FT201: “War on women? Seems more like a war on men if you ask me.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 20th, 2013

Fundamental Truth

Today Men smoke Marlboro Cigarettes to connect to that Rugged Cowboy on the Billboards

If you had parents or grandparents who lived through the Great Depression and World War II you’ve probably noticed something about them.  They were a hardy breed.  Especially the men.  Sure, we all know someone who changed the oil in their own car.  But back then it wasn’t uncommon to change the sparkplugs, shock absorbers, exhaust system, brakes, ball joints, etc.  They even bought new tires and put them onto the rims themselves.  As well as fixing everything that needed repair around the house.  From the furnace to the toilet to the garbage disposal to installing a new roof on the house.

And all of this after they got home from work.  Or on the weekend after cutting, edging, fertilizing and watering the grass.  So the grass was lush and green for the kids to play on with Dad.  When he wasn’t teaching them to ride a bike.  How to protect themselves in a fight.  Or helping them with their science project.  Getting so involved that their kids turned in things they knew their teachers must have known they didn’t build themselves.  But that’s how it was back then.  There was nothing too complex or too difficult that Dad couldn’t roll up his sleeves and do.  Sure, there may have been some cuss words.  But that rugged can-do attitude forged in the fires of the Great Depression and World War II provided a feeling of safety and comfort in the home whenever Dad was there.  As Dad was both provider and protector.

Today men smoke Marlboro cigarettes to connect to that rugged cowboy on the billboards.  Back then they were that cowboy.  Tough men who volunteered to fight in World War II.  The last time that this type of American man was the rule and not the exception.  But after the war the size of government grew.  With the least manly men of all, liberals, leading the way.  Bringing out the softer and more feminine side of men.  Men who cry.  And explore their feelings.  Eating quiche instead of steak.  Diluting the manliness in them.  As any form of manliness became a socially undesirable trait.

The Left’s Objectification of Women cause Men to Linger in Adolescence instead of Growing Up and Maturing

It started with the Sexual Revolution.  When we went from a family-centered society to one that viewed the idea of family itself as oppression.  Women were encouraged to be sexual things instead of a wife and mother.  Birth control and abortion made it possible to enjoy the sexual favors of a woman without being in a committed relationship.  So men did.  Using women to satisfy their lust.  And only for that.  Allowing women to go on to build a career.  While men began to degenerate into a state of permanent adolescence.  Being that young man who has but one thought on his mind all of the time.

Exit the cowboy.   And enter the government.  LBJ gave us the Great Society.  And Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).  Giving rise to absentee fathers.  And single mothers raising their children alone in government-built public housing.  For the provider and protector left the household.  As the government stepped in to take over that role.  And did a horrible job.  Destroying inner-city families.  As crime-ridden public housing pushed these fatherless boys into gangs.  And drugs.  Which migrated to and infected their schools like a cancer.  Boys who grew up seeing the new normal.  Women are only for sexual pleasure.  Not marrying and raising a family with.  As their children followed the same path.  Growing up without a father.  With the state being provider and protector.  Poorly, of course.

As men lingered in their adolescence they never fully grew up and matured.  The very people who are responsible for this—the liberal left—blamed men for their brutishness.  Saying it was the natural state of man.  And soon made the very act of responding to the attractiveness of a woman as a form of sexual harassment.  The government provides free birth control and access to abortion so women can be as sexually active as possible.  The left attacks the censors and pushes the boundaries on television and in the movies.  Today broadcast television shows often carry warnings like “Strong Coarse Language” and “Intensely Suggestive Dialogue.”  Sexual imagery bombards us.  For sex sells.  It even sells sex on broadcast television.  Such as the Victoria Secret Fashion Show.  With beautiful models dressed only in underwear strut across the catwalk for one purpose.  To bring attention to their sexual parts that their sexy underwear barely covers.  So they can sell their lingerie to spice up sex in the bedroom.  They do all of this and yet attack men as being primeval and brutish when they make inappropriate comments to women.  Such as “You’re looking lovely today.”

The Archetypical Young Man Today is a bespectacled Man-Boy in a Plaid Pajama Onesie Sipping a Hot Chocolate

It’s a confusing world today.  Women are encouraged to look as beautiful as ever while men aren’t supposed to notice.  Liberals encourage them to explore their sexuality while they condemn men for wanting to enjoy that sexuality.  Pulling them even further away from marriage and family as they turn to the world of online pornography.  Further objectifying the already objectified woman.  But in cyberspace men know their advances won’t be construed as sexual harassment.  Social media even pulls the sexes further apart.  Often the only time they get together is for sex.  The Japanese young are even turning away from sex.  As the cost of living in their nanny state is so great they don’t want to be burdened with the high cost of raising a family.  Not surprisingly, life-like sex robots are a reality now in Japan.  And elsewhere.

The left has been marginalizing the role of men in today’s society.  They get women in as many male roles as possible.  Even in the brutal sport of boxing.  Which exemplifies man’s brutish nature.  But celebrates the advancement of women in a male-dominated society.  Even same-sex marriage further and subtly diminishes the role of man as the head of the household and provider and protector of the family.  By equating the sexes.  A man can have a husband or a wife.  And a woman can have a wife or a husband.  Advancing the idea of the obsolescence of man in traditional male roles.  As President Obama’s Life of Julia showed how the government can be the provider and protector for women from 3 to 67.  And the recent ad to get the young invincibles to sign up for Obamacare.  Showing what the left considers to be the archetypical young man today.  A bespectacled man-boy wearing a plaid pajama onesie while sipping a hot chocolate.  A far cry from the rugged manliness of the Marlboro Man.

Is this the ideal man women want?  Is this the man that can put a new tire on a rim?  Is this the man that can win a world war?  Is this man going to make anyone feel safe and protected?  For when it comes to raising a family who do you want as father?  Bespectacled pajama man-boy?  Or the Marlboro Man?  Paula Cole put this well in a song during the Nineties (see Where have all the cowboys gone).

Where is my John Wayne
Where is my prairie son
Where is my happy ending
Where have all the cowboys gone…

Where is my Marlboro man
Where is his shiny gun
Where is my lonely ranger
Where have all the cowboys gone

And we have a war on women?  Seems more like a war on men if you ask me.  And, sadly, it’s one men are losing.  Sad for both men and women.  And the nation.  As real men are now the exception now and not the rule.

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,