Anyway, here’s the whole reply. I was quoting the article “Female superiority and . . . bullshit.” The Principal wrote as follows:

“A more correct statement would be, “Women have been making educational progress, and the men have fallen behind women in educating themselves and the job market.”:

In support of that point of view, I added [the part that got truncated] that my daughter is in college and wrote a research paper on women and men in the 21st century. After amassing pages of evidence, she gleefully concluded her article with these two paragraphs, which struck me close to home for its accuracy in every detail:

“In sum, men as a group are, in fact, in denial about the emerging power of women and are not thinking collectively enough to be aware of what is happening. Women have not merely caught up with men, they have already surpassed men in important fields like law, education, and business. This is not merely a pendulum swinging, this is a resolute and intentional move by women to put themselves in their rightful positions of leadership and control.

“Research supports that, in a century-long head-to-head competition, the women have proven to be more than adequate to the roles of leadership and control, moving men more and more to powerless roles of obsolescence. This move is not as obvious at the beginning of the 21st century as it will be in a generation or two, but the balance of power has clearly shifted. This has been such a resounding conquest (similar in nature to many other conquests in history in which one people overran another), that there is little, if anything, men can actually do at this point to stop women. In fact, the words of Camile Paglia, though graphic, seem appropriate: “The stronger women get, the more men masturbate. What else can they do?”

Tom
(proud of my very smart daughter, but not telling her how accurate she is on every detail)

Sweden is a mixed system of high-tech capitalism and extensive welfare benefits. Privately owned firms account for approximately 90% of industrial output. Privately owned means capitalism, not socialism.

No doubt posting this was a waste of time, but it was a slow night anyway. And at least I had a good laugh reading some of the truly ridiculous inferences you made about me. Of course it’s my own fault, if I’d read your blog a little more carefully I wouldn’t of posted anything in the first place. Trying to discuss something rationally with you, would be like trying to have a reasoned debate with a member of the kkk, a waste of time. You both only see things through the twisted prism of your own ideology.

Though I have to admit people who hold the kind sick views that you do , hold a certain fasination for me. I mean, how do you come to the idea that some arbitrary grouping of people is better than another? Whether this grouping is based on race, nationality, or gender; this seems patently ridiculous to me. How can you judge someone just on the way they’re born? Whether it’s the color of thier skin, or thier ethnicity, or thier genitalia as seems important to you , it’s no way to judge a person. It’s the individual and what they do that matters, not the group they’re a part of.

Did anybody here say “equal share”? No, but you did in your comment, and you defined “equal share” as “socialism” and defined “socialism” as “bad”. Hmm. Ask people in Sweden how miserable and impoverished they are, John. There’s a society that bald-facedly declares itself to be socialist. They like it there. In fact, in Sweden they would tell you that the attempt to decrease poverty and misery has been a success.

And you know, nowhere is there a “socialist” society where each person gets exactly the same pay regardless of whether or how much they work. So it’s all neocon mythos, John.

I think you are confounding socialism with Karl Marx’s famous quote, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”, which would imply that people who are able to work should work hard and earn a living wage and people who can’t work should be alloted enough money to survive. Although in theory “communism” was based on this idea, in fact no true communism was ever implemented in the world. “Communist” governments were just bureaucratic dictatorships under another name, a quasi-religious justification. No effort was ever made to end poverty and misery, as the primary intent of the government was to concentrate wealth in the hands of the well-connected.

Now we need to examine the real motivation behind your post, one which you have not examined yourself, the question of how we define “fairness”. Fairness can obviously mean different things to different people. For some people it means that those who work fulltime should get a living wage, medical care, and a modest retirement without having to continue to work until they die..That doesn’t sound to me like a society of “misery and poverty”, but again, depends on how you define “fairness”. “Fair to whom?” or “unfair to whom?” is in fact the issue we are discussing.

Since dealing with poverty and misery in the manner of socialist countries that are in existence does not lead to more poverty and misery, yet is so anathemic to you that you revile them with falsifications and delusional quasi-religious beliefs, we need to examine what these countries do that is so against your way of thinking.

What they do is they provide much less of an income gap than our country does. People who work for a living earn a living. People who cannot work receive a sufficient stipend to survive. People who reach retirement age are able to retire. And to do this, the upper income levels are much closer than the lowest levels, plus, the rich pay more taxes than we do.

This is evil, is it not? Because by your definition, the wealthy deserve more, and they deserve it so much that it is a moral imperative to remove wealth from the poor to provide it to them.

In other words, it sounds like “fairness” to you is the concentration of wealth in the hands of the well-connected – “rich white guys”. If it concentrates wealth in the hands of the well-connected, it is a good thing, regardless of whether it increases poverty and misery in this country, as you have already defined that as something that is only a problem in socialist countries. In fact, since any increase in poverty and misery in this country will result in transfer of wealth to the rich, then that is a good thing, right?

You know what the problem with this is? Men are most likely to get their meaning in life from bullshit, braggadocio, and bullying others who they can easily remove from the competitive arena. Many women who study this to bring about a “fix” will do so in futility I truly fear. And it is because of this, dear Principal: humanity’s basic theory of the self. I see in another place, you ask me about destiny and about fate. I imagine you are getting into how we nurture our children and all of that. But the problem is more insidious than that. As I say it is tied to human meaning. And this is the outrageous thing that no one seems to believe but me. Meaning is tied in our human minds to aggression and to warfare because of a deep belief most of us have in free will. Outrageous? Crazy? More later. pqt