Being a trad wife these days is not as safe as it was in the old days

Women in the past had more security in their marriage due to laws, social pressures and customs. These days a trad wife could have her husband walk out at short notice, leaving her with a greatly disrupted life

I have seen these posts about traditional living and being a “trad wife” all over social media lately.

My mom hasn’t chosen that lifestyle. Same as my mom’s mom. However, I spoke my dad’s mom. My paternal grandma.

And she very much lived that lifestyle. That and more. She has lived all her life in semi-rural Sicily. And she raised six kids. And she was a housewife, and the picture perfect homemaker.

Except that as she would tell you it was much less “instagrammable” as the kids say these days than you would think.

Six children and a household to manage, her everyday — as I heard through various stories — was a testament to resilience and sense of duty. And with one income and six children, money was also tight.

The community was tight-knit and neighbors leant on each other for support and occasional gossip.

When I talked to my grandma and showed her some clips, she raised some interesting points.

First she pointed out that while she enjoyed her life, that lifestyle was hardly a choice. It was what was normal really. It was how it was.

But then she raised a good point. She said back then, women had fewer choices but so did men.

I started right away disagreeing with her as to me the men held all the power. But then I understood what she meant.

Divorce was frowned upon in the past. So a man deciding to leave his wife was much less common. And it would receive a lot of pressure, from society, his own family, his colleagues, his boss, his social circle and so on.

A man deciding to leave his wife was pretty big deal (I am sure things where different in different part of the world but at least in relatively terms I feel there is some common ground — especially compared with today).

Today — if either one, decides to leave.. well nobody is going to make a big deal out of it. The barrier to exit are much lower, shall we say?

Social expectations solidified the family unit and these dynamics provided a form of security, although not leaving much room for individual needs or aspirations outside of predefined roles.

Back then if you were a husband who decided to leave your (financially very much dependent) wife you would have a number on people on your case. Her family for sure but also your own family. And your own social circle and friends.

You truly risked being ostracized.

Fast forward to the present — the situation has dramatically changed. And I am not saying it is bad — people finally have some agency that is good news.

But as my grandma pointed out if you choose a trad wife scenario where you are financially dependent on your husband (or partner), you still have the lack of financial independence minus the safety net that society’s expectations provided.

Separation or divorce is far less stigmatized leaving traditional wives potentially more vulnerable than in the past.

https://medium.com/long-sweet-valuable/i-spoke-about-trad-wives-to-my-sicilian-grandma-and-she-told-me-what-she-thinks-ae0a70b7b3bf (Condensed)

*********************************************************

SC Is Protecting Its Children With “Help Not Harm” Bill

South Carolina legislation HB 4624 is called the “Help Not Harm” bill—and with good reason. Approved by the House in January, it bans so-called “gender affirming” medical interventions for minors under the age of 18 and prohibits Medicaid coverage of those procedures for anyone under the age of 26.

After passing a Senate subcommittee just days ago, the bill now heads to the full Senate Medical Affairs Committee for a vote. Lawmakers there must show the courage of their colleagues in the House because the bill is precisely the kind of legislation that America’s children need—and need immediately.

In increasing measure, vulnerable pubescent and pre-pubescent children are being proselytized into a fictional belief that they can be “born in the wrong body.” In fact, so effective have been the influences of social media, peer pressure and pro-trans narratives in this space that UCLA School of Law’s Williams Institute reports that more than 300,000 high school-aged (ages 13-17) children in the United States today identify as “transgender”—making them the largest and fastest-growing share of the overall trans-identified population in the country.

Between 2017 and 2021, the number of children in the United States taking puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones doubled. And double mastectomies performed on adolescent girls increased by nearly 400% during the same period.

These increases aren’t organic. They are a direct result of what appears to be a national social experiment targeting children who are not old enough to vote, get tattoos, buy cigarettes or enter into contracts. The federal government has been working overtime to convince the nation that these experimental procedures are “life-saving care” and that if children don’t have access to these “gender affirming” treatments, they will commit suicide.

But the support for such inflammatory rhetoric simply doesn’t exist. We’re being asked to believe that minor children possess the maturity to make life-altering medical decisions and can fully comprehend the risks of these procedures—those that include everything from incontinence to tissue death to lack of fertility, and worse.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The increase in a new cohort of the population—de-transitioners—is proof positive of the regretfully life-altering and experimental nature of these kind of “gender affirming” medical interventions. It also demonstrates that children, as easily influenced as they are, must not be used as pawns in a political play that caters to a small but vocal and well-funded minority.

This legislation isn’t hateful or bigoted. It’s a common-sense bill that protects minors when the integrity of their bodies and mental health are on the line. It’s also representative of the widespread and bipartisan support for these kinds of bans, as the majority of Americans oppose “gender affirming care” for minors.

But the tide is turning. Several European countries that once uncritically embraced “gender-affirming care” for minors have already reconsidered or reversed course as the lack of evidence supporting the safety of these procedures and increasing evidence of long-term complications surfaces. The FDA is being sued for allegedly concealing records regarding the off-label use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones on minors. Medical malpractice claims against hospital systems that rushed minor children into “gender affirming” surgeries with little to no investigation of the minor’s underlying mental health co-morbidities are on the rise.

Nearly two dozen states have already enacted laws prohibiting “gender-affirming” interventions for minors in most circumstances. Now is the time for South Carolina to join them.

https://www.heritage.org/gender/commentary/sc-protecting-its-children-help-not-harm-bill-more-states-should-follow

***********************************************************

DEI, Sold as a Way To Promote Racial Harmony, Does Just the Opposite

Programs designed to instill “diversity, equity and inclusion” (DEI) do not promote racial harmony. The trainings, which have become commonplace in schools, workplaces and government agencies nationwide, may in fact be manipulative, unlicensed attempts at psychology.

Just ask Chad Ellis.

Ellis, a former researcher at Chevron Philips Chemical Company, holds a Ph.D. in chemistry. He was forced to undergo DEI training and “received confirmed mental health damage from coerced, mandatory workplace attendance at a psychological video series,” according to Ellis’s complaint in district court against the Oklahoma State Board of Examiners of Psychologists. The techniques used in the training mirror the psychological coercion used in military interrogations, according to expert witness testimony in the complaint.

Chevron used a DEI training series called “Here and Heard,” which attacked viewers’ loyalties and personal appearances, accusing the viewers of maintaining bias based on their skin color. The program uses images of abuse and genocide to create distress in viewers’ minds—which are psychological, not instructional, techniques.

DEI sessions are not simply teaching tools. In fact, the DEI trainer in the Here and Heard video said that the approach was “purposefully designed to cause visceral reactions,” which sounds like emotional manipulation, not instruction.

The trainer was not a psychologist, though (she was a part-time real estate agent), which means the training program could be unlicensed practice of psychology. In an interview, Ellis said the training was “very provocative…highly graphical [with] emotional content.” He says he told his supervisors, “You don’t have my consent to do this,” but, “I didn’t get anywhere.” Ellis says he is not opposed to some DEI activities, but someone with a psychology license should be accountable for the trainings’ effects.

Ellis is not asking for sympathy for facing DEI training. Rather, he asked Oklahoma’s board of examiners to investigate the Chevron program to determine whether it constitutes the practice of psychology. The board dismissed his complaint.

In the legal battle that ensued, with Ellis contending that the state board should at least make a determination, the chemist said, “Just like if I’m exposed to a chemical spill, I deserve to know what’s in that. If I’m exposed to something like this, I deserve to know where it’s coming from and who stands behind it.”

Ellis is not the first to make claims such as this. In Pennsylvania, a former professor at Pennsylvania State Abington alleged he faced racial discrimination and experienced harm as part of a DEI program at the college. A district judge is allowing the case to proceed, despite university opposition.

Ellis said Here and Heard was “pushing the levers of guilt and shame and humiliation to coerce belief change.” This helps explain why researchers have found that DEI fails to change individual attitudes and behavior. DEI does not appeal to our better natures, but accuses anyone who does not see racism everywhere of being racist. It holds that if you do not see racism everywhere, you are trying to maintain power over others. That’s hardly a message that helps build camaraderie.

Policymakers in six states, including Oklahoma, have either prohibited the use of taxpayer spending on DEI programs or called for an end to DEI in public spaces. Officials in nearly a dozen other states are now considering similar proposals in favor of civil rights over DEI.

Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, a Republican, reminded residents in his executive order that the state constitution prohibits “preferential treatment” or discrimination based on race, ethnicity or sex. These are the very racist ideas DEI programs advocate for.

Chevron Phillips is a private joint venture between Chevron and Phillips 66, so the DEI prohibitions may not apply to them, but allowing the practice of unlicensed psychologists is still illegal. Ellis’s legal filings say Here and Heard is “trying to mold the minds of these employees and, again, practicing psychology without any consent and without any license.”

If DEI sessions are psychological treatments—from unlicensed psychologists—all the more reason to bolster state and federal civil rights laws, protect equality under the law, and reject DEI and its racist results.

https://www.heritage.org/civil-rights/commentary/dei-sold-way-promote-racial-harmony-does-just-the-opposite

***********************************************

The Phantom Economic Benefits of SCHIP Expansion

Proponents of federal spending programs commonly extol the many jobs that would be created if their spending wishes were met. Defense contractors do it. Highway bill supporters do it. Now even proponents of higher federal health care spending are claiming more funding translates into more jobs and higher wages. The trouble is that such claims are almost never true. A case in point is analysis published by Families USA in support of the reauthorization and expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).[1]

Families USA's Research on SCHIP Expansion

SCHIP was created in 1997 to provide health insurance to children in low-income families whose earnings are too high to qualify for Medicaid but below 200 percent of the federal poverty level. Like Medicaid, SCHIP is jointly funded by the federal government and state governments. States can make their SCHIP program a simple extension of their Medicaid program, design a stand-alone program, or craft some combination of the two. The federal government's role is essentially to approve the program design and provide a chunk of funding to the respective states.

Federal SCHIP funding was originally set at $40 billion over 10 years. A straight extension of the program would cost $25 billion over the next five years, but there is great pressure to expand the program by allowing it to cover adults and children in wealthier families--those with incomes as high as 400 percent of the federal poverty level in some proposals.

Families USA, an advocacy organization, favors a much expanded SCHIP program as part of its broader effort to achieve nationwide government-run health insurance. To bolster its case, the group released projections of the economic effects of a doubling of the SCHIP program to $50 billion over five years.

To make its analysis more useful to state-based advocates and Members of Congress, Families USA created reports for all 50 states and the District of Columbia emphasizing how much additional federal money a state could expect if SCHIP were expanded to a $50 billion, five-year program, and how much "business activity," wages, and employment would rise due to the expansion. For example, the analysis suggests that business activity in Alabama would increase by $331.1 million a year; wages in Missouri would increase by $137 million; and employment in Wisconsin would rise by 3,032 jobs. Altogether, according to the analysis, business activity in the United States would increase by $21.4 billion, total wages by $7.7 billion, and employment by 227,065 jobs.

Erroneous Analysis

The problem is that higher government health care spending would not create net economic activity or increase real wages and jobs. There is still a debate in some quarters as to whether government spending can boost the economy when the economy is operating well below full employment. There is no serious debate, however, that such effects do not occur when the economy is operating at roughly full capacity, as it is today.

As a rule, a change in the composition or level of federal spending will shift the composition of demand in the economy from one area to another, such as from business investment to consumption or from consumption of goods to consumption of health care services. As demand shifts, the allocation of capital and labor resources shifts accordingly. For most federal spending, there is no resulting increase in the amount of capital or labor employed in the economy.

Expressed another way, there would almost certainly be an increase in employment in health services if SCHIP spending were doubled, and the increase could even be around the 227,000 jobs predicted by Families USA, but there would also then be 227,000 fewer workers employed in the rest of the economy. Higher health sector employment due to increased government spending on SCHIP would crowd out other types of employment; it would not increase employment.

Shifting the composition of demand by increasing federal spending does not generally increase overall economic activity, because it does not increase the level of productive resources available to the economy--that is, labor and capital. There are exceptions, such as when federal spending materially raises the quality of the infrastructure on which the private economy depends--which is rare today--or when federal spending expands the frontiers of technology applicable to producers. But these are exceptions, not the rule, and an expansion of SCHIP funding is not among the exceptions.

Herein lies an important distinction between tax relief and spending increases. A wide variety of tax relief options would increase the level of productive resources available to the economy. Reducing marginal individual income tax rates, for example, improves the incentive to work and, therefore, increases the supply of labor and the level of potential output. Reducing the tax rates on dividends, capital gains, or corporate income would each reduce the tax disincentive to invest in new plants and equipment, thereby encouraging growth in the capital stock and raising productivity and, therefore, wages and output. In general, spending increases lead to none of these things.

To argue that an SCHIP expansion would have no economic effects is actually generous toward Families USA's cause, because to do so ignores the increase in inefficiencies in the economy due to such spending, inefficiencies that would reduce wage and income levels. For example, expanding SCHIP would divert resources from other uses in which, according to economic incentives, they are more valuable. One can certainly make moving and valid arguments about the importance of health insurance for children. Those arguments move the heart, but they do not move the GDP.

Further, the Congressional Budget Office notes that increasing health care spending is likely to decrease, not increase, employment and output.[2] The reason is that, to the extent that additional health care spending is valued by consumers, the additional health resources "reduce people's incentives to work and save."[3] Thus an SCHIP expansion would reduce total employment by encouraging workers to leave the workforce.

In addition, this increase in spending must somehow be matched by a like increase in taxes, and this is the case whether the Budget Resolution or the economy dictates the outcome. Higher taxes--even higher taxes on tobacco, which is the announced intent of the Senate Finance Committee--distort the allocation of resources and reduce economic output. Taxing tobacco may be popular, but that popularity does not displace the reality of economic incentives and the consequences of distorting those incentives with taxes.

Conclusion

Poor economic analysis only confuses those who receive it and muddies debate. Family USA's state-by-state economic analysis of an SCHIP expansion should be withdrawn or at least simply ignored.

https://www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/report/the-phantom-economic-benefits-schip-expansion

****************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

***************************************