I take offence to that. I am not in training. "you think you're tired? You don't know what tired.". Very glad to know you have a magic meter than can measure tiredness. Also, im glad this is a competition. For deciding what to do with my body parts and my life? For not caring writing about non-existent children? (For women, i believe this about denying your partner, i think, the right to access your uterus whenever s/he wants.
"Now that I have children, my life has true meaning!". So before you had kids, it had no meaning? Im sad to hear that. But that surely cant be true. Similarly, your life isnt my life: we all find meaning in different ways. Mine, for example, is partially about critiquing terrible arguments or sentiments. Also, you might as well declare your love of chocolate, for all the worth this sentiment has on childfree people. This is an autiobiographical exclamation. "you're a crazy cat lady in training.".
Short Essay on Gender Inequality - important India
I asked my Twitter followers what kinds of professional reactions they received and got some expected answers. The huffington Post did the same ( twice ) and obviously had a much bigger pool. I want to examine these responses, curated by the huffpo, and offer server responses to these harsh claims that reinforce an unnecessary stigma. (Though the huffpo article are directed at women, specifically, i hope you dont view this as me speaking for or on behalf of women. This is to do with all childfree people, in general, though women appear to receive the harshest due to being nothing but baby-factories, in many peoples eyes.
here are my responses. "What a bad decision. according to what measure of bad? You simply declaring something bad doesnt make it so nor is it bad just because you disagree with the decision. (If this person can give a reasonable argument justified and ethical for why you should have children, do let me know. Ive not encountered a good reason for procreation and very good reasons not.).
S., as Arthur Schlesinger. Once observed, has become "a government of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations how can it be saved from a cynicism that inevitably erodes peoples fundamental confidence in democratic institutions? Phillips argues that meaningful economic reform (such as that which occurred in the 1830s under Andrew Jacksons leadership, in the progressivism of Theodore roosevelt and in Franklin. Roosevelts New deal) is the only effective means of combating such cynicism. Carefully scripted public relations campaigns orchestrated by the White house will not undo the damage done by wealths undue influence over the nations political processes. The second concern remains even more intractable.
The church seems to have largely abandoned its prophetic office with reference to American economic policy. The reason for this is unclear. Is it because many religious groups are too preoccupied with sexuality, sexual misconduct or other issues of individual morality, or their own institutional survival? Or have churches allowed their own financial interests to compromise them? What is clear is that this compelling and provocative book has much to say to religious leaders concerned about the integrity of democracy in America and about the integrity of the church in its public commitments. There appears to be a bizarre stigma around people especially women who voluntarily decide not to procreate.
Gender Inequality Essay - 359 Words major Tests
He does, nonetheless, succeed in drawing a parallel between the decline of those imperial powers and interests the present situation, observing that in their twilight they (like the. S.) came to value finance over industry and commerce. Owning came to take the place of creating. Todays global economy only makes the situation more volatile and perilous - not least for the millions of working men and women whose economic fate lies at the mercy of vast international financial markets in which short-term gains for stockholders can win out over the. That Phillipss central arguments become, at times, lost in a clutter of redundant data and sometimes irrelevant digressions does not, finally, take away from the books significance. It especially deserves to be read by leaders of religious institutions, scholars and religious laypeople. Wealth and Democracy raises two particular concerns for these audiences, the first (explicitly) regarding the health of the democratic experience itself, the second (by extension) related to the role of the church in this democracy. Corruption and graft - the manipulation of political processes by moneyed special interests - feed cynicism and undercut the popular trust necessary for democracy to thrive.
His previous study, the politics of Rich and poor (1990 laid the groundwork for what the. Economist called "a personal, populist radicalism." Perhaps it would be more accurate to characterize phillipss perspective as economic progressivism. While not a radical populist, Phillips is concerned about the consequences of that "fusion of money and government" which can be described as "plutocracy.". Placing the American experience in a larger context, Phillips considers three earlier economic powers: Britain, the netherlands and the Spanish Hapsburg Empire. Those who have read Phillipss. The cousins Wars (1999) will be familiar with his ability to draw together a web of historical correspondences to serve his thesis, though homework this strategy is less successful. Wealth and Democracy, tending to diffuse the core argument.
of workers in 1988 to 419 in 1999. The "upward redistribution of wealth" which Phillips charts has more often than not been aided by political power. "From the nursery years of the republic,. Government economic decisions in matters of taxation, central bank operations, debt management, banking, trade and tariffs, and financial rescues or bailouts have been keys to expanding, shrinking, or realigning the nations privately held assets." Robert reich, secretary of labor in the first Clinton administration, memorably. The data Phillips cites bear out reichs observation. Though the principles of risk-taking and adventurous entrepreneurship were publicly lauded as fueling the engines of wealth in the 80s and 90s, the creation and protection of corporate wealth owed more to the influence of "friends in high places" than to the inveterate courage. Phillips, a contributing columnist for the. Los Angeles Times and a former Republican political strategist, is no stranger to issues of wealth and political power.
The only comparable moment in American history was in 1929, prior to the stock market crash and the Great Depression, when the top 1 percent held.2 percent of household wealth. Despite the rhetoric of both the democratic and Republican parties heralding the. As a republic of stockholders, Phillips observes that "middle-class families held (just).8 percent of the total growth in stock market holdings between 19, but accounted for.7 percent of the rise in household debt." And although the "pro-wealth policies of the right have enjoyed. Why has the net worth of median-income families stagnated or depreciated? Consider that while a familys "minuscule stock portfolio or pension fund interest had grown by 2,600 or even 6,100 the familys typical "debt load for college, health insurance, day care, and credit cards had jumped by 12,000." The. Wall Street journal in 1999 noted the disparity between the very rich and everyone else with growing concern: "Nearly 90 percent of all shares were held by the wealthiest 10 percent of households." And the top 1 percent still own approximately 45 percent of all. Even these numbers fail to tell the whole story. Citing figures add from the bureau of Labor Statistics, Phillips notes that by the mid-90s "only 26 percent of employees in the bottom 10 percent had health insurance provided by their companies, down from 49 percent in 1982.
Gender Inequality: causes and Impacts - uk essays
Book review: wealth and Democracy: a political History of the American Rich. The argument of kevin Phillipss provocative and disturbing new book could almost be rendered as a cliché: the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. According to Phillips, the very rich in the. Have gotten much richer over the past two decades while virtually everyone else has gotten a good deal poorer, despite the widely publicized financial gains of the 1980s and 90s. The evidence Phillips marshals in support of his thesis is convincing and disturbing. Under the heading "The United States leads in Inequality" he observes that "those in the top fifth in the. Make 11 times pdf more than those in the bottom fifth." In 1997 the top 1 percent of the population held.1 percent of total household wealth.