From News 14 Carolina:
The National Retail Association reports in 2003 single women bought one in five homes. That’s close to two million homes.
The share of homes bought by single women has increased about 33 percent over the past decade, making single women the fastest growing segment of the home buying population.
If you have questions about the moderation policies here, please read this post. Short version: treat other posters with respect.
If your submitted comment fails to appear, without even an error or "waiting for moderation" message, then our spam-blocking software may have blocked your comment. Please contact the moderators immediately so we can rescue your comment. If this happens repeatedly, you might visit Akismet's comment form to tell them they're falsely identifying you as a spammer.
April 3rd, 2005 at 9:59 am
Oh, they have got homes & they have got jobs. (”careers”?) I record numbers!
This comment was written by Fitz.What they don’t have, (and what they say they want) our husbands and children.
In record numbers!
Is hat a social problem?
Or is progress simply what happens next?
Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2005 at 10:44 am
THAT’S why there are no female bloggers. We’re off buying houses, building careers and, you know, generally taking care of ourselves.
This comment was written by Kat.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2005 at 11:47 am
Fitz, you really are a piece of work. And actually, many of us do have children too, thanks. Husband? I can take it or leave it. Like winning the lottery, finding a husband would be a fortunate occurance, but not one I’m either going to expect or put much effort into. If it happens, it happens. In the meantime, I love my life the way it is.
I bought my home when I was 26, and received a fair share of criticism for doing so, from folks outside my family. The thought was that home-buying is something only married women have the right to indulge in; the rest of us should just make some happy landlord wealthy. Several people made commentary about the “selfishness” of single women like me who dared to buy our own homes. I thought that notion bizarre; no one claims that we are “selfish” for buying our own cars!
Really, people, get a grip. I didn’t buy my house to make some bold, feminist statement. I bought my house because I had finally saved up a down-payment, because I wanted a yard to grow a garden, cook outdoors, and relax in, because I didn’t want to share walls with any more loud obnoxious neighbors, because I wanted to be able to decorate the way I wanted, because I wanted more space, and because owning actually gives you something for your money (renting gives someone else something for your money!). None of the single men I know who bought houses had to run that verbal gauntlet, even if they weren’t engaged or even dating anyone special. Why should we have to wait until we have a husband (something that may never happen) to enjoy being a homeowner? Men receive no social criticism for being homeowners, even without a wife.
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2005 at 12:18 pm
Buying real estate was the best thing I ever did for myself. Why should I wait for a husband to do it?
Besides, if I do ever get married, now I have more money to bring into the marriage because I have equity.
This comment was written by zuzu.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2005 at 12:34 pm
Single women buying their own homes
With so much bad economic news on the horizon, it’s good to see something positive. Ampersand posts on a report indicating that one in five homes bought in 2003 was sold
This comment was written by Pandagon.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2005 at 12:44 pm
Fitz, it seems to me that, if you plan on making some sort of crass remark about single women owning their own homes but not having what (you claim) they really want, it would behoove you to check your grammar and spelling. Not only does your short screed shine light on your ignorant bigotry, but your obvious inability to write a cogent paragraph shows how little time, effort, and thought you’ve put into forming your foolish opinions.
La Lubu, I think you make an excellent point: a single woman buying a house needs neither to be frowned upon as unseemly nor seen as making a feminist statement; both seem to me to be unnecessary extremes. Aside from you, several of my good friends (all women) have bought their own homes in the last few years (a couple of them more than once), and they did so for several reasons similar to yours. In more than once case, she was buying a home simply because it’s a sound investment: it improves one’s credit, pays a foreseeable return (almost always), and keeps the money in your pocket and not your landlord’s. So why aren’t people making waves about single women investing in Apple stock or buying T-bonds? The answer, in my opinion, is simple: because it’s a non-issue, as it should be. Just as a person’s gender is unimportant when buying or selling stock, so should it be when it comes to how they choose to invest in their home.
This comment was written by Will.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2005 at 1:04 pm
Oh, they have got homes & they have got jobs. (”?careers”?) I record numbers!
What they don’t have, (and what they say they want) our husbands and children.
In record numbers!
Is hat a social problem?
I’m a single woman with a career, and I’ve been a homeowner for the past 3.5 years. Some time in my early 30s I worked for a company that stressed work-life balance and I saw my co-workers (who are stil my friends) able to achieve that because our company allowed us the flexibility to work from home when necessary (it now allows telecommuting 2 days/week). This is around the time I started thinking it would be nice to have a family (husband & children). What I learned is that a lot of men in their 30s (and early 40s) are very uncomfortable with successful women and not interested in a relationship with one who has the same (or greater) earning potential as they do (the huge weight gain I had over the past year makes that situation worse).
I would love to get married and have/adopt/foster children; I can’t do the latter as a single person and am not about to just find some guy to snare into marriage because I want the husband and family. A lot of the successful single females have watched many of the women we know and work with settle instead of settling down with a compatible mate in a secure relationship. We know that marriage is a lot of work and there’s more to the right partner than just being in love. We’ve watched as many of our sisters have made mistakes in their quest for the dream and see a large proportion of them divorced and struggling or staying in unhappy relationships because they’re afraid of ending up alone like those of us who haven’t married. Yes, we’re envious of our sisters who have found the right mate and struck that balance, but we’ve also learned the lessons of those who have not and so we often will choose to be alone instead of lonely/unsatisfied within a relationship.
This being said, if anyone knows a single Jewish guy in the Philly area who is at least in his early 30s, not gay, willing to deal with some extra chub (hopefully temporary), likes animals and is looking for a woman whose only debt is her car payment, send him my way.
This comment was written by Ol Cranky.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2005 at 1:06 pm
P.S. not to sound too picky, but the guy has to have a backbone - the last thing I want/need is someone I can boss around (I’m opinionated, but a bit of a bottom in my personal life) and I can be a major PiTA.
This comment was written by Ol Cranky.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2005 at 1:19 pm
I have to wonder, like I said at Pandagon, if the single women they are referencing includes divorced women. Most divorced women I know took their divorce settlement and used it as a down payment on a new house. But yeah, I know a lot of never-married women who own their own homes, and from what I can tell, the supposed threat this presents to men hasn’t materialized for any of them. One guy I know married a woman who owned her own house and he was grateful that he was spared the pain of having to look for one with her.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2005 at 1:24 pm
See, I just don’t get the whole idea that because I’m female, I should put major portions of my life on hold just because I don’t have a husband. Fuck that. Any guy worth a damn as a husband doesn’t demand that a woman make less of herself, or sit around idly watching (valuable) time pass her by! I have absolutely no intention of not following my dreams just because they may alienate some possible, future, but presently nonexistant husband.
And yeah, that does alienate some of ‘em. And that’s good. Because those are precisely the wrong ones to get involved with from the beginning!
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2005 at 1:34 pm
Amanda, I just tried to post on Pandagon but I don’t think it took! I was married previously, but could never own a house then because he was a nonworking alcoholic after the first year of marriage. After I no longer had to support his sorry ass, I could save the necessary funds for a down-payment. I seriously wanted to be a homeowner and get off the rent treadmill, so I hit the road for overtime and was a homeowner within a year of the divorce.
Where I live, rents can be higher than a mortgage. Housing is cheap here as long as you aren’t buying into an exclusive subdivision or gated community. I know people who pay twice my mortgage for rent on a no-frills two-bedroom apartment. The number of single women here buying homes is probably higher than average because of that, even though there’s a lot of tongue-clucking about it in the (conservative) community at large.
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2005 at 1:44 pm
To the extent that women wish they had husbands and don’t have them, that’s too bad, and I do believe that there are a lot of women who do wish they had husbands and can’t find the right one (and men who wish they had wives, and men who wish they had husbands, etc). Life’s tough. It’s better to have a home and no husband than no home and no husband, though. At least, I’d think so.
This comment was written by Julian Elson.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2005 at 2:06 pm
I’m thinking some of them are widows, too. A while back my grandmother sold her house and bought a condo, because she didn’t need the extra space and she was getting too infirm to deal with the yard. She would have done it earlier, I think, but there weren’t as many condos around when she was widowed twenty years ago. Part of it is that the market is finally providing property appropriate for single people. There are a lot more condos and townhouses than there used to be.
And a lot of it is just that women are more financially savvy and confident than they used to be.
This comment was written by Sally.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2005 at 4:05 pm
Why can’t we have a house and no husband?
This comment was written by radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2005 at 4:12 pm
One caveat about reading too much into this. I bought my home as a single woman — the closing was one month before my wedding.
I had been saving money towards a down payment for years. My husband-to-be was still a college student. I looked into the Financial Aid formulations, and realized that I had to purchase a home in the calendar year I got married or Financial Aid would assume that all of it was available for my husband’s tuition. He’d get no Financial Aid, and I’d have no money left for buying a house.
It was just luck of the find that I discovered this house one month before the wedding, rather than sometime afterwards.
Anyway, just sharing that additional piece of data.
This comment was written by Lis Riba.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2005 at 5:40 pm
I am a single, female, career-minded woman. No kids, don’t want ‘em. And I have no need of a husband to make all of that OK. Sure, it would be nice to meet someone compatible, but it would have to be someone really exceptional to make me give up my independence. Many of my married friends envy the blissful freedom I enjoy, but to be perfectly honest, I don’t envy any of them their wedded lives.
This comment was written by Rumblelizard.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2005 at 8:12 pm
“Fitz said: What they don’t have, (and what they say they want) our husbands and children.”
They want OUR husbands and children! What devious witches! Thank goodness we have wardens of morality like Fitz to ensure the safety of our families by denying women the right to purchase property free of social stigma!
“Fitz said: Is hat a social problem?”
Well I do think the dissapearance of practical headgear from everyday attire has been a sad diminishing of our culture, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say it was a social problem.
“Fitz said: Or is progress simply what happens next?”
Is this cryptic statement some sort of zen koan? or perhaps it is a prototype for reverse zen, negative wingnut wisdom that pulls the listener away from enlightenment (I’ll call it “fitz”, in honor of its mysterious originator)
This comment was written by DRA.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2005 at 2:50 am
But not one word of analisis on source of income, finance particulars, or how those 28% got that house.
This comment was written by CaptDMO.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2005 at 7:28 am
The point I was making: least it was to cryptic, Is that we celebrate women’s “independence”? (in this case in the form of home ownership) without looking at larger trends that effect their lives and aspirations.
This comment was written by Fitz.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2005 at 7:39 am
I would think that a woman’s independence (sans quotation marks) is the largest trend to affect her life or her aspirations.
Do you have any “advice” for the lesbian readership, Fitz?
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2005 at 7:50 am
“Fitz said: The point I was making: least it was to cryptic…”
Huh!?
“Fitz said: …Is that we celebrate women’s “independence”? (in this case in the form of home ownership) without looking at larger trends that effect their lives and aspirations.”
So what do you suggest we do about this “problem” Fitz? What would you say to all those clearly “muddleheaded” women? Women such as those who have posted their reasons and explanations on this very thread following your hasty, knee-jerk comment?
What is your solution oh concerned one?
This comment was written by DRA.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2005 at 8:03 am
Capt. DMO: I made the assumption that those women would buy their house the same way I did, from their earnings.
Fitz: What larger trends are you talking about? I find that my homeowning is a great way to screen out men who have problems with independent women. Guys who are cool with independent women don’t mind dating a woman who owns her home. Guys who have an attitude about a woman who owns a home are also likely to have an attitude about other things, such as the fact that I like to read books and use my own mind.
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2005 at 8:19 am
I have to say that Fitz is on to something here. Hat is, indeed, a social problem. It’s the compulsive need to cover up & hide stuff that is the clarion call of the destruction of our civilization. Look what happened when last hats were required…. The sexual revolution! What, oh what will come of the latest trend towards hat wearing? It has me truly worried about the world that we will be leaving to our children. 2005 the peak of oil production, leading to a great increase in cost of nearly everything that makes our lifestyle possible? That’s nothing compared to what will come from wearing hats and societal acceptance of single women owning houses. You tell ‘em Fitz! You great, incompetent troll you.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2005 at 8:25 am
Perhaps it’s the *lack* of hats that concerns Fitz. Once, women were ladies and men wore hats, then JFK showed up bareheaded to his Inauguration and *pow!* the Sixties happened.
This comment was written by zuzu.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2005 at 8:28 am
My Solution
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91059-13317130,00.html
See ya in England!
This comment was written by Fitz.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2005 at 8:40 am
Zuzu,
If Fitz were worried about the lack of hats, he obviously would have written:
Is lacky hat a social problem?
So, while I can see the validity of your argument (bareheaded = barebreasted), I think that the real problem came from wearing hats. I believe, and Fitz the great communicator clearly agrees, the return of hatwearing to societal acceptance coinciding with the societal acceptance and preponderance of single female homeowners is the harbinger of our civilization’s collapse.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2005 at 8:50 am
I have always held that Americans made the wrong choice when we decided to get rid of hats and keep pantyhose. Hats are cute, keep your head warm, protect you from the sun, and do not make you feel like an over-stuffed sausage. Say yes to hats! Say no to pantyhose!
Um, ok, homeownership. It seems to me that there’s a real difference between buying a home and owning a home. If single women are buying more homes, that’s an interesting trend. If they’re owning more homes, that might just be a result of trends in divorce and widowhood.
This comment was written by Sally.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2005 at 10:25 am
Hey, a Fritz? I read you’re little news article, and all I got to say is “So?”. Maybe those nice little ladies in Leeds were happy being married and breeders. Yay for them, we need good moms. I would be miserable, and I think that there are a lot of women that would be. So, yes, I do celebrate independence: the realization that happiness is not contigent on someone else, but within yourself.
This comment was written by Antigone.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2005 at 10:32 am
>making single women the fastest growing segment of the home buying population.
And the biggest reason for soaring home prices. Between single women creating a need for that many more homes, and the working married women doubling the income of the richest families, it’s no wonder there is a housing crisis. All households should be married, single income households. It’s only fair. Two incomes is greedy, not sharing your house is greedy.
This comment was written by Lubbuck.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2005 at 10:35 am
Sally, this article referenced single female home buyers, and the trend has been going on for a while….and you’re right, it is interesting. I know when I bought my house, the bank was making a serious effort to attract single female homebuyers, with great results.
I think part of the trend is due to women educating themselves about financial matters in general; after the emphasis on investing it was only natural for homebuying to increase also. For most people, it makes more financial sense to buy than to rent. Part of it is also increased education, and thus earning power. Part of it is skyrocketing rents in proportion to home prices; some of the women I know weren’t as thrilled as I was to buy their own home (they viewed it as a hassle of upkeep), but did so because it was literally cheaper than renting (especially taking into consideration tax breaks given to homeowners).
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2005 at 10:45 am
Sorry Lubbuck, but single women are emphatically not the reason for soaring home prices. We can’t compete financially with the two-income families either! And home prices aren’t soaring everywhere, just the places that are economically booming. If you live in the Rust Belt like me, there’s bargains to be had. Yuppies don’t want to live in the older neighborhoods with modest Craftsman-style homes; they want the McMansions out by the golf courses. Thank God. Their sprawl is what makes city housing affordable for the working class.
And yes, I’ve been called greedy for owning my home sans male companionship, thanks. Usually by some jobless male who was looking for a sugar mama to provide him with free housing, since his mom kicked him out.
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2005 at 10:47 am
“And the biggest reason for soaring home prices. Between single women creating a need for that many more homes, and the working married women doubling the income of the richest families, it’s no wonder there is a housing crisis. All households should be married, single income households. It’s only fair. Two incomes is greedy, not sharing your house is greedy. ”
*violin music*
Yeah, rentals are getting ridiculous. That’s why I looked into buying and I did it, at the tailend of when I could have ever afforded it.
yeah, there’s upkeep(I have a termite inspector coming out this week when the lovely little critters migrated out of my porch steps) but at least you can decide what your walls look like.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2005 at 10:49 am
Yeah, Lubbuck, I’ll put the violin down a couple seconds and tell you, when all else fails, blame the women, who after all should be married or housebound, or I guess on the street, or at the mercy of skyrocketing rents.
You know, dude, if you lived in California, you could like go out right now and get signatures from other 1950s nostalgics out there and you might get enough for the ballot…
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2005 at 11:09 am
Look at it this way radfem—at least he can’t blame us for the rising rent! You’d think he’d be thanking us for doing our part to stem the tide of higher rent prices!
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2005 at 11:31 am
Women working is the biggest reason for soaring home prices, and for the increased gap between rich and poor. I note that you won’t share your home with a jobless male. Women generally want someone who earns at least as much as them (unless the guy is really hot), thus causing the income gap to shoot up logarhythmically. Men, back in the 50’s didn’t expect their wives to work at all, maybe a little if they were having trouble making ends meet. Someone called such women parasites, and I don’t believe it was a man. Someone called men that supported a wife (and in so doing kept down rents, home prices, gas consumption, third world exploitation, and kept up salaries here at home) - someone called these men “chauvinists” and really changed everything. Someone pretty much doubled our workforce and our consumption, making us the pigs of the world, hated by everyone that appreciates life more than relentless ugly cat fighting.
This comment was written by Lubbuck.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2005 at 11:40 am
women have always worked.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2005 at 11:42 am
First of all Lubbuck, more women worked in the 1950s than in the previous decade. And women of color, married or not, have ALWAYS worked out of the home.
Second of all, most women work the first shift in their paid job, and then pull the second shift at their unpaid job at home, which is to cook, clean, launder, nurse and look after a husband(who may or may not have replaced his mother with his wife) and children(biologically and chronologically speaking).
Some couples distribute housework evenly between them, when both work, but many still don’t.
I love it when conservatives bemoan women working outside the home but at the same time, they advocate for conditions in our society, economically speaking, that make it harder and harder for single wage households to survive, let alone provide for themselves.
Yeah, if I got married, I would like the guy to work, whether he’s “hot” or not. If he couldn’t work, and I did, then he can take care of the household and children. Some men might find that emasculating, but some find it really works for them.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2005 at 11:42 am
*Snort*
Actually, you’d be wrong.
How many indigent women are sleeping on your couch, mister?
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2005 at 11:47 am
You know, this historical blindness comes up a lot. Can we have an women-in-the-workforce corollary to Amp’s Shorter Pro-Lifer?
“Women of color? What women of color?”
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2005 at 12:04 pm
That would depend on the reason for the joblessness. Laid off due to the economy? Going back to school? Parental leave? Yes to all of those. Drug abuse? Swilling beer all day? Serious video game jones? Permanent ass-cheek indentations on the couch? HELL NO! to all those.
Yes, I work. So did my mother, so did my grandmother, and great-grandmother, and so on. Only wealthy women have had the option of not working. I come from peasant heritage, so there you go. Where I come from, everybody works; there are no trustafarians.
You really need to crack open a history book sometime; perhaps then you’d discover that inflation was not created by working women. It’s been awhile, but I used to hear catcalls that I was “stealing” a “man’s job”—that some man somewhere would be able to support his family if only I would quit my job (and be homeless, I guess). My response was “I quit a minimum wage job so I could do this; he can have that job. After all, if it was good enough for me, it can be good enough for ’some man’ too.”
Lubbuck, I earned what I have. I’m not going to voluntarily starve for anyone other than my family, if it came to that. And I’m fed up with the shiftless-male-supporting business, too.
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2005 at 12:11 pm
I bought my house as single, 36 year old male. For me it was liberating. Even though I was unsucessful finding a mate, I was sucessful at getting my financial life in order (badly needed after my 20). The housing market here is very expensive. It took me 7 years to pay off debt and save for the down-payment. Then I could only afford a fixer-upper, which takes up many of my weekends. I wouldn’t do it differently. I still love coming home to MY house.
It sucks that people would give single women a hard time about this. I felt some similar pangs myself, but no one said anything to me.
Most sucessful woman don’t give a damm how much money a guy makes. IMO, most want a male who enjoys his career and is OK with the choices he has made. In my experience it is male insecurity that is the real reason for the perception that women don’t date below thier income. Once I got over that, it never was an issue. My fiance makes about 10K more than me, though I’m more frugal so it kind of balances out. Besides, if you run into one of these woman, you can run the other way.
This comment was written by Ron O.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2005 at 2:35 pm
“Fitz said: My Solution
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91059-13317130,00.html
See ya in England!”
So…your solution for American single female home owners, regardless of their situation or preferences, is to follow the advice of a 200 word H.I. fluff piece posted on a third rate news source which uses phrases like “top of the happiness league”? and cites a single survey conducted only in British gas stations by a corporation on behalf of their loyalty card program that apparently used smiles as a “scientific”? unit of measure.
And the advice it gives is to be British, living in Leeds, 50 years old, and married with two kids.
Seems simple and obvious enough! Thank you for your wise, mature and intellectually rigorous commentary Fitz. Good luck with your new life in England, don’t let their liberal tendencies and constant mockery of American stone-age habits get you down.
This comment was written by DRA.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2005 at 5:13 pm
Soaring home prices are caused, I do believe, by the growing gap between the rich and poor. The rich can afford to drive up real estate prices and the poor’s wages aren’t keeping pace.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2005 at 5:25 pm
Soaring home prices are caused, I do believe, by the growing gap between the rich and poor. The rich can afford to drive up real estate prices and the poor’s wages aren’t keeping pace.
Rises in home prices are largely attributable to environmental regulations and restrictions on development. When the creation of something is limited by external factors, the price of the existing supply goes up. Housing prices are not skyrocketing in areas without such regulations.
The rich can afford to “drive up” real estate prices - if by “drive up” you mean pay what the market demands - but they have no motivation for doing so artificially. That the poor are disproportionately affected by these policies is regrettable, but the phenomenon was predictable, and predicted.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 4th, 2005 at 7:35 pm
I think that Amanda, Robert, and yes, Lubbuck all have points about factors that drive up housing prices. In addition, generally everyone wants their home to be expensive. If Bob wants to move from St. Louis to Kansas City, and Mary wants to move from Kansas City to St. Louis, then Mary may want Bob’s home to be cheap and her home to be expensive, and Bob wants the opposite. The thing is, Mary votes in Kansas City elections (voting for more expensive housing) and Bob votes in St. Louis elections (voting for more expensive housing). Bob can’t vote local laws about Mary’s house’s price, or Mary Bob’s, so we end up with each community trying to jack up housing prices through various zoning ordinances and such.
Even leaving aside the incentives among politically powerful constituencies for more expensive homes, I think rising housing prices are a natural result of expansion in population and wealth, since land is fixed, but demand isn’t (environmental restriction has an impact on housing prices in the outer suburbs, of course, but even with totally unrestricted development, the amount of land in Manhattan will never increase). I don’t think there’s anything we can really do about higher housing prices, but I think implementing Georgian/Ricardian rent taxes might make the best of the situation, by providing governments with a source of revenue with little impact on incentives.
This comment was written by Julian Elson.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2005 at 12:16 am
You know, I’m really tired right now, yet am unable to get to sleep. Damn you feminist homeowners, on whom the blame for this clearly lies. Also the hat. Damn that hat and all the societal problems it brought upon us.
Sorry - if need be I’ll blame this post on the lack of sleep and get to bed.
This comment was written by Raznor.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2005 at 12:20 am
Oh, and I just caught this:
Wait, why would they want our husbands and children? But I take this first person reference to indicate that our friend Fitz has finally gone out and gay-married. Good for him. I trust the adoption went smoothely?
This comment was written by Raznor.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2005 at 4:18 am
Hey, wait, I’m confused. The feminists want our husbands? What for? Lunch? I thought feminists hated men. There’s a memo! There’s rules. The secret feminist conspiracy doesn’t want men for anything but cat toys. What happened?!
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2005 at 4:58 am
I bought my house with my husband, but my sister recently made her first foray into home ownership in the rust belt city I grew up in. Believe me, the city is dying to attract peoople like her — people who fix up well built older homes, pay their taxes on time and don’t demand too much in the way of services.
The “housing boom” as some have indicated is really a “problem” only in select metro areas — NY, SF, DC, etc. and has only a passing relationship to environmental regulations. At least where I live, soaring home prices are partly attributable to a third factor not previously discussed, that I personally detest. There are at least three local political jurisdictions where I live that are affirmatively trying to reduce the growth of their school age population, out of one side of their mouths, and crying out of the other about how hard it is for young families to afford homes. They have adopted such things as minimum lot sizes and various other “tricks” to make housing more scarce and less friendly to families. This is not the fault of single women (or single men). It’s the fault of shortsighted municipal politicians.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2005 at 5:09 am
I bought my house in 2001 and it’s the best thing I ever did. Absolutely no regrets at all.
This comment was written by Janice.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2005 at 7:16 am
I’m not an economist, but it seems the housing costs around these parts have gone up in large part because lower interest rates made buying a home, or buying a larger home, more economically feasible. More buyers mean higher demand for houses and higher prices.
This comment was written by holly.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2005 at 10:10 am
And fewer buyers would lower prices. There would be fewer buyers if there wer more marriages. And if those marriages had one wage earner, there’d be less money to throw around, raising prices.
This comment was written by Lubbuck.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2005 at 10:22 am
Or more houses would lower prices. If we could create an alternate dimension that was connected to major cities, there’d be an unlimited amount of space for homes close to municipal centers, hence making good homes affordable. Damn you feminists, for making us focus on equality for women instead of dimension creating technology!!!
This comment was written by Raznor.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2005 at 10:50 am
I agree with Holly.
Part of it, is with new housing being constructed in my city which is one of the country’s fastest growing regions, is that the emphasis is on high-end housing. Meaning starting in the $500,000 range, which even though my region is in California(which has some of the most costliest housing), that would still buy you a lot of house.
The city is gungho about this housing b/c they’re trying to attract O.C. people tired of astronomical housing costs in that region, to my city. B/c even with higher-priced housing here, it’s still far below O.C.
Also, the city hates that the percentage of rentals is 44 percent, in large part b/c it’s a “college” town. But also lots of seniors on SS# and working class families rent. A lot of them lie in Redevelopment areas or CBGM areas, where there’s a requirement that a portion of the development has to be “affordable” housing, either renting or buying. It’s about 15 percent if they build that housing within the development area, or 30 percent if they build outside of it(which in prime real estate areas, they’ve been putting them outside)
We have one city council member who gives a damn about affordable housing, and three who are in hock to their keisters to real estate developers who specialize in high-end recidential.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2005 at 10:51 am
Barbara, oh yeah, on the short-minded municipal politicians. I’ve seen all those same tricks and more…
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2005 at 11:03 am
So, if fewer buyers would lower the price of houses, then, arguably, we should limit single males from buying houses. If you aren’t part of a family, then you have NO right to drive up demand, right? That’s just selfish.
Take the logic away from the sexism, and you sound pretty goddamn silly. With the sexism, it’s even sillier.
This comment was written by Antigone.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2005 at 11:23 am
Lubbuck, you must be a landlord. Who else would believe that a single woman is better off renting for $600 a month, instead of buying for $300 a month?
And in the meantime, all the houses that me and my single female friends bought would be sitting empty and idle, ripe for use as drug houses. Like I said, yuppies don’t want “average Joe” houses like mine. They want the cathedral ceilings, Jacuzzis, floor-to-ceiling windows overlooking the ninth hole sort of houses.
(don’t get me wrong….I’d love a Jacuzzi! It’s just going to have to wait a while!)
I hate golf, and don’t need seven bedrooms or a 4,000 sq. ft. house. And those are the only overpriced houses in my neck of the woods. Frankly, around here, if you’re complaining about the housing prices it’s because you bought more house than you need. It’s like complaining about the high cost of a Hummer payment….like shit, why didn’t you just buy a Chevy?
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2005 at 11:33 am
Why do people without kids need houses, anyways? While we’re preventing single men and women from buying, why not only allow people with children (perhaps at least 2) to buy houses? (I am not sure how this would work when you factored in things like children growing up or spouses dying, but the details can be worked out.)
Of course, this will have the effect of driving down house values and driving up rent costs, but needs must. Maybe there can just be huge dorms for people without kids.
This comment was written by wolfangel.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2005 at 12:01 pm
Well, I bought one b/c I no longer wanted to be at the mercy of out of control rental increases in a city which laughs at any suggestion of rent control laws. My rent became nearly half of my income and was only going to get worse. Now, I still have to make payments and pay for upkeep, but I have four times more space to work with. It feels great.
Plus, the trend now where I used to live is to upgrade rental apartments into condos, starting at 100 grand. Well, I wouldn’t buy any place I rented, with my money.
More storage space too. No more annual broken toes from hitting storage boxes.
More important is independence. Most rentals don’t allow pets. I wanted to keep my pets. And I like changing things in my house which you can’t do while renting.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2005 at 12:49 pm
Why do people with kids get to have houses anyway? Kids screw up a lovely home. Only single people with time to decorate should get houses.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2005 at 1:05 pm
wolfangel: I bought my house five years before I had a child. Here’s why:
1. My mortgage payment was lower than my rent payment. That trend has amplified over the years. When I first moved in, my mortgage was $50 less than rent. Now, it is $250 less than rent.
2. I’m building equity. I didn’t buy my house with the idea of making money; I bought with the intention of living the rest of my life in it. However, knowing that I have a built-in investment for keeping a roof over my head helps. In a pinch, a home equity loan could help bridge a gap.
3. Hefty, hefty tax break, which is even more important for the childless.
4. I save money in other ways too. One, I have more space for a pantry and a freezer. I can save money by buying food and other dry goods in bulk now that I have a place for storage. Two, I have a yard to grow a good-sized garden in. Having a home to work in and on also helped keep me busy, instead of aimlessly going out and spending cash. I actually wanted to be home!
5. Safety. Some folks have asked me if I feel unsafe by being a homeowner without a live-in man, but it’s quite the opposite. When I lived in an apartment, I never knew my neighbors, because they moved in and out all the time. Some of them were real roughnecks. When my ex-husband broke in and tried to kill me, no one gave enough of a shit to call the police. And with twenty apartments to a building, all kinds of folks were in and out of the building; it was anything goes. Not so now. Sure, it can be a rough neighborhood, but all my neighbors know each other and we look out for one another and help each other out. With apartment living, I’d sometimes go outside and see young men sitting on my vehicle, just hanging out. No one has ever gone up in my driveway, or on my porch, to just hang out. The privacy of a household is precious. I fear break-ins a helluva lot less now that I’m a homeowner.
6. Freedom! If I feel like cranking up music late at night, I can! As long as my windows aren’t wide open, it won’t bother the neighbors. I can paint and decorate any way I please. I can have a pet. I can use my backyard for recreation. I can lift weights in the basement instead of having a health club membership (well, that was a factor before motherhood, LOL!). It’s a helluva lot easier to cook outdoors, and I don’t have to worry about the grill being stolen, since I have a garage to put it in.
7. Did I just say garage? That’s something apartment dwellers don’t have! And in the extreme climate of the midwest, with cold, heat, humidity, snow, ice, hail, etc. it helps save wear-and-tear on the vehicle. Besides the fact that it helps protect against car break-ins.
8. Besides, houses tend to be built where there are amenities like parks, libraries, restaurants, schools, etc. Apartments tend to be built where those things aren’t. Even before I had a child, I dug that I could walk to downtown restaurants, the library, and street festivals.
Bullshit on saving those simple pleasures solely for the procreative among us. Why should they deserve less?
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2005 at 1:10 pm
Antigone, I agree that single males should not buy houses either. People should not be single, period. Everyone should marry.
This comment was written by Lubbuck.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2005 at 1:19 pm
I figured my comment about the dorms for everyone else made it clear I was being sarcastic. I guess not. Hard to tell online, sometimes.
I am single and childless (and single single, not with someone but unmarried) and planning to buy a place soon (though your reasons won’t apply to me except for the building equity one). .
This comment was written by wolfangel.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2005 at 1:20 pm
Why on earth should everyone marry? And does that mean that you also endorse SSM so more people actually can marry?
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2005 at 1:22 pm
wolfangel, I took your comments to be satire. Barring further expansion, I’m also taking Lubbuck’s most recent comments to be satire.
Maybe single people can own property if they just limit it to one-bedroom apartments?
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2005 at 1:27 pm
Obviously then, Lubbock, you must also support bigamy, in areas of the country there’s um, a gender inbalance.
SSM would greatly alleve the crises of too many singles out there, doing God knows what to drive housing prices up…so when the constitutional amendment on marriage comes to my state, I can count on you to oppose it then, right?
(figuring that you’re one of those folks who travels around the country preaching about the importance of marriage)
LOL, you guys crack me up…Thanks for the levity.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2005 at 1:36 pm
wolfangel, I thought your comment might be satire, but I wasn’t sure. There are extreme “voluntary simplicity” folk out there that think, say, if you own more than two pairs of pants or shoes that you’re being greedy, or taking up too much of an environmental footprint. And maybe they’re right. At the same time, I don’t want to do laundry every day.
That was a common criticism I heard when I bought my house—that I didn’t “need” to because I didn’t have a child, therefore I was being “selfish”. Strangely enough, despite telling me I was “selfish”, none of the older people whose children were grown sold their house that they owned outright, for the opportunity to pay rent again. Go figure.
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2005 at 1:42 pm
>Why on earth should everyone marry?
To keep housing costs down, silly. That’s what we are talking about. There shouldn’t be so many single people all earning salaries and renting or owning homes. Everyone should be in a single income marriage.
>And does that mean that you also endorse SSM so more people actually can marry?
Everyone can marry! And everyone should want to, too.
This comment was written by Lubbuck.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2005 at 1:49 pm
Well, of course you didn’t *need* a house. Very few people do. (Selfish is such a vast term that it’s almost meaningless, except as a term to insult others.) I certainly don’t need a house (realistically, I will probably get a condo — but not the kind in a high-rise, the kind in a converted house — I just keep saying house), and it’s probably not going to earn me that much money over the long run (no tax break, for one thing), but I *want* one, and I can afford one.
But selfish is an interesting term. You can be selfish if you do things for yourself in general, or if you do things for yourself which negatively affect other people, or do things for yourself which negatively affect other people more than not doing things would negatively affect you, etc. (There are interesting discussions about, say, selfishness and suicide, where it is “selfish” to kill yourself, but apparently selfless to want a family member to live in pain because you’d be sad.)
I don’t own many more than 2 pairs of pants, but I own a lot of shoes. You can pry them off of my cold dead feet.
This comment was written by wolfangel.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2005 at 1:52 pm
Amanda, you have convinced me. People with children cannot take care of houses, so they also shouldn’t be allowed to buy houses. Houses will be very cheap, since no one’s actually allowed to live in them. Problem = solved.
This comment was written by wolfangel.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2005 at 1:58 pm
Actually, to be fair, it’s people with children who can’t take care of houses. As proof, I no longer entertain at home. Neither do any of my friends. They can’t bear having anyone look at their houses in their current state.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2005 at 1:59 pm
Women are “selfish” when we think of ourselves first for five minutes of every year. Amazingly, men are not.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2005 at 2:00 pm
So…uhh…Lubbuck. Who’s going to be feeding, clothing, housing and providing medical care for all those single people who aren’t allowed to have jobs or homes? Not to mention all those single people’s children, since there’d probably be plenty of births taking place, what with all that spare time on the hands of singles, plus no birth control (no access to medical care/no money to buy BC)?
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2005 at 2:08 pm
I agree; selfish is used against women for things that it’s not used against men for. A first pass at a generalisation would be that something is called selfish if either the person complaining about it disapproves of the action or if the person wanted to do it but was prevented from it for whatever reason(s).
This comment was written by wolfangel.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2005 at 2:19 pm
La Luba, how did you get from “people should marry” and “single people and two-income families drive up the cost of homes and multiply the gap between rich and poor” to single people not being “allowed” to own homes?
This comment was written by Lubbuck.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2005 at 2:24 pm
Hell’s Bells, Lubbuck, you don’t even think people should be allowed to be single. If they aren’t allowed to be singled(without apparently being pointed out publically and ostracized into marriage, b/c how else will you sell marriage to those who don’t want any part of it?), how can they own houses?
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2005 at 2:26 pm
Yes. The people who told me I was “selfish” for buying a home were not using the term in the neutral sense of “doing something for yourself”, but in the hostile sense…that I was harming others by doing something for myself. I was even told that I was harming myself, because no man would ever want me if I owned my own home. It was seen as a moral problem.
And that’s the dilemma. When a single man buys a home, it is seen as a statement of maturity, stability, integrity…..moral fiber, even. Yet I (and many of my single, female friends) heard commentary to the effect that we must be loose women, up-to-no-good, and only out for our selves. Curious that behavior regarded as positive in a man, could be regarded as negative in a woman, no?
Anyway, my interpretation (besides regarding these morons as completely bizarre), was that there’s just too many people who don’t believe women have the right to exist for ourselves. That our only function is to be workhorses or birth-horses; if we aren’t at someone else’s beck and call, we have no moral right to be. That was the real criticism behind all the blather; how dare I have a life.
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2005 at 2:29 pm
How did I get there, Lubbuck? Well, simple. We’re going to keep on having jobs and buying houses as long as we can! Unless it becomes illegal, that’s what we are going to do. Even though we’re single, we still need food, air, water, clothing, housing, etc. And the only way for most of us to obtain those necessities is to work.
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2005 at 3:32 pm
But why do you distort a “people should” into a “people are not allowed”? That’s not what I said at all. Of course people are allowed to be single. And people should marry. We sell them on it by ostracizing and criticizing people who choose not to marry, of course. And by romanticising marriage. Changing the culture to have more respect for marriage.
This comment was written by lubbuck.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2005 at 4:23 pm
Ah, marriage. That perfect unbreakable bond that makes your life infinitely better. Just the fact of being married will improve your life. Never mind if your spouse is an abusive fuckwad, your life is still improved simply by being married to somebody. How much better would it be if we could all believe that the optimal (and most prevalent) marriage arrangement of the 40’s & 50’s is what you see on Leave it to Beaver. Then if the abusive fuckwad is the wage-earner, there is no way for the abused to leave! Brilliant. Enforced marriage and ostracising of the single, it isn’t just for cults anymore!
Can’t we go back to discussing hats and the downfall of westernciv? At least that was amusing.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2005 at 4:29 pm
Harlequin said it, dude. Redbook, before they started publishing sex tips, repeated the mantra to a good life. Marriage is the only thing in life that can make women feel happy and fulfilled.
Get with the program…
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2005 at 4:30 pm
Women buy houses as a cure for that dreaded condition, penile envy….
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2005 at 4:38 pm
Why ostracize and criticize single people? Single people do not harm society any more than married people.
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2005 at 4:40 pm
Less, I think. Not as much glassware thrown around the room.
But single women aren’t worth anything, you know. Our value depends on the caliber of man we’re attached to, but better to be attached to ANY man than going around solo.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2005 at 4:48 pm
Point being, Lubbuck, that single women are already heavily criticized for not being married, and it’s not rushing us to the altar any quicker. It’s just getting us more pissed at the conservative busybodies who seem to want to mind everyone’s business but their own.
And come to think of it, this culture already romanticizes marriage a bit too much. There’s far too much “happily ever after” and other fictions bundled into the baggage of marriage.
Some of us have been married, and that’s why we are now happily single. Nothing will make you a bigger believer in singlehood than a lousy marriage.
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2005 at 9:08 pm
I’m 20, and I have NO desire whatsoever to marry. Husband’s are liability, I don’t need. Why the hell should I get educated just to have to be subservient to the whims of my husband’s career?
I don’t want to get married. I like being single/ cohabitating. So, trying to pressure me into marriage would make me miserable.
I’ll deal with being “selfish” or have my self-intrest known. Screw everyone else, I want a job and a house.
This comment was written by Antigone.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2005 at 11:50 pm
Nah, Jake, Lubbuck is becoming increasingly amusing with each comment. The more he writes, the more I think he actually believes that crap. Kinda scary. Though not as scary, mayhaps, as society destroying hats out for the blood of our husbands and children. (wait, what was that again?)
And it seems to me that the more desperate you are to get married, the more likely your marriage is gonna be teh sux. America has something close to 300,000,000 people. We’ll do fine if not everyone starts breeding right away. And if you don’t like the housing costs, move to Berlin. I may join you. What an odd couple that will be. Though I’d have to jump out of the window within a month.
This comment was written by Raznor.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2005 at 1:00 am
Living by myself is the best. I can do exactly as I like. If I want to watch DVD’s at 3am I can. I come and go as I please without anyone saying “where are you going?’ I can tidy up as I like and don’t have to cook.
This comment was written by Janice.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2005 at 6:58 am
A maybe-off-topic question: Is it really cheaper, in the long run, to buy a house than to rent an apartment? When you take into account mortgage interest, property tax, maintenance, and all the other expenses that come from owning a home, does it really make sense? (Which isn’t to deny the many psychological benefits of home-ownership; I’m just curious about the financial aspects of it.)
This comment was written by Hestia.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2005 at 6:59 am
>jake squid sarcasm: “Just the fact of being married will improve your life.
jake, that’s a selfish view of marriage. It isn’t supposed to improve your life. Obviously, singleness improves your life. Marriage is a sacrifice.
Surely you all will concede the point, that if we aren’t pairing up into marriages, where one job and one house support two people (plus the family) then that will mean that many more houses and jobs are needed. Is that really hard to understand?
la luba>It’s just getting us more pissed at the conservative busybodies who seem to want to mind everyone’s business but their own.
But that’s what responsibility is all about. Minding your own business is just self-interest. Do you see the difference between being responsible and being selfish, or is the point lost on you?
This comment was written by Lubbuck.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2005 at 7:50 am
Ahhh. My mistake. The noble sacrifice of being married improves the life of everybody in our society. Of course.
Nope. I’m not conceding the point. See, one house for 4.5 people (married couple + 2.5 kiddies uses 1/3 acre minimum. One apartment building (co-op or condo) can house hundreds of people in an acre or two. And those hundreds of people can be single or married or cohabiting, with or without kiddies. Thus, apartment buildings make many more housing units available in less space, costing less money than houses. Marriage has nothing to do with it.
Obviously, singleness improves your life. Marriage is a sacrifice.
That’s obvious? Really? I’d be interested to see any (creditable) facts that back that up.
Personally I find that marriage has improved my life as compared to singleness (well, the marriage to the non-abusive spouse - first one was definitely a sacrifice on my part - to the ex, not to my society). Marriage is a sacrifice? How so? Donating your salary to charity is a sacrifice. Risking life and limb to help or save others is a sacrifice. Announcing your relationship w/ your partner as formal and binding is not a sacrifice.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2005 at 7:53 am
Oh, and marriages are not a single income unit. Look around you. What percentage of married folks have only one income?
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2005 at 8:33 am
“Lubbuck: Marriage is a sacrifice.”
Woah, is that the chain-rattling specter of Richard Nixon I just saw ducking behind our wedding cake?
This comment was written by DRA.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2005 at 9:22 am
Wow, Lubbuck seems to be simultaneously taking the moralistic conservative view of getting in everybody’s faces, and the socialist marxist view of the individual is nothing. How cool is that?
This comment was written by Raznor.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2005 at 9:37 am
Thanks Raznor. I am indeed a moralist marxist. Or a marxist moralist. Marxism requires morality, a sense of duty to society. Capitalism requires an amoral individualistic society, and is at odds with a sense of duty to society.
This comment was written by Lubbuck.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2005 at 9:38 am
Jake, marriage wan’t a sacrifice for you, since your wife works, and probably benefited you somehow. That’s probably why you got married.
This comment was written by Lubbuck.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2005 at 10:40 am
Man, every thread I read like this makes marriage sound more and more like a huge drag that I don’t want to get involved in. Thanks, Lubbuck! I was thinking it might not be so bad and then I read this:
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2005 at 10:54 am
Oh, it would improve your life, amanda. Just not men’s.
This comment was written by Lubbuck.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2005 at 11:04 am
Lubbuck, FYI, stay-at-home mothers across the internet are going to throttle you for making the ingorant implication that they “don’t work”. Everyone else is going to think you painfully stupid for thinking that one job is enough for most families to get by on. Some folks are lucky enough to make that kind of scratch; most aren’t. Not to mention the precarious economy making the decision for one spouse to stay home that much more difficult.
Meanwhile, one doesn’t have to be married to have a sense of duty to one’s community. I volunteer loads of time each month to various community activities, and I’m not married. In fact, when I think of the folks who take the most hands-on, time-intensive volunteer work in my community, practically all of them are single. Marriage is just as “selfish” as being single, in that it doesn’t confer any benefit or detriment to society, in and of itself.
Hestia: I guess it would depend on the price of the house vs. rent. I could imagine housing being so expensive that it wouldn’t save money, but that’s not the case for me. Factor in the hefty tax break of home ownership, plus the other savings I mentioned (being able to grow a garden, buy in bulk, fewer incidents of vandalism or break-ins that are endemic to apartment life), and I still think for most folks it makes the most sense.
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2005 at 11:25 am
Thanks, La Lubu. I wasn’t aware of the tax breaks of owning a home; I’ll have to look into that a bit more.
This comment was written by Hestia.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2005 at 11:52 am
Of course stay-at-home parents work, go object to Gloria Steinem and all the people who called them parasites. The point is, they aren’t competing for the same jobs and housing as their working spouse. There are all sorts of well-off marriages where both spouses work. That undeniably makes it harder for everyone else. We can decide if we want, as a society, everyone to have to work, or only some of us. I say some of us. It was a huge Pig con job to convince women to start working in careers, it’s disgusting. Whoever decided that things weren’t getting done fast enough, and we needed more people driving to work every day? Oh, yeah, probably women. Work sucks, and it really is disrespectful to imply that it is some luxury that only men get to enjoy.
This comment was written by Lubbuck.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2005 at 12:00 pm
Lubbuck, baby, my wife doesn’t work. That’s one of the side effects of chronic pain syndrome, the inability to have a career. But it’s nice to know what sort of assumptions you make about people who dispute what you say. In fact, when I met my wife I had never been in debt. Now, thanks to the wonders of Health Insurance in these United States, we owe an awful lot of money. Unlike the selfish wonder that you seem to be, I married for love, not money. Although money would certainly be a nice addition to love. Hell, money is a nice addition to anything.
And this just kills me:
It was a huge Pig con job to convince women to start working in careers, it’s disgusting.
That reminds me of nothing so much as the early appearances of the Ferengi on TNG…. “You make your females wear clothing? Disgusting!”
Your views, sir or madam, are frankly misogynistic and off-putting.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2005 at 12:02 pm
Lubbuck, if you want it to be possible to have couples & families survive on a single income, you might want to advocate for things like universal health care & guaranteed minimum incomes before you relegate the vast majority of the population to poverty.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2005 at 12:15 pm
Gloria Steinem called SAHM’s parasites? Gloria Steinem?
Look, I know that you’re used to thinking of feminism as a monolithic ideology, and I know that you’re used to thinking of leading feminist thinkers as interchangeable. But whatever feminist you’re radically misinterpreting here, I guarantee you it ain’t Gloria Steinem.
Gloria Steinem came under fire from the mainstream when she included sex in an essay that attempted to itemize the tasks routinely done by homemakers and attach monetary value to them so as to get people to recognize them as hard work. In fact, that was one of her earliest interactions with the media. So you’re wrong.
Gloria Steinem–and feminists in general–do not characterize homemakers as parasites. They characterize them as relatively powerless, because their difficult and important work is largely unrecognized and uncompensated. They depend on their husband’s income for money. The solution to this is not to demonize homemakers or to disparage their work further, but to increase social support for parenting and to recognize the work that women do, whether they receive a paycheck or not.
Scroll up to #35, and reread your own comment equating a homemaker with a “jobless male,” and then scroll down to #37 and see what a self-described feminist says about work inside the home. Feminists aren’t the ones pretending that homemakers don’t work.
No man can call himself liberal, or radical, or even a conservative advocate of fair play, if his work depends in any way on the unpaid or underpaid labor of women at home, or in the office. –Gloria Steinem
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2005 at 12:28 pm
Certainly we have to eliminate the forces that make people feel that both spouses need to work. But ostracizing dual income rich families and convincing them to give up one job and one SUV wouldn’t relegate anyone to poverty.
I am wary about universal health care cause I think it is offered as a way to undermine marriage and to give a big blank check to big pharma. But if it was done right, and returned us to more basic and cheaper medicine that was available to everyone equally, I’d be for it. Then all the things that weren’t covered by the plan, like expensive transplants and stuff, we’d tax the shit out of, so that even the rich couldn’t afford them. Life and health care should be seen as a blessing, not an entitlement.
This comment was written by Lubbuck.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2005 at 12:35 pm
We can trust you to leave single female homebuyers the hell alone, then? Along with middle-class dual-income families? I’m pretty sure La Lubu, et al. don’t have Suburbans. (I’ll have to reevaluate my friendships with all y’all if I’m mistaken.)
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2005 at 12:38 pm
“[Housewives] are dependent creatures who are still children…parasites.” ~ Gloria Steinem, “What It Would Be Like If Women Win,” Time, August 31, 1970.
“A parasite sucking out the living strength of another organism…the [housewife's] labor does not even tend toward the creation of anything durable…. [W]oman’s work within the home [is] not directly useful to society, produces nothing. [The housewife] is subordinate, secondary, parasitic. It is for their common welfare that the situation must be altered by prohibiting marriage as a ‘career’ for woman.” ~ Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, 1949.
This comment was written by Lubbuck.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2005 at 12:39 pm
The point is, they aren’t competing for the same jobs and housing as their working spouse.
They would be, however, competing for the men who have jobs. What, pray tell, would you advocate for women who DO NOT marry, or cannot marry (women do outnumber men, you know). Again, I must say, if you think it’s selfish, make it so when you marry, you figure out which ones more useful to society, and have that individual work, the other keep house. That would make me feel less annoyed at you if you advocated that, even though it’s still impossible.
There are all sorts of well-off marriages where both spouses work.
And there are poor families where neither works. Point?
That undeniably makes it harder for everyone else.
Oh, I can deny that a great deal. What if they are both doctors? They just improved the lives of everyone they saved, and/or eliviated the pain of. Maybe they both are really good professionals, and bad homemakers. They wouldn’t be benefiting anyone if they were doing a job inappropriate for them.
We can decide if we want, as a society, everyone to have to work, or only some of us. I say some of us.
The point was made before, but it bares repeating: everyone would still be working. Mom’s work A LOT, and it’s underpaid.
It was a huge Pig con job to convince women to start working in careers, it’s disgusting.
Fallacy. Women have always had out-of-home jobs, if not careers. Stay-at-home was a privillege of the rich. And you didn’t have to convince a lot of women that they should have a CHOICE of doing what they are best at, or what they want to do
Whoever decided that things weren’t getting done fast enough, and we needed more people driving to work every day? Oh, yeah, probably women.
Actually, it was probably WWII, something started by a bunch of men. I’d like to know you’re logic in saying that women “decided things weren’t getting done fast enough”.
Work sucks, and it really is disrespectful to imply that it is some luxury that only men get to enjoy.
Disagree again. I know lots of people who enjoy what they do. Besides, it’s irrelevant, we all have to work, it just depends on what. What the luxury is/was is being able to decide and work towards what work you get to do.
Call yourself a moralist all you want, I don’t see how moral it is to have double standards based on XX or XY. Go away troll until you get evidence or actual logic.
This comment was written by Antigone.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2005 at 12:47 pm
And I just saw this bit:
What medical costs do you think cause poor and middle-class people to go bankrupt, if not catastrophic, long-term illnesses that require “expensive transplants and stuff?”
Minor medical costs build up, and they can be considerable, but people don’t go bankrupt because they need a flu shot. They go bankrupt when they have heart attacks, or ectopic pregnancies, or cancer.
Transplants are decadent now? Do you long for the good old days, when self-respecting adults would just go on dialysis? Or just, you know, die?
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2005 at 12:55 pm
But Lubbuck, if it improves my life, I’m doing it wrong, aren’t I? Isn’t marriage a “sacrifice” I undertake for the good of the world? If I enjoyed it, it wouldn’t be much of a sacrifice, would it?
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2005 at 12:57 pm
And, without the dual incomes in my home, we wouldn’t be able to afford the house–I don’t make enough. So yeah, being a housewife would be a huge sacrifice that might result in losing my mind and my house, but there’s some intangible social benefit, so I better do it.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2005 at 1:03 pm
Okay, I had to check out the parasite quote by Gloria Steinem, and took out a subscription to the Time magazine to get to see the archive. It was two bucks, and I think it was worth it.
Here, I posted it on my livejournal, read it yourself. Lubbuck misquoted it and took it out of context.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/antigone_reborn/19268.html
This comment was written by Antigone.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2005 at 1:16 pm
Wow, that’s really pretty shamefully dishonest quoting. Thanks, Antigone.
Lubbock, I think you’ve had your fair say here. Please don’t post on my blog anymore.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2005 at 1:17 pm
Thanks for doing that Antigone…
I think that buying can save money, because rent just keeps spiraling up, and up, and up and up…Unbelievable.
Of course, there are days when you spend money, like if you have termites, which I found out today.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2005 at 1:21 pm
Ha ha! Ladies Against Feminism is your source material?
So you were radically misinterpreting Simone de Beauvoir, then?
Because Gloria Steinem’s remarks, in context, are exactly what I said they were: a complaint about the devaluation of women’s work, not devaluation itself.
Do you get that there’s a difference between calling someone a “parasite” in the sense of “dependent,” “secondary,” and “subordinate,” and calling someone a parasite in the sense of “useless?” Just as there’s a difference between calling someone a child in a legal and social sense and calling someone childlike in intellect or maturity?
Of course you don’t.
This is what de Beauvoir was talking about: “Few tasks are more like the torture of Sisyphus than housework, with its endless repetition: the clean becomes soiled, the soiled is made clean, over and over, day after day. The housewife wears herself out marking time: she makes nothing, simply perpetuates the present. She never senses conquest of a positive Good, but rather indefinite struggle against negative Evil. A young pupil writes in her essay: ‘I shall never have house-cleaning day’; she thinks of the future as constant progress towards some unknown summit; but one day, as her mother washes the dishes, it comes over her that both of them will be bound to such rites until death. Eating, sleeping, cleaning–the years no longer rise up towards heaven, they lie spread out ahead, grey and identical. The battle against dust and dirt is never won.” –Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex
She was describing the killing tedium and drudgery of household chores for women who have no other options. And she was pointing to an even greater problem for women: they labor as servants, in support; they produce nothing that they can point to and say, “See? This is my contribution to the world. This is what I’ve accomplished.” De Beauvoir, as an existentialist philosopher, was concerned with the implications of designating half of the population as helpmeets to the other half, turning them into people with no lives of their own.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2005 at 1:21 pm
Thanks for posting that article, I saw that when i googled, but didn’t want to pay 2 cents…
Here’ s the sentence:
“When society stops encouraging men to be exploiters and women to be parasites, they may turn out to be more complementary in emotion as well.”
So isn’t she saying that currently, women are encouraged to be parasites? Presumably, by not working in careers?
This comment was written by Lubbuck.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2005 at 1:24 pm
Aw. Spoil all my fun. I guess there wasn’t much troll-meat left on the bones anyway.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2005 at 1:25 pm
Hey, it wasn’t dishonest quoting. I googled and found this page, and that’s all it had. I tried to find larger context, but didn’t shell out the two bucks.
Come on, people like arguing with me. I’m on topic and respectful.
This comment was written by Lubbuck.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2005 at 1:30 pm
I am almost certain not to gain money by buying instead of renting. (House costs = high; mortgage tax breaks = not here; rent costs = low; political uncertainty = volatile.) Possibly a place would go up in value enough. I am unlikely, though, to *lose* money. I am doing it for the intangibles.
This comment was written by wolfangel.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2005 at 1:34 pm
Lubbock has said that the dishonest quoting was accidental - he was quoting a secondary page, not the primary source. He’d like to be re-instated so he can continue the discussion.
If there’s anyone here who wants to keep on talking this over with Lubbock, let me know, by email or by posting, and I’ll unban him. Otherwise, I’m afraid he’s staying banned - the (accidental) dishonest quoting was just the latest in a series of straws.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2005 at 1:36 pm
Antigone, check this out.
Given the suspiciously similar punctuation, I’m guessing he found them out of context and never bothered to actually trace them or read anything by the feminists misquoted in the essay.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2005 at 1:39 pm
See? I’m always right.
Maybe you could make him write a five-paragraph report on The Second Sex first.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2005 at 1:54 pm
Tell Lubbuck to check his sources better next time. Unban him, he might actually have something useful to say later.
This comment was written by Antigone.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2005 at 2:28 pm
Yes, unban him. He will either have learned a valuable lesson about the credibility of his sources or he will continue to be an amusingly harmless retrograde clown. One way or another we win.
This comment was written by DRA.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2005 at 2:39 pm
Wow Piny, you were right.
Lubbuck, do you REALLY feel you could trust a source that is “Ladies Against Feminism”? Seriously, anyone could tell that they had an agenda. If I went on God Hates Fags I’d be backchecking their experimental evidence, that’s for sure.
This comment was written by Antigone.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2005 at 3:08 pm
Yes. She isn’t saying, exactly, that women don’t labor and contribute–what would men “exploit,” if they didn’t? She’s saying that society encourages dependence–one meaning of parasitism–by encouraging women to become housewives. And this is true: a woman who isn’t earning money of her own is dependent on her husband’s income and goodwill. There are a whole host of problems that arise from this dynamic, problems that feminism attempted to identify and address.
This doesn’t mean that housework is a bad thing, or a useless thing. It means that people who are forced to do devalued, uncompensated work and then forced to think of themselves as servants rather than agents are dangerously unprotected and chronically demoralized.
A woman with a career is a woman in control of her own finances and her own life. She also gets to think of herself as doing something valuable, contributing something durable, precisely because we as a society value work outside the home. De Beauvoir wanted this option open for women, especially since her era didn’t seem likely to start valuing the “second shift” more.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2005 at 3:38 pm
Unban him.
Termites.
Rude councilman trying to bait me.
hairball hurling cats….
I need a little laughter….
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2005 at 5:21 pm
piny: nope, no Suburban here! ;) I drive a fourteen-year-old rustbucket S-10, which I hope to trade in on a slightly used, non-rustbucket S-10 later on in the year. Gahh. I hate the thought of making payments again, but my little truck is beyond redemption at this point.
Lubbuck, are you a Luddite? Do you long for the days when there was no indoor plumbing, no electricity? Do you rue the day the Industrial Revolution began? ‘Cuz I’m still trying to figure out your angle, here.
I mean, I can understand one spouse staying home with young children. But what about when the kids are in school? Or folks who don’t have kids (yeah, I know. You probably think this is wrong too. But face it, some people are infertile, and some people flat-out do not want children.). Or whose kids are grown? You don’t think that person is going to be bored out of their ever-loving mind? Or, in the event that the non-employed spouse is pursuing all his/her passions, that their partner (you know, the one slaving for the paycheck keeping that boat afloat?) isn’t going to be a teensy-weensy bit resentful? ‘Cuz, I don’t know about you, but I’m not that sloppy. It doesn’t take a whole helluva lot to keep house for a relatively small family. Unless, maybe you’re advocating for the minimum family size to be say, six or more people. And then we’re pretty much back to more than one wage-earner being necessary.
I suppose we women don’t need all that pesky education either, since it just gives us uppity ideas, like that we should use our full range of skills, and be treated as equals and such.
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2005 at 5:38 am
Uh, Lubbock, do you really think a site called Ladies Against Feminism is a fair and impartial site? I’d say unban him, but that’s because I want him to answer some questions.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2005 at 6:12 am
Lubbuck:
Are you arguing for a more communal way of living, i.e. if people got married and shared their homes with each other and their children, essentially they are taking up less space, pooling their resources, splitting costs, etc? Because I can get behind that line of thinking. For instance, my lesbian partner and I live with another roommate for that very reason. One day we hope to have some land that more of us can share. Like five of us. And any kids that come along with that. Call it a commune, whatever, but we’re doing it so that we can share resources. And it sounds pretty similar to your arguments, would you agree?
I’m curious though, why in your scenerio (marriage) it is the man who has to work, and why both parties wouldn’t just contribute equally. And divide everything else up equally? Why not argue your position with the foundation of equality? Why the sexism?
HC
This comment was written by HC.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2005 at 7:53 am
Piny was right? Piny??? Ahem…
Me: Of course stay-at-home parents work, go object to Gloria Steinem and all the people who called them parasites.
Piny: Gloria Steinem called SAHM’s parasites? Gloria Steinem? Look, I know that you’re used to thinking of feminism as a monolithic ideology, and I know that you’re used to thinking of leading feminist thinkers as interchangeable. But whatever feminist you’re radically misinterpreting here, I guarantee you it ain’t Gloria Steinem.
Gloria Steinem not only called housewives parasites (saying that society encourages them to be parasites doesn’t diminish this slur) she also derided the value of housework.
This comment was written by Lubbuck.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2005 at 8:30 am
That Ladies Against Feminism site is pretty good, actually. I learned that Marx led to feminism, and so when I called myself a marxist moralist, I was gong by a rather general understanding of what marxism meant to me, and not, apparently, what it meant to Marx. (But, as we all know now, Marx was wrong! What I mean by Marxism, and what Marx himself believed, is that there is a social and cultural imperitive to work together to help us all live dignified lives and not let the capitalists exploit or manipulate us, and that human meaning and morality is more important than capital and “free enterprise”, which is the enemy of morality)
Here’s a quote from that article again:
In fact, the more radical feminists of the 19th and 20th centuries wholeheartedly embraced Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto, which called for women to be pushed out of the home and into factories, since the labor of men and women must be made “equal” while capitalism and private property were abolished.
Now, see, I think that pushing women into factories and careers and making work “equal” is a tool of the capitalists, who want a larger pool of interchangable workers. I guess he didn’t see it as capitalism because in his mind, the factory would be owned by “the people” but in my mind, a factory is a factory, and it owns the people.
yes, I would say I am a luddite. Sure, I’d go back to outhouses and hard work. Well, it makes no sense to tear out the pipes, now that they are installed, and even keeping them working is probably worth it at this point. But as to all of us just working in office buildings making legal and marketing decisions while all the work is done in factories in Asia and Mexico, I would be happy to pull the carpet out from under that whole thing.
This comment was written by Lubbuck.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2005 at 8:48 am
She also called them children, and yet, you’re not pointing that out as a slur: “Gloria Steinem said women were immature!” Is that because even you are too embarrassed to yank that word so far out of its context?
You said that she and other feminists had called housewives parasites in the sense that they “don’t work,” because someone on this thread called you out for apparently saying that housewives don’t work. Gloria Steinem did not say that housewives don’t work, and, like I said, she has never derided the value of housework. You didn’t read the livejournal link, did you?
She says in the essay that housewives work, that they work hard, and that they deserve to be paid for their work. Why are you still pretending otherwise? Here’s how she characterizes the work women do in the same essay you quoted out of context:
In Women’s Lib Utopia, there will be free access to good jobs … and decent pay for the bad ones women have been per forming all along, including housework.
(snip)
The revolution would not take away the option of being a housewife. A woman who prefers to be her husband’s housekeeper and/or hostess would receive a percentage of his pay determined by the domestic relations courts. If divorced, she might be eligible for a pension fund, and for a job-training allowance. Or a divorce could be treated the same way that the dissolution of a business partnership is now.
See? She thinks it’s a real job that deserves real recognition and real compensation. It’s hardly a parasitic role in the sense of leeching off of someone without providing anything in return. By “parasite,” she was saying that women have no social standing as their own people because society sees them as incapable of independence–they are forced to cling to the men they marry. Men receive official payment and recognition for their work; women are paid “under the table” at the discretion of their husbands for the work of maintaining the household and raising the children. Legally speaking, women were parasites. They were maintained by their husbands, not compensated, just like the children she also compares them to.
There is no shame in doing valuable work despite not receiving any recognition. It’s not a slur to point out that women have fewer rights as partners, or that the work women do does not correspond to their social status.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2005 at 10:16 am
We got slightly off topic defending feminists. :)
I want my own house. I want it to say that it is mine legally, I want the piece of paper saying I recieved the loan in my name, and I want the job that will give me the money to pay for the house. Perhaps, yes, it is selfish. I don’t care.
I don’t want to live with anyone else. I want my privacy, which is the point in buying a house in the first place. I want my own space to dance naked if i do so desire, and wander in whenever it suits my selfish little heart.
I want recognition in society that I am a productive member and that I have worth. The consumer culture is retarded, I’ll agree, but until it changes, I feel I deserve respect.
I don’t care if it’s more expensive (although, odds are, it probably isn’t). It’s security. If one has a house, one has a roof, one has colleteral, one has power of a sort. A house is more than a place to get away from the elements. A house conveys so much in society.
I want that, even if I am female.
This comment was written by Antigone.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2005 at 11:57 am
>I want that
See, that’s what the problem is, that’s what Steinem caused by demeaning housewives and marriage. People should want to get married, not want their own house.
This comment was written by Lubbuck.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2005 at 12:10 pm
Sounds like someone needs another time-out.
Yeah, she’s a disgrace, all right. Doesn’t even plan to get herself a wife. Damn selfish equity-sucking ballbusters. How dare they opt into one of the most useful and reliable investments anyone can make? How dare they want independence and independent financial stability after centuries of being refused both?
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2005 at 12:29 pm
Hmmm….house, husband….I’ll choose the house. If I had a husband, I’d just have to keep him in the garage anyway. The cats and I get the house.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2005 at 12:31 pm
Why, pray tell, should I want marriage? Why should I want such a liablity? Why shouldn’t I live life to the best of my abilities? Why shouldn’t I want my legacy to be my works instead of my family?
Defend marriage, defend “encouraging” traditional families. Why should I want them?
This comment was written by Antigone.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2005 at 12:54 pm
It would make me happy.
This comment was written by Lubbuck.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2005 at 12:59 pm
because it’s what we are supposed to crave, dream, fantasize about from the cradle…which is to ride off in the sunset with that perfect man, who will take care of us, rescue us and make our lives complete.
I guess Lubbuck got a double dose of this indoctrination.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2005 at 1:03 pm
I’m starting to think Lubbuck has tongue inserted firmly in cheek.
This comment was written by pseu.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2005 at 1:06 pm
It would make me downright ecstatic to see Tom DeLay turn into a cockroach. That doesn’t make it right.
Feminism has been asking this question for decades now, but I’ll reiterate: Why should she or any woman put your happiness above her own happiness, security and autonomy?
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2005 at 1:22 pm
I know, think of the poor cockroach! ;-)
Well, we’re here to serve men and all that. Lubbuck has apparently internalized all the patriarcal teachings and is unleashing them on women everywhere, in the guise of “helping” them.
You know, when men act sexist, and then say, but I’m civil, it’s called chivalry!
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2005 at 1:25 pm
I’m very lazy, and apologize if someone brought this up and I failed to read it, but hurrah I say.
what the hell was the battle for property rights about if women can’t own the structure they live in?
Radfem, as a member of the pool of potential husbands, I firmly object to your division banishing us to the garage. Men as a group demand visitation of the cats.
I submit to you that cats are not in fact owned, as they do not accquiese to that system. as cats are communal property, you are allowed use an maintenence of a cat to improve your own experence with said mammal, but you gotta share.
I mean it. gimme the kitty. my landlord doesn’t allow pets, and I’m starting to get antsy.
This comment was written by karpad.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2005 at 1:36 pm
You know, if people build new houses but the old houses aren’t torn down, somebody needs to buy the old houses.
Supply and demand, y’all.
Housing bubbles only happen when there are too many buyers chasing too few houses in a given location. But that doesn’t reduce the supply elsewhere.
This comment was written by zuzu.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2005 at 4:19 pm
See here’s the problem with people wanting to be married. If you want marriage for marriage itself, you’re going to end up with a sucky marriage. Far better to want to be with someone, then decide to marry. The marriage is merely a means to an end, not an end in and of itself.
I personally can’t imagine owning a house, but then I can’t imagine living anywhere for more than a few years at a time until I get my PhD (who knows when that’ll be). But still, three cheers to those who find a way to own their home, single or married, and that includes our gracious host, Ampersand, as well as Antigone. (as a Reed alum, there’s a special place in my heart for people who choose ancient greek characters or people as their screen names)
As annoyed as I am with many of Lubbuck’s comments, he does seem to earn some respect for owning up to the fact that he holds two seemingly contradictory views. (when I mentioned how cool it was that he seemed to be a conservative Marxist, I expected an adamant denial of anything related to Marxism. when he confirmed it, I was dumbfounded) But I do find a major flaw with his line of thinking. I mean, no one denies that if everyone were selfless everyone would benefit. But sooner or later someone will figure out that he/she’d benefit much more if everyone were selfless but her/him.
This comment was written by Raznor.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2005 at 10:08 pm
*bows* I also know where Antigone is from. Check this: My real name is Cassandra :)
This comment was written by Antigone.Report this comment to the moderators
April 8th, 2005 at 7:17 am
>the fact that he holds two seemingly contradictory views.
The capitalists have set up the parties so that capitalism wins, no matter what. Either you support the corporate big government republicans with their tax breaks for the rich and cutting services that helped the poor, or you support policies that put work above family, increase sprawl and industrialization and technology of the feminist democrats, which is all stuff that relies on the same corporations. So we go in cycles of taxing the corporations, but increasing dependence on them, to giving them breaks while weaning ourselves a little. Those cycles actually help the capitalists make money, always shifting their puts and gets ahead of the rest of us, who just pay out constantly and absorb all the costs of the cycles. The blue-collar dems who support stability and marriage and family and keeping jobs meaningful and fair and here have no where to go - a huge voting block cynically chopped up by dividing us one minor issue at a time.
This comment was written by Lubbuck.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2005 at 7:07 am
Housing bubbles only happen when there are too many buyers chasing too few houses in a given location
No, that’s what makes housing prices rise. Bubbles happen in part because people start speculating–they buy with the expectation that they will re-sell quickly for a profit. Eventually you reach a point where people can’t buy, or won’t take the risks.
Steinem never demeaned housewives and marriage–she, and other feminists, simply kicked the rock over and showed the contempt for married women and homemaking that always existed.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2005 at 8:53 am
“People should want to get married, not want their own house.”
This is so frustrating. Why do you want to tell *other people* what they “should want”? Why is it your business? Do you think you can regulate their preferences?
My sister is a stay-home mom. I love her and respect her choice. Furthermore, I think she’s a very strong woman. But me, I hope to be a career bitch someday. Got a problem with that? She doesn’t.
Oh, and I already own my own home.
This comment was written by Redneck Feminist (drumgurl).Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2005 at 8:56 am
Okay, you addressed that already:
“Minding your own business is just self-interest. ”
Perhaps. And butting into everyone else’s business is just control.
I only answer to one God, thanks.
This comment was written by Redneck Feminist (drumgurl).Report this comment to the moderators
August 16th, 2005 at 10:45 am
Personally, I find it a bit difficult to take a man seriously who doesn’t know the difference between “are” and “our”……but then again, I’m single happy, and own two homes….;-)
“Fitz Writes:
April 3rd, 2005 at 9:59 am
This comment was written by Single&happy.Oh, they have got homes & they have got jobs. (”Ācareers”Āæ) I record numbers!
What they don’t have, (and what they say they want) our husbands and children.”
Report this comment to the moderators
August 16th, 2005 at 5:49 pm
I bought my current house in 2000. Previously, I lived (platonically) and co-owned with another woman. Didn’t work out, so she bought me out after three years and I struck out on my own. My current dwelling is small and lacks much character (LaLubu, all the snobs here loooooooove Craftsman homes !! That’s why I could never afford one.), not to mention a dishwasher. Still, it’s mine.
When I purchased, the man I was dating made some noises along the lines of going in on the purchase with me. He was saying it to be polite. We had been dating for not quite a year. It would have been a big jump to go from dating to co-owning, and not one that either of us really thought wise. We’ll be getting married soon, after co-habitating since June 2001.
Interestingly enough, I was out in my front yard one Saturday about three summers ago when a couple of fifty-somethings pulled their car up to the curb, got out, and introduced themselves as my home’s original residents ! They were sisters in town for the Rose Festival. They had driven in from rural Washington and had hit on the idea of driving past their childhood home on their way back to Vancouver. So I gave them a quick look-see and they told me about their Mom, who had bought the then-new house as a young war widow with three kids, in 1950. I knew it was damn unusual for a woman to be able to do that back then, and said so. They told me that she was able to do it only because her own parents helped her put up half (!) the house’s total price as a down-payment ! (Under some similar rule, I would have had to shell out $41,500 for the place in 2000 !) That was the only reason the bank waived their usual policy of not selling to a woman unless she had a husband.
Gosh, I sure wish we still lived back in the good ol’ days. Yeah, right.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
February 17th, 2006 at 12:39 pm
. Unpaid endorsement. See Neil Cavuto’s bio at the jump. See Charmaine’s bio. [IMG your_world_globe_cavuto.jpg] Basil’s Blog has a picnic. And Don Suber has another kick-*** girl video. Alas was on this storylast April. Female bloggers move fast.
This comment was written by http://www.yoest.org.Report this comment to the moderators