Tuesday, November 1, 2016

Why society depends upon men

This is why feminists, conservatives, and everyone else are constantly banging on about men. Because, at the macroeconomic level, women simply don't matter. They are net beneficiaries, not contributors:
Those are the raw taxes paid by men and women. The tax gap has, oddly, never been an gender issue until now. When the tax money received by men and women is included in the equation, you can see that for most of women’s lives (except between 44 to 60), they receive more tax money than they supply the state with. Men, on the other hand, give the state more tax money than they receive from 23 to 65 years.


This is where it gets upsetting. As you can see, women’s short period of positive fiscal impact doesn’t come close to counter-balance an already massive overall negative impact. ”The net fiscal incidence on men is approximately zero when accumulated over all ages.” As such, society invests in young males, and they subsequently pay back society’s investment. Women bear massive costs to society, while we are taught to see them as underprivileged.

By the end of her life, the average woman will cost about $150,000 to the average taxpayer. This means that an average man is extorted $150,000 in his lifetime that will be directly transferred to women.
Which means that the only way women can help address the economic situation is to cut benefits to them. Since women outnumber men in the electorate, that's not going to happen. Read the whole thing at Return of Kings.

25 comments:

Boko Harambe said...

No, really, single moms are HEROES, people. Heroes.

Boko Harambe said...

And yet women are ready to trade marriage, stability, family formation, and modest wealth for merely "getting by" on food stamps or what have you.

Heroes. When .gov is husband and father, you're set for life. No need to commit anything, you ride for free, and he keeps providing. It ought to start hurting at some point, but it never does.

swiftfoxmark2 said...

My brother-in-law is going through a divorce right now. While he probably deserves it, as he had committed adultery several times, his wife is on a rampage. Recently, he met her to pick up his daughter and handed her a small pile of bills which the court had determined her to be liable for.

She angrily took her daughter and drove off. Fortunately, he seems to be dealing with a reasonable judge and lawyer, so he appears to be getting a good deal. But her attitude is one that is shared by many women in the US: men pay for everything and they get the benefits.

Even when they get to nuke their marriages (rightly or wrongly).

Mr.MantraMan said...

While on an exercise in Korea circa 1984 I asked a momasan how she got her girls, and so she told us that she rented them from their parents, the parents would take the money and put their boys thru college, good for family. Or basically what Billy Ray Cyrus did to his daughter rented her out.

S. Misanthrope said...

New rule: no representation without taxation.

Jed Mask said...

"Even when they get to nuke their marriages (rightly or wrongly)."

Under the "world's standards" I suppose "divorce" is permissible given such dire circumstances but by *GOD'S STANDARDS* husband and wife are to stay together in marriage until one of them dies in their natural-born lifetime.

Besides that there are *NO EXCUSES* from God to divorce a spouse. You're in it "til' death do you part" *FOR REAL*; that's *GOD'S STANDARDS* not mine.

Even if a spouse commits adultery or such vile sins that is NO EXUSE or GROUNDS to use to make a divorce of a marriage. That's what Jesus would ideally want. Amen.

(P.S. This note's for CHRISTIANS primarily. Not the unbelievers.)

~ Bro. Jed

Jed Mask said...

Yep, well, it's obvious society depends on men. Always has, always will, it's the way God designed His Creation upon *AUTHORITY*.

From practical standpoint women are the nurturers and caretakers of what create and produce.

Women gift birth to the next generation of human-beings. Men put together a functioning civilization (good or bad but men keep civilization going). Amen.

So Vox, here's the tricky part:

"Which means that the only way women can help address the economic situation is to cut benefits to them. Since women outnumber men in the electorate, that's not going to happen."

lol So what's your probable solutions to that? What's your thinking, huh? Would like to know. God-willing, may share my own thoughts and ideas on the matter.

In all honesty such "arm-twisting" and use of well-applied "force" may be needed to put that problem in check.

~ Bro. Jed

liberranter said...

"Which means that the only way women can help address the economic situation is to cut benefits to them. Since women outnumber men in the electorate, that's not going to happen."

lol So what's your probable solutions to that? What's your thinking, huh? Would like to know. God-willing, may share my own thoughts and ideas on the matter.


Come on now, isn't it obvious? The solution (here in the U.S.) is to repeal the 19th Amendment.

tz said...

When the collapse comes, I'm well set. The only area more manly is Alaska but I don't expect them to survive the journey.

Isaiah 4:1
In that day seven women
will take hold of one man
and say, “We will eat our own food
and provide our own clothes;
only let us be called by your name.
Take away our disgrace!”


Of course there is not the obvious question "Why Should I?".

The local women would likely shoot or enslave any who manage to get here. Or not waste valuable ammo and just bash their heads in, and drag them to some remote area. We talk about "dark triad" men. Women are far worse.

"How was your day, dear?". "Just helping the militia axillary - by the way, could you oil the chainsaw and pick up more quicklime".

Benjamin Kraft said...

@Jed Mask: You're forgetting infidelity. That's the (only) biblical reason for divorce.

As for the solution to the problem of parasitic women, do it the way it's historically been done. You don't fight the wars, you don't vote.

Tell them that they will either lose the right to vote, or be subject to the draft.

Benjamin Kraft said...

The problem will solve itself at ludicrous speed: https://sli.mg/a/SQ0OBj

SirHamster said...

@Benjamin Kraft:
"You're forgetting infidelity. That's the (only) biblical reason for divorce."

What God has joined let man not separate. What type of divorce is God initiated separation?

None, that's why in response, the disciples thought it better not to marry.

savantissimo said...

Women are paid 40% of all wages but control the specific disposition of 80% of all expenditures. (They actually earn less than 40%, and as 90% of HR, also control who gets hired, but ignoring that...)

Men earn at least 60% of all wages and spend 20%.
Women get double their share, men get one-third their share, so women are doing at least six times as well as men in terms of consumption over production.

Tom K. said...

Sex robots and artificial wombs seem the only solution to the cliff western civ is racing towards.

I wonder how it will affect our minds and hearts when few of us will even want to bother to make human contact. How good will the sims be? Will it really feel like living flesh? Will we care?

Will it break our souls?

alphaisassumed said...

@ SirHamster

"@Benjamin Kraft:
"You're forgetting infidelity. That's the (only) biblical reason for divorce."

What God has joined let man not separate. What type of divorce is God initiated separation?

None, that's why in response, the disciples thought it better not to marry."


But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

--Matthew 5:32, KJV

Granted that when this conversation is recounted in Mark and Luke that the "fornication" or "sexual immorality" (depending on the translation)is left out.

However, all three books are Scripture and according to Scripture Jesus says divorce is permitted if the spouse cheats. He doesn't say it's condoned, but it is allowed.

--Martel

VFM #7634 said...

Now, for alt-right trolling, we just need a version of "gibsmedats" to apply to women. A variant of "obligations", maybe.

VFM #7634 said...

However, all three books are Scripture and according to Scripture Jesus says divorce is permitted if the spouse cheats. He doesn't say it's condoned, but it is allowed.

--Martel


Sure, but the problem here is, what if you're the "other guy"? "Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."

Michael Maier said...

@alphaisassumed: I thought it was IF THE WIFE CHEATS, not if the spouse cheats.

alphaisassumed said...

@ Michael Maier:

"@alphaisassumed: I thought it was IF THE WIFE CHEATS, not if the spouse cheats"

Point granted.

However, vis-a-vis my initial point of contention with SirHamster's claim that divorce is NEVER permitted, I'm still correct, admittedly less broadly than I inititally argued. Divorce is RARELY Biblically permitted, but it is still permitted under that one circumstance.

--Martel

c0l0nelp0pc0rn said...

Divorce doesn't matter in cases of adultery because adultery is a capital crime in the Bible. Fornication on the part of a man simply means he has to pay the girl's father and take on another wife.

dc.sunsets said...

There's an interesting parallel between the feminist discard of men in favor of their Great Uncle (Sam) and the flood into the USA of people who crave the benefits of America without themselves being able to create them (anywhere.)

In both cases they look like those dependent upon hydroelectric power whose main pastime is undermining the dam.

I think we all agree this won't end well, and that the aftermath will be messy.

SirHamster said...

@Martel:

However, vis-a-vis my initial point of contention with SirHamster's claim that divorce is NEVER permitted, I'm still correct, admittedly less broadly than I inititally argued. Divorce is RARELY Biblically permitted, but it is still permitted under that one circumstance.

False. I did not claim that divorce is never permitted. In fact, the whole exchange explicitly says that God through Moses PERMITS divorce because hearts were HARD.

But it was not this way from the beginning. (eg: we should have NOT-hard hearts)


I also object to scanning 3 Gospels and picking the one that allows an interpretation that you want to hear, while ignoring the 2 that don't. The whole point of the Sermon on the Mount is elaborating that God's flawless standard is higher and better and harder than what the Jewish OT Law prescribes.

You have heard it said that you are permitted to divorce as long as you were sexually wronged. But what God has joined, let man not separate.

"If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."

Jed Mask said...

@alphaisassumed

Sir Hamster is right concerning "divorce": "Divorce" is NEVER "permissible" by God under NO EXCEPTION. PERIOD. Here's why: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Family/Marriage/divorce.htm

I perceive your using the Scripture of KJV Matthew 5:32 as a way to "find some kind of excuse" or "rationalizing" an *EXCUSE* why it would be "okay" in an "adultery situation" to still "divorce" a spouse. That's a LYING, DECEITFUL "smokescreen" of "taking the easy way out" for selfish, self-serving desire to "move on" when "going gets tough" and when one feels cheated, disrespected, betrayed and worthless when a spouse goes astray and commits adultery. It's the perfectly understandable and natural "human reaction".

Even so, that's human standard alphaisasummed. GOD'S STANDARD is *NEVER* divorce. No matter what. No "dwindling down" of GOD'S HOLY STANDARDS to "compromise" with weak, sinful self-centered, self-serving man. Amen.

Jed Mask said...

@"Divorce doesn't matter in cases of adultery because adultery is a capital crime in the Bible. Fornication on the part of a man simply means he has to pay the girl's father and take on another wife."

That's utterly WRONG and UNBIBLICAL! Divorce DOES MATTER and "adultery" is NEVER an *EXCUSE* to divorce a spouse and destroy a marriage. That's an *EXCUSE COMMENT* for personal agenda purposes. It's NOT TRUTH.

Now for the "fornication issue" if a man is not already married and hasn't had sex with a woman before but then commits fornication by having premarital sex with a woman he hasn't married that Old Testament Law is in effect that he should "amend" that situation and marry the woman he laid down and had sex with to be his wife as God would have it go from there.

Contrary to what so many people have heard or thought on the matter when anyone chooses to have sex with a person it's not just a "physical act" but a "joining of the spirit" with said person he/she had sex with.

That's why Jesus died a VIRGIN in the flesh so His (Holy) Spirit would be kept "Holy": SINGULAR. ONE SPIRIT.

For as the Scripture saith when a man and woman become husband and wife they become ONE in BODY and SPIRIT. They are no longer "individual spirits" but "twain": together.

KJV 1 Corinthians 6:15-20 sums it up nicely and completely.

A Christian man/woman who is a "virgin" who has never had sex before is a person of one spirit "joined unto the Lord".

'Course men and women (we all do [mostly]) have those natural "sexual appetittes" of the flesh in us we so want to satisfy and so many people commit fornication in "no-strings-attached" promiscuous the heathen way of the world. But that's NOT the way the biblical Bible-believing, Bible-OBEYING Christian responds.

If anyone actually cares obeys God's Commandments on "sex" they would be married to a spouse to fulfill those desires the *GOD-SANCTIONED WAY*.

To say otherwise is to mask, self-serving conceit and selfish intent. It is. I've thought it to before I *FACED THE TRUTH* and dealt with it.

It's like "don't get angry at God" cuz He tells you not to have sex outside of marriage but you go and do it anyway.

Don't "hate on" Him because He's the Creator you willfully refuse to acknowledge as your Creator and choose to ignore and "re-interpret" His Commandments to serve your selfish purposes. You know it. I know it. To make sneaky "excuses" for yourself to "sin" against His Will knowing what He Thinks about it since He Sees and Knows *EVERYTHING* and *NOTHING IS HIDDEN FROM HIM.

Just like folks "hate on God" because they refuse to *OBEY HIM*; that's allowed by God by our freewill He has given every human-being to exercise to love or hate Him at our own will and not be "forced compliance". God lets people CHOOSE to OBEY, LOVE, WORSHIP and SERVE Him or for us to just do our own thing.

But just don't try to "hide" your wicked selfish intents by "twisting Scripture" for *SELF-SERVING purposes to make "petty excuses" for not wanting to *OBEY GOD* because you want to have sex outside of marriage and live life the way you want instead of the way GOD WANTS YOU TO LIVE. That's what I've learned (and know) of how God Feels.

Quit "blaming God" folks: blame *YOURSELF*! God is PERFECT. He don't make "mistakes". That's what I've learned the hard way. We are our own worst enemy; you cannot even blame the Devil, Satan. lol. We screw our own selves up and we know it deep down.

Face the "red pill reality" as it's called for what it is.

(P.S. I'm preaching to myself here as well) Amen.

Jed Mask said...

@Benjamin Kraft

"Tell them that they will either lose the right to vote, or be subject to the draft."

No, no, no. Men don't send the women out to war to die just to "teach them a lesson" even though the women be in the wrong as we know it.

But to just "send the women" to war who we need to give birth to our future generations of human-beings (God-willing) to just "make the point" we all already know is really a stupid thing to do in contrast at this point.

What the men do is to stand their ground and take away all the benefits the women abuse in negative, bad behaviour until the women are punished enough socially and economically that they understand their transgressions of "taking advantage of the system" for their wicked selfish, self-centered, self-serving purposes. Men may have to very well use *FORCE* as it's been done throughout all human history; howbeit instead of outright violent physical force what really needs to be done is a "coordinated effort" of the masses of all men utterly refusing to "comply to the demands" of any woman anywhere for any reason until the women "give in" either happily, saddened, resentful or angrily against men's response. The female "reactions" don't matter but their *COMPLIANCE*. Can't make everyone happy at all but men need to TAKE CONTROL and not let women have any control over them let they do now and the mess we all have as a result of "women's control". That's not what they're made for: "help meets".

You don't "send the women" to war to die just to "teach them a lesson" (even though they rightfully deserve it in many cases); you put them IN PLACE and IN CHECK like women are supposed to be kept in check by men by "means necessary" to make them obedient and subservient to men in greater society and staying at the home giving birth to children and taking care of home.

Men go out to war and fight and die. That's how it's always been since human civilization began on the face of the earth.

NO CIVILIZATION anywhere in history of in times past that I can recall or have even heard of (and if one did, it's not really "well-known" or "mentioned" without doing some history research) ever primarily sent their women off to fight in war conflict and the men stayed at home. VERY unnatural. Only in this truly "f-ed up" unnatural modern age of superficial, artificial filth has a civilization gotten to this point of even "considering".

No man in ancient past would even conceive of this social degradation madness we're living in today. That's how farfetched modern society is. I can see how they would perceive in disbelief since they were never "conditioned" in this wicked mess we are living in as it's the way we're used to seeing and living in this modern age even though I despise it as well.

I frankly don't really know how this should be "implemented" practically by men on a national level but at some point some form of "force" would have to be taken place and even though the government will pose opposition; the internal turmoil, strife and chaos that may result (not just "physical rioting" and violence but "social atmosphere strife" of relationships between men and women may be torn apart and neither sex wanting much to do with the other without some kind of personal transaction gain as a result) will cause so much division and strife already festering in society today that just "explodes" into anarchy and cold-hearted savage mentality already seen in many people across society. It's inevitable and like it or not, push-comes-to-shove; patriarchy is coming back. Violent or peaceful, patriarchy is coming back. I see it. Amen.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.