On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 09:35:00 -0500, "Deborah Terreson"
 wrote:

>In article  , Grizzlie 
>Antagonist   wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 17:21:40 -0500, "Deborah Terreson"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>In article  , Grizzlie
>>>Antagonist   wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 09:46:25 -0500, "Deborah Terreson"
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article
 , Grizzlie
>>>>>Antagonist   wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 18:32:42 -0500, "Deborah
Terreson"
>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article
 , Grizzlie
>>>>>>>Antagonist
  wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/c-e/chapin/2005/chapin030105.htm
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BC: One of the most underrated books that
I’ve ever read was Modern
>>>>>>>> Sex: Liberation and its Discontents which
is a compilation of essays
>>>>>>>> from City Journal. An essay of yours,
"Feminists and their Enemies" is
>>>>>>>> included. Would you agree with Justice
Bork when he stated in
>>>>>>>> Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern
Liberalism and American Decline
>>>>>>>> that radical feminism is the most
destructive and fanatical movement
>>>>>>>> to come down to us from the Sixties
[p.193]? I mean obviously the
>>>>>>>> radical feminists have some serious
competition for the title.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> HS: Simple answer: yes, I would. You may
recall that in my book I
>>>>>>>> talked a bit about the ANTI-suffrage
movement, which of course has
>>>>>>>> been very much derided by history. But I
found it fascinating to go
>>>>>>>> back and read what those people were
saying, and realize how prescient
>>>>>>>> they were in some ways; notably, those
having to do with the impact of
>>>>>>>> the women's movement on children and
family. Obviously, I'm not
>>>>>>>> advocating rolling back suffrage -- but I
agree we're still reluctant
>>>>>>>> to honestly deal with the how destructive
radical feminism has been to
>>>>>>>> so many lives.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Gummint's NEVER gonna roll back suffrage -
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that it will happen someday, though not in
our lifetimes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>look at all the taxable revenue
>>>>>>>they'll lose!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think this argument holds water.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've heard that men, as a group, are net
contributors and that women,
>>>>>> as a group, are net receivers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But even if this isn't true, the fact is that
foreign nationals can't
>>>>>> vote in U.S. elections either, but I imagine that
if they make money
>>>>>> here, they can be taxed on it here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So why should eliminating women's suffrage mean
that women can't be
>>>>>> taxed on income?
>>>>>
>>>>>Because of a pesky little item about taxation without
representation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The theory before was that women were represented at the
ballot box by
>>>> the men in their lives so, in fact, they were not without
>>>> representation.
>>>
>>>The married ones, yes. The single ones, no.
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, the singles ones are likely to have fathers, brothers, uncles...
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>Come
>>>>>on, G.A, you cannot tell me there wasn't a big
connection to suffrage AND
>>>>>the Income Tax being created at the same time?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you have proof that suffragettes were also demonstrating for a
>>>> progressive income tax at the same time they were demonstrating for
>>>> suffrage?
>>>
>>>It had to do with the government seeing a chance to get those
millowrkers'
>>>paycecks. The taxation didn't come from the suffragettes though
it did count
>>>in the decision to give them the vote. Enfranchisement and all that, you
>>>know.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>To keep one, taxation, while
>>>>>overturning the other, suffrage, will mean that women
will STILL have
>>>>>political power, in effect we'll still be voting. Think about it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Better to cut women entirely out of the political
picture all the way - even
>>>>>to their money going into politics, and by dint of them
earning untaxed
>>>>>capital, it will put the emphasis back into home and
maintaining marriage
>>>>>for many, because that will be where the power they do
wield will have the
>>>>>most impact. The coolest part is, a system where
married couples have one
>>>>>untaxed income, it allows those homes with stable
marriages to thrive. Also
>>>>>the sheer economic necessity when the social services
are cut (remember,
>>>>>women are not paying taxes here, so there's less excuse
to need them) will
>>>>>change the desirability of single motherhood in a heartbeat.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are you saying that you actually WOULD favor the elimination of
>>>> women's suffrage if it also meant the end of taxation on women's
>>>> earnings?
>>>
>>>Fuck yes! How many times do I need to say this, Christ, I've been saying
>>>THIS for years! You think it's a glib reply, but it's not.
>>
>>
>> Actually, I don't remember your having said this before.
>
>
>Oh yeah, I've mentioned it pleanty of times.
>>
>>
>>>Let's be real, it's not like there is much of anyone,
Republican OR Democrat
>>>that's worth voting for. What would I or most of the women (and men) who
>>>don't bother to vote anyways be losing out on?
>>
>>
>>
>> This is all very true.
>>
>>
>>>Isn't the government going to
>>>hell because of 'meddlesome' women in politics and the fem-o-centric,
>>>neo-socialist politics they espouse?
>>
>>
>> Well yes, but I didn't know that you objected to any of this.
>
>The workplace safety issues and the pollution restricitons are the only ones
>I really don't object to. Though that's just because the nature of my
>career, leaves me much more aware of dangerous substances and dodgy working
>environments. Not to go too off tangent, I recently came across a kid who
>had been working for a fly-by-night contractor building spec houses - he
>told me that the guy had him spray priming the interiors and they only
>kitted out the workers with those crappy 25¢ dust masks, not respirators.
>Poor guy didn't know how much danger he was in doing that, and it took me
>showing him a paint can label to open his eyes. I kinda wish I'd known where
>that was happening, as I'd have set OSHA on the contractors' ass - that is
>criminal. One thing I do go spastic about is unprofessional practices.
>>
>>
>>
>>>I don't vote, I don't pay taxes.
>>>
>>>Our household income rises by the 40% the government takes from
me, we save
>>>faster and my husband can work less and live more. What's NOT to support
>>>there?
>>>
>>>Deb.
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, with all respect to you and Bob, I don't care much for female
>> wage-earner/male househusband arrangements, and that is what this
>> would encourage.  Or it would encourage SHAM relationships like that.
>
>Ah, but it would also cut alot of the social overhead in government.
>>
>> I think that I remember once having mentioned being an agent for a
>> small real estate company where the man running the show put the
>> business in his wife's name in order to qualify it as a "minority"
>> business -- and allowing women to avoid paying taxes would encourage
>> the growth of even larger black market entities of this nature.
>>
>What says that that kind of loophole would still be allowed? Remember, there
>would be no women voting anymore to keep such a piece of legislation on the
>books. All of the AA stuff, which is pretty well gutted anyhow, would be
>gone.


Yes, THOSE pieces of legislation might disappear (then again, a lot of
bureaucratic nonsense manages to fly in under the voters' radar) --
but YOU'RE the one suggesting that women become exempt from income tax
in exchange for losing the vote so there would still certainly be
tremendous incentive to put all assets, businesses, etc. in a woman's
name under the NEW set of rules.




> Lets take this thought exercise to the full and go the whole way with
>it. We are after all, redesigning the tax and voting base and the level and
>nature of government services and laws must naturally be adjusted.
>
>Deb.
>


------------------------------------
grizzlieantagonist{at}yahoo.com

"Ladies and gentlemen - let's have a round of applause for tonight's
player of the game - FRAN-CIS-CO SAN-N-N-N-TOS!
    - Brian Anthony (P.A. announcer at Grizzlie Stadium), June 11, 2004


"Populus me sibilat, at mihi plaudo."(The people
hiss at me, but I am well satisfied with myself).

    - Horace, the Roman poet


Logical positivism, dominant in American and
British universities, is suicidally bent upon
establishing the impossibility of knowing any-
thing.  (As Wyndham Lewis suggested in "Self
Condemned", the neo-positivist pedant reduces
himself to a mosquito, able to wound, nearly
invulnerable to counter-assault - but only an
insect, not a man).

     - Russell Kirk, Enemies of the Permanent
       Things


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/4/05 12:57:35 AM ---