Educated Women Cause Income Inequality

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

m.scmp.com/business/article/1940 … inequality

This is my first serious thread, so here I go.

Reason why there is so much income inequality is because of educated women. The better educated a woman is, generally the better educated the male is, and women generally want better men than them.

They are smart, so reject liberal values, choose to marry, and remain married. This benefits their children, unlike liberal women who have children out of wedlock, insist on not having serious males, and doom their children to poverty, because they don’t truly love them… if they loved them, they would of married their father. Instead, the children learn bad sexual practices, pass this on to their children, so on and so on down the generations. Wealth becomes dynastic.

Smart women reject this, choose to love their children, and so stick with the father. A father in such a situation sticks with his wife when loved. Everyone benefits, except Hillary Clinton supporters.

Vote for Bernie Sanders.

2

Is this satire? I having a hard time understanding what this thread is even about.

3

You do realize Hilary Clinton is a ridiculously well-educated woman and a firm advocate of liberal values, who chose to stick with her husband despite his highly public and historically infamous betrayal of her, rather than getting divorced? And who also is a loving, devoted mother of a highly successful, liberal and well educated daughter? And that all those facts totally fly in the face of everything you said in the OP?

4

I don’t think Bernie Sanders is against educating women. A vote for him won’t reduce equal opportunities.

5

Compared to what? Proof. Real proof written by your mother will suffice in this case Mr. O_P.

6

I’m 100% for educated women, not opposed at all. This threads supports them. Only thing is, this skew the statistics, and makes it appear that inequality is growing, when in fact it is really going up, household wealth. Marriage is best. Didn’t anyone read the link, I found that while Googling income inequality, it is a very recent story.

7

Oh, now I see my mistake!

The gap between the 45th and 55th percentile is driven by educated women. Okay.

Now, explain the widening gap between the 11th and 99th percentiles. Is it illegal yet to ask about the top 0.0001%?

8

With more women entering colleges now than men this will eventually cause more income inequality by sex…

9

No, it’s far more likely to drive (not cause) a closing of the gender income gap, by means of a lowering of professional incomes across the board.
In the iron curtain countries, where higher education was equally accessible to girls and boys from all classes, the majority of doctors were women. Doctors were poorly paid.
The same thing will happen in the US. Law firms, banks, hospitals, etc. will hire the most qualified female applicant for the lowest salary they can get away with. Then they’ll show that figure to the next male applicant and say: unless you accept that, we’ll hire a woman.
Same strategy thy use on manual labour: take less or we’ll hire an immigrant.

10

Yeah, I could see that happening. Wouldn’t surprise me.

11

Any evidence for this one at all? Kriswest is gonna love you…

This seems to be a sequence of pejoratives aimed at liberal values, but you’ve dressed it up as a declarative statement. Why are liberal women not able to be educated women? What is all this searing insight into the mind of the liberal woman based on? How could you possibly know how every liberal woman feels about their progeny?

12

How can I know? Same way I know every illiterate can’t read, every blind person can’t see, etc.

13

Weak.

14

I’m afraid you’re having a bit of trouble with definitions there, Steve, not that you won’t find plenty of fellow sub-Nietzscheans here to consent to your false tautologies. Blind is the word we use to label a person that cannot see. Liberal is not the label sensible people use for a person that hates their kids, whether you want it to be or not. You could try and make an argument for that claim if you’d like, but it will need to be supported by some sort of evidence.

15

I have made that argument on many occasions, and did support it, and many people prior to me have done the same.

This is how words get definitions. I know you wanna change it up, dispute and mix things up, so it fits your reality tunnel, but it isn’t going to work here. That is liberalism.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_tunnel

16

I’m not the one messing with accepted definitions here, whether we’re both in a “reality tunnel” or not (sounds like pseudo-philosophical bullshit to me).

As it goes, I’ve never seen a single convincing argument for the claim that liberalism is equivalent to hating your kids (to be honest, it’s not a view that I’ve seen propagated anywhere other than in this enclave of the “philosophical” community). The reason is because you’d need to demonstrate a weight of cases that demonstrated this and where you could show that the process for said liberals’ hatred of their children was a direct consequence of their liberalism.

17

Soviet Union… hated their children, as evidence what they did to them… all Liberals.
The Nazis were liberals, fucked their children over bad with a voluntary world war and Hitler Youth.
Abortions really fuck over children like nothing else… Liberals.

Everything your asserting I gotta demonstrate, you in fact gotta demonstrate. I’ve presented hundreds of millions of cases in a few lines.

And you’ve failed in the Reality Tunnel assertion, the wiki shows several philosophers have embraced it, well predating this forum’s existence.

All evidence leans towards you being a nutcase, trapped as a meat headed objectivist unable to grasp the basics of Dasein.

Your employing a tactic of ontological reduction, deciding those you disagree with are ineligible to rightfully possess truthful opinions, are empirically unsound a priori, unless they conform to your worldview. Your knowledge, your linguistic and subculturap compacts that you accept, rules the validity of knowledge, not the scientific method, certainly not reason. I have a suspicion your grasp of “reason” closely matches that of the inquisitors and witch burners. This isn’t how we approach things in the modern world. Note you never asserted a “if and only if” counterfactual objection… you relied on a appeal to group feeling alone, and ruled out the legitimacy of peers here to make or back up claims.

Hence the Reality Tunnel issue, and your hypocritical approach to asserting and then inverting De Se pronouncements regarding your hypothetical group not present (an Army of one you all are) due to your group feeling to the conceptual “them”, in a de dicto & de re setting.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_se
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_dicto_and_de_re

Clearly, the burden of proof rests heavily on your side, as history and truth rest on our side. Your ability to assert logical fallacies shamelessly is most applaudable as a example of how far man can theoretically stretch an argument, but is rather unbecoming to the task before us all on a philosophy forum, the search for truth. As I by necessity and compulsion assert the truth, and you contradict it, it is clear your uttering falsehoods. It is far better to be truthful, is it not?

18

Not so, I believe I am wrong about lots of things, but an assertion has to be supported by evidence, and the Soviet Union and Nazism are terrible examples of liberalism, as any decent historian (of whatever political stripe) will be able to tell you - you only need take a cursory glance at State and Revolution, the Foundations of Leninism and Mein Kampf to work this out. However, something tells me that your definition of liberalism has no relationship to the widely accepted version and is in fact just an empty container you can fill with whatever particular political prejudices you might hold. And yet I’m the one in a reality tunnel…

The abortion example is a better one, however, because as a political policy it can be directly associated with liberalism and might seem at first glance to be equivalent to hatred of children. I recognise that the principle of choice is fundamentally liberal (in a historical sense) and that this gives greater value to the subject that chooses than it does to the object of the choice. However, political liberalism also includes an injunction to pay attention to the consequences of a choice, so it is not so simple to say that all liberals would by definition support abortion.

Of course, all of this is by the by when dealing with the kind of poster whose approach to social questions is guided by this set of assumptions:

In that scenario, it’s seems rather pointless to engage with you at all when the hopes of meaningful discussion are so heavily circumscribed, assuming you are even for real…