Women vs. the State

It’s time to liberate ladies from unequal and unjust government policies.

March is Women’s History Month. As schoolteachers across America lecture students about how women fought for the right to own property, vote, and control their own bodies, another important lesson will be neglected: Women are still suffering from overly intrusive government. Improving the lot of American women means lowering marginal tax rates, abolishing many workplace regulations, increasing the number of low-skilled immigrants, and ending the drug war.

In the past, women suffered because the state treated them differently than men, out of either a misplaced sense of chivalry or outright misogyny. An assault wasn’t necessarily an assault if it was a man beating or raping his wife, for instance. That’s one reason the women’s movement pushed for equal treatment under the law.

Yet many government policies, including some advocated by today’s feminists, continue to treat the choices of women differently than those of men. The old discriminatory policies usually announced themselves as such—like the ban on women in combat. Nowadays such policies tend to be superficially gender-neutral but have a disproportionate effect on women.

Take tax policy. If a woman makes less than her spouse (which is the case 72 percent of the time) and the couple files a joint tax return, the tax system often penalizes her decision to work rather than stay home. That’s because the government taxes the first dollar the wife earns at her husband’s highest marginal rate rather than the rate the wife’s salary warrants. This “marriage penalty” creates a disincentive for women to work, unless they are going to make as much as or more than their husbands. The higher the marginal tax rate, the bigger the penalty.

According to a 1995 paper by economists Nada O. Eissa of Georgetown University and Austin Nichols of the Urban Institute, the data show that married women increased their employment substantially in response to reductions in marginal tax rates following the 1986 tax reform. Similar changes in the 1990s again boosted female labor force participation.

The lingering tax penalty could partially explain why, despite the fact that almost 80 percent of working mothers say they would prefer to work part time, almost two-thirds work full-time instead. Taxes on the money they earn are often too high to make part-time work financially viable.

High marginal rates and joint taxation are not the only elements of the tax code that give married women disincentives to work. After Clinton–era welfare reforms cut back on state cash assistance, the government implemented a tremendous expansion in assistance for low-income families through the tax system. In particular, the move was intended to increase single mothers’ participation in the labor force by expanding the earned income tax credit (EITC), which is targeted at people who work and have low wages. Empirical evidence consistent with economic theory shows that the tax credit has indeed encouraged many eligible single women to work. According to a 2005 paper by Eissa and Nichols, the labor force participation rate of single mothers increased by 14 percent between 1992 and 2002, a period of substantial expansion of the EITC. That same period saw a slower rate of growth in labor force participation by married women, who are much less likely to benefit from the credit. 

Underlying the push to move single mothers into the work force is the belief that they contribute more to society by working outside the home. But productivity takes many forms. Economists Alexander Gelber and Joshua Mitchell of the National Bureau of Economic Research have found that for women who rejoin the labor force, the time spent on the job has come largely at the expense of time spent on housework, including child care. Whether that shift has been beneficial for the women, their families, or society is unclear.

It is clear, however, that working moms who have to cut back on their housework would benefit a great deal from the ability to hire low-skilled workers to help them. According to economists Patricia Cortes of the University of Chicago and José Tessada of the Brookings Institution, an increase in the supply of low-skilled immigrants would allow women to work longer hours and make more money. It also would allow them to spend less of their free time doing household work and more time interacting with their kids.

Lowering marginal income tax rates would help women too. Women in 2008–09 owned 40 percent of all privately held firms, most of which had fewer than nine workers in 2007. According to the National Federation of Independent Business, high income tax rates disproportionately penalize women because more of them report their business income on their personal returns. High tax rates mean lower business and personal income and less ability to hire help at home or at work.

Workplace regulations can make women’s lives harder as well. Because women exit and re-enter the labor market (for maternity leave or to take care of their children) more frequently than men, they suffer disproportionately from labor laws that restrict workplace mobility. 

Even regulations meant to protect women produce bad outcomes. Government mandates that force employers to approve lengthy maternity leaves make hiring women of childbearing age less appealing. As a result, women are more likely to be unemployed or to see their compensation reduced, whether they want to have children or not. Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist Jonathan Gruber has shown that real wages for women in the 1990s in states that require comprehensive maternity expenses fell, compared to states that don’t.

One government policy may be more devastating for women than any other: the war on drugs. Because of mandatory minimum sentences, prosecution of low-level drug offenses, increased conviction and imprisonment of those with relationships to drug dealers, and the treatment of drug addicts as criminals, the number of incarcerated women has skyrocketed since 1980. Although the incarceration rate for women continues to be far lower than the rate for men (201 per 100,000 women versus 2,096 per 100,000 men, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics numbers for 2009) the proportion of women imprisoned for drug offenses is much higher than male drug imprisonment. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), between 1986 and 1999 the number of women in state facilities for drug-related offenses octupled, surpassing the rate of growth in the number of men imprisoned for similar crimes. 

When these women leave prison, they face many barriers to obtaining housing, employment, and education. As Harvard University sociologist Bruce Western and University of Washington sociologist Becky Pettit showed in a 2010 study published by the Pew Research Center, incarceration has a lasting impact on inmates’ earnings. Taking age, education, school enrollment, and geography into account, they found that past incarceration reduced subsequent wages by 11 percent, cut annual employment by nine weeks, and reduced yearly earnings by 40 percent. Incarceration also has consequences for families. According to “Caught in the Net,” a 2005 report from the ACLU, two-thirds of female state prisoners are the mothers of minor children—kids who become indirect victims of an unfair policy.

Women have come a long way. They have fought hard to win independence from their husbands and fathers. They have struggled against millennia of unequal treatment under the law. But their freedom is still constricted by misguided government policies. There are battles yet to be won. 

Contributing Editor Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Tim||

    You seem to suggest a dichotomy, as if "freedom" really comes in two varieties- women's freedom and men's freedom.
    I would say that while there are subsets with differing and sometimes competing interests, writing about "women's freedom" makes about as much sense as writing about "women's gravity".

  • AgCityStatism harder on Female||

    “It’s the men of your culture who are being hit the hardest by the failure of your cultural mythology. They have (and have always had) a much greater investment in the righteousness of your [agricultural] revolution.

    "In coming years, as the signs of collapse become more and more unmistakable, you’ll see them withdraw ever more completely into the surrogate world of male success, the world of sports.

    "And much worse, you’ll see them taking ever more violent revenge for their disappointment on the world around them, and particularly on the women around them. The Taker dream has always been a man’s dream, and the men of your culture imagine that the collapse of this dream will devastate them while leaving women relatively untouched.”

    ~Daniel Quinn
    Cultural Collapse
    www.lejournalmural.be/english-.....-1.html#15

  • ||

    Stop it rather. It was funny for a while. But not anymore. I still laugh. But honestly I feel guilty about it.

  • ||

    John, the only thing that works is ignoring it. You're feeding it.

  • ||

    I have come to appreciate rather. This stuff is actually pretty funny.

  • Tonio||

    I'm thinking Stockholm Syndrome here, John. My sympathies.

  • ||

    It can't take being ridiculed.

  • ||

    I think it might be funnier if you dropped all of the articles. And then maybe started every or most sentences with "White Indian say"

    So you would have

    White Indian say it’s men of your culture who are being hit hardest by failure of your cultural mythology

    I think that is funnier. But maybe that is also going over the top. You are the expert. what do you think?

  • ||

    "He" would sound too much like STEVE SMITH in that case.

  • ||

    White Indian much more noble than this Steve Smith person. White Indian never rape someone's squaw.

  • ||

    +1

  • ||

    I don't think that is what is being suggested.

    Women have more of a tendency to view the State as a protector and a guarantor of fairness, and the article is simply pointing out that this view is mistaken.

  • Make me a Sammich||

    Men have more of a tendency to view the State as a protector and a guarantor of property rights, and the White Indian is simply pointing out that this view is mistaken.

  • ||

    Stop making fun of Godesky. And yes, referring to yourself in the third person as White Indian still counts as making fun of Godesky.

    I have to admit this shit can be pretty damned funny. But it is unseemly.

  • ||

    The feminist movement started out as a legitimate fight against birth control laws and restrictions against women in the work place. This movement was hijacked. Feminism currently means that the bitch better get what she wants.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Take tax policy.

    Please.

  • ||

    a reimagining of "take my wife, please", right?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I'm like Hollywood, recycling what once worked.

  • ||

    Women vs. the State

    All I need to know is: oil or jello.

  • Max||

    That's amazing. If we just make policy according to libertarian dogma, women (and all of creation) will live happily ever after. Who would have thought?

  • ||

    As has been explained here repeatedly, Maxi-pad, libertarianism is about opportunity. You can't guarantee outcomes. Life isn't fair, and you can't make it moreso by tangibly penalizing one group in the naive hope that this will somehow make life better for others.

  • Royalist||

    "Life isn't fair, and you can't make it moreso by tangibly penalizing one group in the naive hope that this will somehow make life better for others."

    Oh, but you are wrong. Since the crime rate of Blacks is several times higher than that of Whites, it follows that any policy that harms Black reproductive success will objectively make life better for everyone else, by decreasing their risk to be murdered.

  • max has made his last post||

    Max|6.24.10 @ 3:29PM|#

    Go suck ron puals dick, morons. You peeple are fucking retarded. I`m done coming to this wingnut sight. this is my last post.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Can't be a real Max post, as he knows nothing about women other than his mom.

  • Ice Nine||

    Who cares about those twats?

  • sarcasmic||

    Shut yer hole, slut.

  • Calling people sluts||

    Funny every time!

  • ||

    Almost as funny as cutting and pasting the rants of a retarded guy in Pittsburgh. Nothing is more funny that that.

  • Zeb||

    "Twats" is way funnier.

  • ||

    Worked for me, and I'm still required reading.

  • Capitalisms||

    The harlot on the right is showing her ankles. Scandalous!

  • Ray||

    The first thing women did with their suffrage was enact Prohibition (women could already vote in most states prior to the 19th Amendment). Polls show women favor higher taxes than men, more entitlement spending, are more in favor of war, were more in favor of the draft (of course), are less in favor of legalizing marijuana, are more in favor of banning gay marriage, are even more in favor of banning abortion, etc. etc. etc. Fact is that women are even more likely to be authoritarian dipshits than men. Ending women's suffrage would be a great step forward for liberty.

  • The Next Generation||

  • Zeb||

    "Ending women's suffrage would be a great step forward for liberty."

    Except for the whole ending women's suffrage part. A tough thing about caring about freedom, is you have to care about freedom for freedom hating assholes too.

  • Royalist||

    "A tough thing about caring about freedom, is you have to care about freedom for freedom hating assholes too"

    And that's why you freedom-fighters will always be a bunch of losers. You are trapped within the self-defeating contradictions of your own ideology.

  • np||

    No. Ending democracy would be a great step forward for liberty.

  • ||

    [Women]are more in favor of banning gay marriage, are even more in favor of banning abortion

    Rly? Linkies?

  • Ray||

  • Tonio||

    From May 2010. Got anything more recent? Also, was this a poll of the population at large or a specific group...

  • RoboCain||

    Don't know about gay marriage, but in every single poll I've seen for over 20 years women are slightly more in favor of banning abortion by men.

  • rather||

    It is clear, however, that working moms who have to cut back on their housework would benefit a great deal from the ability to hire low-skilled workers to help them... increase in the supply of low-skilled immigrants would allow women to work longer hours and make more money. It also would allow them to spend less of their free time doing household work and more time interacting with their kids.

    Aren't these low-skilled workers WOMEN too?

    I guess some women are more equal than others

  • Brown children don't need moms||

    ktxs,
    The Stepford Wives

  • NotSure||

    Should only men be allowed to be low skilled workers ?

  • I'm BETTER THAN YOU, bitch||

    "You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: YOU ARE INFERIOR and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are BETTER THAN YOU."

    ~Ludwig von Mises, letter to Ayn Rand, January 23, 1956

    Now put your panties on and go make me a sammich, NotSure.

  • NotSure||

    I don't follow this logic, if only men are supposed to be the low skilled workers, how is that supposed to be equality ?

    At least your comment does prove that Rather and Godesky are the same person.

  • ||

    At least you are not making fun that poor Godesky character rather.

  • Realist||

    "It is clear, however, that working moms who have to cut back on their housework would benefit a great deal from the ability to hire low-skilled workers to help them. According to economists Patricia Cortes of the University of Chicago and José Tessada of the Brookings Institution, an increase in the supply of low-skilled immigrants would allow women to work longer hours and make more money."
    That's strange those two names sound Hispanic...no conflict of interest there. This country already has a shit pot of assholes not working, living off welfare and unemployment.

  • a shit pot of assholes||

    This country already has a shit pot of assholes not working, living off CEO compensation and Golden Parachutes.

    fify

  • Realist||

    Is that your idea of an intelligent solution???

  • Mockery, re-explained.||

    This country already has a shit pot of assholes not working, living off welfare and unemployment.

    Is that your idea of an intelligent solution???

    Or don't you understand quite literal mockery?

  • ||

    We know mockery. That is what you do every day on here when you put up all that ridiculous White Indian stuff. I have to give you credit. It is not like it is hard. But wow do you tear those people apart. One of these days some poor tribalist is going to stumble on one of these threads and is going to be really offended by how much you mock them.

  • you're my obsession||

  • ||

    I just think you are funny. I don't think everyone gets your humor. That White Indian stuff is brilliant. Me white Indian tell you about the agricultural city state. It is some the funniest stuff I have ever read. People on here tend to be too earnest to get the humor of it.

    It is wrong that you make fun of sum retarded mentally unstable guy in Pittsburgh. But I think someone should at least point out the humor in what you are doing so everyone gets it.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Lifetime pensions for former politicians is also a "golden parachute", Jason.

  • a shit pot of assholes||

    This country already has a shit pot of assholes not working, living off CEO compensation and Golden Parachutes.

    fify

  • cowardly commenter some guy||

    http://www.census.gov/econ/smallbus.html

    In 2008 there were fewer than 20,000 firms with more than 500 employees in america. Even if each firm had one "asshole not working, living off CEO compensation and golden parachutes" that would be less than 0.01% of the country.

    By your logic this country also has 10 shit pots of Noonan Syndrome sufferers...

  • ||

    Sounds like someone is getting on down dude.

    www.Done-Anon.tk

  • ||

    As a woman, libertarian, and feminist, I have a bit of a problem with some of the ideas presented here. Everyone, not just women, need a more equitable tax code. Part of equality is taking responsibility for the choices made available by that equality. Women need to stop whining about maternity leave issues. Having a baby is expensive. Can't afford it? Don't have one. Men for years have had wages garnished to a painful degree - equality mean that we need to share equally in that burden. Finally, as any good libertarian will tell you, the drug war benefits NO ONE. Another example of equality.

  • NotSure||

    At the risk of being hit by a lightning bolt... surely being a feminist and libertarian are contradictory ?

  • tarran||

    Nope.... See Wendy McElroy.

  • ||

    Feminism doesn't have to be leftist twaddle, it just became leftist twaddle over the years.

  • o3||

    vs the support for women on the right?

    seen the gender polls lately?

  • ||

    Only if you take the liberal definition which is give me everything I want and don't bother me with the corresponding responsibilities. I am a feminist in the sense that I believe that a women deserves equitable treatment. Just in my book that means that if she can't pass a physical agility test or can't perform to necessary standards she should NOT be treated any different than a man who also can't meet those standards. I believe in a more classic definition of "equality", which is very libertarian.

  • Apatheist ಠ_ರೃ||

    Just in my book that means that if she can't pass a physical agility test or can't perform to necessary standards she should NOT be treated any different than a man who also can't meet those standards.

    Shouldn't employers be able to have whatever standards they want even if they are sexist/racist/whatever? (note this could include only hiring gay black female midgets or whatever)

  • ||

    Sure, everybody has the right to be an a*hole. Just don't expect to be too successful. Even back in the "old days" people who failed to hold "mainstream" views were shunned by the community in a very deliberate systematic way. We all do it today regardless of the laws on the books. Pretending that we don't today is the real joke.

  • equality = egalitarianism = ||

    equal sociopolitical power.

    Basically, it's the opposite of hierarchy.

    Hierarchy in human relationships is an unnecessary evil.

    Thesis #11: Hierarchy is an unnecessary evil.
    http://theanarchistlibrary.org.....html#toc18

  • ||

    See rather, this is where I think my idea above can really be put into practice.

    White Indian say

    equal sociopolitical power.

    Basically, it's opposite of hierarchy.

    Hierarchy in human relationships is unnecessary evil.

    Thesis #11: Hierarchy is unnecessary evil.

    I don't know about you. But I think that is comedy gold. You could maybe do a spoken word record out of it.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Remember Epi's hilariously un-PC mockery?

    HEY YA HEY YA HEY YA WHITE INDIAN HEAP BIG TROLL SAY HIERARCHY BAD, EQUALITY MMM GOOD!

  • ||

    White Indian get angry when not taken seriously.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Egalitarianism is not possible, unless martial law is imposed.

  • Royalist||

    Worse: egalitarianism is only possible if you kill everyone. Our genes still make each of us different with regards to intelligence, capacity for hard work, how long we need to sleep, etc. All of which determine our success in life and how much money we can make.

  • RoboCain||

    Except feminism no longer has anything at all to do with equality, and hasn't for over forty years. I would be opposed British rule if it were an issue, but that doesn't mean I call myself a rebel. I'm also against slavery, but not an abolitionist. You get the idea.

  • ||

    "a woman deserves equitable treatment"
    I think this highlights why people don't think libertarian ideals are compatible with feminism. How does one enforce equal treatment of women without interfering with the rights of others to discriminate against them?

  • Llama||

    It doesn't have to mean that. "Equitable treatment" means that institutional discrimination is not allowed, ie- women can't be regarded under the law as the property of their husbands any more than a black person can be regarded as property of a white person, or women cannot be denied the vote on the basis of gender any more than blacks can be denied the vote on the basis of race. It's not about personal or private discrimination- that's where modern feminism goes wrong. Individuals are free to privately discriminate against women, but the state can't make it an institution.

  • Scott66||

    This article is a great example of female privilege, specifically complaining about discrimination where none exists or even where the discrimination is clearly against men.

    Take the war on drugs section for example. There are roughly equal numbers of men and women in this country. There is a greater percent of men in jail then women for drug crimes and yet the author suggests that women are more effected. Pure feminist logic, women are always the victim even when their not.

    The rest of the article is similar crap.

  • ||

    One other thing, as another person commented here, women are the first ones to vote for making drugs illegal, higher taxes, and in general having the government take on a "nanny" role. One of my disappointments as woman is that many of my sex really don't want equality. They want their cake and eat it too. They want all the rights of men, but none of the responsibilities. True equality means that when faced with a choice we make the one that best suits our circumstances, finances, and physical/emotional abilities. Many women when faced with the responsibility of equality cry foul, pout, and ensure sexist jokes will continue into the next century.

  • Good ol' Bible Teachin', Paul!||

    But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

    1 Timothy 2:12

    Stupid cunts. It's Biblical.

  • ||

    That is talking about women being in the clergy you retard.

  • John is the best foil ever. ||

    Think about what you just said, John.

  • ||

    Don't post angry Rather.

  • Are you angry with God?||

    Do you (or people in your Fundie church) ever say that to people, John?

    It's a psychological projection of your own anger.

  • ||

    I am not angry at all. I honestly think is some of the funniest stuff I have ever read. My apologies for not appreciating your comic genius from the beginning rather.

  • ||

    That's not what it's talking about either.

  • Ashlyn||

    Very interesting article. I was waiting for them to address the verse immediately following it though - the bit where original sin was all that dumb bitch Eve's fault. "For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression." Timothy 2:12 makes it more difficult to interpret 2:11 as gender-equally as they do.

  • ||

    Not sure - it could be interpreted that Eve was deceived by the snake, but Adam was not - he ate the fruit knowing full well that he was breaking the rules. Also, God made Eve AFTER he told Adam not to eat from the tree. Anyway, it's a little more complex than the reading, particularly considering that there area dozens of translations in English alone.

  • ||

    Ephesians 5:25
    Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.

  • ||

    Matthew 22:37-39
    Jesus said to him, "You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind." This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: "You shall love your neighbor as you love yourself".

  • Matrix||

    you would not be welcome at Feministing or Jezebel.

  • He's welcome at our church.||

    Praise God!

  • ||

    Rather,

    You are being angry troll today. I guess that is better than making fun of that poor Godesky fellow. But I still worry about your health sometimes.

  • Matrix||

    I don't care much for Hey-Zeus

  • Haz-Zeus||

    I didn't say it. That pederast fucktard the Apostle Paul did. ~Jesus

    Besides, Jesus was a Buddhist missionary.

    Jesus was a Buddhist Monk
    BBC Documentary

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YbUEZfJJaQ

  • ||

    Besides, Jesus was a Buddhist missionary.

    LOL. That is good. I think maybe you might want to go for him being an alien or perhaps an emissary from the lost civilization of Nubia. Him being a Buddhist missionary is different. But I don't think it quite gets the tone of crazy you are looking for.

  • Buddhist texts = New Testament||

    Buddhist scriptural texts were one of the sources of the New Testament Gospels.

    A careful comparison, word by word, sentence by sentence, shows that the Christian Gospels are Pirate-copies of the Buddhist Gospels (combined, of course, with words from the OT). God's word, therefore, is originally Buddha's word.

    www.jesusisbuddha.com/

  • o3||

    nope, the myths of teh gospels were copied fm the greek & egyptian gods including resurrection, water walking, raising the dead, etc

  • ||

    Oh Orin. If only you were performance art the way rather is.

  • ||

    I have to give you credit. You have put a lot of thought into it. Maybe Jesus as a Buhdist answers the mail for crazy. Like I said above, you are the expert here. I just trying to help.

  • Jason Godesky ||

    Pirate-copies of the Buddhist Gospels

    Jesus used Pirate Bay? Who knew?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Imagine the men who WOULD be welcome there, Matrix.

    *shudder*

  • WanT||

    Mmmmm cake

  • ||

    World to end tomorrow; women and children affected most.

  • Ashlyn||

    We suffer more photogenically.

  • Devil's Advocate||

    LOL.

  • Tman||

    To take up what lightning is getting at, there isn't (or shouldn't be) a disconnect between feminism and libertarianism, in fact they should be in parallel because at their core they are both trying to get individuals equal liberty through equal opportunities.

    A fascinating aspect of the prohibition movement was that yes, women suffrage was the motivating force behind it, but the backlash from other women such as Pauline Sabin, who genuinely believed that prohibition had failed and that it was her responsibility and the responsibility of other American women to do something about it.

  • Ashlyn||

    I think of my feminist beliefs (such as they are) as a subset of my libertarian ones. Rape isn't wrong because it's *gasp* violence against wimminz! It's wrong because coercion is wrong.

    A fascinating aspect of the prohibition movement was that yes, women suffrage was the motivating force behind it
    I understand why women at the time wanted to ban alcohol. When you are dependent on and subject to a man, you're going to want to make sure that he doesn't drink away his wages and come home drunk and mean. If you don't have the power to leave him or force him to stay sober, I guess the logical next step is finding someone more powerful to make him behave.

    Nasty situation for all involved, basically. Prohibition was never going to work, but I can see why so many women wanted to try it.

  • Tman||

    The PBS documentary on prohibition was excellent, and covered all aspects -including the motivation- behind it.

    As I mentioned above what did fascinate me was the way that many women were appalled at the hypocrisy of prohibition, and even more so the fact that the leaders of the suffrage movement claimed to speak for all women, even the ones who disagreed with them. It was this backlash, that I dare say was a libertarianesque movement, that became the impetus to repeal prohibition.

    Check out Pauline Sabines bio, pretty interesting.

  • Ashlyn||

    I'm unfamiliar with that aspect of how it all played out. I'll Google her, thanks.

  • Tman||

    It's "Sabin" not "Sabine" btw, my mistake.

    I can't recommend the PBS doc enough too, it's amazing.

  • Ashlyn||

    I DVR'd it. Watched the first half before the boyfriend turned it off to watch "Top Gear."

    He's always microaggressing on me with his male privilege like that.

  • White Indian's Press Agent||

    Just as long as it was the BBC top gear and not that horrible American version. Making you watch the American version is straight up othering.

  • Tman||

    Sabin comes up in the final third installment. Do yourself a favor and check it out.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Glad to have another sensible poster here, Ashlyn. Welcome to the asylum.

  • Maggie McNeill||

    Veronica, there's another government policy that disproportionately affects women: criminalization of sex work. Only about 10% of all prostitutes are male, so even if the laws' language is gender-neutral (which it usually isn't), most of those affected will be women. And so-called "end demand" schemes cut into sex workers' income and worsen working conditions by frightening clients.

    Roughly 1% of all Western women work as prostitutes at some point in their lives, roughly 1/3 of those at any given time. The majority of those have children, and escorting is appealing to a single mother because it returns high income for a low time investment without having to worry about arbitrary workplace rules, rigid schedules, etc. It's time the US recognized that sex work is work, and the War on Whores is in actuality a war on women's sexual choices no less than abortion wars are.

  • Ashlyn||

    Immigration is a women's issue because we need more nannies?

    I'm generally in favor of immigration reform, in favor of women's equality before the law, and very much in favor of nannies to keep the tiny squalling people out of sight til they've been civilized.

    But this is not the most convincing argument I've heard for any of them.

  • Devil's Advocate||

    Immigration is a women's issue because we need more nannies?

    Yeah, that raised my eyebrow as well. As described it almost sounds like indentured servitude.

  • Wholly Holy Cow||

    Non left wing women tend to get married, have kids and/or have a career. They don't spend any time mucking around in the idiot world of politics. Hence: modern day feminism is really a SuperPac for lefties (often women who are pissed off at the world because men or possibly other women rarely give them the time of day)

  • Ashlyn||

    Can we agree that hardline lefty feminism has some shit ideas without positing that it's because hardline lefty feminists can't get laid?

    Seriously, our brains work just fine whether we get regular dick or not.

  • ||

  • Ashlyn||

    Cured by "hysterical paroxysm," right. Thank God for home remedies.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Oh, they COULD get laid... if they could only find men willing to be their bitches.

  • Wholly Holy Cow||

    And by leftwing women, I mean hardcore lefties (Code Pink et al), not just some babe who always votes D.

  • Herp Derp||

    Is it me, or are 99.99% of the $hit articles on reason are written by women?

    I'm not saying women are stupid or anything, I'm just sayin...

  • The Derider||

    Jesus, enjoy the sausagefest at Ron Paul's concession speech, libertarians.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    We're enjoying another pointless Derider shitpile at the moment...

  • The Pointer-Outer||

    I assume you meant that in a sarcastic way, as I am not enjoying it.

  • Wholly Holy Cow||

    It has nothing to do with sex or the act of sex, but how society treats you. Society tends to treat the unnattractive (especially women) poorly. Sorry, that's just a fact.

    And that shunning leads them to the fringes and there they pursue the Lefty ideal of "government take care of me" because no man will.

  • Herp Derp||

    >Society tends to treat the unnattractive (especially women) poorly.
    I love this argument, because it's false. Any woman (ugly or not) can wear a sign "Have Sex With Me" in public, and have a guy in seconds; However, if a man did this, he'd be arrested, with no woman at all. If ANYONE has an unfair advantage it's the ugly man. Hell, ugly woman can get more men than an attractive man can get women.

  • ||

    Any woman (ugly or not) can [...] have a guy in seconds

    Yeah, but will he still respect her in the morning... and will he call?

  • Herp Derp||

    nope.jpg

    but then again, as a guy, I'd like it that way most of the tiem.

  • The Derider||

    "The lingering tax penalty could partially explain why, despite the fact that almost 80 percent of working mothers say they would prefer to work part time, almost two-thirds work full-time instead. Taxes on the money they earn are often too high to make part-time work financially viable.

    High marginal rates and joint taxation are not the only elements of the tax code that give married women disincentives to work."

    Zuh? The first paragraph argues that income tax rates cause women to work more than they want to, and the second argues it makes them work less than they should. Did this get edited?

    Also, "Women vs. the State" that makes no mention of abortion is pretty laughable.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    There ARE other topics besides abortion, you know.

  • Chris||

    "It is clear, however, that working moms who have to cut back on their housework would benefit a great deal from the ability to hire low-skilled workers to help them."

    Or maybe their husbands should get off their asses and help with housework and child rearing.

  • Chris||

    The fact is nothing in your economic model captures the contribution women make to the economy in child rearing, let alone loving and caring for our ugly asses. I've read studies that show that married men have longer life spans and lower rates of disease, partly because they make us go to the doctor and partly because of the intrinsic biological value of intimate human interaction, again a benefit the "free market" does not capture, value, or price. But it is very real. The fact of the matter is most men come into this world with a woman wiping their ass and most of us will leave the same way. So while you're all calculating imaginary economic models, that amount to the proverbial circular cow, remember who brought you to the party in the first place, and will likely be the only person willing to put up with you on the way out.

  • ||

    "Women have come a long way. They have fought hard to win independence from their husbands and fathers."

    Oh please. Fuck this P.C. garbage. Women are privileged and even back in the day it was men who did all the hard labor that built civilization. Stop fucking complaining.

  • tipuasher||

    Hey, very informative and interesting. Looks like you put a lot of endeavor and inquiries into it. Keep up the good work!!
    http://hoffmanab.com

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement