Schlafly suggests increasing wage gap to help women find husbands

[Metaphor]

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/20...less-than-men-so-they-can-find-good-husbands/

100% of the lesbians I know have no desire to date men that earn more than they do.

Empirical fact: 1
Schlafly: 0

I know the grand old dame is quite advanced in years, and perhaps does not know that much about statistical distributions, but since personal income is skewed to the right for both genders and women have a lower median than men, then random pairings of men and women would result in men outearning the women in most couples.

And men cannot simultaneously express a preference for a higher earning mate, even if the distribution allowed it, if women are successfully expressing their preference for one.

Heterosexual men also tend to prefer younger partners; what does Schlafly suggest we do about the longevity gap, which makes the average woman older than the average man? I eagerly await her solution.

 

[Metaphor]

Mathematically she is incorrect (only bottom earning males and top end earning women ) would be unable to find a mate. But she does have a point - men and women tend to be much happier with men being the provider and women the provided. Perhaps it is best that men make the living and women stay at home to do housework, cook, and raise the kids. We tried female equality and it just didn't work, folks are unhappier that ever - heck, the President is making female unhappiness a new national issue.

Yep, they had it right in the 1950s. Men were happier, women were happier.

The post started out so well, maxparrish, but then stumbled toward a sad and regrettable end, like Amy Winehouse.

But why stop at the 1950s, maxparrish? Why stop at suffrage? It all started to careen downhill after the Married Women's Property Act, and was already going like a bat out of hell before either of us were born.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The problem started with dowries not being a part of the marital process anymore. When you let some dumb woman try and find a husband on her own, she's going to fuck it up more often than not as a result of the incompetence inherent in her gender. If you leave it to her father to find a suitable customer to purchase whatever excess females he finds his family burdened with, she's either going to be given to a man who can take care of her or booted out of the house to die in the street like a mongrel dog.

Either way was good.

 

[lpetrich]

Yep, they had it right in the 1950s. Men were happier, women were happier.

This is why I should probably stay away from this forum.

Seems like some right wingers believe that dependency is a Good Thing when it's husband-dependency. That's why their wailing about the supposed evil of dependency has such a hollow, concern-trollish ring to it.

Also that social engineering is a Good Thing whenever it is on their side, and that it is thus not Real Social Engineering.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Mathematically she is incorrect (only bottom earning males and top end earning women ) would be unable to find a mate. But she does have a point - men and women tend to be much happier with men being the provider and women the provided. Perhaps it is best that men make the living and women stay at home to do housework, cook, and raise the kids. We tried female equality and it just didn't work, folks are unhappier that ever - heck, the President is making female unhappiness a new national issue.

Yep, they had it right in the 1950s. Men were happier, women were happier.

While I don't agree with you, both sides actually look at the 50s as being the height of good economic times. And one of the major issues, more important than tax rates, has been women entering the work force.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

When Schlafly used to come on the TV during the fight over the ERA, my mom would go apoplectic. My mother had been the woman to hold her position in the USPS. She liked to say, "I played a man's game by a man's rules with men for judges and I still beat the men. The only thing I did that too many other women didn't do was I didn't listen to the men. I hoed my own row."

Needless to say, I am my mother's daughter, so I have very little regard for the paternalistic platitudes of Phyllis Schlafly. And as women who has worked with victims of domestic abuse for over 25 years, I have seen where the inability of women to leave the men they are financially dependent on can lead, to the hospital, jail, or the morgue.

Pardon me if I don't see the life of June Cleaver as one worthy of nostalgic bliss. Those pearls can come at a great price.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

When Schlafly used to come on the TV during the fight over the ERA, my mom would go apoplectic. My mother had been the woman to hold her position in the USPS. She liked to say, "I played a man's game by a man's rules with men for judges and I still beat the men. The only thing I did that too many other women didn't do was I didn't listen to the men. I hoed my own row."

Oh ... hoed ... like "planted". That gives a completely different interpretation of how she got her position than my first reading of the post.

 

[Nexus]

If the logic of your argument is valid, then it is still valid when we reverse the genders in your argument.

So would it be a good idea to pay men less in order to force them to rely on women? How would society be improved by such an arrangement? If you feel that society would be improved by doing this to women but would not be improved by doing this to men, then how do you account for the apparent _special pleading_ fallacy in your claims?

I do not feel this way therefore there is no fallacy. If the roles were reversed and most men desired higher earning female mates then the same logic would apply equally to both.

 

[crazyfingers]

Phyllis Schlafly. One of the original radical Christian right wing crazies in our time. I first heard of her in college in the early 80's. She's now overshadowed by so many more radical Christian right wing crazies.

 

[ksen]

Mathematically she is incorrect (only bottom earning males and top end earning women ) would be unable to find a mate. But she does have a point - men and women tend to be much happier with men being the provider and women the provided. Perhaps it is best that men make the living and women stay at home to do housework, cook, and raise the kids. We tried female equality and it just didn't work, folks are unhappier that ever - heck, the President is making female unhappiness a new national issue.

Yep, they had it right in the 1950s. Men were happier, women were happier.

and the highest income tax rate was 70%

 

[coloradoatheist]

and the highest income tax rate was 70%

Women entering the workforce at higher numbers and different jobs has had more of an impact than the tax rates. So if we want to return to how the economy was in the 50s and 60s we need to tell women to leave the work force and get back in the kitchen.

 

[ksen]

max is a much better Poe than Underseer . . . sorry buddy.