Since Women Were "Liberated"

[Sculptor]

Introduce democratic socialism.

So taking over 50% of my income isn't enough socialism for you? How much should the government take? 60%? 70%? 80%?

You can do it by taking less tax from you and more from the idle rich who do not work for their money.

[simplicity]

Synthesis: What would you do about the problem of the inner cities in America?

To solve inner city poverty requires socialistic laws that spread the wealth. When America was founded, it ignored 'ownership' rights of the prior inhabitants in order to get its initial wealth. That is, people were promised 'free lands' and set up literal races (as though a game) for those to run out and stake a claim under the protection of the 'players'.

If you think we should not give 'free' money to the poor so that they can experience the benefits that others in the suburbs receive by default of many generations, they won't EVER have a chance in our Western systems. What needs first attention would be a CAP on wealth and a PLUG limiting poverty. Antidemocratic government ideals perpetuate poverty extremes and enhances powers of extreme wealth; the empoverished majority is necessary in captitalism that favors the wealthy minorities.
[/quote]
How do you explain the fact that about 20% of the black community is doing quite well? I have historically paid over 50% of my earned income in taxes. Should it be more? How much more?

[simplicity]

Introduce democratic socialism.

So taking over 50% of my income isn't enough socialism for you? How much should the government take? 60%? 70%? 80%?

You can do it by taking less tax from you and more from the idle rich who do not work for their money.

I am not really too thrilled about those folks myself, but that's corruption. Clean up the corruption and you will have system [although with a great deal of internal contradictions] has been a powerful force that has lifted billions out of abject poverty.

If it were up to me I would revoke all corporate charters and cut governments by 90%. This would be a good start.

[Sculptor]

So taking over 50% of my income isn't enough socialism for you? How much should the government take? 60%? 70%? 80%?

You can do it by taking less tax from you and more from the idle rich who do not work for their money.

I am not really too thrilled about those folks myself, but that's corruption.

No.
It is not corruption.
That is how the systems works.
Over a certain amount of money you simply do not have to work. You money works for you and you can move it outside the country to tax havens where you don't pay tax.
Socialism COULD be part of the process to change that system. But you like most of the other puppets really have no idea what socialism is and thing it has something to do with the Democratic party. In truth it has very little so do with any moerd political party in the west.

[simplicity]

You can do it by taking less tax from you and more from the idle rich who do not work for their money.

I am not really too thrilled about those folks myself, but that's corruption.

No.
It is not corruption.
That is how the systems works.

Remember, a great percentage of the corruption in this system is 100% LEGAL.

Over a certain amount of money you simply do not have to work. You money works for you and you can move it outside the country to tax havens where you don't pay tax.

That's a tiny percentage of the wealth. What's more corrupt than that?

Socialism COULD be part of the process to change that system. But you like most of the other puppets really have no idea what socialism is and thing it has something to do with the Democratic party. In truth it has very little so do with any moerd political party in the west.

You almost got through an entire post without a derogatory comment! My compliments...

Socialism is many, many things, but you tell me what your idea of socialism is and let's chat about it. And remember, just because two people look at the same set of data and come to different conclusions does not make one a Rhodes Scholar and the other a blathering fool. As one gets older, you might find that you will be more open to opposing views. As a matter of fact, I much more enjoy chatting with [civil] people who have VERY different ideas than do I.

[FrankGSterleJr]

Fundamental human nature, especially the male and female Id, has long both intrigued and frustrated me.

Shortly after Donald Trump was sworn-in as president, a 2016 survey of American women conducted not long after his abundant misogyny was exposed to the world revealed that a majority of respondents nonetheless found him appealing, presumably due to his alpha-male great financial success and confidence. (Maybe society should be careful about what it collectively wishes for.)

Ergo, I sometimes wonder whether general male aggression and/or sexist behavior toward girls/women might be related to the same constraining societal idealization of the ‘real man’ (albeit perhaps more subtly than in the past)? He's stiff-upper-lip physically and emotionally strong, financially successful, confidently fights and wins, assertively solves problems, and exemplifies sexual prowess. (Meanwhile, there's the Toronto Now article headlined “Keep Cats Out of Your Dating Profile, Ridiculous Study Suggests” and sub-headlined “Men were deemed less masculine and less attractive when they held up cats in their dating pics, according to researchers”.)

I believe there also stubbornly remains an outdated general societal mentality, albeit perhaps subconsciously held: Men can take care of themselves, and boys are basically little men. It is the mentality that might help explain why the book Childhood Disrupted was only able to include one man among its six interviewed adult subjects, there being such a small pool of ACE-traumatized men willing to formally tell his own story of childhood abuse. Could it be evidence of a continuing subtle societal take-it-like-a-man mindset? One in which so many men, even with anonymity, would prefer not to ‘complain’ to some stranger/author about his torturous childhood, as that is what ‘real men’ do? I tried multiple times contacting the book's author via internet websites in regards to this non-addressed florescent elephant in the room, but I received no response.

[promethean75]

It's less about Trump being so great and more about the perceived alternatives being so bad. Trump got the presidency because Hillary certainly wasn't gonna get it... and by the time he got going, the 'evil communist takeover' meme was already well established in the public mind - leftist democrats en masse came to represent that evil (and none of them are genuine marxists) - so whatever Trump was, and did, would be graciously accepted. Even a pussy grabbing tax avoiding cockroach with a 45 IQ who's daddy made him rich, is still better than an evil communist.

[promethean75]

With regard to the 'alpha male" dynamic, a few things are going on here which should be noted. Most importantly, environments are becoming more easily mastered, navigated and controlled... which means the acquisition of wealth comes more easily... which means the criteria for being an alpha-male subtly changes. Today, what would be perceived as a beta-male by a typical female mind three hunerd years ago or more, is now considered an alpha-male. Add to this the liberation of women concerning matters like the work force and independence, and the sense of the emasculation of modern men is augmented by the sense of the masculination of the modern female.

The female's 'nest building' instinct is still there, but her mate selection options have changed significantly and to her advantage. There is a veritable sea of financially secure beta-males out there... and a capitalist system of economics provides and creates the environment in which these types flourish; either as the subordinate and submissive working class male locked in his job and increasing debt, or the capitalist business owner who survives off the labor of his employees. Both characters are rather unsavory upon further inspection, but the female needn't perform any psychoanalysis to get the feeling that her man is a putz. If he's working class, he's a 'push over', and if he's capitalist, he's a fake who has to 'try' to be a man. He's drives ridiculously nice cars, goes to the gym so he can at least look like a barbarian, and collects rare paintings because that's what the bourgeoisie do. But she sees through all that (which is why she's fucking the pool man). Still, her MO is, and was originally, to build a nest and make more monkeys. So as long as the guy isn't obviously retarded, and able to generate some reasonable income, she'll take em.

[Scott Mayers]

To solve inner city poverty requires socialistic laws that spread the wealth. When America was founded, it ignored 'ownership' rights of the prior inhabitants in order to get its initial wealth. That is, people were promised 'free lands' and set up literal races (as though a game) for those to run out and stake a claim under the protection of the 'players'.

If you think we should not give 'free' money to the poor so that they can experience the benefits that others in the suburbs receive by default of many generations, they won't EVER have a chance in our Western systems. What needs first attention would be a CAP on wealth and a PLUG limiting poverty. Antidemocratic government ideals perpetuate poverty extremes and enhances powers of extreme wealth; the empoverished majority is necessary in captitalism that favors the wealthy minorities.

How do you explain the fact that about 20% of the black community is doing quite well? I have historically paid over 50% of my earned income in taxes. Should it be more? How much more?

You demand that YOUR taxes NOT be used to help others BUT your own class as though society has granted you a pass to any 'debt' that the general society has caused.

So to even speak of asserting percentages of OFFICIAL 'tax' that you pay means nothing because you ignore that the poor pay MORE percentage NON-OFFICIAL 'tax' as related to the lack of comparative burdens in terms of the same dollars that you have. If you respect EACH person as 'equal' physically, we are 'equal' in energy capacity. Yet, the ONLY way that anyone can have more economic wealth is due specifically to the DEBT that money is created from. This 'debt' has to come from somewhere.

But note too that money that gets treated as inheriting and maintaining its value regardless of whether the original components contributing to this debt are even alive! That is, if I make a 'promise' to give a neighbor something to which I owe them but die, my debt should be forgiven OR we'd have to require a system that DEMANDS debts of our parents are as necessary to pass onto individuals as they are to the benefits.

The benefits of inheritance are presumed 'right' but not the debts. YET, those who HAVE the wealth who accept this belief do not recognize the cancellation of debts of individuals where they die off even though they contribute to the money supply most significantly. That is, you hypocritically accept the value of money to remain fixed without recognizing that this is a free welfare for wealthy people where they can hypocritically deny debts themselves as inheritable.

If you then favor the traditional acceptance of inheriting debt as well as benefits, then you would be less hypocritical but prove to be uncompassionate for those who are born in ANY condition. But if you maintain accepting benefits without the debts, you have to respect the 'whole' to find means of finding the losses of us collectively by distributing this debt to those who GAIN benefits the most. Thus, we need the sliding scale of tax burden based upon the degree of wealth. Unfortunately, what is also happening is that those with wealth continue to seek new loopholes that permit some to pay NO taxes regardless. This is just further hypocrisy of the wealthy against the poor!

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Such horseshit. When you research genealogy for about 5 minutes you realise that this mythical 'nuclear family' has never existed. Life for women especially was a complete nightmare.

[Immanuel Can]

Such horseshit. When you research genealogy for about 5 minutes you realise that this mythical 'nuclear family' has never existed. Life for women especially was a complete nightmare.

It was a complete nightmare for everybody. It might have been tough for a housewife, but how was it for her husband, the miner? Or the soldier? Or the serf? Or the factory worker?

Life's just hard. We forget that, because ours is comparatively easy.

As for "the nuclear family," yes, it has almost always existed...and no society has remained successful without it.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Such horseshit. When you research genealogy for about 5 minutes you realise that this mythical 'nuclear family' has never existed. Life for women especially was a complete nightmare.

It was a complete nightmare for everybody. It might have been tough for a housewife, but how was it for her husband, the miner? Or the soldier? Or the serf? Or the factory worker?

Life's just hard. We forget that, because ours is comparatively easy.

As for "the nuclear family," yes, it has almost always existed...and no society has remained successful without it.

Still made a million times tougher when you have a tribe of children to look after when your husband has died/abandoned you/decided to spend whatever money there is on booze.... Women and children were effectively owned by their husbands until fairly recently.
Imagine having to give birth in a back alley because your parents had thrown you out on the street, then having to immediately go back to 'work' as a prostitute. What are you supposed to do with the baby?
And no, this 'nuclear family' (even the name is a ridiculous, meaningless concoction) has never existed except in American sitcoms. It only 'existed' on the whim of whatever suited the male to do at any given time. Because women had a habit of dying during childbirth then men were constantly having to 'update' this 'nuclear family' or farm the children out somehow to anyone who would take them, usually to be split up and face abuse and neglect in orphanages and other nightmare horrors. I'm really not interested in your misogynistic, judgemental religious garbage.

[Immanuel Can]

...this 'nuclear family' (even the name is a ridiculous, meaningless concoction) has never existed except in American sitcoms.

Actually, it's the mainstay of civilization.

"Nuclear" has nothing to do with America or the '50s. It simply means, "having a nucleus," or "formed around a core of members." Historically, most families have had a mother, a father and a set of children of two sexes. And yes, members have sometimes been removed from that by circumstances, choice or death; but the rule has been one mother, one father and some children. That's been the norm for the entire course of history, across all cultures. It's only recently that we've substantially questioned the necessity of it...and never to good effect.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Didn't I just say I wasn't interested in your religiously motivated garbage (which has nothing to do with reality)?

[Immanuel Can]

Didn't I just say I wasn't interested in your religiously motivated garbage (which has nothing to do with reality)?

I didn't say a single thing "religious." I was speaking merely of sociological fact. You might not like them, but those are the facts.