Forum Index > News & Politics > Gender Issues | >> Governements secret gender war?? | | |
 Mar 23, 2007 @ 16:18:39 | #1 | markfox01
Über-Monkey
52620 points
28/M/Bristol, But im welsh!!, Unite
Join Date: Dec 2005 | Just been reading this article i ripped from another site (see Below) and it got me thinking...
Quote:
Men Lose Out Again Under Labour Gordon Brown's Budget - probably only of interest to Brits.
Taxpayers will start paying at 20p in the pound, effectively doubling the rate of tax for those earning less than £15,000 a year.
However, more money will be on offer for single mothers.
The net result of the budget, therefore, is that men who are on lower earning levels will pay more in tax, while single mothers will receive a greater handout. This will encourage more single-motherhood on two fronts.
1. Single mothers will be given bigger handouts.
2. The earnings of men will be worth less to them.
And this, coupled with the recent decision to reduce the pay of men in order to pay higher rates to women who do easier jobs (e.g. Hundreds of thousands of men face salary cuts of up to £15,000 to fund increases for women staff) is almost guaranteed to generate significantly more family and relationship breakdowns.
In essence, the skills, the talents and the labours of men are continually being purposely and unjustifiably devalued.
Our society - and, hence, women - can never benefit from this, because it is men, rather than women, who are the most productive, the most creative and the most progressive members of it.
And, of course, this is yet another phase in one of those never-ending cycles wherein women/mothers are paid more for not working - which will encourage more women not to work - unsurprisingly - and this reduction in women going out to work will then be used to justify claims that more money is needed to encourage more women/mothers to go out to work! In other words, more money for women and less for men - no matter what the women choose to do!
And this is why so many men are nowadays saying to women, "You get all the benefits, so you can do all the chores. I shall go and watch the football." And this is why they are also saying, "This society is arranged to suit you, not me, so you can all go and fu#k yourselves."
LOL!
But do not worry too much Boys, because there is no hope that this sorry state of affairs will continue.
No.
Hope.
At.
All.
The politicians and their high-faluting cronies in government and the media are losing power hand-over-fist at the moment - and the people are gradually waking up to their self-serving shenanigans.
Even some of the women are awakening!
It made me think and made me wonder, it is slightly paranoid in nature but do you think it rings some truth??
Nothing has turned out as we expected. It never does. Life's under no obligation to give us what we expect. We take what we get and are thankful it's no worse than it is. |   | |
| Mar 23, 2007 @ 16:24:03 | #2 | jonnythan
Bogey Man
78918 points
26/M/NY, New York
Join Date: Aug 2005 | "This will encourage more single-motherhood on two fronts"
Uh huh.
"In essence, the skills, the talents and the labours of men are continually being purposely and unjustifiably devalued."
Hilarious. In a society where women make less than men doing the same job we have nutjobs bitching about men not getting a fair shake. Give me a break.
Men make far more money and have far more economic opportunities.
"Our society - and, hence, women - can never benefit from this, because it is men, rather than women, who are the most productive, the most creative and the most progressive members of it."
I bet princessbubblegum will come along and agree with that.
"TUFF! EVOLVE FASTER NEXT TIME AND YOU WILL BE THE ONE WITH THE SPEAR!" -doubtingthomas
 |  | |
| Mar 23, 2007 @ 16:47:28 | #12 | lili
Ogler
26020 points
25/F/Beaverton, Oregon
Join Date: Apr 2005 | I was a single parent for a short period, and what they call "assistance" isn't even enough to support a single person, much less a mother and a child. The max given to a single mother with 1 child was $427 a month. That isn't even enough to rent a room in someone else's house, not to mention food, clothes, transportation, daycare... Even when I had a fulltime job at $9 an hour the cost of daycare ate up more than half my take-home pay, and the rest wasn't enough even to pay my rent. But because I had a full time job, I didn't qualify for assistance. At one point I was living in a motel on credit cards. Eventually I had no choice but to go back to my husband for money.  The only person who would call that living rich off the system is someone who has never tried to do it before.
 | | | |
Top
|
