patrick.net

jvolstad says

The big thing today is females in Stem careers. There is no barrier that I can see. Some of these young women however, are going to be surprised at the amount of work put in on a daily basis. Add to that, working with decades old code. Not as fun as you might think.

I've worked in software, the quintessential STEM field, my entire life. Almost half the people I've worked with are women -- not white women because they hate software development, but women nonetheless. Not once have I ever seen a woman work a single hour of unpaid overtime. It is expected on a daily basis of men.

The women who bitch and moan about there not being enough women in STEM would not be willing to do the work in STEM, not by a long shot. No woman in the history of the world has ever pulled a 90-hour work week.

rando says

Every decline in the value of labor is a gain in the value of capital.

Exactly. Capitalism rewards one and only one thing: bargaining power.

Dan8267 says

No woman in the history of the world has ever pulled a 90-hour work week.

Is killing yourself to make your boss rich a virtue? Do you think you are doing your family a favor by working 90 hours a week? I'm all for working hard, but this is just stupid.

Jordan Peterson is scheduled to speak for Free Speech Week in Berkeley. Don't think he is confirmed, though.
Can't believe Dan is posting his stuff. Highly recommend the Joe Rogan interview with Peterson and Bret Weinstein.

epitaph says

Is killing yourself to make your boss rich a virtue? Do you think you are doing your family a favor by working 90 hours a week? I'm all for working hard, but this is just stupid.

I got paid for overtime back then, but the point you haven't addressed. The men who work in STEM work harder than woman would be willing to do regardless of whether or not you think working that hard is a good thing. As such, woman would not want to work like men in STEM.

EBGuy2 says

Can't believe Dan is posting his stuff.

Why?

If a statement is true, I'll acknowledge it. Truth before all other things including political agendas.

That was pretty interesting and I certainly agree that high stress jobs with long hours shouldn't be desirable to anyone. I didn't really get the takeaway here from the video though; is he saying that as a society, we should value mothers more? And that our lack of valuation leads women to pursue outside work that makes them unhappy and also halves the value of labor? Or is he saying that women should value motherhood more and sacrifice a career for it?

If he is suggesting that mothers used to be valued more and thus didn't need to work, then I disagree. If he's saying we've always gotten the valuation of motherhood wrong and we need to improve, then I agree.

But in today's society, valuation means money. And what's ironic is that most commenters on this site are totally opposed to giving up their money to "alimony, child support, etc etc."

Dan8267 says

No woman in the history of the world has ever pulled a 90-hour work week.

This little bit is off topic IMO but since we're speaking anecdotally, I never have to work a 90 hour week because I'm efficient and produce much more than other people in less time. Having a company culture that recognizes that is the direction we should be moving to for everyone.

jessica says

That was pretty interesting and I certainly agree that high stress jobs with long hours shouldn't be desirable to anyone.

Stress isn't always a bad thing. If you aren't stress then your aren't achieving all you can. Stress comes with the possibility of failure. If you never risk failure, you are not attempting to do more than what is already common.

jessica says

I didn't really get the takeaway here from the video though

The important points in my opinion are the parts I quoted, but yes, I think he's warning about parents no longer able to be parents and to balance the trade-offs in life.

jessica says

This little bit is off topic IMO but since we're speaking anecdotally, I never have to work a 90 hour week because I'm efficient and produce much more than other people in less time.

Then how much more would you have produced if you did work long hours? Some things demand long hours and high commitment. That guy who proved Fermat's Last Theorem lock himself away in the attic office for eight years. Olympic athletes train for long hours for a decade or more before entering the Olympics. Taylor Swift goes into seclusion every time she composes an album.

Long hours and dedication to your craft are noble things if what you are doing benefits society. Meaning in life is largely derived from making the world a better place than you found it. Your career is the primary way you can do this.

In any case, there's a difference between a job and a career, and a career and a vocation. Most people have jobs, some have careers, and a few have vocations. I think every individual should decide for himself or herself how much time to devote to work, but also every individual needs to understand that you will never compete in the Olympics if you don't train for long hours every week for a decade. Some tasks demand dedication. STEM is full of such examples. Those who truly innovate and advance STEM are those who live for their work, and that is a noble thing.

jessica says

If he's saying we've always gotten the valuation of motherhood wrong and we need to improve, then I agree.

Women (and Motherhood) have always been extremely highly valued, since the beginning of time, and still are.That's why men always had to be taller, darker, handsomer, stronger, faster, smarter and more accomplished/distinguished. Men were always just units of labor and cannon-fodder. What changed is that men eventually got so good at what they were doing that women wanted to get in on the somewhat easier lives that men created for themselves. That is, women wanted an income (resources) that would remove the need for making a procreational commitment to one specific unit of labor, or as they used to call it, a husband. That is feminism in a nutshell. It is just the latest incarnation of perennial hypergamy.

The whole concept that society did not or does not sufficiently value motherhood is a complete falsehood. What you are asking for, but not saying, is that men should value "motherhood" even if the offspring does not contain the man's own DNA. Well, we will not. That cat is out of the bag.

>>But in today's society, valuation means money.

Do you have any other deep thoughts you want to share?

Here is the question that every man should ask themselves: How does society value manhood?

justme says

Women (and Motherhood) have always been extremely highly valued, since the beginning of time, and still are.

Let's see how valued more bodies are as the population approaches 8-9-10 billion.
.....
"Your children aren't special!"
This includes everyone's parents' children.

Dan8267 says

This is exactly why capitalism is a bad economic system. All economic systems that concentrate power into the hands of a few and ...

Cmon now. The only countries that show decent wealth in the world are all capitalistic. The problem could easily be mitigated by less women (or men) in the workforce, concentrating on raising the family and maintaining healthy finances instead of outsourcing every service/need and not desperately trying to keep up with the Joneses. Look at the Amish, they are (so far) perfectly happy as part of the capitalistic system, however they only use it when absolutely necessary and they don't need modern consumerism. And they have no money issues. Nobody can expect to buy new clothes every week, designer handbags, go out for dinner every week or have it delivered, travel to Machu PIchu just because their friend did and get the latest iphone for the same reason. But yet they all do.


jessica says

If he is suggesting that mothers used to be valued more and thus didn't need to work, then I disagree. If he's saying we've always gotten the valuation of motherhood wrong and we need to improve, then I agree.

That's a bit of a cop-out though. I think women bear 50% of the responsibility by abandoning motherhood and embracing consumerism, and men the other 50% for enabling them. Most of the money these days is spent on the woman (by the man and the woman), not on the kids. I'd argue that almost every family would have enough money if they concentrated on the necessary things only, not on the vanities. Why do most low-to-moderate income couples have engagement rings with an avg. price of $5K+ and weddings with an avg. price of 35K+? A smart stay-at-home mom (or dad) could easily net more money for the house-hold than by going to work, saving lots of net money by taking care of the kids and shopping frugally and doing home improvements themselves. Who knits socks anymore? Patches pants? Just throw em away and buy new ones. Who fixes a clogged sewer instead of calling roto-rooter? Who teaches the kids things and skills instead of paying somebody else to teach them? That''s were the problem is.

rando says

Aha! This alone explains our oligarchs' devotion to getting women "liberate" and therefore working for them.

Same reason they want to "Liberate" people from "Artificial Barriers" like pesky "National Borders".

But totally keep those borders when it comes to IP and Product Pricing. Dangerous Canadian Drugs!

justme says

Men were always just units of labor and cannon-fodder.

I read this exact phrase on Quora and it struck me as interesting but if men's product was being cannon fodder and women's being birthing vessels, then men's stock traded higher because they had the benefit of owning their wives.

justme says

Do you have any other deep thoughts you want to share?

Excuse my brevity, I type on a phone. Allow me to elaborate. Choosing to be a mother presents a financial risk to myself and society doesn't compensate me for this risk and nether does my husband to same degree that working outside the home does. My husband "pays" me by providing a house, food, etc but as soon as our contract is up (divorce) I'm in a vulnerable position that he is not. I'm much more secure if I had worked outside the home rather than in it.

justme says

What changed is that men eventually got so good at what they were doing that women wanted to get in on the somewhat easier lives that men created for themselves.

Men also made homemaking easier so it can't explain why women chose work. My thought is they chose work to mitigate their risk against divorce.

Dan8267 says

The important points in my opinion are the parts I quoted, but yes, I think he's warning about parents no longer able to be parents and to balance the trade-offs in life.

Maybe it's because the video is an excerpt but it was hard to glean his thesis. The points you quoted were interesting but they are byproducts of whatever his main thesis is. I think he proposes a reasonable explanation for why there are less women CEOs but I don't think he explains the gender wage gap. In his example of the female lawyer, rather than exit the game altogether, she could have opted for a corporate position where she works 9-5 but still makes low 6 figures. Addressing this very reasonable conclusion that most women make would help solve the gender wage gap, if you actually cared to solve it. What's interesting is that I think that poor Damore guy was actually suggesting this and then obviously got totally misunderstood.


Dan8267 says

That guy who proved Fermat's Last Theorem lock himself away in the attic office for eight years. Olympic athletes train for long hours for a decade or more before entering the Olympics. Taylor Swift goes into seclusion every time she composes an album.

I'm never going to be Taylor Swift even if I worked 24 hours a day! I think where we disagree is that since I can never be Taylor Swift, is the best way for me to contribute to society to give all my hours to my employer? I think the video expressly disagrees with that. But your point is that if I am very efficient and I worked 90 hours a week than I am even more of an asset to my company and I should be compensated more than someone who does one or none of those things. Agreed.

mell says

I'd argue that almost every family would have enough money if they concentrated on the necessary things only, not on the vanities.

I agree. I very much value a frugal lifestyle and think it is the key to financial success. But I can be the most frugal housewife ever and still if I become divorced, I am in a better position if I worked outside the home. I'm not blaming anybody for this, it's just a fact.

jessica says

But I can be the most frugal housewife ever and still if I become divorced, I am in a better position if I worked outside the home. I'm not blaming anybody for this, it's just a fact.

That depends on the income difference between you and your husband. If you have no income and your husband makes good $$ then you are entitled to larger alimony/child support based on the larger spread. Then you can still get a temp/side job that your ex-husband - after the divorce is settled and the payments instantiated - not only has to find out about but also re-challenge the payments (which is hard to to) and you may likely come out on top by working less during your marriage.

mell says

Then you can still get a temp/side job that your ex-husband - after the divorce is settled and the payments instantiated - not only has to find out about but also re-challenge the payments (which is hard to to) and you may likely come out on top by working less during your marriage.

This sounds like a flaw in the court system, maybe they should use social to track earnings.

I think in the majority of scenarios, the lost time in the workforce severely affects your earning potential.

jessica says

Alimony is meant to make up the difference in your earnings potential that you sacrificed to stay home. It should work the same regardless of gender and if you know beforehand that alimony is going to be granted, then you can plan accordingly.

That is not how it works. if you stay at home and marry Bill gates-get nannies, private jets, trips across the world, unlimited shopping and if no pre-nup she gets 10 billion dollars.

Meanwhile a woman married to a drunk married to someone who cheats on her and uses her money-while she supports her kids-has to pay alimony and split assets. In the world of equality, everyone should be responsible for themselves and plan accordingly.

jessica says

justme says

Men were always just units of labor and cannon-fodder.

I read this exact phrase on Quora and it struck me as interesting but if men's product was being cannon fodder and women's being birthing vessels, then men's stock traded higher because they had the benefit of owning their wives.

Husbands never owned their wives, the wives owned their husbands. Wives owned the labor output of the husbands, AND marriage ensured the legitimacy of claim on inheriting the man's estate upon death, if not for herself (that is more recent) then for her children, but with her as the intermediary. If men really owned their wives they could sell them and be rid of them. Men could do no such thing. In the modern world, it is even worse. Men can be dismissed by their owner, but then still continue to pay the former owner but have no rights whatever.

So stop with the flowery language and attempts at misdirection. Pretty much every substantial claim you have made so far is simply false.

lostand confused says

That is not how it works. if you stay at home and marry Bill gates-get nannies, private jets, trips across the world, unlimited shopping and if no pre-nup she gets 10 billion dollars.

Meanwhile a woman married to a drunk married to someone who cheats on her and uses her money-while she supports her kids-has to pay alimony and split assets. In the world of equality, everyone should be responsible for themselves and plan accordingly.

You've just described how it's equal. If both parties agree that one person should stay home, then they should be compensated via alimony. Consider it severance pay.

anonymous says

It would appear you haven't considered women who are filling the position of site and plant managers in the petro-chem field. You also have overlooked women who work as operators/technicians etc. in the same field.

If that is true, I'll gladly omit being wrong about a few women, but I demand evidence. Not only have I worked in software, but my entire family is in some STEM or another (including doctors as STEM) and I've seen other STEM worksites. Never have I encountered a woman, even a single childless one, who worked a 90-hour week. It's not uncommon for single, childless men to work such weeks.

Yeah, there may be rare exceptions, but I demand proof of such unicorns. You don't get that for free.

In any case, my statement was an observation, not a judgement.

jessica says

You've just described how it's equal. If both parties agree that one person should stay home, then they should be compensated via alimony. Consider it severance pay

Severance pay is determined by the company not by the person giving severance or a court under threat of jail.

lostand confused says

jessica says

You've just described how it's equal. If both parties agree that one person should stay home, then they should be compensated via alimony. Consider it severance pay

Severance pay is determined by the company not by the person giving severance or a court under threat of jail.

There should be either no alimony and only child support or at least a maximum that is based on the needs for a low-to-mid income life, i.e. frugal without any frills and extras. Because you marry somebody wealthy and enjoy the perks during the marriage should have no bearing on the payments when the marriage ends.

mell says

The only countries that show decent wealth in the world are all capitalistic.

And there is the fault in your reasoning. The converse of a true statement is not necessarily a true statement. All cats are animals that have tails does not imply that all animals with tails are cats. All current countries with decent wealth are capitalistic does not imply that all capitalistic countries have decent wealth. A capitalistic country has wealth does not imply that a country must be capitalistic to have wealth or that being capitalistic will ensure the country has wealth.

There is absolutely nothing about capitalism, the control by owners over production and the distribution of revenue from production, that has even a tenuous relationship with economic productivity or the wealth of most individuals in a society. People who think capitalism is the mechanism responsible for prosperity simply do not know what capitalism is. Capitalism is NOT commerce, banking, currency, the creation of corporations or other economic units, payment for services render, trade, investment, enterprise, innovation, or free markets. Absolutely none of those terms have anything to do with capitalism. Hell, free markets and capitalism are mutually exclusive.

Capitalism is one and only one thing: control by owners over production and the distribution of revenue from production. This is a very specific mechanism. It is not a mechanism necessary for any of those other things I mentioned, not even investment. And it is not a mechanism that maximizes productivity, wealth creation, per capita wealth creation, innovation, or even commerce. It is only irrational religious beliefs that cause some people to think capitalism does any of these things.

There are infinite number of alternative economic systems, almost all of which are farther from capitalism or communism than either of those two are from each other.

Furthermore, the criteria of equal pay for equal work (work read as "wealth creation") is, by definition, mutually exclusive with capitalism. The very definition of capitalism is that pay is not determined by work but rather what the owners are willing to pay for labor because the owners distribute the revenue. The owners will never, ever pay according to what labor produces, but rather only what they absolutely have to pay to labor. If they have to pay labor more than labor produces, then productivity simply is cut along with labor and the work just does not get done. Far more commonly, labor produces far more than labor can demand in wages and the owners pay only what labor can demand. In today's economy that's typically less than 25% of what labor produces. We know this because labor produces four times what it did in the 1950s, but real wages have not increased. Even in the 1950s businesses were profitable, so labor was not being paid more than it produced.

mell says

The problem could easily be mitigated by less women

Lowering the people in the labor force is a shitty way to increase wages because it lowers overall productivity and the overall wealth of the country. Unfortunately, capitalism makes this the ONLY possible solution to the problem.

The far better solution is to stop tying income to bargaining power and instead determine income by wealth production. By definition, doing so is abandoning capitalism, but I have observed that the economic religious fanatics only care about the word "capitalism", not the meaning. So we could call the new economic system capitalism even though it isn't and the religious nuts would probably be happy.

I just can't personally bring myself to using deceptive language because I'm an engineer through and through. How the system works matters to me, and explaining that accurately is critical.

Dan8267 says

Yeah, there may be rare exceptions, but I demand proof of such unicorns. You don't get that for free.

My undergrad research advisor - she is single, used to work, and still works 70-90 hrs a week. She is an exception though as I can not immediately think of another woman who works like that, but can think of many of my male colleagues and former coworkers.

Dan8267 says

There are infinite number of alternative economic systems, almost all of which are farther from capitalism or communism than either of those two are from each other.

Then the burden is on you to introduce them and demonstrate their superiority or point them out where practiced. There are certainly variations of capitalism that are roughly equally successful (at least what we deem successful), but none of a completely different kind.

Dan8267 says

Lowering the people in the labor force is a shitty way to increase wages because it lowers overall productivity and the overall wealth of the country. Unfortunately, capitalism makes this the ONLY possible solution to the problem.

I think it is a good solution because many jobs have been created that add nothing to the output, in fact it hinders output and throws roadblocks into the path of highly productive people everywhere. A good example is modern HR and other red tape / identity crap. Also working is not healthy unless it comes with physical exercise, so I would aim fro a reduction of people in the offcie workforce, but not just old, also healthy young people, if they can instead use their time and skills to better family life and upbringing.

jessica says

The points you quoted were interesting but they are byproducts of whatever his main thesis is.

This is true. In my opinion, these by-products are actually more important than his thesis, and they are the reason I posted this video.

As for my opinion on the subject of women and careers, the entire problem is best avoided by getting rid of men and women. We don't need genders or organic bodies or genetic code. We'd be far better off if we copied our brains into virtual neural networks that could be uploaded into robotic bodies, backed up, restored, instantiated in multiple bodies simultaneously, and synchronized among instances. This would solve the problems of death, disease, hunger, pain, and so many more medical problems. Additionally, it would eliminate all sexism and racism. Even better, the vast majority of evils in human history have been the result of selfish individuals trying to get their genes into future generations. Without genetic code, the motivation for almost all evil would simply cease to exist.

Unfortunately dumb ass humans are so attached to their bodies and even self-identify with their bodies. Until people view their bodies as mere peripherals for interacting with the environment, devices that can be easily replaced, they won't be open to the idea of going digital. Personally I never understood why anyone would want an aging and decomposing meat body when you could have a nice, shiny metallic body that is superior to your organic body in every way. Humans have such strange preferences.

jessica says

But your point is that if I am very efficient and I worked 90 hours a week

I think you were implying that people who work long hours do so because they are less productive. In my observations this is never the case. The people who work long hours are always the most productive people. There are people who work to live and people who live to work. It's a personal value judgement which is better and only each individual can make that tradeoff for himself or herself.

People would never ridicule a musician, doctor, painter, or athlete who work long, hard hours because those fields have high social status. However, STEM is far more important to humanity than any of those fields. Software development is the most important field as it enhances all other fields and progress is cumulative. Software is built on top of existing software. Houses are not built on top of existing houses. You build a house and it's a one-time payoff. You save a life with surgery it's a one-time payoff. You build software and it pays off continuously for years if not indefinitely. So if people admire hard workers in those high status fields, they should even more so admire hard workers in STEM fields.

jessica says

I'm never going to be Taylor Swift even if I worked 24 hours a day! I think where we disagree is that since I can never be Taylor Swift, is the best way for me to contribute to society to give all my hours to my employer?

It is true that neither of us would be as good as Swift in composing music or singing or performing no matter how much time and effort we put into those activities. However, it is equally true and more important that Swift would not be as good at those things if she didn't work damn hard. It takes both talent and hard work to succeed in any field. Merely having talent is not good enough.

Personally, I would be miserable in any job where I did the minimal necessary. To me, if something is worth doing, it is worth doing right, and if it's not worth doing right, it's not worth doing. I don't have the time to do anything so unimportant that it can be done in a less than stellar manner. There are too many more important things I already don't have the time to do.

justme says

Husbands never owned their wives, the wives owned their husbands.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women%27s_legal_rights_(other_than_voting)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wife_selling

justme says

So stop with the flowery language and attempts at misdirection. Pretty much every substantial claim you have made so far is simply false.

Comments like this are unproductive.

Dan8267 says

I think you were implying that people who work long hours do so because they are less productive. In my observations this is never the case. The people who work long hours are always the most productive people. There are people who work to live and people who live to work. It's a personal value judgement which is better and only each individual can make that tradeoff for himself or herself.

You know, I don't really know anyone that works 90 hours a week. I know people who work 60 though and don't accomplish any more than I do at 40 but they think that being "butt in chair" they will be more favorable to their boss. This is the behavior that I want to change and I think it will solve the time poverty problem that women in the workforce have. I don't disagree with your experience though, it's just that I don't really have any way to validate it and to me, it doesn't seem that common (and i do work in STEM).

jessica says

Doesn't a pre-nup solve all your problems though? Or even a post-nup?

If only they were iron-clad. Many get thrown out for ridiculous reasons. But they are a good start. Ideally income though could be viewed as separate throughout marriage with one partner benefiting from the other making more money as long as the marriage lasts. Once it's over, the time spent on having/raising children is covered via child support, so why alimony? I would add alimony with removing no-fault marriage, so that the party initiating the divorce will either have to pay alimony (if making more) or forfeit alimony pay (if making less) - unless there's proven domestic abuse, incessant cheating or other rare exceptions. No-fault divorce took out the skin in the game and that never works (gets abused).

jessica says

Comments

The reality of the matter is that men were by law responsible for the actions, including crimes, spending and debts, of their wives, BUT men had no lawful means of keeping their wives from disobeying their instruction or general wishes. Likewise, women had the right to upkeep by their men, but there was no law that said that women had to reciprocate. Hence women owning men.

Those Wikipedia articles contain lots of dishonest and inaccurate characterizations of what really happened throughout history. But one thing Wikipedia got right: The Married Women's Property Act of 1872 (England)

"The Married Women's Property Act 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c.93) was an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom that allowed married women to be the legal owners of the money they earned and to inherit property."

That's right. A wife did not have to contribute her wages to the upkeep of her husband. It is the old day version of "what is his is ours and what is mine is mine" (as spoken by a wife). So much for equality.

Persons interested in what was really going on in the 1800s should read some Ernest Belfort Bax. Here is an article/chapter about various aspects of marital rights.

https://ernestbelfortbax.com/2014/01/25/3-matrimonial-privileges-of-women/

Heh, that old book already contains the phrase “All yours is mine, and all mine’s my own.”

jessica says

Women couldn't have credit cards until 1974.

There you go with your lies again.

https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/487lo5/til_that_before_1974_women_couldnt_legally_have_a/d0hrxir/
What really happened was that banks would deny or approve credit cards based on the creditworthiness of the applicant. If a woman was not credit-worthy, she would not get a card, unless perhaps she could get another creditworthy person (cough, the husband, cough) to cosign and be on the hook for any unpaid debt she, the woman, incurred.

Look, jessica, you are just another propagandist parroting the lies spread by feminists, and by women's studies departments at universities, all over the country and the world. There is no substance to most of the claims you make. I doubt you are genuinely interested in truth, but if you are, get skeptical and get educated.

Dan8267 says

There is absolutely nothing about capitalism, the control by owners over production and the distribution of revenue from production, that has even a tenuous relationship with economic productivity or the wealth of most individuals in a society. People who think capitalism is the mechanism responsible for prosperity simply do not know what capitalism is. Capitalism is NOT commerce, banking, currency, the creation of corporations or other economic units, payment for services render, trade, investment, enterprise, innovation, or free markets. Absolutely none of those terms have anything to do with capitalism. Hell, free markets and capitalism are mutually exclusive.

Capitalism is one and only one thing: control by owners over production and the distribution of revenue from production. This is a very specific mechanism. It is not a mechanism necessary for any of those other things I mentioned, not even investment. And it is not a mechanism that maximizes productivity, wealth ...

Dan,

Do you believe in evolution?

Who do you believe own the goods in North Korea? How about the capital goods (goods that can produce consumer goods) in North Korea? "The people" or the dictatorship? Goods are always owned; those who decide on how to utilize capital goods are the real owners of the capital goods.

Since capital goods have many alternative uses . . . do you think individual private owners competing with each for best returns would result in more efficient use of the limited supply of capital goods, or do you think bureaucratic managers making those resource allocation decisions on behalf of a mute "The People" would do better? How about bureaucrats consolidated into a party-state as those bureaucratic monopolies always eventuate?

If you believe in evolution, why do you think economic lives (enterprises) should be designed by committees instead of by individualized owners in charge of discrete chunks of limited resources and competing against each other?

Shut up piggy. Capitalism isn't like evolution. And capitalism is a centralized system, dumb ass. It concentrates power in the hands of the few. Capitalism also eliminates competition.

Furthermore, communism isn't the only alternative to capitalism. Those two economic systems are virtually identical to each other.

Now go back to fucking goats, piggy.

"Communism" is only a euphemism for Monarchy. Nothing more than that. Marx simply substituted "divine right of king" with "dictatorship of the proletariat," which means a tyrant dictator ruling in the name of the "proletariat" too dumb to realize what's going on or too cowered to speak up.

What Marx called "Capitalism" was actually a relatively free market place (much less centralized than today's "Western Democracies"), where/when people (in the 19th century) had sound money and exercised much more control over their own lives than most of us do today.

What we have today is similar to plantation slavery back then: free education, free food (EBT cards), free medicine, free housing, etc. etc. for the slaves, all at the discretion of slave masters running the plantation via a plantation scrip that the plantation owner could devalue at will. "Free" means you don't get to decide priorities (by deciding where to put your own money) but your slave masters do. Out of the 10 planks in Karl Marx' Communist Manifesto of 1848, 8 of them are already implemented in today's western society.

jessica says

You've just described how it's equal. If both parties agree that one person should stay home, then they should be compensated via alimony. Consider it severance pay.

Here's an idea: Give the kids to the father and get yourself out in the workforce / education system after a divorce. Then when you get laid off you'll find there is a huge diff between severance pay and alimony / palimony.

jessica says

Women couldn't have credit cards until 1974.

And now look at the consumer debt problem we have. Almost every single woman I know needs to go to credit card rehab, but won't admit it to themselves.

jessica says

If he gained his success after they were married, then I think it's reasonable to assume that she did support him in many tangible ways

No. That's just a stupid assumption. She could have been a horrible bitch to him for years and he may have become successful nonetheless. This is not rare.

anonymous says

There is a solution to the problem: co-parenting with with men who can afford to pay for multiple children, instead of marriage,

That sounds a lot like how things work in a Muslim country under Sharia law. Is your head exploding from the incoherency of your views, "anonymous"?

anonymous says

There is a solution to the problem: co-parenting with with men who can afford to pay for multiple children, instead of marriage,

That sounds a lot like how things work in a Muslim country under Sharia law. Is your head exploding from the incoherency of your views, "anonymous"?