The Atlantic’s latest offering on sex and politics comes from two more female bloggers bent on kicking out the foundational structures of our once great society, and replacing them with something less upsetting to their childlike sense that everyone deserves a cookie. Why are they demanding these changes? So they can have a few more bucks in their purses, of course.
I swear you could write this stuff by formula. The ladies in question are Lisa Arnold and Christina Campbell, who run “a website about being single today,” and this week their Fairness-Undermined-by-Patriarchy Alert Systems (F.U.P.A.S.) are blaring ALL HAMSTERS ON DECK because of the financial benefits that accrue to married people. They break these down into a number of categories: taxes, Social Security, housing, etc.
To give you a sense of the caliber of reasoning Ms. Arnold and Ms. Campbell bring to bear on this issue, check out their analysis of the unjustly high housing costs faced by single women:
Our single woman making $40,000 spent $955,200 on housing over 60 years, whereas our married woman making $40,000 spent only $573,600. The married woman saves $381,600 in comparison to her unmarried equivalent.
This is because the married woman splits her housing costs with her husband. Put another way:
(Your Rent) > (Your Rent) / 2
The same holds true for (Your Mortgage Payment). The most fundamental operations in mathematics discriminate against single women, evidently.
Notice that, in the excerpt above, the authors have arrived at their totals by holding housing costs constant for 60 years. Your typical mortgage is paid off in 30 years. For more examples of their vain struggle with numbers, see basically every meaningful comment appended to the Atlantic’s post.
There’s more. Ms. Arnold and Ms. Campbell insist housing cost inequality goes beyond married couples splitting their rent payments. Why, singles could save all sorts of money on housing if only the government would…
…provide housing options for alternative family structures or collective lifestyles that might benefit singles. Just one example might be a house or condo complex with several private bed/bath areas but a shared kitchen and shared living/dining room…
A house or condominium with “several private bed/bath areas” and “a shared kitchen and shared living/dining room.” They have these already, you know. They’re called multi-bedroom houses and apartments, and there are literally millions of them available, for rent or for purchase, all across America.
Small sampling of the housing options for single broads.
But okay. We’ve established that these authors’ areas of expertise include neither math nor logistics. Still, even if you discard the trumped-up difference in housing expenses, they did find that over 60 years, a single woman of average income loses about $100,000 on things like taxes and Social Security as compared to a married woman with the same income. A single woman with more income ($80,000 annually) loses about $260,000 compared to her married equivalent.
Let’s pretend for a moment the authors nailed their calculations and these numbers are beyond question. Why are government policies saving married folks money? The authors say it’s because marriage might make people “healthier and happier,” and after all, the government is in the business of subsidizing your personal health and happiness.
This is wrong, and since Ms. Arnold and Ms. Campbell do run a website germane to this topic and are presumably informed about these things, I assume it’s a deliberate lie. It is true that the government gives certain tax and entitlement benefits to married people. The reasons, however, are nothing so fuzzy as marginal improvements in self-reported happiness.
The government likes marriage because it makes people more stable, more productive, and more prosperous. The reasons for this are not complicated.
- Married couples have two salaries, or at least two eligible wage-earners. They spend more, they save more, and layoffs, accidents, illness, and all the other vicissitudes of life are less apt to land them (and their children) on the welfare rolls.
- Married couples are more involved in their communities. They split the time and costs involved in childcare and running a home. This means more money for charity, and more time for volunteerism and side businesses. Stay-at-home wives and wives who work part time once were (and in some American cities, still are) the lifeblood of PTAs, religious organizations, and all manner of volunteer groups. Careerist single women don’t have time for quaint pursuits like strengthening the social fabric of their communities.
- And married couples raise better children, who perform better in school and, thanks to their parents’ greater time and money, get to participate in more extracurricular activities.
Or look at it another way, one of the ladies in the crowd will appreciate: marriage is the ultimate form of welfare. It pools two people’s resources to provide them with more freedom and financial security. Though it doesn’t make married people into model citizens, it does push them in that direction. That is exactly the sort of thing I want my government to incentivize.
And while single people aren’t deadbeats by default, you don’t see a long row of hard-luck married women lined up outside your local welfare office. One survey found that 95 percent of women entering New Jersey’s welfare program were unmarried. To all the single ladies paying more in taxes, just think of it as insurance against the rest of us having to underwrite your iPhone bills.
Not that I oppose government subsidies for high-res boob pics.
Of course, Ms. Arnold and Ms. Campbell’s decision to run the numbers only for single women obscures the fact that single men like me also pay more in taxes and more for healthcare. If my sole interest were maxing out my checking account balance, maybe I could get behind this effort.
But as it happens, I would like to live in a prosperous nation, one where people raise their kids properly and have the time and money to help their neighbors. I may never get married myself, but I’m not going to cheerlead the atomization of our society through dismantling all incentives to marry.
Men who do get married are making one hell of a sacrifice for a good greater than their own. I’ll happily pay a little more to avoid doing the same. And I’ll keep calling out the shrikes, like Ms. Arnold and Ms. Campbell, who pretend their rootless profligacy makes them deserving of the same benefits given to married couples. Ladies, your situation may not be “fair,” but there are things in this world more important than fairness.
Read More: Crazy Spinster: “Single Women Should Have Weddings!”
How in hell did that Atlantic piece even make it online?
And how did two women who can’t do the most basic thinking find an editor willing to publish?
> “How in hell did that Atlantic piece even make it online?”
It’s the Atlantic, the liberal rag that publishes NYTimes rejects. It’s lately become a cheapie HuffPo, trolling the internets for monies.
A few days ago, they published a “sponsored” article about Scientology without making it clear that it was an ad. Even the jokers at CNN said it crossed the line.
By the way, these “ladies” are experts on “heteronormativity,” whatever that means. Makes you wonder whether the mainstream media has _any_ standards for left-leaning authors.
In a few years these “ladies” will insist on a bachelor tax.
What a mockery of journalism…and it really sums up what a bunch of clowns the Atlantic is.
Actually, heteronormativity is the view held by people like Roosh and Roissy.
Anonymous, heteronormativity is the reason why any of us exist. If heterosexuality wasn’t the norm we’d die out in a few decades.
It’s also great for the feminazis because with nature the way it is they always have something to rail against.
Modern college education. That’s the answer. It is by no means what it used to be except, they think they’re educated. That’s never a good combination.
The rot starts waaaay before college. Any time government gets involved in subsidizing indoctrination, things will go to hell. It’s simply a subset of any time government gets into anything, it will go to hell.
With the exceptions of disaster relief, national defense, and infrastructure. I mean, they still suck at those, but there is no private group that can do those better.
For the amount spent on “national defense” in this country, I cannot imagine anyone could actually do it worse.
It’s amazing what passes for intellectual discourse these days. That whole article reeks of entitlement and is about what I expect now from “independent, educated” women.
“independent, educated” womyn love financial security as long as someone else is paying for it.
Freedom, freethinking, not interested.
The Atlantic gets crappier and crappier with every article. They’ve become a modern-day Jezebel clone, with absolutely no journalistic integrity so they have to double-down on the feel good feminista crap to sustain their declining viewership.
I’m not sure why you’d want to link to them. Just include a screenshot so that they can’t make any advertising money off the pageviews.
“Single Women Want Your Money”
In other news the sun rose in the east this morning.
Everybody wants everyone elses money. The great big idiotic fallacy is that anyone, anywhere, for any reason whatsoever, should have some right to take it without being summarily blown to pieces, is where the problem lies. Once you start making exceptions to the noone, nowhere rule of who has any right to anyone elses stuff, you’ll quickly find yourself in the kind of dystopia we are currently stuck in.
Excellent take down Louie. This blog just keeps getting better and better.
Yup, excellent writing.
You know, I used to think the meme about how women act just like children and should be treated as such was a touch extreme. I think I get it now.
Be careful. Not all women do. And many men do as well. The important thing is to be allowed to treat those you feel deserve to be treated like children, like children. Fight for that, and screw the interest group nonsense.
Well most men collide with reality some time in their lives and need to grow up.
America’s Gen X, Gen Y, Millenials, and Boomers are now all part of the Toddler Generation: Gimmedats or Tantrums.
I’m a Boomer. I graduated from HS in ’65 and was rudely introduced to Lyndon’s War for not a God damned thing, thank you very much you so-called Greatest Generation. Then, because I am a white male, no college loans for me so I had to work my way thru college over the course of 7 years. Still, I just retired after working at a real job (no union or gubmint B/S job) since 1974. That’s 41 years in my chosen career after about 4 years working at college maintenance jobs. I resent your assholistic consolidation of Boomers, who achieved so much and paid HUGELY disproportionate taxes over their lifetimes, into the same category with Gen X & Gen Y (Millennials are same as Gen Y). Obviously you’re a fucking idiot.
Work is for men and ugly women who have to support themselves due to their inability to land a husband/slave.
Thread winner.
Add to that, women who were “bored” with their husbands and divorced them, only to find that other guys didn’t want to get involved with them and their kids.
fine criticism, but get your own logic right as well.
“Married couples have two salaries, or at least two eligible wage-earners. They spend more, they save more, and layoffs, accidents, illness, and all the other vicissitudes of life are less apt to land them (and their children) on the welfare rolls.:
First sentence, fine. But the comparable is two single people who also are two eligible wage-earners and are more likely to both be working, so the point of this sentence on its own does not seem to support your argument. On to the start of sentence two: “They spend more, they save more…”. They’d have to be earning more to both spend and save more – so where’s your evidence that a married couple earns more than the two singles they replaced? And what is the changes in spending/saving pattern between the two?
they have a house. they have kids. they have dogs. they have cook outs. they have thanksgiving dinners. church. more spending.
they also tend to think about the future since, after all, a lot is still left to tend to after they die. so they try to save more as well.
their family stability depends on their financial stability. so they tend to stick to their lines of work, and thus tend to earn a little more farther into their lives.
i noticed you ignored the last part of what you quoted, the biggest part*. that hardship is less likely to land them in the welfare lines. this is in fact true. two single people are not likely to just support each other because they need it. married people are. so they cost our tax pool a lot less.
not to mention that a vast majority of prisoners come from single mother households. so theres the savings in that.
*you probably should not quote things that you dont plan on rebutting. it makes you look stupid.
sure, you could find me a fine example of a woman (or man) who raised her 4 kids single, all of them turned out good, she never took any welfare, and spent more and saved more. sounds like a real tough lady. but for the vast majority the points apply mainly to married couples and not singles.
aside that married couples are treated legally as one entity since they do in fact function as one entity.
well obviously a single guy + a single girl will earn more income than a married couple. because the single people are likely to be both working, while many marriages have stay at home moms.
however imagine a society where no one married and had kids. even though the GDP might initially be higher, that society would eventually go extinct.
the reason why society needs married couples is not that they make more money per se, but because most kids still come from marriages, and a healthy birthrate is the engine of long term economic growth. plus the demands of raising kids is what motivates men to get out of bed in the morning and put in those long overtime hours in the first place.
a solipsistic society where men were demotivated because they weren’t getting the pussy or having kids would be a disaster. see Japan. that’s where we are headed unfortunately.
Exactly. A singles-only world, like eating seed corn, is great. Initially.
“…provide housing options for alternative family structures or collective lifestyles that might benefit singles. Just one example might be a house or condo complex with several private bed/bath areas but a shared kitchen and shared living/dining room…”
So, at the end of the day, these women are so inept at social skills that they need government intervention to arrange roommates for them? Is it just me or is this what that argument sounds like?
fuck marriage. i’ll NEVER get married.
39, own my own house, about to retire from the military, most of the women i mess with i won’t LET in my house. i want them blissfully unaware of how nice my shit is. it’s her place or a hotel.
lmfao ^ 10-4 on that bud.
hahahahaha these broads i tell you. i went over there to read that shit, this is what i got:
“hey check it out!!! im fuckin smart!!! wanna hear me quote a bunch of shit taylor made for the shit im about to say? here goes!!! *bunch of skewed statistics*… so because of this i want the government to give me stuff!!!!! they need to incentivise my decision to think of only myself in the short term!!! dont you think its wrong that i cant stay in a really nice hostel? i wanna grow old in a college dorm!!!!! government should build one for me!!!! hey you know by the time i die my bank account will be in the negative and Hilda Housewife will die and leave something to her kids dont you think that thats unfair? hey you know what absolutely for some reason even though im so smart did not occur to me? that prices go up, tax rates change, i dont like sharing a kitchen and one day betcha 20 bucks i will be married and have kids too and will feel really stupid even though im so smart!!!!!! hey do you think if i show the editor some cleavage he will publish this? duh!!!!!”
Is education making American women thicker? fucking hell
It certainly does make their ego’s thicker.
Here in Brazil I know a 40-year-old single woman who got herself inseminated like a cow and had twin boys. It was “her last chance” to be a mother, she said.
Her family is supporting her and the grandmother stays with the babies while she goes to work.
Isn’t this freaking egotism ?
Realistically, all a somewhat attractive female has to do is spread her legs for a beta guy, and she’ll get housing and everything else for free by living with him.
And where do these women come from? An insane asylum? Being single is the BEST way to save money since you get lower taxes for longer – if you have two working people who make a viable income, at least one of them is being taxed at 39% for every dollar – by the feds, not to mention all of the other costs… Whereas two single people living together save a HUGE amount… Heck, the BEST way to save money is to never marry and have two kids and split them – so each can file as head-of-household for a separate house. You’ll save a bundle…
What we have are two crazy women, who are VERY bad at math – and probably ugly as sin or they wouldn’t be complaining so much,,,,
Government is the grand fiction that everyone can live off everyone else.
When I read an article about something the government should provide, I replace the phrase “The government” with “you, the taxpayer”. This should be required exercise for liberals.
I didn’t read the article but did the authors take any of this into consideration:
Are stats on housing regionally consistent? Naturally a single person will have a smaller and less expensive mortgage than a married couple, unless she is dumb, entitled or is materialistic (likely).
Cost of raising a child to 21 in UK are £220,000. That’s average. Per kid. Unless you screw up you won’t have a kid while single, don’t whine if you do.
Cost of gas, food and heating in a married couple – likely higher. Particularly if you have kids.
You can find unlimited permutations of this that are significant cost savings for being single.
I never read the article but its premise sounds like the rantings of a teenage girl.
The manosphere author Solomon II calculated what he was spending on women every month.
“Is it worth it? You be the judge. Here are my *actual numbers* for the past 18 months. I’m averaging the costs of serious girlfriends only and I am NOT taking into consideration any trips, birthdays, holidays, or special events. I am NOT accounting for the money I spend on myself, i.e. a $100 dinner bill is logged as $50 for her half. This is the average of her true cost of ownership:
(The original article had a chart with expenses he incurred because of women in his life with a total that came up to $11,442)
This $11,442.30 is probably a conservative estimate because when in doubt on an expense, I didn’t count it. If you add birthdays, holidays and vacations to this, the annual cost could easily exceed $14,000. Multiply that by the number of years she’s been on her knees sucking cock like it’s her job, and it’s safe to say that by the age of 30, most single women have had nearly $200,000.00 pumped into their personal economy.”
$200,000. You already are paying a “Bachelor Tax”.
And I agree that it is a conservative estimate. Even as far back as 1990, I had computed my monthly expenses incurred in having a girlfriend in my life to be minimum of $600 with a weekend date like a night in a club, movie date, assorted lunches and dinners. And that was 23 years ago. And that was conservative, that typical night in a club easily was $100 back then and is dwarfed by what it costs today, a movie is a fast $40 with tickets, popcorn, drinks. And when you have a girlfriend you don’t eat that Saturday lunch at McDonalds. No, you’re in sit down place with $35 bucks with tip, easy.
To me that is one of explanations of why more women graduate from college then men. They subsidize the cost of that education with that pussy. The boys cannot do that and are pressured to find other means to raise money which often distract and add pressure into the rigors of STEM degree pursuits.
College is an entirely different experience when you only have to read some books, mark up some passages with a highlighter, then get ready to be taken out to dinner and have your drinks bought at a club. But when you are pulling your hair out struggling with differential equations with hours of difficult homework loaded on you, working a shit job, and being ridiculed and despised on campus because you are not a Frat boy with a full ride, then it is entirely greater struggle.
So that has been one of my constant comments “Is it worth it?”. Are you better off turning your back on women, controlling and limiting the nature of your engagements with them?
I fucking say no, they are not worth it. You are better off using your formative years investing in yourself, then use your early workforce years building funds and then get the fuck out of this country and go somewhere else.
When you are 25 even 30, you think 50 is old. It isn’t. And it can be a far more enjoyable time in your life than 20-25. You will be far better off preparing properly for it to be independent than sabotaging that time by squandering your money on pussy when you are young with this whole “YOLO” attitude or “Hope I die before I get old”.
You’re right, but I fear you will find biopolitics dominant in every plantation-State on this planet. Abused BOYS just make such brilliant and loyal slaves who will suffer for life without complaint or even kill and die for their abusers lies.
Any resources not defended by abused BOYS willing to die for abusive women were overrun long ago.
Here is how I think about this question; mind you this is coming from a “youngster” 23. College is a bitch no joke, the pressure exerted on me to make the grades, to get the grants, while at the same time finding a compatible shit-hole job, and on top of shit Sunday we all know males need those extracurricular activities (of the kindred spirit type). Finding time in ones day to fully complete such tasks should be herald as a triumph from Zeus himself. Granted I have taken the lesser path by not playing the “game”, or even for that matter being a spectator of such games. So here is my advice for my fellow peers as famously debated in the movie 40 year old virgin, “don’t put the pussy on the pedestal”. “Blasphemy!” some may say, but it is true. Life in the early years has changed from what it was 20 years ago. This should in all right be your time as a male to build your “foundation” to the future “home” that you will live in, this is not the time to throw your paycheck away, or in some cases your loan money on some two cent hooker you meant with your drunken friends in some night club. I’m not saying don’t have fun, but by all means do not get yourself trap in that grab for the check. Instead go on the Cheapside if you must and relay on your skills not your money.
Yep, no woman selling fraud and unmerited entitlement is worth a freaking cent.
If you want to go on the cheap side just have sex with some hookers & forget clubbing since drinks are overpriced there. IF you really want to go out just try fishing, camping or a picnic with friends… You’ll have more fun and your bank account would still have money in it.
hey Louie i notice this is your first article here on rok. just wanted to say well done mate. really enjoyed the writing. well thought out and funny
Marriage = Pretty much the stupidest thing a young guy can do. Basically ignorance of the law and “your rights” cause young men to be stupid and sign away his future income for the wining lazy wench. Its all about indemnity!
All bitterness aside: We need to educate boys/men on marriage!! and the ramifications of a failed marriage. Until the laws change on Marriage Its a Legalized BAD deal for men. Period.
Yes we want to get laid, but in the End just avoid the top of marriage, Avoid Avoid Avoid. She is BRAIN washed to push you to marriage for obvious reasons.
God bless the 1% of women who DONT take advantage of men in a failed marriage and DONT focus on the free “money wagon train”….. and focus on the kids. She knows you have a disadvantage in court. She will “likely” use it.
Time to get real, Don’t sign away your rights.
If she get pissed after a couple of years that you wont get marriage, send her on her way and find a replacement. Keep your money and rights.
We are on to you now!
I rather be an 80 year old virgin than get married, lol
This site shouldn’t be advocating for the Right of women to enslave deceived and betrayed men with contracts backed by State violence and mediated by a corrupt biopolitical judiciary hellbent on ensuring the abuse of children by favouring reduced and infantilised objects who sold themselves for wedlock (prostitution).
If women are speaking out against women’s greatest tool of Oppression, used to extort and bully men and children for thousands of years, you should celebrate those women regardless of their flaws. Any man who thinks marriage is in his favour is tragically confused about the nature of oppression. Married women can’t compete with girls.
fuck dat. I am all for oppressing men. They should just get something back for it..
regular sex and being sure that your children were your own used to be what we got back. Now those have been taken away, so all incentive for willingly participating in your own oppression have been removed.
If you cannot understand the reasons behind men participating in their own governance, for creating ‘civilization’ in the first place, I hope you enjoy the hourly ass-rape you get in prison… your shortsightedness has certainly earned it.
“… a single woman of average income loses about $100,000 on things like taxes and Social Security as compared to a married woman with the same income. A single woman with more income ($80,000 annually) loses about $260,000 compared to her married equivalent.”
—
There’s your explanation why government spends so much time and effort funding feminism and making marriage such an ominous endeavour for men. It’s like a skim at a casino for them.
Women have the endgame of divorce planned out the min. they say yes to a proposal. Get a great lawyer (on your own), If she won’t sign a prenup then she doesn’t really love you.
Couples raising little future taxpayers deserve the tax breaks, not single YOLOers. Especially slutty YOLOers that will one day, as single sluts, raise another single slut just like themselves that suck off the rest of us, and not in the way we like. Screw these broads.
I always had this feeling like it was a scam to take your money
If what you say is true. The real reason they want to make men pay for sex is so that men become the welfare check for women rather than the state.