So much for our conservative-leaning British newspaper...
How can a sex be both equal and fairer? If anything, that's discrimination :b
Granted, I'm not sure I'd choose Lou Dobbs to represent a red-pill view, but he made a fine argument and, as usual, was met by a wall of hamsterism.
Quote:Quote:
Women breadwinners
The natural order
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracy...turalorder
CENSUS BUREAU data show that four in ten American children live in a household in which their mother is the primary breadwinner. In 1960 women brought home most of the bacon in just 11% of households with kids. Another benchmark in the grinding struggle for women's equality? Not according to the indignant panelists in this glorious Fox Business segment, led by the professionally choleric Lou Dobbs:
Juan Williams fears the worst. In the rise of lady-led households, Mr Williams says, "you're seeing the disintegration of marriage... You're seeing, I think, systemically...something going terribly wrong in American society, and it's hurting our children. And it's going to have impact for generations to come. Left, right—I don't see how you can argue this!" I suggest empiricism. Elspeth Reeve of the Atlantic digs up a few facts:
What is going terribly wrong in American society? Crime rates are at historic lows. So are teen pregnancy rates. Worker productivity is high. Dobbs mentioned the high dropout rate, but it's declined from 12.1 percent in 1990 to 7.4 percent in 2010. He said we needed to "teach our kids to read and write," but the literacy rate is 99 percent. Very few people even smoke anymore. America is kind of awesome, actually, despite all these terrible working women.[/qoute]
Wheeeee! Crime rates are low (possibly because of the pacification effect of porn?)! This makes everything sustainable! Moreso, it confirms that single motherhood is good for society! How about some causality here?
I'll just leave this one of a hundred studies here:
http://www.lancet.com/journals/lancet/ar...0/abstract
[quote]Mr Erickson's appeal to the natural order points to a matched conservative folly: the tendency to imagine the familiar, recent past in especial accord with timeless human nature. Once one considers how far we've come since the Pleistocene—what with all our capitalism, nation-states, dentistry and cable news—this sort of biological essentialism seems unbecoming of conservatives who, if they are about anything worthwhile, are about the defence and advancement of civilisation. The defence of atavistic privilege, which invariably proceeds on the basis of specious claims about natural hierarchy, is the hardy, incivil part of conservatism. Gentlepersons left and right will leave this nastiness behind, and cheer the ongoing economic achievements of the fairer and not-yet-equal sex.
How can a sex be both equal and fairer? If anything, that's discrimination :b
Granted, I'm not sure I'd choose Lou Dobbs to represent a red-pill view, but he made a fine argument and, as usual, was met by a wall of hamsterism.
"Imagine" by HCE | Hitler reacts to Battle of Montreal | An alternative use for squid that has never crossed your mind before