Appraising At-Home Moms

You need to be more effective in those types of debates….you need to leave your opponent looking like a retarded hysterical rabid hamster trying to swallow the world…..you cannot let them talk over you, you cannot let any statement they make go by with out picking it apart and making it look like the stupidest idea since the solar powered flashlight.

If the average housewife can earn $138,000 a year on the open market, why doesn’t she do that and let dad stay home and take care of the kids?

Yes Lis-ard,it’s “only” a symbolic sum, until feminists find no one is protesting that amount and family court judges decide to factor that amount in to their decisions.

We understand symbolism; it’s what fems used to destroy men in divorce and reproductive law.

Screw your symbolism.

Virtue,

You need to send me tapes of your performances on TV. Please show me how YOU do it.

Anybody who behaves the way you suggest — trying to leave his opponent “looking like a retarded rabid hysterical hamster” — has no virtue and will have no invitations to return for more interviews.

If you think I didn’t win that debate, you are unobservant and unsophisticated.

Just a fun thought: Do a man could ask alimony to a woman after a divorce because she’s making 138K$ a year?

And if it’s just symbolic, can he ask for, let’s say, 6 cooked meals a day and two batches of clean clothes a month?

This could be fun…

Toubrouk,

That was my point by comparing $138K vs. $30K — saying that it would be good for men in court to impute $138K as the wife’s salary.

Marc,

I don’t think you won nor lost the debate. The topic is silly. However, you could have done a better job as per what men do.

You only mentioned taking out the garbage! I would have talked about how men provide services as electricians, computer techs, security, and other more sophisticated roles.

It’s a silly topic to debate, but I can understand how you would want to appear on the show … take TV time when you can get it.

I think a mistake you make on your appearances is that you let yourself get sidetracked into other things which take away from the time you could devote to refuting the other side … like a few days ago when you fell into the trap of discussing Lis’s personal experience … something you know nothing about … and lost time to refute the wage gap myth.

Glenn does the same thing … like when he was on “The Factor” a couple years back to discuss the move away cases and he mentioned that courts don’t enforce visitation but aggressively pursue child support. All this did was let the sub-host slam him with “Ah-ha … so that’s what all you measly MRA’s are about …. you don’t want to pay for your kids.” Glenn’s argument that fathers’ relationship with their kids should be strongly protected could have been compellingly made on its’ own sole merit. Talking about CS only hurt him in his appearance.

Bless your heart Glenn.

Marc, please don’t take anything I write as any kind of slam. My comments are only offered to possibly help. I believe in this cause … I believe in what you are doing. Your TV presence is very good Marc, lord knows I could not be anywhere remotely as effective as you.

But, I think you can be GREAT!

With more experience, I know you will be.

Spectre,

I believe I won handily, and the topic is not silly. It is another manifestation of women feeling entitled to the world. MND men must stop seeking spilled blood all the time in debates with women — it is immature and counterproductive.

Because you have zero TV experience, allow me to educate you. There are only so many points one can make in 3.5 minutes, considering that two other people are also talking. So, one must budget his time to make the heaviest points, at the right times, and hope for the best.

I purposely decided, before I went on the air, that it would be ineffective to get bogged down in the minutiae of “men’s” household chores. Given the emotional reactions I invoked in Lis, the positive letters I am receiving from men around the world, the slamming I am getting right now on feminist blogs, and the high praise I have received from FNC, I know I calculated wisely and correctly.

If you think I had to demolish Lis Wiehl to win the debate, you are wrong. All I had to do was expose her thought process, and I did that in spades. She didn’t make one factual point; I made plenty. I exasperated her and got her to react very emotionally — a sign that she had no logical comebacks.

Best of all, Lis enjoys debating me, which will lead to more debates. If I am obnoxious or mean, I lose. With my approach, I earn more opportunities to get my message out to a lot of people who NEVER, EVER hear women being challenged or criticized. Please think, and please display your credentials, before you criticize.

I’m with you, Marc. You’re doing a great job. Lis Wiehl is consistently hanging herself with her shrill voice and abusive demeanor. Using the time you have available to jab through consistent and factual points is the only way to go. Over time, viewers will get the routine and will start to figure out whose words have more value, pound-for-pound.

Marc,
I love what you are doing but I have to agree with the criticism I see in these comments about your debating skills. I understand your comment to Virtue pointing out that he probably couldn’t have done a better job but that is hardly an endorsement of what you did.

Lis Wiehl has a weak argument and she should have been ripped to shreds. You let her control the debate. When she asked if you had a mother and didn’t she deserve some credit for raising you, you should have responded that your mother *and* father raised you and neither deserves a salary for what they did because, ultimately, they had their children for selfish reasons… to pass on their genes.

I think that most people who watched that debate would say that Lis Wiehl had a valid argument for saying stay-at-home Moms deserve $138K a year. It is a stupid idea and that is what makes her winning the argument that much more remarkable.

I find her reactions intriguing. She’s obviously been hurt pretty bad by men in her life. I think you did better in this debate than the last one I watched and I’m glad you’re taking on feminist nonsense like this.

I think a lot of us here would like you to destroy your feminist opponents as they are begging for it. Most don’t have a leg to stand on logically and we’d love to watch their house of cards fall. But I agree with you, you’d never be asked back. As I’ve said before, the best debate was during the Roe vs. Wade for Men debate between the attorney for the guy and the feminist activist. She got crushed, but I’ve never seen him back on the air again.

I wouldn’t take the criticism you’re reading here as though you failed us or you’re a terrible on air debator. These are things some of these guys wish they could say or do and hope to live vicareously through you. Personally, I think you did great.

Marc – you’re imputing things in my post that I never said nor implied.

* I never stated nor implied you need to spill blood, be obnoxious or mean.

* I never stated nor implied that you needed to demolish Lis.

* I never never stated nor implied that you need to change your general approach.

I did say you got caught up in a red herring re: Lis’s personal experience. It’s a red herring because it’s not related directly to the wage gap studies, and more importantly, it led you to ask her questions that you did not know the answer to! Cardinal sin in debating … NEVER ask a question that you don’t already know the answer to.

Perhaps, you need to re-read wrote I actually wrote in my post.

Why you’re getting so bent out of shape I fail to understand. You seem overly sensitive and hostile to any criticism … calling me and others immature and unproductive. I believe that is immature and unproductive!

You do a nice job Marc. No one is attacking YOU here.

I didn’t watch the video. The whole topic is absurd.

However, If I were in your shoes I would have began and ended such a debate with one sentence.

Anyone selfish enough to attach a price-tag to raising there child probably should have given a little more thought to whether they needed to be a parent.

That’s what it boils down to in the end.

Marc, good debate. It’s time to take they’re symbolism and make them think a bit more about it before real policy gets decided based on it.

An interesting point for consideration. Salary.com reports a Day Care worker at around $30,000 a year. How is this any different, if not harder, than being a stay at home mom? There are more kids, more issues, and other parents to deal with! If they really think that a stay at home mom deserves that much money, pay the day care workers that much.

ggreen said:

” … Anyone selfish enough to attach a price-tag to raising there child probably should have given a little more thought to whether they needed to be a parent.

That’s what it boils down to in the end …. ”

Nice one, agreed!

…

Its not a question of just winning……You need to leave zero doubt in anyone’s mind that your debate opponent is just pushing BS (as we all know she was) This isn’t a criticism designed to make you feel like you suck its an attempt to try and strengthen your arguments……Yeah you won the debate…..but she looked like the good guy (trying to make an emotional appeal ….”you dont believe your mother deserves credit for raising you?” is that irrelevant to the debate?….Yes…..did it make her out to look better than she was?…….Yes….What I am saying is that you need to count on tactics such as the ones she used and have ready to go responses for them.

I haven’t seen the debate yet (will comment then. Damn proxies) but just want to say for the moment that there are numerous points to make (which I’m curious to see if great minds think alike) including:

1) If women could make $138K a year just looking after their own kids and homes, why aren’t more women doing this instead of working for 70 cents on a dollar? Answer: Because the notion of getting “paid” in the first place for one’s own labor is laughable!

2) The work is not “unpaid” to begin with. Where is this woman getting money for housing and food for herself and her child? Answer: A MAN is putting it up. That leads us to:

3) If women think working for “unpaid labor” is so bad, they can have a man do it while they pay the bills. Nearly all women don’t want this meaning that women’s own sexism is what drives them to work “for free”.

4) If such women think they’re being oppressed, they should blab this attitude during dating so that men can avoid them. Oh, wait, many already do and that’s why so many of them are childless in their late 30′s wondering where the “good” men have gone. Nothing stop someone from paying the bills faster than bashing them for their trouble.

In other words, the very notion of someone demanding to be supported by someone else and then acting like a victim is laughable and even insulting. It’s a sign that such women think that men don’t deserve recognition at all. That they should pay all the bills AND then apologize for doing so.

This woman has a look of utter mocking contempt on her face as you’re trying to talk, Marc, implying that she doesn’t respect you. I can hardly wait to see your approach. Whatever I might have to say, you were there and I wasn’t. Kudos.

marc, you won the debate just by showing up…
Men that hear what you said about women taking half the assets in a divorce are going to flood youre website.

anyone that critisizes marc’s showing should show us all how its done..

That being said..I think marc is pretty much immune to frivolous hen-pecking, or he wouldn’t have the mettle to stand up there on national television and say what needs to be said.

Marc. Thank you for devoting your talent and skills that help create a national awareness of woman’s sometimes-outrageous demands on men and legislators. Keep up a good fight.

The biggest problem with a debate like this is that you are constantly interrupted. You only have a tiny amount of time and can make some points. Feminism’s sound bite world fits into this debate structure rather well. However, I would like to see a good hour long televised debate over a few issues. One that would allow for a full look into the points. No feminist tripe can stand up to this. However, no one ever does this. We might be able to work something up on youtube.

I was a stay at home dad twenty years ago. I figure I owe my X wife a million or two for providing that time and having to do what men do, work at a job all day (she worked on her masters and worked full-time) It’s not even a clever joke to pretend that a woman doing a job she WANTS to do should be compensated much more than the man who is providing for her. I said this before, you can take ten hours of the day and fill it with laundry, cooking a chicken, driving the kids to school, or … yes, diapers and such, but except for the first year or two of getting up at night, and napping when the kid naps, it’s really not that big of a deal. Men figure out that to do other things they need to organize the work… some women figure that out too, but many women kill a lot of time pretending what, that they drove ALL day, took care of kids all day, cooked all day so they should get paid for three jobs.
They put in 10 to 12 hours of somewhat difficult work, so did the husband… and what the hell do these women do all day when the kids have gotten on the bus to school and are gone all day, vacuum five times, do the laundry six times? Or watch Oprah, call a friend, go to the gym, take a nap… why is it that we never hear about that part of the day?

I cooked while the laundry dried, you don’t need to vacuum and dust everyday, so much BS around what women sacrifice. I will be old and die in a few years (if lucky I will be old) and when I look back on the men’s jobs and women’s jobs the EASIEST on my health, and stress, and the one that gave the most satisfaction was bringing up the two children from infants, to toddlers to preteens.

I can never repay my X wife for allowing that time … for sure she doesn’t owe me. How many women will get to the end of life thinking, ya, those years with my babies, toddlers, preschoolers were the worst, wish I hadn’t been so oppressed by my husband … wish I hadn’t done that when I could have been working in a factory or selling cars or being a hot shot lawyer … My X lost those years. I will always feel I owe her a debt. I am not saying it’s for everyone but if that’s your choice, and believe me more women push for kids and staying home with them than not… if that’s your choice, stop whining, bitching … and pretending men owe you for what you wanted to do … as many women are doing.

When I opend up to my new account with comcast I saw several choices of news stories, one was about how mom’s should be paid 132K … with mother’s day approaching we knew it was coming. The comments show how brain dead and brain washed people are – Some claiming women work 90 hours a week and should get 700K … right, spread your legs, have a baby, lay around half the day do drugs… (This is what the worst case scenerio is – smile – and get 100K for being “a mom”) The best moms and dads are priceless, the worst should not have been parents… to pretend mothers have more value than fathers is sexist, end of story.

SD

I wonder what’s the REAL value of men’s work doing the dangerous jobs? You know, like defending our freedoms on the front lines with their lives. Surely that is worth MUCH more than what a supposed SAHM makes Yet the media will just take whatever men do for granted in comparison to women. It’s only headlines if a woman or some minority group claims they are somehow a victim of being shortchanged. Men are always being shortchanged in life. Just walk into family court and see.

I’m curious; those of you who did not watch the video, why are you commenting in the comment section provided for those who have watched the video?

In agreement with scottkirk, to you who have dissected Marc’s performance, why don’t you get on YW w/Cavuto and The O’R Factor and show us all how it is done.

spectre, your first comment was not supportive of Marc. Your second wasn’t either. Please refer to my previous paragraph.

Marc, you were brilliant in this debate with Lis. Your humor, timing, intelligent replies and valid, well supported facts are proof of that.

“…In agreement with scottkirk, to you who have dissected Marc’s performance, why don’t you get on YW w/Cavuto and The O’R Factor and show us all how it is done….”

I think that’s a cop-out. Have you ever criticised an athlete, actor, or perhaps your candidate for president after a debate? Would it make your opinion invalid if you’re not an actor, athlete, or presidential candidate. Are the only comments proper to be left here comments of praise … all other opinions shunned.

I do support Marc … I want him to succeed.

Marc is on the big stage now. He’s a published author, and holds himself out as an expert. He’s a pro, not a small child performing in a school play where the only proper thing to say after his/her performance would be “Wonderful Job!”

My comments we’re offered to help him. They were my gut reactions to his performance on FOX. If he though my comments had validity he could take them under advisement, if he thought them erroneous he could simply discard them.

spectre.. maybe my coddleing comments to marc, fallowed by my suggestion of “If you can do better that do it”…

really meant..”If you can do better than do it”

You seem articulate enough…do you have any published works????

It’s a total load of crap.

How many parents will lay on their deathbed saying “I wish I hadn’t spent so much time taking care of my children”? Many excellent fathers will lay there saying “I wish I had had more time to spend with my children.”

These lib/idiots are trying to turn one of the few truly great joys of life into a burden.

Marc Rudov’s image needs some fine tuning. He not only wears a tie, but cowtows further by wearing a buttoned-down collar. This might cut it with square conservatives, but is a big turn-off to the rest of us (the majority). Men’s issues are neither left or right wing, as no mainstream political parties touch them, but Marc makes it LOOK right wing, reactionary, and therefor easily dismissable, despite his free-thinking californian accent. Lis Weihl plays on this, by making jokes about marc having no feelings. Lis is laughing because marc looks like a banker – a financier of women – so she measures marc’s lack of chivalry, against the male banking norm.

Now this tv channel has got to know, trust and value marc’s contributions, maybe it is a safe time to ditch the tie. Remember, a lot of guys who have time to watch this sort of tv, and who take an interest in MRIs, are the type of guys with no job – the non-conformists, the unemployed or the unemployable, along with those claiming sickness leave for depression, addiction, or manual labour injuries, etc. Those men who are marginalised and dissenfranchised, whether their own fault or not. These guys may find it difficult to relate to a man in a tie – and these guys may be the ones who represent the potential critical mass of any future groundswell, should a men’s movement ever require large numbers on specific protests, etc, and these guys are the target audience for men’s issue books too, if they are to reach best-seller status.

I applaud Marc for both getting on the show and presenting opposition to such nonsense. While merely allowing opposition to feminist nonsense in the media is progress, three minutes is inadequate to make more than one or two points, and thus very difficult t overcome emotional appeals, stereotypes, and mass-marketed feminist agitprop.

My question to Lis would be would it be fine with her then if we reversed the roles of men and women, such that women take their supposedly vast earning potential out in the marketplace and earn some real money, while men are then granted the right to throw the mother out of the house for any reason, keep the children, control her access to them, and force women by a court of law to turn over at least half of her income to the father or else go to prison?

Somehow I don’t think Lis or any woman, let alone a feminist, would be in favor of such, but that won’t stop them from whining and complaining about what a miserable lot in life they have and how they deserve better.

Marc’s initial sally into the average salary of an American was a good and powerful point because most jobs in America require a multitude of talents, and virtually no individual is paid full scale wages for each different job he does in the workplace.

If you help your co-worker with a computer problem, should you then be paid as a computer tech, or are you doing it out of a spirit of teamwork and friendship?

The whole argument about a housewife being worth $138,000 is a specious and non-productive indulgence. By buying into the argument, you objectify that which is generally accepted to be done out of love and caring.

We must remember, it is the very people who broach this topic to begin with who have, for decades, been disparaging “housewives” and “homemaking. It has not been the thoughts, statements or actions of men who have devalued the work that wives perform, it has been the feminists.

It is people like Lis Wiehl who have spent their lives telling women that they are “being smothered,” that they need to “expand their horizons,” and that “motherhoos is involutary servitude.”

Most husband love their wives and appreciate what they do everyday. They understand the difficulties in raising children and maintaining a clean and healthy home environment.

Why are we allowing ourselves to be drawn into an argument created by Liberals? Conservatives have always been pro-family. Christian men have always appreciated what their spouses have been doing. If they fail to show it often enough then maybe that is a small problem that they need to redress, but to imply that “Housewives are doing a job that they should be paid for,” is to continue to devalue what they do and who they are.

My experience is that life in a marriage is a symbiotic relationship born out of love for each other and for the children.

Mwn must rmember that the source of this argument is not us, it is the feminist movement. It is they who have derogated housewives.

As to Marc’s performance,

Marc you did a better job than most could do. It is not easy to get up in front of a camera and maintain all of your wits about you. The camera is a fairly intimidating audience.

Marc is correct, in a 3 and a half minute debate, it is impossible to make every salient point especially when the host and your opponent are vying for camera time.

Please continue your efforts. I will not agree with you on your every word, but when I believe you are correct, I will not hesitate to support you, just as I have never been hesitant to criticize you (some might say too willing to do so).

Marc:
Don’t allow a woman to impute her retail income value without her being forced to impute equally a mans value to her on a retail basis. She will attempt to refuse to answer because the only answer becomes painfully obvious.
The only honest answer is that the mans value is that he pays her for sex and the Family court acts exactly in the manner of a brutal pimp. Any other representation is obviously fraudulent…

tom of covent garden,

You have made repeated comments about and are oddly focused on my wardrobe. Take a cold shower.

This is all so much bait and switch…
So the gals dont think they should have to negotiate, just be given top wages automatically. Who were these negotiated by? Men. Another instance of the gals expecting men to do the work, then step asside and gallantly offer their place in line? What form of gender equality is this? Equality of OUTCOME is an unattainable equality. If one can get more for doing less it will be attempted, as that’s human nature. That’s exactly what this battle is over, getting more while doing less and less…

Finally again with the negotiation. The gals dont wanna negotiate, too icky and factual and cold. That is until you have something they want that you dont want to provide, then the real nails come out.
What the basis of this argument is that the implicit negotiation of what will be provided in marrage is changed significantly over time and unsuccessfully so , the man expecting the woman to remain as she was, the woman attempting to change the man to what was to what she really wants.
There is much bad-faith negotiating going on for sure, more’n enough to go around but in truth their is only one side that is being protected against having to keep their word in the societal marriage contract which is essentially all about exchange of services. The retail value argument is a clever way of removing the very thing that makes men marry instead of calling up Molly Maid. As someone said, if it wasn’t for the sex I’d just marry my poker buddies. And for obvious reasons. An American woman makes/demands the house and home for herself any more, not for the mans desires especially, usually only as an afterthought, and in that case there’s nothing she should be expected to be paid FOR…

A tonsorial suggestion to Marc:
next FNC debate, come dressed as a submissive “yes dear” leatherspamkboy and agree to everything Lis says and heap on more of it (if possible). If your’re in Frisco they should have that suit at HS&M.
Just a thought, my brain hurts….

red pill said, “As someone said, if it wasn’t for the sex I’d just marry my poker buddies. And for obvious reasons.”

Some stand-up comic once quipped, ” Getting married for the free sex is like buying a 747 for the free peanuts.”

‘Nuff said.

Hi marc. You tell me to take a cold shower, but fail to acknowledge the contradictions, nae, hypocrisies of a men’s rights activist, pacifly conforming to a dress-code many men have no choice in avoiding, lest they change their job. For example, here in Central London, male and female staff at The National Portrait Gallery wear red buttoned shirts, the men, forced to button them up and wear a tie too. A few male employees argued this was sexist, so the management responded that if the men wanted equality, it would force the women to wear ties too. The men did the predictable thing, and backed down. At my local bank, the men are forced to wear ties, while the female staff have a choice of open-necked shirts. These men have no choice. That’s why this is a men’s rights issue, and that’s why I am talking about it. You have a choice, Marc, and a chance to set an example.

For the good of humanity, Marc, wear a polo-neck, t-shirt, or even an open-necked number – anything but a buttoned-down shirt and tie.

Keep up the good work!

Its not about what you get, that’s obvious. The debate is about what one should expect, whats the level of responsibility of the principals and how one should react to ones disappointment when what was contracted for and expected both implicitly and explicitly is unilaterally being renegotiated. As long as we pretend or are told we got married to buy a house and parent kids we don’t want, maintain the landscaping we don’t care for, make the payments for overpriced trinkets and shows of wealth and trash we don’t need and is never enough of we will lose any argument of who does what for whom and why.
American women have lost all sense of propriety and responsibility. It is a wonderment why men can blithly go to a killing job day after day to make daily payments shortening their lives day after day for things they dont want but are willing to provide for their partner out of an understanding of obligation while the gals are looking fervently for any rationalization that leaves them with less responsibility and more ammunition to assess blame and pass judgments on issues they are powerless to do better than and choose to allow, yes allow the failure of their relationships with their partner. American women aloow their men to be crushed at work, crushed in war, crushed in society and crused at home so they themselves can skate. There is no commitment that can be enforced that can be extracted happily from them whatsoever. Whatever social negotiation precedes agreement with the typical American female likely includes sexual items and from what I hear, those specific terms are universally misrepresented. Some time back there was a news item regarding a marrying couple which had a prenup regulating ‘congress’ to performance on a daily basis. Writing and document notwithstanding who wants to be the marriage now is well over, and why…

I see the argument she made was to just “go for the balls” and come after Marc with “do you have a mother?”

I think the perfect reply should be: “I have TWO parents. Do you give credit for the fathers for supporting their kids AND the other parent too?”

Anyways, you were there and I wasn’t. Hindsight is wonderful. Good job.

The whole debate is falsely framed, under a deeply conservative assumption and acceptance from both parties, that women stay home to look after the kids. No one challenged that. We’ve been had. No one talked about women’s moral responsibility to take some more of the strain of working outside the home, and men’s, to take some more of the strain of the monotany of housework and childcare, if we are to progress as a society. The Nazis and Fascists had very clear ideas about the roles of the sexes, and this tv channel, and the two protagonists debating today, might do well to remember the errors of our not so distant past – and work to resist this creative reworking of an old, divisive and hawkish theme – men fight/ women sit tight – regardless of the remuniration involved.

From what I have heard previously, Marc is an egalitarian (despite the dodgy collar and tie), so it appears he may have been had as well.

Tom,

IMO, “Egalitarian” is just another word for starry eyed unrealistic dreamer.

Rather than helping to relieve men of the strain of working outside the home, feminism has demanded that men work harder to compete with a flood of women entering the workforce. After several generations, it’s apparent that most women would rather be alone, or even childless, than share income with a man that actually needs it.

In addition, as men (and women) were pushed to work harder in a competitive workplace as well as pay higher taxes (don’t forget those), they both had less time to look after the kids. Most mainstream women believe that feminism should be about women getting hobby jobs to buy shoes and marry men to pay the real bills.

Give up the windmill!

Polishknight,

Sad. For a knight, you are a defeatist. Governments in europe are actually encouraging men to stay home more by granting them increasing amounts of paid paternity leave (although not as much as women’s). Women’s rhetoric might be returning to their fantasies of men in shining armour, to take care of everything, but the reality is, more and more women are working jobs, and their is no sign of women returning to the home yet. The above debate is an attempt to shift the frame, to prosume the home life is women’s exclusive right, and this is what progressive men’s rights activists must fight, in my opinion. Far and away, the highest proportion of housewifery in Europe is in Austria, followed by Germany and Italy – countries with a long history of hawkish militarism, compared to the passive, MORE EGALITARIAN Scandinavian countries, who avoid wars at all costs. House husbands don’t start wars, housewives do – because they know it won’t effect their cosy little indoor worlds, or at least, hope it won’t.

tom of covent garden..”house husbands dont start wars, house wifes do- because they know it wont effect their cozy little indoor world”

you may be onto something…conquering armies around the world always let the women go free…

when women are reckless with their insatiable appetites for more materialistic stuff, which can fuel wars between countries…are they aware that if war breaks out that even al-quieda spare the women.. are they abusing this fact, knowing they will never be held accounteable like the men will.

one very simple question. who is going to pay 138k to housewives? Husbands? Government?

Another question. Most women, as well as men, may quit job and be full time stay-at-home moms and dads. If both mom and dad in the household stay at home to raise kids, their total household income will jump to 276K!! Eventually most people will not work ouside. Now, question again, what will happen to all public and commercial services (when there is no people to ditch lucrative stay-at home raisnig kid job) and who will pay millions of people who suposedly deserves 138K each?

I couldn’t get this video to work. I also couldn’t get the other Rudov video to work on the wage-gap.

I believe that stay-at-home moms are incredibly mature people who decide to live on less, so that their kids can be raised in the proper environment.

But, this $138,000 (or whatever) is just moronic. You could just as easily say that working fathers are worth $250,000 by adding the income they bring home and converting all of their household chores to salaries of high-paid contractors:
lawncare, trash removal, plumbing repair, roof repair, automobile/lawnmower repair, painting, deckbuilding/staining, cement/driveway repair, I could go on & on.

But, what’s the point? And even if there was some kind of compensation being called for, where would this phantom money come from?

These people are just not jobs.

Great job Marc! Pick your battles so not to waste the short time allotted on the air.
Lis’s response when you said women have total access to their husbands money was great. That clearly showed that she “didnt” have that access which means she doesnt represent and cant relate anything that she is defending because all stay at home moms have that access…..At least all that I have known. Which makes her argument null because she is looking for entitlements and not anything she earned. IMO

Marc did good work because Lis Surrendered in her first sentence.

She admitted that it was a symbolic number, which means that it is not real and never will be real.

The whole notion was indeed silly, for it was an effort to make the Role of raising the next society a Monetized and materialistic value.

It can never have a monetized and materialistic value in an Economy, for the economy exists for the perpetuation of Mankind (family), mankind (Family) does not exist to perpetuate Economics.

For that reason alone Economics exists for the perpetuation of Family and Children, not anything else, thus the reason why Employers used to pay a man with children more than a single woman, payment had purpose and function and the Employer had a Right to pay as he deemed fit just as the Parable of the Master hiring workers throughout the day and all getting the same pay.

It is HIS Right, his business, his private contract to support what he believes in. (some workers believed in the work that it was worth doing even if most of the day was spent. That is an economy.)

For that reason alone, this debate was a clear example of the Marxist Materialism of Feminist psychopathy, reducing Motherhood to an economic number. Trying to build value in motherhood by numbers and not the relationship and love of children which the USSCT has stated is the ultimate manifestation fo teh joy of living for humans.

I will take corrcetion. It is sad…not silly.

Mothers should be insulted.

Slow to the party here, my apologies.

First, and least: regarding Marc’s attire. Go with whatever is most effective. Mix it up a bit.

Second, and most important: I think Marc did quite poorly, but not for the reasons anybody has identified. He went “off topic.” (Note that Lis didn’t do any better.) I value my time, and if I’m going to watch a segment on the theoretical compensation value of SAHM, then that’s what I want to see. Going to the realm of the injustice of divorce law, no matter how true, simply annoys the hell out of me. I had the same feeling during the last Republican debate, when a candidate would offer a one sentence answer to a question, then spend 28 seconds addressing another topic entirely.

He should have jumped on the “symbolic” value, i.e., if this is purely symbolic, then what’s the goal behind the symbol? If not symbolic, then why DO women do this? Challenge the propaganda and the assumptions underlying the propaganda!