a flat tax on someone who inherited wealth as opposed to someone who worked for it? And let's take into consideration that people of low income won't be able to give nowhere near the same amount as someone with high income.

As seen in the graph above, rich people putting money back into the economy is largely a myth. A lot of people confuse marginal income tax rates with investment rates (capital gains rates). Capital gain tax rates have always been low in comparison to income rates until the 1980s. Marginal Income tax rates on the rich were around 90% during the 50s and 60s, which worked out well for everyone else since the US experienced the greatest amount of growth in its history.

imo, this paragraph basically summed up why gender equality is a fantasy. One one hand, women before the 1970s were expected for the most part to be nothing more than homemakers, but men's lives were somehow seen as more expendable than women's if a ship was going down.

You must be registered for see links

Women didn't even have the right to vote when the titanic sank :lol

 

[slimreaper]

Apparently progressive taxation is theft now. If you just think for a second, you'd realize how stupid that sounds.

You must be registered for see links

Also, you're drastically overestimating the effects of teenage unemployment. Overall, it absolutely has to do with inexperience, especially since the statistic you're bringing up is teenage unemployment and not youth unemployment overall, the latter of which is

You must be registered for see links

. If we're talking about youths in the 16-19 age bracket in comparison to the 20-24 age bracket, then its understandable that the 16-19 age bracket will have more unemployment given the discrepancies in experience. Someone in their 20s will have had more jobs and experience than someone in their teens.

That aside, black unemployment is consistently

You must be registered for see links

as white unemployment across the bar, so you're clearly ignoring the other factors that might affect black unemployment such as discrimination and differences of education. I could understand if you're trying to make the case that minimum wage has affected unemployment as whole, but it simply does not indicate an effect on black unemployment in particular.


Labor unions allow for better wages through collective bargaining. @Underline - that doesn't make any sense given companies have consistently shown they care about profits the most. Capitalism is about maximizing profits, so companies will look to decrease worker salary if that means an increase in profits. This was shown during the Gilded Age, and its precisely the reason why labor unions were created. Of course it meant more unemployment on a company-to-company basis, but overall the changes were necessary and beneficial.

I'm not familiarized with Switzerland's labor laws, but I'm almost positive they have government assistance programs to help them with getting jobs, though it works differently than welfare as far as I know. You can read a little about their labor laws

You must be registered for see links

.


Oh, it sounds fair, but its probably the most unfair tax systems in practice. There's a reason why Russia and Saudia Arabia are like the only two major countries to utilize one.

Take for example these two graphs:

You must be registered for see links

vs

You must be registered for see links

. As you can see, people with more income are able to buy all the things they need, yet still not spend all of their wealth in comparison to middle and low income earners. A flat tax would only drastically make this worse.

This brings me to a second point: inheritance. Somehow it would be fair to impose a flat tax on someone who inherited wealth as opposed to someone who worked for it? And let's take into consideration that people of low income won't be able to give nowhere near the same amount as someone with high income.

As seen in the graph above, rich people putting money back into the economy is largely a myth. A lot of people confuse marginal income tax rates with investment rates (capital gains rates). Capital gain tax rates have always been low in comparison to income rates until the 1980s. Marginal Income tax rates on the rich were around 90% during the 50s and 60s, which worked out well for everyone else since the US experienced the greatest amount of growth in its history.



Women didn't even have the right to vote when the titanic sank :lol

First, you are talking about how it's about experience but wanting to take away low paying jobs that would be readily available to teens with a lower minimum wage. How are they going to gain those skills when they've got older more experienced people pricing them out of those low paying jobs? The link you posted was only talking about a growth in a 2 month period. Hardly lasting proof.

It's amazing how these 600 economists can ignore a major rule in economics, if the price of something goes up there will be a surplus of that product. It's the same with labor and it's been proven.

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

you are blaming black unemployment on racism and not their own idiocy. Don't believe me read the first paragraph of this ^^

Notice it says there was relative parity in the 40's yet by 1960 it was 2 to 1 in favor of whites, imagine that.


As for collective bargaining getting better wages, that is unnecessary. If we had no minimum wage a bidding war would start for skilled workers, so their prices would naturally go up. You either have to pay them better or give them better conditions.

this video should answer your inheritance question

[video=youtube;MRpEV2tmYz4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRpEV2tmYz4[/video]

punishing inheritance again kills incentive to invest.

 

[WreckRolled]

imo, this paragraph basically summed up why gender equality is a fantasy. One one hand, women before the 1970s were expected for the most part to be nothing more than homemakers, but men's lives were somehow seen as more expendable than women's if a ship was going down.

You must be registered for see links

nice arguments..oh wait