Single career woman divides opinion by insisting the 'best way for women to be financially comfortable is STILL through marriage' - after being surrounded by wives with 'easier lives'

A woman has provoked debate after stating that 'the best or most common way' for women to be financially comfortable or create wealth is still through marriage and the merging of assets with a man.

Writing on British parenting forum Mumsnet, the woman explained her frustration that she had worked hard for 30 years to be independent, like 'the teachers at school told us girls to be,' and yet believes that women who didn't further their education seem and got married seem to be far better off.

She said: 'It's not just about the merging together of two salaries, but about how much easier financial life is when you have the benefit of a man's higher average income.'

Responses were somewhat divided, with many people sharing their own personal situations and others accusing her of 'generalisations.'

The woman said: 'I've been single most of my adult life, worked full time and built up a good career but despite this... I'm always struck how much better off women who are married are than me.'

She asked people to consider: 'The many women I work with on low salaries or working part-time who are living much nicer lifestyles than I as they have a man significantly supplementing them.'

She concluded: 'I understand: all the constraints on women to generate their own income especially the gender pay gap and the impact of childrearing; that the above scenarios don't apply to all couples; that I'm assuming a heterosexual set up; that women contribute within marriages in other way than bringing in income; and that assets in a marriage are shared as is any income that comes into a marriage.

'I know people might think I'm being anti-women for challenging women's choices or women's rights or just plain bitter...

'[But] is it not depressing that the best or most common way for women to be financially comfortable or create wealth is still through marriage and the merging of assets with a man?'

One user said: 'Your proposition is full of holes. You've been extremely selective.'

Whilst another commented: 'You've made huge generalisations. Most of women I know who are single and in their late 40s/50s have a great standard of living. They've worked hard, not had children and had fantastic careers without a break from children.'

A third posted: 'Massive generalisations here. I'm the higher earner in my marriage. We are a team and have gone through highs and lows together as a team. Marriage takes work.

'And if we look on the flip side, there are numerous posts here every single day of women who are left vulnerable by not working or working part time in marriages because if they feel trapped or have an abusive husband, they massively struggle with getting out.

'Single parenting has its difficulties. Parenting with your spouse has its difficulties. Not having children and focusing on a career has its difficulties. It's not a competition. Things are just different.'

Others however, agreed with one user saying: 'Yes, it is amazing that even now, in 2022, so many millions of women earn less than men.'

Someone else posted: 'Yes, the sexism that is the pay inequality is something that we should all be angry about.'

A third women said: 'It's true. I got married and now only have to make a bit of money as my husband works for the main wage. 'In my experience men enjoy this. As society grows out in-built natures grow less quickly.

'I could go out and have a career but instead I'm happy to have lots more free time, get up later, enjoy projects alongside work. It really is a dram. The family unit is a dream.'

Someone else pointed out: 'Two incomes will always make things more comfortable than one. 'Not all men are high earners. Not all women earn the lower of the two household salaries.'

Another commenter questioned: 'I'm still not entirely sure your point is. 'There are millions of men on low wages. You're just picking out your friends who have married men who earn well. 'Also, nothing is free. A lot of these women you mention will feel trapped in their marriages. I'd rather my freedom.'

Other people used their own experiences to highlight their problems with this argument.

One user posted: 'You've also forgotten that the best or most common way for men to be financially comfortable and professionally successful is still through marriage? A woman at home can enable a man to be able to go on business trips or work hours much longer than nurseries can provide.'

A second person said: 'I out earn my husband and brought a property our marriage, he did not.

'I know very few women who are financially dependent on anyone other than themselves, and that includes women on low income (possible even more so in this bracket as they know they can only truly rely on themselves), but I guess it depends on who you choose to socialise with, I obviously surround myself with very independent women.'

Someone else pointed out: 'It's more to do with running one household instead of two. The daily standing charge for gas, for example, has only to be paid once if you live together. Sadly, this is the main reason people are so keen to live together these days.'

Another commented: 'It works both ways because it's the two adults in a single household that brings the most benefit. So men benefit financially from marriage too, not only if their wife also earns but also if she's providing childcare etc.

'However, what's also evident is that men still earn more than women so if you hook up with a man then you are effectively mitigating the gender pay gap.'

A third posted: 'Statistically any two people who live together probably have more wealth be that man and woman or two men etc. 'Two salaries will also be better than one in most cases. I know rich single people and poorer single people, married couples who do well and those who struggle. There are more heterosexual couples though.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10868717/Woman-sparks-debate-stating-women-financially-comfortable-married.html

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

Joe Biden’s cognitive challenges have stripped away his political savvy and left him in the raw, revealing his real essence—a racialist of the first order

Joe Biden has had a long history of racist outbursts. Can we even remember them all? The “put y’all back in chains” insults to an audience of black professionals, his dismissal of black interviewers variously as “you ain’t black” or ”junkie,” his he-man racialist Corn Pop mythologies, his recent condescending reference to a black professional as “boy,” and on and on.

The Left has always contextualized his racial outbursts in the same fashion his decades-long creepy touching, sexual harassment, grabbing, and blowing into the hair and ears of young women and teens were always “just Joe being Joe.”

So it was ironic but predictable that Biden went to Buffalo on Tuesday to leverage the recent carnage from the deranged, eco-fascist, racist, and insane lethal mass shooter of 11 African-Americans. Read the gunman’s manifesto: it is an unhinged collage of green fascist, racist, and politically incoherent mishmash.

Purported right-wing monsters usually don’t hate Fox News and Ben Shapiro or go on endless green screeds. No matter. For Biden, as his midterm rendezvous looms ominously, the Buffalo shooter was useful in smearing his own political opponents. So Biden saw a trip to Buffalo as an opportunity, in a way other mass shootings were not, and made a rare excursion out of his secluded compound.

The Great Asymmetries

Biden’s despicable effort at blaming his political adversaries for the deaths failed for lots of reasons. He mangled his recitations of prior white-on-black shootings by including the recent Dallas shootings of three Asians by an African-American in his catalog of white-supremacist murders.

Biden by intent ignored the near simultaneous mass shooting of Taiwanese parishioners by a deranged Chinese gunman.

Of course, he has said nothing either in the past or in the present about the mass murdering by the black nationalist and BLM sympathizer Darrell Brooks. The latter deliberately used his car to mow down white children and elderly people. Most media outlets, given their selective indifference to the loss of human life, described the killings as done by a wayward SUV, as if it was driven on some sort of autopilot.

The Left in general and Biden in particular scan the daily news for opportunities for racial demagoguery. When black shooters try to gas and maim white commuters on the subway, or when there is an epidemic of anti-Asian hate crimes committed disproportionately by black males, or an unhinged Bernie Sanders activist attempts to murder House Republican leaders, the Left is silent or insists the hard ideology or racism the shooter embraces is either irrelevant or somehow a natural response to some sort of provocation. Again, it selectively sees or does not see connections between political discourse and crazy people who commit mass mayhem—depending entirely upon the political ore to be mined.

The effort to pigeonhole mass shootings for political gain necessarily results in hypocrisy, fantasy, and outright lying. Suddenly cars are animated objects. Black nationalist racial hatred expressed on social media is derided as right-wing talking points. Joe Biden cites African-American shooters of Asians as white-supremacist killers.

In the end, we are left only with the surreal: an Al Sharpton screaming about the culpability of conservatives for the Buffalo shooting—this, from the racial arsonist of the age, who originally came to notice through his racial hatred and anti-Semitism that led to riots and death. Or a raving Joy Reid, known previously for her homophobic tweets and more recently for her nightly harangues about a current white collective that is communally guilty for the sins of those long dead.

One of the strangest ironies is the Left’s denunciation of supposed conservative adherence to the “great replacement theory”—or the fear that nonwhite populations are by design replacing a dwindling white minority, and both are politically predictable by reason of their race or ethnic background. But if that were so, why would white conservatives abhor abortion that disproportionally destroys black and brown lives in the womb?

In contrast, why do good progressives like the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg confess that abortion was targeting the proper people. (“Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”) Further, why did current Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen argue that black abortions were economically rational? “In many cases abortions are of teenage women, particularly low income, and often black, who aren’t in a position to be able to care for children, have unexpected pregnancies, and it deprives them of the ability, often, to continue their education to later participate in the workforce,” Yellen said last week. “It means that children will grow up in poverty and do worse themselves.”

So once more, the Left projects. Replacement theories are a hallmark of leftist political science. They usually appear in triumphalist books and articles gushing about how “demography is destiny” and “the new Democratic majority” that will doom supposedly white Republicans and conservatives.

Boasts about flipping red and purple states blue follow, as we are lectured that California, Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico are now blue due to unchecked immigration. So too, we are told, will Arizona and Texas soon follow.

More perniciously, the Left does its best to restrict immigration from areas deemed problematic such as Cuba. So the “great replacement theory” is largely the Left’s name for conservative anger at the intentional destruction of our southern border—most recently in a time of a pandemic—to mainstream illegal immigration for largely selfish political interests. Demographic obsessions are largely a progressive fixation.

Note that the Hispanic populations, galvanized by Biden’s culpably for high fuel prices, hyperinflation, support for radical abortion on demand, and, ironically, open borders, may soon split its political loyalties in November in a way once deemed unimaginable.

If that happens, then the Left will likely recalibrate Mexican Americans as virtual Cubans and thus close the southern border, given illegal immigration will no longer be seen by their own admission as useful demographically.

From Hypocrisy to Projection

Three final points about the Biden demagoguery of race.

First, the hypocrisy on race simply follows the hard-left double-standards on a host of issues.

By all means let us sanction, condemn, and oppose Russia’s vicious attack on Ukraine. But the Left shows no such animosity toward a far greater existential threat to the United States—Communist China. It has destroyed an independent Tibet. It has absorbed and ruined a once democratic and free Hong Kong. It promises to end autonomy and democracy for Taiwan. And it has bullied and threatened every other consensual government in its neighborhood, from Australia and Japan to South Korea and the Philippines.

The Left ignores Chinese culpability for hiding and obstructing the truth about the Wuhan lab origins of COVID-19 that has nearly wrecked civilization as we once knew it. It calls racist anyone who worries that China is waging a systematic effort to steal all the technology and research it can from the United States.

Almost every leftist dominated institution, whether defined as corporate America, professional sports, Hollywood, or academia, refuses to call out systemic Chinese racism, reeducation camps, and the ethnic cleansing of Uyghur minorities, largely due to lucrative joint ventures.

Similarly, the Left applies different standards to its own. In summer 2020, some 120 days of rioting, $2 billion in property damage, over 35 deaths, 1,500 police injuries, and the torching of an iconic church, police precinct, and federal courthouse were all contextualized.

We were told the destruction of property was not really a crime, that the United States always has embraced violent protests, that flames licking the skies were not evidence of violence, and, by our current vice president, that such violence would not stop.

And she was correct. The street violence did not cease, because it was seen as helpful for the 2020 election. When the looting, arson, and killing began to boomerang against the Left and was deemed no longer advantageous, the violence magically ceased in the final weeks before the election and throughout the Biden transitions and tenure.

Contrast all that with the buffoonish, despicable riot in the Capitol by an ad hoc group of crazies. It was labeled an “insurrection.” The media then systematically lied about the five deaths that occurred on January 6, creating fables about the tragic natural demise of Officer Brian Sicknick. It smothered mention of FBI informants in the crowds, hid information about the circumstances of the lethal shooting of Ashli Babbitt and smirked about suspects put in solitary confinement for months without being charged or tried.

The strangest embarrassment on the Left is its current neo-Confederate impulse. Many blue progressive states are becoming one-party, feudal societies reminiscent of the antebellum, plantationists, solid-Democratic South. They are likewise inimical to the middle classes who are fleeing California, Illinois, and New York. The new Left fixates—in the fashion of the old South—on one-drop racial identification integral to race-based preferences, oblivious of class and wealth.

It promotes segregation on campuses, with racially exclusive safe spaces, dorms, and graduations. Its Southern embrace of nullification of federal law through over 500 sanctuary city jurisdictions is reminiscent of South Carolina in the 1830s. And it talks of state rights as if blue-state environmentalism, abortion, and illegal immigration should be exempt from federal statutes—in the fashion of George Wallace resisting federal mandates on integration. More recently, we see parlor talk of blue-state secession in journals like the Nation and The New Republic in the fashion of 1850s pamphleteering in the Carolinas.

If Donald Trump did not accept the vote count of 2020, then it is legitimate to criticize him. But he was only following in the footsteps of the denialist Stacey Abrams. She toured the country after losing the governorship of Georgia by over 50,000 votes and was hailed by the Left for months as the “real” governor of Georgia.

Lest we forget in 2016, the Left claimed a fraudulent election due to wired voting machines. Jill Stein sued to invalidate their ballot counts. Grade-C movie stars cut commercials urging electors to renounce their constitutional mandates. Hillary Clinton boasted of joining the “resistance,” claiming the elected president was illegitimate while urging Joe Biden not to accept the 2020 popular vote if he lost it.

So why does the Left use these mass shootings, involving unhinged, hate-filled killers of all races, as fodder for their agendas? Why is it OK to harass Supreme Court justices at their homes or to threaten them by name outside the Supreme Court chambers?

Hypocrisy is not hypocrisy when the Left feels its moral superiority justifies any means necessary to achieve its utopian ends.

Smear Rather than Defend

Second, the Left must have fungible standards and leverage tragedies for political advantage because it cannot run on its agenda. America was founded on principles of liberty and individualism, rather than French revolutionary government-mandated equality of result.

Socialism has never appealed to Americans—and never more so than in the past 18 months. If Joe Biden had gone to both Waukesha and Buffalo, preached nonviolence and tolerance, and urged Americans not to judge one another as collectives but as unique individuals, he would have seen it as an opportunity missed to gin up furor by racializing tragedy.

Indeed, what else could Biden do—run on a secure border and adherence to current federal immigration law? His wisdom of printing trillions of dollars, keeping interest rates artificially low, subsiding labor non-participation, and thus spiking inflation?

Would he point to his brilliance in restricting gas and oil leases, suppressing energy development, and canceling pipelines to deny us affordable energy?

Will he boast of embracing critical race and legal theories, defunding the police, backing city and county prosecutors who don’t prosecute, and emptying the jails and prisons, all resulting in a drastic increase in crime?

Will he preen to midterm voters about the brilliant logistical effort that allowed Americans to flee Afghanistan near instantaneously while abandoning allies and leaving helpers behind while enriching the terrorist Taliban with billions of dollars in sophisticated U.S. weaponry?

America Is a Great Experiment

Finally, we should remember America has always been a fragile country. After all, it is history’s first successful and longest-lasting multiracial constitutional government—the logical reification of the ancient ideas of human political equality, proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

The idea of America has always tried to overcome innate, deeper, and darker human impulses, especially the tic to identify by race, religion, and tribe. That is the historical virus that once unleashed, infects and destroys a society. Witness most recently Rwanda, Iraq, or the former Yugoslavia.

The ancient human pathology to identify by superficial appearance—to see race, for example, as essential rather than incidental to one’s essence—destroys democracies. It must consciously always be repressed, not cultivated to frighten people to support agendas that are otherwise failing them.

Joe Biden is said to be an inert puppet of left-wing masters. Perhaps. But more likely his cognitive challenges have stripped away his political savvy and left him in the raw, revealing his real essence, a racialist of the first order, who will use any tragedy to salvage what has become the worst two years of a presidency in modern memory. And most of the people now know it

https://amgreatness.com/2022/05/24/joe-biden-and-racial-demagoguery/

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

There are systemic issues rotting the military': Marine Lt. Colonel Stuart Scheller says 'politician-pleasing' generals are more focused on woke programs than fighting after he was discharged for criticizing the Afghanistan withdrawal

Generals who are more intent on pleasing politicians than warfighting are responsible for introducing woke initiatives and undermining U.S. military prowess, according to the Marine who was drummed out of the service for his public criticism of the botched Afghanistan withdrawal.

Five months later, Stuart Scheller says he has no regrets about how his 17-year military career ended.

And now he is writing a book that lays out his concerns about the way senior officers are more focused on equal opportunities or COVID-19 than winning wars - with a 13-point plan to fix what he sees as a rotting institution.

'The problem is, you have generals that try to please their bosses,' he told DailyMail.com in an interview to coincide with Memorial Day.

'So what happens is you get generals that will just do anything to please the politicians because it takes Congress to get appointed to be a three or four-star general.

'And so they're willing to inject into the military the initiatives of the politicians of the time without advocating for what's best for the military, which is what a general should do.

'So it's not necessarily woke - but that you just have people-pleasing generals, and they cater to whatever person is in charge at that time, rather than advocate for what's best for the military.'

He said the only thing the military should be focused on is warfighting. Other factors such as equal opportunities initiatives, extremism training or COVID-19 were a distraction from that central mission, he continued.

'The Secretary of Defense made a comment after 100 days in office that said the biggest problem facing the Department of Defense was COVID,' he said.

'And that is just a perfect example of how misguided the focus of the military is. There are systemic issues rotting the military.'

Conservatives have criticized senior leaders in the past year for running a more inclusive recruitment push - which Sen. Ted Cruz risked turning the military into 'pansies' - and singled out Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, after he said it was important to understand 'white rage.'

Scheller's book, 'Crisis of Command: How We Lost Trust and Confidence in America's Generals and Politicians,' is published by Knox Press on September 6.

It builds on his explosive condemnation of the haphazard withdrawal from Afghanistan.

After 13 U.S. service members were killed in a suicide attack on Kabul airport, the lieutenant colonel sat down in uniform to record a video in which he rebuked senior officers for the way they planned and executed the end of America's 20-year war.

'I want to say this very strongly,' he said in a message that quickly went viral.

'I have been fighting for 17 years. I am willing to throw it all away to say to my senior leaders: I demand accountability.'

He won sympathy and support from veterans who shared his concerns but was quickly relieved of his command. And he was thrown in the brig at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, a month later after further social media posts criticizing military leaders and calling for 'revolution.'

He was charged with six violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and ultimately struck a plea deal.

As part of the deal, he resigned his commission and left the Marines at the end of the year.

For an officer who had long been considered a star of the service, it was a difficult end to a career.

It also triggered the collapse of his marriage, he told DailyMail.com, but he has no regrets.

'I think it would have been easier to sit in the stability of my retirement with my wife my three sons, but for my entire life my goal has been to leave a better America for my three sons,' he said.

'And I think had I not done what I did my sons wouldn't have as good of a future.'

He described how his questions and criticisms had been building for years, before the nature of the withdrawal from Afghanistan - conducted to President Joe Biden's political timetable - triggered his public condemnation.

'They conducted the last evacuations from April to September,' he said.

'Anyone that's deployed there knows that the Taliban hides in the mountains of Pakistan during the winter. That's why we have a spring fighting season.

'We could have done it in the second half of the year from September to March, and we would have been unmolested by the Taliban.

'Because of the BS PR date of September 11, we risked American soldiers and Marines and our coalition partners lives.'

He also criticized the decision to close Bagram Air Base, rather than use it for the evacuation.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10868213/Stuart-Scheller-Politician-pleasing-generals-focused-WOKE-programs-warfighting.html

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

My son was found not guilty

Bettina Arndt

Last week, a long ordeal finally ended for an ordinary Australian family. Their son, Lucas, was found not guilty of sexual contact with a child. The female judge who delivered this verdict said she believed Lucas’ version of events – not the vile accusations that led him to spend seven months in prison, nor the vicious rumours in the local paper describing him as a ‘pedo’ and leading to death threats on social media.

I’ve just made a video with Lucas’ mother, Debbie Garratt, a brave woman who has made the considered decision to go public with what happened to them, to warn other parents of dangers awaiting young men in this hypervigilant anti-male culture. Her story suggests we are reaching the point where it is just too risky for men to take jobs caring for children.

Debbie is actually a step-mum to Lucas, but he’d had been part of their large, blended family since he was a small child. He was in his early twenties when he decided on a career in childcare, a prospect which made his parents somewhat nervous, but they knew children had always flocked to this easy-going, considerate young man and he thrived in the job, with families often seeking out his babysitting services after hours.

One evening in August 2018 he was babysitting for a family he knew well, having cared for their children many times, including the five-year-old girl he’d looked after since she was a toddler in nappies. During the evening, he noticed the little girl seemed to be ‘fiddling’, apparently bothered by an irritated vulva. When he found her scratching herself half asleep in bed, he quickly swiped the area with a baby wipe, hoping the moist towelette would ease the irritation.

It didn’t occur to him that this could create a problem until the police came and interviewed him at work the next day. It transpired that early that day the little girl had mentioned to her mother that, ‘Lucas licked me.’ The mum went on high alert, told the girl to stop talking, screamed for her husband, and then subjected the child to a grilling, recorded on an iPhone.

In her verdict, the judge commented that the parents’ reaction contributed to setting in place the whole disastrous sequence of events that followed, which sadly included the girl being interrogated at the police station and taken for internal examinations. When initially questioned by the police, the child denied that Lucas had put his head near her vulva, or even that he had touched her, but these negative responses were omitted from the evidence used for the charges and not conveyed to the child’s parents.

I hope you will listen to this whole extraordinary story as there are important lessons to be learned.

It’s quite something to hear how the legal aid barrister sold out this young man, bullying him in a corridor outside the courtroom, telling him he had to plead guilty to avoid further distress to the child, convincing him that he was bound to be convicted and this was the only way to get a reduced sentence.

Any parent would identify with Debbie’s emotion as she describes the result – Lucas was convicted and simply whisked off to prison. They weren’t even able to find out where the authorities had taken him for ten days, by which time his guilty plea was all over the newspapers and social media alive with advice about hanging the ‘scumbag animal’.

We can all imagine the family’s relief when the judge affirmed Lucas’ version of events, stating a number of times that the child must have been mistaken. This was not a case of the accused being found not guilty due to insufficient evidence but rather, a female judge determining a male was to be believed. And that’s quite something.

What’s inspirational is Debbie’s advice to Lucas during the years he spent living at home with his parents, unable to get a job, and nervous about leaving the house. Debbie would make him come with her to the supermarket, telling him to ‘put your head up’ and demonstrate to everyone that he had no reason to hide away. ‘It’s important not to be caught in shame,’ she told him.

But the same applies to parents. Most parents like Debbie, even after their sons are found not guilty of this type of allegation, get caught in shame. The whole ordeal is so overwhelming that they choose to just hide away and try to get on with their lives – which is perfectly understandable.

How rare it is for someone whose child has slipped the noose to come out fighting, willing to subject herself and her family to still more public scrutiny in the hope that others will take heed.

A word of caution – I know some people reading this will be shocked at the naivety shown by Lucas. Many smugly assume their own children would have the good sense never to touch a child in that way, even though the judge agreed this had been done ‘for hygienic purposes and in good faith’. Men today know good faith isn’t enough to protect them.

Yet in this current climate, with false allegations rampant, all men working with children are at risk, however they behave. Talk to a few teachers and you hear the stories. Like the newly graduated teacher working in a school in Port Macquarie who ran into problems with a female student who refused to finish the assignment he’d set for the class. ‘If you try to make me, I’ll tell them that you touched me,’ the little miss told her teacher. He was lucky. He reported her to the school principal who suspended her. The teacher’s story was believed because she was a known troublemaker but it could easily have turned out badly for him instead.

It’s a tragic irony that just as the world is finally waking up to the damage to children who miss out on masculine influence in their lives, the moral panic over sexual abuse is driving away the very few men still working with them – men who play a particularly vital role for kids in single mum households. Naturally, this sad state of affairs receives no public scrutiny

https://spectator.com.au/2022/05/my-son-was-found-not-guilty

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

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)

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