Women are Choosing to get Paid Less so they can have More Time to be Mothers

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 16th, 2013

Week in Review

If you listen to some politicians there is a war on women.  Especially in the workplace.  Where evil business owners pay women less than they pay men.  At least that’s what the data aggregate tells us.  That business owners are not only greedy but sexist.  But there appears to be more to the unequal pay between men and women than the data aggregate shows (see Let’s Not Forget, Many Working Moms Want To Work Less by Erika Christakis posted 6/12/2013 on Time Ideas).

It’s almost become a cliché to note that women are still under-earning compared to men in the workforce. But maybe this reality shouldn’t keep surprising us. The recent headlines miss an important part of the work-life balance story: plenty of working mothers are earning less than men because they want the sort of jobs and working arrangements which indeed pay less…

The benefits of part-time work are substantial. Parents can be wage earners and role models without, literally, losing sleep. They can preserve most of their professional identity and work skills but still provide support to a wider group of dependents than would be possible with a full-time schedule, and without going insane in the process…

It’s true that the trend toward part-time, benefit-free employment can be financially ruinous to individual workers. One fifth of the country’s jobs are part-time, and many are low-skilled, dead end positions. But it’s easy to overlook how unrewarding full-time employment can be for many people, too – especially when the researchers and reporters and pundits who write about workforce trends tend to have fascinating, flexible jobs with decent pay.

We should stop limiting what women and men value by insisting that everyone has the same work aspirations. Some of us don’t want to spend the most productive and precious years of our lives trapped at the water cooler with our ‘work spouses,’ and we’re willing to pay the price.

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.  Makes Jane a dull girl, too, as it turns out.  Apparently mothers want to spend time being a mother.  Oh, how the left must hate this.  What with their birth control, abortion and morning after pills.  They want to see every woman childless and working fulltime.  Preferably taking a job away from a man.  Earning a big fat paycheck.  And paying a lot of income taxes.  Perhaps the true reason the left wants women in careers.  Stay-at-home mothers pay no income taxes.  That’s the whole drive behind state-funded childcare.  To get women back into the workforce as quickly as possible.  So they can resume paying income taxes.  Which is why the left demonizes conservatives.  And the 1950s family.  The Donna Reeds and June Cleavers.  Who were happy to spend time raising their children.  The very thought of which makes the left want to collectively vomit.

Motherhood is not something to shun.  To disparage.  Or to attack.  Women aren’t less of a woman for wanting to spend more time with their family.  Instead of shipping their kids off to childcare so they can work fulltime.  Because one day they’ll stop and notice that their kids are no longer kids.  But going off to college.  And they’ll wonder where did the time go.  As well as their childhoods.  Wondering where they were when their kids grew up so fast.  Then they’ll look at the big house.  The two new cars.  The nice things in their home.  And the empty rooms where their children once played.  Then ask themselves, was it worth it?

A lot of women are saying “no.”  It’s not worth it.  So they’re taking part-time jobs so they can spend more time with their kids.  Which is why in the aggregate businesses are paying women less than men.  Because women chose jobs that pay less.  So they can spend time doing something more important.  And more fulfilling.  Being a mother.  And God bless them for it.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Marriage, Babies and Taxes

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 28th, 2013

Politics 101

The Women’s Movement encouraged Women to Choose a Career over Having Babies

It is common for a married couple planning to have children to both work.  To put as much money into the bank for a down payment on a house to raise their family in.  In a nice neighborhood with good schools.  After they buy that house and have their first child it is common for the woman to quit working to stay home and take care of their newborn child.  And the other children they have.  While the husband continues to work.

The women’s movement changed that.  It encouraged women to have fewer babies (or none at all) and to have a career instead.  Those who had children were encouraged to return to work as soon as possible.  To just dump their kids into daycare and continue their careers.  But it doesn’t always work that way.  Sometimes a woman determined not to let her children interfere with her career has a change of heart after having her first child.  Deciding not to return to work.  Choosing to, instead, stay at home and raise her children.  And not dump them into daycare.

This, of course, causes problems for employers.  Making it more risky to hire women.  Especially in this litigious world.  They have to hold a woman’s job for her when she goes on maternity leaves.  And if her job is a critical job, like doing payroll, others will have to split up her job responsibilities.  Perhaps hiring a temp to pick up the less critical tasks (filing, answering phones, etc.).  For mistakes in payroll do not make happy employees.  And mistakes in payroll taxes can cause some very costly problems with the government.  If a woman doesn’t plan on returning to work after having her baby the business can hire a new employee.  And in her last weeks before leaving to have her child she can train her replacement for an orderly transfer of her responsibilities.  Something she can’t do if she changes her mind while on maternity leave.

In the Marriage Contract the Wife gives up her Career to Raise the Children while her Husband provides Financial Support

This can be a reason why men earn more than women.  Because there is less of a chance of his changing his mind to be a stay-at-home parent.  It happens.  But not as often as it happens with women.  Because women have a biological clock ticking.  Which can greatly influence her thinking on her long-held career plans.  For a woman has to leave work to have a child.  And to recover from the birth.  Men don’t.  Their lives can go on with little change.  And because a woman has to take time off she spends more time bonding with her newborn child.  Which is a powerful force.  Mothers are very protective of their babies.  And even though she had all intentions of returning to work having the welfare of her newborn dependent on her can change her best laid plans.

Of course, leaving the workforce not only affects her employer it affects the household budget.  For that lost paycheck can make life more difficult at home.  Forcing the new family to get by on less.  Government understands this.  And they design the tax code to help families raise children.  Because the government needs people to have babies.  And they need them to have more than two.  For if they only have two the population will not continue to grow.  These children will only replace their parents.  Not expand the tax base to help pay for an expanding menu of government benefits going to an aging population.  But having more than two children is very expensive.  Which is why married families get a lot of deductions and credits in the tax code.  To help offset the high cost of having children.  So they will have more children.

And there are other legal issues and traditions to help families.  Such as the baby’s last name.  A woman may hyphenate her name when married.  But you can’t do that with children.  For in a generation or two a person’s name will grow so long with multiple hyphens that it will make it difficult to use on forms, to sign a contract or a check.  Put on a nametag.  Tradition has the father being the financial provider.  As the father is not physically impacted by pregnancy.  He can keep working.  And providing.  So giving the child the father’s last name makes it easy for the child to go through life.  And makes it clear that the father is financially responsible for that child.  Just like it’s a man’s work benefits that cover his wife and children.  Because in the contract of marriage the wife gives up her career to do something more important.  Raise their children.  But she can only do that if her husband provides the income, the health care benefits, house, car, groceries, etc., the family needs.

If Same-Sex Marriage is about an Unfair Tax Code the Left could just vote Republican so we can Lower Taxes for Everyone

The institution of marriage developed to help a man and a woman raise children.  Having children came first.  People have been having children long before they even talked or used tools.  Then civilization advanced.  The economy grew more complex.  This advanced civilization was costly.  Especially when raising children. Then the institution of marriage came along to help families have children.  Governments and business help families have and raise children.  For we need families to have and raise children.  Businesses need an expanding population.  For a business needs more people to grow.  To buy the goods and services of their expanding business.  Just as government needs an expanding population.  To pay the taxes to fund an expanding government.  An expanding population translates into a growing and prosperous economy.  And a growing and more generous government.  Because the more people there are the more people government can tax.

Men and women have married without raising a family.  Yet they still get some of the benefits we developed to help married people raise children.  Such as one spouse being covered under the other’s employer’s health insurance benefit.  Raising the business’ costs without providing an expanding population benefit for this additional cost.  And it’s the same for government.  A married couple may get some favorable tax benefits that cost the government while not providing an expanding population benefit for this additional cost.  So there is a short-term benefit for a childless marriage.  The woman doesn’t leave the workforce.  She builds her career and earns more income.  Providing more tax revenue.  But there is no long-term benefit.  For when this couple leaves the workforce there will be no one to replace them.  So while they start consuming Social Security and Medicare benefits they have not added new people to the workforce to pay for these.

Understanding how and why we have the institution of marriage makes the current same-sex marriage debate puzzling to say the least.  For marriage is not about civil rights.  It’s about lowering the cost of raising children.  Which both business and government needs.  For if couples don’t have more than two children then the population will no longer expand.  And it will age.  Making it more costly for government.  While providing a shrinking customer base for businesses.  A couple that does not bring new children into the world provides no return on the cost of the marriage benefits they receive.  And a same-sex marriage will be no different than a childless marriage between a man and a woman.  From an economic/government funding point of view. They will not help grow the economy.  They will not lower the future cost of government.  And there won’t be a legal or traditional need for giving a newborn child a last name.  As they can’t procreate.

If procreation is out of the equation people can enter committed relationships without the institution of marriage.  During the sexual revolution the Left belittled the institution of marriage and asked why anyone needed a piece of paper to sanction their love.  And these people lived together flaunting convention.  And tradition.  Using birth control and the recently legalized abortion to make sure no children resulted from these new living arrangements.  These marriage-less committed relationships.  Now marriage is the number one issue of the Left.  If it’s for same-sex couples the institution they hated and worked so hard to destroy is now the greatest thing in the world.  And on top of everything else the Left, who supports higher taxes, are arguing that the tax code unfairly discriminates against same-sex couples.  If that is the basis of this being a civil rights issue the Left could just vote Republican so we can lower taxes for everyone.  Then they could have everything they want.  The free love of the sexual revolution.  Low taxes.  And no reason to get married.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FT140: “There’s more to women than their vaginas.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 19th, 2012

Fundamental Truth

The Republicans don’t Treat Women like the Taliban Treats Women despite what the Left Says

Is there a war on women?  You would think so if you listen to the Democrats.  Who are shouting from the rooftops that the Republicans are waging a war on women.  That they want to impose nothing less than Sharia Law when it comes to women.  To prevent women from having abortions.  To take away their birth control.  To take away their cancer screening.  Forcing women to give up their careers.  And forcing them into motherhood.  Keeping them barefoot and pregnant.  Doing nothing but having babies and raising kids.  Which according to the Left is worse than 18th century slavery.  Even though women with careers are still having families later in their lives.  Because despite motherhood being worse than 18th century slavery a lot of women still want to raise a family.

Of course this Republican war on women is nonsense.  For they said the same things during the 2 election cycles of George W. bush.  The one election cycle of George H.W. Bush.  The 2 election cycles of Ronald Reagan.  During these 20 years of Republican administrations what the Left warned about never came to be.  There was no Sharia Law imposed on women.  Women were as free as they ever were.  There were no morality police.  There was still porn, strip clubs and prostitution during these years.  Birth control was still available.  Abortion, too.  And, yes, even cancer screening.   Those of us with mothers, wives, sisters and daughters who entered these Republican times emerged from these Republican times with their mothers, wives, sisters and daughters.  For the Republicans didn’t treat women like the Taliban treats women.  Despite what the Left says.

Those old enough to remember previous election cycles have heard this war on women rhetoric so often that it becomes white noise that we just tune out.  We don’t take it seriously.  We take it for what it is.  Subterfuge.  The Left’s policies have a record of failure.  Especially their Keynesian economic policies.  Which gave us the stagflation of the Seventies.  The subprime mortgage crisis.  And the Great Recession.  For expansionary monetary policies extend economic booms allowing prices to rise higher than the market would have them.  So the recessions that follow to correct these prices are longer and more painful.  As those prices have a lot farther to fall.  So when your policies have a history of failure it is hard to run on those policies.  So you attack your opponents.  And not their policies.  Because they know conservative policies are better than theirs.

Because of Birth Control and Abortion Men don’t have to Bother with Romance

So who does this strategy work on?  Young people.  People without any real responsibilities yet.  Young women empowering themselves by having sex if they choose to have sex.  And the young men having sex with them.  The women want birth control to be able to have sex without getting pregnant.  And they want access to abortion.  Just in case that birth control doesn’t work.  Or if they surrender to their passions without taking any precautions.  While the young men are always for anything that increases their chances of having sex with the ladies.  So, yes, these young women may lead with their vaginas when it comes to politics.  And vote Democrat just because of their reproductive rights.  For it may be the only thing important in their lives.  As women’s reproductive rights empower women.  It lets them escape the tyranny of motherhood that is little different than 18th century slavery.  It lets them to proudly take control of their sexuality.  At any time they choose.  Whenever they please.  But it’s a different story with men.

Women don’t like men objectifying them.  Which is why they get exasperated.  And say things like, “My eyes are up here.”  Or, “Keep it holstered, buddy.”  As men have only one thing on their mind.  The empowerment of women.  That is, sex.  A lot of women are put off by the constant sexual advances of men.  They decry that all they want is sex.  That they don’t want to talk to them.  To get to know them as a person.  To take long walks on a beach.  Go ballroom dancing.  To take them to the ballet.  To simply hold hands.  Or discuss a book that changed their lives.  Men are just not interested in anything but getting them into bed.  They hit on the pretty ladies in the office.  Making some women uncomfortable.  Some even filing complaints because their behavior makes a hostile workplace.  So women can empower themselves with birth control and access to abortion so they can fully explore their sexuality whenever they want without any shame but when men think about sex they’re just a bunch of dirty old men and perverts.

So reproductive rights kind of send mixed messages to men and women.  It means women can be more sexually active.  Empowering them to explore their sexuality.  Freely and without shame.  Something men understand.  Which leads to them objectifying women.  Because with birth control and abortion men don’t have to bother with romance.  Or wait for marriage.  Because with birth control and abortion men just expect women to have sex without the bother of romance.  Just like Charlie Harper on Two and Half Men.  A character his female company grew to hate.  As shown in the opening of the new season after they fired Charlie Sheen.  Where many of his past lady friends attending his funeral lamented the closed-casket ceremony.  Because they couldn’t spit in Charlie’s face.  Funny.  Because a lot of women feel that way about men like Charlie Harper.  Men who enjoy nothing more than the empowerment of women.

Those on the Right don’t believe Women are One Dimensional

So this is what women are to those on the Left.  Vaginas.  One dimensional people.  Who care about nothing but birth control and abortion.  Which is rather sexist.  The reason why the Left wants to provide women with birth control and abortion is so they can have careers like men.  While still having a good time like men.  Who have careers.  And enjoy casual sex.

But while these men can also be interested in the economy, the unemployment rate, interest rates, the inflation rate, the federal deficit, the federal debt, the impact of the federal debt on their children, national security, property taxes, income taxes, the cost of gasoline, food prices, heating costs, their kids’ public schools, etc., women cannot.  No, they can have no other interests but their reproductive rights.  At least according to those on the Left.  Something those on the Right find offensive.  As they’re talking about our mothers, wives, sisters and daughters.

Those on the Right don’t believe women are one dimensional.  They believe that there’s more to women than their vaginas.  We don’t believe those things men can be interested in are too complex for women.  For we believe women can be just as smart as men.  Even smarter.  And they can actually be interested in something other than their vaginas.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FT113: “In the liberal war on women their number one enemy are stay-at-home mothers not on welfare.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 13th, 2012

Fundamental Truth

Plato’s Perfect State included Selective Breeding, State Rationed Health Care and Euthanasia

Liberals are fans of the ancient Greek philosopher Plato.  And his utopian idea of the perfect state.  Which he passed down to us in his Republic.  His book of fictional conversations where Socrates engaged in dialogs to develop and advance his philosophy.  His utopia?  A totalitarian state.  Where everyone sacrifices for the good of the state.  Sound familiar?  Think of Marxism, socialism, communism, fascism, National Socialism, Islamism, etc.  Where the state provides the basic necessities of life.  And frowns on luxuries, liberty and free speech. 

In Plato’s world everyone is equal.  Only some people are more equal than others.  The Guardians of the state are the wisest and brightest and make all the decisions of this perfect state.  These are the most equal.  Then came the state bureaucracy.  Those who manage things for the Guardians.  Then came the reeks and wrecks of society.  The expendables.  The undesirables.  Who are little more than slaves.  Or are slaves.  The workers who get their hands dirty while providing for the state.  The Guardians maintain these divisions through selective breeding and propaganda.  Making the people believe the separation of these classes is just and right.  And nothing to question.  Even to accept the selective breeding to produce a super race.  Or to learn not to question it.  The perfect state includes a national health care system.  To manage the super race.  That determines who to treat based on their usefulness to the state.  And who to euthanize because they have no state value.

Plato’s perfect state destroyed the family.  People lived communally.  The state took away babies from mothers and raised them ‘correctly’ to grow up to best serve the state.  Determining their level of ‘equalness’ and placing them accordingly.  Educating the children in the public education system.  Where the most equal make it to the Academy.  The state-run college.  Where the wisest philosophers of the state indoctrinated the new Guardians.  And educated the state bureaucrats.  To ensure that only the best stock entered their schools they managed the mating between men and women and forbade cross-class mating.  To maintain the purity of the classes.  Especially the higher classes.  A society where all children grew up loyal to the state.  Not to their parents.  To promote the superiority of the state.  And the subjugation of the people. 

Abortion and Birth Control helps the State Limit the Birth of People they Deem less Desirable

This is the liberal utopian view they see for America.  Where a kind and just government grows to protect the people.  Where the smartest people run things.  Who know what’s best for the people.  And decide for the people.  For the people aren’t wise enough to know what’s best for them.  Just like in Plato’s perfect state.  The wisest and brightest advance through the most prestigious of America’s universities.  And enter leading positions in the government.  After learning what the ideal state should be.  Progressive.  And subjugated to the state.  Lower universities train future state bureaucrats to embrace the ideal state.  Emphasizing fairness and justice.  And shared sacrifice.  Pointing out the cruel unfairness of capitalism.  And the kind, loving care of the government.  They will manage the state for the enlightened leaders.  While the lower classes are kept uneducated.  And dependent on the government.  Where they provide a critical service for the state.  By making the government necessary for most to survive.  To get around the repugnant restraints of democracy.  By having people continuously vote for the state to subjugate them.  Thus disciplining the masses.  And keeping them in their place.  At the lower end of the social strata.  And away from the upper classes.

The Holy Grail of large, interventionist government has always been national health care.  For it extends the state’s control to almost every facet of the people’s lives.  For they can tie anything into being health related.  And thus subject to the state’s regulation.  Also, this power over life and death serves another purpose.  Spreading limited resources over a larger group of people requires rationing of health care treatment.  As determined by the wisest and the brightest.  Who will direct their bureaucrats in the rationing of health care treatment.  Determining who’s too sick for treatment so they can use that treatment, instead, on someone more beneficial to the state.  A passive euthanasia policy.  Until the people will not object to a proper active euthanasia policy.

At the other end of the spectrum is abortion and birth control.  Which they make plentiful and easy to get.  Especially for the lower classes.  To limit the birth of people the state deems less desirable.  Those who give in to their animal passions instead of sacrificing for the state.  A common problem with the people in the lower classes.  Who lack a proper college education indoctrinating them into the proper behavior that best serves the state.  These lower class people are useful to the state by keeping the government necessary.  But at the same time they upper classes of government don’t want to be overrun with these people they see as inferiors.  Birth control and abortion helps the state to keep the births of this class at more acceptable levels.

Liberals hate Stay-at-Home Mothers because they Sacrifice for their Family and not the State

But this causes a bit of a problem.  By limiting the birth of the state-deemed undesirables they are also limiting the number of voters who will ask the state to subjugate them.  Which is a problem because the upper classes aren’t having a lot of kids themselves.  Women are too busy with their careers for the inconvenience of family.  Unless they’re rich and can afford to nanny it out.  As the properly educated higher classes enjoy sex without the consequence of children they cull the stock of the higher classes.  Leaving only one group embracing the family and having children.  Those who reject the state’s view of the perfect society.  Enjoy sex.  And like making babies.  Who they raise.  Some even becoming stay-at-home mothers.  Devoting everything to their families.  While their husbands provide their financial needs they take on the full-time job of parenting and managing the household.  On call 24/7.  Even taking their work with them on vacation.  And all without any help from the government.  Fully independent.  Responsible.  And free.  Which is a great threat to the ideal state as envisioned by Plato.  And every totalitarian state since.  These people who put family first instead of the state.  These people who don’t even need the state.

The state wants women to work.  If they have children, they want these women to return to work as quickly as possible.  To break up the family.  To separate their children from their parents as soon as possible.  Putting their children into state-sponsored childcare.  To begin the indoctrination process.  To make them loyal to the state and not their parents.  Which is why they love the two-parent income required to raise children today.  It helps to separate children from their parents.  Putting kids into after-school programs to further their indoctrination.  Better yet are the single mothers.  Who become fully dependent on the state.  And teach their children to love the state.  Because only the state provides.  Unlike the father that abandoned them.  These single mothers are the most likely to vote to further their state of subjugation.  To become fully dependent on the state.  And forever obedient.

This is why liberals today have a war on women.  In particular, the stay-at-home mother.  Who they hate.  And attack at will.  For choosing to be a stay-at-home mother.  For focusing too much time on their children.  For being too involved in their children’s education.  And for teaching their children to be independent and responsible.  Undoing years of the state’s indoctrination in the public school system.  These women are enemies of the perfect state.  Because they sacrifice for their families.  Not the state.  Worse of all, these most disobedient of women are having too many babies.  The real reason why the state hates them so.  Because if they can’t get rid of that problem they call democracy they will need to keep winning elections.  Which will be harder to do when each subsequent generation of like-minded voters is smaller than the last.  So their super race will disappear over time.  As will the perfect state.   For selective breeding will only work when people breed.  But not just any people.  It has to be the right people.  Not these stay-at-home mothers.  Who don’t sacrifice correctly.  And don’t subjugate themselves to the state.  As liberals believe they should.  Because liberals love Plato.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

UK Study finds that Rape and Sexual Assault victimize One in Ten Women

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 17th, 2012

Week in Review

Women have lost a lot since the hippy movement of the Sixties that turned them into sex objects for men to enjoy instead of becoming wives and mothers.  For it was a new world out there.  And women didn’t need to subject themselves to the horrors of wedded bliss.  For the women’s movement liberated them.  They could be whatever they wanted.  Do whatever they wanted.  And have sex whenever and with whoever they wanted.  Thanks to birth control.  And then abortion.  It was a time of empowerment.  And this empowerment led to a boom in pornography, strip clubs and prostitution.  And worse (see Rape Survey Shock: One In 10 Are Victims posted 3/12/2012 on Sky News).

As many as one in 10 women in the UK claim to have been raped, according to new research by parenting website Mumsnet.

The survey of 1,609 women found a tenth of those who responded had been raped and a third had been sexually assaulted.

More than four in five of the victims did not report their perpetrators to the police because of concerns over low conviction rates, embarrassment and shame…

Allison Saunders, chief crown prosecutor for CPS London, said: “I support the message of the We Believe You campaign, its aim to raise awareness of the extent of these crimes, and to challenge preconceptions.

“As a society we need to be aware of the myths and stereotypes that members of the public who become jury members may hold and which have the potential to influence court outcomes and ultimately lives.

In other words, women are NOT asking for it.  The problem is that the very people (liberals, feminists, etc.) who claim to support and defend women have objectified them.  Which is the unfortunate corollary to women exploring their sexuality and using birth control and abortion to empower themselves.  Because the underlying message is that women are NOT for marrying and raising a family with.  They’re for sex.  Sex without consequences.  Which can’t do anything but objectify women.  And when some knuckle-dragging Neanderthal can’t join in on some of that consequence-free sex when everyone else appears to be enjoying it their twisted little minds interpret that as a personal insult. 

Rape is not about sex.  It’s about power.  Control over women.  A violent response to a lifetime of rejection.  Or not being ‘good enough’ for a night of casual, meaningless sex.  These men blame women for their deficiencies.  Whatever it is that is wrong with them that prevents them from participating in the world of casual sex.  Because if everyone else is doing it and they’re not then something is wrong.  Either with themselves.  Which they refuse to accept.  So that leaves women.

The prevailing attitude about sex today is sending two different messages.  One that encourages women to liberate themselves from the horrors of wedded bliss and to go out and live life to its fullest.  And one that tells too many men that women are some THING just to have fun with.  Not a PERSON to honor, cherish, respect, etc.  And that is why our wives, sisters and daughters are suffering today from some of the most unspeakable of crimes. 

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FT109: “Liberals attack marriage and motherhood because their narcissism prevents them from doing either well.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 16th, 2012

Fundamental Truth

The Institution of Marriage is the Original Synergy where the Whole is Greater than the Sum of its Parts

A bird’s life is not an easy one.  They have to suffer through horrible storms.  Struggle to find food during the winter.  Stay on guard at all times lest some cat eats them.  They have to build a nest every spring to lay their eggs in.  And raise their babies.  Find food for them.  Protect them.  Then teach them how to be a bird.  And kick them out of the nest so they learn how to use their wings.  As they fly off into the cruel world to start their own short and hard lives.  Leaving the mothers to do it all over again next year.

It’s not quite the same for humans.  They don’t grow up so fast.  And require a whole lot more nurturing.  For the human baby is about the most helpless of all babies in the animal kingdom.  Requiring far more care and teaching before they can go off on their own.  And live their own lives.  Where the bird takes a few months it takes the human about 18 years.  So raising children is a bit different.  And a bit more involved.  Requiring a lot more effort and work on the part of the parents.

Enter the institution of marriage.  The most basic division of labor.  A man and a woman join in marriage to raise children.  The original synergy.  Where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.  From the most basic biological level.  (The woman has eggs but cannot create life without fertilization.  A man has fertilization but cannot create life with eggs.)  To financial.  (A woman cannot work when bringing new life into the world.  So the father works to pay the bills and provide a home for the new life.)  To parenting.  (Men and women are different and bring different skills to parenting.  This diversity makes children better adapted to enter the world.)

Liberals are more likely to abort their Babies and Divorce as they are too Competitive and Aggressive to arrest their Alpha Desires

Raising children isn’t easy.  Both mother and father have to make great sacrifices in their personal lives for their children.  And to support each other.  Which means parents have to love their children and each other more than they love themselves.  Which is why narcissists make poor spouses.  And poor parents.  Because they can’t sacrifice enough of their self-love to be a good spouse.  Or a good parent.

Liberals are narcissists.  They believe in big government.  As long as they run it.  Because they think they are smarter than everyone else.  And should tell everyone else how to live their lives.  Atheists tend to be liberals.  (Not all for the followers of Ayn Rand are typically atheists, too.)  Because they refuse to live in a world where there is a higher power than theirs.  Celebrities tend to be liberals because they yearn for the fawning adulation of their fans.  College professors tend to be liberals because they enjoy the fawning veneration of their students.  Artists tend to be liberals for the fawning admiration of their fans.  Women advancing in the corporate or political world tend to be liberals because they love to bask in the self-satisfaction of making it ‘in a man’s world’.  And the accolades that go with it.  Further stroking their already huge egos.  You see, everything a liberal does is to feed their narcissism.  Everything is about them.  And getting married or having kids isn’t.  Which is why they can pursue excellence in all other endeavors but these.

Liberals are alpha males.  In a non-physical, narcissistic way.  Even the women.  Where the liberal feminist wants to be everything a man can be.  Everything is a competition.  To prove that they are better than everyone else.  And to show everyone that they’ve made it.  Especially to those who have bested them earlier in their lives.  From the bullies in school.  To the boys and girls who wouldn’t date them.  To the talented geeks that went on to be entrepreneurial geniuses.  And billionaires.  To the men who have always had the best careers.  And the best stuff.  But now it’s payback time.  Where the expression ‘the best revenge is living well’ really means something.  Which explains why liberals are more likely to abort their babies.  And have their marriages end in divorce.  They are just too competitive and too aggressive to arrest their alpha desires.  To knock that chip off of their shoulders.  To let go of their anger.  Their ambition.  Too consumed with their own existence to share their only love (self-love) with a spouse.  Or a child.  In their all out pursuit of liberal happiness.  Affirmation.  That they do matter.  That they have a purpose.  That they are special.

Liberals think Happily Married Women raising Families are just too Stupid to Know that they should be as Miserable as they Are

Liberals want to get married.  And have children.  But on their terms.  Where it doesn’t interfere with their lives.  Or change them.  Or inconvenience them.  They enter into these arrangements with the idea that they will remain the center of the universe. 

Celebrities are always getting married.  And having children.  Which proves that they like the institution of marriage.  And children.  But their marriages often end in divorce.  And their subsequent custody battles are often ugly.  And aired in public.  Which is why liberals condemn the stay-at-home mother.  Who gives up on being everything she could be.  To be the only thing that liberals can’t be.  Happily married and raising a family. 

And that’s what really bugs them.  They’re happy.  To a liberal this is just not fair.  They’re the ones who should be happy.  Because they matter.  They’re special.  They have the nicer stuff.  And what really gets in their craw is that these happily married women raising families are just too stupid to know that they should be as miserable as they are.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Germany to offer State-Funded Childcare to turn Mothers into Something more Useful – Taxpayers

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 3rd, 2012

Week in Review

The social democracies of Europe are going broke.  Why?  Growing government benefits.  And an aging population.  Which means there are fewer people entering the work force than leaving it.  Which, of course, means fewer and fewer people have to support more and more people in retirement.  And how did this happen?  Europeans stopped having babies.  Fewer babies means fewer taxpayers.  And fewer taxpayers means each taxpayer has to pay a large share of the total tax burden.  Which spells one BIG problem.  And Germany’s solution to all of this?  Make it even less appealing to have and raise children (see Germany is healthy, could be healthier posted 2/24/2012 on The Economist).

Another interesting aspect of the German economy, and one of its major weaknesses, is often overlooked (though not by Matthew Yglesias)—low participation of (married) women and mothers in the (paid) labour force. There are two economic reasons for this shortfall: taxes and child care…

Progress has been made, though: from 2013 on, there will be a legal entitlement to child care when the child turns one, and all states are busy expanding supply…

With its ageing population—only in South Korea will the dependency ratio increase faster, says the OECD—Germany may be forced to speed up the reform process in order to raise the employment of women.

The social democracies of Europe have destroyed the family.  The more the state provides the less children need parents.  Even children as young as one will be put into the cold world of state-funded child care .  So the mother can be freed of providing a loving and nurturing home for her children.  And, instead, enter the work force and do something more useful for the state.  Like paying taxes.

If they didn’t stop having babies they wouldn’t be in this mess.  For even the greatest of all Ponzi schemes will work if there are always more people entering the scheme than there are collecting benefits from it.  So the best way for Europe to save their welfare state is to nurture the family.  Let mothers stay at home and mother their children.  Stop making being a mom a four-letter word.  Bring back the family and you start reversing the trend in 20 years.  If you don’t and you provide more state-funded child care  it will only require more taxes.  Making it ever harder to raise a family (someone ultimately pays for ‘free’ child care ).  Thus further discouraging women from being mothers.  Which will never reverse the downward trend in birthrates.  Or the downward trend in new taxpayers entering the workforce.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #25: “War is costly. Peace, too.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 3rd, 2010

ONE OF THE lasting consequences of war is the feminization of men.  War makes widows.  And fatherless sons.  Their mothers raise them the best that they can.  But women tend to be kinder and gentler than men.  More nurturing.  Fathers are, after all, the disciplinarians.  “Just wait until your father gets home.”  Sons with fathers knew what that meant.  And it wasn’t kind, gentle nurturing.

The American Civil War killed some 600,000 men.  A generation of fathers was lost.  When their sons came of age, they were more sensitive to the suffering of others.  And they felt a mothering urge to do something about it.  In politics they became Progressives.  They grew government.  Because government knows best.  Well, mother knows best.  And a government that mothers would solve all our social ills.  And these men would mother.  Compassionately.  And they thought all that rugged individualism was overrated.

World War I killed some 9 million men in uniform and about another 7 million in civilians.  These fatherless sons would rise in power and help create the cradle-to-the-grave welfare state known as European Socialism. 

World War II killed some 400,000 American men.  And their sons would follow the European’s lead.  They would attend the universities where the progressives taught.  They came out with heads filled with caring and compassion for victims everywhere.  LBJ’s Great Society would grow out of this movement.  As well as a hatred for American rugged individualism.  And anti-war fervor.

AND THEN YOU had the filthy, maggot-infested hippies.  South Park is a crude comedy.  And Cartman has few redeeming qualities.  But he’s right about hippies.  They ruined this country.  Born in the baby boom following World War II, most had the benefit of a father.  However, by the 1960s, the universities they attended were a lost cause.  Their professors would attack whatever their parents taught them.  They would learn to hate.  In a kind, gentle, nurturing way.

They hated America.  How it became.  What it did.  What its values were.  Are.  Instead, they would embrace America’s enemies.  Have kind, gentle, nurturing compassion for them.  They were proud Marxists.  And Communists.  They relished their First Amendment right to attack the American Republic that gave them that right.  While they supported oppressive regimes where you had no such right.  And spoke ill of the government at your own peril.  Oh, they damned America and its allies for all of their ‘crimes against humanity’.  But they said nothing about the reigning co-champions of human rights abuses.  The Soviet Union.  And Communist China.  No, they wanted to extend the proletarian revolution to America.  So more could suffer the worst of human rights abuses.  Why would anyone adopt such a conflicting course of political action?  Because they’re idiots.

Power to the People.  Give Peace a Chance.  All You Need is Love.  They knew all the answers.  John Lennon et al.  War was business.  Nothing more.  Or the folly of kings.  As the Monkees sang about in this anti-war song:

They met on the battlefield banner in hand.
They looked out across the vacant land.
And they counted the missing, one upon one,
None upon none.
The war it was over before it begun.

Two little kings playing a game.
They gave a war and nobody came.

(from Zor and Zam by Bill Chadwick and John Chadwick
Album: The Birds, the Bees and the Monkees)

This is what the anti-war people believe.  Either war is business.  Or the folly of kings.  That there is no ‘bad guy’ in war.  Just pawns.  And units of production.  Because human nature is peaceful.

WHO DID THE high school bullies pick on?  Who did they pansts?  Steal their lunch money from?  Give a wedgie to?  A swirlie?   Beat up.  Belittle with name calling?  Not tough guys.  Weak guys.  This is human nature.  The strong feed on the weak.

WHEN GUN OWNERS discovered a ‘loophole’ in Floridian law about carrying concealed weapons, they started carrying concealed weapons.  What happened?  Crime on Floridians dropped.  Crimes on tourists rose.  Why?  Because the bad guys knew that tourists didn’t carry concealed weapons.  This is human nature.  The strong feed on the weak.

BACK WHEN DETROIT was the murder capital of the U.S., a friend traveled there and bought a t-shirt.  It read, “Detroit:  Where the Weak are Killed and Eaten.”  Now I don’t recall reports of cannibalism in the Motor City, but the message was clear. Figuratively, of course.  Human nature was becoming animal nature.  The strong feed on the weak.

MANY ANIMAL SPECIES have large litters.  Or numerous litters.  Like bunnies.  Cute little, fluffy, harmless bunnies.  But bunnies are tasty.  They’re low on the food chain.  They are food to almost every carnivore in the wild.  Including man.   Few bunnies live long before becoming a meal.  This is animal nature.  The strong feed on the weak.

“IN EVERY GENERATION there is a chosen one.  She alone will stand against the vampires, the demons and the forces of darkness.  She is the slayer.”  (From the television show Buffy the Vampire Slayer.)  In the world of vampires, demons and the forces of darkness, it’s kill or be eaten.  It’s even the nature of the supernatural.  The strong feed on the weak.

BIG GOVERNMENT AND UNIONS grew big and powerful in the 20th century to protect the little guy.  They said that Big Business and the free market favored the rich and powerful.  At the expense of the poor and weak.  They said it was human nature.  For the strong to feed on the weak.

DURING THE TIME of America’s involvement in Vietnam, the Communist Party of Kampuchea went on a killing spree.  While the hippies protested Vietnam, they praised the social compassion of anti-capitalistic communism.  Power to the People.  Baby.  Meanwhile, the Khmer Rouge killed their own people wholesale (by a percentage of population killed, the greatest in history).  Included in the genocide lists were students or people with glasses.   They killed any ‘educated’ person.  And those who even looked educated.  So, yes, the hippies supported a movement that would have killed their own worthless selves if given the chance.   Human nature at its worse.  The strong feed on the weak.  And the stupidity of hippies.

THERE ARE BAD guys in the world.  And there’s no denying it.  Human nature is not peaceful.  It is anything but.  Darwinian Theory never played out so fiercely.  The strong feed on the weak.  They seek them out.  Like a predator in the wild, they seek out the weak and maimed and move in for the kill.  You can’t reason with them.  Just like you can’t reason with a bully.  Those who think that we can need to man-up and face facts.  And if you can’t, don’t worry.  We have others that are more than willing to man-up and fight our battles for us.  To keep America strong.  If we let them.

Predators don’t respect weakness.  They respect power.  And power is the only thing that will deter them.  The bad guys have attacked American soil few times.  Because America is powerful.  You mess with the big dog and it’s going to bite you.  And maul you.  So the bad guys don’t mess with the big dog often.  Because they pay dearly when they do.

America has known peace and prosperity like few other people can possibly imagine.  And the reason for that is that we have the biggest and baddest military in the world.  It kept the Soviets at bay in Europe.  It thumped Iraqi’s vaunted million-man army in less than 100 hours of combat.  It then thumped them again with a smaller force.  (That display of power cowed Libya from sponsoring terrorism for fear of that awesome power thumping them next.  And it got the Saudis to do the politically unthinkable – take on Al Qaeda in their kingdom.)  It ran bin Laden deep underground leaving him more impotent than threatening.  It held the line in Korea.  And it won every battle it fought in Vietnam.  (Of course, everything went to hell in a handbasket when we left.  But that’s another story.)

But that kind of power doesn’t come cheap.  And you gotta have the will to use it.  But when you do, you get peace.  An expensive peace, yes.  But peace is always cheaper than war.  Especially when that peace deters war.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,