brain sizes: Einstein's and women's and miscegenation
jwknight at polbox.com
Mon Sep 2 11:38:44 EST 2002
Well said, Mr. August,
There are several different ways to approach the "contribution" people like
Rosie the Riveter made to our economic productivity, with the most
conservative approach showing that it takes 8 productive men workers to make
up for the negative productivity of one woman worker, and the most accurate
estimate showing that it takes 16.
So the negative contribution of each additional woman worker in the American
labor force is equivalent to the positive contribution of 8 to 16 men
workers, which is why the mostly one-working-parent families of 1973 had
three times the purchasing power of the mostly two-working-parent families
of today, and why the Japanese, with almost exclusively one-working-parent
families, now have incomes two to three times higher than ours.
What k. p. collins writes is a lot of feminazi hot air without a shred of
statistical evidence to back it up, and reams of statistical evidence that
she's dead wrong and the Holy Bible is just as honest and accurate and
correct as it's ever been.
<raugust at ptd.net> wrote in message
news:Z5Ic9.1096$Lo4.245884 at nnrp1.ptd.net...
> Dear Mr. Collins,
> However heroic "Rosie the Riveter" may have been, 5 of her were still
> required to perform what 2 or 3 men would have done, simply because of
> body strength. This is not to mention the untold cost to consumers which
> women cause due to maternity, female problems, and general sick leave.
> that men have been back in the workforce for over 50 years, sexual
> harrassment is also an issue. Let a man make a casual comment about a
> blouse a woman worker wears, or about her dress or shoes, and instantly,
> man is at best called on the carpet and sent to counseling, and at worst
> The NEGATIVE productivity, the REDUCTION in productivity, the lies, the
> deceit, the philandering, and the misappropriation of funds which women in
> the American workforce have caused, is INCALCULABLE. As Mr. Knight and
> US Department of Labor have proven and continually prove annually, it
> 14 men to compensate for the lack of productivity of 1 (read: single
> working woman. These are 15 paychecks wasted for the lack of work of one
> single human being who ought to be home raising the kids. Add health,
> medical, dental, and insurance benefits to that, as well as 401 (k)
> and other retirement benefits, and you see the cost is staggering.
> Simply put, 40 years ago, women comprised less than 10% of the US
> The Dollar was worth 4 times what it is worth today. Men died leaving
> widows with 4-5 times more buying power than their counterparts today,
> widows' benefits and Social Security checks can't feed a canary. Men and
> Women lived out their retirement years in relative comfort, knowing their
> incomes were at least at parity with expenses because they were able to
> money under disciplined investing in bank savings accounts which yielded
> or better. Their counterparts today don't dare invest in passbook
> which only yield 2% interest. Mutual Funds and 401(k) plans yield a
> better. And who has the $1,000 minimum to invest in a CD, except for the
> wealthiest of people?
> Let's see how to solve this. Hmmmm... put the father back as the head of
> the household, employ more men and less women, ditch affirmative action
> hire each employee on proven merit (Men over women first), destroy the
> Welfare system, and disallow Congress to raid the Social Security Fund for
> any reason. Repeal all forms of VAWA. Then, Repeal the 19th Amendment.
> That's just for starters. But Hell will celebrate Christmas first.
> Richard C. August
> "Kenneth Collins" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:mHCc9.6244$jG2.446940 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > John Knight wrote in message
> > <73tc9.38347$Ic7.2598180 at news2.west.cox.net>...
> > >[...]
> > >Why should you want to force yourself on White Christian Israelites
> > who
> > >don't want to have anything to do with you?
> > Mr. Knoght, it's 'hilarious' that you 'think' that you could get-on
> > without all the work done by the folks whom you disparage.
> > Without all of us, working together, any of us would be left
> > struggling not to starve to death.
> > There'd be no 'technology', so we couldn't 'meet' online to exchange
> > ideas.
> > Without all of what you term 'muddy' blood shed, including the work
> > of women who 'fought' the wars in its factories, America wouldn't've
> > made it through all the wars it's had to fight [and those it didn't
> > have to fight, but fought anyway].
> > So, you're sittin' there, typing out your anti-this and anti-that
> > ideas, supported, even as you sit there, by the sole virtue of all
> > that 'muddy' stuff that gave-all that you might have the opportunity
> > to Live.
> > Your 'blindness' to such is illogical, no?
> > Yup.
> > k. p. collins
> > >[...]
More information about the Neur-sci