Andrew Neil. Britain's sick note economy

[Casual-observer]

4 hours ago, msi said:

Same sort of nonsense that men are naturally 'family providers' and inherently better at it.  Does that lead to vulgar masculinity and masculine superiority, or toxic masculinity that says men should put women 'in their place'....

The incarceration rate of men coming from single parent (female) households indicates women cannot raise sons successfully on their own. 

There's no such thing as divorce in the animal kingdom, most mammals need the alpha male to keep the young males in check. I fail to see why people somehow distinguish that humans are any different to this basic aspect.  

Edited July 18, 2023 by Casual-observer

[Casual-observer]

13 hours ago, scottbeard said:

Because for the rest of her life my Grandma talked with immense pride about the 2-3 years during the war in which she was able to be a shop manager.   Come 1945 and peace she was booted out again.  It's not hard to imagine she would have had a more fulfilled life as a shop manager than the cleaning lady she was forced to be by society.

Many women today absolutely have a choice.  Where I work lots of people - men and women - are part time.  I think when I noseyed around in the stats 15% of our workforce is part time, ranging from 2 days per week to 4.5 days.

Even if you're right and the kitchen sink has been swapped for an office desk, do you honestly think that most women are more fulfilled washing up and scrubbing the front doorstep than working?

The problem here is you're alluding to the the wizard of Oz view of this scenario. 

You're not comparing like for like with what your Grandma experienced to what women are experiencing today. 

Pull back the curtain in 2023 and its resulted in women increasingly being single and childless by age 40 saddled with mountains of debt.  

My grandmother temped as an auxiliary nurse however the family finances in no way relied on that income. She could and did dip out of that job but the kids and the mortgage were never at risk. 

That scenario has now blown into dust. 

Women today HAVE to get a full time job just to be able to afford a decent family home, that dual income is an absolute requirement on todays prices which blew up to compete with dual income couples. They're then essentially being coached to saddle up to mountains of student debt to justify a bigger salary which comes along with exuberant hours and that's all on the back of a fertility window that starts closing by age 35. 

None of this works long term for them. 

What many are finding is they've had to forgo relationships to get on the career ladder and indirectly forgo any chance of having a family

In what way has this liberated them for anything? 

Seemingly this liberation of women is boiling down to two outomes

1) having kids funded by a benefit system which you never get out of

2) Single working women being too poor to afford a family and too late to find a partner. 

What they'll also increasingly find is in todays high inflation and higher interest rates environment it will amplify their problems. I can guarantee you many divorced women with kids are and will find how badly they needed a dual income now that the 0.5% base rate world is behind them. 

Women today are going to eventually realise they are far worse off now than their grandmothers ever were, on a multitude of factors. Feminism is not delivering what was advertised on the tin. 

Edited July 18, 2023 by Casual-observer

[scottbeard]

16 minutes ago, Casual-observer said:

There's no such thing as divorce in the animal kingdom, most mammals need the alpha male to keep the young males in check. I fail to see why people somehow distinguish that humans are any different to this basic aspect.  

By the time a human child is about 4 years old they are cleverer than every other animal on Earth, except for other humans.  So yes, I would distinguish that humans are not the same as donkeys and koalas just because they're mammals too.

More precisely different animal species have evolved very different social structures.  Humans are, fundamentally, tribal and so our brains expect us to live in a close group of 50-100 people and that's what they are wired for.  So yes it will go wrong if a single person (male or female) tries to raise a child entirely on their own.  But suggesting that what's missing in that dynamic is an "alpha male" is ridiculous.  It takes a myriad of positive influences to successfully raise a child, and someone who you would consider an "alpha male" I suspect is not in fact a positive influence at all, but more likely abusive.

[coypondboy]

23 minutes ago, Casual-observer said:

The incarceration rate of men coming from single parent (female) households indicates women cannot raise sons successfully on their own. 

There's no such thing as divorce in the animal kingdom, most mammals need the alpha male to keep the young males in check. I fail to see why people somehow distinguish that humans are any different to this basic aspect.  

yes but the benefit system is designed to reward single mums hence the high number of kids especially from white and black mums a lot lower if a muslim/hindu/jew not sure why maybe religion plays a part?

[Casual-observer]

1 minute ago, scottbeard said:

By the time a human child is about 4 years old they are cleverer than every other animal on Earth, except for other humans.  So yes, I would distinguish that humans are not the same as donkeys and koalas just because they're mammals too.

More precisely different animal species have evolved very different social structures.  Humans are, fundamentally, tribal and so our brains expect us to live in a close group of 50-100 people and that's what they are wired for.  So yes it will go wrong if a single person (male or female) tries to raise a child entirely on their own.  But suggesting that what's missing in that dynamic is an "alpha male" is ridiculous.  It takes a myriad of positive influences to successfully raise a child, and someone who you would consider an "alpha male" I suspect is not in fact a positive influence at all, but more likely abusive.

I'll say again, the incarceration rates of men in the prison system in the US speaks for itself. 

When teenage boys are hitting puberty they walk all over their mothers and it's a downward slope from that point if there is no male in the house to check that authority challenge. Abusive men are  born in the absence of their fathers. 

 

[scottbeard]

6 minutes ago, Casual-observer said:

In what way has this liberated them for anything? 

Seemingly this liberation of women is boiling down to two outomes

1) having kids funded by a benefit system which you never get out of

2) Single working women being too poor to afford a family and too late to find a partner. 

Women today are going to eventually realise they are far worse off now than their grandmothers ever were, on a multitude of factors. Feminism is not delivering what was advertised on the tin. 

The point is about CHOICE.

Women today can choose to divide their time, both on a weekly and a lifetime basis, between work and family.

If they put more energy into their career yes, they will get on better at work, earn more etc but have less time for a family.

If they put more energy into their family yes, they will have less money and career success, and they may not be able to afford as big a house.

But the real point is men and women now face the same set of choices.  What they do with those choices is up to them, men and women alike.

Your false dichotomy of the only two choices in life being having kids and benefits, or being an elderly spinster is just absolutely laughable.  Laughable.  Look around and you will see that most women are neither.

[Casual-observer]

11 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

The point is about CHOICE.

Women today can choose to divide their time, both on a weekly and a lifetime basis, between work and family.

If they put more energy into their career yes, they will get on better at work, earn more etc but have less time for a family.

If they put more energy into their family yes, they will have less money and career success, and they may not be able to afford as big a house.

But the real point is men and women now face the same set of choices.  What they do with those choices is up to them, men and women alike.

Your false dichotomy of the only two choices in life being having kids and benefits, or being an elderly spinster is just absolutely laughable.  Laughable.  Look around and you will see that most women are neither.

You're wrong.

Your grandmother had that choice, women today do not as it's the financial reality that's forcing their hands now. 

https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/45-percent-women-are-expected-to-be-single-and-childless-by-2030

The problems so bad that the only thing keeping the plates spinning in the west is rampant immigration. 

Your great liberalisation has collapsed birth-rates so your claim that 'choice' of having a family is realistic doesn't marry up to the financial reality.  

 

 

Edited July 18, 2023 by Casual-observer

[Insane]

19 minutes ago, Casual-observer said:

When teenage boys are hitting puberty they walk all over their mothers and it's a downward slope from that point if there is no male in the house to check that authority challenge. Abusive men are  born in the absence of their fathers. 

+1

There are 3 Authorities for a Teenage boy to obey. They are the father the school and the police. 

If the father is not there the other two lose much of their power. 

[Casual-observer]

8 minutes ago, Insane said:

+1

There are 3 Authorities for a Teenage boy to obey. They are the father the school and the police. 

If the father is not there the other two lose much of their power. 

Scottbeard is all over the place on this. 

He's admitted we are wired for tribal living yet he's alluding to a fantasy that the absence of a male authority figure (a key component of tribal systems) cannot be a factor. To my knowledge every tribe historically had mature male authority figures in it. 

They undoubtedly kept in check the teenage boys of the tribe. 

Single female households raising sons is a modern day disaster. As good as my mother was there was never a remote possibility she could have filled my fathers shoes showing me wood work, fixing my bikes and basically exposing me to practical application skill sets. 

The absolute BS people talk about when it comes to promoting unlimited feminist skills sets is farcical. 

[scottbeard]

30 minutes ago, Casual-observer said:

You're wrong.

Your grandmother had that choice, women today do not as it's the financial reality that's forcing their hands now. 

Your great liberalisation has collapsed birth-rates so your claim that 'choice' of having a family is realistic doesn't marry up to the financial reality.  

Sorry, but 45% of women being childless isn't a problem in my book at all, so long as they are women who don't want children.  In a world faced with overpopulation this is a solution, not a problem.

We all know that dual incomes have bid up house prices, and that is the price that has been paid for women working as well as men.  However, all around me I see counter-examples to this trope that women are forced to choose between children and careers.   

3 minutes ago, Casual-observer said:

Scottbeard is all over the place on this. 

He's admitted we are wired for tribal living yet he's alluding to a fantasy that the absence of a male authority figure (a key component of tribal systems) cannot be a factor. To my knowledge every tribe historically had mature male authority figures in it. 

No, you misunderstand me.  It's the phrase "alpha male" I took issue with.  Of course having a male authority figure is helpful.

19 minutes ago, Insane said:

There are 3 Authorities for a Teenage boy to obey. They are the father the school and the police. 

If the father is not there the other two lose much of their power. 

Agreed, you misunderstand me.  It's the phrase "alpha male" I took issue with.  It implies something rather different to merely having a father figure. 

5 minutes ago, Casual-observer said:

The absolute BS people talk about when it comes to promoting unlimited feminist skills sets is farcical. 

This is not about feminism.  It is about equality.  For women - AND MEN.

My Grandma was not able to pursue a fulfilling career.  Women today can.

Conversely, I work part-time so that I can spend more time with my young children.  When each was born I had 6 weeks off work.  This was simply not possible in the 1950s because looking after children was a woman's job, so men basically were back in work the next week and missing out on young childhood.

I'm not going to waste any more time arguing on this, because @Insane, @Casual-observer and I will never agree on this.  I hope others reading enjoyed the ride.

[Insane]

2 minutes ago, Casual-observer said:

They undoubtedly kept in check the teenage boys of the tribe. 

Single female households raising sons is a modern day disaster. As good as my mother was there was never a remote possibility she could have filled my fathers shoes showing me wood work, fixing my bikes and basically exposing me to practical application skill sets. 

The absolute BS people talk about when it comes to promoting unlimited feminist skills sets is farcical. 

TBH my Mum and Dads marriage was not the best but reading between the lines and looking back as an adult I think my Mum kept it going as she had 4 sons there is no way she could have kept us in line on her own. 

Me and my Brother have often spoken about we don't know how she did it. Maybe the biggest sacrifice she made was learning to navigate my Dad and carrying on. I know many other Mothers who did the same. 

But I also don't know how the younger women of today "do" their lives either. They may be more equal to their husbands and won't put up with certain situations, but they are working full time , raising a family and juggling non stop. One mid 30's couple I know (they had children much later than my parents) seem to do it all then every now and again they crash and both have a week off work when bought down with an illness. Are these being prone to illness episodes bought on by Stress? I don't know, but what I do know is I never knew my parents having them. 

[Insane]

8 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

Sorry, but 45% of women being childless isn't a problem in my book at all, so long as they are women who don't want children.

Have you ever seen the early mid 30's Career Woman who is now hearing the ticking of her clock? 

I have and have seen more than a few make hideous mistakes rushing to get pregnant before it is too late.  

[NoHPCinTheUK]

22 minutes ago, Insane said:

Have you ever seen the early mid 30's Career Woman who is now hearing the ticking of her clock? 

I have and have seen more than a few make hideous mistakes rushing to get pregnant before it is too late.  

I know a couple of women in this situation. 
 

If you’re 35 and single, and you’ve been single for too long well that a serious red flag as you’re probably looking for a man which only exists in your mind and you have little or no room to compromise, the single most important thing in a stable relationship. Dating them would be a nightmare. I also think they ve lost their sex drive too, one of the them told me that she’d lost interest in men after so much time and was now having sex with other women. I didn’t know that but apparently in London there’s a scene for single women in their 30s who just give up on men and start same sex light relationships.

Edited July 18, 2023 by NoHPCinTheUK

[scottbeard]

24 minutes ago, Insane said:

Have you ever seen the early mid 30's Career Woman who is now hearing the ticking of her clock? 

I have and have seen more than a few make hideous mistakes rushing to get pregnant before it is too late.  

Of course I have.

And I have known men in their 40s dump a partner with whom he agreed not to have children for a younger model to start a family, and the reverse i.e. a man aged about 38 with kids leave his wife and kids saying he'd never really wanted a family anyway.

All this tells you is that (1) young people make mistakes, and that (2) people's priorities change as they get older.

If you give people choice, some people will make the wrong choice or a choice they regret.  This is not a reason not to give them choices, or for men to make choices on womens' behalf to keep them out of the workplace and in the nursery.

[Insane]

26 minutes ago, NoHPCinTheUK said:

If you’re 35 and single, and you’ve been single for too long well that a serious red flag as you’re probably looking for a man which only exists in your mind and you have little or no room to compromise, the single most important thing in a stable relationship. Dating them would be a nightmare. I also think they ve lost their sex drive too, one of the them told me that she’d lost interest in men after so much time and was now having sex with other women. I didn’t know that but apparently in London there’s a scene for single women in their 30s who just give up on men and start same sex light relationships.

I think generally people's expectations are very high. 

We are all told when you grow up you will meet a prince/princess marry and live happily ever after. The truth is a bit different to that. 

I have also heard of Men having been taken for a ride by women now only having sex with Men. But surely there has to be an element of Bi- Sexuality within these people to begin with they don't turn to their own sex just due to bad experiences with the opposite sex.  

[Casual-observer]

1 hour ago, scottbeard said:

Sorry, but 45% of women being childless isn't a problem in my book at all, so long as they are women who don't want children.  In a world faced with overpopulation this is a solution, not a problem.

We all know that dual incomes have bid up house prices, and that is the price that has been paid for women working as well as men.  However, all around me I see counter-examples to this trope that women are forced to choose between children and careers.   

This is not about feminism.  It is about equality.  For women - AND MEN.

My Grandma was not able to pursue a fulfilling career.  Women today can.

 

But what has happened in the cold light of day is they've been priced out of having a family no differently than they've been priced out of an affordable family home. 

Again it's clearly a problem given the drop in birth rates. The thing is if you want to see a drop in population size then how does that jive with propping up your current standard of living with rampant immigration too? 

How can the two positions be justified? If you want to see populations decline then you have to accept the severe drop in living standards in it will inevitably bring. 

On the current trajectory though your worries about over population will likely be overtaken by the collapse of society around you. Being reliant on third world immigration brings its own problems. 

Your pursuit of this pure equality nirvana is a fools errand. The bottom line is women can't compete when they're saddled with a fertility window. Again you're harking back to a by gone era where your grandma could dip in and out of a workforce that had magnitudes difference in terms of impact on the family finances. 

Todays 'choice' you're alluding to is make believe. The average woman who wants a kid still HAS to get a job and a damn good paying one at that just to keep their heads above water. 

[PeanutButter]

2 minutes ago, Casual-observer said:

But what has happened in the cold light of day is they've been priced out of having a family no differently than they've been priced out of an affordable family home. 

Again it's clearly a problem given the drop in birth rates. The thing is if you want to see a drop in population size then how does that jive with propping up your current standard of living with rampant immigration too? 

How can the two positions be justified? If you want to see populations decline then you have to accept the severe drop in living standards in it will inevitably bring. 

On the current trajectory though your worries about over population will likely be overtaken by the collapse of society around you. Being reliant on third world immigration brings its own problems. 

Your pursuit of this pure equality nirvana is a fools errand. The bottom line is women can't compete when they're saddled with a fertility window. Again you're harking back to a by gone era where your grandma could dip in and out of a workforce that had magnitudes difference in terms of impact on the family finances. 

Todays 'choice' you're alluding to is make believe. The average woman who wants a kid still HAS to get a job and a damn good paying one at that just to keep their heads above water. 

Very true. 

Hence my expectation that assisted dying will a hotter topic over the next few years. Although I would like to see the age breakdown of those opting to use it in Canada. 

If we want more native (ie UK passport holders) to have children, then women must be supported to have them. Bring back Sure Start. Our stunted, depressed children are a global embarrassment.

 

[scottbeard]

13 minutes ago, Casual-observer said:

But what has happened in the cold light of day is they've been priced out of having a family no differently than they've been priced out of an affordable family home. 

Again it's clearly a problem given the drop in birth rates. The thing is if you want to see a drop in population size then how does that jive with propping up your current standard of living with rampant immigration too? 

How can the two positions be justified? If you want to see populations decline then you have to accept the severe drop in living standards in it will inevitably bring. 

On the current trajectory though your worries about over population will likely be overtaken by the collapse of society around you. Being reliant on third world immigration brings its own problems. 

Your pursuit of this pure equality nirvana is a fools errand. The bottom line is women can't compete when they're saddled with a fertility window. Again you're harking back to a by gone era where your grandma could dip in and out of a workforce that had magnitudes difference in terms of impact on the family finances. 

Todays 'choice' you're alluding to is make believe. The average woman who wants a kid still HAS to get a job and a damn good paying one at that just to keep their heads above water. 

If housing is too expensive that's a problem with housing availability, not equality.  Population declines should help this.

I don't support immigration and I don't expect our standard of living to be "propped up".  I expect it to decline.

Women being "saddled with a fertility window".  Oh please.  You posts drip, positively DRIP with male entitlement and subtle digs at women.  Get a grip.  If a women wants to have a baby or two that will take her out of the workforce for a year or two.  Maybe she will have to do aged 29 what her male compatriot could do at 27.   Don't then please tell me that this is why most of the 55-year old CEOs have to be male.

[captainb]

38 minutes ago, Insane said:

I think generally people's expectations are very high. 

We are all told when you grow up you will meet a prince/princess marry and live happily ever after. The truth is a bit different to that. 

I have also heard of Men having been taken for a ride by women now only having sex with Men. But surely there has to be an element of Bi- Sexuality within these people to begin with they don't turn to their own sex just due to bad experiences with the opposite sex.  

Without wanting to be too crude..

You don't think god she was a nightmare, guess as it's a Wednesday let's go next  door and stick my ***** up Jeff...unless you are at least BI.

Edited July 18, 2023 by captainb

[Casual-observer]

1 minute ago, scottbeard said:

If housing is too expensive that's a problem with housing availability, not equality.  Population declines should help this.

I don't support immigration and I don't expect our standard of living to be "propped up".  I expect it to decline.

Women being "saddled with a fertility window".  Oh please.  You posts drip, positively DRIP with male entitlement and subtle digs at women.  Get a grip.  If a women wants to have a baby or two that will take her out of the workforce for a year or two.  Maybe she will have to do aged 29 what her male compatriot could do at 27.   Don't then please tell me that this is why most of the 55-year old CEOs have to be male.

But the population isn't declining, so where is this trade off?   

The fertility window is a practical reality, your post drips of someone trying to allude to a points I haven't made. 

Unlike men, women have roughly a 17 year period (18 - 35) to find a suitable man before pregnancy starts becoming risky. 

They have to discover this man, scope him out, have kids, possibly marry, buy a house, try for the kids (if two kids then by your own maths there's four years from the 17 year window and at the same time compete with either men who don't have that narrow window or childless women whom will naturally out compete any woman with kids who simply cannot keep up.  

I'm sure we've also had this debate before where you then allude to the average woman being some sort of CEO super star mother juggling 3 kids in her mansion. 

That's not the average woman Scott, the average woman is working poor trying to keep her head above water working in Tesco. 

[msi]

Looks like the Forum incels have taken over the thread.

[Casual-observer]

30 minutes ago, PeanutButter said:

Very true. 

Hence my expectation that assisted dying will a hotter topic over the next few years. Although I would like to see the age breakdown of those opting to use it in Canada. 

If we want more native (ie UK passport holders) to have children, then women must be supported to have them. Bring back Sure Start. Our stunted, depressed children are a global embarrassment.

 

Yep but there only one age old practical method of doing it and women have to lead the way to roll it back. 

It's either that or on average (in Scots minds) CHOOSING to work a low paid job in Aldi where most of your wage is hoovered up in rent...let alone somehow find the money for kids. 

Edited July 18, 2023 by Casual-observer

[scottbeard]

10 minutes ago, Casual-observer said:

But the population isn't declining, so where is this trade off?   

It would if only 55% of women had children

11 minutes ago, Casual-observer said:

That's not the average woman Scott, the average woman is working poor trying to keep her head above water working in Tesco. 

And in your view she would be better off at home doing household chores, whilst her husband works.

We know.

I disagree.

No more to say.

[Casual-observer]

14 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

It would if only 55% of women had children

And in your view she would be better off at home doing household chores, whilst her husband works.

We know.

I disagree.

No more to say.

But it's not since the Govt simply offsets it with immigration, therefore your scenario and argument is moot. You're semi arguing to keep women chained to a career instead isn't bearing the population decline fruit you keep talking about...it's complete fiction. 

It's also farcical considering the immigration in question relies on third world volume who on average don't at all espouse to the equality agenda you want. They're bringing with them traditional values. 

My view isn't that at all, my view from the beginning was your nonsense idea that the average women has on the table in 2023 a choice of career or family or both. 

They don't, that choice started evaporating at least twenty years ago except for a rapidly shrinking pie. That's not the principle of equality. 

Edited July 18, 2023 by Casual-observer

[PeanutButter]

Women seem to spend much of their lives terrified of falling pregnant, only to realise with a shock that after 35 it's not as easy. Perhaps some better quality education in their area would help, as school seems only to drum home 'don't be a teen pregnancy statistic!'

That said, it's not women who run this country, or any country for that matter. Not even New Zealand (where 1 in 3 women have experience DV). So if things are to change, it will have to be men doing it.