A million dudes who call themselves "amateur gynecologists" don't deserve $100K+ a year for that, either.
Comedian Jennifer Dziura has a hilarious take on the whole notion that mothers are supposed to be paid a small fortune for each of the "jobs" she performs as a mother (Hat Tip: Economist.com):
Actually, that would be the GRE for a psychologist, the MCAT is for psychiatrists, and I assume that most moms don't prescribe drugs for their kids, unless you count doling out Benadryl to make the kid sleepy on a long car trip as psychiatric services. But anyway, I will tell mothers what people tell me when I complain that psychologists don't make enough money (and Ms. Dziura confirms this in her point number 6): Jobs are worth however much other people will actually pay you for them. No more and no less.
Since we've done "CEO," let's talk about "psychologist." JUST BECAUSE YOU PERFORM DUTIES "LIKE" A PSYCHOLOGIST DOES NOT MAKE YOU A PSYCHOLOGIST. A million dudes who call themselves "amateur gynecologists" don't deserve $100K+ a year for that, either. Psychologists, I'm sure, are pleased that apparently their medical degrees and licenses are irrelevant. I've sometimes offered advice to a friend in need, but I don't charge, and if I did, my counsel would be worth less than that of someone who, you know, passed the MCAT.
Actually, that would be the GRE for a psychologist, the MCAT is for psychiatrists, and I assume that most moms don't prescribe drugs for their kids, unless you count doling out Benadryl to make the kid sleepy on a long car trip as psychiatric services. But anyway, I will tell mothers what people tell me when I complain that psychologists don't make enough money (and Ms. Dziura confirms this in her point number 6): Jobs are worth however much other people will actually pay you for them. No more and no less.
Labels: patronizing ideas to make women feel better about themselves
posted by Helen at 7:53 AM
81 Comments:
I perform duties as sports commentator, TV/Movie Critic, food critic, fashion consultant, and beer quality assurance specialist. I get no pay and little credit for these valuable tasks, either.
Dadvocate,
What--no pay for beer quality assurance specialist? That's criminal.
How much should housewives get paid for watching Oprah and The View?
dadvocate:
Not only are you not paid to perform your duties, but I imagine that you actually PAY to perform them. That is the real injustice.
BTW, when do we get our checks for the time we spend writing these posts?
Helen:
Your blogging enterprize would enjoy no success at all without your audience, which donates tens of thousands of man-hours yearly to it performing the duties of Editorialists.
I think we should all be paid at the same scale as, let's say, William F. Buckley, for our input.
Tom
Anon 9:52 - No. You get docked for slacking at the job
It's amazing how many people are ignorant of basic economics.
The real measure of the cost of doing something is its opportunity cost: What other opportunities do you have to give up in order to do the thing?
Now, does anyone seriously believe that the homemakers whose work is calculated at $140 grand a year could make anything close to that kind of money by spending the time doing something else?
Ergo, the $140K figure is a crock.
What!? Helen, you've trampled my self-esteem. Sniff. How will I feel valued now?
Oh wait, I made the choice to stay home. And I'd do it again. Follow your passion, they say. (Which I suppose is how we ended up with the kids in the first place.)
TomCal,
Sure, a payout to the commenters here sounds good, but I should get double what everyone else does since my blog provides the format and attracts all of these intelligent people. That's not easy to do! All these smart people in one place. I am exhausted by the sheer thought of it. Quick, hit the tip jar.... or not.
"A million dudes who call themselves 'amateur gynecologists' don't deserve $100K+ a year for that, either."
Folks just don't understand the trials and tribulations, the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune thrust upon those of us who are "Hobby Gynecologists."
Still, for me, the fringe benifits make it all worth while.
It is mind boggling the depth of the stupidity of what women can claim. It seems that women just continue to become more idiotic and psychotic daily. I suppose in one way it's good, because at this rate eventually we will all begin to simply ignore anything a woman says anymore. Personally I have always considered anything that comes out of a woman's mouth a joke all along.
The part I still don't get is this psychosis or pure stupidity? It's clear one way or another that women are clearly living in a seperate world inside their heads that has nothing to do with reality.. and that is really, really CREEPY.
That is why I'm happily divorced and single. Getting married to a woman is like spliting your finances with a crackhead. Besides, the only 'housekeeping' women practice anymore is the kind that has to do with keeping the house in the divorce.
Gee, anon 3:22, your cleverness is simply breathtaking. Crawl back into your DU hole, please, and leave the conversation to adults.
"Gee, anon 3:22, your cleverness is simply breathtaking. Crawl back into your DU hole, please, and leave the conversation to adults."
That's your 'argument?' I'm going to take a wild guess here and say you probably weren't exactly blazing a trail on the debate team in school- or in any area of education for that matter. Try to stay focused this time, pay attention to the conversation and get back on topic. The subject is not about me, Einstein.
Here's Marc Rudov Debating Lis Wiehl on the subject.
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/05/04/appraising-at-home-moms/
Pay careful attention to how nothing the woman is saying makes any sense at all. Then look in her eyes- you can clearly see she is a complete imbecile. Not to mention she looks like a veneral diseased whore.
that's the point 3:50/4:24... you didn't make an argument, merely a thumbnail of what you've gone through. that isn't proof of anything. I'm in a similar situation, but realize that my ex doesn't represent women in general, any more than I represent men. Sure, I am a man, but we are individuals.
Slinging around one liners doesn't make you look smart... einstein.
The topic at hand has many unfortunate forerunners. The acid test from my perspective, is can I claim $99/hour because I'm a mechanic? Of course not... I only save myself money by being so. The benefit is to my self. Likewise in a family unit it's a unit identity in monetary terms. If a parent works and also provides many services, those are services they don't have to BUY otherwise. If there are 2 parents, and one works at home, and the other works for money, then as a unit they make a specific wage, and also do not spend on things they do themselves. A unit that both work outside the house, may make more money overall, but also may spend more. Either way, or any way, you have to look at any affiliated group as a unit. Even if you are an individual, you are a unit. Looking at everyone as a contributer toward the success of that unit, rather than in monetary terms, can sidestep this unfortunate tie to money as the measure of production.
From that standpoint I contribute to two or three separate units. It depends on how you slice it. Me/My Kids/The Ex. That courts and lawyers are more than prepared to force me to continue monetary contribution where I get no benefit, is an unfortunate side effect of this tie of worth to money. IMHO. naturally...
Sorry, I'm not buying it. This whole outlandish idea is nothing than the same old tired ploy of women wanting a handout for doing nothing- more 'entitlement,' more something for nothing and this is why our society has gone so far downhill. More 'empowerment' as it were. God that is a sickening word. Here is an appropriate article in regards to the subject
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/women_now_empowered_by_everything
It's obvious that you cannot have an intelligent discussion with women about anything.. so just laughing at them is the best route.
If you want a stay-at-home goddess doing all this valuable work, you have to pay for it. One way or another.
I've chosen to decline having a stay-at-home whatever, never had any interest in supporting one, and I seem to hobble along ok without all of the "services" I'd apparently get.
I'll let the stay-at-homes bitch at their husbands about how valuable they are (and how they could have married Jim or Bill - who make far more than their current husband) - you married her, not me. LOL
"..and I seem to hobble along ok without all of the "services" I'd apparently get."
That is beautiful- perfect. Exactly- same here, I do just fine doing my own laundry, cooking my own meals and cleaning my own house.
Another odd thing I've noticed is that a lot of women I've run across are quite willing to quit their job making $30,000 a year - presumably for $30,000 worth of work - to start doing $138,000 worth of work for nothing.
That's what I call sacrifice.
To the unabashed misogynist: did you read The Last Psychiatrist's post on Cho?
"Not to reduce his life down to a soundbite, but he was a guy who thought he deserved better by virtue of his intelligence and suffering; found himself in a sea of mediocrity but couldn't understand why he couldn't therefore excel; and, worst of all, found that all the things he thought he deserved eluded him-- especially hot chicks, who not only dismissed him and found him creepy, but, worse, chose to be with the very men he thought were obviously inferior to him."
I wonder if you too choose to demonize women because they dismiss you. Indifference to women is one thing, spewing such hate is another.
Anyway, since you're so interested in "intelligent discussions," why not practice what you preach instead of using emotionally-loaded silliness like "Then look in her eyes- you can clearly see she is a complete imbecile. Not to mention she looks like a veneral diseased whore."
Since both sexes say and do stupid things on occasion, I'd be interested in how'd you discredit achievements by women that are laudable regardless of person's gender. Say, Linda B. Buck or Christiane Nusslein-Volhard.
*sigh* Why can I never resist the trolls?
"Now, does anyone seriously believe that the homemakers whose work is calculated at $140 grand a year could make anything close to that kind of money by spending the time doing something else?"
Often they might, certainly. Depends on their level of education and previous experience. But so what? If you choose to make forego that income, why should anyone else pay for it. The lady, and at 2:28 very clearly made that choice and has accepted the loss of income, like an adult. Kids cost money, one way or another.
What is galling is to when people think that you should be grateful to them for having children, as if they are doing something wonderful for society, and even expect society to help pay. Usually it is race-based or nationalist, like the White Supremacists' emphasis on white women popping out white babies, or the French government polcies that pay women for having children.
"What is galling is to when people think that you should be grateful to them for having children.."
Bingo! I met a single mother years ago in an apartment complex that I lived who had 4 chidren and on welfare. She told that she was being "paid" by society to have children- that was her 'job.' Again, the complete lack of ability to rationalize- I tried to explain to her that those are YOUR children that you CHOSE to have- but she just couldn't get it. It's like women are missing part of their brains somehow.
"Not to reduce his life down to a soundbite, but he was a guy who thought he deserved better by virtue of his intelligence and suffering; found himself in a sea of mediocrity but couldn't understand why he couldn't therefore excel; and, worst of all, found that all the things he thought he deserved eluded him-- especially hot chicks, who not only dismissed him and found him creepy, but, worse, chose to be with the very men he thought were obviously inferior to him."
Typical female 'logic' and/or 'shaming' language and of course has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. Ever wonder why YOU find yourself in a 'sea of mediocracy?' Because you have no corresponding intelligence to the world in which you live.
Last time I checked, in order to date 'hot' chicks, you, yourself would have to be 'hot' as well. And who wants some high maintenance, superficial, privledged princess anyway? Women & especially American women are WAY overrated and from my experience, the 'hotter' they are the more hideous their personalities. Think Tyra Banks- I wouldn't let that thing in my house. Not to even mention the fact I'm 44 years old- been there and done that, the 'hot' chicks. You sound as shallow as a bird feeder yourself.
"..how'd you discredit achievements by women that are laudable regardless of person's gender. Say, Linda B. Buck or Christiane Nusslein-Volhard."
Uh, yea, houshold names there.
"*sigh* Why can I never resist the trolls?"
That was a really GAY thing to say.
"It's like women are missing part of their brains somehow."
-------------------
I think the deal is that (unfortunately) most people - men and women - will just do whatever they can get away with and rationalize it later.
The difference between the genders arises from the fact that society seems to put more responsibility on men. If you don't work and try to be productive, you will most likely end up in jail or homeless.
If you are a woman and don't want to be responsible or productive, you may well wind up with millions via marriage or whatever. Less pressure is put upon women to be grown-ups. Many are shielded their entire life by daddy and then hubby.
"Less pressure is put upon women to be grown-ups. Many are shielded their entire life by daddy and then hubby."
I certainly won't disagree with a lot of what you're saying, but in my experience what I have found is that when a man is 'bad' he is in fact being immoral, which implies there is at least accountability and a sense there can be some type of change to morality, whereas women are typically amoral- like an animal- with no moral compass at all, and zero accountability to anyone and anything, then they even go so far as to actually blame others for their own bad behavior. Accountability is the cornerstone of character and this is why women make shitty people and therefore typically lousy at relationships despite everything you're told everyday.
And the winner is -- Anonymous!
"And the winner is -- Anonymous!"
And you're really -- Gay!
Ah, but which one are you. And prove it.
I do not call myself an amateur gynocologist, and I trust that her professional gynocologist doesn't do the same stuff "down there" that I do.
Geeze guys, bitter much? Whine, whine, whine women are immature, brainless (yet scheming) and mean! (Stamps foot)
Jerk is not gender specific. I know wonderful people of both sexes.
Helen:
You might as well take triple, since we get zero. :)
Tom
why is it that if men stay home, they are lazy, but if women stay home they are contributing.
a lot of women only see men as walking wallets. this they earn 140K, a year by caring for THEIR children, its their choice. Made, bed, lie.
ok tabitharuth, what if the same thing was said about men, the stay at homes, i bet you would claim sexism, bit its ok for women to claim they "earn" more than men when there is no actual money there.
when men complain they are whining, when women complain they are just educating people about their problems..
(that in itself is sexist why cant women whine)
I notice that these huge dollar amounts do not include the stay-at-home fathers. I assume they, being mere males, are worth a lot less. At least to the half wits doing such scoring.
I can't imagine earning $140 thousand. That's a lot of money. Even as old and as ill as I am, I'd come out of retirement to do the stay-at-home parent job for a hundred & forty grand.
Just think ... if BOTH the husband and wife sit home, they'd be pulling down $280 thousand a year and could live quite comfortably. In fact, they could hire a housekeeper (for minimum wage several hours a week) and just watch Oprah and The View all the time.
"why is it that if men stay home, they are lazy, but if women stay home they are contributing."
---------------
Here's a secret for you, but don't spread it around: The march of technology has made many things easy at home today. You no longer have to milk the cow, churn butter or drag all the rugs outside to beat them.
If you have small kids at home, they're a handful. If you're really homeschooling, that's a handful. Other than that (especially someone with no kids), a person staying at home and being supported by another human being on this planet IS lazy. Period. But don't let that get around. Stay-at-homes will deny that with their dying breath.
Wow, the "discussion" got really stupid and out of hand there for awhile. I hope it returns to something productive, civil, and readble.
But women are missing part of their brain, or we men have something extra. The part of our brain that responds sexually to visual material is almost three times larger than it is in women.
Of course the part of the brain that is willing to ask directions is missing in most men, so I call it a draw.
Trey
The only thing I see women even doing any more is stand at the photo department at Walgreens waiting for more pictures they took of themselves. Let's just cut the crap here and stop trying to fool ourselves- American women today make horrible parents, horrible employees (when they laughingly have a 'job'- they're just simply never there)crappy wives or girlfriends, & they're even lousy at sex. Isn't it ironic how feminism was supposed to make American women more 'empowered' and have higher 'self-esteem' yet now American women are so worthless. This was because feminism was nothing more than a cheap ploy for women to absolve themselves of any responsibility and to feel good about being whores. The only thing the average American female is contributing to the world anymore is excrement.
So it's 10 times even more hysterical how American women today see themselves as 'goddesses,' drunk on their own horribly inflated false sense of 'self-confidence' when in reality what they really are are spiteful, veneral diseased flotsum-American women constantly remind of a piece of trash floating on the ocean or one of those really, REALLY filthy public toilets on side of the highway.
Well armchair I absolutely would say the same thing if it were men, in fact I'll repeat it: I know wonderful people of both sexes.
"I know wonderful people of both sexes."
There are no more 'wonderful' women anymore- those days are long, long gone. If there are women you think are 'wonderful' then obviously you have very low standards.
anonymous 12:58.... Didn't I just see you on Oprah beating your wife?
The best way to pay housewives -- and anyone who thinks they don't work hard -- on average -- is an idiot is to drop my income taxes. It's one of the most valuabel jobs in society, so it should be a bigger tax break.
I'm even willing to drop all of that if they'll just go to a flat tax and leave us alone altogether.
anon 12:58
If you don't know any wonderful women then I am sorry for you. To make such a blanket statement that none even exist is pitiable.
The wonderful women I know not only love their husbands, they like their husbands. They are kind, their husbands are happy. They enjoy sex. They do not talk bad about their husbands--one woman I know will even stop other women if they are talking bad about a spouse. They work hard and they go to church.
Are they perfect? No. Am I? Not hardly. No one is. But I think they are wonderful.
"The best way to pay housewives -- and anyone who thinks they don't work hard -- on average -- is an idiot is to drop my income taxes."
------------------------
It sounds like you're paying for one, chivalrous dude.
I haven't found the value for the money in housewives you seem to find (giving up half my assets for a cleaning lady who only works when and if she wants, paying everything for a woman I don't respect etc.) - so we'll keep this nice separation.
Don't dare suggest that I also pay for your sit-at-home via my taxes (i.e. I pay more than you because you have a sit-at-home). You bought her, you pay for her. You also pay for her after a divorce, if any. Better than her relatives or my tax dollars via welfare.
Continued ...
Why ... on ... earth ... should your taxes be reduced vis-a-vis mine because you decided to support some woman? If she's so valuable, why should that mean that you pay less taxes?
Are people going nuts with entitlement today or what? Bejeezus.
"anonymous 12:58.... Didn't I just see you on Oprah beating your wife?"
You watch Oprah?!? Oh no, I think I smell a mangina.
"If you don't know any wonderful women then I am sorry for you. To make such a blanket statement that none even exist is pitiable."
I don't know any 'wonderful' women because there are none. The standards for female behavior anf acheivement has gone down so far over the last 30 years that what is in reality very pitiful is that would consider today's women 'wonderful.'
What I see when I look at the women today are dumbed down, veneral diseased, amoral whores who's real occupations are committing fraud through false accusations through the divorce courts or through frivilous & fradulant lawsuits to acquire homes and funds.
If women today were just dead weight it would be O.K., but they predatory and evil- but they do not have (like yourself) the intelligence to understand all of this because you are amoral. A dog has a greater sense of accountability than the average woman today (ha).
Anonymous 2:36:
Whoa, I just checked in on this thread and you are way out of hand. I understand that you have some issues with women and wish to express them but tone it down here on this blog so that I do not have to block or delete your comments. You can add to the conversation and participate, just have some respect please.
So to answer jw, Trey and others: I think part of the problem is that it's clear to me that in the current market, fatherhood (as opposed to motherhood) has a negative market value. It's kind of like the stories you hear about during the Great Depression, where the grain elevator in Kansas had a market price posted for wheat of minus four cents per bushel -- meaning that the farmer had to pay them four cents per bushel to take the wheat off his hands. (There's a word for stuff that you have to pay to get rid of, and the word is "garbage".) I think that divorce courts all over the Western world have made this clear in the past few decades; fathers have to transfer income to mothers to compensate for the net negative market value of the father's services. I also offer as evidence the fact that single fathers are ineligible for many welfare and child-aid programs. The programs have decided that fatherhood has at best a zero market value; therefore, they will not pay for fatherhood services.
Now, I offer up as a self-evident fact that this constitutes a market failure, although evidence exists in the declining marriage rates, declining birth rates, and increasing rates of children born to single mothers where the father is never identified. Where you have a market failure, you nearly always have government meddling in the market. Obviously someone has convinced the government that fatherhood is so detrimental to society that the market should be rigged so that fatherhood services have a zero or negative market value. That "someone" could only be organized feminists. So in this aspect of their agenda, they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.
Fixing a failed market generally involves, first of all, getting the government to quit screwing with it. That's the first thing that has to be done. Second is to try to overcome the stigma associated with fatherhood, in the same way that Proctor & Gamble had to engage in a massive marketing campaign to overcome the Satanist image that their products unfarily got tainted with in the '80s. Only in this case, there is no company or professional organization that can do the marketing. There are only men, and women who see the inherent value of fatherhood and are willing to stand up for it and promote it. I just hope it doesn't come too late.
I'm pretty sure that this is just a troll attempting what passes for "humor" and "irony" on the left today. I find it hard to believe that someone holding the beliefs s/he professes has managed to remain viable in American society. The American idiom would indicate it's not some jihadi come to taunt the infidel.
Dr. Helen, I think your tag was right on point. There's no need for anyone to try to put a pricetag on the value of a woman staying home and raising kids. Some things are beyond value, at least of a quantifiable sort.
Anonymous 3:42:
"I'm pretty sure that this is just a troll attempting what passes for 'humor' and 'irony' on the left today."
You are probably right--how hilarious--or perhaps pathetic.
This entire issue reeks of the same old self-absorbed female mentality of, "I'm just so wonderful and valuable because... of my sex!"
I found this article today & it basically sums it all up & it's profound:
"From all of the trashy magazines they read, it's amazing how much women seem to love tragedy. There seem to be plenty of articles advertised on the front along the lines of Raped by my step-dad! and Face to face with my sister's killer! It's as if, even when heart-wrenchingly real, tragedy is just another bit of gossip for women to ingest at lunchtime and then regurgitate to other women at the water cooler when they should be working that afternoon. Then again, it says a lot that the women at the centre of these stories seem to be quite capable of selling their stories to some dumb magazine that averages fifty-pictures and fifty-words per-article.
What I notice the most about these magazines is who is on the cover; women.
Women, women, women and more women. That's all there is on magazines for women.
Men's magazine covers feature trains, planets, aeroplanes, computer game characters, naked women (in the case of porn mags), naked men (in the case of gay mags), half-naked women (photography mags), rock stars, computers, DVD players, guitars, sailing boats, motorboats, motorbikes, cars, guns, model train-sets...and so on.
Obviously the cover of magazines depicts what is of interest to the publication's readers.
Scan the covers of magazines for men; they depict a whole vast spectrum of things.
Scan the magazines for women, and they all depict are women. Women, women, women, women!
Whilst men are fascinated by a whole range of stuff, all women are interested in, it seems, is women. If they show a passing interest in anything else (like men) it's only in how they relate to women.
To quote, once again, from Richard Ford; men look out on the world through a window, whilst women gaze endlessly into a mirror.
Finally, what is the most visible achievement of feminism in academic circles?
That's right; Women's Studies
They study themselves. Then they study themselves studying themselves!
And women dare to wonder why they are under-represented in the invention and scientific discovery stakes. How can they invent or discover anything when all their sex indulges in is dolorous naval gazing?"
Helen, look at what you wrote:
"You can add to the conversation and participate, just have some respect please."
Then here's what you said later:
"I'm pretty sure that this is just a troll attempting what passes for 'humor' and 'irony' on the left today."
You are probably right--how hilarious--or perhaps pathetic."
Calling names and making personal insults. Funny how you don't follow your own standards of 'respect.' This is a perfect example of the zero accountability of women.
Anonyomous 4:23:
You're saying it's not pathetic that you're a lefty troll trying to hijack our thread?
"You're saying it's not pathetic that you're a lefty troll trying to hijack our thread?"
See? Isn't that amazing? You didn't even get the point. Let's try it a different way.. 'lefty troll' is name calling and an insult. Imagine if I were to call you say, oh, I don't know, a 'braindead lesbo.' That would be name calling and a personal insult. Think you're catching on yet, or is it hopeless?
Anonymous at 4:23 PM:
Even if you take the dimmest possible view of women, I'm not sure that you can lump in Helen with them.
She seems pretty level-headed to me.
"Even if you take the dimmest possible view of women"
You're implying that it's just my attitude & none of what I've said has anything to do with reality. That's like having your transmission fall out of your car and then when your mechanic tells you about it, then you tell him, "you just don't like cars."
@5:15
I think you have to see reality, though.
Even if most Chryslers are unreliable (to continue with your car analogy), you have to go from the general to the specific when there is a Chrysler that's OK and that runs fine.
Cousin Dave, I think I followed your post on economics and fatherhood. You wrote it well, my brain just does not wrap around econ that well.
I always thought that the anti-father consequences of the welfare programs were inadvertant. Do you think that they were intentional?
And in a similar way, I thought that most of the anti-male brands of feminist theory were published by injured or ill people, and were reactive rather than intentional aggressive. It seems that you have a dimmer view of the anti-male bais than I. What do you think?
Trey
Regarding the anti-father consequences of the welfare programs:
I think this was mostly conceived by very short-sighted people with good intentions without a good grasp of human nature.
Re anti-male brands of feminist theory: I think they were conceived by injured people much like anonymous in this thread.
Righteous in their conviction of being wronged by the inherent evil of the opposite sex.
Amy K.
Why does everyone keep feeding the trolls ?
Yes, it's sort of a public place, and they can come and go as they wish, but it they insist on throwing trash everywhere and defecating in public spaces, they should be unwelcome as uncivilized and beneath notice.
Ahh, what a wonderful phrase, "beneath contempt." Too bad it's not practiced often enough these days.
But I digress -- One of the reasons I enjoy reading this blog is because our hostess appears to hate whining as much as I do. And as much as my wonderful wife (an EdPsych who took off time to raise our kids until they were in school full time) does.
By now, you can guess how I feel about the myopic view that 'there are no wonderful (men/women/etc) any more.' They might be somewhat less prevalent as they once were -- the "pandering" our society does toward whiners certainly has an effect -- but they still exist.
Of course, you get what you pay for -- if you want to find a dependable person, you must be a dependable person. And so, in a weird irony, whining about how hard it is to "find someone who'll respect me" usually diminishes any reason why someone might respect you. I know several people I actively flee precisely because of this. They whine "I don't feel good about myself," and I have to bite my tongue and NOT say
"That's because you're a self-centered, self-absorbed little twit. Why should you feel good about yourself ?"
And I'm still digressing a bit. Back to the topic: It's obvious that our culture encourages this far more for women than for men. But I have heard plenty of men whining as well.
This whining, and lack of "self-esteeem" (how I hate that phrase as currently used) is at the heart of the ridiculous notion of "underpaid mothers." They do a lot of work, and deserve a lot of credit. And so what ?
By that reasoning, in addition to serving as an amateur gynecologist (I love that phrase), I should also get paid as an electrician, auto mechanic, plumber, carpenter, counselor, IT specialist, and paramedic.
Okay, so being a paramedic doesn't pay jack -- I'll do that part for free. Come to think of it, counseling doesn't pay that much either :) But do you know what a plumber charges ?
This $140,000 a year is just yet another lunatic ploy that women are trying to use to defraud the public. Fraud, fraud, fraud, and more fraud. Everything about feminists and women seems to be a fraud anymore.
Also with statements like these and so many other women agreeing with this goofy warping of reality, it makes it very, very difficult for men these days to actually discern between sane women and women with serious mental problems- how on Earth can you tell anymore? SCARY and CREEPY.
Trey: I think the record is pretty clear in that, at first, the anti-father consequences of modern welfare were unintentional. The original WIC program was set up to aid women who had lost their husbands in WWII. It was the judgement of the demographers of the time (incorrectly, as it turned out) that these women would be unable to marry again due to the large number of young men lost in the war. It was also the judgement, influenced by the culture of the time, that these women would be unable to support their families by themselves, and that church and private groups wouldn't have the necessary resources to help due to the sheer side of the problem. So a government program was created.
However, it's also clear that feminist groups realized early on that welfare constituted a means for women, particularly women with children, to gain a quasi-independendce from men. They were able to advance their position by tagging on to the original cause -- it was political suicide to oppose aid to war widows. The intent of these feminist groups was to structure the programs in such a way that fathers would be excluded. As the programs grew, the regulations were written to heavily favor single mothers over two-parent families. As an example of the economic valuing of fatherhood that I was talking about, many of the welfare programs had a rule that if there was a working father in the home, all income earned by the father would result in a dollar-for-dollar reduction in benefits. Thus, the regulations fixed the economic value of the father in the home as zero. Add to that: a traditional source of income for women was waitressing and similar jobs where compensation was mainly in the form of tips. Although tips were in theory taxable, up until about 1985 there was no enforced requirement to report tip income to the government. Since the welfare agencies didn't know about tip income of the female reciepients, there was no benefits deduction for this income. This is another example of the regulations being structured to value the mothers' work much more highly than the fathers' work. And yes, by 1960 or so, I think these things were being done intentionally.
And as for the other question: Just as we have seen on this thred that there are men who are just plain misogynist, there are women who are just plain misandrist. And the misandrists found the feminist movement very attractive, in the same way that con artists find South Florida attractive, or power-hungry authoritarians find politics attractive. Feminism shielded them from having to face thier dysfunctions; it validated their predjudices and gave them a veneer of authenticity. I'm sure the original feminists didn't intend for things to go this way, but they were apparently too anxious for any allies they could find to marginalize the extremists they way they should have.
Now, the thing is, when you consider all of the major points of the original feminism -- sufferage, the right to work, equal work for equal pay, being treated as functional adults basically -- the war is over and feminism has won. And nearly everyone now accepts that. Few people go around addressing adult women these days as "girls", and few want to take the vote away from women.
That war ended basically around 1975. At that point, the organizations formed by the original feminists, such as NOW, you would think would have been disbanded; after all, their objectives had all been achieved. But there were two things working against that. First is the tendency of all organizations to try to continue their own existence no matter what. In general, people like being in organizations, especially successful ones. Usually, when an organization achieves its purpose, it doesn't just disband; rather, it looks for other projects to apply its talents to. (For an example, there's the March of Dimes, which was originally created to fund the research that led to the polio vaccine.) Second was the fact that the feminist organizations had failed to marginalize their radicals. When the original feminists had accomplished their goals, they left their organizations to move on to the next phases of their lives. That left a power vacuum, and the misandrists moved in. Compounding the fact was that the organizations had effectively sheltered the misandrists from having to undergo any kind of emotional or philosophical maturity, and you've got the situation that exists now.
Nice summary Cousin Dave.
Every solution eventually becomes a problem.
"there are men who are just plain misogynist, there are women who are just plain misandrist"
The whole 'misogynist' myth is an even larger abomination of reality than even this ridiculous notion of the 140K a year for nothing. Again, the entire 'misogynist' nonsense is nothing more than another cheap, low-life trick women use to absolve themselves of all accountability when they are legitamately criticized for anything by men. Nothing more than another excuse for women to give themselves a blank check for horrifying behavior and the passing of psychotic divorce laws.
It also implies some kind 'irrantional' hatred as if from nowhere, yet women are the actual ones who are infamous for irrationality- therefore I would be much more likely to buy into the theory of a woman's irrational behavior when it comes to anything including an irrational hatred of men or 'misandry,' as it were.
Always remember 'misogynists' are made, not born- and though we do not like the smell of dog crap either, that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with US.
Now that we've got ev everyone up to speed, we can get past that little con.
1. Anon, why don't you explain what a good woman would be, from your viewpoint, without unneccessary slams on current womanhood.
2. Its clear to me that each and every profession under the sun, except for maybe ditchdiggers, goes about trumpeting their own glories as a way to boost the rates for their services, and get other social advantages. Why mothers, or stay-at-home Dads shouldn't do this is beyond me.
3. My efforts at training, and bringing up children to become responsible adults are a vast investment in the good of future America which we will all live in someday. The fact that I don't get much of a return on this investment, and that freeloading singles who expect to party now, and retire on the backs of my children's social security have the audacity to criticize shows a lack of understanding.
Don't let a simple-minded Libertarianism blind you from greater realities. I think even Ayn Rand might be able to see that a society needs children. Of course, she would probably favor some sort of 'when children reach 18, they owe their parents money spent plus interest' formulation for the situation.
4. Now, its clear to me that Motherhood and Fatherhood are vastly more important jobs than most other jobs. Its part of the poverty of imagination that we try to put this into monetary terms, but thats America for you.
Tennwriter
"Its clear to me that each and every profession under the sun, except for maybe ditchdiggers, goes about trumpeting their own glories as a way to boost the rates for their services, and get other social advantages. Why mothers, or stay-at-home Dads shouldn't do this is beyond me."
------------------------------
It's fundamentally different.
In a "real" job - let's say as an engineer for $70k a year - you have to contribute something in a company or you will eventually be unemployed. It's an even more direct link if you are freelance or self-employed or the owner of a small business. The work you do equals the money you get.
In the case of housewives, the husband is NOT the boss because her compensation (getting the house and car paid for, meals, vacations, stake in husband's money) is simply not dependent upon her housekeeping abilities (or whatever her work claim is). He likely married her for other reasons. A good-looking woman with big tits may get more "compensation" than another woman with good housekeeping skills.
With that in mind, the there is no bottom limit on her work or lack thereof. I'm sure there are Donna Reed type housewives running around somewhere, although I don't really see those types myself in real life, but there are also a lot of cases where the woman does little or nothing, in fact cases where she contributes nothing but causes extra expenses. My old neighbor's wife ran up over $10,000 in Internet gambling losses - which the husband had to pay, of course - and really just sat on her fat butt. Her excuse was that she was bored, but her husband couldn't tell her to alleviate her boredom with a job because "he wasn't her boss and couldn't tell her what to do".
If a housewife really is the Donna Reed type, I think it's almost an insult to make up a crassly inflated figure of worth. The real deal is that she is in a partnership with the husband, he works outside the home and she works in it. She should take pride if she really WORKS in the home, like 8 hours a day.
In the other cases, the cases I'm more familiar with, it galls me to no end that women who may be lazy, or manipulative, or simply spoiled brats are falsely attributed a measure of worth like that. It's just an insult to anyone who works hard that house-pigs OF THAT TYPE not only have bigger houses and cars than many people who really work in many cases (because they manipulated the wealthier man into marriage), they also have to be showered in praise as to all the wonderful things they do. Kind of sickening in my book, and I wonder why certain people are so intent on blindly assuming that every woman who doesn't work outside the home DOES do a lot of work IN the home. That is not necessarily the case.
These sweeping proclamations about "the most important job in the world" and the rest actually do harm. They do harm in divorce court because fairness to BOTH parties is sacrificed to a false view of what really goes on. They paint an inaccurate picture of society. They allow certain people who manipulate and leverage that situation to get away with bad behavior.
It's odd that this is yet another area (pornography is also a commonality) where feminists and religious conservatives agree - although maybe for different reasons. Both seem to want to paint a false picture of the wife in that situation.
I've argued in other places that Christianity elevates womens' value. That pre-Christian societies sometimes valued them between 'a goat and a horse'.
I didn't get much takers.
But here I see proof of what I was talking about. A devaluation of women.
2)Worth=money. Thanks, but I'm not buying, and that is what you are selling.
And no, its not fundamentally different. A lot of the value (money, respect, and so forth) you receive in society is based on perception, or cheesy tricks, and only part is based on supply and demand. Tom Clancy made it clear that eye surgery was about as complicated as being an auto mechanic, and why do some CEO's receive golden parachutes? That there is perception and cheesy tricks, respectively.
So, naturally, to avoid getting disrespected, and devalued, any job is going to occasionally trumpet its value.
3)The wife is to be the 'helpmeet' aka completer, not a simple housekeeper.
You are right in that we do have problems. But the solution is not to degenerate society further, but to repair what was good and fine and decent.
If divorce is hard to get, and a man is the head of the household then many of your objections go away.
5)As to work levels...well, I haven't met too many people who I think work all that hard. And before you tell me about your eighty hour work weeks, let me say, I think most eighty hour work week people are lazy.
A. Its harder to be a parent.
B. Most eighty hour work week people spend lots and lots of time at the watercooler. Get the job done, and go home is my motto.
And lastly, your second post. I put up Father and Mother as some of the most important jobs in the world, not just Mother. Its interesting, you see in the Bible a lot of 'Father do this' and 'Father do that', and relatively little 'Mother...'. Perhaps from a Biblical standpoint, the fathers should be doing most of the child rearing.
I know this whole, 'lets consult the Bible' and traditional values might seem a bit shocking, but really, isn't it better than Door One: I'm a Goddess, bow to me you pitiful man! and Door Two: I'll sell you my wife, well-beaten, for two goats, and a sixpack of beer.
I'm thinking Door Three might should be investigated.
Tennwriter
Huh, Tennwriter, you have a nasty habit of setting up strawmen and then knocking them down.
I wasn't about to claim I work 80 hours a week. I also find proclamations of that type to simply be silly bragging or whatever. If you work 80 hours a week, just do it and don't bother me about it. LOL
I'm not saying that money equals a person's worth. What I'm saying is that usually a person working out in the world has to provide something in exchange for the money he makes. An engineer making $70,000 per year is going to have to produce, and then produce again tomorrow, with that stress on him. Housewives in many cases have no lower limit on their "production". I see those as facts.
I agree with you otherwise that the amount of money a person earns doesn't necessarily equal the amount of work put in or the value of that work. Paris Hilton earns multiples of what cancer researchers earn. Umm, yeah, I know that. But even Paris Hilton has to get her scrawny butt out of bed and go to her photo shoot.
Your "make the man the head of the household" thing is cool. Try to get it implemented. I'll check back in a few years to look at your progress. LOL I DO know that some "traditionalist" wives have been domestic terrors, even back in the "good old days". I saw it growing up.
Motherhood/Fatherhood: You're really hepped up on promoting that. I don't much care. I think some kids, like the children of Susan Smith or Diane Downs, would have been better off without them. As long as I don't have to pay out (more) money, you can think what you want.
With regard to your Bible stuff: I've learned that discussion about that is unproductive with people who are fanatics about their religion, whether Christianity or Islam or whatever. Here's a suggestion, though: Why not just say what YOU think instead of quoting your (selective) favorite passages from the Bible?
All this fuss over a number that nobody takes seriously? I don't know anyone who thinks the $138G is anything more than a chuckle. Do you people get all excited about the annual exercise to figure out how much the gift of the Twelve Days of Christmas would cost?
"Comedian Jennifer Dziura. . ."
Helen, cut that out. I thought you were on our side, and now you're starting to sound like Betty Freidan, Gloria Steinam, and Mary Daly, all rolled into one.
Jennifer is not a comedian unless she's had a sex change. It's like when people say "poet" when they mean "poetess."
Now go thou and sin no more.
AYY
Sheesh, I agree.
Nemo,
Okay, I was making an assumption from your tone as to what you'd probably say. Sorry.
Housewives might have no current limit, but trumpeting their value is still fair since everyone else does it. So maybe we're arguing past each other here. I still say, a traditionalist approach to things would probably solve these problems.
You argue that I should dispose of an external standard, while you maintain the usage of the external standard of the market. As poor as my interpretative skills of the Bible are, I still think I'll prefer its standard to the markets. :/
Sure, some few kids would be better off without their pschyo parents. But the gov't is more likely to mistreat kids than the parents. And THAT is something I regard as pretty close to a fact.
Not being hepped on promoting fatherhood is historically odd. As to costing more money...can't have your cake and eat it too. Can't be a single, complain about parent tax breaks, and then use social security with justice.
Back when I was a single, I thought parent tax breaks were fair. Now that I'm married with kids, I know they are.
Anyways gotta go mow the lawn.
Tennwriter
"5)As to work levels...well, I haven't met too many people who I think work all that hard. And before you tell me about your eighty hour work weeks, let me say, I think most eighty hour work week people are lazy.
A. Its harder to be a parent.
B. Most eighty hour work week people spend lots and lots of time at the watercooler. Get the job done, and go home is my motto."
WOW! You are one screwed up puppy! You obviously have no corresponding intelligence to the world in which you live in (typical female problem)and you are just as deranged as this woman that came up with this lunatic crackpot idea of the 140K. The sad reality is that you, like her, are obviously in desperate need of some psychiatrict help- medication, etc., like the majority of American women today. You're probaly suffering from some type of borderline personality disorder to say such outlandish, ridiculous things.
Taking a break from my mowing cause I'm tired...
Anon 1:01
First examine Nemo's post for how to relatively politely disagree.
Two, its my experience from what I've seen. I've never been an 80 hr a week guy, but I've seen those who are. They spent an awful lot of time not breaking a sweat.
Now, I have known two tough, burly guys, determined sorts, guys you wouldn't want to meet in a dark alley, and both started working 80 hr. weeks. Both quit after three months.
My supposition is that unlike most, they actually WORKED. And it broke them.
Note also the Japanese who spend huge amounts of time at the office, enough to have a word, wakarimasu, for death from overwork. But they also as I understand aren't that much more productive when I saw this study, and spend a good bit of time in sitting at their desks doing nothing.
Note, the medieval work day. All day, but very low productivity with time breaks even a liberal would love.
Its not deranged to suggest that some people prefer to be at work, and goof off rather than go home to a potentially whining wife with a long list of jobs she wants done.
Tennwriter
"Note, the medieval work day. All day, but very low productivity with time breaks even a liberal would love."
You're just as screwed up as the woman. It's like you have become so detached from reality you have to be completely re-educated.
I certainly don't have the time to do it- but just the tip of iceberg-most jobs do not involve working in an office (I can't even believe I'm having to tell you this). Do you have any idea how your water gets to you? Your food? How your electricity gets to you? How your sewage is taken care of? Just to name a few of the hundreds of jobs that are necessary and many of them require excessive hours. One of the side effects of becoming so spoiled and taking everything for granted is that you become kind of a moron.
Seeing as I've worked in 110 degree heat on a roof, finished my day with Doan's Headache Powder because every bone in my body aches, and been, punched, and shot at in the course of my duties, I a little doubtful that I've been that spoiled.
Yes, I know how my water gets to me. It comes from a spring, and gets pumped up hill to my house. My sewage, if you must know, I've messed about with my toilet, and it goes into a septic system. My food, well, my mother and a number of my uncles were farmers. I also know a fair bit about electricity, and favor putting up Solar Power Sattellites, and/or Pebble Bed Reactors to replace the oil that we primarily get from Venezuela (most Mid-East oil doesn't go to America).
And the medieval work day had people working from sun to sun, but with hour long, and occasionally longer, and rather prolific breaks. They also didn't work that fast because they lacked the calories to do so.
Follow me here, you can't produce more calories than you consume for very long, or you starve to death. This was the medieval problem. Their agriculture was terribly inefficient.
Now, I think I've demonstrated a breadth and depth of experience and knowledge that should have you rethinking your position. In any case, this has gone on long enough.
"In any case, this has gone on long enough."
Wa! Poor wittle poopy bear clown doesn't want to discuss this anymore now that's he's been made to look like a bafoon. Not to mention your entire tone is that of a clown. I'm guessing you're a little 23 year old punk still living with mommy and daddy.
"Poor wittle poopy bear clown doesn't want to discuss this anymore now that's he's been made to look like a bafoon. Not to mention your entire tone is that of a clown. I'm guessing you're a little 23 year old punk still living with mommy and daddy."
Keep your cheap, transparent little shaming tactics to yourself and go bounce on a fire plug. You could probably fit the them whole thing in. There - how's it feel when it's aimed at you?
When was a very young teenager, totally controlled by libido, I often daydreamed about becoming a Hollywood Gynecologist.
Hope I'm not the Lone Ranger on that one.
Not to change the subject or anything, but I understand that Greenpeace is to build a replica of Noah's Ark in Turkey, near or on Mount Ararat.
Where are they getting the dimensions to build from? There's only one place I know to find them. Are the left wing planet savers kind of saying they believe in Noah's Ark? Should I assume they believe in who told Noah to build the thing, and why?
Naaaa......
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
情色視訊交友情色視訊交友546視訊聊天室85x1x成人影院85x1x成人影院85x1x成人影院85x1x成人影院85x1x成人影院一葉晴貼影片區546視訊聊天室一葉晴貼影片區一葉晴貼影片區一葉晴貼影片區聊天室ilover99聊天室ilover99聊天室ilover99聊天室ilover99聊天室ilover99聊天室13060免費聊天室13060免費ut13077視訊聊天
Post a Comment
<< Home