A Disturbing Man

I was channel flipping last night, and came across an author discussion. The author discussing his book "Freedonomics" or something, blamed almost all problems in the US on women. It was amazing to hear this economist. He does not like women having freedom, I don't think. That was my impression.

He ties the increase in size of governments worldwide to the times women received the right to vote in industrialized nations and ignores the fact at this same time, the industrial revolution took place, which could easily be argued as the reason governments increased in size, as could many other factors.

I would dare say the industrial revolution, as it evolved rapidly, introduced to Americans and to people worldwide the concepts of "excess", "ease" and "spare time". Before, these were limited to the very wealthy classes. Excess, ease and spare time may have significantly contributed to the development of all sorts of social ills in cultures worldwide. As industrialization became even more revolutionary and inventive, social ills too have increased. Always a flip side to every coin. This economist should be smart enough to see this parallel. I can see it clearly. I'm not educated.

He ties liberalization of abortion laws to decreased numbers of shotgun weddings, claiming if a woman has the right to choose, the man, without any blame to a man for out of wedlock births, will just take leave. He ties liberalization of abortion laws also to lower numbers of children in the US being put up for adoption and increased numbers of single parent households.

He is, like many academics, out of touch with real life. And he blames many economic and social problems in the US on women.

He certainly has not been in the neighborhoods and around the people I've been around for the past 30 years. He doesn't know the men I've known, who are incapable of committment and go around impregnating like tomcats, unable to control themselves. He does not realize that girls who grow up without self-esteem have more children out of wedlock, because they more easily attach to loser men, who talk them into anything. I would tie the increase in out of wedlock births and single parent households more closely to increases in child abuse resulting in low self-esteem levels for girls and women.

I would even go so far as to tie the increase in child abuse to war. Men often come home from war damaged.

Also, the results of child abuse, physical, emotional and mental, compound, generation upon generation, creating more and more problems in more and more people in exponential fashion as victims and perpetrators breed.

Also, in the seventies, when out of wedlock births increased, so did drug use. The seventies are when drug use in this country skyrocketed. Among (sorry mr. woman blamer economist) both men and women. Drug and alcohol use are huge factors contributing to out of wedlock births, marraige destruction, failure to maintain jobs and pay child support, and all sorts of social ills. He didn't even mention it. Out of touch!

It almost sounds, to hear him speak, that he would like to go back to the days where women have zero rights and are confined to the home.

He almost sounds, to hear him speak, like an American Taliban. Or, like a fundamentalist Mormon. Religious affiliations grossly affect a person's perspective.

He tied the increase in divorce rates to changes in divorce laws, namely "no fault" divorces. He claims this makes a woman feel she must have a career or go to work, just in case the marraige doesn't work out, whereas with "fault" divorces, the wife can say "no" to a divorce, and then it goes to court and the man must support her and the child fully, afterwards. He said this helps keep a woman in the home and that she will invest in the marraige to keep it going. He said nothing about a man's need to invest in the marraige and work to keep it going. He said nothing about the monstrous problem in this country of men (or women) not paying child support after they leave a marraige or impregnating someone out of wedlock and then vanishing from the picture.

He said nothing about the fact nowadays both parents often have to work in order for the family to survive, due to current economics. He's rich. And out of touch. He said nothing about the increase stress in American lives.

He also is against price controls on prescription drugs. He talked about book authors, and how everyone wants a seventh Harry Potter book to come out and will pay $25 or $30 for that new book. He said its' the same with pills. You have to pay a price for development of that drug, that you wouldn't think of just paying the printing costs of Harry Potter books. Likewise we should not expect to just pay the production costs of a pill. He has a point, but, also is showing how out of touch he is with most Americans' budgets. I don't know a soul who could afford to buy a new Harry Potter book, or would do that.

He claims lives will be lost if price controls are enacted upon drug companies, curtailing development of life saving new drugs. Get real, Mr. Lives are being lost now, because people cannot afford to buy current drugs at astronomical prices.

This man is out of touch with the way a good share of Americans now live. He doesn't have a clue, as many politicians and academics do not have a clue.