brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Parse Tree parsetree at hotmail.com
Sat Jul 27 22:16:49 EST 2002


"John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in message
news:SgI09.30990$Fq6.3124488 at news2.west.cox.net...
> "Shadow Dancer" <insomniac at winterslight.org> wrote in message
> news:ahrtl1$vamk5$1 at ID-150265.news.dfncis.de...
> > "John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in message
> > news:eme09.25512$Fq6.2721104 at news2.west.cox.net...
> > > "Parse Tree" <parsetree at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:5Xs_8.11402$o7.2411397 at news20.bellglobal.com...
> > >
> > > > > Congratulations for failing to figure this out.  The Japanese love
> it.
> > > > > Through patriarchy, Japanese women rose to family incomes twice
ours
> > > from
> > > > a
> > > > > fifth of ours just 4 decades ago.  This 10x swing was mostly
because
> > of
> > > > our
> > > > > drop in fortunes rather than their dramatic increase.
> > > >
> > > > This is not true.  Japan had immense economic growth.  A 10x swing
> being
> > > > blamed on America's decline could only exist if families were broken
> > into
> > > > more than 2 parts.  Are you suggesting that there are no dual income
> > > > families, let alone two parent families, and that the first born of
> > every
> > > > family starts working as soon as they're out of the womb?
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > This mythology that "dual income families" improved anything or
> increased
> > > family incomes is a cruel joke, and the joke's on you feminazis.
> > >
> > > The mostly one income families in the US in 1970 had household
> purchasing
> > > power THREE TIMES what these "dual income families" have today.  The
> > > Japanese households which earn two and three times our "dual income
> > > families" today are almost exclusively one income families.  Where's
the
> > > beef?
> > >
> > > Why?  Because it requires the positive productivity of 8 male workers
in
> > the
> > > American labor force just to make up for the negative productivity of
> one
> > > female worker.  There's no other way this could happen.
> > >
> > > John Knight
> > >
> >
> > Provide references, and not from the christian party site.
>
> Sorry, all requests for free research (which we now understand to be so
> neccessary when ONE THIRD ...) must be funneled through The Christian
Party.
>
> But you're in luck--the urls at
http://christianparty.net/familyincomes.htm
> are direct references to the original FEDERAL data (which because of CYA
may
> not be the most accurate, but it
> will put you in the ballpark).

That doesn't demonstrate, in any way, that women workers are negatively
productive.

Try again.





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list