And the Survey SAYS...
A few weeks ago we asked you, the Atlas Shrugged community, to fill out an anonymous online survey. Thousands of you responded and, while we will NEVER divulge any personally identifiable information about any of our members, following are some very interesting meta results.
Gulch, here's who we are...
- - -
Sex
29% Female
71% Male
- - -
Age
6% Under 30
26% 30-49
43% 50-65
23% Over 65
- - -
Marital Status
15% Single
4% Cohabitating
66% Married
10% Divorced
2% Widowed
- - -
Political Affiliation
2% Democrat
18% Independent
23% Libertarian
35% Republican
16% Tea Party
- - -
Voted in the 2012 Presidential Election
93% Voted
3% Did not vote
3% Not registered to Vote
- - -
Gulch, here's who we are...
- - -
Sex
29% Female
71% Male
- - -
Age
6% Under 30
26% 30-49
43% 50-65
23% Over 65
- - -
Marital Status
15% Single
4% Cohabitating
66% Married
10% Divorced
2% Widowed
- - -
Political Affiliation
2% Democrat
18% Independent
23% Libertarian
35% Republican
16% Tea Party
- - -
Voted in the 2012 Presidential Election
93% Voted
3% Did not vote
3% Not registered to Vote
- - -
I am a female, and not one of the 23%. For - like MANY women fans of Ayn Rand (and I know plenty) I was not part of this survey. (Nor on this forum, until your comment riled me so that I had to join just to post, once.)
Grow up and realise these are only statistics.
Most women I know don't have the TIME to post on forums!!! We are too busy helping wider society: raising families and contributing to the economy. And yes, I have 4 kids, and run 3 businesses which employ many dozens of people.
Please keep your sexist comments away from the gulch.
"When “the common good” of a society is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual good of its members, it means that the good of some men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others consigned to the status of sacrificial animals." Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal
The internet is somewhat of an antidote.
Given the tyrannical "war on drugs" we are pretending to fight, I actually agree with them.
But to me, being a libertarian is MUCH more than that.
Don’t take yourself quite so seriously, you sound like someone from the state science institute. People are just having a little fun with the numbers.
Clearly this is not ALL women, nor are ALL men on the right side of the limited government issue. But the gender gap is about 20% in recent elections, which is enough to give us a female-mandated Leviathan.
I believe that this plunge towards economic armageddon is unstoppable, that so long as women are allowed to vote, and continue to believe that government is beneficent, the trend cannot be reversed.
We therefore have two possibilities: Education (teaching women that the state is not their "friend") and reconstruction after armageddon. It's hard to convince someone that an entity that's handing out "free money" is not their friend, so that avenue is likely foreclosed. But what about when the dollar becomes worthless? What about when all those women sucking at the government tit find out the dollars they are getting are nothing more than paper? Is there an opportunity there?
Yes, there is. It begins by getting the message out NOW that women are destroying the very system they depend upon, and that the dependence itself is the problem. Tell every female you know of the unavoidable consequences of the welfare state, predict for them the outcome and give them clear indicia of how the collapse will happen and what to expect... and tell them to remember it.
They'll still take the "free money". They'll still rely upon government. They'll still suckle at Leviathan's tit. But when the end comes for them, when they see their children suffering, perhaps they will recognize that everything you said was true - that they are responsible for the destruction. Perhaps, if they survive the collapse, they will approach the rebuilding with a new view - that government is, at best, a necessary evil.
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville
Pretty sure at the time of this writing, Congress was all MALE.
The problems always stem from lack of property rights. Property rights' erosion accounts for massive debt, govt over-reach, govt spying on its citizens, graft and gratuity, lack of economic growth and wealth creation. Women cannot be blamed for the decisions of legislators and judges. They are in the minority of decision making power currently and past. As long as enough people in a group feel it's ok to steal an individual's property and ignore their rights, we are doomed to eventual failure.
The second datum is a study done by University of Chicago that documented the fact that all the state and territorial governments, and the federal government itself, ran small and stable deficits from the time of their founding until women got the vote. That pattern was established for a period of roughly 100 to 150 years. Women did not get the vote all at once. As pointed out, Wyoming accorded women the vote in 1869 - more than 50 years before the feds got around to it. Other states likewise granted women the vote over that period of 50 years in a staggered pattern. In each case (according to the research, without exception) the deficits of the various governments began to rise following the women being allowed to vote.
This is not necessarily iron-clad proof that the women's vote was responsible - but where some 51 cases of something occur independently and uniformly, and without counter-example, one would have to be a blinkered fool not to give substantial weight to the case. And what alternative is there? Being spread out over time eliminates the possibility that some single outside event caused the deficits. For example, had all the women gotten the vote simultaneously in 1920, followed by rising deficits, it might be some factor in world economics driving all the deficits without regard to whether women voted or not.
In some regard, you are of course, correct. The majority of congress was, is and shall be for some time, predominantly male. Yet the job includes representing the constituency. If that constituency is demanding more welfare programs, a self-interested congressional representative will vote in such a way as to be re-elected. One who has the greater interests of the Country at heart in a liberal district, and refuses to "go along to get along", will be voted out by the majority women. Only in a few isolated cases (Ron Paul) have representatives been able to survive the onslaught of female voters.
Finally, I am not casting stones at women. They are acting in what they perceive to be their own self-interest. I've already mentioned that the average American (regardless of gender) is a moron. But suppose they are only poor at mathematics, don't think much about the future, don't understand economics and have bills to pay they cannot afford. Do you not think that such people would tend to vote in favor of any program that helps them? Instant gratification has killed more than one budget. "Buy now, pay later"... except that now it IS later, the bills are due and we are going into debt faster than ever.
Too, the evolution of women over the past 100,000 years has been different from men. It is no accident that the average male is stronger, or that the average female is better at communication. (Feel free to do your own research on those topics.) The bottom line is that women, generally, are more social (and socialistic) than men. It is a skill that women have depended upon for survival as surely as men have depended on physical strength.
So it is that women, being more risk averse than men, looking for solutions through social(ism) avenues naturally see nothing wrong with setting up programs that benefit them, never giving a thought to the future.
This lack of foresight will be the ruin of us all, and it is people now living, men and women, who will feel the full brunt of the lack of perspicacity.
Naturally, if someone has countering data, I am more than happy to review it. But given the response of some on this forum, I feel obligated to point out that saying, "That's sexist" is NOT evidence of anything but personal bias.
In the late 1840's, the country of Deseret allowed women (and even some of the Indians) the right to vote. They could own a business, own property, run for public office, etc. Those rights were stripped from them by the US government when Johnson's Army attacked and took over the country.
Where was Deseret? Parts/all of modern: Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, and California.
When gold was discovered in California, they applied for statehood, and it was granted. Unfortunately, there was a problem: The Mormons had been all but kicked out (via Gov Boggs extermination order). They went west to the Rocky Mountains, and established their own confederation with some of the local indians. They now were a significantly large country, well settled and organized.
Which is why the USA invaded them in an unprovoked attack. The USA nationalized the country and all of its assets. In the process of doing so, they also stripped women of their rights.
Now to the point: my research shows that Deseret never ran a deficit of any significant size. Social programs were ubiquitous, yet paid for.
The problem never was women voting. It was (and remains today) a lack of discipline and ethics.
Just for giggles and grins -- to add more fluff to this story, this is also when the SCOTUS made its first foray into dictating both religious freedom and marriage. For those who today think they are so out of line with their meddling with marriage, it is actually an old tradition of theirs.
They, literally, forced men to abandon their wife and children, or go to prison, many for the rest of their life.
Also, say what you will of Mormons, they're a lot closer to Gulchers than any other religion I can think of off hand. Name another religion that extolls the virtues of having a TWO YEAR supply of food on hand... and firearms.
In many regards, due to religious persecution, the Mormon's have formed their own "gulches". I believe there's still one near the California-Nevada border that has plural marriage.
Or, as another example, take the FLDS compound in Texas that was raided a few years back. They were almost entirely self-sufficient and independent - yet Leviathan saw fit to intrude. Still, I don't envision many of those women voting against the wishes of their husbands.
When you mix up the fundamentalists and non-LDS groups with the LDS Church, it shows a lack of understanding of who is who.
The women of the LDS Church were the first women in this continent who had the right to vote. Stories abound of women who voted opposite of their husbands. When the US invaded Deseret, they took away their rights.
BTW, it is the LDS women who I was attempting to reference when I said they were not fiscally ignorant. Many of these fine women do the financial work in the family, taking care of the budget and finances and such. They make it POSSIBLE for the family to get, and keep, their food storage.
The FLDS compound in Texas is NOT the same as the LDS Church (the "real" Mormons). They do not treat their wife in the same way; they do not adhere to the standards the LDS Church demanded back when polygamy WAS acceptable. So comparing the two groups is spurious.
>> it is the LDS women who I was attempting to reference when I said they were not fiscally ignorant.
So, do you honestly believe that LDS women are representative of the entire female population of the United States? That their knowledge of economics and voting patterns in no significant way differ from the rest of the population? If not, then you've only confirmed what I've said about the bias in your sample.
One example of how you might be wrong (not directly related to economics): Abortion. The majority of voting women are pro-abortion. How many LDS women are pro-abortion?
The LDS Church (which is what I assumed you were talking about when you said "Mormon") has over 14 million members around the world. The totality of all FLDS groups *might* be a couple of thousand folks, total, when all of the various sects and splinter groups are added together.
The LDS Church is expansive and public. It is broadcasting its messages to the world at large and becoming a common site in disaster relief all over the world. The FLDS folks keep to themselves and don't talk to outsiders.
I guess my mistake was that I assumed you would be talking about the "real" LDS Church instead of the tiny minority.
To the extent that they are more inclined to "brainwash" the flock, it's done to a purpose of cohesion and mutual support. At least it's not programming people to bake Jews in ovens.
Their view of the world generally seems to be more functional/practical than one finds in many religions, and the culture is one of self- and group- sufficiency.
I pointed to the FLDS as an example of that self-sufficiency taken to "gulch" levels. And while I understand that most LDS probably see the FLDS as a problem they wish would just "go away", I personally am inclined to think Leviathan shouldn't mess with them any more than they mess with the LDS.
For the record, I'm agnostic. I think all religions (including atheism which believes in the "no god") are poorly founded because there's no objective test, no repeatable experiment, to demonstrate validity. Whether it's an account from the Old Testament, or a more modern account from a horse thief who claimed to have found some gold tablets, they are all equally insupportable to me.
Is one of the stories correct? Maybe. I tend to think that they are all more likely to be the fabrications of people who outgrow their parents and need new "gods" to take their place.
I characterize atheism as just another "religion" because there's no more evidence that there is NO god than there is A god. In both cases, people are mistaken (at best) when they say they "know" that god exists or does not exist because when pressed, there is no evidence either way.
The most an intellectually honest person can say about god is, "I don't know."
And I don't consider the only "god theory alternatives" to be christian versus atheist.
a lack of facts is not evidence that something exists either. There is absolutely no facts to support god exists. ultimately, god is not defined in a way provable. Belief is based on faith. faith, by definition, is belief in something for which there is no evidence.
My scientific side revolts at such bald and unsupported gibberish, in large part because it's the exact analog of what religionists say about their religion, that is, "My religion is true" - without any proof or ability to test the hypothesis (or as you point out, without even a rigorous, testable definition of the hypothesis).
That's why I consider atheism another religion: The secular religion of the "un-god". It has no more (or less) basis in fact than ANY religion that relies upon the existence of a god, because (without any proof whatsoever) it rests on the requirement that no god exists! This, whether you care to admit it or not, is "belief in things not proven" which is typically the definition of "faith".
So you have an unprovable hypothesis (and one that isn't well defined or testable) and an act of faith that the hypothesis is true to the exclusion of all competing hypotheses.
How is that different from religion?
That this group of women, now numbering 6+ million women from all walks of life, races, and socioeconomic backgrounds, is recognized internationally for their goodness, their stalwart support of things which build a better society, etc, says the the problem is not "women."
That misogynistic influences (both male and female) might try to say otherwise has nothing to do with it.
If *one* group, like the LDS Church Relief Society, can hold a sizable number of women who are internationally recognized as being honorable, charitable, literate, etc, then it is possible for other groups as well.
Now you could get away with the eye roll thing if I tried to say that *only* the LDS Church could produce such a group. But that was not my intention.
There is not much difference between rational thought ("Rationalism" ? ?) and objective thought (Objectivism).
I am afraid you are letting your religious beliefs get in the way of seeing what I am saying.
When someone asks a religionist a question, he gives them his best shot. Is he right? Who knows. But everyone expects the religionist to have every answer to every question, even the trick ones, and he can never be wrong. If he is, then people abandon religion as false. Furthermore, if the religionist turns out to be human, with the foibles and quirks of fallen man, then people use that as an excuse to reject him and religion.
Be careful, my friend, how you judge. Your judgment is an open reflection of your heart. Seeing how people judge others and events and situations tells us everything there is to know about that person. Probably a good many things they would rather not have everyone else know.
OK, that said, I grew up across the river from Nauvoo. Most polite, well-groomed, well -spoken couples and families ever. and very interesting town and museums to visit.
But I'll counter with my question: What faith base questions are scientists asked?
Lots.
The difference is that scientists have numbers and figures and equations instead of chapters and verses.
We take the "big bang theory" on faith. Faith that people have a clue when they look at signals received in a telescope from "out there" that they are interpreting it correctly. Nobody was there when it happened and there are no records from eye witnesses to tell us -- we have a consensus of folks who were virtually all trained using the same texts, so look at things in the same way. Hence consensus is relatively easy to get. But since they have numbers and charts and pictures, it is somehow considered "factual."
We take certain points in the "theory" of evolution on faith. Some of the points are provable, hence, by faith, the rest are assumed. Arguments which deny evolution are simply discounted as "some religious fanatic" -- even when "intelligent design" (originally used to support evolution and counter creation) is used.
Why do we have eye lashes? Easy answer: millions of years of evolution. But who were the first ones to have them, and why does everyone have them now? Easy answer: we don't have that information yet, you have to take it on faith...
...faith that some time, somewhere, someone will figure it out and have proof for you.
You see, we take a LOT of scientific "knowledge" on faith. There is no proof, only theories which cannot be proven right or wrong, and which are generally accepted by those who pronounced them in the first place.
Back in the 80's, I wrote a syndicated monthly op-ed article. It was only a couple of years, but still, it was something I did back then. I wrote a piece called "The Faith All Scientists Need" where I listed all of the things modern science must take on faith. Meaning things "known to be true," but for which there were no sure, empirical proofs available.
My conclusion was that atheist scientists had to live by a greater degree of faith than the most devout Christian ever did.
Enjoy your weekend...
BTW: I love Nauvoo!
In addition, theories change and improve as our knowledge gets better. Newtonian physics is pretty good as far as it goes, but it doesn't describe what happens at the atomic level. For that, greater understanding is needed. So science is constantly improving.
Religion? Not so much.
If anything, the superstitions of another age wear thin as mankind becomes more knowledgeable. Heinlein said that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic - but it goes the other way too. The "miracles" of an earlier time is often indistinguishable from thread-worn parlor tricks and comic book versions of reality.
My favorite example of that sort of stupidity is placing Galileo under house arrest and condemning him for saying that the earth revolves around the sun instead of vice versa. Any scientist who made such a monumentally-stupid statement would lose all credibility. And yet the inspired-by-god Catholic Church keeps chugging along with the same fools believing in its "infallibility".
The Mormon religion hinges on the book of mormon - touted by Joseph Smith as the "most perfect book on earth", chock full of errors: Jesus was born in Jerusalem, Over 4000 grammatical and spelling errors, and a litany of factual errors (Benjamin got the magic glasses? Or Mosiah? The angel who delivered the plates: Nephi? Or Moroni?) Some critics view the writing as "immature" as in when the armies of Shiz and Coriantumr fought until everyone was dead - except the two leaders. Really? When has THAT ever happened, except in comic books?
And bear in mind those are just a few of the INTERNAL flubs- mistakes that are observable without subjecting the entire belief system to the additional burden of repeatable experimentation.
Religion has none of that. There's no accountability in religion because there are no reproducible results. It may all be true, or all be false, or some true or some false, just like any tall tale. But the thing religion is not is this: Verifiable.
While I agree that LDS women are generally better representative of "civilized" women (and this is clearly just opinion), I've also found that on average they tend to be less imaginative and generally less intelligent. They are, to women generally, dray horses compared to wild horses.
Again, my opinion only, but I think anyone (male or female) who dedicates a substantial portion of their life to an unsupportable proposition is a bit of a dullard. I recognize that the Mormon church offers practical advantages that have nothing to do with religion (community support), and thus it may be a rational decision in some cases to sacrifice reason, logic and freedom to avoid penury and depredation. In short, Mormon women are not alone in "selling their souls" to the church to have a better materialistic life.
Again, opinion only, but I believe that someone who would dedicate a good portion of their lives to a fable told by a horse thief about "golden tablets" he "found" (but never showed to anyone) immediately calls their basic intelligence into question.
So there are pluses and minuses to Mormon women.
Even accepting your premise that Mormon women are not the problem, Mormons are scarcely the majority ANYWHERE (except maybe Utah). Just as women here in the Gulch likely did not vote for Obama, so too it's probable that neither did Mormon women. And yet the overwhelming majority of women DID vote for Obama and his promises of socialism.
The way to solve this problem is not to deny the vote to a particular sex. It is to uphold property rights, which would make it illegal to vote for theft.
While I think I've said I believe the 19th Amendment is the greatest legislative mistake in the history of America (and if I haven't, I say it now), I believe the greatest judicial failure in our history is Wickard v. Filburn (and its ilk). Of course, there are many judicial blunders to choose from, Wickard seems to have had the longest lived and most pernicious effect on America.
I figured out that you meant Johnston:
"Colonel Albert Sidney Johnston led the Utah Expedition to put down a Mormon rebellion against the Union. In the Civil War he became a high ranking general in the Confederate Army and was killed at the Battle of Shiloh in 1862."
A great deal of facts are here for anyone as interested as me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_De...
The female vote never had any chance to make any lasting impact, since all of this was pretty much settled within a handful of years, and most of those years were in constant flux politically. Deseret's quest for provisional statehood was never granted by Washington, although Washington was constantly interfering with Brigham Young's efforts to rule as he saw fit.
I am now determined to find some definitive historical account of the Mormon story!
I spoke with one family in Spanish Fork whose family had records showing a group of leaders approaching Brigham Young about attacking Johnston's army in the plains.
Apparently, there were sufficient men willing to fight -- and enough Indian tribes who would probably join in the fight against the US army, that a formidable army could be mustered.
It was completely feasible for Deseret to meet Johnston's army, and before anyone could do anything about it, totally destroy the largest army the US had. Then march on Washington -- using captured supplies being sent to support Johnston's army.
Brigham Young declined to attack. He (and other LDS Church leaders) felt the Constitution was a divine document, and should be preserved. If Deseret attacked, the chances of victory were great, but then the country God established could be destroyed. It was not worth the risk.
I looked for "proof" of that story in the "official records," and never found it. Apparently a sizable number of leaders, including a variety of Indians, met and discussed it. But there is NO mention of it -- outside of a few diaries.
I'll talk to one of my friends in the History department and see if he has any suggestions.
Or would that be the Religion Dept?
The folks from FAIR probably won't help, unless you are a converted Nibleyite and just know who to ask.
1) To the victor go the spoils -- and the biggest "spoil" is the ability to write the history. Those who attempted to write the "real" history were shut up.
2) Not even the folks in Utah are taught their history properly.
3) When the USA took over, anyone who opposed them was put in prison or killed.
This is a good lesson for what they will do today, if we allow them.
I lived in Utah for 10 years (in the 1980's). While I was there, I spoke with some of the folks whose ancestors discussed the events in their diaries. But even when I lived there, rank and file folks WOULD NOT TALK ABOUT THIS!!!
Understand the lengths the US government went to in order to keep these folks in check. They destroyed families. They nationalized everything they could, and made the people buy back their own properties.
The forced half of the people to belong to one political party and the other half to belong to the other political party. Literally standing in a meeting and pointing to people and assigning them to a political party.
And even today, when people talk about the LDS Church and Deseret, all they talk about is polygamy. The disinformation is still so pervasive that getting real information is virtually impossible.
You will have to make friends with, gain the trust of, and then ask the people who still have the diaries to quote.
Good luck in your quest. I'm available for questions...
Good.
Give me a book title that tells both sides, or even the LDS side only!
I promise to absorb it like a sponge, and come to my own conclusions.
Most historians are so focused on religious topics that this political stuff is of little interest. And if they WERE interested, the political ramifications could be devastating.
The LDS Church has "moved on," and closed those chapters in history. Even the last President (Gordon B. Hinckley), who did a lot of interesting stuff with Church History, did not like to open some of the "old wounds."
Keep in mind that many of the families with the information we are talking about were the polygamous wives and children of men who were put in prison for having the "sin" of having more than one wife -- long before the SCOTUS declared it illegal. They felt in a very real way the privations of what the US government is fully willing and capable of doing.
They do not like to talk about this -- and I do not blame them.
But I'll make a few calls to see what I can find.
Most political prisoners want to tell their side of the story...that can be their only victory.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...
for the following datum: On a test of economics knowledge...
Females are more likely to get an “F” than males (adults: 42% vs. 15%; students: 67% vs. 54%)
That is, the average adult female is almost THREE TIMES more likely to have a failing knowledge than is a corresponding male. Maybe women really DO believe that as long as they have checks they have money?
I get 23% for my age.
I get 66% for my marriage.
And so on, and so on.
All told I am somewhere near 300%.
That means that I am actually 3 whole personalities, stuffed into this one body I was given!
Great shades of Sybil! This explains a lot.... ;-)
What I submit to be the reason for Rome's collapse was their insatiable desire for expansion. And Rome's inability to finance this expansion on the backs of the Roman citizens.
There was no world economy, or International Monetary Fund, to underwrite this addiction...all they could do was to conquer, then plunder through taxation of the conquered. This had a short success, but the real 'books' showed a negative return. The cost of maintaining the Roman Empire was the death knoll, or death rattle, if you prefer.
Over achievement is the culprit here...not social programs.
But you are looking at a symptom, not a cause.
Easily done, so you are in good company!
http://www.landthieves.com/board/showthr...
The Roman military expenditures to maintain it's empire broke the camel's back, and bankrupted the economy. Bread and circuses were employed to mask the growing deficit, not unlike the 99 week unemployment benefit, manipulated Wall Street results, SS disability giveaways, food stamps, etc. are being used today.
I am all for saying that Rome used welfare to quell the masses, but stand by my understanding of the Roman Empire to repeat that their global expansion, and subsequent overwhelming military costs, both brought this upon them, and brought them ultimately down.
The site is promoting Ron Paul, and sees history in that light. That doesn't mean that it is in-factual, but it does mean that a great deal of other information is excluded if it is of no benefit to the 'cause'. In short: it is biased, and has it's agenda.
I'm happy to have had my say on this, and we just agree to not agree.
wait a minute, why is the onus on me? what are YOU providing. I am amazed that I have even stayed in this nonsensical conversation(let's take the vote away from women) as long as I have. give me a point!
I can find you 5 different references to how Rome fell apart. The upshot is clear. de tocqueville said it long before women had the vote, based on historical precedent, as soon as people figured out they could vote in people who would give them feebies, instead of working for it, the american experiment would die.
I think it rather more likely that the men understood the consequences - while women, with vastly inferior knowledge of economics - did not. Thus women, in their ignorance, have set America on the path of economic destruction.
This reminds me of the old man that was suffering from prostrate cancer, a brain tumor, and kidney failure. He spends the entire day in chemo, then dialysis, and finally an MRI.
The doctors release him for the day, and walking to the bus stop he gets dizzy and falls headfirst to the curb. The autopsy declares that he died from blunt trauma to the skull....
You are the forensic doctor focused on the head trauma...and wish to ignore all of the fatal preconditions.
I yield you the battle ground (again), I don't want to see you pound your head on the keyboard on my account! ;-)
Statistics are generally worthless and can be spun to mean everything and nothing.
Stupid knows no race, sex or age and infects us all at some point in our life.
Our civilization is collapsing and those who see it will be the ones who decide whether we fall into a dark age or rise into a golden age.
And we will know pain, that is unavoidable now
1) Figures never lie, but liars can figure.
2) There are three kinds of lies: white lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Nope. Science. In fact the CEEB went to great lengths to gender-norm the CLEP exam for Physics and ultimately discovered they could get gender-normed answers - OR - they could test aptitude for doing physics. Not both. Interestingly, where problems called for rote application of a formula, or arithmetic computation, women actually surpassed men. Where they collapsed was in abstract reasoning, and advanced computation.
And this is just a tiny sample of the differences.
But quite beyond that, women are more risk averse than men. Look around at your fellow 14-year-olds. How many female skateboarders? In fact, pick a "risky" venture that you or your friends engage in and ask yourself... How many participants are female?
Even at your age, the difference is apparent. But what it comes down to in later years is that women do not want to depend on themselves. They want to have someone to back them up. They want... government programs.
There's another aspect in play - and you haven't been around long enough to see it happen - but for about the past 50 years, society has promoted women over men. There are scholarships, job opportunities, educational assistance programs that exists only for women. Men are discriminated against. Will we see that discrimination turn? Will men, now the minority in schools (as you've pointed out) and in home ownership now get government assistance for tuition, books, fees, scholarships and home ownership?
Most men just want those programs to go away. But the women? No. The women (the majority) want them to stay. And so they shall... until the government collapses under their demands.
http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/20...
Thanks again for the reference!
The emasculation of men is a huge part of the "bigger picture". Let me know how you feel at the finish!
Once women got the vote, EVERY STATE AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT began to have soaring debt. This didn't happen all at the same time, mind you. Women got the vote over a period of 50 years. But following their voting, in any of the states (first 48 covered by the study) and the Feral Government, the governments plunged into debt and have never recovered.
In the study to which I refer (Lott), the governmental debt trended sharply upwards within just a few years of women getting the vote. Unless you have some evidence that the 48 states covered, and the Feral Government, all enacted similarly deleterious pension plans within 5 years of women getting the vote (something that happened over a period of 50 years), the argument that pensions are the proximate cause of budgetary imbalance isn't credible.
as well, Nebraska has one of the lowest debts, but a higher than median % of adult women in the state. Finally, here is an article that falls between us with stats, but importantly, even though the conclusion is women were key in the 2008 election for Oboma, the % registered democrats of females over males is only slight-not large.
http://usliberals.about.com/od/Election2......
Can you show that?
The study, if you'll recall, measured the CHANGE in debt after women got the vote. Uniformly, without exception, the debt began to soar. Have you even read the study? (If not, you're arguing from ignorance. No offense.)
I have already discussed that throughout history there have been governments whose demise was due to welfare policies, such as Rome. You never commented on that.
finally, regarding "rules," in your argument, women are grouped and then uniformly blamed. IChanging the argument from overall trends to a rule. Once a rule, all I have to do is show that women in a state who made up more than the median population does not fit the rule. This might lead to looking at other factors as a driving cause.
In fact, the book I just read has the current generation of American men offering the advice, "Don't marry an American woman." Having travelled in 20+ foreign countries, I'm prone to agree because, on average, I don't believe American women offer nearly as much as women who have grown up in other cultures. That's not to say there are NO good American women - but the general trend is... well, do your own research.
The problem with citing "other factors" is that American women got the vote over a period of 50 years. What other factor didn't exist before the first women got the vote, didn't exist in any state where women did not have the vote, manifested itself when women got the vote (in every case) and has persisted to this day? Can you cite ANY factor that meets that criteria? If you can, this could get to be a REALLY interesting conversation!! If not, then the study's conclusion remains the best available: The women's vote is responsible for the economic destruction of America.
As counter-argument do you SERIOUSLY believe there are no cultural or economic differences between German women in WWI Germany and American women in post-WWII America? Or that women in 1 BC, had the same concerns as American women in 1920? They don't share a common geography, language, history, culture... anything but the second X chromosome, and yet you GENERALIZE that they are all the same?? Is yours a serious argument? Or are you just trolling?
If you can demonstrate that women were the same 2000 years ago in Rome as they are today, perhaps you have a point. If you can demonstrate that the motivations in Germany (all at one time) were the same as women in America (over a period of 50 years, in 48 states and the Feral government) MAYBE you have a point.
But you cannot LOGICALLY claim one is just like the other without establishing that it is so. In the examples the study author cites, he is drawing conclusions from 48 states of the USA, plus the Federal government regarding the effect of voting by AMERICAN women, effectively presenting dozens of cases (because women got the vote at different times) that prove his thesis.
You have presented... well... nothing.
Did ancient Rome run a similar debt? Did Rome borrow a third of its budget from other countries (as we do from China)?
Why are men at fault?
They let women vote.
If you are, I say, "show me".
Get that?
I never questioned your spelling (don't know if you got it right, or wrong), but asked for the details.
Again: 'what did mayor dailey the 1st do?'
Double down on looting....
So yes, men have deferred - and all it's gotten them is more abuse.
According to the book I just finished reading ("Men on Strike") the younger generation of men sees the abuse suffered by the older generations - both personal and legal - and is opting out of relationships (specifically marriage) with women, preferring instead to "hook up" without commitment.
And yes, there are men who surrender their masculinity to get laid. The author refers to them as "Uncle Tims".
Woman's Liberation has to have something to do with all of this, but I am not the right gender to talk about this. It did seem to be that roles were suddenly reversed...or else!
It didn't alter my scenario, but it did redefine relationships for following generations. That can not be argued against.
Now, as a test of your true gender-neutrality, what do you think the response would be if a 34-year-old man had sex with a 15-year-old girl...
For another "sexist" read, check out "Weak Link". It's been out for a while, but it's a good assessment of why women do NOT belong in the military... which is topical due to the recent decision by the command structure to further endanger men in combat zones by burdening them with women.
Look at the last election. Even if they were completely duped the first time around - Obama AGAIN? If the average American had any brains at all, they would have elected Ron Paul in 2008 and he would be serving his second term now.
So here's the problem: Pretend you're pitching your plan to a bunch of chimps. They'll listen to you for as long as you're handing out free bananas - then they'll laugh at you, clamp themselves on the ass and throw their shit at you.
I don't think there's any chance of educating the average American anymore because so many now know things that just are not true. Even in this forum, I see charges of "sexism" when all I've done is present facts. Even here, people go off half-cocked, responding to things that were never said. What chance have you among the general population, a substantial portion of which only wants government handouts (and another group of which only wants to profit by providing those handouts via government contract)?
Try reading again. And don't give me that utopian bilge... in America, women are the largest group of government tit-suckers. Who do you think votes for "affirmative action" and welfare? Remember, it can't pass without a MAJORITY... and that's what women are - the majority. They started out in 1869 in Wyoming where women were first given the vote. They voted for more debt and more government. And they have... not... stopped.
The women here in the gulch are decidedly in the minority among women. And "Amazed" lame excuses aside (as if men have so much more "time" than women) the truth is the reason men outnumber women more than 2:1 here is because women don't believe in freedom and self-sufficiency in anywhere near the same proportion as do men.
Especially about the ages of the respondents. It indeed takes some "real world" maturity for a person to realize that even the best governments are makeshift, limited benefit propositions and from that fact alone should make it a logical decision to limit the power ANY government you're dealing with.
I'm a Jeffersonian, the original "small government" guy, so my political affiliation wasn't represented- not surprisingly.
One question, aren't divorced people considered single if they aren't married anymore?
"Voted in the 2012 Presidential Election" 93%.
Second most surprising was the remarkably low 10% divorced figure.
26% 30-49
43% 50-65
23% Over 65
If you figure that 26% between 30 and 49 means roughly 26% ÷ 2 = 13% between 40 and 49, that means only one in five here is under forty, and only one in three is under fifty.
So Rand is failing very dramatically to attract a new generation. Like the GOP, the demographics of time are running against it.
SInce I am 20 (and female, by the way) I suppose I have no heart. :)
I was only 57% of a person until I voted.
Yay for statistics. 0_o
Let me try to put it another way: If the universe is as old as they say, and the total time humans have been in existence is as short as they say, then every bit of data we could possibly have been able to accumulate is like seeing one single frame, somewhere towards the end of the massive "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, and trying to guess what happened in the previous 9 hours of the movie.
Some very smart (meaning highly educated) people are looking at the data they have in front of them, and making what to them is a highly educated guess as to the meaning of that data. Their "scriptures" are the numbers and equations and various data points, as well as the training they received and statements of previous, highly educated, individuals.
I, personally, cannot argue with their education or their equations or their assessment of the data or their conclusions. But I *can* see that with their limited vision of what has happened in the past, that in order to truly come to those conclusions, they have to take an awful lot "on faith."
You mentioned the sun. The problem with this one is that nobody knows how or why the sun does what the sun does. What made the sun form? What made it "kick on" so it started the nuclear reactions? What makes it maintain those reactions? There are guesses by highly educated individuals, but, again, we are left looking at "other evidence" and trying to formulate in our mind a logical reason for them to exist. It is "faith" in the minds of the ones doing the formulation that makes the rest of us believe them.
But we don't understand any of it, really. There is still argument as to whether ray of light is a wave or a particle. Sometimes it "acts like" one, and sometimes it "acts like" the other. Is it that the ray of light changes? Or is it our ability to measure it is totally inadequate? Is it our ability to look at the evidences we have and reach a correct conclusion? The "greatest minds" are still debating the true existence of light, and we see it every day.
If we truly reach down to the guts of most "scientific truths," we will see initial assumptions which have been "taken on faith" as axiomatic.
100% agreement on that.
And which party has been the "social welfare" party? Need some time on that one? Ah, I'll just give it to you: Democrats.
Now in case you missed it in my earlier comments, I've already pointed out that the gender gap is about 20%. But here's the bottom line: For every 10 women like "Amazed", there are 15 women who would sell your freedom in a New York second if they thought it would buy them more government programs.
Another part of the problem "Amazed" is that when people are given the facts, they say something stupid like, "Please keep your sexist comments away from the gulch" instead of, "I didn't realize that most of society's problems arise because women are generally afraid of their own shadows and demand government intervention".
Load more comments...