This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

People Not In Labor Force Soar By 663,000 To 90 Million, Labor Force Participation Rate At 1979 Levels

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Things just keep getting worse for the American worker, and by implication US economy, where as we have shown many times before, it pays just as well to sit back and collect disability and various welfare and entitlement checks, than to work .The best manifestation of this: the number of people not in the labor force which in March soared by a massive 663,000 to a record 90 million Americans who are no longer even looking for work. This was the biggest monthly increase in people dropping out of the labor force since January 2012, when the BLS did its census recast of the labor numbers. And even worse, the labor force participation rate plunged from an already abysmal 63.5% to 63.3% - the lowest since 1979! But at least it helped with the now painfully grotesque propaganda that the US unemployment rate is "improving."

People not in labor force:

Labor participation rate:

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Fri, 04/05/2013 - 09:01 | 3411974 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

Just think how high stocks will go once people start working again!

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 09:04 | 3412016 malikai
malikai's picture

Happy gold confiscation day, slaves!

Rejoice!

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 09:05 | 3412023 Pinto Currency
Pinto Currency's picture

These numbers are proof of the Fed's success because it could have been so much worse.

Krugman breaks out into spontaneous Ukrainian folk dance routine on his desk.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 09:09 | 3412055 oleander garch
oleander garch's picture

No.  You miss it.  This is perfect.  We are all living in Krugman's new Keynsian paradise. 

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 09:12 | 3412084 Shocker
Shocker's picture

90 Million, really???? How do you even comment on that type of number.

Repost because its important times

http://www.dailyjobcuts.com

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 09:14 | 3412104 Popo
Popo's picture

How do you even comment on "1979 levels".   Next stop:  1978.    

Can I get a "holy shit"?   The entire 1980's / 1990's boom has now come off.   We're back in the 19-fucking-70's.

Oh yeah... it's all good.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 09:17 | 3412125 CH1
CH1's picture

How do you even comment on "1979 levels".

There is one way: That was before women were fully involved in the workplace. Lots of room for comment there.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 09:16 | 3412131 Pinto Currency
Pinto Currency's picture

A wicked looking head and shoulders.

A long way to fall.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CIVPART/

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 09:30 | 3412223 gmrpeabody
gmrpeabody's picture

Cramer says it's seasonal..... LOLs

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 09:33 | 3412233 GetZeeGold
GetZeeGold's picture

 

 

Just drink your damn Koolaid kids.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 09:41 | 3412303 camaro68ss
camaro68ss's picture

Main headline on drudge! Good job ZH

Wake the sheeple up!

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 09:48 | 3412350 New England Patriot
New England Patriot's picture

The social safety net has turned into a hammock.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 09:56 | 3412403 Bearwagon
Bearwagon's picture

Yeah! With a giant hole at the place where your ass should rest ...

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 10:17 | 3412541 redpill
redpill's picture

This is good news!  Now all these people who gave up looking for jobs have more time to spend flipping real estate!

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 10:19 | 3412550 pods
pods's picture

There has never been a better time to............

pods

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 10:29 | 3412614 ParkAveFlasher
ParkAveFlasher's picture

...buy gold.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 10:45 | 3412676 Badabing
Badabing's picture

...get a free phone.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 10:55 | 3412753 nope-1004
nope-1004's picture

..... quit work and suck off the state.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 11:19 | 3412875 King_of_simpletons
King_of_simpletons's picture

Is there an online course on how to suck the gubmint dry by getting on welfare and disability ? I would like to take it.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 11:28 | 3412918 bobola
bobola's picture

Where is Dr. Paul Krugman today?

Didn't he say more people are working now?

The bastage.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 11:59 | 3413079 Spirit Of Truth
Fri, 04/05/2013 - 16:54 | 3414249 Pinto Currency
Pinto Currency's picture

Here are two links.

Jim Rogers warning today the gov will take your retirement funds and George Carlin warning of the same years ago:

Jim Rogers :

http://bullmarketthinking.com/jim-rogers-i-suspect-theyll-take-the-pension-plans-next-i-for-one-am-worried-and-im-taking-preparations/

George Carlin :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALlzClE67os

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 12:41 | 3413273 breakyoself
breakyoself's picture

He'll return when data is in his favor.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 12:36 | 3413252 IrritableBowels
IrritableBowels's picture

King,

If there is, make sure you apply for a Pell Grant!

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 13:11 | 3413380 Arisu
Arisu's picture

There's a book similar to what you're looking for on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00AZ8HDCA

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 12:35 | 3413245 lolmao500
lolmao500's picture

The more people suck off the state, the faster this whole biatch collapses. So I say go for it.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 21:36 | 3415166 TrulyBelieving
TrulyBelieving's picture

Your sediment is understood, but not shared. Why give the enemy of Liberty the satisfaction of knowing you were willing to go along too? Stand against them, and you will gain the satisfaction.

Sun, 04/07/2013 - 13:38 | 3418755 Magically Delicious
Magically Delicious's picture

I admire your fortitude, but why stand in front of a moving train?

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 12:15 | 3413146 Bad Attitude
Bad Attitude's picture

Buy ammo...

Forward (over the cliff)!

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 14:35 | 3413653 Bananamerican
Bananamerican's picture

can't. sold out

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 11:57 | 3413077 prains
prains's picture

....sharpen my pitchfork

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 11:16 | 3412860 Chump
Chump's picture

And now on top of that we can learn about 4 football players who are going to announce their sexual preference...possibly ON THE SAME DAY!  I like drudge but seriously, who fucking cares??

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 11:43 | 3412981 CunnyFunt
CunnyFunt's picture

Right. I figure that the top .gov/msm evening news stories will be gun control and gay weddings.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 14:05 | 3413467 Pinto Currency
Pinto Currency's picture

The Obama admin is worried about Drudge.

What's the worry about Drudge?

http://www.infowars.com/white-house-senior-advisor-scolds-the-drudge-rep...

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 13:23 | 3413413 IdiocracyIsAlre...
IdiocracyIsAlreadyHere's picture

You like Drudge...seriously??  You don't see him for this disinfo propaganda hack he is because he supports "Team Red" and not "Team Blue"?  Wow.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 13:26 | 3413423 redpill
redpill's picture

The disinfo is easy enough to recognize.  However, the guy does tend to get shit up faster than most everywhere else, and for that I find his site worth visiting.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 15:26 | 3413846 IdiocracyIsAlre...
IdiocracyIsAlreadyHere's picture

Which is fine if you are able to keep you BS detector on at all times.  Worthwhile information can be found in unlikely places sometimes.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 17:17 | 3414328 schnydz
schnydz's picture

Dude, do you realize Drudge is a news aggregator. He simply links to news posts. It can be from NYT WSJ or Foxnews. It don't matter. 

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 18:27 | 3414518 Chump
Chump's picture

Believe it or not, I'm able to discern information from bullshit.  I appreciate the concern though.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 10:13 | 3412504 El Oregonian
El Oregonian's picture

Did dufus say seasonal or reasonable? Either way we're screwed...

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 10:56 | 3412757 Pairadimes
Pairadimes's picture

All I can say is that I hope the last mother fucker to have a job will be making 14 trillion a year or we are truly boned.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 14:29 | 3413625 A82EBA
A82EBA's picture

+100

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 14:14 | 3413581 Kirk2NCC1701
Kirk2NCC1701's picture

I'm surprised that Cramer/Krugman haven't stated that the participation rate is going down because (a) QE is making more Wall St more millionaires, or (b) More boomers are retiring.  If they haven't, they will. 

When things go Boom, 99% of Boomers will be retired. /s

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 16:06 | 3414020 Panafrican Funk...
Panafrican Funktron Robot's picture

Boomers retiring really is a big chunk of this.  This is actually bad news though, because these people aren't going back to work under any circumstances apart from imminent starvation.  In other words, the labor participation rate will necessarily continue to fall.  Good luck paying for SS/Mcare.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 09:38 | 3412260 Jacque Itch
Jacque Itch's picture

This is EXACTLY what the Dems want.  Kill jobs, Americans get lazy, rely on the govt, blame the sequester, re-election.  Textbook.  The lefties are smiling in DC, bitchez.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 09:43 | 3412325 spankthebernank
spankthebernank's picture

democrat-republican? Wake uuuupppp!

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 09:45 | 3412334 Clark Bent
Clark Bent's picture

switch from paychecks to "benefits," complete the fascist crony takeover of "the means of production" and all will be hunky-dory. It has worked so well before. Arbeit Mach Frei fellow citoyens!

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 09:57 | 3412416 kliguy38
kliguy38's picture

Dems????? Soooooo 20th century... Seriously you need to try and use your computer to educate yourself......Dems and Reps are the SAME operatives for the bankers.....and they own YOU!...if you haven't figured it out by now then you are ineducablel.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 10:24 | 3412586 Jacque Itch
Jacque Itch's picture

Gimme some credit.  I know how it works kiddies.  But the sheeple don't and Washington sure doesn't.  Anybody with their eyes open to reality is still in a very small minority.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 13:09 | 3413086 prains
prains's picture

you're wasting space

 

 

literally

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 15:22 | 3413830 Jacque Itch
Jacque Itch's picture

Not when sheep like you don't understand the game

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 19:03 | 3414656 mofreedom
mofreedom's picture

so are you, prostate for brains.  fundamentally transform america ring a bell to you?  you heard a repub say that ever?  sure, mosst repuds are worthless, spinless, you know whats, but they're not the devil incarnate.  the end, amen.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 19:16 | 3414658 mofreedom
mofreedom's picture

then educate us, what should we read?  please help us poor souls oh master.  look at communism.  I HAVE!!!

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 10:16 | 3412526 Agent 440
Agent 440's picture

Actually I think they're trying to keep things exactly the way they are. In a sense, Democrats are far more conservative than anyone imagines. They will burn all of tomorrow's rescources to get yesterday's back.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 13:25 | 3413422 IdiocracyIsAlre...
IdiocracyIsAlreadyHere's picture

Wow another clueless dolt who thinks there is a difference between "Team Red" and "Team Blue" and buys the whole phony left/right propaganda.  Wow Idiocracy is out in full force in the comments today.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 15:58 | 3413982 Vendrell
Vendrell's picture

It's on Drudge so much wider audience....

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 21:11 | 3415072 zorbathefreak
zorbathefreak's picture

smoke another one, brah! 

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 09:56 | 3412400 Stoploss
Stoploss's picture

HOLY FUCKIN SHIT, we're only in the SECOND quarter of approximately 14 more to go under this admin.

 

We won't make it.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 10:18 | 3412543 fxrxexexdxoxmx
fxrxexexdxoxmx's picture

under this admin

 

Easy now or else someone is going to call you racist.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 10:45 | 3412692 JimBowie1958
JimBowie1958's picture

...or a terrorist.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 11:08 | 3412819 Tebow
Tebow's picture

Or a racist terrorist.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 11:08 | 3412820 Tebow
Tebow's picture

Or a racist terrorist.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 11:34 | 3412942 Ying-Yang
Ying-Yang's picture

or drone bait

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 12:01 | 3413092 prains
prains's picture

or phone bait

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 10:26 | 3412593 franzpick
franzpick's picture

PC - A wicked looking head and shoulders:

I've never seen what the bottom of a H&S looks like, but it's probably the even more wicked fallen arches double bottom formation.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 09:18 | 3412146 Steve in Greensboro
Steve in Greensboro's picture

"1979 levels" eh?  Who was President back then?  I forget.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 09:24 | 3412184 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture

 

 

Bill Miller (before Volcker stepped in)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chairmen_of_the_Federal_Reserve

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 09:34 | 3412238 GetZeeGold
GetZeeGold's picture

 

 

Super high interest rates.....that's the ticket!

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 10:32 | 3412628 Citxmech
Citxmech's picture

Oh fuck - could you imagine what would happen if Bernanke raised interest rates to even 4%?

Man this is bad - all the unemployment with even more of the inflation.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 12:57 | 3413332 seek
seek's picture

I did the math on a Volker move at the current US debt level. We're at $16.7T; ignoring the dating on treasuries, rates were 20% (!) for three years, averaged 11% in '79.

That'd be interest payments of $3.34T on the current debt at 20%, and $1.8T at 1979 levels. Total US revenue is $2.5T, so at 1979 rates 72% of revenues would be debt service, and at 1981 rates, Mel Gibson would be a cop wearing black leather hunting bad guys in the outback.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 13:46 | 3413494 Citxmech
Citxmech's picture

Thanks for the effort, Seek.  Those numbers are very illuminating and disturbing!

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 16:07 | 3414026 prodigious_idea
prodigious_idea's picture

The math on the potential cost of debt servicing is alarming, and if we ever have price discovery on rates the whole budget debate is over.  It'll just be defense and debt service.  There are lots of pie charts on the subject but these two are representative.

http://nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 17:43 | 3414409 chubbar
chubbar's picture

No, it won't be defense and debt service. Cut all spending besides that and you have revenue plummeting down to just below a third (ballpark). The economy does a "fast stop" and you'll have NO defense spending other than paying a couple hundred secret service guys not to tell where the fuck the president and congress are hiding.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 17:43 | 3414410 chubbar
chubbar's picture

No, it won't be defense and debt service. Cut all spending besides that and you have revenue plummeting down to just below a third (ballpark). The economy does a "fast stop" and you'll have NO defense spending other than paying a couple hundred secret service guys not to tell where the fuck the president and congress are hiding.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 13:48 | 3413497 BooMushroom
BooMushroom's picture

Even at only 6%, it's now a TRILLION (yes, with a T) a year in interest.

Assuming we immediately (today) stop all deficit spending, which of course cannot happen... ... Yeah, we're just hosed. Monetezation and default are our only options.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 19:59 | 3414835 Professorlocknload
Professorlocknload's picture

For rates to go from 1% to 2% is a 100% increase. To go from 2% to 4%, another. etc.

The going up is not the same as the coming down, eh?

 

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 09:49 | 3412314 Divine Wind
Divine Wind's picture

 

 

 

This is a powerful comment, CH1.

I could not agree more. While many will neg the comment, the "liberation" turned many things about our society on it's head.

More than half of these women in the workforce are single mommies who were sucked into the idea of dumping their man and striking out on their own.

Now it is Marriage 2.Hoe, and the quality of their kids (or lack thereof) is clearly manifesting itself over the last 20-30 years.

I personally prefer the pre-70's model (i.e. the Biblical model) for the household.

That traditional model was, and still is, the best, though given the cultural rot in America, most women view this as the "ball and chain" model.

Intact homes where Mommy stays home typically earn more. Go figure.

Intact homes where Mommy stays home typically turn out much more stable, higher achieving children. Go figure.

Unfortunately, I do not see how the current trend could possibly be changed.

 

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 09:55 | 3412393 centerline
centerline's picture

Slippery slope here.  But, I tend to agree.  I am all for equal rights, but the process of getting there is not without it's pitfalls and along the way we seem to have turned basic genetic differences into taboo subjects.  When you couple the shortcomings of the financial system we live within, the parabolic rise in corruption, lack of leadership, etc., there is a perfect storm that plays out, and the family unit pays the price.

By the time people really start to figure this all out and come to terms with the conflicting messages, it is too late.  There are also cultural differences... much of which would be politically incorrect to discuss.  But, to be fair, are also to some degree victims of the system which at this point can only be defined as predatory since the game is to feed to political class and bankers and thier oligarch owners.

Same as it ever was, but now visible because the system can no longer support increasing demand for yield. 

 

 

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 10:39 | 3412654 Citxmech
Citxmech's picture

I don't know one family with kids that are happy with the fact that both parents have to work and the kid gets raised by a stranger in day care.  The situation is far less about equal rights and more about decreasing relative wages.  

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 13:24 | 3413418 PianoRacer
PianoRacer's picture

Also think about this: you can't tax house chores but you can tax a maid service. You can't tax Moms who stay at home, but if they join the workforce you can tax their income AND you can tax the daycare where they dump their kids to be raised by strangers.

 

Cui bono. Always. And as always, it's the thugs in the state or whose who own them.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 13:49 | 3413505 Citxmech
Citxmech's picture

. . . and if you follow this line of thought further, think of the implications regarding extended families where the grandparents provided a substantial portion of childcare.  Very interesting.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 10:08 | 3412475 GCT
GCT's picture

Divine wind spot on +1. 

Coming from that era I happen to agree.  The problem was male birthrates were stagnant.  The government needed more growth and thus encouraged and educated women to move into the work force.  Look at how stay at home mothers  (I actually have a GREAT RESPECT FOR THESE WOMEN) are stigmatized in the media.  Bette yet hit the TV networks and you will find most of the programs are all about being single, shack ups with children, and the men are madeout to be idiots or worse like women.   Married people in programs have invisible spouse because you never see them or their children they always speak of.  Stupid moms your suppose to be working your asses off while the village indoctrinates your child into the greedy self agrandizing idiots protrayed in the media. Single moms with deadbeat men rule the media programs these days.

For those that can remember the number one killer of women was breast cancer and at the bottom of the list was heart attacks.  Now it is reversed.  Why? Because women are now under the same stress in the work force as men are.  But the bottom line is the governement needed more growth and tapped into the supid sheeple women to ge them out there to work just like men so they could pay the gov more taxes.  Now our children are over medicated and most are overweight.  Normal active children have ADD and the schools can hand out birth control.  Everyone is a winner even though they cannot read at an 8th grade level and we wonder whats wrong.  No child let behind is a joke!

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 10:28 | 3412605 centerline
centerline's picture

Precisely GCT.  It has been an outright attack on women, and children were the casualties of said war.  Government and corporations - both pulling from a position of greed.  Manipulating for their own benefit instead of the common good.  Yeah, same as it ever was.  But, technology  really allowed for the game to go full retard.

There is a number of big lessons here.  One can only hope we learn from them and do not forget.

 

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 10:33 | 3412636 ParkAveFlasher
ParkAveFlasher's picture

Yet more capital misallocation implicit to a fiat monetary system.

MOAR working women equals MOAR salaried workers equals MOAR individual demand for federal banknotes.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 10:48 | 3412711 centerline
centerline's picture

It's all about GROWTH.  The MSM uses this word everyday and no one stops to question it - let alone think that perpetual growth on a finite planet is impossible.

Of course, I am sure we will hear how economic growth is entirely different than physical growth (stock versus flow, debt owed to ourlselves, or any other closed system analsys)!  lol.  Just more bullshit to keep the hampsters on the wheel a little longer.  Propoganda at it's best.  Ponzi schemes require expontential growth.  

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 16:50 | 3414236 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

"let alone think that perpetual growth on a finite planet is impossible."

Would Life on earth exist without perpetual growth? ;)

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 18:02 | 3414456 centerline
centerline's picture

The laws of thermodynamics suggest this is correct actually! and for the entire universe.  Just a matter of how fast one wants to get the inevitable conclusion though.  Linear or exponential.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 10:50 | 3412726 NoDebt
NoDebt's picture

Be careful not to lay too much of this on the "women in the workforce" aspect (although it certainly deserves it's due).  An even more important demographic difference from 1979 is the age of our population.  Boomers were young in 1979, now they're old.

As I have said on here many times before NEVER UNDERESTIMATE DEMOGRAPHICS.  The age of our population is the 800 lb. gorilla of demographic trends over that time period.  At one point it helped us, now it's hurting us.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 11:28 | 3412911 centerline
centerline's picture

Cause and effect are really difficult to seperate here.  For example, now we have kids who can't find jobs, can't afford anything and therefore don't get married and have kids.  The process of the population getting older accelerates on a relative basis.  All because the system itself demands perpetual growth which was unsustainable in the first place.

Seems to me we crossed that line back in the 70's here in the US.

Sat, 04/06/2013 - 07:17 | 3415758 GCT
GCT's picture

@NODebt

I was pointing out one of the many problems commentor's here that are young do not get.  I agree we should never underestimate demographics. 

There is a reason for the women in combat arms proposed last year.  Demographics! This has nothing to with making combat arms available to women so they feel more equal.  Male birthrates are on a decline and have been since we tend to kill them off in wars.  So now your daughter can get herself killed.  Of course when we see our daughters getting raped and then killed we will see how this plays out. 

Being an ole fart that I am I see the changes in family structure and childrn being indoctrinated.  They are being told the gov has your back especially if your a woman.  Single women tend to vote Democrat, Married women tend to vote Republican.  So our gov must game the system breaking up the family unit.  The more chaos the better the control.

 

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 10:58 | 3412772 Kayman
Kayman's picture

Husband and wife working to support all the parasites at the top and bottom of our society. Families turning into strangers.

Use less, want less, stop paying interest and watch the beast die a slow death. Oh, wait, we're watching it now.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 21:04 | 3415040 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

I wonder,

But the bottom line is the governement needed more growth and tapped into the supid sheeple women to ge them out there to work just like men so they could pay the gov more taxes.  Now our children are over medicated and most are overweight.  Normal active children have ADD and the schools can hand out birth control.

if you're prepared to take into consideration the fact that many Women work because they need to support themselves, and choose not to be in relationship in order to be taken care of financially?  that there are single Women, single mothers, etc. that support themselves?  and when you say "now our children are" blah blah, perhaps the lack of quality foodstuffs, and proper health care that doesn't include pharma, vaccines, etc. might contribute?  many children have food allergies, asthma, ADD etc. because of the corporate fud profiteers, which "stupid sheeple women" cannot be held fully responsible for. . .

and for the record, I support unschool/home school environments, but I also realise that economically some people sadly choose to support the state skool babysitters.  and vaccines, pharma, etc. - no thanks.

Sat, 04/06/2013 - 07:36 | 3415772 GCT
GCT's picture

Typical response from one who is totally indoctrinated by the media.  Head back to huffpo please we need intelligent discussions.  Lack of quality food stuff, proper healtcare blah, blah, blah,  90 to 95% of all the welfare programs are for women give me a break.  Less then 5% of the hud propertie across the USA have men in them.  If you cannot find quality food stuff maybe you ought to get out of the TV dinner isle.  Oh I forgot you probably cannot cook a nutritious meal.

Even the medical journals state ADD is misdiagnosed most of the time because the child is male and active.  Go do some research please and get back to me.  I did not think would actually have one of the sheeple females to actually post here.  

Asthma in the home usually means the house needs to be actually cleaned. 

Sat, 04/06/2013 - 16:16 | 3416864 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

bloody hell dude, could your post hold any more clichés?  mebbe try & squeeze in just. one. more??

you're obviously puffed up to max because you scored a few anger points here, which is really easy to do given the particular topic.

as to the numerous clichés raised - percentage of parents on welfare, as single folks of either designated "sex" don't generally qualify, you need to breed to get that particular benefit, so yes, more females are mothers than fathers with their kids.  however, men can and do receive other supplemental bennies, so what's yer point?  "welfare" is for kids, and filters to the people responsible for them, duh.  same with housing - single folks don't get hud props, because the "line" is long and filled with families.  not so hard to grok.

if you'd allow your mind to drop the gov labeling and inherent "side taking" - you'd realise ALL gov monies allocated = welfare, and then sit your shallow ass down and add up where all that allocation goes, all of it, and then if your butt still itches, add gender into the mix and tell me who gets what, k?  you may find the welfare that kids get for being birthed pales when compared to the welfare the military gets to kill other kids in other countries.  just one merry circle jerk of Fed pumpin'

your snark about "quality food stuff" would be hilarious were it not so sad - ever heard of GMO? ever read an ingredients list from supermarket foods?  do you know what GMO soy does to bodies?  you should, since it's in about 85% of all packaged foods now.

but you're just trollin' me, so on ya go - too bad the thread's roughly dead now, and you'll not get your many bro-fists.

*sad face*

 

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 11:01 | 3412588 Housewife
Housewife's picture

As a woman, I agree with Divine Wind (several comments up) about women in the workforce.

You are right about the kids, too. My children are not the leeches (bankster or welfare) of society. They are all high-achievers. 

I stay at home (and read Zero Hedge while scouring the internet for real estate auctions) while my husband works. Glad I didn't become a feminist. I love my life. My kids wouldn't be who they are if I was not here. And I'd feel responsible if I unleashed good-for-nothings onto society.

 

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 13:32 | 3413443 imbrbing
imbrbing's picture

I had my first kid in 1981 and my wife worked at the time. We had been married about a year. I came home from work and had

to pick up our kid from the "sitter" her first day back to work. I still remember that feeling till this day. I swore I would never do that again. When my wife

got home from work I made her quit. She said it was the happiest day of her life, knowing she could stay home with our newborn.

No one thinks like that anymore. My wife was able to raise our kids while I worked, believe me sometimes it was rough as we

at cheerios, mac-cheese and blogne sandwiches sometimes. Sometimes lights went out, water turned off. But dammit my wife

was a "housewife" and I worked outside the family. IT WAS HARD, but who gives a fuck. IT WAS RIGHT!

 

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 17:56 | 3414444 chubbar
chubbar's picture

I did the same and agree, my wife has never been happier and my daughter got the "mommy time" that she needed to evolve and have confidence in our family and her place in it (I spend as much time as possible with them as well, it's important). I don't envy those couples that don't have that luxury and that is what it has become, a luxury to have one of them stay home in the early development stage of child rearing (because of inflation, IMO). I don't blame the women per se, although I do think the "feminist movement" has some absurd beliefs. A couple raising their child is not concerned about power struggles nearly as much as they'd like to see a healthy, moral child come out of childhood and their family to be a nurturing environment for all of their needs. Not much of a concern any longer IF you believe the media or some of the feminists and others working to break down the family unit. A sad day for kids, to be sure.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 14:37 | 3413661 NYMom
NYMom's picture

I do not disagree with DW's post. I understand and I am saddened by the loss of the traditional family and the long term ramifications this implies. However, for many of us, the choice is not ours to make, for obvious reasons.
I am successful, hard working woman. I am also a good wife and a damn good Mother of two, well mannered, independent, creative, high achieving boys. You see, I too read Zero Hedge every day while multi tasking my business, their activities, and commuting to and from the city 5 days a week. I am up at 6 and drop into bed at 1:00 in the morning. Guess what? I am not a feminist. I graduated college and went to work. I worked hard and my work was rewarded - not because I wanted or expected equality with the "evil" male genus, but because it was what I had been taught. It's called work ethic.
I fell in love with a man and married him, not because he provided a "lifestyle" but because he was a good, decent, hardworking man. We have made a life together and although this may be hard for you to grasp, I, too, love my life.
I'll be honest, there are some mornings, as I race my kids to the bus, I feel a pang of envy watching the stay at home Moms linger and chat with their to-go cups of coffee, after the bus pulls away - whose only agenda that day may be the gym, a craft at school or scouring the paper for real estate deals, and think to myself "wow, what must that be like?"... but then my phone rings and it's a client and the thought quickly evaporates. I am glad you have raised productive, good kids. You should feel proud. Please don't make the ridiculous assumption that we working stiffs are all turning out ne'er-do-wells.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 15:18 | 3413767 centerline
centerline's picture

Sorry, but I don't know what to make of this.  All I see is conflict here - coupled with a masocistic drive that you label a work ethic.  Sounds like "babyboomer speak" which is completely unbalanced.  Saddening to hear that a client's voice erases those feelings you have about opportunities lost.  We all have to come to grips with the decisions we make one way or another, sooner or later.

Also, for all we know "Housewife" has a rich husband (or family money, etc.) and can use $100 bills to wipe her kids noses.  Hardly worthy of praise compared to families that throw off materialism and make deep sacrificies (and go against the grain in doing so) to select being home (mom OR dad) for period of thier kids lives.  {apology extended in advance to Housewife if the latter shoe fits best}.

 

 

 

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 17:06 | 3414174 Housewife
Housewife's picture

My husband made $19,000 a year when I married him 17 years ago. Far from wiping my kids' butts with $100 bills, I used cloth diapers. We shopped at Goodwill, drove used cars that we paid cash for, and saved like crazy. With that work ethic and extreme sacrifice, we are now "rich" small business owners who actually produce something.

Choices.

Nowadays, the poor have new cars with working air-conditioning and iPhones. I did not even own a smart phone or cable teevee until I paid off my houses. And I still shop at Goodwill. New York mom, methinks thou doth protest too much.

 

Centerline, Thanks for the benefit of the doubt!

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 16:52 | 3414239 NYMom
NYMom's picture

Of course there are conflicts for me - both emotionally and physically, but as i noted in one of my first sentences, some of us don't have a choice. Moving past a fleeting moment of envy is called living in reality. I'd prefer not to wallow in self pity or be saddened by what one must do for ones family. However "housewife" affords the life she has chosen to lead, be it trust fund, sacrifice or a wealthy spouse, is of no consequence to this discussion for me and in all honesty I do not care, nor am I judging her.
I was addressing her statement implying the choice to stay at home was a choice Not to be a feminist and her broad statement regarding the leeching, good for nothing spawn of working parents.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 15:37 | 3413902 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

I'll upvote you NYMom, but don't expect many others here to.

bitter angry men at having the cultural rug pulled out from under their collective feet, one can understand the bitterness of losing all the ManPerks of the 50's adults, where the jobs were full of men, the company of men was a normal, natural phenoMenA, they could own women, keeping them at home and on tap'd, back when there was no such thing as "rape" within marriage, as the certificate implied ownership, back when all the policeMen would turn a blind'd eye to child abuse within the family because, well, it was HIS family, back when occasionally striking the wife and/or kids was only whispered about amongst the neighbours who heard the cries.

rarely is it ever mentioned that working class women have always worked, and yet raised their families too, or that SOME women don't desire the mothering-role, and are wise enough not to get sucked into this only to end up miserable - these women support themselves, as they don't see the role of parasite appealing.

marriage is the ultimate in social engineering, and usually goes fist-in-glove with a religious belief system in the inherent superiority of man-ness, with woman as a gift from gawd to be used up accordingly, just another "world resource"

junk away bitter, the myth is gone, it will never be DisneyLand again.

Feminists killed the economy!!!  Feminists took R Jawbs!!!!!  Feminists ruined the country!!! 

and yet, feminists aren't raping young boys in sports programs, or in the Boys Scouts, or as priests - Wall Street and the global banking class isn't full of feminists hoarding monies in a race to acquire the biggest pile, feminists aren't piloting drones targeting families for death, feminists aren't the overwhelming majority of uni-formed sociopath killers on behalf of banking class criminals who train them to wave flags and murder, feminists aren't the majority of drug running human traffickers globally.

Burn the Witches. . . *shakes head*

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 16:30 | 3414145 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

anonymous downvotes, colour me surprised.

ZH demographics say white, middle-aged, single, no kids predominates, so I'll take that as the opinionated voter base.

bitter.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 20:58 | 3415017 CaptainObvious
CaptainObvious's picture

Have another red, and it's not anonymous.  Here's why:

I'll admit to being white and middle aged, but I've been married for two decades and I've got kids, so your feminazi generalization won't work here.  My wife and I worked opposite shifts while my kids were preschoolers.  We both worked because finances made it necessary, but we didn't want strangers raising our kids.  I changed just as many diapers as my wife did, and while I didn't breastfeed the kids for obvious reasons, I fed 'em plenty of bottles of expressed breast milk.  I worked third shift, she worked first shift, and we worked equally as hard raising the kids.

Now that the kids are in school full time, I have moved to first shift and my wife has left her job, because we don't need the money any more.  She is happy to stay at home and catch up on all the living she missed when she worked full time and parented full time.  Her exact words on the day after she quit her job were, "Wow.  I can't remember the last time I read a whole book in one day!  It used to take me a month to read a book!"  She has taken on all the burden of parenting while I do all the breadwinning.  We have spare time nowadays and we can actually have hobbies if we want to.  (Oddly enough, we both chose gardening as our hobby, because we want to be able to eat when this whole facade comes a-crashing down.) It works out better for both of us.  This is not to say our lifestyle will work for everyone, but then we don't need to eat out, drive a new car, or wear labels.  Hell, we don't even carry cell phones.  But, guess what?  Not bitter.  No, more like...content.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 21:41 | 3415095 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

well CaptainObvious (love the name), then would you say you're NOT the ZH demographic I link'd to then?  neither am I.

would you also perhaps admit that there are many posters here who fit the cliche demographic, particularly when it comes to "chattin'" bout women here?  as in, pretty much every thread?  just pointing out trends is all. . .

kudos to you for participating in raising your children, and I mean that sincerely.  not every parent does, as we often read of.  your life choices aren't necessarily typical of amrkns, but I'd say they should be aspired to, if one chooses to raise a family.

and the "feminazi" tag is merely you taking an oppositional stance to what I was posting, which admittedly was provocative, intentionally so - in fact, it was simply an oppositional stance to the non-sense spewed about "Women" and culture, and if you spend some time reading threads here over time, you'll pick up on the "bitter" trend I poked.  I'm not in any way a "feminist" - but I don't subscribe to innate gender roles either, as they tend to vary depending on what the social/cultural/gov't needs are at any given time.

best to you and your gardening/reading wife.

Sat, 04/06/2013 - 00:35 | 3415504 Miffed Microbio...
Miffed Microbiologist's picture

Captain, you and your wife sound exactly like us. We did the same for 10 years. I worked graves and PMs and my husband worked days. My husband did MOST of the diaper changes. I had such a horrible gag reflex after my pregnancy I would throw up immediately if I saw poop. My husband would walk in to a room with our daughter's butt covered in poop and I'd be lying on the floor vomiting. Poor man would clean the whole thing up. Never complained once. My only sadness is I couldnt take off 5 years when they were young. I have horrible regrets about that. But we had no support from our families and financially we lived very tight. We could have done it if we had gone into debt but that was one thing my husband refused to do. Oh how I am jealous of your wife! I'd love to quit work or at least work part time. 2 years ago I had emergency surgery to remove a 2lb tumor and had to take off 2 months to recover. During the second month when I started feeling better I went out with my neighbor doing her charity work. I absolutely loved it and had so much enjoyment meeting and helping people. I absolutely cried when I had to return to my job. This is one woman who isn't defined by her career but I do respect those who do. I'm glad your wife appreciates what she has.

Miffed:-)

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 18:33 | 3414543 highrise
highrise's picture

Oh shut up. Go home and cry to your mother.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 18:36 | 3414546 chubbar
chubbar's picture

I gave you a downvote CA and I'll give you the satisfaction of why, I feel that is the correct way to voice one's opinion.

You assume that those of us who disagree with you are white male rapists or some sort of male who is afraid and/or pissed off at having lost control over their wife/significant other. Let me dispel your case point by point.

"I'll upvote you NYMom, but don't expect many others here to.

bitter angry men at having the cultural rug pulled out from under their collective feet, one can understand the bitterness of losing all the ManPerks of the 50's adults, where the jobs were full of men, the company of men was a normal, natural phenoMenA, they could own women, keeping them at home and on tap'd, back when there was no such thing as "rape" within marriage, as the certificate implied ownership, back when all the policeMen would turn a blind'd eye to child abuse within the family because, well, it was HIS family, back when occasionally striking the wife and/or kids was only whispered about amongst the neighbours who heard the cries."

I also upvote NYMom, she didn't indicate she finds that the idea of staying home and taking care of her kids was indicative of some sort of dementsia but that it was not within her personal ability. Those of us who can afford for one parent to stay with preschool kids need to respect that. Not everyone can afford that "luxury" and the fact it is  a luxury is because the dollar has lost so much purchasing power between 1950's and now.

Additionally, your assertion that we "men" feel like we lost the "manperks" of raping our wifes couldn't be more fucked up if it was uttered by charles manson. WTF are you talking about? Have you ever actually BEEN in a relationship before OR married? Child abuse, beating women? What kind of fucked up ideas do you have of a loving relationship? Yeah, that exists out there, no doubt. That isn't at all what I'm talking about and this idea of the primary caregiver staying home doesn't imply some powerless women staying home and at the beck and call of her master. What a fucked up view of men you have.

"rarely is it ever mentioned that working class women have always worked, and yet raised their families too, or that SOME women don't desire the mothering-role, and are wise enough not to get sucked into this only to end up miserable - these women support themselves, as they don't see the role of parasite appealing.

marriage is the ultimate in social engineering, and usually goes fist-in-glove with a religious belief system in the inherent superiority of man-ness, with woman as a gift from gawd to be used up accordingly, just another "world resource"

Assuming you are correct that "some women don't desire the mother-role" why the hell did they have kids? Were they pressured into it? Let's assume back in the 50's they were, why does this exist NOW in the 2010's? Women are liberated, no one should have a kid they don't want to mother, that's the whole POINT of "mothering", you know you are the fucking MOTHER, not the FATHER.  They don't call it MOTHERING for nothing!

No woman needs to be involved in some relationship without mutual respect. Don't get married, don't have kids. To say that "marriage is the ultimate in social engineering" and involves a belief that man believes in his "inherent superiority of man-ness" just denies nature. No one thinks man is superior. There are two roles in a childs life, go look at nature. Does a male animal nurse his offspring? Do the young animals run to dad or mom? WTF is so hard to understand that they need BOTH, but that both serve different needs? Why does one have to be superior to the other if both are needed?

"junk away bitter, the myth is gone, it will never be DisneyLand again.

Feminists killed the economy!!! Feminists took R Jawbs!!!!! Feminists ruined the country!!!

and yet, feminists aren't raping young boys in sports programs, or in the Boys Scouts, or as priests - Wall Street and the global banking class isn't full of feminists hoarding monies in a race to acquire the biggest pile, feminists aren't piloting drones targeting families for death, feminists aren't the overwhelming majority of uni-formed sociopath killers on behalf of banking class criminals who train them to wave flags and murder, feminists aren't the majority of drug running human traffickers globally."

Lots of people are fucked up and the vast majority getting the press are men, you won't get any argument from me. I don't have any defense for the evil men AND women amongst us. Don't paint such a broad brush. There are plenty of decent men around that don't exist to fuck over women. I hope you can find peace with the opposite sex at some point in your life. Good luck. BTW, I often enjoy your comments! Chubbar

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 19:55 | 3414820 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

I appreciate you taking the time to reply chubbar, and I'll do the same courtesy for you.

the "ManPerks" I referenced was the cultural assumption that Men were Fathers, and were paid accordingly, because they had to support Families - this was/is? the excuse used to pay Women less, despite the fact that working class Women have always worked to support their familes.  social engineering post WW2 meant re-moving Women from the workforce'd to make way for the heroes of WW2, coming back to GI housing bills designed to get them into their ticky-tacky Leavitt boxes of consumption, identical though competing homes where Men were gray flannel suited and women got the shopping chip implant, and citizens were made consumers, the better to feed the debt created by the Banking Class.

and yes, even if you don't acknowledge/remember this, society was very forgiving of whatever went down in a Man's Castle.

For most of history, the subordination of wives to husbands was enforced by law and custom. As late as the 1960s, American legal codes assigned differing marital rights and obligations by gender. The husband was legally responsible for supporting the family financially, but he also got to decide what constituted an adequate level of support, how to dispose of family property, and where the family would live. The wife was legally responsible for providing services in and around the home, but she had no comparable rights to such services.

That is why a husband could sue for loss of consortium if his spouse was killed or incapacitated, but a wife in the same situation could not. And because sex was one of the services expected of a wife, she could not charge her husband with rape.

Fathers also had the right to corporal punishment of children, "wait till your father gets home" is a cultural meme, and this was rarely questioned by authorities, be they police, community or church (of course, most of those in positions of authority were men too).

so spare me the "charles manson" tag of outrage, or the expectation of me being un-able to relate-ship - I get on just fine with the males in my life, as they're actually aware of social engineering and choose not to participate.  for chubbar, it IS a choice, whether to adopt the criteria that accords you cultural recognition of Man/Woman, there are certain traits and ways of being that need to be followed carefully, as your post graphically spells out.  my ideas of a "loving relationship" include respect for each individual, maybe not so different to your ideas?  I just don't rabidly defend the norms & expectations, hmm.

Assuming you are correct that "some women don't desire the mother-role" why the hell did they have kids? Were they pressured into it?

I was referencing the females who choose to not be mothers.  there are many.  they.  don't.  have.  children.

There are two roles in a childs life, go look at nature. Does a male animal nurse his offspring? Do the young animals run to dad or mom?

actually, if you do have a look at "nature" you'll often find the males hang out in groups until mating season, and many animal mothers protect their births from the fathers.  pair bonding is not a common trait.

social engineering is a common topic here, but few like to unpick their gender role training, maybe because it comes with some notions of inherent privilege(s).  "men" are socially constructed males who act out the role pre-scribed, and "women" are the female counterparts.  all one need do is look back through history to see how the roles can and DO change over time, to adapt to whatever the nation needs from the inhabitants, with the perks varying by culture.  compare some other nations for their beliefs should you doubt what I'm saying - include varying religious beliefs, because religion is where the stuff gets played out big time.

and for the record, I don't have "opposite sex" in my social categories, I merely take people as they present themselves, no expectations - if they choose to play their cultural role, fine, as long as it's not too obnoxious (man OR woman), I'm cool - however, it's a lot easier to exist when the cultural baggage gets ditched.  it's also easier to see just where "culture" is being steered over time when one examines rules, laws, and social policies. . .

take care.


 

 

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 22:07 | 3415235 chubbar
chubbar's picture

Well, what we got going on here is an actual "conversation", rare in the "fight club". Thanks for your reply, it is enlightening and quite frankly, I like it. Let me respond to your points. There are places where we actually agree. I hope I don't leave out a relevant topic.

"the "ManPerks" I referenced was the cultural assumption that Men were Fathers, and were paid accordingly, because they had to support Families - this was/is? the excuse used to pay Women less, despite the fact that working class Women have always worked to support their familes. social engineering post WW2 meant re-moving Women from the workforce'd to make way for the heroes of WW2, coming back to GI housing bills designed to get them into their ticky-tacky Leavitt boxes of consumption, identical though competing homes where Men were gray flannel suited and women got the shopping chip implant, and citizens were made consumers, the better to feed the debt created by the Banking Class.

and yes, even if you don't acknowledge/remember this, society was very forgiving of whatever went down in a Man's Castle.

For most of history, the subordination of wives to husbands was enforced by law and custom. As late as the 1960s, American legal codes assigned differing marital rights and obligations by gender. The husband was legally responsible for supporting the family financially, but he also got to decide what constituted an adequate level of support, how to dispose of family property, and where the family would live. The wife was legally responsible for providing services in and around the home, but she had no comparable rights to such services.

That is why a husband could sue for loss of consortium if his spouse was killed or incapacitated, but a wife in the same situation could not. And because sex was one of the services expected of a wife, she could not charge her husband with rape.

Fathers also had the right to corporal punishment of children, "wait till your father gets home" is a cultural meme, and this was rarely questioned by authorities, be they police, community or church (of course, most of those in positions of authority were men too).

so spare me the "charles manson" tag of outrage, or the expectation of me being un-able to relate-ship - I get on just fine with the males in my life, as they're actually aware of social engineering and choose not to participate. for chubbar, it IS a choice, whether to adopt the criteria that accords you cultural recognition of Man/Woman, there are certain traits and ways of being that need to be followed carefully, as your post graphically spells out. my ideas of a "loving relationship" include respect for each individual, maybe not so different to your ideas? I just don't rabidly defend the norms & expectations, hmm."

Yes, you are correct. It was common for laws to protect jobs for men. Society was still organized to support men under the idea that men had families to provide for. I won't argue your points about post WW2 constructs, both sexes were, and have been, manipulated with regard to "levitt boxes" and "consumerism".

You'll probably understand that pre 70's there was a much greater autonomy for families and individual liberties in general. There wasn't some "family services" person (for the most part) who showed up and challenged the parents on how they raised their children. If you feel that is a detriment and now that we have "the gov't" coming by to interfere with child raising it is for the greater good, then you have a point. I've never claimed that there weren't bad parents that didnt deserve to be called on that. The present situation where good parents can't parent and that the state makes the call is fricking ridiculous.

I'm not sure who a husband sues for "lack of consortium" if his wife is killed or incapcitated, perhaps there is a new standard of how to collect on such a charge?

The "wait until your father gets home" still works in my family. You know why? Didn't think so. It works because when "mom" works with the child all day it is difficult (not impossible) to be a disciplinarian as well as all the other hats she has to wear. It is meant to convey that there is another authoritarian that will have to be answered too. I know this will cause a problem in your "we are all the same" ideal in your mind but that is a fairy tale. We aren't the same. That isn't to say we shouldn't be treated equally well, but we aren't the same. Men and women don't relate the same way nor are they percieved the same way, with children nor with each other, wake the fuck up. My child knows that when mom says "wait till your father gets home" she means business and is not to be trifled with. I'm sorry you never knew that threat, it's a comfort to my child that she knows she is loved and has boundaries.

With regard to my "manson family" charge, I stand by it. You very distinctly equated marriage with men raping their wives. Go back and read your statement. Other than that, I agree with much of your views that both men and women deserve respect and to be treated equal with regard to wages and/or professional advancement. I just don't happen to believe we are the same animals or have the same abilities as a general rule. I can't give birth, I don't have the same child rearing abilities, I don't have the patience to read the same verse after verse for hours on end to keep an infant amused. I don't have the stamina to give child birth or run 20 miles without breaking a sweat (like my wife can do). I can't figure out to sew a fucking zipper back on a pair of pants or how to make a decent soup.

I can stay out in -20 degree cold while wading through knee deep snow to feed the cattle for hours on end. I can bench 300+ lbs and muscle a gate closed in the middle of a storm. I can chop wood, fix a bike or build a house. I can force my children through either my physical presence or threat of spanking (I know this is a major crime in your view) to respect and obey their mom.

But, in short, I'm not as good a person as my wife, but I have abilities she'll never have and vice versa but she can do things I could only aspire too. We offset each other and that is the EXACTmix that a well rounded child needs to grow up to be someone you might want to be around. These are NOT "cultural differences", these are PHYSICAL and MENTAL differences that make us Male and Female. I hate to break the news to you but there are real differences between the sexes and these differences make us great partners, not enemies. Men do like to be around men and women like to be around women much of the time, it doesn't change the fact that we need and actually LIKE each other.

This "cultural baggage" you speak of is usually code for not wanting to face the inherent differences that each sex incorporates. In my opinion, perhaps wrongly, you are threatened by those differences and would like to think that both men and women can rise above all those traits if they only tried and believed, not going to happen. You are a female in all your glory, probably a great woman. But, you aren't a man and will not possess most of the traits of a man. Thats a good thing, not bad. Women are great, I married one, but don't wish to be one (not implying you want to be a man). I can't be a woman even though there are traits and differences that I wish I could emulate naturally and that I definitely admire. Seek your other half and be happy you can't be everything all by yourself. Don't buy into the bullshit that men and women are the same but for the sex organs. Celebrate the differences and enjoy your life! I like your style, wish we could argue over a beer! Cheers, Chubbar

PS, no religion here, just a couple trying their best to get through life and loving the journey!

Sat, 04/06/2013 - 00:31 | 3415468 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

heh, I occasionally find myself in "Fight Club conversations" as the thread dies - one of my favourite things about posting here, actually. . .

you raise many points, I'll see if I can add my opinions to most of 'em - but I'm going to start with this one, as it's really the basis of my argument,

This "cultural baggage" you speak of is usually code for not wanting to face the inherent differences that each sex incorporates. In my opinion, perhaps wrongly, you are threatened by those differences and would like to think that both men and women can rise above all those traits if they only tried and believed, not going to happen. You are a female in all your glory, probably a great woman. But, you aren't a man and will not possess most of the traits of a man.

I am female, yes.  I am not a woman, that is a type of female, a cultural construct usually - the assigned attributes will vary depending on what the culture requires of the females, and of course, the males/men.  while the words are mistakenly used interchangeably, I use them specifically, as sex-types, not gender presentations.  example?  drag queens / kings - sex types that act out "opposite" roles. India/South Asia have the hjra. Native Americans have their berdaches, point being that the binary gender thing is not an historical exclusive, other cultures have allowed for more diversity in their populations than amrka can tolerate.  I like this.  I like that people can be free to express themselves creatively, in a manner that suits their temperament, and perhaps even their genitalia - which presents on a sliding scale, though few acknowledge this.  one in 2000 births in amrka present as ambiguous genitalia, in that the doctor cannot assign a sex by sight, and usually does so by surgery so as to avoid the stigma the amrkn culture would apparently assign (and bully).  the term narrow minded springs to mind.  (and because I've brought up this topic before, and gotten the usual lowbrow commentary, no, I don't have experience of this myself, but I have made friends with those who have, along the way, and they too deserve respect as humans).

with that out of the way, on to your points. I don't agree with the massive govt interventions in "family" lives, but I cannot deny that some families are functioning waaay outside the cultural norms, and those children might benefit from a rescue of sorts. most of the other points you raise also reference the different roles you and your wife play as parents, which is of course, typical with gender'd parenting, no?  Dad disciplines, Mom reads nursery tales endlessly (examples).  but will you acknowledge that other family's parenting roles might not fit there, that maybe Dad loves to tell the tall-tails before bedtime, and Mom takes a strict role in the behaviours?  does this make Dad a Mommy?? or Mom a Daddy??  plenty of younger men are raising their kids at home, with their female partners being the sole breadwinner - and doing so happily!  some of my male friends are excellent cooks, some excel in fibre arts (oh noes!! knitting?!!), I like to tinker with stuff in the toolshed, tho' I also cook and spin yarns, including stories, ha. 

my point is: you and your wife have accepted certain gender'd roles within your relate-ship that suit you - and other folks do the same, not necessarily following those strict cultural norms, particularly gender norms.  people vary, way more than is acknowledged, for fear of shame or harassment or just a general notion of personal privacy.

this,

With regard to my "manson family" charge, I stand by it. You very distinctly equated marriage with men raping their wives. Go back and read your statement.

is not true.  I did however point to the fact that in the past the courts would not allow a wife to accuse a husband of "rape" no matter how obvious the act might be as forced sex against her will (definition of rape).

The concept of a marital exemption, that is, a legal framework, or, perhaps even more importantly, a social view, stating that a husband cannot be charged with the rape of his wife, must be understood in the historical context of marriage, rape, and of women's position in society. Through much of the history, and still in some countries today, women were considered legal minors belonging at first to their fathers, and then to their husbands. As such, women had very few rights of their own, and the relationship between husband and wife, in terms of authority and balance of power, was mirroring that between father and daughter. The U.S. and English law subscribed until the 20th century to the system of coverture, that is, a legal doctrine under which, upon marriage, a woman's legal rights were subsumed by those of her husband.[3] A situation where married women had very little autonomy persisted even in many Western countries until very recently: for instance, in France, married women obtained the right to work without their husband's permission only in 1965,[4][5][6] and in West Germany women obtained this right only in 1977 (by comparison women in East Germany had much more rights).[7][8] In Spain, during Franco's era, a married woman needed her husband's consent, referred to as the permiso marital, for almost all economic activities, including employment, ownership of property, and even traveling away from home; the permiso marital was abolished in 1975.[9] Women's participation in public life was also very restricted even in industrialized countries: in Switzerland for instance, women gained the right to vote in federal elections only in 1971,[10] and the Swiss canton of Appenzell Innerrhoden became the last Swiss canton to grant women the right to vote on local issues - it did so only in 1991, when it was forced by the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland.

we all would benefit acknowledging the power, legal power, that the state holds over humans - particularly when the noose tightens, as of late.

This "cultural baggage" you speak of is usually code for not wanting to face the inherent differences that each sex incorporates. In my opinion, perhaps wrongly, you are threatened by those differences and would like to think that both men and women can rise above all those traits if they only tried and believed, not going to happen. You are a female in all your glory, probably a great woman. But, you aren't a man and will not possess most of the traits of a man. Thats a good thing, not bad. Women are great, I married one, but don't wish to be one (not implying you want to be a man). I can't be a woman even though there are traits and differences that I wish I could emulate naturally and that I definitely admire. Seek your other half and be happy you can't be everything all by yourself.

see, the thing is, there are inherent differences between all humans - it's the ranking hierarchically that screws everything up, particularly when certain cultural privileges are extended to some, denied others.  which cultures are prone to do, as it keeps the distractions, the in-fighting lateral, and frees up those who control the memes to get on with their thefts.  social engineering and all that stuffs.  as for my "other half" - long ago I realised I am One.  nothing's missing, nothing missed out on.

 

enjoy'd the exchange chubbar, mine's a Boddington!  cheers.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 22:03 | 3415227 NYMom
NYMom's picture

Thank you CA and Chubbar. While I am never surprised by the down votes ( tough crowd here at ZH) an up arrow is always appreciated.
CA, while the points you make are certainly valid in some instances, I don't think its fair to assume or insinuate that the majority of the male readership at ZH are sulking, bitter misogynists, yearning for the good ole days when it was okay to slap around the wife and abuse the kids. In fact, i find most to be highly intelligent, full of good humor and generally not insecure or struggling with their maleness .
Times were simpler in the 50's and 60's. While some woman may have been unhappy, felt like parasites in their Mothering roles, i believe most were content. Chubbar, I agree with you that men and women innately have a job to do - gender specific roles and feel most happy when they are able to embrace the very things they are best suited for. IMO, militant feminists are just as messed up and equally as miserable as the bitter, sulking misogynist. Having said that, thanks for the friendly debate - truly enjoy this place and Chubbar, I appreciate the kind words.

Sat, 04/06/2013 - 00:46 | 3415515 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

NYMom,

CA, while the points you make are certainly valid in some instances, I don't think its fair to assume or insinuate that the majority of the male readership at ZH are sulking, bitter misogynists, yearning for the good ole days when it was okay to slap around the wife and abuse the kids. In fact, i find most to be highly intelligent, full of good humor and generally not insecure or struggling with their maleness .

I don't assume that the majority here are anything other than how they portray themselves, and even then, I occasionally sniff imposters, heh.

I've had further exchanges with some of the guys here, and find them to be as you describe - maybe fewer than you'd like to attribute, but then we've no doubt different standards we measure to.  my original post was designed as reaction-ary to the nearly 100 upvotes for Divine Wind's fartage - go back & read perhaps?  the bitter puckers.

but we're different, acknowledged, so we'll also have differing points-of-viewing. . .

 

Sat, 04/06/2013 - 01:08 | 3415533 Miffed Microbio...
Miffed Microbiologist's picture

Well I can up vote that! Not that I down voted anyone here but that statement sums it up quite nicely for me. Though I was raised in a typical 1960s household where my dad worked and my mom stayed home it was far from the idyllic Ozzie and Harriet Hollywood dream. In fact it was a hellish nightmare which I just posted on another thread and can't figure out how to link it on this damn iPad. I think the past can be over romanticized and things that occurred back in those days were kept behind closed doors. I'm not criticizing the traditional roles men and women historically filled, just the assumption life was inherently better. Bad, evil individuals can thrive in traditional or alternative life styles. Perhaps if men and women wish to pair up and have children they need to not force or impose roles on each other. If one feels the need to impose a role on someone else, that person is simply not right for the relationship. Everyone suffers, especially the children. But to live with someone who is complimentary to your beliefs and life style is pure joy. My husband gladly moves hay for me when I physically can't anymore. I gladly do the laundry because when he does it something usually goes wrong and he's wearing pink underwear. We gladly switch roles when needed. We just honor each other in all ways. May be that's is all men and women need to do.

Miffed;-)

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 18:36 | 3414547 chubbar
chubbar's picture

duplicate

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 16:11 | 3414043 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

It's not easy having a stay at home situation these days. Whether it's you staying at home full time or your husband, either way it's tuff losing a salary. But it does balances somewhat because the stay at home person also saves on other costs. I think if a couple is going to decide to make a family, then someone someone needs to invest the time to raise and educate the children. Which used to be something moms were naturally really good at.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 19:18 | 3414705 chubbar
chubbar's picture

I don't know why you would get a down vote. You are doing the best you can raising your kids. It sounds like you are doing a fine job even if you think it isn't under "ideal" circumstances. Those of us who are going to have to exist in the same world as your two outstanding boys, appreciate the work you have done in raising them! Best of luck to you! Chubbar

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 19:21 | 3414713 chubbar
chubbar's picture

Note: This comment should have nested under NYmoms comment above.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 19:19 | 3414706 chubbar
chubbar's picture

duplicate

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 20:42 | 3414914 imbrbing
imbrbing's picture

"However, for many of us, the choice is not ours to make, for obvious reasons."

I stopped reading there and called BULLSHIT. It is you choice, though hard, it will still WORK OUT. I AM LIVING PROOF, FUCK THAT IT IT AINT OUR CHOICE BULLSHIT!

UNLESS YOU DON'T HAVE THE GUTS TO GO WITHOUT LIGHTS AND HEAT. Then go play their game.

EDIT: BTW I make over 100K a year now so fuck all you bitches. And I see that going away and can live with it.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 23:22 | 3415380 NYMom
NYMom's picture

Huh????? Can someone translate this one for me?

Sat, 04/06/2013 - 00:49 | 3415520 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

lol, try this on,

I worked hard bitches, and I made big monies, so fuck you, and if you're not willing to go without utilities or other necessities to make big monies, then fuck you too, I got mines now.

YMMV.

Sat, 04/06/2013 - 01:15 | 3415539 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

lol to the lone dude staying up to downvote whatever I post.

for you.

Sat, 04/06/2013 - 10:40 | 3415952 NYMom
NYMom's picture

Ah! My eternal gratitude Cathartes. This deep, meaningful message was almost lost on me. I just called the utilities, told them to shut the whole, damn thing down - I'm a bit cold and should have made a pot of coffee prior to the call, but this liberating feeling makes it all worth it. Sigh.

Sat, 04/06/2013 - 16:22 | 3416881 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

no problem NYMom, I've been here a while, have learned the HedgerSpeak over time and not a few arguments, heh.

best wishes.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 10:43 | 3412670 Alcoholic Nativ...
Alcoholic Native American's picture

I agree with this and I'm not even a christ tard like yourself.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 10:54 | 3412750 Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

I am sure we all value a vitriol filled asswipe spewing central planning tripe like you agreeing, thanks for playing..

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 11:55 | 3413062 Alcoholic Nativ...
Alcoholic Native American's picture

yea

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 15:58 | 3413992 prodigious_idea
prodigious_idea's picture

To use the word "tard" to characterize someone is so revealing about the plaintiff.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 10:53 | 3412742 JimBowie1958
JimBowie1958's picture

Divine Wind: Unfortunately, I do not see how the current trend could possibly be changed.

Its called 'Crash, Burn, Rebuild from the ashes.'

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 11:06 | 3412808 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

I remember I used to bike a river valley and there was a prairie fire by one of the trails. Everything was so black. Then a couple weeks later grass with the brightest green I've ever seen started to sprout. The contrast was amazingly beautiful. Our society is drab. "All our colors have run" and we're left with hobo grey. We're due for a fire and it isn't such a bad thing.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 16:32 | 3414148 Citxmech
Citxmech's picture

In the grand scheme of things, it may indeed be a good thing - but for all of us dry blades of grass - the coming brush fire is going to be a calamity of epic proportions.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 10:56 | 3412758 Zero Debt
Zero Debt's picture

It will end as soon as people wake up and realize they are being fed cultural marxism that is trying to wipe out all forms of identity and individuality and create a uniform gray mass collective of welfare state clients all feeling offended, discriminated and left behind (question will then be, left behind who)

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 11:21 | 3412876 One of We
One of We's picture

Step 1. Destroy the family. -Check

Step 2. Destroy property rights. -Check (or at least well under way)

Step 3. Destroy the "opiate of the masses" religion. -Check

Step 4. You're already living the communist dream so we don't need to continue.....

 

 

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 13:30 | 3413439 IdiocracyIsAlre...
IdiocracyIsAlreadyHere's picture

Wow asshole.  Good job with blaming women for all society's problems.  Guess what - "stay at home mommy" was such a short lived period in history.  Most of human history people lived on farms and everyone except the very old and very young worked.  Oh yeah and then trot out "Biblical model" BS.  There is not enough down arrows I could give you.  You are beyond hope.  Go find a nice rock to crawl under.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 14:05 | 3413554 noless
noless's picture

he was merely expounding upon the diminished wages and quality of life by forcing both parents into the workforce by dilluting the labor pool by near 200%, not blaming women.. 

 

i seriously think you missed the point.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 14:42 | 3413679 Charles Nelson ...
Charles Nelson Reilly's picture

that time of the month?. ......... (Andrew Dice Clay Owwwwwwwwhhhhhh)

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 15:14 | 3413795 BooMushroom
BooMushroom's picture

Most of human history people lived on farms and everyone except the very old and very young worked.

AT HOME.

Dumbass.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 15:42 | 3413921 IdiocracyIsAlre...
IdiocracyIsAlreadyHere's picture

No the dumbass is people like you who think it is a grand idea that the choices of 1/2 the population be limited because of things they have absolutely have no power over.  In general the "women working outside the home screwed everything up" crowd are men whose choices would not be affected were things to revert to the way they were 50-100 years ago while women for whom marriage and children are not their idea of what the want from life would be SOL.  And of course if this is pointed out the childish insults come out - just like little boys defending their stupid "no gurls allowed" clubhouse.

BTW, a lot more people's lives would be better, men and women alike, if people were to work farms, home businesses and other such enterprises for themselves, family and neighbors instead of being wage slaves for TBTF corporations.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 16:35 | 3414175 Citxmech
Citxmech's picture

Don't forget to include the realities of divorce.  How many women were burned by their 50 y/o Peter Pans, only to be stuck with no job skills or means of support - and how many women have been influenced by seeing their mothers getting burned?

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 20:01 | 3414845 BooMushroom
BooMushroom's picture

And how many guys are getting burned now by their 50 year old "Eat, Pray, Love" ex wives who get no-fault alimony and punitive child support extracted by the threat of state debtor's prison... In a country where the LFP is the lowest it's been in 30+ years?

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 21:35 | 3415150 Acet
Acet's picture

I gave you both an uparrow because you both are right.

Methinks the problem is not about men or women, it's about how society empowers certain sorts of people (of both genders).

On the way to a right balance, things overshot and undershot. At the moment I would say that the sociopaths amongst women have taken advantage of the feminist movement to get more for themselves than what they would be entitled to if everybody was treated equally.

Sat, 04/06/2013 - 00:54 | 3415526 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

indeed, sociopaths have this tendency to exploit anything on their way to (their perceived) top.

when one realises the "feminist" idea originated centuries ago, and not in 1970-Rockefellah era, then it becomes easier to dismiss most of the non-sense.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 19:57 | 3414834 BooMushroom
BooMushroom's picture

The choices of 100% of the population are limited because of things they have no control over. This is what is commonly referred to as "reality" or "life."

You should not be surprised to be called out for your dumbassery when you say that women working on their own farms did not stay at home.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 14:08 | 3413569 jazz571027
jazz571027's picture

More women (baby boomers) went into the workforce due to economic reasons, feminism, more opportunities/doors opening to women, etc,  and our society prospered because of it - period.

I'm seeing too many comments generalizing the issue of Mothers staying home vs. working... geez - talk about beating a dead horse - you cannot turn back the clock, and who in their right mind would want to?

One example in comparing 'stable, higher achieving children' resulting from stay at home moms vs working moms are the daughters of George W Bush whose wife was a stay at home mom vs. the daughter of the Clintons...

Hmmm...

Mom and Dad are a child's FIRST teachers - I believe this factor can be the most dominent factor in children becoming 'stable, higher achieving children'...

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 15:17 | 3413810 centerline
centerline's picture

First - define "prospered"

Second - great examples!  everyday folks for sure.  got a few more gems like this to share?

Third - if mom and dad are the first teachers (agreed), how do they teach when they are not around?

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 11:56 | 3413066 zerozulu
zerozulu's picture

"There is one way: That was before women were fully involved in the workplace. Lots of room for comment there."

 

Ha ha . This time is different. Unlike 70's this time men are sitting home.

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 13:49 | 3413504 noless
noless's picture

so theres alot more pissed off unemployed men this time around?

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 15:28 | 3413857 Omen IV
Omen IV's picture

1974 was the big push for women in the workforce - this participation number since it includes women who want to work is the biggest disaster probably in labor history from an absolute number as well as percentage

these people are not interested "in benefits" despite the snarky remarks  - they want gainful employment - especially the young people who have an education

the entire WTO needs to be restructured for the benefit of the workers and the cash flow of small independent business otherwise it will only get worse

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!