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.


>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.



>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.

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.

------------------------------------
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} 3/3/05 1:38:44 AM ---