It definitely is a huge factor. But that doesn't hinder them (when they see those stats), because they see education and common sense as being almost mutually exclusive to higher education. Being less educated is a plus in their eyes. They hate those uppity educated folks that think they're better than less educated folks.
How the fuck could having sex with a robot encourage sexual exploitation - wouldn't it do the exact opposite, just like sex toys and porn has lowered exploitation from historical highs?
I betcha $5 she doesn't feel that realistic plastic penis dildos make women devalue men.
Yeah, she's just one loon. They already lost that battle with porn. Turns out porn doesn't cause sexual exploitation, and is surely here to stay (although I don't think porn has been an altogether positive influence. It's hard for me to imagine what it's like growing up today ).
Wrong. A woman has the option of getting a witnessed (notarized) contract that she is permitted to get pregnant
I disagree. I believe this is and should be implied with marriage. If a man marries a woman and they agree before marriage that they are not going to have children, let him put it in a prenup that he will not be liable for child support, due to an agreement at that time that: under the circumstance that she has a child rather than aborting, that they have agreed in advance, that if - after that, the marriage fails, supporting the child will be her responsibility. Obviously other specifics of related one time financial issues could be specified in the prenup as well, if they so choose.
Pregnancies sometimes happen accidentally.
The question is, what should marriage assume, and what should have to be contractually specified separately to modify what is assumed with marriage.
I really don't think this is the only experience any female ever has going to college. It wasn't my experience by a long shot. None of my friends acted like this. You hold up a photo of some drunk girls and claim this represents all females between the ages of 18-24. That's an absurd assertion. There are many different kinds of young women. Just like there are many different kinds of men.
I agree with this, and have argued it before with Iwog. But he has his story, and he's sticking to it. It's not totally untrue, that both young men and young women who don't follow their hard wiring and mate ASAP, taking on huge responsibilities, may go through a prolonged adolescence that includes partying etc. And this may be detrimental to some.
As for the countries with lower ages of consent ? Those countries always have the added condition of parental consent. As for popularity ?
1. Concede that lower ages of consent are OK because of the popularity in other western nations
I guess you can call a law "popular," but having the law only means that with parental consent it's not illegal to marry someone at that absolute minimum age. IT is the established border line in that country (with parental approval), below which you are breaking the law. It tells you very little about how widely practiced such young marriages are in those countries. .
This is interesting:
The legal age of consent in France is 18; girls aged between 15 and 18 can be married with the consent of at least one parent, but the government is planning to abolish this concession.
This would not be happening if marriages of women under 18 were "popular," that is happening with any kind of frequency.
I wonder whether some of the countries that have very low ages of consent (with parent consent), do so simply because it is possible for a girl to get pregnant at such a young age, and in such cases, if the parents allow it, they will allow the girl to be married. This seems reasonable. IT doesn't mean the government or culture is endorsing such young marriages or that it's happening frequently these days.
Although, I will admit that the author of the linked piece was probably counting on idiots not reading closely. And even if you read it closely (and if you were intelligent), you won't understand - you'll just know you're being lied to.
Maybe you aren't as stupid as I think, and you're intentionally being dishonest too ?
It says .89 of every new dollar. Not .89 of every dollar.
"From 2009 to 2014, the state added $8.9 billion in new tax dollars to the education budget, over and above the base amount of $6.8 billion it spent in 2009.Of those new dollars spent, 89 percent went to retirement costs, and just 11 percent made it to classrooms. "
So, I'm not sure, because they are trying to make it sound far worse than it is (AND IT IS HORRENDOUS), but I think the 8.9 billion is 5 years of new money. added to what was 6.8 billion/year in 2009. So that would be 8.9/5 = 1.78 billion per year increase from 2009 with 89% of the 1.78 (new money) going to pensions.
But, does that mean that none of the 6.9 billion "base" is any longer going to pensions ? Are they saying all pension spending comes from the 1.78, for dramatic effect ?
Such total bullshit that it's impossible to comprehend. That's not meant as just an expression. I mean what they are saying is totally impossible to comprehend. But I'll give them this, they saw you coming.
The worst possible interpretation is that costs have gone up about 25% since 2009, and that 89% of that 25% increase is due to increased pension costs. But even this would not be clear, because if Illinois is trying to shore up unfunded liabilities, then money needs to be socked away in those funds. That is, it might not be that they are simply meeting current pension payouts. Maybe they are additionally adding to funding to decrease future unfunded liabilities.
I doubt it. I think what you're seeing is inherent ability in males that doesn't translate well to females.
What you're missing though is that most true power being in the hands of men, and the higher the amount of power involved in a role, the more likely tat role is to be handled by a man, does not imply that men always get more power than women. And says nothing about why so many men are powerless.
Also I was not addressing whether it should be this way or not, which is what a big part of your response was about.
Matriarchies tend to be those societies, as in the Western world, where life is easy and survival isn't in question. Women dominate because most men have nothing to trade.
In my opinion what you are describing here is not what is usually meant by matriarchy.
What you are describing is in essence the problem with not having patriarchy (in modernity), or the "growing pains" that come with moving away from patriarchy (in modernity).
What was known historically as matriarchy was not the absence of family, it was just that women had a lot of power and not just behind the scenes. It didn't mean that women didn't sometimes raise their sons to be great warriors. And the fact that men could have power in male ways, such as in fighting wars and physically defending/protecting women, didn't mean that women weren't still in charge, or at least equally in charge with men.
examples? I think that most 3rd world countries are Patriarchal
This could be true, and I would still be right. I didn't say most third world countries are matriarchal. I said the matriarchal societies that do exist are in the third world
I dissagree with Iwog on this. But he is defining the US as a matriarchy because of feminism going too far. It true that it has gone too far, and 3rd wave feminists are mostly insane. I would say that we are trying to have balance, neither a matriarchy or patriarchy, but the residual patriarchy is still intact. Especially in government and the corporate world.
In a matriarchy, women head the household and this is known by all. This is different than the way it's been in the west for centuries, which is that behind the scenes, women have plenty of power in the family, sometimes being in charge, but the man is still allowed to be perceived as the head of the household.
The way most people define matriarchy, native Americans were known to be a matriarchy as are some indian tribes to this day, such as the Cuna indians of the San Blas Islands. I've witnessed this. Some Asian tribes are known to be matriarchal as well. I still think that giving so mush power to girls over the future of their lives suggest that that tribe with the lovehuts is probably at least somewhat matriarchal. The fact that the father decides when the girl is old enough (he's allowed to do parenting) does not contradict the idea that it may be a matriarchal community.
I think the only matriarchies existing now are third world. But you're probably right that this isn't one. But it is giving a lot of trust and power to young women, over their lives. Silly Buddhists. Certainly men in that culture are not as macho and dominant as men in this culture.
In my opinion, our tradition of thinking we are protecting girls from getting married too young, and from lecherous older boys/men is something brought on by our male christian dominated society. You can't really attribute it to feminism. Well, you can, but I disagree. If anything, feminism caused young women to want more freedom for premarital sex, which in turn caused overly conservative and prudish American parents, lawmakers, to react by making the laws even more strict.
Kids having kids was the key point. If the parents are still constantly engaging in immature childish behavior while their offspring are in their formative years, this leads to all kinds of family dysfunction.
I also believe that kids having kids is a major cause of dysfunction, toxic relationships and royally fucked up families. In your fantasy, a lot of better mating decisions would be made if the norm was to get married while still in mid adolescence. I don't believe this to be true. Do I have evidence ? Only the very messed up dysfunctional and or abusive relationships/families I've seen that were started by a kid getting a kid pregnant.
BIOLOGY says you're wrong. HUMAN INSTINCT says you're wrong. HISTORY says you're wrong. 80% OF THE WORLD TODAY says your wrong, and the only fucking proof you are going to offer is...................................................
She isn't emotionally ready!!! How do I know? I just dooooooooooooooooo!
I don't get why you have so much emotion about this. OR why you brought this up again just because some moron used the word pedophile.
I get your position, but I don't get the point of it. In modern society we postpone adolescence. We just do. in part for reasons having to do with education, and how long it takes to get ones career going. But also maybe just to stretch out the pleasures associated with youth before spending the rest of ones life with so many responsibilities. I'm not saying that this has been a conscious plan. It's more like something that just happens in modern and relatively prosperous societies.
AS for your claim about 80% of the world ? Most of the world has legal minimums in the 16 to 18 range, but that's a minimum. Among modern western cultures, I think you'll find the average age to be way over 20 as it has been for a long time. Not the average minimum. And even where it's aloowed, I think you'll find a very small percentage getting married younger than 18.
Check this out:
Still, in most of Northwestern Europe, marriage at very early ages was rare. One thousand marriage certificates from 1619 to 1660 in the Archdiocese of Canterbury show that only one bride was 13 years of age, four were 15, twelve were 16, and seventeen were 17 years of age while the other 966 brides were at least 19 years of age at marriage. And the Church dictated that both the bride and groom must be at least 21 years of age to marry without the consent of their families; in the certificates, the most common age for the brides is 22 years. For the grooms 24 years is the most common age, with average ages of 24 years for the brides and 27 for the grooms. While European noblewomen married early, they were a small minority and the marriage certificates from Canterbury show that even among nobility it was very rare to marry women off at very early ages.
Yes, there are anecdotes supporting the idea that in many places historically marriage happened young.
But there is also a lot of data showing most places have minimums these days in the 16 to 18 range.
Look, I get it. There are some drawbacks to the way we fight against nature on this. But I agree more with Turtledove on this more than you. Just based on my own experience and observation of people my entire life. What you see as wiser girls at 15 are actually girls still being under total protection of their parents, and being deep down very happy that they are bound by rules regarding their behavior..
IF forced to do so, could people start (or return to the practice of) taking on the awesome responsibilities of being parents while teens, and still flourish ? Yes. Maybe it shouldn't be frowned upon to the degree it is. And maybe there is an aspect to waitng which goes against our nature. On the other hand, in today's economy, it takes a lot of time to acquire the skills necessary to thrive and be successful career wise(i.e to compete). And in modern times in America and other advanced cultures, face it, kids take a long time growing up, why ? Because they can.
Sounds like nothing more than a glorified disconnected private public transportation bus bench. That would pay 100's a month to hate having to use.
Good to know, just like with health care you'll be complaining every step of the way when any kind of attempts at progress are made. I sure hope politics cans change before then.
Otherwise you'll be whining and complaining every fucking step of the way, and then after everything is fucked up because of the assholes like you, constantly trying to derail any and all progress, you can get all excited about some dumbass angry racist demagogue who is supposedly going to undue all the damage created by the voting and whining and obstruction caused by you and your fellow conservatards.