Gender Discussion - Split from 'My City, Minneapolis, On Fire'

[Trausti]

This idea that there's lots of families inheriting wealth accumulated hundreds of years ago is idiotic.

No. What’s idiotic is that you really seem to think that anecdotes counter a very large body of evidence.

There aren’t facepalms large enough for your nonsense. There really aren’t.

You seem to think that heirs don’t fitter away inherited wealth. If you don’t have the smarts to maintain it, it’s gone in a generation. And very few people inherit millions. In most instances, estates are not even opened with the court because estate assets are so minimal.

 

[Metaphor]

I asked if you had any statistics or facts. So why the obsession with what another poster posted?

Of course it is incoherent. Toni puts it in the same paragraph as her assertion about people of colour. People of colour as people of colour could be the losers in a zero-sum game of wealth inheritance, because the ancestors of people of colour are people of colour.

White women today cannot be the losers in a zero-sum game of wealth inheritance vis-a-vis white men, because the ancestors of white women are the same people as the ancestors of white men. This is true even if white women, up until this very generation, never inherited anything.

Utter nonsense. It is an empirical question, not some incoherent handwaved nonsense.

If, on the other hand, Toni believes white women to inherit less than white men in this generation, I'd like to see evidence of that.

First, you have shifted the goal post, since "this generation" was not the context of her claim. Second, I find it fascinating while you refuse to support your claim of fact, you demand evidence of others.

This is an empirical question. I can see how it can go any direction. Toni's argument has some historical force behind it. Yours is a reasonable guess, but your argument makes a number of assumptions of fact.

The fact that white women have the same ancestors as white men is not an empirical claim. It's true by definition.

Whether white women inherited less than white men historically I don't know and is irrelevant to Toni's claim that white women have not benefited from historical wealth accumulation due to white privilege, since what happened to the specifics of their ancestral wealth between white men and white women is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that the wealth stayed in white families. If it did, white women today benefited as much as white men today did. Toni's argument cannot have historical force because it is false by definition.

As for whether it is currently true that white men and white women inherit the same wealth, I don't know and I've said so. I'm asking Toni to verify her claim. Because differential inheritance, by sex and favouring men, in the current generation, is the only way for Toni's claim to be true.

 

[laughing dog]

I asked if you had any statistics or facts. So why the obsession with what another poster posted?


Utter nonsense. It is an empirical question, not some incoherent handwaved nonsense.
First, you have shifted the goal post, since "this generation" was not the context of her claim. Second, I find it fascinating while you refuse to support your claim of fact, you demand evidence of others.

This is an empirical question. I can see how it can go any direction. Toni's argument has some historical force behind it. Yours is a reasonable guess, but your argument makes a number of assumptions of fact.

The fact that white women have the same ancestors as white men is not an empirical claim. It's true by definition.

Whether white women inherited less than white men historically I don't know and is irrelevant to Toni's claim that white women have not benefited from historical wealth accumulation due to white privilege, since what happened to the specifics of their ancestral wealth between white men and white women is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that the wealth stayed in white families. If it did, white women today benefited as much as white men today did. Toni's argument cannot have historical force because it is false by definition.

Whether someone benefits from wealth depends on whether they have access to it or get to use it: your argument is not logically valid. It requires empirical analysis.

As for whether it is currently true that white men and white women inherit the same wealth, I don't know and I've said so. I'm asking Toni to verify her claim. Because differential inheritance, by sex and favouring men, in the current generation, is the only way for Toni's claim to be true.

As I pointed out, your analysis is logically flawed. Quelle surprise, your snipe had no logical or empirical basis at this point.

 

[Metaphor]

Whether someone benefits from wealth depends on whether they have access to it or get to use it:

Yes. What evidence does Toni have that white women did not have access to the same white-privilege accumulated ancestral wealth that white men have?

As I pointed out, your analysis is logically flawed. Quelle surprise, your snipe had no logical or empirical basis at this point.

I can't explain it to you any more than I have, laughing dog. Toni made a claim comparing the situation of women to people of colour, in terms of their lack of access to ancestrally-accumulated wealth that was due to white privilege. Her claim about people of colour does not present a logical problem. Her claim about white women does.

As for me, I don't choose where to spend my money based on the ethnicity or sex of the owner of a store; that is sexist and racist. I spend my money based on geographical convenience, quality of service, price and variety.

Like a normal person.

 

[laughing dog]

Whether someone benefits from wealth depends on whether they have access to it or get to use it:

Yes. What evidence does Toni have that white women did not have access to the same white-privilege accumulated ancestral wealth that white men have?

I don't know. But I do know you have no evidence to support your snipe.

I can't explain it to you any more than I have, laughing dog. ...

I know. Your position has no logical nor factual basis. A normal person understands that disagreeing with someone's position, argument or description of reality does not require a snipe.

 

[Metaphor]

I don't know. But I do know you have no evidence to support your snipe.

I can't explain it to you any more than I have, laughing dog. ...

I know. Your position has no logical nor factual basis. A normal person understands that disagreeing with someone's position, argument or description of reality does not require a snipe.

Of course my position has a logical basis. Toni is wrong to talk about white women's lack of access to white-privilege enabled ancestrally-accumulated wealth in the same sentence, as if it were analogous to, people of colour's lack of access to it. It simply makes no sense. She was wrong to have made the argument.

As for a 'factual' basis -- it was Toni making the positive claim that white women could not exploit their ancestrally-accumulated, white-privilege based wealth in a way that white men could. I asked for evidence of this. I've explained for this to be true, the current generation of white women must somehow differentially benefit from it to their brothers. This could happen in a few ways but none of them have been evidenced by Toni. (It's also true that white women could benefit more than white men from ancestrally-accumulated wealth that was due to white privilege, but I'm not making that argument).

 

[laughing dog]

Of course my position has a logical basis. Toni is wrong to talk about white women's lack of access to white-privilege enabled ancestrally-accumulated wealth in the same sentence, as if it were analogous to, people of colour's lack of access to it. It simply makes no sense. She was wrong to have made the argument.

You confuse your inability to follow a position with something that makes no sense.

As for a 'factual' basis -- it was Toni making the positive claim that white women could not exploit their ancestrally-accumulated, white-privilege based wealth in a way that white men could. I asked for evidence of this. I've explained for this to be true, the current generation of white women must somehow differentially benefit from it to their brothers. This could happen in a few ways but none of them have been evidenced by Toni. (It's also true that white women could benefit more than white men from ancestrally-accumulated wealth that was due to white privilege, but I'm not making that argument).

You've already admitted you have actual evidence. And you now have finally tacitly admitted your argument has no logical basis - that this is an empirical matter. Which means your snipe had no logical nor empirical basis. Thank you for proving my point.

 

[Metaphor]

Of course my position has a logical basis. Toni is wrong to talk about white women's lack of access to white-privilege enabled ancestrally-accumulated wealth in the same sentence, as if it were analogous to, people of colour's lack of access to it. It simply makes no sense. She was wrong to have made the argument.

You confuse your inability to follow a position with something that makes no sense.

As for a 'factual' basis -- it was Toni making the positive claim that white women could not exploit their ancestrally-accumulated, white-privilege based wealth in a way that white men could. I asked for evidence of this. I've explained for this to be true, the current generation of white women must somehow differentially benefit from it to their brothers. This could happen in a few ways but none of them have been evidenced by Toni. (It's also true that white women could benefit more than white men from ancestrally-accumulated wealth that was due to white privilege, but I'm not making that argument).

You've already admitted you have actual evidence. And you now have finally tacitly admitted your argument has no logical basis - that this is an empirical matter. Which means your snipe had no logical nor empirical basis. Thank you for proving my point.

No. You continually compound your error.

Toni's assertion could be true if white women had different ancestors to white men, in the same way that people of colour have different ancestors to white men--what she implied in her first paragraph that grouped white women and people of colour in their lack of access to ancestrally-accumulated wealth.

It is impossible for Toni's claim to be true based on that scenario, since it is impossible by definition.

There are other scenarios, not reliant on the unstated but false premise that Toni employed, that could mean white women could fail to benefit from ancestrally-accumulated wealth in a way that white men couldn't. Indeed, some of these ways could be less "human capital" spending on daughters versus sons, or differential inheritance by sex, in the current generation.

Toni has not evidenced either of these things to be true of the population. Indeed, her own situation is one of sex equality--Toni has been as advantaged by her white-privilege ancestrally-accumulated wealth as her male siblings.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This idea that there's lots of families inheriting wealth accumulated hundreds of years ago is idiotic. The parents of the richest man in America were a 17 year-old high school student and a bike shop owner.

Exactly. Inheritance is a minor factor. Most people do not inherit meaningful amounts of money and even those that do generally inherit it late enough in life they've already succeeded or failed by their own efforts. While there are large inherited fortunes it almost always dissipates quickly (even at the average 2 kids per family it would be cut in half every generation) and can't possibly explain differences in the middle class.

At most middle class children get an education without a pile of debt. Student loans are a burden but if you don't take a low-value degree they're rarely crushing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No. You continually compound your error.

Of course. Most people are incapable of comprehending blasphemy. It's awfully hard to make a proper rebuttal to that which you do not understand. Get yourself a scarlet B shirt and wear it proudly!

Note that there is another factor related to your argument: the cultural factors keeping people down likewise don't persist over generations between men and women.

 

[laughing dog]

No. You continually compound your error. ...

Non.

First "Toni's assertion could be true if white women had different ancestors to white men, in the same way that people of colour have different ancestors to white men--what she implied in her first paragraph that grouped white women and people of colour in their lack of access to ancestrally-accumulated wealth.

It is impossible for Toni's claim to be true based on that scenario, since it is impossible by definition."' is based on your straw man - you confuse your poorly reasoned inference with her intended meaning.


Second, as you admitted "'I've explained for this to be true, the current generation of white women must somehow differentially benefit from it to their brothers." Whether or not they have is not a logical question but an empirical one. Hence your snipe had no logical or empirical basis.

There is nothing wrong with asking for evidence. I asked you for evidence, and you had none. Opinions that are based on evidence are more convincing than ones that lack evidence. Your opinion lacks evidence and your argument is based on a straw man.

 

[Metaphor]

It is impossible for Toni's claim to be true based on that scenario, since it is impossible by definition."' is based on your straw man - you confuse your poorly reasoned inference with her intended meaning.

It is not a straw man. It is implicit in Toni's phrasing. Toni is as responsible for her unstated premises as she is for stated ones.

Second, as you admitted "'I've explained for this to be true, the current generation of white women must somehow differentially benefit from it to their brothers." Whether or not they have is not a logical question but an empirical one. Hence your snipe had no logical or empirical basis.

It was not a snipe. I asked her how her assertion could be true.

There is nothing wrong with asking for evidence. I asked you for evidence, and you had none. Opinions that are based on evidence are more convincing than ones that lack evidence. Your opinion lacks evidence and your argument is based on a straw man.

What opinion? That white men and white women have the same ancestors? True by definition.

Or, is asking Toni to provide evidence an opinion?

Or, do you mean my opinion that white women cannot be excluded from the positive effects of ancestrally-accumulated white wealth without some mechanism, in the current generation, where daughters are treated different to sons?

 

[Metaphor]

For the people interested in honest discourse, this is what Toni wrote:

2. It is easier for (in general)/more likely for a white male person to qualify for a business loan because they are more likely to have some wealth already because for hundreds of years, their family was able to acquire and maintain wealth to a much greater extent than women have been able to

What Toni wrote is incoherent. That isn't some generalised insult. It means one part does not cohere with another. White women must have the same families that white men have. You can't talk about 'their family' (white men), as if white men and white women don't share the exact same ancestors.

For Toni's comment to be true, it must be that her brother's ancestors were able to acquire wealth better than her own ancestors. Except that they're the exact same ancestors.

I think Toni made a category error. That's okay. Except that she denied she made the error. She refused to own her own words. Toni has never made a single mistake, you see. Not even when she writes a paragraph that is internally incoherent.

I tried to explain ways that it could be true that white women might not be able to exploit family wealth in the same way that white men do. I explained the preconditions that would be necessary for this to be true, and I noted that past discrimination against women in matters of capital are irrelevant for the purposes of current exploitation of ancestrally accumulated wealth.

None of it to any end. Toni cannot own her response, admit any culpability whatsoever, and laughing dog is only interested in obliquely defending her by asking me for evidence of assertions I did not make.

 

[Toni]

For the people interested in honest discourse, this is what Toni wrote:

2. It is easier for (in general)/more likely for a white male person to qualify for a business loan because they are more likely to have some wealth already because for hundreds of years, their family was able to acquire and maintain wealth to a much greater extent than women have been able to

What Toni wrote is incoherent. That isn't some generalised insult. It means one part does not cohere with another. White women must have the same families that white men have. You can't talk about 'their family' (white men), as if white men and white women don't share the exact same ancestors.

For Toni's comment to be true, it must be that her brother's ancestors were able to acquire wealth better than her own ancestors. Except that they're the exact same ancestors.

I think Toni made a category error. That's okay. Except that she denied she made the error. She refused to own her own words. Toni has never made a single mistake, you see. Not even when she writes a paragraph that is internally incoherent.

I tried to explain ways that it could be true that white women might not be able to exploit family wealth in the same way that white men do. I explained the preconditions that would be necessary for this to be true, and I noted that past discrimination against women in matters of capital are irrelevant for the purposes of current exploitation of ancestrally accumulated wealth.

None of it to any end. Toni cannot own her response, admit any culpability whatsoever, and laughing dog is only interested in obliquely defending her by asking me for evidence of assertions I did not make.

I'm sorry if you didn't understand what I wrote.

In some states until quite recently, women did not have the right to own property in their own right. Suppose the daughter of a wealthy family, an only child, were to marry. Her inheritance and property were his outright. Until 1974, women did not have the same rights to get a credit card or a mortgage, often requiring a male co-signer, even if she were single, self supporting or the main support of her family. This made it very difficult for women to raise the necessary capital to start a business, for example. Women today still typically pay a higher interest rate on loans compared with men of equal qualifications.

In addition, some families leave different assets to different children, based on gender. It was not uncommon for a farmer or small business owner to leave that farm or business to his son or sons rather than any daughters because it was assumed that daughters would marry men who would provide for them. This still happens today. In addition, parents sometimes leave larger portions or an entire estate to one child or exclude a child specifically for any number of reasons, good and bad.

See the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Married_Women's_Property_Acts_in_the_United_States
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...d-a-hard-time-getting-credit-cards-180949289/
https://www.nytimes.com/1974/10/11/...nning-bias-against-women-on-credit-women.html

https://www.directlendingsolutions.com/women_and_credit.htm

In 1974, legislation came into being that addressed this, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. With this legislation, it became illegal to discriminate in terms of credit opportunities based on such things as gender, marital status, race, religion, age, nation of birth or prior residence, and even the receiving of assistance from social services or public assistance. However, as with civil rights legislation for African Americans and other non-Caucasian groups, it took time for legislation to translate into common practice. The Equal Credit Opportunity Act went into effect on October 28, 1975.

For women to enjoy the access of credit that they have today, those two factors had to come together, access to the same high paying employment that and recognition of their full, adult personhood outside of, and even within, the marital relationship. However, legislation can only go so far in resolving such matters, and it took the widespread social acceptance of such concepts to create the opportunities enjoyed by women today, when they can borrow to start a business, obtain their own mortgage for their own home and have credit cards in their name.

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/inheritance-laws/unitedstates.php

[C]ommon law dower has been substantially retained by fifteen states; statutory dower, by which the widow is more generously allowed to take a fee interest rather than a life interest, exists in eight jurisdictions; ten states have done away with dower altogether and have created in its place an inchoate, statutory interest in the other spouse’s property which is protected during coverture by the husband’s inability to convey unencumbered title by his sole act; and the remaining states do not give the wife an inchoate interest during coverture but limit her instead to a forced share in whatever property the husband leaves in his estate at death. The present state of the law represents a jungle, with hardly two states to be found that are exactly alike, and there exists in reality fifty different schemes most of which, when analyzed, are not built upon a single adequate interest given the surviving spouse; but instead give her a bit of homestead, a bit of widow’s allowance, and in addition a bit of dower or some statutory substitute therefor.[21]

 

[ruby sparks]

This idea that there's lots of families inheriting wealth accumulated hundreds of years ago is idiotic. The parents of the richest man in America were a 17 year-old high school student and a bike shop owner.

Exactly. Inheritance is a minor factor. Most people do not inherit meaningful amounts of money and even those that do generally inherit it late enough in life they've already succeeded or failed by their own efforts. While there are large inherited fortunes it almost always dissipates quickly (even at the average 2 kids per family it would be cut in half every generation) and can't possibly explain differences in the middle class.

At most middle class children get an education without a pile of debt. Student loans are a burden but if you don't take a low-value degree they're rarely crushing.

Where do you get your data from?

I have read studies which say that American parents effectively transfer approximately 50% of their wealth to their next generation, and that this is a much higher percentage than most countries?

I also read that whites are twice as likely to receive an inheritance as blacks?

And to go back to something that was said in the post you replied to, we don’t need to go back hundreds of years to see where inequalities in opportunities to accumulate wealth stem from. Take home ownership for example. We could go back to the New Deal, and even just back to the much more recent subprime lending (some of it predatory) where data shows that blacks were sold worse and more expensive loans than whites earning the same.

 

[Metaphor]

I'm sorry if you didn't understand what I wrote.

Toni, it's you who does not understand what you wrote.

In some states until quite recently, women did not have the right to own property in their own right.

I don't know what you think 'recent' is, but in the United Kingdom and the United States, married women were allowed to own property in their own name by the late 19th century. I presume unmarried women had the right to own property in their own name for a far longer time (and indeed did).

Suppose the daughter of a wealthy family, an only child, were to marry. Her inheritance and property were his outright.

Right. So....what? Are there women alive today, in the United States, who are not allowed to own property because they are married or because they are women?

The daughter of a wealthy family in your example married a man and presumably had white children with him. Their children benefited from her inherited wealth because they were born in the same household. Even if only her male children benefited, those children also had white children with other white women who benefited from the wealth. Unless you are proposing that white men today are the exclusive, sexed beneficiaries of ancestral white wealth, the paragraph you wrote does not make sense.

Until 1974, women did not have the same rights to get a credit card or a mortgage, often requiring a male co-signer, even if she were single, self supporting or the main support of her family. This made it very difficult for women to raise the necessary capital to start a business, for example.

And there are women alive today who are still suffering from this sexed unfairness. But I don't suppose you restrict your discriminatory customer practices to women who are older than say, 60. Women who were still children in 1974, and any woman born afterwards, did not suffer from this credit card unfairness.

Women today still typically pay a higher interest rate on loans compared with men of equal qualifications.

If they were equally qualified they wouldn't be paying a higher interest rate.

In addition, some families leave different assets to different children, based on gender. It was not uncommon for a farmer or small business owner to leave that farm or business to his son or sons rather than any daughters because it was assumed that daughters would marry men who would provide for them. This still happens today.

Evidence? For what percent of the population does this happen?

In addition, parents sometimes leave larger portions or an entire estate to one child or exclude a child specifically for any number of reasons, good and bad.

Sure. I know this. I have a friend who does not stand to inherit much from his very wealthy mother, as she has made provision in her will for much of her estate to go to a high-needs relative.

Are you suggesting that in the current generation, women inherit less wealth than men? Do you have any evidence?

See the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Married_Women's_Property_Acts_in_the_United_States
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...d-a-hard-time-getting-credit-cards-180949289/
https://www.nytimes.com/1974/10/11/...nning-bias-against-women-on-credit-women.html

Are you telling me that you already read the wikipedia pages about Married Women's Property Acts, and yet you still wrote 'women' when you meant 'married women', and you still expect me to believe the late 19th century is 'until recently'???

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/inheritance-laws/unitedstates.php

[C]ommon law dower has been substantially retained by fifteen states; statutory dower, by which the widow is more generously allowed to take a fee interest rather than a life interest, exists in eight jurisdictions; ten states have done away with dower altogether and have created in its place an inchoate, statutory interest in the other spouse’s property which is protected during coverture by the husband’s inability to convey unencumbered title by his sole act; and the remaining states do not give the wife an inchoate interest during coverture but limit her instead to a forced share in whatever property the husband leaves in his estate at death. The present state of the law represents a jungle, with hardly two states to be found that are exactly alike, and there exists in reality fifty different schemes most of which, when analyzed, are not built upon a single adequate interest given the surviving spouse; but instead give her a bit of homestead, a bit of widow’s allowance, and in addition a bit of dower or some statutory substitute therefor.[21]

What on earth do you think I should be taking away from this quote?

 

[Trausti]

This idea that there's lots of families inheriting wealth accumulated hundreds of years ago is idiotic. The parents of the richest man in America were a 17 year-old high school student and a bike shop owner.

Exactly. Inheritance is a minor factor. Most people do not inherit meaningful amounts of money and even those that do generally inherit it late enough in life they've already succeeded or failed by their own efforts. While there are large inherited fortunes it almost always dissipates quickly (even at the average 2 kids per family it would be cut in half every generation) and can't possibly explain differences in the middle class.

At most middle class children get an education without a pile of debt. Student loans are a burden but if you don't take a low-value degree they're rarely crushing.

Where do you get your data from?

I have read studies which say that American parents effectively transfer approximately 50% of their wealth to their next generation, and that this is a higher percentage than most countries?

I also read that whites are twice as likely to receive an inheritance as blacks?

You’re aware the many, probably most, American elderly are on a fixed income? So bequeathing 50% of “wealth” is not what you think. And, again, most people die with such modest estates that there’s no need to open probate.

 

[ruby sparks]

Trausti, if you feel the urge to reply to me, just save it. You squirt out so much incessant diarrhea I can smell it across the internet. It makes me want to vomit.

Your analyses of just about any evidence on just about any issue is consistently, appallingly bad, and mostly just wrong. I wouldn’t trust you to add 1 + 1 on a pocket calculator and get the right answer.

 

[Trausti]

Trausti, if you feel the urge to reply to me, just save it. You squirt out so much incessant diarrhea I can smell it across the internet. It makes me want to vomit.

Your analyses of just about any evidence on just about any issue is consistently, appallingly bad, and mostly just wrong. I wouldn’t trust you to add 1 + 1 on a pocket calculator and get the right answer.

I’m a lawyer who’s dealt with estates. And your experience with American probate is what, exactly? If I’m wrong about how it works here, please do tell.

 

[ruby sparks]

Yay. Tell me all your personal anecdotes. Lol.

Please just go away and stop talking to me. I promise I will return the favour.