Equality and Inequality?

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by gluadys

Many European countries provide for two years of maternity/paternity leave. It is a norm I would like to see introduced to North America, and eventually world-wide.

Namaste all,

this is an interesting idea... why is it that couples with children are treated special? would you ever consider that a couple without children would ever be allowed to take 30 days.. let alone 2 years off work.. and still have a job when they return?

heck.. i feel as if my job is in jepodary if i have to take a few days off being sick.. which i've recently done...

futher... DINKs (dual income, no kids) couples are taxed at higher rates...

why should i have to subsidize someone else's childs education? actually.. i don't have much issue with that... i'd rather pay for them to be in school than wandering around the neighborhood. what does bother me, however, is this... i have two people in my family that use serivces provided by my society and we both pay our fair share for them.

if you have a family of 4, the two parents pay their taxes and get the serivces.. just like us. if their kids need services, who pays for that? i'll tell you who... me. and millions just like me.

this is simply another method of discrimination.. however, it's one that is designed to get more people to procreate and it uses finiancial incentives to get them to do so.

[gluadys]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste all,

this is an interesting idea... why is it that couples with children are treated special? would you ever consider that a couple without children would ever be allowed to take 30 days.. let alone 2 years off work.. and still have a job when they return?

Why not? Why are sabbaticals reserved for senior academics? Everyone should have sabbaticals. Did you know that minimum paid vacation time in Europe is 4 weeks after one years employment?

heck.. i feel as if my job is in jepodary if i have to take a few days off being sick.. which i've recently done...

Is labour legislation that bad where you live? I know much of the US has ridiculously low standards. I understand some states don't even have a minimum wage.

futher... DINKs (dual income, no kids) couples are taxed at higher rates...

I should hope so. They have more disposable income due to having fewer expenses.

why should i have to subsidize someone else's childs education? actually.. i don't have much issue with that... i'd rather pay for them to be in school than wandering around the neighborhood. what does bother me, however, is this... i have two people in my family that use serivces provided by my society and we both pay our fair share for them.

if you have a family of 4, the two parents pay their taxes and get the serivces.. just like us. if their kids need services, who pays for that? i'll tell you who... me. and millions just like me.

It's not just that the kids would be wandering around the neighbourhood. It is a direct benefit to you that all children are educated and we don't have large numbers of people who are illiterate and unskilled. Societies which provide a basic minimum standard of living for everyone are more stable and peaceful societies with lower crime rates. Why would you not want to pay for that?

As the old proverb says: Taxes are what you pay for civilization.

this is simply another method of discrimination.. however, it's one that is designed to get more people to procreate and it uses finiancial incentives to get them to do so.

hah! Do some research on this.

It's an old and unjustified canard. Blatant and untrue stereotyping. Unsubstantiated poor-bashing rhetoric.

P.S. I've just been through this on another board recently. I can guarantee you that all the statistics indicate you are wrong, wrong, wrong on the incentive to procreate issue.

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by gluadys

Why not? Why are sabbaticals reserved for senior academics? Everyone should have sabbaticals. Did you know that minimum paid vacation time in Europe is 4 weeks after one years employment?

why not? because it discriminates against non breeders. if a male or female with a child leaves work for 6 months.. the job still has to be done... however, you won't see those folks getting extra pay for extra work.. nope.. just pick up the slack for the breeders.

indeed... at my company, i started from day 1 with 4 weeks. i'm now in the 6 week range... provided i don't carry any over from year to year.

Is labour legislation that bad where you live? I know much of the US has ridiculously low standards. I understand some states don't even have a minimum wage.

i'm unaware of any state without a minimum wage law. some places are adopting what they call the "minimium living wage" and mandate much higher wages for hourly employees.

it's not that labour legislation is bad.. i work in what is called a "no cause" state.. which means, bascially, that you can be fired for no cause.. however, if there is a cause it must be a legal one. the reason that i worry about my employment is because the job still has to be done.. if i'm not there to do it... who will? eventually, that person will be tired of doing my job and i'll be replaced by someone that can show up and do the work.

I should hope so. They have more disposable income due to having fewer expenses.

that's a gross generalization, glaudys i know pleny of couples with children that have many more funds than most of the DINKs i know. income tax should be based on one's income, not how many kids they have.

It's not just that the kids would be wandering around the neighbourhood. It is a direct benefit to you that all children are educated and we don't have large numbers of people who are illiterate and unskilled. Societies which provide a basic minimum standard of living for everyone are more stable and peaceful societies with lower crime rates. Why would you not want to pay for that?

why is that? someone needs to do the menial jobs, right? or are those just foreign workers that get to have those? education is a neat thing.. but one does not need it to be successful in the world to some degree.

furthermore... i think that i could make a decent argument that our public education system is producing illiterate and unskilled "graduates" and letting them lose on the world without proper training. if my money is going to be used for this.. then it should be used in a wise and contentious manner... actually getting a child to be able to read and do maths is better than simply "passing" the child along until they graduate, in my opinion.

As the old proverb says: Taxes are what you pay for civilization.

nah.. taxes are what you pay so that lazy government workers steal your money and buy plastic surgery with it.

hah! Do some research on this.

It's an old and unjustified canard. Blatant and untrue stereotyping. Unsubstantiated poor-bashing rhetoric.

P.S. I've just been through this on another board recently. I can guarantee you that all the statistics indicate you are wrong, wrong, wrong on the incentive to procreate issue.

i have done research on this, though perhaps not of the same type that you've done or would like for me to do. i can look at my own tax records and see, exactly, what the difference is. then, i can investigate the actual tax code and see how i'm penalized for not having children... further, i can see how i'm penalized if i choose to marry instead of staying single.

we don't have to agree on this... tax reform and tax abuse are things which are dear to me at this stage of my life, seeing as how i'm hemmoraging money to the government for every little service... many, that i've already paid for.. but, "the funds were used for this project over here."

[gluadys]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

why not? because it discriminates against non breeders. if a male or female with a child leaves work for 6 months.. the job still has to be done... however, you won't see those folks getting extra pay for extra work.. nope.. just pick up the slack for the breeders.

How does it discriminate against non-breeders if everyone gets a sabbatical?

indeed... at my company, i started from day 1 with 4 weeks. i'm now in the 6 week range... provided i don't carry any over from year to year.

Sounds like a decent company. So don't you have sick days in your contract? And personal leave days? Why would you be worried about taking off days you are entitled to take off?

i'm unaware of any state without a minimum wage law.

Well, then one of us is mistaken, but I don't know which one.

it's not that labour legislation is bad.. i work in what is called a "no cause" state.. which means, bascially, that you can be fired for no cause..

And you don't think that's bad legislation?

that's a gross generalization, glaudys i know pleny of couples with children that have many more funds than most of the DINKs i know. income tax should be based on one's income, not how many kids they have.

Quite. I should have been clearer. Of two couples making the same total family income, those without kids have fewer obligatory expenses and more disposable income than those with kids to provide for. And before we go off on another tangent--the same applies to other dependants as well. In terms of financial obligation, they are equivalent to having kids.

why is that? someone needs to do the menial jobs, right? or are those just foreign workers that get to have those? education is a neat thing.. but one does not need it to be successful in the world to some degree.

Before mass education, education was restricted to what was known as the "leisured classes". These people had enough income from rents and investments that they did not need to be employed. They didn't need to be successful in the world because they were already financially secure.

So why was education wasted on them and them only?

furthermore... i think that i could make a decent argument that our public education system is producing illiterate and unskilled "graduates" and letting them lose on the world without proper training. if my money is going to be used for this.. then it should be used in a wise and contentious manner... actually getting a child to be able to read and do maths is better than simply "passing" the child along until they graduate, in my opinion.

You don't have to convince me of that. I agree, all taxpayers should be up in arms about the sorry state of public education and demand improvements. Of course, that also means being willing to fund the improvements through increased education taxes. (Not that more money solves all problems, but when some of the problems are too few and too old textbooks, insufficient desks, and overcrowded classrooms, it does take a financial investment in books, equipment, new or renovated schools and more teachers to bring down class sizes.)

nah.. taxes are what you pay so that lazy government workers steal your money and buy plastic surgery with it.

Tell that to the people collecting social security or benefitting from story-telling circles for their kids at public libraries or enjoying a vacation at a national park or supporting their family on a research grant.

No one will dispute that money gets wasted. And no government has ever set the same priorities for spending that I would. But its just silly to think of it all as a black hole from which nothing returns for you and your family and your neighbours. The problem is that most people have a very good idea of what they are paying to the government, but a very poor idea of what they are getting. Consider the public health department for example. Do you ever think of what it is worth to you to have your food inspected before it goes onto grocery shelves? Or to have restaurants inspected regularly to keep down instances of food poisoning?

Do you use streets, highways, sidewalks? Ever calculated how much of your tax money goes into keeping them in good shape? Is it worth it?

Now, there is no doubt that you will find some government expenditures of which you will say---"no, that's not worth it." We all will, though we will disagree on the value of different programs.

But government touches us all every day in a thousand ways we take for granted until its not there. So be realistic. You really don't want to be without a lot of those services. If you think you do, I highly recommend a visit to a Brazilian barrio or Philippine slum where there are no taxes and also no services.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, gluadys and vajradhara!

Oh Lordy, I knew I'd get myself in trouble with this one!

I know it's gotten exciting when Vaj shows emotion!

Actually, I must thank Brian for this thread. It is allowing me to unload an awful lot of pent up feelings on this issue. What is the medicinal/psychological word for getting things off your chest?

If I may be allowed to return to a couple of things I opened with on the other thread, because I feel there is a pertinence.

"The thing is, power is not gender specific. Both genders are fully capable of abusing the privilege of power." -juantoo3

And "Feminism is fine, until it reaches the point of emasculation." -juantoo3

On the one hand, these are the comments that seem to have ignited so much of this discussion. On the other, one could say there is ample to show within this thread to support my original comments.

Responses such as:
"We also need to remember that people accustomed to privilege often perceive that privilege as "normal" and "right". So the loss of privilege is felt as an attack on their rights rather than the extension of rights to those who had none."

"And sometimes, in specific cases, there is reverse injustice. All we can do is try to keep these to a minimum. We still have a long, long way to go to achieve a fair deal for women and minorities, so the burden for the white male will necessarily become greater, not less."

"AS for who caused the disparities, who is responsible---the roots of the present lie in centuries of the past. None of us are personally responsible for creating it. What we are responsible for is correcting it."

"Or social conditioning again? The women are intelligent enough not to endure bad working conditions, but men tough it out to prove they are macho men. It's not the bills. Women have bills to pay too."

"Of course it's not. It is not anybody's experience. Because we live and have lived for centuries in a patriarchal society which distorts people's natural individual aspirations and limits them to what is acceptable for their gender."
"No one is saying there are no relevant differences between men and women."
-------

If there are no relevant differences, then discriminating against one in favor of the other is discrimination. Plain and simple. If "none of us are personally responsible," why then are a select few to be held accountable? If "it is not anybody's experience," then why discriminate? If the purpose of the women's movement is to eliminate discrimination, does it not seem counter-productive and counter-intuitive to pursue a policy of intentional discrimination? Here, I am being polite, I can think of other adjectives to describe it.

I think we can agree the issue is complex. It certainly cannot be resolved with a simple answer. I seem to recall being called to task for a stereotype image I presented, yet I see stereo-typical images promoted in the above quotes. The worst is in assuming that specifically white males, and most especially single white males, deserve to have the burdens of society placed squarely on their shoulders, and theirs alone.

Now, I like to think I'm a pretty able guy after all, and I surely do not mind helping anybody try to help themselves. To imply not only that I MUST bear the burdens of society, but that I MUST because I am somehow responsible for those burdens, and that I MUST because of mandated benevolence over which I have no say or control, is a misperception of reality and a miscarriage of social justice.

How can one claim to be for the ending of discrimination, unless ALL forms of discrimination are properly addressed? To imply that some "reverse injustice" is unavoidable, (sorry, bend over, kiss your a** and go to hell, we are getting what we want, you can be damned!) is unacceptable.

This is precisely the abuse of power by the female gender (specifically in this instance) that I was referring to. Am I to presume it is alright for women, or any other perceived minority, to discriminate? But not white males?

An awful lot of this attitude comes back to a quote I seem to keep bringing up for its relevance:

"We become what we will ourselves to become."

If we will ourselves to be victims, we assume the identity of the victim, and we promote the ideology of the victim to ourselves first, then once firmly implanted we promote that ideology outwardly, and we then become victims. Feminism assumes the role of victim. It is somebody else's fault, specifically in this case the white male, feminism is not responsible to or for itself. Feminism must rely on "them" to lift itself out of its position as victim.

Equality will never happen as long as the attitude of victim remains. Not for feminism, or any other perceived social injustice.

By contrast, individuals that choose to assume a different role, that of "somebody" for lack of a better term, first internalize this mindset, then promote it outwardly, and make something of themselves.

Are Condoleeza (sp?) Rice or Madelaine Albright, or Margaret Thatcher, or Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Dole victims? Do they share a victimized mindset? I seriously doubt it. None of the great men or women of our collective shared history has succeeded with a victim's mindset. Not Gandhi, not Martin Luthur King jr, not Martin Luthur, not Jesus Christ. Not Albert Einstein, not Marie Curie, not Thomas Edison.

With my experiences, I could (in some people's minds very rightly) choose to be a victim, and assume to myself all of the stigma and callousness and jaded attitude that accompanies that frame of mind. I choose instead to make something of myself. Do I take advantage of the opportunities available? Certainly, a person with a goal makes use of what is available to that person. Do I abuse those privileges? I don't believe so, and ultimately with the course I am on I expect to be giving back to society more than I receive. This is productive use of privileges and benefits, a social investment.

If we were speaking of 100 years ago, women were very much excluded from the bulk of business endeavors. That was a very different era, and the social position of women held a different necessity, and fulfilled different requirements.

If we were speaking of 60 years ago, wartime necessity brought many, many women into the labor pool. It was then that most women realized the value of being able to contribute to the gross national product.

If we were speaking of 30 years ago, women made very insistent strides to ensure opportunity to access the labor market. Interestingly, the cost of living immediately rose to a point where it then became not a luxury of choice for women to work, in the vast majority of households it became a necessity.

We are speaking of now. There is reasonable access for women to enter the labor pool. This is brought about both by law and by necessity. Is it absolutely equitable? No. Is it increasingly equitable? Overwhelmingly Yes!

So, now one will resort to pointing fingers at this specific sector to decry this inequity, and point to that specific sector to speak of that injustice, and on and on it goes. The victim attitude.

Does work remain to be done? Certainly. But that work does not in any way require subsistence at the expense of one perceived minority/social outcast/"macho" blithering idiot who doesn't have sense to leave a miserable job.

We can enter all kinds of stereotypes into the issue at this point. So my next comment is a very loose generality.

I want to believe there are a lot of white males who really want to do the right thing by their families. (This should in no way be interpreted to mean there are not also men of other races/nationalities, or any women, who do not also want to do the right thing by their families.) Social benevolence is a nicety; but face it, food on the table, clothes on your kid's backs and a roof over head are the priority. When a guy is scraping by, struggling to make ends meet, just like so many of the "socially perceived victims" that want any and every kind of handout, why is he denied? He sees these things, and becomes disillusioned. He is paying for all of these services he has no hope of making use of. By itself, this is not enough to disillusion him, but it contributes to an attitude of "why bother, there is no way I can get ahead." The end result of taxing him to death, is that his wife is denied what should rightly be hers within her own home because it is taken away in taxes, his children (male and female) are similarly denied. Sadly ironically, if the wife and kids leave the man, they then receive the benefits he paid for, but he is still not entitled.

One more thing briefly before I close this. Pertaining to the issue brought up about "breeders." While it may seem amazing, prior to the welfare reforms, I have heard women, on many more than one occasion, discussing the very issue of birthing babies for increased benefits. The eye opener for me as a teen, was when walking past the welfare office (coincidentally about 3 blocks from my house) I was amazed at the number of recent model Cadillacs parked in the "customer" parking lot, while all the beater cars were in back in the staff parking lot. That has since served as a metaphor in my life for the abuse of the welfare system.

Having said that, I understand people sometimes need a hand up. I have no issue with that, when I see anybody trying to better their lot in life. I take issue with those that feel they are entitled to handouts. Such people are a drain on society, they provide nothing in return, they sap the lifeblood out of generosity and charity. Entitlement is a figure of speech, no one is truly entitled to anything, speaking philosophically. We make our beds, and we lie in them. We will ourselves to become what we want to become. If we will ourselves strongly and sincerely enough, there is no obstacle that cannot be overcome, because we will find a way to circumvent that obstacle. If you can't go through it, you go around. If you can't go around, you go under. If you can't go under, you go over. If you can't go over, you find a stick of dynamite.

You don't sit on a corner crying and telling a sad tale, demanding that somebody (anybody) else is responsible and MUST pay.

There is more to address, another time.

[gluadys]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, gluadys and vajradhara!


"The thing is, power is not gender specific. Both genders are fully capable of abusing the privilege of power." -juantoo3

And "Feminism is fine, until it reaches the point of emasculation." -juantoo3

On the one hand, these are the comments that seem to have ignited so much of this discussion. On the other, one could say there is ample to show within this thread to support my original comments.

Responses such as:
"We also need to remember that people accustomed to privilege often perceive that privilege as "normal" and "right". So the loss of privilege is felt as an attack on their rights rather than the extension of rights to those who had none."

"And sometimes, in specific cases, there is reverse injustice. All we can do is try to keep these to a minimum. We still have a long, long way to go to achieve a fair deal for women and minorities, so the burden for the white male will necessarily become greater, not less."

"AS for who caused the disparities, who is responsible---the roots of the present lie in centuries of the past. None of us are personally responsible for creating it. What we are responsible for is correcting it."

"Or social conditioning again? The women are intelligent enough not to endure bad working conditions, but men tough it out to prove they are macho men. It's not the bills. Women have bills to pay too."

"Of course it's not. It is not anybody's experience. Because we live and have lived for centuries in a patriarchal society which distorts people's natural individual aspirations and limits them to what is acceptable for their gender."
"No one is saying there are no relevant differences between men and women."
-------

If there are no relevant differences, then discriminating against one in favor of the other is discrimination.

You are deriving a conclusion which assumes the opposite of what I said. You asked why women prefer female midwives and obstetricians. Well that is obvious. Sometimes gender does matter. It is not the case that there are no relevant differences.

What is the case is that often gender is assumed to matter when it doesn't.

The point is to learn to tell when it does matter and when it does not. When it does matter--as when you are naked and spreading your legs to birth a child--it is appropriate to accommodate a gender preference. When it does not matter--as when choosing a truck driver or a lawyer or a president, there should be no barriers placed before either gender.

So remember the context.

Plain and simple. If "none of us are personally responsible," why then are a select few to be held accountable? If "it is not anybody's experience," then why discriminate? If the purpose of the women's movement is to eliminate discrimination, does it not seem counter-productive and counter-intuitive to pursue a policy of intentional discrimination? Here, I am being polite, I can think of other adjectives to describe it.

Again, I wonder if you actually read and understood what I said, for your answer does not respond appropriately. It is as if you read something different.

It is not the case that a select few are held accountable. Everyone is to be held accountable. It is true that as those who were held back before enter the work force, the ones who had privileged access before will feel squeezed. That is inevitable. Moving from a position of privilege, to a position of equality will always feel like a loss. But the loss is relative. It is not that men have any fewer opportunities than they ever did. It is that women have more. To go from having on average 70% of the jobs to having on average 50% will seem like less, even if there are more jobs to go around.

And why did you take the phrase "it is not anybody's experience" out of context? What is it that is not anybody's experience? It is not anybody's experience to have lived outside of "a patriarchal society which distorts people's natural individual aspirations and limits them to what is acceptable for their gender." Or, in short, it is not anybody's experience to have lived in a society free of gender discrimination.

The relevant question then is not "Why discriminate?" Discrimination is already a fact of life. The question is "Why continue to discriminate?" And if there is no good reason to continue to discriminate, then we need to remove the existing discrimination. Right?

Nor has the women's movement ever advocated intentional discrimination. (maybe 1 or 2% on the lunatic fringe, but no one takes them seriously.) What women have advocated and continue to advocate is the removal of discriminatory barriers (such as the old boys' network) that prevent equal access. That means, among other things, deliberately looking beyond your usual pool of recruits for new hires and promotions. And it means providing better access to education and training for those who have usually been streamed in other directions, so that there will be a pool of qualified recruits for businesses to find.

I think we can agree the issue is complex. It certainly cannot be resolved with a simple answer. I seem to recall being called to task for a stereotype image I presented, yet I see stereo-typical images promoted in the above quotes. The worst is in assuming that specifically white males, and most especially single white males, deserve to have the burdens of society placed squarely on their shoulders, and theirs alone.

Again you seem to hear the opposite of what I said. I said specifically that no one deserves to have the burdens of society placed on their shoulders alone. At least that is the meaning I intended when I said that no one (at least no one of this generation) is responsible for creating gender disparities. The roots are too far in the past to apportion blame to anyone today.

But even though males of this generation are not to blame for existing disparities, it is inevitable that they will shoulder the bulk of the burden of getting rid of them. Can't be helped. You can't dismantle privilege and create equality while still maintaining the comfortable status quo many men had grown accustomed to. And moving from a position of comfort and security to one of greater risk and vulnerability does hurt.

But what is the alternative? Maintaining the unfair status quo? I am sure we would all like to see a way of undoing injustice that causes no one any hurt--even apparent hurt. But I don't see how that is possible. What suggestions do you have that would hurt no one?

Am I to presume it is alright for women, or any other perceived minority, to discriminate? But not white males?

To me, it seems that you are implying that in order to keep white males happy we should continue to discriminate against women and minorities. Doesn't history tell you that ending discrimination is always divisive and hurtful? Consider the former slave owners who lost their property without compensation when slavery was abolished. Do you think they didn't feel the financial pain? Do you think they supposed it was fair for them to have to shoulder the burden of providing freedom to their former slaves?

Consider the huge opposition to allowing black children to sit in the same classroom as white children. Do you think it was not an immense emotional pain for thousands of white parents to be forced to accept this?

What about the people whose property values dropped when non-whites purchased a house in their neighbourhood? That hurt them, didn't it? And it hurt them even it they were liberal minded people who supported racially integrated neighbourhoods. People who didn't deserve to be hurt, were still hurt in order that others not continue to be unfairly restricted in their choice of living space.

Changing wrong to right is going to hurt anyone who once benefitted from the wrong. And in the case of race-based and gender-based discrimination, those who benefitted were white males. So it is regrettable but inevitable that they will lose their special benefits and be angry and hurt about it. And while that anger and hurt is understandable, it is not a reason to back away from ending discrimination. Anymore than it was a reason to back away from abolishing slavery and segregation.

An awful lot of this attitude comes back to a quote I seem to keep bringing up for its relevance:

"We become what we will ourselves to become."

If we will ourselves to be victims, we assume the identity of the victim, and we promote the ideology of the victim to ourselves first, then once firmly implanted we promote that ideology outwardly, and we then become victims.

And isn't that exactly what you are doing? Portraying the white male as victim? Encouraging white males to consider themselves unfairly treated for no fault of their own? When what is really happening is that the white male is now being treated as an equal and is whining about the demotion.

There is more to address, another time.

Yes, a lot more to say, but it's late and I have to work in the morning.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste gluadys,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by gluadys

How does it discriminate against non-breeders if everyone gets a sabbatical?

if everyone gets one, there is no discrimination. do breeders get sabbaticals and maternity/paternity leave? if so, discrimination based on child quotient.

Sounds like a decent company. So don't you have sick days in your contract? And personal leave days? Why would you be worried about taking off days you are entitled to take off?

it is and i enjoy the work. nope... sick days, personal days and vacation are all rolled into one.. you can take "days" regardless of their purpose.

i worry because, though i'm entitled to the days off, the work needs to be done. as we are a small company, when i'm out, there is really nobody to do what i do... and that negatively impacts everyone else at the company.

Well, then one of us is mistaken, but I don't know which one.

in the interest of harmony... let's say that we are both mistaken on this to some degree

And you don't think that's bad legislation?

nope... for it also means that i'm free to leave the company without two weeks notice. neither entity is beholden to each other.

in a way.. a no cause firing process takes away a lot of the stress of the job... at least for me since i can be fired for any reason.. there is no reason to worry about it and i'll just do my job to the best of my ability.

Quite. I should have been clearer. Of two couples making the same total family income, those without kids have fewer obligatory expenses and more disposable income than those with kids to provide for. And before we go off on another tangent--the same applies to other dependants as well. In terms of financial obligation, they are equivalent to having kids.

the DINK couple could both have chronic illness that require them to spend an inordinate amount of money to treat whilst the couple with children may have a very healthy family that does not require the money to be spent.

it is simply inaccurate to presume that the people without children have more disposable income, even given equilivant income levels, without taking into account the totality of the situation.

Before mass education, education was restricted to what was known as the "leisured classes". These people had enough income from rents and investments that they did not need to be employed. They didn't need to be successful in the world because they were already financially secure.

So why was education wasted on them and them only?

this is not strictly the case.. well.. perhaps this is so in western nations.. however, in the Asian countries, this was different. education was primarily carried out in the monastaries and nunnaries.. of course, there were universities as well, though these tended to be religious in character as well.

as for why western countries decided that only those that could afford education could have it... well... i'll leave that for someone that understands capitolism much better than i, to explain, for that is, i feel, the crux of that issue.

You don't have to convince me of that. I agree, all taxpayers should be up in arms about the sorry state of public education and demand improvements. Of course, that also means being willing to fund the improvements through increased education taxes. (Not that more money solves all problems, but when some of the problems are too few and too old textbooks, insufficient desks, and overcrowded classrooms, it does take a financial investment in books, equipment, new or renovated schools and more teachers to bring down class sizes.)

how many times must i pay for the same thing? i pay specific taxes to fund education in my state.. yet.. those funds are missing... all of them. so, who's responsible for replacing the money? the taxpayer... again. whilst this may not bother someone that has children attending the schools, for those that don't, this seems to be a terrible waste of money.

how many children am i responsbile for educating? heck, i even have to subsidize their university expenses... not only that... if an illegal alien wants to have their child attend my state university, i have to subsidize that as well.

Tell that to the people collecting social security or benefitting from story-telling circles for their kids at public libraries or enjoying a vacation at a national park or supporting their family on a research grant.

happy to. where are they? the social security money that they are withdrawing is being put there by this generation of workers... and we won't have it available when we retire.... why do their rights outweigh mine? the research grant to develop a product that i could never afford doesn't really intice me to keep funding it. national parks that price themselves out of my budget don't inspire me to pay for others to enjoy them.

No one will dispute that money gets wasted. And no government has ever set the same priorities for spending that I would. But its just silly to think of it all as a black hole from which nothing returns for you and your family and your neighbours. The problem is that most people have a very good idea of what they are paying to the government, but a very poor idea of what they are getting. Consider the public health department for example. Do you ever think of what it is worth to you to have your food inspected before it goes onto grocery shelves? Or to have restaurants inspected regularly to keep down instances of food poisoning?

i don't think it's all a black hole with no return... i do have sewer service, garbage removal and so forth. what i protest is that i pay more for the same service than a family with children does, based on people using said serivce. this is, in some respects, echoing my argument about illegal immigration... there are only so many services available.. and if people are using them without paying for them, the entire society suffers.

well.. i see your point, however, those don't really apply to me all that much... i don't eat out at restaurants and we grow most of our own food... though, when we do buy grocieries at the store, i am pleased to see that the government has inspected the items and said they are ok for me to eat.

by the same token, the same government orignally said that Agent Orange isn't harmful to humans. so... i take what they say is safe with a grain of salt, so to speak.

Do you use streets, highways, sidewalks? Ever calculated how much of your tax money goes into keeping them in good shape? Is it worth it?

i sure do. every year i pay taxes to repair roads, make new ones and to keep the entire infrastructure intact. however, the new roads that are being built are toll roads... what happened to my money that was supposed to build the new ones? they are going to use my money to build them and then charge me to drive on them. is it worth it? so far, yes. though, i wouldn't have much of a problem riding a horse to work if the roads weren't available.

But government touches us all every day in a thousand ways we take for granted until its not there. So be realistic. You really don't want to be without a lot of those services. If you think you do, I highly recommend a visit to a Brazilian barrio or Philippine slum where there are no taxes and also no services.

i am realistic. i am realistically wanting my tax money to be more well spent, better accounted for and used for projects that the tax payers want instead of politcal projects engineered to get a local politician re-elected.

you know what's interesting... if the government didn't provide the local services, there would still be those services... however, they would be done by private buisness and would, probably, cost me less, be more efficient and be friendly about the whole thing.

government does have legitimate functions that must be performed by it, so please don't misconstrue my remarks. i'm terribly disenfranchised with the entire political process and i am not pleased about the mindless spending of my hard earned money.

[gluadys]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste gluadys,

thank you for the post.

And thank you for consistently shifting goal posts.

if everyone gets one, there is no discrimination. do breeders get sabbaticals and maternity/paternity leave? if so, discrimination based on child quotient.

If they plan their children's birth dates appropriately, no reason they would need both. Or, if they don't plan, the maternity/paternity leaves could be deducted from their entitlement to a sabbatical.

it is and i enjoy the work. nope... sick days, personal days and vacation are all rolled into one.. you can take "days" regardless of their purpose.

i worry because, though i'm entitled to the days off, the work needs to be done. as we are a small company, when i'm out, there is really nobody to do what i do... and that negatively impacts everyone else at the company.

So it's not really that you are in any real danger of being fired. You're just conscientious and want to see the company do well.

in the interest of harmony... let's say that we are both mistaken on this to some degree

Or rather that neither of us wants to take the time to check it out.

nope... for it also means that i'm free to leave the company without two weeks notice. neither entity is beholden to each other.

in a way.. a no cause firing process takes away a lot of the stress of the job... at least for me since i can be fired for any reason.. there is no reason to worry about it and i'll just do my job to the best of my ability.

Well since you have no complaints, I don't know why the issue was raised. Personally I think it is abominable that an employer is free to fire without cause.

the DINK couple could both have chronic illness that require them to spend an inordinate amount of money to treat whilst the couple with children may have a very healthy family that does not require the money to be spent.

it is simply inaccurate to presume that the people without children have more disposable income, even given equilivant income levels, without taking into account the totality of the situation.

This is what I mean by shifting goal posts. You are bringing in an irrelevant component. If your income tax system is at all like ours, both couples have access to the same medical deductions.

When you make a comparison, you compare two situations that are as like as possible. The only relevant factor of difference allowed is the presence of children in one family. For all other factors (amount of income, other dependents, level of health, level of debt, size of mortgage, etc.) we assume equivalency. Otherwise you are comparing apples with oranges.

When we control the other factors and look only at the effect of the presence or absence of children, it is ALWAYS the case that a childless couple will have fewer obligatory expenses and more disposable income that the couple with children.

this is not strictly the case.. well.. perhaps this is so in western nations.. however, in the Asian countries, this was different. education was primarily carried out in the monastaries and nunnaries.. of course, there were universities as well, though these tended to be religious in character as well.

as for why western countries decided that only those that could afford education could have it... well... i'll leave that for someone that understands capitolism much better than i, to explain, for that is, i feel, the crux of that issue.

Again you shift the goal posts rather than deal with the issue raised.

You said:

someone needs to do the menial jobs, right? or are those just foreign workers that get to have those? education is a neat thing.. but one does not need it to be successful in the world to some degree.

implying that some people---those destined for menial jobs---don't need much education. (Same argument that was used to cheat Black students out of a decent education under apartheid by the way--and was used for centuries to deny education to girls.)

I pointed out that if higher education is for the purpose of succeeding at better than menial jobs, it is not needed by people who do not need jobs because they are already well-provided for and can live a life of leisure.

Yet educational systems, by and large, were invented by and for this leisure class---and long before capitalism too.

So what is the purpose of providing education to a leisure class that will never have to use it to succeed in a business or profession? Why should we not bar all such people from the schools to make more room for people who need jobs? (I realize it would only open up a ridiculously few number of seats, but that's a different issue. Please stay on topic.)

how many times must i pay for the same thing? i pay specific taxes to fund education in my state.. yet.. those funds are missing... all of them. so, who's responsible for replacing the money? the taxpayer... again. whilst this may not bother someone that has children attending the schools, for those that don't, this seems to be a terrible waste of money.

You should pay once, but you should pay adequately. And if funds are missing, I hope a police investigation is under way. (Shifting goal posts again. A particular local scandal doesn't affect the general principle.)

how many children am i responsbile for educating? heck, i even have to subsidize their university expenses... not only that... if an illegal alien wants to have their child attend my state university, i have to subsidize that as well.

As many as you can afford to. And we should imitate those countries that provide free education (to the student-not the taxpayer) through to whatever is needed to meet the minimum educational requirements for their chosen line of work. For some that would be a PhD.

And as long as you are shifting goal posts by raising the additional issue of illegal aliens, I may as well state that as far as I am concerned we should make the category of illegal alien as obsolete as that of illegitimate child.

happy to. where are they? the social security money that they are withdrawing is being put there by this generation of workers... and we won't have it available when we retire.... why do their rights outweigh mine? the research grant to develop a product that i could never afford doesn't really intice me to keep funding it. national parks that price themselves out of my budget don't inspire me to pay for others to enjoy them.

In other words you are just a grump who wants everybody to be miserable because you choose to be. Their rights don't outweigh yours. You use, or can use, all these services too. You also benefit indirectly from the fact that others can use them.

i don't think it's all a black hole with no return... i do have sewer service, garbage removal and so forth. what i protest is that i pay more for the same service than a family with children does, based on people using said serivce. this is, in some respects, echoing my argument about illegal immigration... there are only so many services available.. and if people are using them without paying for them, the entire society suffers.

Well this may be a difference in our tax systems. The only tax I am familiar with that gives families a break is income tax. None of our municipal services are paid out of income tax. The only people using the services without paying for them are those who cannot pay for them. And it benefits rather than harms society to provide free services for those who cannot otherwise afford them. (Even the Romans knew that.) By providing such services you provide them a way out of poverty and they end up paying taxes too. By not providing such services you guarantee the perpetuation and deepening of poverty and ignorance and frustration that eventually finds its outlet in crime and violence and terrorism. And in the long run that will cost you more than the services.

well.. i see your point, however, those don't really apply to me all that much... i don't eat out at restaurants and we grow most of our own food... though, when we do buy grocieries at the store, i am pleased to see that the government has inspected the items and said they are ok for me to eat.

So just because it doesn't apply much to you personally, it's ok to expose your neighbours to those hazards?

by the same token, the same government orignally said that Agent Orange isn't harmful to humans. so... i take what they say is safe with a grain of salt, so to speak.

Yeah, and now they are saying genetically-modified food is safe. You can bet I'm not buying that.

i sure do. every year i pay taxes to repair roads, make new ones and to keep the entire infrastructure intact. however, the new roads that are being built are toll roads... what happened to my money that was supposed to build the new ones?

Haven't you noticed? The government has been cutting taxes! That's why they now have to charge tolls instead of building freeways. They've reduced their income so much they have to recoup through user fees what they used to collect in taxes.

The basic fact is that there is no free lunch. You can choose a user-pay system which some people will not be able to afford, or you can provide for everyone by funding the project/service through taxation. In the first case you pay each time you use the service. In the second you pay once a year and get unlimited use. But either way you pay.

i am realistic. i am realistically wanting my tax money to be more well spent, better accounted for and used for projects that the tax payers want instead of politcal projects engineered to get a local politician re-elected.

Sure. That's in the best interests of everybody. And I am all in favour of transparent accounting and holding politicians responsible for their decisions on taxation and spending.

you know what's interesting... if the government didn't provide the local services, there would still be those services... however, they would be done by private buisness and would, probably, cost me less, be more efficient and be friendly about the whole thing.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It depends on the service and how flexible people can be about their market choices. Health care is less expensive for everybody when it is a public service, because in the nature of things the customer has no choice about when and what to purchase. So it doesn't follow the traditional rules of the market and has been shown over and over again to be a market failure.

The experiences of some countries with privatized water distribution systems suggests they are also market failures and that the public route is more efficient at keeping costs down without denying anyone an essential service.

On the other hand, there are undeniably some things the market does better than the government. So all in all I support a mixed economic system in which each sector does what it does best.

government does have legitimate functions that must be performed by it, so please don't misconstrue my remarks. i'm terribly disenfranchised with the entire political process and i am not pleased about the mindless spending of my hard earned money.

hey, that's a big club. I'm part of it too. I just don't let it take me into the "me first and the devil-take-the-hindmost" thinking that seems so prevalent today. We are a social species, not made to be isolated individuals. We need to live with each other and look out for each other. Government can be a good, even essential tool, for doing that. But politics being the mess it is, government can also be the biggest part of the problem.

Ever here of a guy named Walter Wink?

He has some very good thoughts on this that are most appropriate for a board that focuses on spirituality.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, gluadys!

Originally Posted by gluadys

So remember the context.

With all due respect, you were properly quoted and in context. I even took the liberty of separating your name from the quotes so that it would not appear that I was verbally assaulting you.

So, I must conclude one of two things. Either you misinterpreted what I intended, or you understood completely and I hit a nerve.

You are deriving a conclusion which assumes the opposite of what I said.

Do you not think that perhaps in your zealousness you might have overlooked the obvious in your own arguments?

You asked why women prefer female midwives and obstetricians. Well that is obvious.

No, it is not obvious. It is discrimination based on stereotyping. It is social conditioning, female style. I work with female “pecker-checkers” every weekend. What is the difference? Why valid in one context and not the other? Why not absolute equality? (That is, after all, what you want, right?) Why cannot a male nurse serve not only adequately, but superiorly, in the role of midwife? A patient’s embarrassment? (pardon the pun) Puh-leeze... What is good for the goose, is good for the gander.

Wasn’t it pointed out “...wouldn't it be great if he could teach kindergarten or work in child-care without such a cloud of suspicion hanging over him?,” which in applied context strongly suggests a need for better acceptance, specifically among females, of males in traditionally female roles. That would specifically include qualified male nurses. (I belabor this point because of a specific incidence at the local hospital here in which a male nurse’s services were denied based on gender alone, in the obstetrics ward, even though that ward was crying for help.) You want acceptance, then imply the right not to accept, in selected instances. That is selective equality, which is still discrimination.

Even if you could possibly demonstrate the improper use of context of the one specific quote, that in no way denies the context and underlying suggestions brought forth by the remainder of the quotes. I do not have the time to analyze and rebut each and every comment. I have more important things to do with my life. I stand by the general interpretation I made.

The suggestion of discrimination of one group to the benefit of another is still discrimination, it is merely the reverse of that you wish to solve. It is the mirror image of the same thing you are so against. If a white male discriminating is such a horrible crime, and it is, then why is it not a crime for a female to be discriminatory? You suggest replacing one social injustice with its twin.

You suggest selective equality; that is not equality.

Equality is also the sharing of the responsibility as well as the benefit. You want the benefit with no burden. You want the burden to be laid upon somebody else, a scapegoat.

Sometimes gender does matter. It is not the case that there are no relevant differences.

Oh? This is not a false either/or assumption. Either there are differences, or there are not, which is it? You cannot have your cake and eat it too. How can you claim social justice if you are guilty of the crime you are sentencing someone else for?

What is the case is that often gender is assumed to matter when it doesn't. The point is to learn to tell when it does matter and when it does not.

The only place gender differences should matter is in the act of sex, and to hear the homosexual lobby tell their story, it doesn’t even matter there. All things being equal, of course. (bad pun)

Again, I wonder if you actually read and understood what I said, for your answer does not respond appropriately. It is as if you read something different.

I understand, quite clearly and in no uncertain terms, thank you.

It is not the case that a select few are held accountable. Everyone is to be held accountable.

Show me where you have laid the burden across “everyone” in your arguments. You have laid it squarely on the white male, repeatedly, who has no hope of direct benefit from that burden. You have laid no responsibility whatsoever on the female population, only and expressly the benefits. Your arguments epitomize the “victim” mindset I described. You advocate wholesale political emasculation of the white male gender.

Nor has the women's movement ever advocated intentional discrimination.

Of course not. That would be blatant, and possibly illegal. It is very much inferred, as it is inferred throughout your arguments.

Discrimination, by those who get away with it, is a subtle art. You are demonstrating a very subtle art.

Again you seem to hear the opposite of what I said. I said specifically that no one deserves to have the burdens of society placed on their shoulders alone. At least that is the meaning I intended when I said that no one (at least no one of this generation) is responsible for creating gender disparities. The roots are too far in the past to apportion blame to anyone today.

Uh-huh. I see...so you just freely discriminate because you feel like it, and that is somehow better? If you cannot place the blame or culpability, what are you doing judging, convicting and sentencing? Why are you laying the burden upon the innocent, why are you making scapegoats out of guys like me who have nothing to do with this whole mess, whose only mistake is that we were born?

And you want me to agree with you about it, to boot?

But even though males of this generation are not to blame for existing disparities, it is inevitable that they will shoulder the bulk of the burden of getting rid of them.

No, it is not inevitable. That is your position, because it supports your prejudices.

Can't be helped.

It can be helped, and I already offered a solution.

So, must I presume you are set in your prejudices. Ol' gals club?

But what is the alternative? Maintaining the unfair status quo? I am sure we would all like to see a way of undoing injustice that causes no one any hurt--even apparent hurt. But I don't see how that is possible. What suggestions do you have that would hurt no one?

I presented an option, a very viable one that either you didn’t read, or you casually dismissed without further consideration. Since you responded to points beyond it, I must presume you read it and didn’t agree, although you offered no rebuttal, constructive or otherwise.

Until there is a change in attitude away from that of “victim,” with women taking upon themselves, individually and collectively, to learn the required skills and apply them directly, there will be no improvement in their lot in life. Until women take responsibility for making their own breaks, they should go without; same story for anybody, so that I am not misquoted or taken out of context. You want an existing company to hand the reigns of power to a woman, why? Why not teach the woman how to build a company of her own instead? Why take, when you can make? Why destroy, when you can create? When a (specific) woman proves herself worthy (need I present more examples of those who have?), her gender makes far less of an issue. When she proves her ability and experience, and can command a leadership position by demonstration, her gender all but disappears as an issue of contention.

I went out of my way to respond with a calm approach in order to write these posts. The concept of truly sharing seems foreign to you, your idea of equality is actually political supremacy, female dominance. You are subtle enough not to state it, but that is the end result of the path elucidated here. Whether you understand or not, the path you walk is one of destruction, tearing down what exists, rather than constructing the new reality you claim you want so much. Razing is not raising. There is no need to destroy the old. You need to learn to take responsibility to create the new within the old, upon yourself, for yourself.

And isn't that exactly what you are doing? Portraying the white male as victim? Encouraging white males to consider themselves unfairly treated for no fault of their own? When what is really happening is that the white male is now being treated as an equal and is whining about the demotion.

(An attempt to shift the subject, to put the focus elsewhere? The magician's slight of hand?)

Not at all, white males aren't allowed that political luxury. The difference between your position and mine? You are speaking from an official position, speaking for a political group. I am speaking from the frontlines, from experience, and I am speaking for myself. I will make it, despite the efforts of feminism, because I know the secret, which I freely shared with you. Therein, lies the difference. Militant feminism to me is merely another obstacle to overcome. As I stated, I could easily, and by standards very similar to yours rightly, claim a victim mentality. But I realized the dead end, I could see the end result, and it was not pretty and could never be made so. I hope you will be able to see that for yourself.

I suspect you will ignore my solution.

As for being treated as an equal, I will agree when you agree to treat me so. Otherwise, I stand by my original comment, "feminism is fine, up to the point of emasculation."

The relevant question then is not "Why discriminate?" Discrimination is already a fact of life. The question is "Why continue to discriminate?" And if there is no good reason to continue to discriminate, then we need to remove the existing discrimination. Right?

Precisely, both ways!

[Vajradhara]

Namaste gluadys,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by gluadys

And thank you for consistently shifting goal posts.

well.. if you can't be consistent, what can you be? however, i'm not trying to "score points" or anything like that... i'm raising issues that, to me, see pertient to the ongoing conversation. if you feel that they aren't relevant, you can ignore them.

If they plan their children's birth dates appropriately, no reason they would need both. Or, if they don't plan, the maternity/paternity leaves could be deducted from their entitlement to a sabbatical.

so.. your plan would be for people to have leave time, either as a sabbatical or maternity/paternity?

So it's not really that you are in any real danger of being fired. You're just conscientious and want to see the company do well.

who can say? i cannot read the minds of my bosses.. from what i can gather, i'm doing ok. things change.

Well since you have no complaints, I don't know why the issue was raised. Personally I think it is abominable that an employer is free to fire without cause.

i was using this as an illustration of the difference between an employee that takes many sick days and an employee that takes maternity/paternity leave.. though i could have picked a variety of other things, i chose this one.

This is what I mean by shifting goal posts. You are bringing in an irrelevant component. If your income tax system is at all like ours, both couples have access to the same medical deductions.

irrelevant to you, perhaps, but not to me... or i wouldn't have mentioned it. you claimed, and still do, that a given an equal income, a couple without kids has more disposable income than a couple with kids, to which i take exception. this is simply a gross generalization, each situation is different and it's unfair to paint everyone with the same broad brush.

besides... it doesn't matter who has the most disposable income... it's about sharing the burden equally, in my opinion.

When you make a comparison, you compare two situations that are as like as possible. The only relevant factor of difference allowed is the presence of children in one family. For all other factors (amount of income, other dependents, level of health, level of debt, size of mortgage, etc.) we assume equivalency. Otherwise you are comparing apples with oranges.

what if the assumption is wrong? unfortunately, situations are not like this in the real world... everything isn't equilivant.. if it were... we wouldn't be having this conversation. it's a mistake not to take into account the unique situation of each couple, in my opinion.

When we control the other factors and look only at the effect of the presence or absence of children, it is ALWAYS the case that a childless couple will have fewer obligatory expenses and more disposable income that the couple with children.

nonesense.

Again you shift the goal posts rather than deal with the issue raised.

You said:


implying that some people---those destined for menial jobs---don't need much education. (Same argument that was used to cheat Black students out of a decent education under apartheid by the way--and was used for centuries to deny education to girls.)

i don't believe in "destiny" or "fate" or anything like that.. our realities are those that we create for ourselves. not everyone wants to get a higher education, by the way.

the issue that you raised was that education was developed for the leisure class, to which i pointed out that this was only true from your perspective. this was not the case in the East. it's on point and on topic, in my opinion.

I pointed out that if higher education is for the purpose of succeeding at better than menial jobs, it is not needed by people who do not need jobs because they are already well-provided for and can live a life of leisure.

is that the purpose of higher education though? i don't know that it is. however, what about primary education and secondary education? these are also funded by the tax payer.. unless you enroll your child in a private school.

it is not my belief that higher education is for the purpose of succeeding at a job. that is the purpose of a trade or vocational school, in my opinion.

Yet educational systems, by and large, were invented by and for this leisure class---and long before capitalism too.

as you wish. i've already addressed the fact that this wasn't the case in Asia. i suppose a little eurocentric predjudice isn't surprising in this case.. but please, try to expand your perspective and include the rest of the world.

You should pay once, but you should pay adequately. And if funds are missing, I hope a police investigation is under way. (Shifting goal posts again. A particular local scandal doesn't affect the general principle.)

nope... using a personal anecdote to illustrate a point. i do pay adequately.. i pay nearly 40% of my income in taxes... if people didn't cheat on their taxes, perhaps i wouldn't have to pay such a rate... but.. they do. perhaps they need that extra money for all those crumb snatchers that are running around at their house. of course, people without children could cheat on their taxes as well... lousy ingrates.

As many as you can afford to. And we should imitate those countries that provide free education (to the student-not the taxpayer) through to whatever is needed to meet the minimum educational requirements for their chosen line of work. For some that would be a PhD.

why? why should i educate as many children as i can afford to? why can't i use some of my money to provide a homeless shelter for adults without children? why is it always about the "children"?

why would i pay for someone to get a PhD or any type of degree? why can't they pay for themselves, like other people do? get a loan, get a grant, work a job. where did this mindset come from that you are "owed" something by society?

In other words you are just a grump who wants everybody to be miserable because you choose to be. Their rights don't outweigh yours. You use, or can use, all these services too. You also benefit indirectly from the fact that others can use them.

perhaps, you can come to know me before casting aspersions on my nature? it is quite clear that you have little knowledge of me and my perpetually positive outlook on life

you've not provided any compelling reasons for me to subsidize parks that i can't afford to go to, people researching products that i cannot afford to purchase or, for that matter, how i "indirectly" benefit from someone else going to the beach at the national park?

perhaps... you are a wealthy person and aren't concerned about your social security money.. or you live in a country where such a thing doesn't apply.. in any case, i'm not wealthy and it does concern me a great deal that the money i'm putting into my retirement account is being spent and will probably not be there when i'm ready to retire.

Well this may be a difference in our tax systems. The only tax I am familiar with that gives families a break is income tax. None of our municipal services are paid out of income tax. The only people using the services without paying for them are those who cannot pay for them. And it benefits rather than harms society to provide free services for those who cannot otherwise afford them. (Even the Romans knew that.) By providing such services you provide them a way out of poverty and they end up paying taxes too. By not providing such services you guarantee the perpetuation and deepening of poverty and ignorance and frustration that eventually finds its outlet in crime and violence and terrorism. And in the long run that will cost you more than the services.

America is a welfare country, now, thanks to that blockhead and his "new deal" nonesense. you assume an idilic world where people that are poor and receiving hand outs want to work.. read Juans post about this aspect.. many of these folks don't want to work... instead... they get more money for having more babies... so that's what they do and it perpetuates the cycle of poverty, joblessness and hoplessness. giving people handouts does not help them improve their condition. encouraging them to get gainful employment does.

So just because it doesn't apply much to you personally, it's ok to expose your neighbours to those hazards?

cavet emptor.

Haven't you noticed? The government has been cutting taxes! That's why they now have to charge tolls instead of building freeways. They've reduced their income so much they have to recoup through user fees what they used to collect in taxes.

it's the federal government that is cutting taxes, the state government is raising them. net effect is a raise in taxes that i have to pay.

this is not correct. the money was in the transportation fund... we've had report after report after report on this where i live.... the money has been misspent and misused and now it is gone... yet... the roads still have to be fixed and new ones built. it simply bothers me to have to pay twice for the same thing. i realize that you may not be able to empathsize with me on this, however, it is something that concerns me.

The basic fact is that there is no free lunch. You can choose a user-pay system which some people will not be able to afford, or you can provide for everyone by funding the project/service through taxation. In the first case you pay each time you use the service. In the second you pay once a year and get unlimited use. But either way you pay.

no kidding. the last free lunch i had came when my boss took me to lunch... and then asked me to assume new duties at the company for the same pay.

my contention is that both methods are being used and i don't feel that it would be necessary if government was fiscially responsible.

hey, that's a big club. I'm part of it too. I just don't let it take me into the "me first and the devil-take-the-hindmost" thinking that seems so prevalent today.

despite the evidece on this thread to the contrary, neither do i. the mindset that i do have is equal share of the burden distributed equally across all citizens.

We are a social species, not made to be isolated individuals. We need to live with each other and look out for each other. Government can be a good, even essential tool, for doing that. But politics being the mess it is, government can also be the biggest part of the problem.

Ever here of a guy named Walter Wink?

He has some very good thoughts on this that are most appropriate for a board that focuses on spirituality.

no, i've not heard of Mr. Wink. are there any sites that you could recommend?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards!

read Juans post about this aspect..

Thank you Vaj, for the vote of confidence and the unpaid advertising. A great deal more to this is already posted on the capitalism vs communism thread.

Of course, that comes from me, and I am no expert.

Might I suggest instead a female expert on this? Read "Atlas Shrugged" or "The Fountainhead" by Ayn Rand, a woman author and political philosopher.

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards!

Thank you Vaj, for the vote of confidence and the unpaid advertising. A great deal more to this is already posted on the capitalism vs communism thread.

Of course, that comes from me, and I am no expert.

Might I suggest instead a female expert on this? Read "Atlas Shrugged" or "The Fountainhead" by Ayn Rand, a woman author and political philosopher.

Namaste Juan,

thank you for the post.

ok... to totally derail the thread for a moment... i, for a variety of reasons, intensly dislike Ayn Rand's writing... especially "Atlas Shrugged". bah..

i've not read "The Fountainhead" so it is possible that i would enjoy that work.. it remains to be seen

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Vaj!

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste Juan,

thank you for the post.

ok... to totally derail the thread for a moment... i, for a variety of reasons, intensly dislike Ayn Rand's writing... especially "Atlas Shrugged". bah..

i've not read "The Fountainhead" so it is possible that i would enjoy that work.. it remains to be seen

Think less pseudo-sci fi, more statement about the fallacies inherent in socialist thinking. Otherwise, the two are very similar. So depending what it was you disliked about Atlas Shrugged is whether or not you might glean wisdom from The Fountainhead.

FWIW, Rand's position on making your own way through the world coincides well with comments you made earlier to the same effect.

Besides, Rand serves well as yet another proof that women can make it in this "paternalistic" society if they set their minds and hearts to the task. Especially considering she predates the women's movement by a generation.

Allow me to correct myself, she predates the bra-burning hippie chic militant feminist movement of the 70's by a generation.

And like her or not, her philosophy has had a profound and lasting effect on a lot of people.

[juantoo3]

Some miscellaneous thoughts:

*Quote- "Did you know that minimum paid vacation time in Europe is 4 weeks after one years employment?"

*Did you also know that the income tax is 50% plus, and the equivalent to sales tax is another 25%. What means does the average person have to gain wealth in such an environment?

*Quote- "I understand some states don't even have a minimum wage."

*The US minimum wage law is a federal law that covers all 50 states.

*Quote- "Societies which provide a basic minimum standard of living for everyone are more stable and peaceful societies with lower crime rates. Why would you not want to pay for that?"

*This can be seen in a couple of ways. The first would be that the US does provide a basic minimum standard of living if one counts the minimum wage law. But that assumes a given person wishes to work and contribute to the greater good of the social whole. Problem is, there are too many deadbeats and grafters unwilling to work.

*The second way to look at this is that if it is mandated that all MUST be given a minimum standard, then all will be standardized at a minimum level. Doctors will receive the same pay as burger flippers. There will be no incentive to be a doctor, if one receives no greater benefit. Why put forth the extra effort if there is no reward or incentive to do so? Any excess "earned" by the doctor would be siphoned off to pay for social welfare. If the excess is not enough to meet the demand, the burger flipper would have to be paid more, which erodes a currency's value, to be taxed, in deflated currency. I'm not sure how this might play out in the case of the Euro, formed in part to circumvent wild fluctuations of European currencies. The primary reason so many of the countries in Europe are somewhat successful with socialist methods is because they generally deal with fairly limited population sizes. Notice that the larger the country is, generally, the less they are able to properly administer socialism, and the more inherent problems manifest. So, even in countries that try very hard to be socialist, if they have larger populations, they still deal with crime and instability. One need only look to the former Soviet Union. If one wishes to bring China into this, consider that China has had an amalgamation of socialistic politics with "free" market economics for some time now. With fully a third of the world population, it would be logistically and economically impossible for the world to support China as a "welfare" patron.

*Quote- "some places are adopting what they call the "minimium living wage" and mandate much higher wages for hourly employees."

*This is true, but it is local law. If a local economy can justify and support such an effort, more power to them. Keep in mind, the higher the wages are, the higher the prices become. It becomes a self-perpetuating cycle.

*Quote- "the reason that i worry about my employment is because the job still has to be done.. if i'm not there to do it... who will? eventually, that person will be tired of doing my job and i'll be replaced by someone that can show up and do the work."

*Is it too much to ask of a person to actually do the job they were hired for? I don't think so, most especially if it is a small bootstrap startup company. Not everyone can work for a Fortune 500 company.

*Of course, this then begs the question: how can somebody expect or demand a leadership position if they are not willing to be there when they are supposed to be, or when they are needed? Legal or not, entitled or not; if the job is not being done, the experience is not being gained, the effort is not being put forth, the leadership skills are not developed or demonstrated. The boss is going to turn to the person who can get the job done, period. Leadership and command positions are earned, not entitlements.

*Quote- "someone needs to do the menial jobs, right? ...education is a neat thing.. but one does not need it to be successful in the world to some degree."

*Menial is such a relative term. Having said that, I've tried earning my bread by the sweat of my brow, and it's not all it's cracked up to be. I do think it is interesting, that we tend to value a person's occupation by their paycheck. Perhaps this is not a good thing, yet it is the way it is.

*Quote- "i think that i could make a decent argument that our public education system is producing illiterate and unskilled "graduates" and letting them lose on the world without proper training. if my money is going to be used for this.. then it should be used in a wise and contentious manner... actually getting a child to be able to read and do maths is better than simply "passing" the child along until they graduate, in my opinion."

*Good point.

*Quote- "Before mass education, education was restricted to what was known as the "leisured classes". These people had enough income from rents and investments that they did not need to be employed. They didn't need to be successful in the world because they were already financially secure. So why was education wasted on them and them only?"

*What period of history is this referring to? The Middle Ages? Even then, scholarship was administered by the clergy, particularly from Ireland.

*In the US, one-room schoolhouses taught all of the children in a village in many places. Even in the slave populations of the South, it was not uncommon for some schooling to be done, although arguably not enough. When Dewey entered the scene in the late 1800's, he opened "mass education" for the vast majority of US youth. Access to better for more is a continuing and ongoing effort. Higher education is still prohibitive for some poor families, but occasionally there are grants and scholarships for poor youth who show promise. More could be done, but not necessarily on the backs of taxpayers.

*Of course, why push a person into an education they do not want or have no aptitude for? I consoled myself for a very long time with the example of the taxi cab driver with a philosophy degree. 4 years of high dollar education to drive a cab...when I drove a cab with a high school diploma (and I didn't need that, just a valid operator's license)! Higher education is a business that seems not too concerned with the end product. I can (and do) study philosophy and a lot of other exotic subjects on my time, as a hobby. I don't need to shell out the high dollars for such. That is why I chose business as my major, which I see as an investment, something to pay the bills while I pursue my hobby of learning.

*Quote- "Do you use streets, highways, sidewalks? Ever calculated how much of your tax money goes into keeping them in good shape? Is it worth it?
Now, there is no doubt that you will find some government expenditures of which you will say---"no, that's not worth it." We all will, though we will disagree on the value of different programs.
But government touches us all every day in a thousand ways we take for granted until its not there."

*Good point.

*Quote- "It is also the case that tokenism often does not last beyond one generation. I have seen that in my place of work. In the last year alone, three women in senior management, hired when affirmative action was either popular or required, have retired, and all have been replaced by males. At no time was any significant effort made to go beyond tokenism and increase the overall level of women in the organization, so that there would be a pool of qualified women, as well as men, prepared to step into the shoes of the pioneers."

*Would this not speak to the inefficiency or ineptitude of the organization you work for, perhaps even the same senior management? I am certain it is a very real example, but not necessarily an example of the norm. There are many organizations that have promoted and encouraged women in their ranks. The organization I work for has many women at senior levels, and many women at entry levels and all in between. I don't know the percentage breakdowns, but I am certain you would have some difficulty disagreeing with the overall mix. At the most senior level, in Washington DC, there are few women, but I would be inclined to think that may be as much because there are no qualified women takers for those positions. That should be read, no qualified women in their right minds want those positions.

*Quote- "There is a 24-hour affordable, subsidized child care centre in every neighbourhood so that every family has access to a safe place for their children during working hours."

*I do have some issues with child care as described. Mandated child care will most likely be sub-standard, as anything government tries to administer seems to become. Were I a parent, I would be exceptionally leery of trusting my most precious treasure into the hands of just anyone, regardless of the dire straights I might be in. In short, I would not trust such a facility with my child, no way, no how.

*Perhaps that would be a worthwhile business endeavor, a chain of licensed and franchised child care centers?

*Quote- "Sole-support parents are recognized as performing a public service by taking care of their children and receive adequate income to do so without workfare requirements."

*We tried this, and it didn't work. It became a lifestyle. Three generations grew up on welfare, I was in one of them. It was quickly becoming a fourth generation. Welfare was never intended to become a way of life.

*With the welfare reforms in place, the incentive to make babies for the sake of larger entitlements is gone, and single moms are being trained to enter the workforce. This is not unreasonable.

Quote- "IMO egalitarian principles are about empowering the individual to make their own choices, to aim to succeed in their own chosen specialities - not about exchanging one form of inequality for another."

*Precisely. Using the former example of a woman mechanic, if a woman really truly wants to be a mechanic, she will find a way against the odds to become a mechanic. If she is smart about it, she will be the best darn mechanic around, just to make the point. Yes, there may be some obstacles to overcome, call it "paying your dues." Every newbie (male and female) in any field I can think of has to "pay their dues" before they are taken seriously. It is simply a rite of passage. Once she clears that hurdle, nothing anybody else says or thinks matters. As long as she has earned the respect of her peers, she is one of the gang. I have seen this, and it is the right way to go about it.

*One doesn't stand outside of the machine shop and demand a position. And one doesn't take much notice of customers who happen to prefer a different mechanic. If she is genuinely capable, she will make her way and be successful despite any perceived obstacles.

*Quote- "Achieving social equality in all fields should come naturally, as it were--through changes in basic social attitudes and the removal of gender (and other) barriers."

*Perhaps this is slightly off topic, but I hope to make it germane.

*Since "other" barriers were brought up, I would like to touch on them. Racial barriers and inequities exist, no argument. However, having said that, please note that disenfranchised people who become successful still do so by not clinging to a victimized mentality. There are many people of many persuasions who have become successful in this nation. I find it interesting that the Oriental population in the Western states never seem to take a victimized attitude, and now seem to occupy whole desirable areas of Southern California and Washington state. Instead of a victimized attitude, they place a familial focus on education and success. And they have succeeded, evidenced by the assimilation of Real Estate. The Oriental ethnicity is poised to become the dominant ethnicity in the US within the next few decades.

*The Hispanic population (BTW, the current reigning champion as far as total population in sheer numbers as of last year) has long roots into California and the Southwest. True, education is not as generally valued, and many are content to lead simple lives. Those that do wish to succeed, again do so by pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, rolling up their sleeves, and doing what is necessary to become successful.

*One could make the argument that these cultures have (more or less) successfully assimilated into the greater American culture.

*Even regarding the Black culture, those that wish to truly succeed do so by taking the initiative, making their way through the existing culture, climbing the ranks as any should be expected to. Those that claim a victimized mentality struggle in their lives. Surviving on handouts is not an acceptable lifestyle; there is no hope, no incentive, no honor, and no success. An attitude of entitlement instills and enforces a stratification of society, in direct opposition to the stated aims and purposes. How can any form of equality exist in the stratification brought on by entitlement? Only in the absolute dream of communism could this theoretically be achieved, most real world examples are failing miserably and for the reasons described.

[juantoo3]

continued-

*Quote- "We need to remember, whenever we are comparing genuine differences between men and women (e.g. men do test better, generally, on spatial orientation, while women do test better, generally on verbal comprehension) that these are averages."

*Understood and agreed.

*Quote- "So, since one hires individuals rather than statistics, there is no basis for presuming this male candidate will be better than this female candidate."

*Absolutely agreed. Nor is this female candidate to be presumed better qualified than that male candidate. This is the reason for specific tests administered by potential employers geared towards specific positions to provide insight into whether or not a specific individual is suitable for a specific position. Gender is not the (or even a) differentiating factor (by law). Either the individual is capable, or they are not.

*Quote- "As long as there is a large field of overlap between the skill levels of the two groups, we should still expect a close level of parity in employment in that field."

*This disregards individual preferences. Regardless of the source, cultural acceptability and individual talents still figure into the equation.

*The greatest source of cultural knowledge and cultural perspective comes from Mom. That is, culture is taught at the supper table.

*If an individual holds certain prejudices (or not), most likely this was instilled at a very early age by that person's parents. Prejudice can be overcome, but many go through life not even realizing it is in them. They in turn teach it to their children by example. If one truly values egalitarian principles, this must be taught by word and deed to the next generation. Lip service is not sufficient, children see right through it. It must be lived. And equality cannot be selective, children will see the schism and focus on it.

*Quote- "Or do we base access on individual ability rather than statistical data?"

*Of course we base access on individual ability. This then begs the question, why place the burden on the white male because of statistical data?

*Quote- "Finally, of course, there are few occupations that are dependent on just one skill. Most will require a mixture of skills, some of which are more likely to be demonstrated by females and some of which are more likely to be demonstrated by males. So which candidate then gets the nod?"

*Which returns again to individual ability and the judgement call of the person doing the hiring.

*Quote- "For it is still the case that the segment being held down for the benefit of others is the female and non-white segment for the benefit of the white, male segment. I know that is not obvious in your personal situation, but it is nevertheless true overall."

*If it helps to think of it as an exercise in practical denial, this perception is quite easily overcome. How can focusing on the negative lead to a positive? If this perception is internalized, it increases the struggle to succeed rather than alleviating it. Some prefer to remain overwhelmed, thus getting nowhere. At no time have I advocated the white male at the expense of any others. What I have advocated insistently is that if one desires success, one must pursue it by all means possible and available. Success is hard work. Success is earned, not given.

*In the end, so what if white male dominance is true? Why should that even be a factor to any individual in choosing a career path? The victim attitude will keep one down and subjugated. I am speaking of the internal perception, surrender to it and all hope is lost, one gives up on themselves. Ignore that white males dominate (or at least place it where it belongs, in the unimportant file), and a whole new world opens full of opportunities. Listen to the naysayers and one will get nowhere. Listen to those that encourage and lead up the path of success, and one will be swept along in that current to success. Surround yourself with successful people, and you will find success comes easily. Dwelling on irrelevant statistics will sidetrack you. Besides, isn't the challenge to change the statistics?

*Quote- "And, of course, there are other environmental factors as well, such as the loss of US manufacturing jobs to other regions of the globe. So young American males are competing for a smaller pie, even apart from facing competition from segments of society which did not use to be in the field."

*Yes, so? If I allow this to overcome my thinking, I will wallow in my own self-pity. That is self defeating self. I view it more as a challenge, an obstacle to overcome.

*Quote- "Part of the problem with testing, as you noted in your other post, is that the test itself can be biased. Also test results can be misused. So there are a lot of issues here as well. It goes back then to not making presumptions about what people will choose to do, or be fitted to do, on the basis of gender or disability or any other such characteristic."

*If testing were in its early stages, I would agree. But this kind of testing has been going on for a long time now, and with each new modification the results are verified. These tests are administered in different ways, by different groups, most of whom have no axe to grind. It is the politics that abuses the results far more than any other. What is it called, cross referencing research (or something like that)? Even when the test is intentionally skewed to deliberately handicap the participants; the results still show within the expected normal values.

*Quote- "That is exactly the kind of stereotype we have to struggle against. I'm sorry, but you are just plain wrong in thinking this is true even of most women, much less of all women."

*Funny thing about stereotypes; if there wasn't some basis of truth, the stereotype would not exist. Women have a fixation on their vanity. This is not all-inclusive, but it is most generally true. Women do not typically choose careers that might somehow mar their physical beauty or present them in an unflattering light. Exceptions can be found, like mucking a horse stall, if she is really into horses. But in my experience, women tend to prefer careers that do not impair their physical attractiveness. Indeed, some make a career of flaunting their beauty! This is not right or wrong, it is the way it is. Not that the contrast is necessary, but men do not typically have such a fixation on vanity.

*Quote- "Since home ec and auto mechanic classes were made available to all comers, the gender balance in both is equalizing rapidly in high schools. My daughter took auto mechanics and she was far from being the only female."

*Good for her! I am very pleased to hear it. I took home ec, in a co-ed class, in junior high (very evenly split, by the way). I took auto shop in high school. I am neither a cook nor a mechanic as a career, but what I learned has proved invaluable through the years. It is a good thing she took the initiative to learn auto mechanics, it will be interesting to see if she chooses that as a career, which is an entirely different matter.

*Quote- "Now, I grant, that in some cases girls prefer to be in an auto-mechanics class that is all female and boys prefer a home-ec class that is geared especially to boys. While we still have a gender biased world, that is likely a necessary concession to reality. But the evidence is that the "rare bird" phenomenon does not apply in either case."

*Why? The one girl who signed up for my auto shop class quit (of her own accord) on the first day. Her loss. Why must schools continue an attitude of segregation? If parents stood up to it, it would not be the norm, or a "necessary concession." I suspect the schools maintain the segregation to appease the parents, furthering the cultural biases instilled. Seems to me your daughter's school should catch up with the times, considering I graduated 25 years ago.

*Quote- "Most ditch-digging in North America today is done with a back-hoe..."

*"Most" is not "all." To suggest that I don't have a clue what I am doing, using a shovel instead of a machine, when not considering the circumstances or the realities of construction even when the picture was described, demonstrates a dissociation with reality. There was no way to fit a machine in the area I was speaking of, not to mention the interference with the work of the other trades. Perhaps it would be well to consider the details of the situation before casting unflattering judgement.

*Quote- "But you are only looking at the cushy end of the pink collar ghetto. Go to the electronics and computer chip factories, to the textile sweatshops, or follow a home-care worker on her rounds. There are lots of joe jobs done primarily by women, and for the most part at lower pay scales than those men do."

*Did it occur that women are preferred by employers in these fields for a reason? Or that women prefer these fields for a reason? How does one equitably compare wages, unless it is specifically the same job? Does one compare the factory worker woman (better fine motor skills, air conditioning in many instances, flex time, etc.) with the foundry worker man suited up in an asbestos suit to withstand the intense heat (brute strength applied to repetitive motion, no air conditioning, hazardous duty, flex time either not needed or not granted)? Does one compare the woman in the textile mill to the man slowly eaten alive by the chemical factory? Does one compare the woman home-care worker with a farmer tending a field? How does one truly compare these things in an equitable manner?

*And in the end, what does it matter? So what?

*Quote- "Part of the patriarchal assumptions, again, right? The man is supposed to be the breadwinner and support his wife and ex-wife too. As long as that assumption holds, the law will reflect it. Change the assumption and the law will change too."

*I'm sorry, but this sounds like wishful propaganda. The law won't change in my lifetime, especially if militant feminists take control. It is one more way to exact revenge on the scapegoat.

*Quote- "And remember, for every woman getting alimony from an ex there are likely two or three others who get nothing in alimony or child support either, but have to support themselves with no help. I don't have exact statistics on that, but I do know that even with alimony, most women are poorer after a separation or divorce while most men are financially better off."

*Deadbeat dads are just that, deadbeats. You will not hear me defend them.

*Quote- "But where can men find new fields of opportunity in prestige jobs dominated traditionally by women? Can you name as many as three?"

*1. Mother
2. Professional Cheer Leader
3. Miss America (or Miss World)
4. Girl Scout Leader
5. Interior Decorator (appealing to men, such as the proverbial stuffed Bass mounted over the fireplace)

*Other examples I thought of already have male counterparts, such as Queen (in the British, Royal sense), or tailor/seamstress, or librarian.

*A lot of the position behind this quote infers that women have been in the workforce as long as men in all fields. It has only been 30 years or so. Women are making progress, and proving themselves across the board in fields they prefer. One that stands out in my mind is Real Estate. Women are very good at selling Real Estate, a very lucrative field. Women have started and built successful companies selling cosmetics and toiletries, like Avon and Mary Kay. Women have contributed to science for a long time. Women tend to make better accountants and CPAs. There are a host of fields in which women are and have been successful. Successful women do not hinder themselves with a victimized attitude. Successful women do not require mandated inequities to level the playing field, they simply need to make up their minds that they will be successful and apply themselves to becoming so.

*Quote- "Many European countries provide for two years of maternity/paternity leave. It is a norm I would like to see introduced to North America, and eventually world-wide."

*The economic cost for this is immense! No wonder Germany is going bankrupt!

*Let us consider this for a moment. If this imagined couple timed their children right, they could be on maternity/paternity leave for a long time indeed! Let's see, 5 kids spaced two years apart, why, there's a decade of not doing anything to add to the gross domestic product! This leave creates a burden to society. There are no profits generated to keep the company in business, there is ten years away from work with the unrealistic expectation of stepping right back in where they left off. This is just wrong, on so many levels. To be "kept" by a government is a good thing I suppose for those who require a strictly regimented society, but it repulses me personally at a level so deep I cannot describe it. Like something out of Orwell's 1984. What is the difference, philosophically, with being institutionalized as a ward of the state? Where is the genuine freedom and independence?