|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...except I'm not really clear on what it is that you think this would be doing to Australian men that hasn't already been done and then some.
Somewhere, and I think it was on this very site, within the past few months I ran across a link to an article which talked about a staggering percentage of thirtysomething Australian men, on the order of about 1 out of 3, had neither jobs nor families and how these men posed a threat to the culture. I did a quick search of the archives and didn't find that particular article, but ran across more than one about how the vast vast majority of the jobs created in Australia over the past few years had gone to women.
This "government wages for motherhood" has been a popular theme with Canadian and Australian feminists for several years. I see a few flies in the ointment, however. If having children suddenly becomes a government job, then the law of supply and demand will kick in eventually. "No thanks, we aren't hiring right now - we have all the children we need." In a country which already has a huge unemployment problem - not nearly enough jobs for those ALREADY born - paying women to breed more brats who will have to be supported by the government is a policy which could change suddenly and without notice. I wonder what a "laid off government mum" does - turn in her kids?
With the workforce swinging toward women anyway, will the government start interviewing for the coveted "stay at home mum" positions and will women start having to submit resumes to get authorization to have children? How will the women who don't get "hired" react? They'll be paying a portion of the tax bill, too.
From my perspective it looks like this - the government is volunteering to take over a job that I have refused all my life to do - support a breeder and her brats. All I have to do is kick in a bit of tax money and the job gets done without me or any of my friends or relatives having to risk jail in order to do it. And, every working woman has to share the tax burden with me, unlike what it would be like if I was doing the job all alone.
So, please explain to me what I am missing here - if I were an Australian male, just what is it that would be being "done" to me?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think neither the orginal poster nor zenpriest really understand the proposal. The govt already pays a large subsidy to women who have kids and dump their partner. This is often over $20,000 per annum. There is no proposal to substantially change this.
As I understand it what is being proposed is a somewhat smaller subsidy to women who have kids and stay with their partner. While this is crazy economics, from the point of view of a man who doesn't want to be excluded from his kids life it is a good thing. Effectively it reduces the incentive for women to dispose of their partner.
In the background is a scare of a few months ago where there were numerous reports etc about how Australian women weren't having enough babies to maintain the population and were instead concentrating on their careers until it was too late. This was variously blamed on last-generation-feminism, consumer-society, commitment-phobic men etc but the (feminist) establishment eventually decided that the problem was that the govt wasn't giving women in high paying jobs enough money for having kids.
cheers,
sd
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess I need to start putting irony and sarcasm alerts at the beginning of my posts.
My point in my often over-the-top devil's advocacy is is to shock people into considering new perspectives other than the one they habitually follow. I really could care less about the details of the Australian proposal, beyond noting that I have been hearing the call from feminists for "government wages for motherhood" for years. As women in the US have often found when out-of-control CPS workers took their children from THEM and not just from the dads, any time one creates a government bureaucracy with too much power it has a way of turning around and biting you. Women are likely to find that the government which they have turned into their substitute husband will turn out to be far more abusive and controlling than any mere human male.
The other point I was trying to make is that dads are being tasked with a huge burden when it is seen as their job to defend the family when every other force in the culture is lined up against them determined to destroy it. The Fathers 4 Justice website claims that 650 families PER DAY are being split up by the court system. With all that firepower lined up against them, even if dads are able to creat 660 new families per day, they are going to make very slow progress.(irony alert)
Within all this, I see what I call the "responsibility transfer" of "stop me before I kill again." If dads don't stop them before they kill again, the death is the dads' fault.
Some of my background involves dealing with addictions and the concepts of "tough love" and "enabling". I see a great deal of men enabling women to escape having to be responsible for their actions and the consequences thereof. I also believe that those who tolerate sick and intolerable behavior are, to that extent, responsible for it. I believe that if men would stop rescuing women and governments from the consequences of their bad judgement, that the pain of those consequences would produce learning that no amount of words ever will.
As far as the falling fertility red herring goes - only the UK has ever sustained its population through birth rate. All of the former colonies created their populations almost entirely through immigration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The govt already pays a large subsidy to women who have kids and dump their partner. This is often over $20,000 per annum.
The article states, "Lucy Sullivan, author of the Menzies Research Centre report, suggests that the mother's salary should be at least equivalent to the welfare payment, which is $11,000 a year, tax free." Do you have a link to support your statement that they payout is "often over $20,000 per annum." Perhaps that number is for women who have more than one child.
As I understand it what is being proposed is a somewhat smaller subsidy to women who have kids and stay with their partner.
The article talks about partners, but makes no mention of requiring that a woman be with a partner in order to receive this government handout. I doubt that would be required. Many young women today, about 75% judging by some reports that I've read, believe that having a child without a husband is a reasonable life choice. I suspect they would believe it even more strongly, if they could count on receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars, to put toward child care or anything else, while they pursue their careers. Again, please supply a link that indicates any sort of requirement that a woman be with a partner to receive this money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This "government wages for motherhood" has been a popular theme with Canadian and Australian feminists for several years.
Anyone, who is a regular visitor to this site, is well aware of that fact. Many of those feminists have been individuals or independent (sometimes quasi-independent) organizations. In this case the report comes from the Menzies Research Centre, a think tank of the Liberal Party. According to the Liberal Party's Website, "In 1996, the Australian people again re-elected the Liberal Party, in Coalition with the National Party of Australia, to govern Australia in a landslide win, and in 1998 and 2001 that government was reelected." The proposals continue to gain legitimacy at the highest levels of government.
if I were an Australian male, just what is it that would be being "done" to me?
You stated "a job that I have refused all my life to do - support a breeder and her brats." This is what will change, and it would be a drastic change. You also stated, "All I have to do is kick in a bit of tax money." Let's take a look at what that "bit" would be. These will be rough numbers. They will also include amounts that are already taken by the government for welfare mothers. I'm writing about costs that would now include increases due to a rise in fertility rates and payouts to all mothers who choose to receive the money, not just those currently on welfare.
Say a fertility rate of 2.5 is achieved. If a mother receives $11,000 per year for five years, that's $55,000 (Australian, of course) per child. The report's author also recommended $4000 a year for primary school children and $6000 for high school children. I'm not sure if primary school is 8 years in Australia and high school 4 years, but, as I say, these will be rough numbers. Eight years at $4000 a year totals $32,000. Four years at $6000 totals $24,000. That's $111,000 per child. For 2.5 children, that's $277,500. (Okay, the author of the report is delusional about how much the government can afford. Or she's being sly and asking for far more than would be possible, so that women can still get a large amount and then claim that they're oppressed because they didn't get what "they deserved.")
Except for infertile women, women will be able to opt into or out of this program. Men will, of course, have no such option. If about a quarter of the women, who choose not to have kids, are too poor to pay for this program, there would be about 75% of that 25% of women also paying for the program, or a little less than 20% of women paying for this. Unemployment and underemployment are high in Australia. Let's figure that a wildly accurate (and easy number to deal with) percentage of men who will have incomes to support this is 75 (25% being too poor). The fertility rate is an average number of children per woman in the country, not per mother. If three-quarters of women have enough children to make an average of 2.5 children per woman in the country, the women who choose to be mothers will have to have an average of four-thirds times 2.5 or 3.33 children each. So, this 75% of men, and about 20% of women who can opt out, would be forced to pay out for 2.5 children per woman in the country or 3.33 children per woman who chooses to be a mother.
So, we end up with a transfer of wealth from 75% of men (and less than 20% of women, most of whom freely choose) to the 75% of women who decide to have kids. The amount that the mothers receive, on average, is $277,500 times four-thirds or $370,000. But the amount that the men, and far fewer women pay is greater, because of the costs of having the government, and possibly some private companies, administer the program. If we figure that administration costs will add an additional 25%, the cost for those paying (mostly men) comes out to about $462,500 per mother. (Again, women would contribute without receiving only if they are infertile or choose not to be on the receiving end.) Even figuring in the women who pay and the fact that it's about 75% of women receiving this amount, paying men would have to fork out, on average, about $350,000 each.
To me that's more than a bit of money.
So, what would change? For men like me, a lot. I, too, have opted out of having children, because I saw decades ago what was coming in this society. While paternity fraud is a terrible crime, it affects about 10% of men (the 25% to 30% number comes from the men who are tested, who, in other words, are more suspicious than the average man. They are a self-selected group and are not representative of the entire propulation. From what I've read, sexologists generally put the number of victims at about 10% of alleged fathers.) In addition, I would have, in many cases, been suspicious of a claim of paternity. I would have been tested and would have fought a false claim. As for the men, who are assigned paternity unjustly through the courts, while it is a horrible crime that should be stopped and punished, it happens to far, far less than half of men.
As for the majority of men who, like me, have chosen successfully to opt out of parenthood, the government would say, forget it. You're paying your $350,000.
So, that is what would change for a great many men. Not only would they lose one of their weapons in the total war that feminists have declared against men and boys -- their ability to say, "No. I'm not playing that game" -- they would have $350,000 taken from them under threat of imprisonment if they attempt not to pay their taxes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While some might be able to quibble with your particular numbers, the overall form of your analysis is impeccable. The greatest weakness to the men's movement so far has been a blindness which has led men to believe that what THEY see as a de facto "good" (or "bad") is equally obvious to everyone else. It is the same blindness which led directly or indirectly to the attack on the World Trade towers on 9/11/03. Something which lies so far outside one's value system, as suicide bombing lies outside the value system of most US citizens, simply becomes impossible to think of or imagine. Thus, when someone does it most people are caught by surprise.
Probably the most frequent accusation and reason for dismissal of the men's/father's rights movement is overemotionalism in their statements. It has seemed that men often wait to react until things have grown so bad for them that they totally lose their cool, then people dismiss what they have to say on that basis alone. It's a pretty fatal catch 22.
People who know me personally expect me to respond to just about any seemingly sensational statement or factoid with "So?" or "So what?". My purpose is to draw out a fuller explanation of what that person sees as the impact and move the discussion from emotionalism to logic.
Frankly, I have been amazed at what Australian men (and US men, and UK men, and NZ men, and most of all Canadian men) have allowed to be done to them in the past 3-4 decades. Was it you that said it was a pretty serious indictment of masculinity? Actually, I think of it as a serious indictment of our MYTHOLOGY of masculinity.
When I first heard about this "wages for motherhood" concept, my first reaction was part emotional and part logical. I wondered if the next step was going to for these women to start demanding that the government start paying them for wiping their own arses. Turning children into widgets that women are then paid to produce is one of the most offensive things I have ever heard of, on several levels. And, I also consider it one of the most dangerous because it puts government in direct control of the production of widget-children and turns all concepts related to reproductive rights and freedoms into mockeries.
I have always viewed having children (or not) as something one did because one wanted to (or not.) In my own personal experience it has been women far more than the men who have wanted to bring a new brat or two (or 5) into the world.
Like all such government give-away programs, this one will come down hard on the working middle-class. Without an incredibly convoluted tax-structure which would tax everyone differently depending on their parental status, married men and women would be bearing their proportional share of the tax burden along with single men and women.
Going back to my point about people's value systems blinding them and being unable to comprehend why things they see as a self-obvious defacto "good" do not appear the same to everyone else -- no better example exists than the issue of abortion. If fertility is enough of a concern to consider paying women to raise their own children, why not also pay them to not kill them? Taking this a step further toward absurdity - since children are already widgets the woman is being paid to produce anyway, why not just set the price of a child at $55,000 outright, and allow those who want children to purchase them on the open market at this price? (extreme irony alert)
Coming at it from the other direction, given the severe unemployment and underemployment problems in Australia already, every child born today represents a potential liability to the government of $11,000/year - perhaps for life. In order to indemnify the government against potential future costs, it could require an indemnity bond of $198,000 by any parent wishing to have a child, to cover the costs of that child to age 18, plus parental malpractice insurance which would cover any additional costs incurred should that child be unable to find employment and require additional social services - including incarceration.
The pure economics of the situation trouble me less than the whole conceptual model, which I find repugnant beyond words. Having and rearing children is like garbage collection - someone has to do it in order to maintain civiliation as we know it. Turning it into a job like garbage collection, and children into a commodity like garbage which people are paid to handle, is a fundamental devaluation of life on par with the WTC suicide bombers and the millions of abortions performed every year. But so, for that matter, are many of the forms of fertility enhancement used to conceive children these days.
It seriously disturbs me to see human beings discussed purely in terms of economic value. Danielle Crittendon's (sp?) "The Mommy Tax" out Material Girled Madonna in casting one of the most significant experiences of life purely in monetary terms.
I see the concept as being far more injurious to women in the long run than it would be to men. Fathers already clearly have no rights at all in most of the English speaking countries. On Men's News Daily right now there is an article entitled "Fathers must fight gay marriage" which makes the argument that "NON-BIOLOGICAL THIRD PARTIES WILL BE GIVEN THE SAME "FUNDAMENTAL PARENTAL RIGHTS" AS BIOLOGICAL PARENTS!"
If one digs down to find the root of the motherhood mystique, why it is held in such high regard, I think it generally revolves around dedication and sacrifice. "She carried me, she cared for me...." BECAUSE SHE WANTED TO. Turn women into goverment salaried childcare workers, and they become foster parents in their own home. The martyr's mantle of "I'm a single mom" with all its connotations of self-sacrifice and dedication, working AND taking care of kids, is supplanted by the image of welfare queen.
Fifteen years down the line, when her fatherless son is beginning to get into his rebellious "break the apron strings" mode, she says "I'm your MOTHER", he comes back with "SO WHAT? The government paid you to do everything you ever did for me."
One seldom sees major news stories about parmedics or firemen rescuing someone, because that is their JOB. But, let one non-professional person risk his life and injury heroically saving someone and it will be in the papers for days. Devaluation of motherhood to a government job turns women into interchangable childcare workers. If her lesbian now-wife can have as strong a "bond" with her child as the biological father, and she has been paid to take care of that child, nothing says that same lesbian lover (or wife) cannot be said to have more of a bond with the child than the mother herself.
Now, why in the world Australians keep electing these idiots and putting them into power is quite beyond me. But, the politics here in the US is becoming no less strange and quickly catching up to Canada. And, elect them and put them in power they do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the response, zenpriest. I agree that, if these policies are implemented, they will whip around in time and bite women's asses far more viciously than men's.
While some might be able to quibble with your particular numbers
No doubt, I can see problems with the examination, but, as you seem to realize, it was a quick, back-of-the-envelope, order of magnitude analysis.
These practices would lead to a devaluation of motherhood. Also, in times of crisis, what would prevent the government from choosing not only the mothers, based on their genes, but also the fathers. Considering the cost of in vitro fertilization, the government might require sex as the basis for fertilization after choosing the couples. Is this unthinkable? Well, if I had to choose being drafted to fight, suffer, and possibly die in a war in which I didn't believe, and having sex with an attractive woman (remember, the couples would be chosen based on genes and would probably be relatively attractive compared to the norm), I'd choose having sex. The claim that it would take away a woman's control of her body would be weak at best given the taking control of men's bodies to force them to fight wars.
The government can have programs that aren't necessarily insidious. I've collected unemployment after being laid off and while looking for another job in my field, and the process was pretty straightforward and worthwhile. However, something as critical as choosing the next generation might not be administered in quite so easy going a fashion.
These proposals are a Pandora's box for both men and women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday November 24, @08:44PM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
It's intresting what you say about Canada. Recently in 2001 or 2002 they implemented parental leave that is available through employment insurance for either parent of the child. Nine months is available to either parent and three months is still only available to the mother. This leave requires a certain amount of time working and a certain amount of money to be put into the employment insurance fund before you can collect it.
Here is the intresting part, recently a group in Ontario have challenged in court the parental leave as being discrimanatory towards women. Their logic is that more men are eligible to collect it as more men work and put money into employment insurance. Less women work and less women work the hours needed to be eligible. So basically they want to turn it into a free money fund for women having babies. Which we already have in Canada through various programs like child support, welfare, and the child tax credit. It amazes me how greedy women can be and what lengths they will go to get money without working.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is can be good news for Australian males. To ignore the economic side of having children is ridiculous, in agricultural societies children are assets,(there is no shortage of them), in industrial ones are liabilities,as agricultural societies become intrustialized fertility rates drop, from having 5-6 children per woman to just 1-2, western goverments have reacted by taking more and more share of that economic burden, depending on countries: public schools, free kindergardens, tax incentives, public health services, etc.
But they are still a liability, a burden, however that was not a problem as children are the way women get males to support them, but one or two will do, so thats what they have them,and thats why they have just one or two in average, having sex with a man does not guarantee his financial support, that woman would be a temporal worker, but having a child with him would change her status to a permanent-resident worker.
On the other hand women traditional role has become obsolete, having to rise one child or two, and doing the nowadays almost completly automated house tasks does not overweights the traditional role of men, (the labor of males among other duties as military duties fos example), so females must now do their share too, work to eat, work to pay a house, work to have a retirement pension, etc, etc, etc.
That means women can not live at the expense of men anymore, thus having children does not gurantee a financial support, but a burden, as long as the state has not taken on all the costs of child rearing.
There is where we are now, at this point, so there are two ways to rise fertility rates:
The state force people to have children or the state incentive people to have them.
But there is one alternative more a mix between the former two, wich consists on leaving the right to decide to have or not to have children only to half of the population, (women), and forcing the other half to pay them for having children, marriage or its modern substitute child support, (slave labor).
To make as many as posible of the paying people contribute voluntarely, ("marriage" or the facto marriage), anything is valid, from sexual repression, that is trying to make any sex that does not leads to "marriage" dificult or forbiden, (prostitution, pornography, casual sex, any of non "commited" sexual relationships, commited to voluntarely slavery), to media propaganda promoting the traditional role of men in a society where is an insult to mention that women should be expected to fullfil their traditional role.
Nor goverment is generous, so it will only pay the minimum necessary to have enough children, no 1€ more, ofcourse men should have the same choices, they dont have them right now but they will have them, ( for instance, single men can now adopt children, not many years ago that was not allowed,surrogate wombs, etc), but this is the right direction to free men.
If we need doctors, so instead of forcing every one to become a doctor one hour a day wiithout pay, just let the ones that have vocation to do it fulltime and make a living from it, in the case of children rather than forcing a couple that has one child and dislikes the idea of having more to add anotherone to their lives, help the other couple that love children and allready have two but would like to have one more but can not allow it to happen, becouse thay can not afford.
I live in Southern Europe,(Spain), and things are more or less like this, beeing a welfare country, (not an slavery based country, read feminist society), before the collapse of marriage has help a lot,(1) concepts like minimum income, (renta vital), has made imposible for the goverment to try to force men to support woman, if men dont work they have what is called a social wage that is considered the minimum amount of money necessary to live, so if men do not voluntarely support woman, that is they dont marriage or they divorce, there is very litle the goverment can take form men wages, if they take too much they just stop working, double problem for the govement, no more taxes collected from male workers and another unemployed worker under the state subdsidy, furthermore ther are still a woman to support, so the approach here is completly different, they know that with one wage there is no way to suppor two homes, rent, electricity bills , gas bills, telephone, food, etc.
So there has been, and there are massive programs to make women work, even jobs that are not efficient and partly paids by the goverment, but the message is very clear, the only people that has the right to live without work are the sick and the disable, no social parasites are going to be allowed, so one can see a lot of female garbage collectors, (in fact most of them are women), or as gardeners in the streets, no excuses, if they are uneducated for the labor market becouse they have been housewives and can not find a job the former jobs will suits them, they give incentives to hire females in traditional male jobs, as in the construction sector, (ofcourse that means more female death related to dangerous jobs). THERE IS NO WAY, I REPEAT, NO WAY, we are going to live i a society where 50 % of its population lives parasitically at the expense of the other half.
How all those things affect family incentives?, well the goverment will pay single mothers, (normally are mothers but can be fathers too), as long as they keep working, the idea is to make having children less finacially troublesome, not to create a vast group of social parasites, that not only have children and do not work to support them but that also lives at the expenses of the rest of society, they will finance public or free daycare centers, but no way paying women to stay at home, that is absurd, as it is wanting to be paid for washing your stuff, if you want to be paid for washing get a job in a laundry, if you want to be paid to care of children go work in a kindregarden, but not expect that others pay you to take care of your children or wash your suits, besides for 2.1 children or so to take care it would be economical madness to allow half of the adult population to dodge the labor market, aboveall for the remaining half, men.
If a single mother stop working, (or couple), she has a very big chance to have her children removed and place in what is called temporary adoptive family, and after two years lost custody this time once and for all, placing those chldren with other family members, father, aunt, grandparents, preferably, the point is children are not property of woman, if they can be taken from men as it has been done sistematically can be taken from women too,no exception, and by no means children are going to be used as a way to parasite other workers, as long as she does properly care of the child she can keep the custody of him/her.
Sumarizing the fact that the goverment pays people to have children, (even if at the beguining are just women), instead to forcing them, the fact that the goverment assumes almost all costs of rising children removes the argument of children as an excuse to demand men to accept that women live at their expense, and makes redundant all social pressures to make men accept their traditional role in society where women traditional role is obsolete, becouse it does not compensate male traditional sacrifices, in addition that women are not required to fullfil that anymore, that is no pressure to force men to accept slavery.
besides paying taxes is less humilliating than being forced or coerced to marry or stayed married, and is not outright slave labor, (been forced to work wihout salary for the benefit of another indivdual), as marriage or its substitute child support, is better to finance child rising trhought taxes, wich are more general in the way they are collected and on the people and isntitutions from wich they are taken, and will never allow any women to become rich for having a child, ( child support from a rich male, read very productive slave, will do, the maximum child support a man has payed here was 6000€ a month, no more for the owner of on of tenth bigest oil company of the world, Repsol, the rest penauts or nothing as it should be by the way), if taxes are too high just work less, Laffer will do the rest, besides as i said no goverment is generous so they will just pay the minimum, and i repeat would be a matter of time that men wil be allowed the same reprouctive and custody choices-rights.
So the cuestion is that; What do you prefer that the goverment pays people to have children or that force them against ther will?, (in feminist societies that would translate into forcing men to individually pay women to use their sperm to have children, forcing them into slave labor, making having children a disgrace for half of the population men).
PS: SORRY FOR THE BAD ENGLISH, I AM AMAZED HOW DISGUSTING THINGS ARE FOR MEN IN ANGLOSAXON COUNTRIES, IN OTHER WESTER NATIONS WOMEN HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS THAN MEN BUT NO YET THE SAME RESPONSABILITIES, AND MEN LACK SOME BASIC RIGHTS REGARDING REPRODUCTION, BUT THINGS ARE NOT EVEN THE SHADOW OF WHAT IT IS OVERTHERE, AND IT IS CHANGING FOR THE BETTER, READ EQUAL RIGHTS EQUAL RESPONSABILITIES NO THE OTHER WAY ROUND, BUT WHAT I READ HERE IS SCARY.
SALUDOS A TODOS!!
(1) In countries where children financial burden depend almost on their parents there are more reluctance from their goverments to assume that they must cope with them now,or be happy whith their plummeting birth rate, (as women must work as they will no be supported by men anymore then children becoming a liabity for women now), but they have chosen the evil way, rather than forcing people,(men and women), to have children that would no be politically possible, they just removed any right from half of the population regarding repruduction and rising children,(custody), and force them into salve labor for the benefit of the other half, that will be granted the friuts of the slave labor as long as they have children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello Break,
Thank you for your wonderful post. You provide a lot of information about how this problem is dealt with in Spain.
This is an aside from the main topic of discussion: In what part of Spain do you live? I've been to Spain twice, and I think it is one of the most wonderful nations on earth. Physically, geographically, it is spectacular -- wild mountains and canyons, beautifully preserved ancient cities. Not to mention the fabulous food and wine! And I find Spanish women to be among the most captivating in the world. One thing that's struck me, when I've been there, is the curve and slant of wrinkles on the faces of older people. In the US, those wrinkles often point to the side or down, like frown-lines (I'm serious. I've really noted this.) In Spain, the wrinkles sweep upward. They're laugh-lines, or at least they appear to be. They add a great deal of allure to the older women. (And perhaps to the older men, for those who are so inclined.)
Anyway, you live in a wonderful nation. Again, if you don't mind saying, in what part of Spain do you live?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello Thomas, glad to know you liked it, well i live in Valencia, in a valley close to the sea, i dont konw exactly why but women attitude are different than in Anglo-Saxon countries, may be is becouse we did not have a victorian values or an equivalent, than among other things considered women to be pure and inocent, i mean even the paternal grandparents can not be deprive from seeing their grandchildren if the mother does not want to risk losing custody of them.
Here single men that have children only have responsabilities regarding them as long as they voluntarely place their family names on them, but that is not enough, to have sex two persons must agree otherwise is rape, well having children is more important, and ofcourse both must give thier consent, so now that women are allowed to have childrten without getting married they should at least get written consent, as they have when they go to a sperm bank, if not that should be treated as rape, the child so fraudulentally obtained, given to the father or place into adoption, and the woman been fined, so they will know that men are not chattel they can use whenever they want to have children, years ago the consent was given by marriage, know that marriage is dissapearing an other form of formal consent should appear.
It amaze me that here i talk about the right of men of not beeing forced to have a child when he does not want whith he doesent desires, when in America you are talking about not beeing forced to support a child the man didnt wanted to have in first place,regarding custody all boys goes with their fathers once they are 7 years old, if they are girls it will depends, ofcourse if you are single father and you didnt put your family name on the boy no custody ofcourse.
But for me this is not the point, is not not being forced to pay for a child you dindt want to have in in the first time,(by the way no custody no support that should be the norm), is just not allowing people, (women), to make other people to have children without thier consent.
Anyhow interesting to see how different roads are taking things western countries, hello again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the response, Break. I've never been to the Valencia area, but friends of mine, who've been there, say it's beautiful.
i dont konw exactly why but women attitude are different than in Anglo-Saxon countries, may be is becouse we did not have a victorian values or an equivalent, than among other things considered women to be pure and inocent
I suspect you've got a good point there. In addition, a lot of the extreme hatefulness and lunacy has come from the US and I've suspected for a long time that one of the fundamental aspects of contemporary feminism is a newly twisted rebirth of Puritanism -- the "all heterosexual sex that isn't initiated by the woman is rape" attitude.
Anyhow interesting to see how different roads are taking things western countries
It's good to hear that things are going down a different road in Spain than in the Anglo-Saxon nations. You give me additional reason for going back to your wonderful nation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Break -
"i dont konw exactly why but women attitude are different than in Anglo-Saxon countries, may be is becouse we did not have a victorian values or an equivalent, than among other things considered women to be pure and inocent
Thomas -
"I suspect you've got a good point there. In addition, a lot of the extreme hatefulness and lunacy has come from the US and I've suspected for a long time that one of the fundamental aspects of contemporary feminism is a newly twisted rebirth of Puritanism -- the "all heterosexual sex that isn't initiated by the woman is rape" attitude."
That is the way it has looked to me for a long time, and a huge source of frustration for me that it seemed no one else could see it and put 2 and 2 together. Fighting against the Minneapolis anti-porn ordinance back in the mid-80s meant having to deal with labels of "pervert" and worse, but when the religious right got in bed with Dworkin and McKinnon my guts told me that men were in for a world of hurt if they didn't stop it.
How I long for the good old days when sex was merely shameful and not criminal.
Women have been playing exactly the same game with sex that they have with violence (from the other really active thread) - actively participating while disclaiming ANY and ALL responsibility. They dress up sex with flower petals and call it ROmance, and they get to enjoy all the goodies while men take the fall and the blame for it. The double standard WRT to female molesters of boys is talked about all the time here.
I think that when the sexual revolution came along that some people instictively realized that women were throwing away a large part of their power base - the ability to withhold sex and use it as a bargaining chip in exchange for what they wanted from men: attention, marriage, committment, child support. "Sexual Harassment" is nothing more than contemporary sexual behavior viewed through the revisionist lens of Victorian morality. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the women of Tailhook were willing and enthusiastice recipients of all the attention they were getting (coin of the realm of female power) THAT NIGHT, and suddenly victims in the colder, more sober, light of morning. Anita Hill knew full well that her bosses interest in and fondness toward her allowed her to pull into the passing lane and zoom her mediocre academic credentials past any number of harder-working more qualified men, and then played the oh-so-sensitive diva traumatized for life by the words "pubic hair."
Several times I have suggested the slogan for the "men's movement" (if such a thing ever comes to exist) should be "You can't have it BOTH WAYS, BABY!!! Women shouldn't be denied the chance to be president because of "old fashioned" ideas of how emotionally unstable they are, BUT should be given the right to kill her husband or all 5 of her kids based on that same excuse. Andrea Yates, or Clara Harris, with her finger on the trigger of the nuclear arsenal - mmm, don't that make you sleep well at night? (sarcasm alert)
My comparison of men's situation today with Vietnam was not hyperbole or rhetoric. That seemingly innocent villager walking along could in one second chuck a grenade in your lap and be gone by the time it blew you in 5 directions at once. Not having the money or fame of Kobe Bryant makes us less likely targets of some woman who is mentally ill, prospecting for gold, or just holding a grudge - but we are no less vulnerable. Just the other day I heard someone on the radio use the phrase about a guy "getting lucky" - which nowadays means he didn't get charged with rape.
"The sex stunk, but hey, at least I'm not going to prison for it."
How and why in the world women have been able to hang on to the old feminine mystique in light of their actual behavior is beyond me - the whole "fairer sex" nonsense, the "women don't lie" LIE, yadda, yadda, yadda - but I know that men have a huge complicity in the fact that they have. It is so strange to see a man quake in fear that he might be called a bad name - "misogynist."
I know it's gotta be hard for the women supporters here like crescentluna and Jen listen to guys spew and rant about women, but I've been on women for YEARS to get actively involved in stopping the spread of this insanity before it reaches the point that every man has no choice but to treat every woman as a potential abuser or false accuser just as women have been encouraged to treat every man as a potential rapist. Women's silence over the past 4 decades amounts to complicity and approval - evil HAS triumphed because good women have done nothing.
I have a relationship with a woman who lives in northern Europe. Like Break, she is astonished at the state of relations between men and women here. I believe a large part of that is due to the difficulty men have had in talking about the issues - specifically and especially when it comes to criticizing women in the same blanket manner that women criticize men.
I really don't have any heartburn if Australian women want to sell out motherhood for 11,000 pieces of silver per year. I believe that by doing so that they will completely throw away the last vestige of their power base. They will become just another government-employed child-care provider, and invite Child Protective Services into their homes so that snot-nosed social services graduates - who have never even successfully cared for a puppy and whose diplomas are still drying - can tell them how to raise their children and evaluate them on the job they are doing.
Just as sex that one pays for, and the women who provide it, are held in far less esteem than those who supposedly do it voluntarily out of "love", mothering that one pays for and the women who provide it will soon come to be regarded as "prosti-mums."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"prosti-mums."
You may have coined a new and powerful word.
The general evolution of complex words (I'm forgetting what the correct term is) is to go from two words, to a hyphenated word, to one word (the electronic mail to e-mail to email or Web site to Web-site to Website sort of thing). I suggest, with no claim to the term (it's yours), that you just jump ahead and call them "prostimums."
All the best, my friend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"How I long for the good old days when sex was merely shameful and not criminal."
You see that is another difference, sex here is not shameful or stigmatized,just fun or a annoying necessity sometimes, one of the results of that is legal and cheap professional sex, for as litle as 20€ one can get laid, one can use it or not, but the fact that one can have sex whenever he/she wants with beautiful and young women,(locals and from everywhere), that leaves litle room for trying to use sex to bargain for something, so when dating women, sex is nothing they can use to manipulate a man, all they way round, women enjoy sex much more than men, when we are bored tehy still want more, sexual desire of men is only strong when they have very litle or nothing,passed that point becomes almost annoying. One can notice the difference also in politics, nobody cares about the sexual lives of politicians, if they are maried, dicorced, have a mistress, or whatever, we mind if they use public money for personal profit.
It is important to use the proper words, death is not life, white is the name of a color not a fruit, a sperm donnor is not a father, submisive slavery is not a responsible fatherhood, being used as slave labor for the benefit of the person that has used your sperm to have a child is not fatherhood, and finally marriage is not what we call "marriage" in the west.
About marriage; i am tired of listlening people using this word when they mean something different, one can use the word freedom to refer to slavery but this absurd, there is a word and it is slavery so the only purpose of this is confusing people.
Marriage is a traditional contract that exist in traditional societies,(existed in the west, when the west was traditional-agricultural society), a contract that forces women to serve and obey men in return to be provided for them ,(food and shelter), you americans no even have a clue of what it is becouse changes have been taking place very slowly, but in my country all those changes happened suddenly, before 1978:
*The legal status of women were the same as children, no right to have properties, bank accounts, travel without father or husband permision, no even passport were allowed to hold only men and wives were included there, (Libro de Familia), even when giving birth was known to be a sure death for the mother, the law said the child life was more important than the one of the mother, catholic church told women to obey and serve their men, besides of the "debito conyugal", that is be ready for sex whenever the husband demanded, and ofcourse divorce ilegal.
*Women did not work, so all women wanted to get married, they need a man to support them, for man getting married was very convenient, the result, all people was married, even gays, no singles, no divorce, but ................................ after this year, 1978, the laws were changed, giving the same staus to women than men, only an idiot, i repeat a complete idiot could thing that that was not going to affect marriage rates, lets see how:
1) Women were allowed to join the labor market, and divorce was allowed, so women did not need to get married or satayed married to survive, thus less marriages and more divorces, just cristal clear. first torpedoo on the marriage ship.
2)All responsabilities women had regarding marriage, obey and serve their husbands, satisfy their sexual needs, etc, not legally enforced anymore, but ............ all the rights maintained, men expected to provide for their wives, nuclear nuke on the boat, marriage that day ceased to exist, is just a contrat that allows one person to live at the expense of another for nothing, well this IS NOT MARRIAGE, AND THERE IS A WORD FOR THIS IS CALLED SLAVERY.
What you have in the states and is called marriage is just an contract that gives the right to a person to exploit another, to steal his assets, his retirement, to force him to work to support children the other will want to have, using his sperm or the one of the letterman, so when people support "marriage" they are supporting sheer slavery, commitment they say, commited to what?, slavery, at least call it feminist marriage.
Today if a western man wants to get married he can not, becouse IT DOES NOT EXIST, the only posibility is selling your assets and go to live in a traditional country, go to Morocco for example, i am no pro marriage but i respect it, however i will never respect slavery, much less if i am supposed to be the slave.
So how things have changed so fast nobody here is surprised that the "marriage" rate has plummeted and that there are more divorces than "marriages" nowadays, becouse they know at least that marriage is not the same as it was, that also the circumstances have changed, (introduction of women in the labor market), the smarts know that SIMPLY MARRIAGE HAS CEASED TO EXIST.
So no one in the west can get married becouse is ilegal, it dosent exist, is not important if one wants or not, just is impossible, so when men support marriage, what are really supporting?, changing the legal status of women to that of children?, no even dream about it, so what?, they just want men to perform duties for free, that is slavery, they call themselves traditionalists, MEGA LOL!!, conservatives?, yeah!!, the only thing they want to conserve are the traditional role of men while the correspondent one of women does not exist at all, those are worst than feminist the lowest of the low.
"Just as sex that one pays for, and the women who provide it, are held in far less esteem than those who supposedly do it voluntarily out of "love", mothering that one pays for and the women who provide it will soon come to be regarded as "prosti-mums."
Women allways have beeing paid to have children, they had them and in return men supported them, men wanted children becouse they were wealth, the retirment of the elderly, Children were expected to supoort their fathers, the sick pay of the workers, help to work in the farm, they started to work as soon as 7 years old, etc.
Now men work, and women must work too, as they dont have to serve men anymore, (and it would be a scam, too litle work does not deserve being supported, automated house tasks, microwaves, washingmachines, refrigerators, and so on), so who is going to pay women to have children?, Are women going to have children for free?, thats is having them and not expecting anyone to support the children, may be some women will have one just for the experience and only if they can afford it and is not going to be very expensive, well this is not enough to support the demographics
So they can pay people to have children or they can force men to pay women to have children, but this should be voluntarely at least for the majority, ("marriage" voluntarely slavery), and only just use violence and coercitives methods on the remaining minority, (child support, involuntarely slavery), as is the only way it can work, and work best, voluntary slaves are much more profitable and productives, from a share of an average man wage is impossible to maintain two homes, but if he allows the master-parasite to live in is house, (will be her house), it is possible.
For attaining this the goverment will use any distorted values,(false family values), any mean to make men pay women to have children, sexual repression, propaganda on the films, radio, press, etc, showing men paying women voluntarely, (married), and pretending they are very happy doing this, so they will not just force men to pay but will expect them that they pretend they are really happy doing it, pretending slavery is their mission in lve, living a life of lies from the cradle to the grave, being exploited and pretending they are not, being miserable and and pretending they are happy, not only being exploited economically but with no social life, crontroled by women, no sexual life, etc, etc.
So no prostimum just profesional mums, as they ever have been, i rather pay taxes so goverment can rise the fertility rate than being forced to live a lie, to be forced to have children i dont want, and smile and pretend i am very happy so next generation of losers will buy in this shit.
By the way now they are paying women already, women get paid to have children, wether you call it "husband" or "child support", and men are taxed to have children, "Child support" or "wife", so men pay to have children women get paid to have them, better everyone pay to have children, TAXES, no one is coerced to have children that doesn´t want to have, from that point we can discuss how much must be paid, how it should be paid, (ie, money or food stamps), and later who can apply for that, Just women?, men too?, but this would be a turning point.
My two cents!!
take care you all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"From my perspective it looks like this - the government is volunteering to take over a job that I have refused all my life to do - support a breeder and her brats .......
.. They'll be paying a portion of the tax bill, too."
Right on target!!
With child support all is paid by men and more than the real cost of rising a child,(disguised alimony), however that way half of the money paid to them, (more or less), will be their own money, taken from them through taxes, (ie V.A.T 16% and 25% average in Europe),On the other hand goverments will pay barely the real cost, besides the means to enforce and collect taxes are not comparable to the ones are used for child support.
If they get paid for having children there is no ground to ask for "support" from non custodial "parents", (gamete providres), a man could argue that if he is supposed to take financial responsability of his children, they should first give him custody and ofcourse pay him what the mother was beeing paid, so financial bullshit, zero, nada, it will be tough for women to keep on living on men
so is good news for men, afterwards men could demand that men get paid too, that men should have the same opportunity as women even if most of them reject the idea, but anyhow it would be a big step towards freing men from their traditional role.
Good Points!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
however that way half of the money paid to them (the women receiving the government funds), (more or less), will be their own money, taken from them through taxes
It would probably be far less than half. Women in general work much less than men (even those without children), earn correspondingly less, and pay correspondingly less in taxes. The purpose of this recommendation is to have a large transfer of wealth to mothers not to parents. As I wrote above, my analysis was a quick, back of the envelope, order of magnitude analysis. My guess is that if this proposal were implemented there would be on average a net transfer on the order of $100,000 from every man to every woman.
If they (the mothers) get paid for having children there is no ground to ask for "support" from non custodial "parents"
That doesn't mean it wouldn't be done. I don't know how things work in Spain, but fairness to men is not the strong suit of Anglo-Saxon societies and governments.
a man could argue that if he is supposed to take financial responsability of his children, they should first give him custody
Men do argue that. Actually, in a great many cases they don't even argue for that much. They argue for the right just to see their children while they are paying child support, and they are consistently ignored. Men could argue that since the number of men, who die from prostate cancer, is roughly equal to the number of women, who die from breast cancer, research into the two diseases should be equally funded. In fact, many men have made this argument, yet breast cancer research funds from the government remain at 4 to 5 times the level of funding for prostate cancer research.
Neither the practices of the government over the last several decades nor the wording of this proposal (judging by this report) portend any fair treatment for men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Neither the practices of the government over the last several decades nor the wording of this proposal (judging by this report) portend any fair treatment for men."
Aw, c'mon, Thomas, I bet you're losing faith in the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, and sand de claws, too.
So, good old Oz is headed at full speed down that dead-end road to nowhere called "from each according to ability, to each according to NEED." With the corpse of marriage struggling to draw a few labored last breaths, the government has decided to bet it to a prompt death and put everyone out of its misery and into the misery of a collectivist state.
Still, I'm unable to summon up a sense of dread about the deal, perhaps because I have seen wealth transfers many times that between a man and a woman and her lawyers. In fact, cutting lawyers out of the pot is an attractive enough feature that I might be inclined to support it on that basis alone. (sick humor, not quite irony or saracasm, but something.)
While I've never considered politicians to be a particularly bright class of people(the world really is run by C students),in a country already troubled by low employment this plan would seem to remove what little incentive remains to find a job. Plus, at the level of social values it would destroy what little is left of the social pressure on men to marry and be breadwinners. If the population as a whole knows that women are going to be taken care of when they have babies, no one will see it as their personal responsibility. Here in the US they turn handsprings every time the rate of out-of-wedlock births in the black community drops below 70%.
I already pay in the neighborhood of 40% of my income to transfer wealth to a lot of minority women, pay for the war in Iraq, and sundry other functions of expanded government. Men who are not employed, of course pay nothing. What they have discovered here in the US is that going to jail is a lot like losing one's virginity - after the first time, it means a whole lot less. The threat of prison is a bit effective against the largely law-abiding middle class, but so many innocent men have been turned into criminals that we don't have enough prisons to house them all and convicted murderers are being released. Use the threat once, and it loses all its punch.
I agree that Australian men would be complete idiots to let this happen, but as I keep saying I think it would hurt women a lot more than it would end up hurting men - particularly the way things have been going for men the past several years. I really don't see it as being men's job any more to keep protecting women from their own bad judgement and choices. All honor is gone from the protector provider role and, as many men's advocates have pointed out, men are dying early from trying to live up to it.
For comparison sake, let's say that I was the same age as Ms now-I-don't-like-the-choice-I-made-and-don't-want- a-career-ANYMORE -- I'm going to pick 32 for some easy math. There is talk in the US, due to longer lifespans and better health, of raising the age of retirement to 67. That would give me exactly 35 more years in the workforce. Dividing that $100,000 by 35, it would cost me $2,857.14/year. And, that is PRE-tax income. It would reduce my take home pay by $1,714.28. My car insurance costs me more than 1.5 times that. My grocery and household items bill runs $300-$400/month. I'll take the low side just for the heck of it. Those costs have no economy of scale - twice as much food costs twice as much, I know that toilet paper use would more than double, water etc. the same. If I were to take on cupcake as her protector provider, bought her a dirtball vehicle, and refused to let her buy makeup, new clothes, or any addictive items, I could probably get by for about $6,000 to $7,000 per year. I'll take the higher figure because I lowballed the others. That gives me a net savings under the plan of $5,285.72 - give or take. Times 35 years, that works out to a net savings of about $185,000. In addition, I would get 35 years of not having to listen to bitching, whining, complaining, and constant put-downs. That by itself might be worth $185,000.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I were to take on cupcake as her protector provider, bought her a dirtball vehicle, and refused to let her buy makeup, new clothes, or any addictive items, I could probably get by for about $6,000 to $7,000 per year.
I have chosen not to do this, or anything like it. One of my major objections to the Mezies proposal is that a man would no longer be able to opt out. For men like me, the Menzies proposal would represent a net loss of about $100,000, not a savings. Considering how little many men have saved for their retirement, that would be a significant loss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"One of my major objections to the Mezies proposal is that a man would no longer be able to opt out. For men like me, the Menzies proposal would represent a net loss of about $100,000, not a savings."
That makes a pretty good punch line to end the thread upon - it seems to be wearing out anyway. I do agree with you, BTW. I also have steadfastly refused to allow a woman looking for a meal ticket to get her hooks into me, and it seems like I have met no other kind of woman so far. What really makes me wonder is why women aren't screaming their heads off about this, unless most agree with it. However, the passivity with which most men in the English speaking countries have accepted the assassination of their characters and creeping enslavement makes me wonder just as much about them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That makes a pretty good punch line to end the thread upon - it seems to be wearing out anyway.
The thread does seem to be wearing out. It's been a pleasure discussing this with you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"It's been a pleasure discussing this with you."
ditto.
One of my greatest frustrations over the years, which has led to me take a long hiatus from time to time, has been in getting men to articulate the issues instead of just trying to resort to the same sort of emotionalism that the feminidiots have used. Hysteria and crying work for women, but they don't work for men. The "rescue reflex" only kicks in when wimminsanchillun are concerned - wimmins don't have the reflex to rescue men, children certainly don't, and most other men are so busy trying to survive that they tend to view another man as an inherent competitor and in the deepest recesses of their inner minds they don't mind seeing him go down.
Men are up against such a body of feminidiotic "theory" - all of which is passive and victim oriented (which by itself explains why women can't see that they have power) that bringing it down will be like bringing down the Berlin wall - a lot of men are going to have to get out there with sledgehammers and just start chipping away at it.
Thanks for engaging me in dialogue that has allowed us both to make some valuable points.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's good to find someone else here giving the painfully politically correct their daily dose of "Boot to the Head."
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article is not clear. In many places it says the payments go to the mother and then it says:
"the Government should provide a home carer's allowance to all families during the child's first five years," (which makes sense to offset one person leaving paid employment)
but then goes on to say:
" ensuring maternal nurturing and easing the financial blow of one partner leaving work." (which doesn't make sense unless they plan to enforce that only the mother stays home to care for the kids)
and the last phrase makes even less sense when it says:
"would allow mothers to stay at home and supplement the family income, or return to work and pay for child care". (if the money goes to childcare how does that ensure maternal nurturing?)
In short, either the proposal is all screwed up or the reporter is.
A better plan would be a child care tax credit to all families AND a payment into a retirement account (or similar incentive) for all stay at-home caregivers not earning a salary.
This is a tricky subject but it is really TWO subjects:
If the goal is to get more children, then clearly some incentives need to be given to both parents to procreate.
If the goal is to have more parents stay home and nurture their children instead of place them in childcare ... then incentives need to be devised for the one parent (whichever) who has the most to lose in financial security when opting out of the paid workforce. In past times that was clearly almost always the mother ... but not so today ... and proposals should reflect that change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are a lot of tax reduction options that could be explored to encourage the traditional "one working parent/one stay at home parent" household, but considering that the forces behind this proposal are liberal I highly doubt that's the goal. Liberals tend not to be too worried about supporting the traditional family, too many fringe and special interest groups to woo.
In order to have taxes reduced, SOMEONE needs to be making enough money to have to pay them. That means that single parents would not benefit from such tax relief. I believe the goal of such a program (based on it's framers) would be to enable single parents (primarily mothers) to stay at home with their children and be payed by the rest of us to do so, that means tax credits are out. In fact, welfare currently fits much of the definition of what they're proposing (at least for the poor)... IMO they just want to sugar coat the reality, turn into a "job" instead of "sponging off your fellow citizens". For those who aren't poor, all this would do is allow them to keep the benz, boat, and big mortgage payment instead of having to make a sacrifice to have children (my wife is a stay at home parent... we know what that decision means).
IMO tax credits would also not have the desired affect unless they were significant enough to offset lost income for a fair percentage of the population... unlikely since the cost would be beyond astronomical. Using Thomas's evaluation and making some "order of magnitude" assessments lets say:
- We have 50 million potential mothers in the US during any average year
- per child cost of applying the AUS proposal in the US to is :
($11,000*5)+ ($4,000*8) + ($6,000*4) = $127,000
or $91,000
- which is an average of 18 yearly installments of $5,000 per child
- lets Go a bit more conservative and assume 1.9 children per mother, that's $9,600 per mother per year.
- back to our 40 million mothers (a conservative number)... that gives us a per year cost in END BENEFITS of 384b dollars... which after admin overhead would make it bigger than most entire goverment departmental budgets (only Health and Human services and Social Security are bigger).
What would we cut to finance this given that we're already running a couple hundred billion in the hole, add the fact that these women would be out of the work (and therefore tax) pool? Any government financed effort to pay women to stay at home would lead to fiscal collaps. IMO it just goes to show how out of touch these people are with reality, but heck, since no one ever says NO, why not shoot for the moon eh?
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
that gives us a per year cost in END BENEFITS of 384b dollars... which after admin overhead would make it bigger than most entire goverment departmental budgets (only Health and Human services and Social Security are bigger).
Ya really gotta wonder what goal these crackpots have in mind other than stirring up trouble.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, depends what your goal is. If its just to produce more children ... then a simple payout system would work as an INCENTIVE.
Or alternatively, you could propose a DISINCENTIVE program to promote procreation like some in Germany are proposing:
Move to make the childless pay more splits sister parties ___ Christian Social Union says changes to pension system would encourage people to have more children
http://www.faz.com/IN/INtemplates/eFAZ/docmain.asp ?rub={B1311FCC-FBFB-11D2-B228-00105A9CAF88}&doc={C 52B6FCF-7A4E-428B-A981-9FC95E924EBD}
Under this plan people who don't have kids would have to pay higher pension premiums, since they are not producing younger workers to support them in their retirement.
IF the goal is more children, I prefer an incentive program, which is really the same thing. But under the proposed logic that children support overall economic growth, then the rising tide lifts all boats theory trumps all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 25, @01:38AM EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
HAHAHA!
I've got an even better idea. Why not reward bitches that plop children out of their cunts with a personal slave. For every male child a bitch plops out she can then go out and pick any available adult male as her personal slave. Where is the government going to get the money for the program they are proposing? Are they just going to print the money?
This reminds me of an experience I had 20 or so years ago when I went into business with a friend razing chinchillas. After being in the business for over two years we were about to go broke. Our females would eat their babies seconds after being born. So we went for advise and found out everyone had the same problem. Every one thought the problem was genetic and recommended that we destroy the females that were eating their offspring. So we considered destroying our females but found out we would be wiped out. We would be left with a total of three females.
But then we heard someone had come up with a new cage design. Instead of having a small cage for each female, the new cages were large pens with many females and several males in one pen (40 females and 10 males). Inside the pen there were structures and objects where the animals could run to if another animal was being too aggressive. The new cages were a bit more work (the females had to be separated before giving birth and had to be monitored closely) but we never lost a single baby chinchilla again.
Which brings me to the point I want to make: doesn't anyone ever consider that maybe the "cage" is the problem?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liberal party in australia is 'liberal' in the traditional sense of 'classical liberal', not the 'borrowed' recycled-socialist-by-any-other-name sense of 'progressive liberal' (incumbent north american usage).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ahh... is there a primer available for Australian politics? Seems we get a lot of input from down under and it would behoove us to know the players.
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Australian men have the choice of fighting,fleeing Australia, or submitting to slavery with regard to this proposition!Child bearing is a right NOT a duty imposed upon women by the state. With regard to any duty that the state wishes to impose on men, we must look at three factors (refer to Cicero's "Offices") to determine whether men individually or collectively should obey that duty: 1.Whether avoiding an duty imposed by the state by a specific means is an honest act. 2. Whether obeying the standards of the duty is profitable 3. Whether a good and ethical man would obey that duty (with regard to duties and the aforementioned please refer to the ancient Roman Philosopher, Cicero, and his book "Offices".)
With regard to the aforementioned (1), men (and some women) who are not the fathers of the children are not the parents of the children. Thus, following the dictates of duty norms, the proposed duty assumed by the act is dishonest. This proposal (2) is not profitable for those called upon to support these women and assume this duty;thus, again, the state has no right use the inference of duty by others to support these women.Lastly (3), a good and ethical person would not support this proposition as it destroys individual responsibility, the family relationship, is corrupt by it's very nature,and virtually enslaves a large portion of the Australian population (the major part being men).
C.V. Compton Shaw
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
