I can only speak from direct observation and experience in this regard and for several generations of my family, the 'expendable income' after all necessities have been provided for, has not been large. The first thing I ever purchased with baby-sitting money earned was a pair of winter boots for my mother, as she had no warm footwear. She was raising four kids on her own at the time. Oh, sorry. That's probably just another example of 'gratuitous spending by women'. My bad. I could probably write the book on 'Less Is More' and how to survive with SFA. However, having studied a bit on breeding and genetics pertaining to horses, I do not consider breeding people of shorter stature to be a solution. More practical use of energy and energy efficient technologies would seem to be a better path. Population control would also seem to be a useful exercise but the parameters for such a program would have to be very carefully debated and established. The Chinese, limiting how many children per family, have been on this path for some time, as I recall from past reading.
If you look at male dominated cultures and compare these to the more balance western cultures, which use more resources? For example, if you look in Muslim countries, they are often backwards with resect to all the modern bells and whistles. Once the ladies have more say, they can't help but increase the cultural resource usage; assume they have the money to spend. If you look at the Amish, this is a patriarchy that stresses spirit over matter. China is another example. About 50 years ago it was more backwards, but today females have more influence in culture. China is now very resource intensive. From Wikipedia; Feminism in China
This is not an easy subject to discuss because women often respond better to lies than the truth. If a women asked if she looks fat in the dress, she does not want an objective assessment unless it is positive in her favor. If an objective assessment is negative she prefer that you lie, to make her feel better. The reason has to do with women having an ideal image of in their minds, which is not always possible in reality. She may see her husband in an ideal way and work to change him. The male knowing her fantasy/ideal image may not be the same as reality, can do one of two things. If he is totally objective and honest he might shatter her ideal with reality check, and then he will have to pay the consequences. Or, he can tell her what she wants; you look wonderful in that dress or I will try to change for you. She will reward this behavior since he is showing good judgment. My being honest about the females having the highest resource usage, may not make me popular with the ladies. I would be better off, if approval or votes was important, telling the ladies what they want to hear; the men strip the land, scarring the earth. Jewelry has nothing to do with this. The republicans could do better with the female voters if they would not be as honest, thinking knowledge will right, wrongs. They need to learn to lie better, like the democrats, and blame the depletion of the earth's resources on the rich white men, who control a fraction of the spending in the US. Once you feminize cultures and boys to men act more like the ladies, and then the males increase the resource usage. I sort of expected gay males to consumer more, since they argue they are ladies in men's bodies. The lesbians should be the opposite. The data shows they are also higher then even the straight ladies. I would attribute this to more influence by feminism and less by traditional male role models.
No, you've got that wrong. It is transsexuals who feel like they were born in the wrong body, and often have surgery to correct it. Homosexuals are more-or-less happy with their bodies (much like the rest of us who would like to be a few pounds lighter) but simply prefer a partner of the same sex. Bisexuals are not as well studied since they are a tiny fraction of the population, but they, too, seem to be content with their bodies. They find both men and women sexually attractive. Some lean a little more one way, some the other, and a few are right on the cusp.
I stand corrected. However, if my memory serves me right, the first generations of gays and lesbians, in the modern era, used the definition I used to help describe their transposition of mind and body, compared to the heterosexuals. Once gay became more mainstream, in terms of acceptance, the definition was fined tuned. The metamorphoses was like other PC terms; were not always there. The first definition was used to create a perspective of why someone would choose the opposite sex relative to their hardware. The changing times led to the next wave coming out of the closet, which were the transgender. To differentiate the two, a new definition was created. When this first appeared to the main stream it was even more puzzling. Now people have been conditioned and the two group appear more distinct. Regardless of this, it is interesting that females and the cross gender segments are the largest consumers of the earth's resources. They all have this traditional female matter instinct in common. This suggests a connection between all of them (mind and/or matter). I don't mean this in an insulting way, but this is inferred, based on where the data goes. Women also tend to be more understanding of the cross gender which mean they have more in common so there is a way to empathize, easier. Based on this consumer connection, one could infer that patriarchal cultures, can't relate to this group, due to a more distant connection. War, for example, is a man thing, but it is often used to expand boundaries allowing the culture more access to resources. More and more resources would be needed to meet the needs of growing consumer demand; female and extensions.
Men love motor vehicles, especially large ones that burn a lot of fossil fuel. Men have multiple motor vehicles: a car, a truck, a motorcycle, a snowmobile, a boat, etc. Not to mention leaf blowers, chain saws, snow blowers, ride-on lawnmowers, etc. Men drive more than women--whoever heard of a woman "going out for a drive" for no reason, unless it's autumn and she lives in Wisconsin? Men build gigantic office buildings where they leave the lights on all night--a habit which, by the way, kills about a billion birds every year. It is men who insist that it's impossible for people to work together if they're not in the same physical space (you'd never believe it was us who invented the internet Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!), which requires these office buildings to be built--not to mention that commuting accounts for 25% of our fossil fuel consumption. The second-order effects of this "gotta go to work" mantra include energy-intensive fast food franchises for people who don't get home early enough to eat with their families; fitness centers for people who don't have time for leisurely walks; gardeners for people who never see their lawn in the daylight; plumbers, handymen, etc. driving all over town to perform simple repairs we could do for ourselves if only we were home; nannies driving all over town, teaching their native language to children whose parents never see them when they're awake... The list of ways in which men squander resources, and at the same time destroy the concepts of "family" and "neighborhood," is much longer. Men even come up with reasons to fly all over the world in gigantic fuel-guzzling airliners: this conference must be held in person; I have to see the results of this project with my own eyes; I want to see how that new plant is doing; Joe and I are suing each other instead of compromising so we have to fly to the state capital for a hearing. And of course there is no more wasteful activity than war, most of which are started and fought by men.
I agree with this, since it is true, but it is misleading since it does not present the entire truth. How do explain the fact that 2/3 of the spending in the evil USA, is done by women with cross gender spending even higher per capita? If the 1/3 by the males is considered wasteful, which it is, how come twice as much is implied as less wasteful? This new data does not fit into the narrative taught in schools. Do those who program the narrative, benefit more by lying to the women or giving then all the truth? It is like a women asking do we (the women) look excessive with all our consuming? The liberal male says, no dear, female spending does not count as much, as the 1/3 that the men do. Ask for more and we will help control it for you so the evil conservative don't steal it like they do to all the resources. Young men buy fancy cars because they think this will attract a beautiful babes. The commercials show how the beautiful gals love the men in those fancy cars, because this shows wealth=higher consumption. Say women accepted the data of being the largest consumers. Say they also except the narrative of humans raping the planet for resources. This make it harder to leverage even more, using guilt. As long as the male are responsible (via the propaganda), the women will feel justified taking more due to perceived deficit. But if they realized they are the source of an imbalance, then that would mean the other way has more priority until the balance is achieved.
This female consumption equation also cuts to the heart of how the modern social changes have also led to huge deficits, where government consumption is now borrowing from the future, so a band of liars and thieves can prosper today. It is like stripping the forest faster than it can replenish itself, while blaming someone else so one can hide in the smoke. It is important for me to clear the mind of the women, since I believe that most women act in good conscience, based on the information that that have available, while, at the same time, being easy to lie to, by men with agendas. For example, if you consider a women in an abusive relationship, an outsider may not understand why she stays, even at the expense of family and friends? From the POV of a relationship energy balance, she is giving much more than she is receiving, yet she acts like this is balanced. The wild card variable is her abusive man is lying to her, to alter the balance of the equation in her mind/heart. He may say he loves her, that the last five beatings were a mistake, and that he has changed and will never do it again. If that was all true and not a lie, the equation would add differently. If it is a lie, but she accepts this as true, then in her mind this does add up. But since this lie is not part of reality, the outsider can't see her internal addition which is being shaped by his misinformation. He knows how to add perceived value, that is not there is reality, but only in fantasy. This topic of less is more (consumption) follows the same schema, in that 2/3 of consumption adds to earth abuse, but since the abusive husband who creates such consumption (marketing) and deficit spending (leadership) is lying to her, the math in her mind adds differently. I don't blame the ladies, since she is acting with what she perceives is honest intent and information. Her heart feels clean. This explains why this is hard to see, except but an outsider. Luckily, most abused women wake up one day.
You must have unintentionally limited your argument to personal spending. Corporations buy manufacturing plants, stores, theaters, apartments, restaurants and an endless list of other types of buildings. They also buy other corporations. They also buy fleets of vehicles: very large gas-guzzlers, like locomotives towing a hundred boxcars, or trucks towing semi-trailers. And the majority of corporations are controlled by men. Men spend virtually all of the money devoted to war and other military activities. Men spend virtually all of the money devoted to infrastructural projects such as bridges and dams. Considering that this country is a long way from gender equality, it's fair to say that men are responsible for the lion's share of the big money expenditures in the U.S. economy. Pointing out that women spend more on shoes, cosmetics and groceries than we do ignores the fact that they spend very little on bombers, powerplants, tractors, and the construction of schools and factories.
Kudos Fraggle in the way in which you respond to wellwisher with so much patience and so many facts.( which in the end he will use to diss women and liberals, no doubt) Here is what is odd though, I cannot help but read his posts even when what he writes at times takes my breath away. It really isn't even in the conclusion that he comes to but how he gets there that is curiously fascinating to me.
How does 2/3 national of national spending by women, not count? I agree the 1/3 by men is often more dramatic and the 2/3 is more subtle. But the 1/3 by men often is there for the both of them. Think of it this way, if man loves his wife and his family, he will work hard for them, to protect them, and make their life happy and easy. He will not skimp on security and creature comfort, if he can afford it and the wife knows it. The spending on national defense is not just for the men, with foreign invaders able to filter through the defense to get the women and children. Men often do these things to excess, so the women and children don't have to feel insecure. Men may underestimate the women but in the mind of men, the possibility of their fear/safety, matters. In my experience, there are three basic types of women, that bring out the instinctive man in men. The first is the vulnerable female or damsel in distress. She makes men feel strong and needed, by bringing out the protector male. He will do anything to make her feel safe with this instinct giving the energy to keep going. Men can overboard but will love every minute of it. Women and children first, is how the male protector thinks. He will remain last and take his chances, so the species continues. The second type is the material sex kitten, who can bring out the sexual drive within the male, to where he can lose his common sense. He will spare no expanse to impress her with material things. Some men will have a second home to support her, with her job nothing more than be there for their passion. Men go way overboard with lavish lifestyles and conspicuous consumption to attract and possess her. The third is the sophisticated woman. She is smart, has refined tastes. She can drive men in terms of her/his ambition, helping to shape his political/social skills and life experiences. She is the women behind many a successful man. She has higher maintenance habits, due to her refinement, but she is worth the extra expense in the eyes of the men. Most women are blends of the three, through ebb and flow, with their mates willing to accommodate, but less so. If you look at President Obama, his decisions would be expected to include the council of his wife with the parties as much for her/them.
As I said in my last post, this "statistic" surely includes only consumer spending. Add in corporate spending, which is almost exclusively the domain of men, and you'll get a more accurate number. I didn't say it was for men. I said it was overwhelming by men. Men dominate every level of government in the USA, from the White House, to Congress, to the various Departments, to the courts, all the way down to county councils and school boards.
