Gender

The 'War on Women' Myth

Mindless egalitarianism may appeal to politicians, but it doesn't make good policy.

|

Fibonacci Blue/Flickr

You've probably heard that Democratic Party leaders decided that a way to win votes this November is to shout loudly that Republicans wage "war on women." Politico calls this a "proven, persuasive argument."

Give me a break. The idea of a conservative "war on women" is as silly as propaganda I was taught in college: Aside from sex organs, genders are exactly equal, said my leftist professors, and any admission of differences between men and women is oppressive.

I was taught that the only reason boys and girls behave differently is because we're raised differently. If society and parents were to treat genders the same, behavior differences would vanish. I believed it.

Then I had kids, and spent more time with kids, and learned what a fool I'd been.

Back in my ABC News days, I did a TV show about the differences. A typical mom said, "We gave them each trucks. She just wouldn't play with trucks. We wouldn't let him play with guns, so he pretended carrots were guns."

There were exceptions, of course. But it turns out that there's plenty of science documenting that men and women are just programmed differently.

Yet when I reported on that, feminist icon Gloria Steinem told me that gender differences shouldn't even be studied. She sneered, it's "anti-American, crazy thinking to do this kind of research."

At the time, fire departments had dropped strength tests to avoid being accused of sex discrimination. When I told Steinem that one of my interviewees complained that instead of being carried during a fire, now she would be dragged downstairs, with her head hitting each stair, Steinem retorted, "It's better to drag them out … there's less smoke down there."

Such mindless egalitarianism appeals to politicians, so governments push more of it. President Barack Obama and his supporters brag that Obamacare forces health insurance companies to sell men and women health insurance for the exact same price. On my TV show this week, Democratic activist Jehmu Greene asked indignantly, "Do you want to live in a country where you charge women more than men?"

Well, yes, I do. Insurance should account for costs. Women go to doctors much more often. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say, even if you exclude pregnancy visits, women are 33 percent more likely to visit a doctor. Insurance companies used to reflect that in prices. That isn't bigotry—it's just math.

Insurance companies still charge men more for car and life insurance. A survey of car insurance companies found that the cheapest policy for a woman cost 39 percent less than for a man. A 60-year-old woman pays 20 percent less than a man for a 10-year life insurance policy. Seventy-year-old women pay half as much as men.

That's just math, too, because most women live longer than men and, despite the "woman driver" stereotype, we men get into more car accidents.

I don't hear activists complaining about men paying too much. The "victim" propaganda works only when women pay more.

The sexes are simply different. Yet government demands that colleges have gender-equal sports participation. It's fine if dance and art groups are mostly women, but if athletic teams are too male, lawsuits follow.

Obama even cynically repeats the misleading claim that women make 77 cents for every dollar men make, although his own Department of Labor says the difference evaporates once you control for experience and other choices.

Government once even claimed that Hooters discriminates against men because it hires big-breasted female waiters. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission only dropped its complaint after Hooters ran a commercial showing a hairy male server wearing Hooters' skimpy uniform. Good for Hooters for mocking the bureaucrats; most companies just cringe and pay.

Liberal social engineers may dream of a society where genders are exactly equal, but that's nonsense. Men and women are different. We should celebrate that difference instead of claiming that women are victims.

Advertisement

NEXT: Los Angeles Starts Forcing Marijuana Dispensaries Shut and Threatening Landlords

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.

  1. Men and women are different and we should celebrate that difference instead of claiming that women are victims.

    That mansplaining right there is part of the War on Women.

    1. If Republicans are interested in actually winning the next presidential election, they might want to avoid the topic of rape. The more they discuss rape, the greater the Democrats chances.

      Sad to say that Republican blathering on about rape doesn’t appear to improve Libertarian chances.

    2. This has got to be the best impersonation of a feminist I have ever seen on the internet.

    3. The success of the “war on women” campaign only serves to prove that women, in general, are easily manipulated and sheepish. Just like the rest of America.

      If I were a woman and actually believed that I was somehow still disadvantaged in this stupid country, I would feel as retarded as any mindless zombie that voted for Obama.

    4. The derogatory term ‘mansplaining’, for when a man explains something a feminist doesn’t want to be true, is part of the war on men.

  2. Men and women are different and we should celebrate that difference

    Let me guess; in outfits that involve white robes and pointy white hats & burning crosses in front yards?

    Fucking RACIST!

  3. I don’t hear activists complaining about men paying too much.

    If you want to watch an equality-of-outcome feminist flip out, suggest that her own principles should apply to car insurance.

    Also, wanna know something scary? Modern radical feminists don’t accept Gloria Steinem as one of their own. Evidently, even she fails the purity test.

    1. I think it would be great if men and women paid for the costs they incur directly. Men could pay their fair share for prisons, pollution they generate,food poisoning their crappy factories produce, and the health problems their religions and sports industries create.

    2. How come they don’t start opening doors for people then.
      If there is a war on women, then why do men practically beg to have sex with them?

      Tony is a retard that likely believes there is a war on women.

  4. It’s sad that this article even has to exist.

    1. It doesn’t. But it is sad.

      1. You don’t have to exist either, Tony. So stop it already.

        1. He’s simply pissed his “gender” isn’t included.

          1. Has he figured out what his gender is? I mean the name suggests male, but assuming that would just be misogynistic or racist or something.

            1. And heterosexist and cisgendered.

              1. The word you’re looking for is ‘cissexist.’

                1. oh god, Tumbler is leaking.

                  1. He’s Pat. He’s just named Tony.

                    Kind of like Hillary Clinton is considered a woman when it is actually an elephant’s ass with make-up on.

          2. Out of the 50 or so choices that Facebook now allows for gender, Tony’s has to be in there somewhere, amirite?

  5. A Jezebel classing: John Stossel: Women Are Hypochondriacs, Should Pay More for Healthcare

    I know you’re only pretending to not understand this, John Stossel, but let me try again in the simplest terms. If you’re at a party and somebody starts to die, the other people at the party try to stop that person from dying. That’s what we do. But somehow, when you blow that impulse up and codify it on a large scale, it’s an unnatural abomination? Shut uuuuuuup, dude.

    Our society pays for the welfare of our society, to benefit the health and well-being of our society, because it is better for our society. I don’t let you die if you don’t let me die. If you take that structure away, if everyone only pays for the things they actually use and can afford, then guess what? ONLY RICH PEOPLE CAN AFFORD TO BE SICK.

    WHOOSH!

    1. Fuck, classic*

    2. Our society pays for the welfare of our society, to benefit the health and well-being of our society, because it is better for our society. I don’t let you die if you don’t let me die. If you take that structure away, if everyone only pays for the things they actually use and can afford, then guess what?

      Wooooow, that’s some nice circular logic there.

      I can’t believe idiots like this can afford internet access to post this drivel.

      1. I can’t believe idiots like this can afford internet access to post this drivel.

        Paradoxically, the innovation-driving mechanisms of capitalism, increases the ability of these people to spread their irrationally immoral beliefs about capitalism.

        1. “I can’t believe idiots like this can afford internet access to post this drivel.”

          That’s the problem with a “living wage”.

      2. If you take that structure away, if everyone only pays for the things they actually use and can afford, then guess what?

        Umm, everybody will pay their own way? Or, if need be, rely on the voluntary charity of others?

        That’s their dystopia?

    3. Shut uuuuuuup, dude.

      “Shut up,” she explained. When you have to resort to the argumentum ad shut up, you should know that your argument is on shaky ground.

      1. Imagining a world where the collective doesn’t violently enforce fealty and compliance, is something they can’t wrap their pretty, little heads around.

      2. Outstanding!

    4. “Shut uuuuuuup, dude.”, they explained.

    5. If you’re at a party and somebody starts to die, the other people at the party try to stop that person from dying.

      Ah, those fuzzy terms like “try”. What is “try”, sweetheart? Open the chest of the fellow party goer with a butter knife to massage the heart? Open the guy’s trachea?

      What does “try” entail or mean?

      That’s what we do.

      There’s no “we” in “you are a stupid person”, stupid person.

      But somehow, when you blow that impulse up and codify it on a large scale, it’s an unnatural abomination? Shut uuuuuuup, dude.

      Lovely writing skills. “Shut uuuuuup, dude!” – Nice!

      It would be difficult to blow every single local engagement into a national policy for the simple reason that each even is completely different.

      1. So what you’re saying is people should avoid parties you attend, especially if they are serving solid foods?

        1. Re: Tony,

          So what you’re saying is people should avoid parties you attend, especially if they are serving solid foods?

          If they have the expectation of receiving emergency medical care right there, then yes. Which describes probably 99.9999999999% of all parties in the U.S. The author of the Jezebel piece is – like you – an idiot.

          1. So what you’re saying is people should avoid parties you attend, especially if they are serving solid foods?

            So what you’re saying is that I, or anyone else whose services you demand, are your slaves?

            1. You signed the social contract when you RSVP’d, doncha know.

            2. How many pairs of panties do you guys go through in a day? Seriously, fuck.

              Oh the horrible slave-like state of a modicum of community obligation! How has every human society ever managed to exist in these conditions!?

        2. It’s nice to know you’d be okay with me practicing my operating skills on you at a party where you collapse.

          1. “Hey y’all, watch this! I totally aced Operation as a kid.”

          2. Here, hold my beer.

      2. when you blow that impulse up and codify it on a large scale, it’s an unnatural abomination

        Yes, yes it is. Because what you try to do at a party is your voluntary choice.

        When its codified by a government, it becomes something you are forced to do.

  6. “…Teddy Kennedy who has the only confirmed kill in the war on women.”

    Anne Coulter

    1. Curses! A minute too slow.

    2. Coulter is mean and leans much too hard to the right for my tastes; but she cracks me up and I agree with so much of what she says.

      1. She looks reptilian. I am intrigued. What if she has a cloaca? Would I want to find out?

  7. Blah blah John Stossel wants to chain women to the kitchen stove and make them make sandwiches for the rest of their lives. And he doesn’t want them to learn to read, either, because that would just give them ideas.

    1. IDEARS

      Also, Sammiches.

    2. as long as they’re good sammiches – then yes.

  8. Was this the first salvo in the modern “war on women”?

    http://history1900s.about.com/…..iddick.htm

    1. “Teddy Kennedy was the only confirmed kill in the war on women. Oh, but we’re supposed to be the ones that are anti-women,” she said, calling out other Dem scandals like Bob Filner, Eliot Spitzer, Anthony Weiner and John Edwards.
      ~Ann Coulter~

  9. OT: Why the American Cancer Society can fuck itself.

    The New York State Assembly health committee is expected to vote on a bill to ban the sale of electronic cigarettes or e-cigarettes. E-cigarettes are a growing phenomenon with advertisements becoming more and more common on the Internet. The American Cancer Society is in full support of this effort to halt the sale of these products in New York.

    “There is no scientific evidence that e-cigarettes are a safe substitute for traditional cigarettes or an effective smoking cessation tool,” said Russ Sciandra, American Cancer Society New York State Director of Advocacy. “In fact, they may entice young people into trying traditional cigarettes.

    No evidence they work? How about the fact that fuck-tons of people have quit analogs because they made the switch to ecigs? I guess the market moving towards ecigs in droves doesn’t count, only Science%?. In Lexington alone, at least 5 vape shops have opened in the last 9 months, including a local manufacturer of ejuice.

    I couldn’t care less about how “young people” respond to my use of ecigs either. They have enabled me to quit analogs (after having a heart attack at age 33). If some dumb ass kid picks up smoking because of me doing what I need to do to save my own life, that’s his fucking problem, not mine.

    1. There is no scientific evidence that e-cigarettes are a safe substitute for traditional cigarettes or an effective smoking cessation tool

      So you can buy cigarettes, known carcinogens, in NY State, but, because there is no scientific evidence that e-cigs are a safe substitute they should be banned?

      There is some fucking logic.

      1. this is the same state whose governor said that all non-believers in the primacy of the state and progressivism should just leave. The e-cig thing is totally in line with current logic.

        1. primacy of the state and progressivism should just leave.

          If only they would. I’m sure plenty of other states would welcome them with open arms and let New York sink.

    2. have quit analogs

      Oooh, is “analogs” the new term or did you just invent it? If the latter, then well done, sir.

      1. It’s hardly new. I remember being amused by it ‘way back in 2009 when I started vaping.

        As an aside, observing how quickly a largely unregulated grey market innovated played a significant role in galvanizing my pro-free market leanings.

        1. As an aside, observing how quickly a largely unregulated grey market innovated played a significant role in galvanizing my pro-free market leanings.

          This.

          I went from having virtually one or two choices of ecigs to many hundreds in just a few years (I bought my first ecig from a mall kiosk in 2010), and all with government doing whatever it can to stall the process. Now there are multiple dedicated shops in my area that offer an untold number of choices from simple throw away ecigs to rigs that can cost multiple hundreds of dollars.

          The ejuice market has thusly advanced as well. From poorly matched tobacco to any flavor one can imagine, with many of them done extremely well.

          As an aside, the Blackberry and Orange Creme from 723 is fucking amazing. Both have the flavors you want, without the sickly sweetness that so many ejuice companies are known for (I’m looking at you, Nicquid).

    3. Flat Earthers are everywhere. FEELZ are greater than facts.

      And yes, they can piss up the same rope that American Lung and everyone else in the Temperance movement can fuck themselves with.

      1. Agreed. “Fear and puritanical moral authority defeat scientific facts. Except when we’re the party of Science!”

        Huh, one would think they just replaced a noun, but kept the rest of the verbiage the same…

        Science wills it!

        Seriously though, ACA, ALA, et al., are a bunch of corrupt thieves who, instead of pouring money into actual research, pay themselves…then bribe others to pass moral laws.

    4. Sounds like self preservation on the part of the ACS. Remove carcinogens from remarket and who gives money to anti cancer activities.

      1. Remove carcinogens from remarket and who gives money to anti cancer activities.

        Cancer patients and those who would like to help pay for cancer research?

        Though lung cancer rates are pretty high, it seems that they might be able to focus on other cancers without jeopardizing their mission.

    5. There is no scientific evidence that e-cigarettes are a safe substitute for traditional cigarettes

      Except for the fact that water vapor contains far fewer carcinogens than the combustion products of burning tobacco. Although I suppose it all depends on the definition of “scientific evidence” and “safe”.

      If “scientific evidence” is defined as only results of multi-year FDA approved double blind studies, then I suppose no, there’s no “scientific evidence”. And if “safe” is defined as zero carcinogens then I suppose there are very few things that could be defined as “safe.”

      Christ, I’m suprised these ninnies are even capable of getting up and leaving their homes in the morning. Afterall, they might get hit by a bus or a meteor could fall from space and land on their fucking heads. The tragedy is that it never happens to them and the rest of us have to put up with their bullshit.

    6. no scientific evidence that e-cigarettes are a safe substitute for traditional cigarette

      The hell there isn’t. There are tractor trailer loads of studies identifying the carcinogenic components of cigarette smoek.

      Which aren’t present in e-vapor.

  10. As a woman, I should simultaneously be considered everyone’s boss, but not bossy, and a victim who deserves reparations, special favors, and free birth control, although I’m not weaker than a man. Also, don’t try to argue using your mansplaining “logic”. I’m just as smart as you, but I come to conclusions using feelings, not patriarchal analysis.

    1. all right, then. At least you have it figured out. How many million more to go?

      1. Did you poke lap83 to make sure she is real first?

        1. I’m setting aside my male privilege for the moment.

        2. “Did you poke lap83”

          RAPE CULTURE!!

          The birth control is symbolic btw. I wear it on a chain around my neck to ward off male gazes.

        3. WHAT!? NO TRIGGER WARNING!!?!

          1. Saaaaayyyy, do you ladies come here often?

    2. And if you are a “wise Latino woman” you would be able to make better decisions than those who are not “wise Latino women”.

  11. Hey John, since your time slot takes out The Independents one day a week, you might ask Matt to have this story reposted just before the show and you’ll pick up the Reason live-blog audience. (all 5 of us)

    1. Are you including the women in that or are we subpar beings, you oppressive sexist pig.

      1. Stop posing kibby. Everyone knows…

        There ARE NO LIBERTARIAN WYMENZ!

        1. I am a libertarian woman. . . . mainly so I can get some of that hot Dagney Taggart sex. Complete with the metal chain around my wrist!

      2. Quiet, the men are talking 😛

  12. I vaguely remember seeing a magazine cover a while back talking about how women were overtaking men as breadwinners and that that was a good thing. A couple days later I was treated to the same “equal pay for equal work!” spiel.

    I really just wish fems would make up their minds.

    1. The pay is equal in commission-based jobs. Men and women are as equal as they’ll ever be in this type of wage arrangement. Oddly enough my well-paid, commission-only, financial-wonk wife was attending some sort of a summit for a Fortune 100 company in a major city somewhere on the planet last Fall and she came home complaining irritably about another well-paid female executive giving a talk on how much the world is stacked against women. I’ll let you discern the irony that irritated my wife whose commissions often top many of her male peers in the area she works.

    2. And there is also a lot of “what’s wrong with boys” stuff lately too. So, girls are doing better in school, going to college at higher rates and can work in any field they like. Yet people are convinced that there is some horrible regression going on as regard women.

      I find this to be very depressing.

      1. This keeping in mind that colleges are so-called rape factories where some obscene percentage of female students are sexually assaulted or at least harassed.

        Well I guess women must really just be committed to an education.

  13. Wow just wow. Ugh so much white male privilege here, John! Thanks for mansplaining things though! John also probably thinks it’s totally fine that 9 out of 4 women on college campuses will be violently raped this year alone.*

    *I’m 65K in debt for an education whereby all I learned was how to talk like this

    1. “Grow up, John Stossel!”

    2. 9 out of 4 women…

      I applaud your use of ridiculous fractions.

      1. Hahah! However: “it’s true man!” according to the New Progressive Science: numbers work only according to the moral code you wish to implement.

        In fact, 9,000% of the atmosphere is CO2, the population of the world is increasing, and 14/9 Americans leave the US for free healthcare. Math, man.

        Also, gun death rates have increased substantially in the past 450 years, showing a remarkable trend. This also correlates with the rise of vaccines and private health care, so something must be done. Heil Science!

  14. On my TV show this week, Democratic activist Jehmu Greene asked indignantly, “Do you want to live in a country where you charge women more than men?”

    “A planet where women pay more for healthcare?” asks the ape.

  15. is there a sadder commentary on society that the words “men and women are different” having to be put out there?

    1. I noticed at a two year old’s birthday party how when it was time for food, the little girls all sat down with their moms and quietly ate. The boys kept running around and playing in between bites.

      Do I chalk that up to biological differences, or should I be sad that at two these poor little kids have already learned what society expects of them?

      1. well, the girls’ mothers were conditioned by the patriarchy so it would appear that sadz are appropriate.

      2. I know some pretty wild little girls, but even with them, their play tends to have more to do with making rules and, well, being bossy than little boys in the same group.

        I, on the other hand, always preferred to sit down calmly with the adults.

        1. I encouraged my daughter to pinch her tits to stimulate growth. Don’t want to chance that old maid shit.

          1. You could start saving up for implants.

    2. Honestly, all of this makes me think we as a society are doomed. The fact that educated people can wrap themselves so tightly in ideological blindness so as to not see something that is demonstrably obvious is bad enough in itself. But, the thing is, like a cancer, this blindness to reality is expanding. Words and concepts that used to have meanings are being deemed verboten (e.g. “bossy”). That people who deride the Republicans as “anti-science” would celebrate someone who would call a basic element of biological research “anti-American, crazy thinking” shows just how far down the path we’ve gone. Idiocracy was just an early documentary.

    3. Ask Shackford

  16. The War on Women is, like racism, undeniable

    The War on Women exists because someone said it does

    Denying the War on Women exists means you are a Denier

    Failing to acknowledge that a War on Women exists suggests you don’t think its that important because Women’s Concerns are subordinate and inferior

    Pulling a Rand Paul and claiming ‘Woman Are Winning the War!’ is cast as the worst of all possible positions, because you are challenging and mocking the legitimacy of your opponent’s respected Sophistry – this is the equivalent of Going Nuclear in the War on Women. You are now not just racist, but also homophobic and probably have issues with latinos too. You should have just denied, motherfucker.

    The War on Women, like the War on Christmas, is mostly fought by the victims against hordes of perceived enemies who never fully materialize.

    The way you “Win” this thing? you let them expend all their energy being the ones talking about it until people are bored and tired with it and move on.

    sorry, but that’s the only solution I know. worked for the Viet Cong.

    1. Your denial of X is evidence of X. So there, patriarchal oppressor.

    2. The horrible thing is there are places where women really are treated like animals & all this pretentious bullshit does nothing but detract from their plight.

      1. “there are places where women really are treated like animals”

        Oh, you have been to Afghanistan too?!

        1. She was talking about the Reason cruise, obviously.

      2. Onf of the us ambassadors formulated a sarcastic principle: the number of complaints about human rights violations is inversely proportional to the real number of human rights violation.

        Where women are really subservient (but heavily regulated, which warms the hearts of the collectivists) like Islam, the mentality is “oh you bad bad islamophobe you should understand their culture, not condemn it”.

        Where women are actually privileged (privileged mind you, not having equal results), like Norway or US the mentality is that they are orribly, orribly oppressed.

        1. It’s different, that’s why! Women are conditioned in the West, which is the Eye of Sauron – Source of All Evil. They are made to believe that they are free, whereas in places where women really are oppressed they have no choice and therefore more free because there’s no commercials or Nike or profit like in Amerikkka

    3. I cannot believe this. Lalalaala – this is the most racist thing I’ve evar read evar

  17. Interesting to compare health and car insurance. Seems as if I’ve heard that one before in a different context.

    Here’s the thing: driving a car is considered a privilege in this society rather than a right. You have to be trained and certified in order to exercise this privilege. That doesn’t necessarily address sex bias in insurance rates, but it is important for why health insurance can be treated differently. Women don’t get to choose to be born women. It should be considered morally abhorrent, not just a matter of arithmetic, that being born a woman means your healthcare costs are higher.

    The moral outrage of this is, actually, a good argument for why private health insurance should be replaced with a universal system. Don’t bother calculating individual risk and costs. If we’re collectivizing healthcare costs anyway, it’s no big deal that men will to a degree be subsidizing the healthcare of women.

    For Christ’s sake, they’re saddled with the burden of being the ones who have to carry offspring, and for that burden they are rewarded with inherently higher healthcare costs? If you want people to acknowledge that men and women are differently abled such that, perhaps, women come into the world disadvantaged, then you’re making the liberal case for them: we do our best to make society as equally accessible as reasonable for disabled people. We don’t say sorry and fuck you, get someone to carry you up to the door stoop.

    1. Good work, Tony. After the war, we’ll kill you last.

    2. Re: Tony,

      Interesting to compare health and car insurance. Seems as if I’ve heard that one before in a different context.

      The moralizer attacks again!

      Here’s the thing: driving a car is considered a privilege in this society

      Meaningless distinction.

      The moral outrage of this is, actually, a good argument for why private health insurance should be replaced with a universal system.

      Moral outrage is not an argument. An argument has premises and a conclusion, whereas moral outrage is a feeling.

      It should be considered morally abhorrent, not just a matter of arithmetic, that being born a woman means your healthcare costs are higher.

      Again, moral outrage does not mean scarcity suddenly disappears. If you use more of something, you are demanding more, and thus you pay more. There’s no way around that. Even in countries with socialized medicine, scarcity is manifested in longer queues and increasingly deteriorating quality of care rather than by price.

      1. Baby talk lectures followed by lies. I wouldn’t expect anything less, OM.

        Who is talking about scarcity? I’m saying, yes, men should pay a little more into the insurance pot to subsidize the healthcare of women. Or children, or old people, or other, sicker men. It turns out, based on all earthly evidence, that the bigger and more streamlined this risk pool is, the cheaper it is for people individually and for societies collectively. You can’t get around that fact until you find some facts that contradict it. I’ll wait while you set up your laissez-faire paradise and acquire some.

        1. Re: Tony,

          Who is talking about scarcity?

          I am, like I would be talking about gravity if you argued that it is morally abhorrent that people are not allowed to fly by flapping their arms. I am impaling your moral-outrage-based argument by invoking economic reality.

          It turns out, based on all earthly evidence, that the bigger and more streamlined this risk pool is, the cheaper it is for people individually and for societies collectively.

          So what? That does not mean everybody would pay the same RATE, only that all rates would go down proportionally as you increase the pool of subscribers. You still pay more if you use a service more, does not matter if you pay 3 cents more or $3,000 dollars more, depending on the size of the pool – you still pay MORE.

          1. I’ve already addressed all this one post prior.

            1. Re: Tony,

              I’ve already addressed all this one post prior.

              You DIDN’T address anything. You simply engaged in platitude-flinging – like chimps flinging their poo at others. Your answer to the reality of scarcity was to obfuscate: “Who is talking about scarcity?”

              1. If supply does not meet demand, you can increase it with subsidies. We do it all the time and for good reasons.

                1. Re: Tony,

                  If supply does not meet demand, you can increase it with subsidies.

                  Fanning money in front of people does not conjure goods or services, Tony. Subsidies would only increase the DEMAND for services, not the supply.

                  We do it all the time and for good reasons.

                  I don’t know who this “we” are, but subsidies are not in place to resolve scarcity issues, if that is what you think. Subsidies are meant to keep the cost of something high in order to benefit a politically well-connected producer.

                  Don’t even try arguing economics with me, Tony. Your lack of competence is becoming tiresome.

                  1. OldMexican, econ 101 does imply that waving money in front of people tends to lead to more goods or services if all other things are equal. However, considering some of the ludicrous restrictions we place on the healthcare industry (see certificates of need for one example) supply is artificially limited. This in turn just leads to higher prices, especially when people are throwing money at the problem.

                    1. Re: Rob,

                      OldMexican, econ 101 does imply that waving money in front of people tends to lead to more goods or services if all other things are equal.

                      Indeed, but Econ 101 is based on the neo-classical assumption that economic activity is driven by consumption, a view that is exactly backwards to what reality shows. Free-market economics shows conclusively that economic activity is driven by production first, as a means to an end – which is consumption. That means no amount of money fanned in front of producers is going to make them pull goods or services out of their asses. In order for goods or services to be offered, there has to be DELAYED consumption of goods – i.e. SAVINGS, capital – to invest in tools, labor and time, and only then you can think about consumption.

                    2. Indeed, but Econ 101 is based on the neo-classical assumption that economic activity is driven by consumption, a view that is exactly backwards to what reality shows.

                      Admittedly I am not an expert on all things economic, not by a long stretch, but the classical view is likely correct. I don’t know of many businesses waiting for funds to accumulate before moving forward with business plans. The capital markets tend to be mostly lax with money. Consumer also don’t seem to have many issues with finding easy money to fund their lifestyles.

                      If consumption doesn’t affect production wouldn’t that mean supply and demand are not related? I can’t believe that’s true, and I certainly don’t believe the free markets provides evidence of that.

                    3. Can you prove this? And I mean really prove, in a rigorous way that someone like me (a neuroscientist and hobby number theorist) would find conclusive.

                      Until any school of economics can do this, then as far as I’m concerned, you’re all talking out of your asses. Libertarians, Kensians, Dems and Repubs are all not worth taking seriously.

                    4. Check out econlib.org.

                      You’re asking someone to give you the readers digest version of how economics works.

                      As a scientist, you should know better. Do your research and you’ll most likely come to the same conclusuions that us libertarians have. Not to toot our own horn but even if we don’t have a higher level of intelligence than other political groups, we at least do our damned homework.

                    5. I really suck at typing on smartphones. Damn you for making me feel the need to reply.

        2. Tony:

          It turns out, based on all earthly evidence, that the bigger and more streamlined this risk pool is, the cheaper it is for people individually and for societies collectively. You can’t get around that fact until you find some facts that contradict it. I’ll wait while you set up your laissez-faire paradise and acquire some.

          You always ignore Singapore.

          It does us no good to present you with facts if you’re going to continually ignore them.

    3. Tony:

      It should be considered morally abhorrent, not just a matter of arithmetic, that being born a woman means your healthcare costs are higher.

      What’s this standard of morality you’re invoking? I thought you didn’t believe in the sky gods, and that’s that.

      1. What’s this standard of morality you’re invoking?

        Since certain people are better than the rest of us, their emotions (but not yours) are an objective and universal moral code. Didn’t you know that?

      2. Re: Brian,

        What’s this standard of morality you’re invoking?

        He doesn’t. He is simply engaging in a silly reductio ad absurdum based on his misrepresentation of natural rights-based morality.

      3. It doesn’t matter. I’m invoking a moral premise: life shouldn’t be inherently more expensive for women than men. Don’t like it, argue why it should be. I’d love to hear what you have to say.

        1. Is life ‘inherently’ more expensive for stupid people, Tony?

          I mean you personally.

        2. Re: Tony,

          I’m invoking a moral premise: life shouldn’t be inherently more expensive for women than men

          That’s not a premise, that’s a conclusion.

          I’d love to hear what you have to say.

          If you use more of something, you’re demanding more, and thus you pay more. The reason is because medical care is subject to scarcity just like food, clean water or bicycles. And whatever level of moral outrage you want to show or how red your face turns, that does not in itself conjure up from nothing more doctors, nurses, medicines and hospital beds.

          1. It doesn’t turn nearly as red as yours does when someone proposes taxing millionaires a penny more.

            I’m talking about removing market forces from healthcare, because it’s too important and needs to be universally available at a common rate, like how we pay for other government services.

            1. because it’s too important

              Then why do you support a course of action that will inevitably make it unattainable?

            2. Because who doesn’t want their doctor’s office to operate with the level of efficiency of the DMV, amirite?

            3. Re: Tony,

              I’m talking about removing market forces from healthcare

              Which means ipso facto you’re talking nonsense. As long as people are involved in healthcare and not beings from outer space, healthcare will ALWAYS be a subject of scarcity – i.e. market forces.

              Socialists countries have learned this the hard way, with increasingly deteriorating healthcare systems, longer queues and the re-introduction or private health insurance.

              1. As opposed to all those free-market healthcare systems that do so much better?

                1. Re: Tony,

                  As opposed to all those free-market healthcare systems that do so much better?

                  But they DO so much better. We have in Mexico an almost open market of medicines and drugs which is thriving, so much so people come from up the borer just to stock themselves with medicines – and we’re not talking about subsidized medicines here. Hospital care has been going down in cost ever since the socialized system collapsed.

                  You have to spend, instead, $100 in the US (with no insurance) just to have permission from a doctor to buy the better cough syrup. You gringos DON’T have a free-market healthcare system, so don’t even start with that.

              2. I’m talking about removing market forces from healthcare

                You know, that idiot has said a lot of stupid shit, but that is probably the most concise summary of why he’ll never understand–why he’s not even capable of comprehension–that I’ve ever seen.

                If we could remove gravitational forces from airplanes, fewer of them would crash.

            4. Tony:

              I’m talking about removing market forces from healthcare, because it’s too important and needs to be universally available at a common rate

              I love this argument that certain things are too important to be left to the market.

              Venezuela’s doing a great job not leaving lots of things to the market. The results aren’t pretty. Therefore, I wouldn’t necessarily conclude that, instead of implementing their policy, that we should only implement it for the most important things.

              I’d rather go in the state the lottery for toilet paper, than the one for antibiotics.

            5. needs to be universally available at a common rate, like how we pay for other government services.

              So we need a flat tax? Because government is not paid for at a common rate.

              10% on taxable income
              15% on taxable income
              25% on taxable income
              28% on taxable income
              33% on taxable income
              35% on taxable income
              39.6% on taxable income

            6. Isn’t food even more important than healthcare?

              You’re not talking about “removing market forces from healthcare”. You’re talking about forcing one group of people to pay for the needs of another group of people.

              Fuck off slaver.

              1. Food production and access are subsidized out the ass. Why do you guys pretend it isn’t?

                So you’re an anarchist? You must be if you are against all taxing and redistribution.

                1. Tony:

                  Food production and access are subsidized out the ass. Why do you guys pretend it isn’t?

                  OK, just let us know when we’re supposed to adopt single payer food, because it’s so damn important.

                2. So you’re an anarchist? You must be if you are against all taxing and redistribution.

                  I certainly am sympathetic to anarchists, but I’m not against all taxation. I am however against most redistribution. I like to think that we as a society could, without coercion, look at people less fortunate than ourselves and work together to help them. Unfortunately you and I are worlds apart on what form assistance should take.

                3. I’m a directional libertarian. I’d be OK with zero tax and zero redistribution, but I’m not advocating it. I’m “for” less of telling other people what to do.

                4. Food production and access are subsidized out the ass. Why do you guys pretend it isn’t?

                  I’m gonna go out on a limb and predict that virtually everyone in these comments knows that food production is heavily subsidised, is aware of the negative consequences of those subsidies, and do not, therefore, see why it represents an appealing model for other sectors.

            7. I’m talking about removing market forces from healthcare

              Do you have a story about unicorns too?

            8. I’m talking about removing market forces from healthcare

              Not possible, of course. Market forces exist regardless. They can be temporarily squashed by thugs with guns, but that leads to outcomes that tend to amplify the very market forces they were intended to replace. Fucking black markets, how do they work?

            9. I’m talking about removing market forces from healthcare…

              And just how do you propose doing that? The market is us, after all. There is no removing of the market. You might as well say: “I’m talking about removing reality,” because that is exactly what you suggest.

        3. Tony:

          It doesn’t matter. I’m invoking a moral premise: Don’t like it, argue why it should be

          Yeah, but this is the part where you usually destroy the strawman by claiming you don’t believe in sky gods. Hence, morality can be ignored?

          Is that what I’m supposed to do? Or do I have to satisfy a different standard than you do?

          1. I never said one shouldn’t have morals. Any argument for how societies should be structured is going to depend on some moral premises. When did I ever say anything different?

            I’m saying your moral premises are seriously fucked.

            1. I’m saying your moral premises are seriously fucked.

              From the “person” who condones theft.

              1. No I don’t.

            2. Tony:

              I never said one shouldn’t have morals. Any argument for how societies should be structured is going to depend on some moral premises. When did I ever say anything different?

              Pretty much anytime someone claims that the state does something immoral, you reply by mocking the person for believing in sky gods (as if morals and sky gods are equivalent).

              This standard immediately vanishes when you wish to invoke moral arguments.

              1. I do draw a distinction between morals based on alleged supernatural or sacred origins (natural rights!) and morals based on considering human well-being.

                1. In other words the collective is your god. Why am I not surprised.

              2. Don’t let it fluster you too much. Tony has faith in a higher power and do whatever it takes to maintain his religious beliefs.

                In fact, he follows the Marxian dialectic to a T: take whatever arguments suit my goals, diminish the other side through accusations of insanity and other ad hominems. When facts/logic are employed, counterargue that facts/logic were constructed to promote “capitalism”. Repeat forever – maintain the faith.

            3. Actually, you mendacious piece of shit, I specfically recall you criticizing many of the libertarian arguments here for being “moralizing”. You’re just plain out lying here.

              1. You’re just plain out lying here.

                Sun rose in the east today. Footage at 11.

        4. Shorter Tony: I will make an unsupported assertion and shift the burden of proof to others.

          Way to be intellectually honest, Tony.

        5. Is it morally abhorrent that people born with high metabolisms have to pay more for food?

          Is it morally abhorrent that people born very large have to pay more for clothes?

          Is it morally abhorrent that people born with six fingers have to pay more to buy gloves?

          1. Is it morally abhorrent that people born with six fingers have to pay more to buy gloves?

            Whoa, whoa, whoa. Are you telling me I can buy 6 finger gloves? And no, ambidextrous pitcher mitts don’t count.

            1. Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya.

        6. C’mon Tony, “life shouldn’t be..” is an argument? We should never get sick, get old or die. Go argue with “life”.

        7. Actually I’d hypothesize that life is much more expensive for men. it would be interesting to be able to track the overall transfer of wealth from women.

          We pay something like 75% of the taxes and get fewer services in return, not to mention that alimony and child support payments are on the order of a billion dollars per year. Add to that that we’re 98% of workplace injuries and fatalities and the price goes up quickly.

        8. Instead of saying it plain and open you tried to get around the issue by saying it “should not be more expensive” which is a concealed way of saying “life should be cheaper for women”.

          Life already is more expensive for men, and if you invoke moral wishes like “we should make life cheaper for women” that’s the same way of saying “life should be more expensive for men”. Does not sound so good now, does it?

          The only other solution than this is saying that all costs should be precisely equal for everyone: no matter what health and other costs one imposes, everybody pays exactly the same rate. Sounds good at first until you get to the problem that gets rid of progressive income tax for instance? And that a millionaire and a poor will *have to* pay the same rate precisely for healthcare no matter how much they use?

          Which gets us back to the problem with your proposition “life should be more expensive for men”.

          Equal rights it seems are only equal when it comes to benefits, not when it comes to burdens.

        9. And hair stylists shouldn’t be allowed to charge women more than men.

          Morals and something something.

          Look over there….. a squirrel.

    4. Tony:

      For Christ’s sake, they’re saddled with the burden of being the ones who have to carry offspring, and for that burden they are rewarded with inherently higher healthcare costs?

      I thought reproduction was a choice. That’s the pro-abortion argument, isn’t it? Pro choice?

      Now, it’s not a choice, and that’s unfair, so other people have to support it?

      I wish you’d make up your mind.

      1. Not even coherent.

        1. Just because you aren’t smart enough to understand it, does not make it incoherent.

        2. I’m just shocked that after already suggesting:

          “How about viewing reproduction as something that tends to happen naturally? “

          That you really want to redo that conversation. You didn’t come out looking pretty.

      2. Also, some of us see the unfairness differently. I was lucky enough to be born female and have the ability to give birth to three brand new human beings. It’s not a burden.

        1. Wait until the arguments that men oppress women because men can’t give birth to babies. The “burden” gets then interpreted as smth that is supposed to make men jealous.

          Really, thinking on basis of fleeting emotions is so silly.

      3. “I thought reproduction was a choice. That’s the pro-abortion argument, isn’t it?”

        The pro-abortion argument is that pregnancy is a thing that spontaneously happens beyond anyone’s ability to control, so that is why abortion is necessary.

        1. The pro-choice argument is that it’s none of your damn business what someone does with their body, especially if you will never meet them and their choice has absolutely no impact on you what so ever.

          1. Which begs the question, of course; the premise only works with the presumption that a fetus is fundamentally the same as a bone spur or a colon polyp.

            1. The similarities between tony and a colon polyp are hard to ignore.

          2. “The pro-choice argument is that it’s none of your damn business what someone does with their body, especially if you will never meet them and their choice has absolutely no impact on you what so ever.”

            But it takes a village, and all that.

    5. 1. No one is denied healthcare
      2. Health INSURANCE is exactly like car INSURANCE. Please read up on actuaries and risk analytics.

      In all of your time posting here (I’ve been lurking for a while and I’m sure I’m arguing with a sock puppet) I would think you would at least understand the libertarian arguement here.

      BTW, sorry and fuck you, get someone else to carry you and the rest of the free shitters on their backs.

      1. 1. But if you had your way, they would be, wouldn’t they?
        2. I understand, which is why I don’t want a system of private health insurance and think such a system is a travesty.

        If the libertarian argument depends on keeping in place collectivist promises that everyone gets healthcare, then… how is it a libertarian argument?

        1. You can wish for any fanciful system you like. The problem is that people are being forced to buy things that they either do not want or do not need under threat of violence to subsidize others.

          That’s the libertarian arguement/concern and that’s where the depth of you intellect betrays you. Go on talking about moral outrage and travesty, I’m so sure you’re heart is pure (sarc). I’m talking about natural rights and long term consequences of shitting on the idea of limited government.

        2. That libertarians aren’t coercing you to buy or not buy and from whom.

    6. morally abhorrent

      From the most immoral creature I’ve ever had the displeasure of associating with.

      Good one.

      1. All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the Libertarian movement.

        1. Hickory, dickory, dock,
          The mouse ran up the clock.
          The clock struck one,
          The mouse ran down,
          Hickory, dickory, dock.

        2. Re: Tony,

          But of course, anarchists are collectivists.

          You can’t even handle concepts, yet you want to argue with the big boys.

          But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism.

          Ah, so now anarchists are anti-intellectuals. The shifting of the concepts. Next, you will bring up poly-logism and maybe some critical race theory for kicks.

          1. I was quoting Ayn Rand to one of her idiot followers.

        3. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect.

          Being in lockstep agreement with Marxists about how society should be structured undoubtedly helps quite a bit in that regard.

        4. “But of course, anarchists are collectivists.”

          Erm, I wonder in what universe of stupidity that conviction was born.

    7. “they’re saddled with the burden of being the ones who have to carry offspring”

      I thought what with the subsidized abortions and all that “having” to give birth was like, a choice and shit?

      1. You can’t be satisfied being completely free of the burden of childbearing and all the hard choices that may entail, you demand your insurance to be a little cheaper too. Nope, libertarians aren’t the self-obsessed dicks everyone thinks they are, for sure.

        1. Re: Tony,

          You can’t be satisfied being completely free of the burden of childbearing and all the hard choices that may entail

          Ah, I see you have mommy issues.

          you demand your insurance to be a little cheaper too.

          Insurance is not cheaper for men because they demanded it that way. That is what is being explained to you, you burden.

          1. It can be made equally costly, and has just been by law, so you are in fact demanding we revert to a system where you pay less merely by virtue of being male.

            I understand the Markets for Preschoolers lesson you are feebly attempting to shove into this conversation. Really. I’m saying the market is flawed when it comes to healthcare. That’s the whole point.

            1. You hear that? LAWS trump supply/demand. How’s that working for Venezuela again?

            2. Tony:

              I’m saying the market is flawed when it comes to healthcare. That’s the whole point.

              There are lots of solutions to health care that are more market based than the policies that you prefer, which produce better outcomes. I wouldn’t declare success just by defining failure as whatever you want, and then ignoring all market based alternatives.

            3. Re: Tony,

              It can be made equally costly,

              How is that supposed to be moral?

              and has just been by law, so you are in fact demanding we revert to a system where you pay less merely by virtue of being male.
              You’re begging the question, Tony.

              Really. I’m saying the market is flawed when it comes to healthcare.

              And really, I am saying that your assertion is based on a complete lack of understanding of economic reality. That’s the whole point.

              1. “It can be made equally costly,

                How is that supposed to be moral?”

                Moreover, how do EQUAL COSTS jibe with progressive income tax?

            4. So in your twisted little mind, we should punish people to make them more “equal”?

              That’s a great moral philosophy there Stalin.

            5. It can be made equally costly

              Lol. Tony is so far removed from the point that the light from the point will take several billion years to reach his location.

            6. I can’t tell you how many health care professionals would love to go back to a market-based healthcare system and get the government out of dictating by papal decree how healthcare is executed. The tooth to tail ratio of any given healthcare organization is heavily weighted towards tail and a lot of that tail is dedicated to decoding asinine regulations and defending itself against asinine regulations.

        2. Tony men don’t want their insurance to be cheaper than women.

          They want the price of their insurance to accurately reflect the cost of their healthcare with out having someone else mandate that other’s cost be added to theirs.

          Like all other goods and services.

          1. Do you understand how insurance works?

            Do you think women are charmed to be paying for penis pumps? Guess how many Congressional hearings have been convened over that one?

    8. Health care is neither a right nor a privilege. It is a product that we consume.

      1. Your morals are abhorrent. I hope a bus hits you and you are forced raise that child alone, without any help from the state. Maybe then you’ll have learned your lesson.

        1. Are you serious? Healthcare *is* a product: a pretty expensive, specialized industry, whether subsidized or not. Healthcare uses up from 7% to 11% of GDP depending on country. Tell me that this is not a product.

          How to pay for it / who has a right to it, etc, is a moral issue, but it’s a separate issue from what healthcare is.

      2. So are police and courts.

        1. It’s kinda funny how you think you made a point when both of those things can, and are, easily privatized.

    9. Awww, Tony thinks he’s intellectual and knows what the fuck he’s talking about. How quaint.

    10. For Christ’s sake, they’re saddled with the burden of being the ones who have to carry offspring, and for that burden they are rewarded with inherently higher healthcare costs?

      Well, they have a higher demand for healthcare, and apparently have higher healthcare needs.

      So why shouldn’t they expect to pay more for what they need and demand more of?

      Let’s try life insurance:

      For Christ’s sake, they’re men are saddled with the burden of being the ones who have to carry offspring shorter life expectancy, and for that burden they are rewarded with inherently higher healthcare life insurance costs?

      Are you outraged on behalf of men yet?

      Me neither.

    11. Oh yeah, totally. It’s fucking bullshit that women have to pay for tampons.

    12. “…driving a car is considered a privilege in this society rather than a right”

      Passing a test and affordability do not equal privilege. Driver’s licenses are not randomly handed based on lottery system, with only a finite amount of people getting them.

      See, this is how the progmind works – change a word’s meaning to suit your goal/conclusion.

      Plus, I’ve always hated the “x is a privilege” argument.

    13. Healthcare isn’t a “Right” you despicable chode.

      Here’s a little thought experiment… suppose no one wanted to be a doctor any more (or at least not enough people to matter) and existing doctors no longer wanted to stare at sweaty shriveled scrotums and wailing infants. Where, outside of forced labor, yes slavery, will your healthcare come from?

      Rights exist simply because you exist. If it requires you to take the labor or property of another being it isn’t a right.

      You have a right to freely associate with others and you have a right to exchange goods and services on a voluntary basis… if you’re able to cobble those rights together in order to secure healthcare services well good for you, if not… well you just might die, and likely to the benefit of society at large.

      Freedom of expression, freedom of association, the right to self-defense, the right to keep the fruit of one’s labor and to voluntarily exchange it with other entities… these (and few others) are rights.

      Healthcare, education, food and shelter? No. No. No and No. You have the right to seek these out, you have a right to educate yourself or to treat your own ills but you do not have the right, regardless of community interactions, to demand these things from other people.

      1. I prefer a political philosophy that doesn’t try desperately to find excuses to minimize the number of rights people have. But thanks.

    14. But carrying offspring is a CHOICE, right?

      So why should the rest of us pay for her choices?

  18. John Stossel hates women. Still offers 5 cent mustache rides.

  19. Who started and largely continued the War on Drugs? This atrocity has raped society far more immeasurably than some bogus hyperbole feminist shtick emanating from the politically vacuous. Meh, I think the GOP deserves disingenuous labels no matter how fucking irrational they are. The GOP is rife with the same type of flawed bullshit that runs the cruddy donkey engine.

  20. Women have as much if not more power than men. It’s true that many of them cede that power but that is there choice.

    1. And there are many other choices that women often have that men don’t. Far more women than men are able to choose how much of their life and energy they want to devote to work and career. It is certainly not universal, but very few men get to make the choice to be stay-at-home husband.

      There are advantages to being a man as well, of course, but it is hardly one sided.

      1. Yes. And of course many man choose to cede power to women as well.

    2. I went through basic training at Ft. Jackson in a mixed gender class. I had several discussions with our Drill Sergeants during that time about a great many things, but one of the most fascinating involved gender.

      The Drill Sergeants, anecdotally mind you, informed me that they had trained all female classes, all male classes but this was their first mixed gender class. They had a couple all female classes who out-performed any of their all male groups. So it was disturbing to them to see how “dependant” on the males the females of my class appeared to be. That they by default would ask for help from the men to disassemble their M-16 (handguards could be a pain) or “get tired” during ruck marches and pass their packs over to their male battle buddies. Meanwhile these women would stiff bluff and bluster about how tough and independent they were while actively deferring to their male counterparts. It was mind-blowing to sit back and watch the behavior once I’d been alerted to it.

  21. Men and women are different and we should celebrate that difference instead of claiming that women are victims.

    Figures Stossel would say something like that, he’s the biggest misogynist of them all. I mean, just look at the ‘stache! Anyone who rocks a Magnum P.I. ‘stache in this day and age has to be a misogynist! And probably a racist and homophobe to boot! /feminist prog-derp

    1. Look, a lot of women can grow a mustache….

      1. Mustache is feminist’s stand against beauty standards. Type that in your fuckin’ browser, sir.

  22. If politicians didn’t have myths they’d actually have to do something. A pox on them and the idiots who fall for their shit-sandwiches.

  23. Why in the fucking fuck are all of you talking to it? It isn’t real.

    1. Blame it on McFuckington Fuckmeister Stossel.

  24. If there really is a war on women then I can expect the government to send me guns and money, right?

    1. You need to be in a union first.

    2. Don’t forget the lawyers!

    1. Hahahahahahahahahahaha.

      Man that is pathetic that the department of labor posted that shitpile of propaganda. Let alone has it’s own blog.

      1. it’s a case of not talking to another arm of govt, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Had they bothered to read a few tables, they’d find women work 70% of hrs that men do. Assume equal productivity and what you get in wages?

        The trick jumps out in a “reality” answer: a woman professional who works FULL TIME.

        Without dwelling on how this full time actually looks, no? Let’s equalize it for sake of discussion.

        Really, why do they bother in this day and age.

    2. The link to the research which proves gender gap in pay is broke.

      1. There’s a metaphor in there somewhere.

  25. John, don’t write “gender” when you mean “sex”. To write “gender” is to say the differences really are only arbitrary & cultural.

    1. Stossel is a relic from a time when those two words both meant the same thing.

  26. OT: apparently there was a Libertarian candidate in that special election in Florida: Lucas Overby scored 4.8%.

  27. Clearly none of you have any idea of what it’s like to be a Fembot living in a Manbot’s Manputer’s world.

  28. If a War on Drugs is actually war against the users of drugs, does a War on Women work the same way?

  29. Well I see the Master Baiter has baited the commentariat again. So boring. John and sarcasmic arguing over who’s a chubby chaser and who’s a latent homosexual is more interesting.

  30. The War on Women: the only war where the victims live longer than the aggressors.

  31. If it’s true that civilization couldn’t have been created if man and woman were the same, then it’s true that civilization will collapse by trying to make man and woman the same.

  32. Thats amazing..Start working at home with Google! Just work for few hours and have more time with friends and family. I earn up to $500 per week. It’s a great work at home opportunity. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. http://www.CapitalPosts.com

  33. I always have used the car insurance difference to rebut the inanity. Men up to the age of 25 will pay higher premiums because. . . . And when they get married the premium drops. Now where is the study that shows gay married guys under 25 don’t get a reduced premium? Stossel, keep on it! thanks!

  34. Sounds like a pretty rock solid plan dude.

    http://www.Anon-VPN.com

  35. “But it turns out that there’s plenty of science documenting that men and women are just programmed differently.”
    And plenty of science PREDICTING it. The theory of evolution predicts that organisms will evolve towards behaviors that maximize reproductive success. Any idiot can see these are different for females and males. Females can’t have 800 children like Ismail Ibn Sharif. They can ensure that the children they have are provided for. They can ensure that the children they have have the best genes.

  36. Well I think Stossel and the commenters have taken a big step toward winning women over. To seal the deal, I hear they like flowers and to be lectured to about their biological differences.

  37. Math is hard for Liberals.
    Ask them for a number for “fair” when they want taxpayers to pay their “fair” share.
    Unfortunately, we have a dearth of math-literates in this country.

    1. To them, “Fair” means taking someone else’s stuff, not their own.

  38. The myth of the wage gap.

    “Women are only paid 70 cents for every dollar men are paid for the same work”

    Uh, economics 101 time- if an employer could get the same productivity for a 30% discount, they would never hire anyone BUT women. Women are paid less because they are actually less productive. Wages track productivity very closely. Capitalism is quite efficient that way.

    Why are women less productive? Because of decisions they make. Compared to men women have less time in the labor force, less time on that job, and higher absentee rates than men.

    Control for the usual stuff and the actual market discount on women qua women (also works for race and everything else) is ZERO. Capitalism is brutally efficient and quite blind. If anyone can can the same output for less money they will do so, and dominate the market as a consequence.

    Sorry /progressives/ who think that everything is driven by discrimination. Capitalism only discriminates in favor of efficiency.

  39. Just scrolling through the last 25 comments or so…

    You are all horrible people. Libertarianism sounds great until you realize it’s most fervent proponents are horrible people.

    I signed up for a Reason account simply because I felt compelled to make sure that you, the Reason reader, know you are a horrible person. You people are the Reason we need a strong over-bearing government.

    1. You caught me. I’m horrible.

      You know what I did today that marks down my total evil?

      I smoked a cigarette. And drank coffee. Ate some meat, along with cheese, butter, and some fruit. Totally exploiting Gaia, our Earth Mother Goddess. All of these were stolen from her caring, warm hands, torn asunder by an evil vampire such as myself.

      Oh, I love being evul.

    2. I am, absolutely, a horrible person – which is why I get such a kick out of playing Cards Against Humanity.

      Thank you for bringing such self-righteous and humorless observation to our forums.

      You may go now.

  40. Hmm, does anyone else notice Stossel’s War on Science here? He says that men and women are biologically different – when we all know the truth.

    Old Science – the one that used logic, empirical evidence, observation, and the old “scrap the hypothesis if the evidence doesn’t match” routine – was totally built by evul white male patriarchists to use facts to control non-white, non-male humans…as well as non-humans like trees, rocks, and animals.

    Psh. Look at evolutionary science and how that was used to say that women gave birth to humans and therefore were largely built differently…and that biological frame helped in how they were suited to doing different, if equally important, tasks.

    Old Science is bad because it used observable data to draw observable conclusions.

    New Science is good because meaning is constructed, so observable/replicatable data must be replaced with intuitive data.

    Shame on you Stossel, for letting facts get in the way of feelings in your war on science.

    *Fake prog finis*

  41. What a misleading headline for an article that doesn’t mention the Republican War on Women. And if you think there’s no war, start toting up all the state legislatures that have passed laws regarding vaginal probes.

  42. he doesn’t want them to learn to read, either, because that would just give them ideas.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.