Archive for the ‘Equal Opportunity’ Category
It is interesting to note, particularly since we are involved in a debate here in the midwest over Voter I.D. legislation, it is interesting to note that in two states, Kansas and Rhode Island, Voter I.D. laws were enacted during Democratic administrations, not Republican, or conservative administrations of any kind for that matter. So the comment that it is only Republicans which seek Voter I.D. legislation is patently false.
That very fact also negates the implication that Republicans or conservatives are somehow acting in a discriminatory fashion towards those groups which wish not to comply.
Copyright © William Thien 2012
Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address. We will never sell your contact information to anyone.
I recently heard a female news woman proclaim on a Fox News affiliate during a debate about the need for law enforcement in a community that single females “need protection.” It was a surprising revelation to hear from a liberated woman. I consider any woman working in the capacity of a news person to be liberated, by the way, as say compared to fifty years ago, when they were uncommon.
And yes, there are women capable of everything to which a man is, often more so, aside from sexual function of course. But they are not the norm, far from it. Yet, for some reason, we have adopted an elaborate series of lies, generally perpetuated now by Federal Law and the media, that creates an unusual arrangement between the sexes in many places today. This eludes to the point in my essay, Is There a Natural Order Amongst The Sexes?.
Something then occurred to me after hearing the news woman’s proclamation that single females need protection. This is just an observation as there is no scientific evidence supporting my observation. The feminist movement is also expensive to a community in that single women “supposedly” require more protection than married women. Therefor, the demand for police services. or protection, is or must be higher the more single women there are in a community. That fact may even be more obvious in those parts of our society where the women are single and also mothers. Are more police required in such communities? Of course they are.
The thing about police is that they are expensive to maintain, probably THE most expensive personnel at the municipal level as they require by law all sorts of training, they are outfitted with extensive amounts of expensive equipment which they carry or that is located in their vehicles, and their vehicles are enormously expensive. The police also require large amounts of support personnel. The procedures they use to solve crimes are also often very expensive.
Police are the most invasive extension of a bureaucracy and when crime is down, they begin writing traffic tickets and generally making themselves difficult, one might say, without deference or disrespect to the office itself. So not only are police expensive in terms of tax dollars, they drive up the cost of our daily existence, they work to increase municipal revenue at our expense through traffic and parking enforcement, for example, you name it. We all like the protection a police presence affords us. But the result of feminism, the increase in society of single women, is quite possibly creating a lopsided society where excessive police personnel are required. That has to be expensive.
Furthermore, it is believed that police often vote in order to perpetuate their jobs in ways which may not all be mutually beneficial to the citizenry. Add to that the fact that the police and municipal protective services form large voting blocks to which if politicians do not pander, they can often forget about getting elected. So not only are police expensive to maintain on the tax rolls, they can be difficult socially as they may vote in large numbers contrary to the needs, or desires, of the population. And who can blame the police for that last one? Everyone needs a job. It’s human nature. But isn’t that what many laws are written to do, address human nature? I once thought that police should not be allowed to vote in legislative elections that effect law since they enforce the law. It suggests a conflict of interest. But police are people, too.
Getting back to the matter of feminism and taxes, therefore, the greater need for police services as a result of feminism could very well be costing the taxpayer substantially.
That is, by the way, just an observation. I fully expect repercussions. You can rarely say such things publicly and not expect repercussions. But someone has to say them. Married men are afraid to do so. Divorce tantrums have all too often been the remedy for an unhappy wife put in her place during a family disagreement. The political system can’t afford to say what I say here, and they don’t have the intestinal fortitude, either. I’m not running for office, so…
But isn’t it feminism that tells us men and women don’t need to get married, that women are equal to men, in every way? Yes, that is exactly the feminist platform. And it is false. Men and women are not equal. They are different, some might say completely different. And equal and different are not synonymous, equal and different do not mean the “same” thing.
Perhaps men and women should be treated equally. But the lie of feminism, that men and women are equal, is most likely an expensive lie for the tax payer to perpetuate.
Copyright 2011 William Thien
For some reason “The Collective” has taken interest in me again, recently, in particular with the notion that we are many and you are just “one.” They want to instill in me that I must be afraid, afraid of many things and in particular, afraid of their numbers. They want me to know, they have told me in so many ways that “we have our eyes on you” and we can make your life difficult, that there could be “a reaction” to each and every thing you do. Certain local politicians appear to have formed an alliance against me and have begun to throw innuendo and school yard taunts at me apparently out of fear that I am some sort of threat to their perpetual life as professional politicians, that my rhetoric undermines their life in political perpetuity as they lose one election and win another completely different office, and if there is anything a politician doesn’t like, it is when you undermine their chances at political perpetuity. And as the massive, shifting, fickle weight of the collective begins to collapse inwardly upon them they have begun finger pointing and name calling, acting out little skits in my vicinity for my benefit, indications that they can no longer sustain their own weighty ideals with their own finances and are looking to perpetuate their massive and socialistically “lofty” existence at the expense of others who wish not to contribute to, participate in their way of life. But they want you to have no choice. They are great in number, they tell you, and therefore they are right. And you must be afraid. It’s one of the most obvious faults with democratic forms of government, that simply because the most people agree on something, whatever it is they agree upon is right. Such circumstances are a tyranny against the individual, particularly when the individual brings no harm to the masses. These circumstances have caused me to want to re-visit one of my earliest and most popular essays for the benefit of the reader who may have joined after the The Individual vs. The Collective was first published.
So, once again ladies and gentlemen here is The Individual vs. The Collective.
The Individual vs. The Collective
I have been chastised for chastising the “collective.” Socialism. Big government.
My government has placed me under surveillance for complaining about its girth.
In the past companies have shunned my quests for employment for fear that they would be targeted by the government and blacklisted from the lucrative socialist/communist government money train.
Some of my previous employers have sent waves of toxic innuendo at me or harassed me to demonstrate their allegiance to the “collective.” They have placed me in deliberately compromising positions with hopes of the same.
In the past certain pseudo paramilitary elements of municipal governments in which I have resided have harassed me for fear that my rhetoric would lead to the loss of their cushy, secretive collective preserving jobs. Hold it, do you mean they are using tax dollars to harass people who believe they are paying too many taxes? Yes. That is exactly what I mean.
I have found myself alone many times mostly because those that believe in what I say are afraid to show it by associating with me. And sometimes I warn them not to associate with me, for their own good. There once more I stand alone. Perhaps cornered.
And that is why I will almost always side with the individual over the “collective.” Because I have dealt with the weight of the “collective” many times. And I know its weight, all of it, is worth less than the weight of the individual and his or her rights.
The problem with socialism, or the “collective,” the most common form of municipal and federal government today, is that it is based on assumptions that I believe are not from my point of view socially, and probably more importantly, economically viable.
For example, the assumption that I should have to pay for someone else’s living quarters (rent assistance) if they are pregnant out-of-wedlock or for their sustenance and that of their child whether unborn or born, even though I do not know them and probably will never, is to me a losing proposition, much like a sucker bet.
It is an assumption based on the fact that the illicit child born of the unmarried mother may some day defend me in a military action or a police action or some day discover a new medicine that will save thousands of lives and that the child is to me a “social investment” or a form of social “enrichment.” But statistics indicate that quite the opposite will happen. Statistics indicate that it is far more likely that the person born to an unwed mother and raised through the benefit of social welfare programs, those programs developed and perpetuated by the “collective,” is much more likely to assault someone I know or steal my property, break in to my house.
Furthermore, the assumption of the “collective” is that we are all of the same country, we are countrymen, and therefore should support one another even in such sexually indiscreet situations as women having children out-of-wedlock. But I believe that too is a false assumption, an assumption about my fellow countrymen that does not exist in any constitutional document about “social responsibility,” an assumption that is a overbearance upon the individual merely for the benefit of “the collective,” an ideal which reveals that were we to examine our tax law today and compare it to that of even just fifty years ago, we would find yields very little return on the original investment, ROI.
We get less for our tax dollars than we did fifty years ago. Yet we pay many times more than we did fifty years ago.
Unless of course you approve of the ideals of “the collective.” Then, you are in. You get the check. And the people who decide who receives a check get a pretty nice check themselves. And you know what they are really into? They are really in to the “collective.” Now it is getting very expensive. Because not only do we pay for those who receive the benefit of the “collective,” we must pay for those who deliver the benefit of the “collective.” And they may be just as or more expensive than the benefit delivered.
Now, I believe the government is large enough and powerful enough to create a situation that would reflect the circumstances I have just described and twist them to make me in some context feast on my own words. Or perhaps someone from within a collective within the “collective” I describe, perhaps a secretive political organ will take action against me. And perhaps that concerns me just as much as the situation I describe.
But no. That is a selfish thought. Because I am not the only one effected by these circumstances. I am not the only one trapped by the persistent debt of taxation meant to pay for all of these social programs, all of these devices meant to protect and in fact most likely grow “the collective.”
Another assumption the “collective” makes is that we, the collective, are big. And you, the individual, are small, and therefore you must do what the “collective” says. This is probably the most pervasive factor of the “collective.” The collective is a bully.
Therefor the assumption I have been describing, the assumption that the “collective” makes has been of course proven statistically false, to a great extent I might add, because one can further look at urban areas and see that is where most crime resides, for example. The cost per capita in urban areas is reflected in the generally higher property taxes and fees. It is also where most unwed mothers reside. The urban area is the central locus of the “collective.”
I am sure there are rural hotspots of illicit motherhood that may even rival concentrations in urban areas as well, so let me not single out the city. For the cities are often the great activity machines that drive our economy, even though we strangle them with more and more social programs while we grow the “collective.”
Now of course there are probably very good examples of children that grew up entirely through a system of welfare and have made great strides in many disciplines that have led to the benefit of mankind. Though this argument is not about “the children.” It is about the result of the “collective.” So let us not change the subject for the benefit of the “collective.” Because ultimately we need only to know that children born and raised in the “collective” are much more likely to go astray or become themselves wards of the “collective.” Whew, did you notice how expensive things, by things I mean the “collective,” were getting?
And so is that what the great “collective” was meant to do for America? Was it meant for massive abuses resulting from sexual indiscretions and extreme costs to the taxpayer with little return? Was it meant to grow government way beyond its most efficient capacity? Or was it some form of political obsolescence meant to undermine America?
Well, let us get off the subject of unwed mothers because that is not the only economic black hole sucking up all of our tax dollars. It is just one of the most egregious and expensive ones.
Let us simply examine the “individual” vs. the “collective.”
The thing about the collective to me that is so obvious is that the collective is really made up of a large number of individuals. I am not talking about people who merely agree on one idea, but people who cannot agree on one idea without the addition of taxation for socialist programs. The collective is not about how many people agree on one thing. We can all agree on one thing without it being so toxic as to tax us into poverty. The collective cannot exist without taxes. That is the collective I am talking about.
When I use the term “individual” I am referring to perhaps one set of ideas or one type of behavior and a large number of individuals may have many ideas and many differing behaviors which makes it difficult to lump them all together and say they are “one” in a truly homogenous way.
But a collective is not like that. A collective is blander, there is less variety in the collective than there is in having a large number of individuals. By definition a “collective” is all for one idea or value system with no variation. We can see this in history. The Soviet Union, the first giant collective, tried to erase all of the cultures and languages of eastern Europe and make them one. In other words, the collective will subjugate the individual for the benefit of the collective. The collective is a tyrant.
Those of us who still know how to read know that the Soviet Union was enormously expensive and was an economic failure of gigantic proportions. In the Soviet Union the government did it all including the distribution of food. It was abysmal. Even more sinister, it was addictive. It made the population dependent upon the “collective.” And when the collective failed and went away an entire region of the earth went through social-economic withdrawals of massive proportions. (As an aside we can see something similar happening today in American politics as conservatives throughout the United States attempt to reign in government expenditure and various segments of society face losing a variety of entitlements and government subsidies to which they have been surviving off of for generations) When the Soviet Union collapsed, there was massive unemployment, starvation, and homelessness.
So why are we trying so hard here in America to be like the Soviet Union was with all of our own social programs and laws? What good will it do us economically if we are unable to create variety, technological or whatever type of variety to say propel our own economy? And who is behind it? And why does it cost so much? Where are all of my tax dollars going? It is difficult to fathom the costs of the collective because it is so vast!
And that’s where I have gotten into trouble when I refer to our government’s girth. Like any other organization, our government at every level is made up of people, and like any other organization, it wants to grow, to perpetuate itself. And the best way to grow government is by making sure government does everything. And the best way to make sure the government does everything is to make sure everything is done the same way, which can be different from one day to the next, such as in a “collective.”
And that is why I will almost always side with the individual over the “collective.” Because I have dealt with the weight of the “collective” many times. And I know its fickle, shifting weight, all of it, is worth less than the weight of the individual and his or her individual rights.
Copyright © William Thien 2010, 2011
Don’t forget to sign up to receive email updates and get the latest. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and enter your email address. It’s easy and safe.
I have been considering the idea of an essay on the subject of Feminism with the goal of determining its validity as a social movement. You see these angry women walking around all the time. They have an angry, toxic, anti-social look on their faces. They have every law in their favor when it comes to discrimination in the work place or regarding social interaction, yet for some reason they look like they feel they have been slighted by the fact that they were born with their particular sex. It is as if something is missing that was taken from them somewhere when in fact it is really none of that! They still want more! Though they have nothing really to gain anymore on the “sex front”, as it is called, they are still marching through their lives and ours as if there is a war going on between the sexes. It creates so much discord in society, in the workplace that I have often felt something needs to be done about the constant undermining of our natural existence. Have injustices been done? Of course. Has discrimination occurred? Absolutely. But these so-called females have another agenda altogether and it is not in our best interest ladies and gentlemen.
So I have been looking for a way to deal with the matter without being labeled “sexist.” It is as if discussion by men of the subject of feminism is by default “sexist” or “chauvinistic” when in fact that position is in itself “chauvinistic” and “sexist” in the reverse.
Clear roles for both genders make for a more successful society in terms of a functional economy as well as the general peace and tranquility of the population itself. But I have been finding it difficult to address the matter myself without being labeled chauvinistic or sexist. Where I live I am surrounded by feminists. Discussion in the halls concludes with “I don’t need a man. Who needs them?” The feminists harass me in my daily routine, play with my postal mail, and listen outside of the door to my dwelling. Calls to the police about this behavior are brushed off with “Yer a guy, buck up!” But therein lies a double standard. Displays of such behavior on my part would be met with severe force. The law by default favors the female. Everyone in uniform wants to be a hero and we still prescribe to the age-old perception of the male as the stronger of the two sexes with often devious intent even though the law tells us otherwise, that we are equal. This of course is clearly no longer valid and perpetuating that misperception also has an incredibly deleterious effect upon society. It helps to be “real” in order to get things done. Such misperceptions only lead to losses in industrial productivity and wasteful lawsuits.
I am always surprised when at work there are a bunch of men and women involved in a task and when it comes to heavy lifting the women always by default look at the men to do the work. What?! What happened to equality? I thought you said you were equal? But when at home men now must by default share in the less physical, the more domestic duties that were traditionally handled by women such as cooking and cleaning. I guess men and women are only equal as long as it benefits you. If whatever it is makes your life difficult, then we all must revert back to the age-old way of doing things. Sounds like those kids who used to make up the rules as they went during playground games when we were kids. There is that duality thing, again. Feminism, is it just a joke? But is even more of a joke the generation of men that fell for the feminist message and left us with this social/political condition? Was the burning of bras merely a feminist club to the heads of the stupid sex starved men of that generation? Is feminism just a way for women to be lazy and men to have to pick up the additional domestic and labor work load while at the same time having to endure scathing rebukes for showing interest in women, wherever? Have women put on more weight since the advent of feminism? Does feminism make women fat? Is feminism mind control? What has that generation of men who fell for feminism gotten us into? The fools!
These are just some of the questions I have been asking myself while formulating an essay on the matter while simultaneously trying to address the matter without being labeled chauvinistic.
Then, while considering an essay on these matters I found this essay titled The Farce of Feminism written by a woman named Rebecca Rubins and published in The Harvard Crimson that does pretty much what I was hoping to do originally without all the effort. Have a look for yourself The Farce of Feminism.
The Farce of Feminism is written by a woman. I’m sure the feminists aren’t happy about that. But then they don’t seem like a generally happy crowd anyway. I suppose that is in itself the origin of Wo…
Recently I have heard a number of politicians and economists, even a nominee for the Federal Reserve suggest that it is time to end The Bush Era Tax Cuts, at least for the highest income earners. It sounds good on the face of things. And it would seem like a good source of funds, to take the tax dollars from the most wealthy. At least you know where there is some money to take, right? But is that all such economists and politicians have to offer America, some form of communism/socialism?
There is a problem with that logic. For one, using that rationale is the same as saying nobody should be able to make more money than anyone else. Such taxation is punitive.
Such taxation is also a tyranny, perhaps a tyranny of the masses since there are fewer people making such amounts of money and therein lies within the masses the greatest demand. Such method is merely taking from one to give to another who may not be perhaps as happy with their station in life. We all know that most of that money, or at least a large portion of it, will go to pay for social programs and government programs that the government did not offer just 75 years ago and that have grown large social groups that could not survive, indeed flourish without such communist/socialist programs. But the real travesty of such public policy is that it creates a class of people enchained to a government handout, unable to ever be independent citizens by learning how to provide for themselves. AND such policy enslaves a public that must oil and produce such chain by offering up its wages to the state for said redistribution in perpetuity. Only big government prospers given such circumstances, ladies and gentlemen.
Some government programs are useful to us all to be sure, but many more are simply entitlements that are abused, something we all know but that many in leadership will not publicly admit for whatever reason. Perhaps some do not want to admit such a fact for fear of not getting elected or re-elected. That is denial, the most pernicious form of denial to a country such as ours that relies on the democratic process to choose its leadership and a free market economy to perpetuate its existence.
So, as a matter of social fairness, it really is not fair to those who have the most money in the first place to tax them and only them to obtain the tax revenue. Furthermore, it is not as if the most wealthy use more government services. Frequently the most wealthy use fewer services because they can afford to choose, so their tax burden is less. Why then should the most wealthy pay more, simply because the most wealthy have more money? What if you made millions next week on a new product you designed? Would you be alright with the idea of paying half of your income in taxes all of a sudden simply because of your newly earned wealth? Doubtful.
And let us not forget it is taxation of income from those who “earn” it just like everyone else. They simply earn more than everyone else, that is all. It is not only a taking of the tax dollars but a form of punishment, then, as it says to those who make the most money that there is a price for such success.
During the era of The Soviet Union, the same economists would have said that such taxation is also a taking of the incentive to be successful in the first place because the greater portion of your sweat and toil goes straight to the government who then decides what to do with it. The Berlin Wall fell only twenty years ago when The Soviet Union, the world’s largest communist nation ended, but such esteemed economists as those up for nomination to The Federal Reserve have forgotten that sentiment already. How did they win so many awards? Is that how you win an award as an economist, by simply offering some form of communist/socialist dogma as your thesis?
Look, America is has passed that era and is coming out of it.
Even one of the most liberal of them all, the late President John F. Kennedy, said that “It is the paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now…Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.” (Nov. 20, 1962)
We must extend The Bush Era Tax Cuts for all and even lower taxes more, so all can have a chance to prosper, to prosper and not be punished for it.
Copyright © William Thien 2010
Sign up to receive email updates and get the latest. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and enter your email address. It’s easy and safe.
Men and women are not equal.
I believe there is a natural order amongst the sexes and I believe that if society strays too far from the path of that natural order the consequences for society can be negative, substantially negative.
I’m not talking about which sex is better, men or women, who is the faster runner or who can lift the most weight, I’m talking about a distribution of responsibilities within the family or at work for example to mature, rational adults who want to be productive members of society and not social burdens.
I believe much like a factory, when certain employees complete certain tasks while other employees complete other tasks, the tasks at hand can be completed far more efficiently and with much less cost and effort, leaving more time to produce more products, work on improvements to the way things are done, or simply take a break.
You might say, who views their family as a factory? What kind of analogy is that? OK. Perhaps you are right. Perhaps viewing the members of a family as employees in a factory is a bit withdrawn emotionally from the matter. Factories are not living things, you might say, and nothing like a home.
OK. OK. Calm down. Let’s try this. The other night I was watching some of those beautifully filmed nature shows that air on Sunday night. The narrator was talking about a variety of animals and their courtship rituals. Some were very elaborate, some rather blunt. In one scene, the narrator talked about a land development that had changed the path of a waterway slightly, causing the male of a species of amphibian to have to change route of travel. This in turn increased the deaths in the males of the amphibian as they were now run over crossing the street which resulted in fewer couples of the species, which resulted in fewer offspring and consequently caused a crash in the population of the animal in that area. In other areas, the animal was doing fine but under observation. Later the narrator discussed a completely different problem of the same nature causing the female of the species to change its habits thereby making it impossible to rear its young. Population crash. I believe these last two examples of nature offer much better analogies rather than the factory because they incorporate a viewpoint of the struggle of living mechanisms rather than the analogy of the family as a factory. Though it can be stated that in their sexual roles, men and women have completely different responsibilities and also illustrate completely different behaviors to achieve a common goal, evidence again that there is indeed a natural order. There is in fact more obvious evidence that there is a natural order in the sexual roles of men and women than there is of any biblical explanation of human sexual behavior.
But even more significantly to come out of these observations of nature is the belief that many naturalists hold. In fact, it is the foundational belief of environmentalism today. It is quite elegant in its simplicity and even more importantly, it holds true under scientific observation. Here it is essentially in its simplest form. “If you mess with the nature, there will be negative consequences.” We have all heard that statement in some context or another. The consequences of messing with nature can be observed in such things as polluted drinking water, polluted air, problems with food containing poisons drawn up from the soil, all of them the result of lack of understanding of and the manipulation of our environment.
And I believe an analogy can be made to things such as polluted drinking water and air to a natural order amongst the sexes and such things as crime committed by juveniles who don’t have both parents at home or an increase in taxes. In fact since the sexual revolution in the 1960′s when the roles of men and women in The USA were redefined both by law and the media crime has increased in some areas thousands of percentiles as more women raise their children on their own or have children out-of-wedlock. The tax burden to simply police these areas is enormous much less to provide the partial families with social services. I don’t need to enumerate all the costs. Anyone that is reading this knows the costs unless they have been living on another planet.
Some of you may be old enough to remember the female football players that entered into The NFL for a couple of years during the height of the sexual revolution. “Don’t stay in the house” the feminists chanted, go play football, work construction. That didn’t last long, of course. Why? Because they were not designed for it by “nature.” Not by men. The fact that women are not as good at football as men has nothing to do with any societal restriction by men on the activities of women. No. And don’t even try to suggest that (this was one of the techniques of the feminist movement, to suggest that women in The USA were repressed by men as a whole). The fact that women are not as good at football has nothing to do with men. Women are not as good at football as men due to their “nature” and physical build. Men have nothing to do with that. It has to do with a “natural order.” And to the contrary, men are no good at bearing children. In fact, I’ve not heard of one case of a man bearing a child. Why? There is that natural order thing again, and again it has nothing to do with men.
I remember watching a news show during the height of the feminist movement in the 1960′s. The newscaster was interviewing a doctor who (and I’m glad I don’t have this guy as a doctor) suggested that men and women are identical, except for a few very minor differences. He had a chart with diagrams of the male and female bodies and some charts about similarities. In the time of about one minute the newscaster, a woman, and the good doctor, concluded that aside from a few very minor differences in body composition, body fat content for example, that men and women were equal, exactly equal. “Well, there you have it,” the female newscaster concluded. “Men and women are exactly alike in every way.” This was the viewpoint taken by all media networks from that point on and the federal government as well in the course of dealing with cases of discrimination on the job. Men and women from about that point on were considered equal on the job, both physically and mentally. And in most cases they are. But in many, as in the female NFL player or the man giving birth, we see they are not. The good doctor was lying to the female newscaster. Or he was an imbecile. Or he was no doctor at all. Or maybe the media has a vested interest in erasing the differences between the sexes as I’ve demonstrated in my previous posting titled “Who is Really behind the Sexual Revolution? What it is…”
Some of you may be laughing at my choice of examples, but I’ve chosen them for a reason. They are the most extreme examples, women playing football and men bearing children, and indicate what society seems to be trying to do today with “equality,” and that is to disregard nature, a natural order. And that is OK. Because we are men. We are not animals. We can rationalize our way through life. But the word “rational” means acting with “reason.”
And when I look at my wallet, I see it’s not working, we are not acting with reason as a society because I keep paying for so many things, women having children out-of-wedlock for example, in the form of taxes to which I do not benefit. Because my taxes are going up and up. And much if not most of it has to do with addressing “irrational” or violent human nature, the result of tinkering with a “natural order,” to which of course I believe I have clearly demonstrated there is a natural order. And if someone is not happy with their nature, I don’t think I should have to pay for it.
It’s one thing to work for equality. It’s an entirely different thing to disregard the truth entirely, that men and women are completely different and society works best when both bring their differences together to achieve a common goal.
Men and women are not equal. And there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, that’s the best thing about it. Once we realize that again as a society, things will get better…and much less expensive, for everyone, men and women both.
Copyright © William Thien 2010
Sign up to receive updates and get the latest. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and enter your email address. It’s easy and safe.