Many children in the Netherlands have grown up with the image of Black Pete, a helper for St Nicholas, an equivalent of Santa Claus.
The character is highly controversial, as the figure is usually portrayed by a white person wearing blackface makeup with exaggerated lips and an afro wig
Note Almere Digest: Indeed quite controversial. This has been a centuries old tradional Childrens celebration, before it became a racial issue. Amazing that the people promoting this as a racial issue have no qualms with the flagrant human rights violations of Saudi Arabia and many other countries around the world?
Read more at:
Should the Dutch ‘Black Pete’ tradition be abolished? | Netherlands | Al Jazeera
The Future Is Here Today
Where Business, Nature and Leisure Provide An Ideal Setting For Living
Showing posts with label Comparison. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Comparison. Show all posts
April 9, 2016
The Netherlands - Sex Education: Worried about your teenage daughter? Move to the Netherlands - by Peggy Orenstein
There's a solution for parents concerned about their daughters' sex lives: Move to the Netherlands.
OK, maybe that's not the most practical advice. Perhaps, though, we can move a little of the Netherlands here. Because the Dutch seem to have it all figured out.
While we in the United States have the highest teen pregnancy rate in the industrialized world, they have among the lowest. Our teen birth rate is eight times higher than theirs, and our teen abortion rate is 1.7 times higher.
There are some significant demographic differences that affect those numbers: We are a more diverse nation than Holland, with higher rates of childhood poverty, fewer social welfare guarantees and more social conservatives.
ere's a solution for parents concerned about their daughters' sex lives: Move to the Netherlands.
OK, maybe that's not the most practical advice. Perhaps, though, we can move a little of the Netherlands here. Because the Dutch seem to have it all figured out.
While we in the United States have the highest teen pregnancy rate in the industrialized world, they have among the lowest. Our teen birth rate is eight times higher than theirs, and our teen abortion rate is 1.7 times higher.
There are some significant demographic differences that affect those numbers: We are a more diverse nation than Holland, with higher rates of childhood poverty, fewer social welfare guarantees and more social conservatives.
Yet, even when controlling for all that, the difference holds. Consider a study comparing the early sexual experiences of 400 randomly chosen American and Dutch women at two similar colleges — nearly all white, all middle class, with similar religious backgrounds. So, apples to apples.
The American girls had become sexually active at a younger age than the Dutch, had had more encounters with more partners and were less likely to use birth control. They were more likely to say they'd had first intercourse because of “opportunity” or pressure from friends or partners.
In subsequent interviews with some of the participants, the Americans described interactions that were “driven by hormones,” in which boys determined relationships, male pleasure was prioritized and reciprocity was rare.
As for the Dutch girls, their early sexual activity took place in loving, respectful relationships in which they communicated openly with their partners (whom they said they knew “very well”) about what felt good and what didn't, about how “far” they wanted to go, and about what kind of protection they would need along the way.
They reported more comfort with their bodies and their desires than the Americans and were more in touch with their own pleasure.
Here's their secret: The Dutch girls said that teachers and doctors had talked candidly to them about sex, pleasure and the importance of a loving relationship. More than that, though, there was a stark difference in how their parents approached those topics. The American girls' moms had focused on the potential risks and dangers of sex, while their dads, if they said anything at all, stuck to lame jokes. Dutch parents, by contrast, had talked to their daughters from an early age about both the joys and responsibilities of intimacy.
As a result, one Dutch girl said she told her mother immediately after her first intercourse, “because we talk very open[ly] about this. My friend's mother also asked me how it was, if I had an orgasm and if he had one.”
The attitudes of the two nations weren't always so far apart. According to Amy Schalet, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Massachusetts, in the late 1960s the Dutch — like Americans — roundly disapproved of premarital sex. The sexual revolution transformed attitudes in both countries, but, whereas American parents and policymakers responded by treating teen sex as a health crisis, the Dutch went another way: They consciously embraced it as natural, though requiring proper guidance.
Their government made pelvic exams, birth control and abortion free to anyone under 22, with no requirements for parental consent.
By the 1990s, when Americans were shoveling millions into the maw of useless abstinence-only education, Dutch teachers (and parents) were busy discussing the positive aspects of sex and relationships, as well as anatomy, reproduction, disease prevention, contraception and abortion. They emphasized respect for self and others in intimate encounters, and openly addressed masturbation, oral sex, homosexuality and orgasm.
When a Dutch national poll found that most teenagers still believed that boys should be the more active partner during sex, the government added “interaction” skills to its sex ed curricula, such as how to let “the other person know exactly what feels good” and how to set boundaries.
Yet, even when controlling for all that, the difference holds. Consider a study comparing the early sexual experiences of 400 randomly chosen American and Dutch women at two similar colleges — nearly all white, all middle class, with similar religious backgrounds. So, apples to apples.
The American girls had become sexually active at a younger age than the Dutch, had had more encounters with more partners and were less likely to use birth control. They were more likely to say they'd had first intercourse because of “opportunity” or pressure from friends or partners.
In subsequent interviews with some of the participants, the Americans described interactions that were “driven by hormones,” in which boys determined relationships, male pleasure was prioritized and reciprocity was rare.
As for the Dutch girls, their early sexual activity took place in loving, respectful relationships in which they communicated openly with their partners (whom they said they knew “very well”) about what felt good and what didn't, about how “far” they wanted to go, and about what kind of protection they would need along the way.
They reported more comfort with their bodies and their desires than the Americans and were more in touch with their own pleasure.
Here's their secret: The Dutch girls said that teachers and doctors had talked candidly to them about sex, pleasure and the importance of a loving relationship. More than that, though, there was a stark difference in how their parents approached those topics. The American girls' moms had focused on the potential risks and dangers of sex, while their dads, if they said anything at all, stuck to lame jokes. Dutch parents, by contrast, had talked to their daughters from an early age about both the joys and responsibilities of intimacy.
As a result, one Dutch girl said she told her mother immediately after her first intercourse, “because we talk very open[ly] about this. My friend's mother also asked me how it was, if I had an orgasm and if he had one.”
The attitudes of the two nations weren't always so far apart. According to Amy Schalet, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Massachusetts, in the late 1960s the Dutch — like Americans — roundly disapproved of premarital sex. The sexual revolution transformed attitudes in both countries, but, whereas American parents and policymakers responded by treating teen sex as a health crisis, the Dutch went another way: They consciously embraced it as natural, though requiring proper guidance.
Their government made pelvic exams, birth control and abortion free to anyone under 22, with no requirements for parental consent.
By the 1990s, when Americans were shoveling millions into the maw of useless abstinence-only education, Dutch teachers (and parents) were busy discussing the positive aspects of sex and relationships, as well as anatomy, reproduction, disease prevention, contraception and abortion.
They emphasized respect for self and others in intimate encounters, and openly addressed masturbation, oral sex, homosexuality and orgasm. When a Dutch national poll found that most teenagers still believed that boys should be the more active partner during sex, the government added “interaction” skills to its sex ed curricula, such as how to let “the other person know exactly what feels good” and how to set boundaries.
Dutch teens, on the other hand, remain closely connected to parents, growing up in an atmosphere of gezelligheid, which Schalet translates loosely as “cozy togetherness.” Parents and teens are expected to discuss the children's psychological and emotional development, including their burgeoning sexual drives. As part of that,
Dutch parents permit co-ed sleepovers, which are rare in the U.S. except in the most progressive circles. A full two-thirds of Dutch teens 15 to 17 with a steady boyfriend or girlfriend report that the person was welcome to spend the night in their bedrooms.
That's not to say that it's a free-for-all over there. Quite the opposite: The Dutch actively discourage promiscuity in their children, teaching that sex should emerge from a loving relationship.
Negotiating the ground rules for sleepovers, while not always easy (parents admit to a period of “adjustment” and some embarrassment), provides yet another opportunity to exert influence, reinforce ethics and emphasize the need for protection.
And you can't really argue with the results.
Read more: Worried about your teenage daughter? Move to the Netherlands - LA Times
OK, maybe that's not the most practical advice. Perhaps, though, we can move a little of the Netherlands here. Because the Dutch seem to have it all figured out.
While we in the United States have the highest teen pregnancy rate in the industrialized world, they have among the lowest. Our teen birth rate is eight times higher than theirs, and our teen abortion rate is 1.7 times higher.
There are some significant demographic differences that affect those numbers: We are a more diverse nation than Holland, with higher rates of childhood poverty, fewer social welfare guarantees and more social conservatives.
ere's a solution for parents concerned about their daughters' sex lives: Move to the Netherlands.
OK, maybe that's not the most practical advice. Perhaps, though, we can move a little of the Netherlands here. Because the Dutch seem to have it all figured out.
While we in the United States have the highest teen pregnancy rate in the industrialized world, they have among the lowest. Our teen birth rate is eight times higher than theirs, and our teen abortion rate is 1.7 times higher.
There are some significant demographic differences that affect those numbers: We are a more diverse nation than Holland, with higher rates of childhood poverty, fewer social welfare guarantees and more social conservatives.
Yet, even when controlling for all that, the difference holds. Consider a study comparing the early sexual experiences of 400 randomly chosen American and Dutch women at two similar colleges — nearly all white, all middle class, with similar religious backgrounds. So, apples to apples.
The American girls had become sexually active at a younger age than the Dutch, had had more encounters with more partners and were less likely to use birth control. They were more likely to say they'd had first intercourse because of “opportunity” or pressure from friends or partners.
In subsequent interviews with some of the participants, the Americans described interactions that were “driven by hormones,” in which boys determined relationships, male pleasure was prioritized and reciprocity was rare.
As for the Dutch girls, their early sexual activity took place in loving, respectful relationships in which they communicated openly with their partners (whom they said they knew “very well”) about what felt good and what didn't, about how “far” they wanted to go, and about what kind of protection they would need along the way.
They reported more comfort with their bodies and their desires than the Americans and were more in touch with their own pleasure.
Here's their secret: The Dutch girls said that teachers and doctors had talked candidly to them about sex, pleasure and the importance of a loving relationship. More than that, though, there was a stark difference in how their parents approached those topics. The American girls' moms had focused on the potential risks and dangers of sex, while their dads, if they said anything at all, stuck to lame jokes. Dutch parents, by contrast, had talked to their daughters from an early age about both the joys and responsibilities of intimacy.
As a result, one Dutch girl said she told her mother immediately after her first intercourse, “because we talk very open[ly] about this. My friend's mother also asked me how it was, if I had an orgasm and if he had one.”
The attitudes of the two nations weren't always so far apart. According to Amy Schalet, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Massachusetts, in the late 1960s the Dutch — like Americans — roundly disapproved of premarital sex. The sexual revolution transformed attitudes in both countries, but, whereas American parents and policymakers responded by treating teen sex as a health crisis, the Dutch went another way: They consciously embraced it as natural, though requiring proper guidance.
Their government made pelvic exams, birth control and abortion free to anyone under 22, with no requirements for parental consent.
By the 1990s, when Americans were shoveling millions into the maw of useless abstinence-only education, Dutch teachers (and parents) were busy discussing the positive aspects of sex and relationships, as well as anatomy, reproduction, disease prevention, contraception and abortion. They emphasized respect for self and others in intimate encounters, and openly addressed masturbation, oral sex, homosexuality and orgasm.
When a Dutch national poll found that most teenagers still believed that boys should be the more active partner during sex, the government added “interaction” skills to its sex ed curricula, such as how to let “the other person know exactly what feels good” and how to set boundaries.
Yet, even when controlling for all that, the difference holds. Consider a study comparing the early sexual experiences of 400 randomly chosen American and Dutch women at two similar colleges — nearly all white, all middle class, with similar religious backgrounds. So, apples to apples.
The American girls had become sexually active at a younger age than the Dutch, had had more encounters with more partners and were less likely to use birth control. They were more likely to say they'd had first intercourse because of “opportunity” or pressure from friends or partners.
In subsequent interviews with some of the participants, the Americans described interactions that were “driven by hormones,” in which boys determined relationships, male pleasure was prioritized and reciprocity was rare.
As for the Dutch girls, their early sexual activity took place in loving, respectful relationships in which they communicated openly with their partners (whom they said they knew “very well”) about what felt good and what didn't, about how “far” they wanted to go, and about what kind of protection they would need along the way.
They reported more comfort with their bodies and their desires than the Americans and were more in touch with their own pleasure.
Here's their secret: The Dutch girls said that teachers and doctors had talked candidly to them about sex, pleasure and the importance of a loving relationship. More than that, though, there was a stark difference in how their parents approached those topics. The American girls' moms had focused on the potential risks and dangers of sex, while their dads, if they said anything at all, stuck to lame jokes. Dutch parents, by contrast, had talked to their daughters from an early age about both the joys and responsibilities of intimacy.
As a result, one Dutch girl said she told her mother immediately after her first intercourse, “because we talk very open[ly] about this. My friend's mother also asked me how it was, if I had an orgasm and if he had one.”
The attitudes of the two nations weren't always so far apart. According to Amy Schalet, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Massachusetts, in the late 1960s the Dutch — like Americans — roundly disapproved of premarital sex. The sexual revolution transformed attitudes in both countries, but, whereas American parents and policymakers responded by treating teen sex as a health crisis, the Dutch went another way: They consciously embraced it as natural, though requiring proper guidance.
Their government made pelvic exams, birth control and abortion free to anyone under 22, with no requirements for parental consent.
By the 1990s, when Americans were shoveling millions into the maw of useless abstinence-only education, Dutch teachers (and parents) were busy discussing the positive aspects of sex and relationships, as well as anatomy, reproduction, disease prevention, contraception and abortion.
They emphasized respect for self and others in intimate encounters, and openly addressed masturbation, oral sex, homosexuality and orgasm. When a Dutch national poll found that most teenagers still believed that boys should be the more active partner during sex, the government added “interaction” skills to its sex ed curricula, such as how to let “the other person know exactly what feels good” and how to set boundaries.
Dutch teens, on the other hand, remain closely connected to parents, growing up in an atmosphere of gezelligheid, which Schalet translates loosely as “cozy togetherness.” Parents and teens are expected to discuss the children's psychological and emotional development, including their burgeoning sexual drives. As part of that,
Dutch parents permit co-ed sleepovers, which are rare in the U.S. except in the most progressive circles. A full two-thirds of Dutch teens 15 to 17 with a steady boyfriend or girlfriend report that the person was welcome to spend the night in their bedrooms.
That's not to say that it's a free-for-all over there. Quite the opposite: The Dutch actively discourage promiscuity in their children, teaching that sex should emerge from a loving relationship.
Negotiating the ground rules for sleepovers, while not always easy (parents admit to a period of “adjustment” and some embarrassment), provides yet another opportunity to exert influence, reinforce ethics and emphasize the need for protection.
And you can't really argue with the results.
Read more: Worried about your teenage daughter? Move to the Netherlands - LA Times
September 21, 2015
Welfare US Spends Far More on Social Welfare Than Most European Nations - by Robert Rector
The U.S. Census Bureau has released its annual poverty report.
Conventional wisdom holds that the U.S. has a small social welfare
system and far more poverty compared with other affluent nations.
But noted liberal scholars Irwin Garfinkel, Lee Rainwater, and Timothy Smeeding challenge such simplistic ideas in their book “Wealth and Welfare States: Is America a Laggard or Leader?”
Garfinkel and his colleagues examine social welfare spending and poverty in rich nations. They define social welfare as having five components: health care spending, education spending, cash retirement benefits, other government cash transfers such as unemployment insurance and the earned-income tax credit (EITC), and non-cash aid such as food stamps and public housing.
The authors find that in the U.S., social welfare spending differs from that in other affluent countries because it draws heavily on both public and private resources. By contrast, in Europe, government controls most of the resources and benefits. For example, in the U.S., government health care spending is targeted to elderly and low-income persons; the American middle and working classes rely primarily on employer-provided health insurance.
The U.S. government health care system is, therefore, more redistributive than the systems of most other developed nations.
Elderly middle-class Americans are also more likely to have private pensions than are Europeans. Middle-class parents in the U.S. pay for much of the cost of their children’s post-secondary education; in Europe, the government pays. Overall, in Europe, the upper middle class is heavily dependent on government benefits; in the U.S., it relies much more on its own resources.
But even setting aside the private sector, the U.S. still has a very large social welfare system. In fact, among affluent nations, the U.S. has the third highest level of per capita government social welfare spending. This is striking, given that government spending in the U.S. is more tightly targeted to benefit the poor and elderly.
When private-sector contributions to retirement, health care, and education are added to the count, social welfare spending in the U.S. dwarfs that of other nations. In fact, social welfare spending per capita in the U.S. rises to nearly twice the European average. As Garfinkel, et al. conclude:
How much of this spending reaches the poor? The left often claims that the U.S has a far higher poverty rate than other developed nations have. These claims are based on a “relative poverty” standard, in which being “poor” is defined as having an income below 50 percent of the national median. Since the median income in the United States is substantially higher than the median income in most European countries, these comparisons establish a higher hurdle for escaping from “poverty” in the U.S. than is found elsewhere.
Read more: US Spends Far More on Social Welfare Than Most European Nations
But noted liberal scholars Irwin Garfinkel, Lee Rainwater, and Timothy Smeeding challenge such simplistic ideas in their book “Wealth and Welfare States: Is America a Laggard or Leader?”
Garfinkel and his colleagues examine social welfare spending and poverty in rich nations. They define social welfare as having five components: health care spending, education spending, cash retirement benefits, other government cash transfers such as unemployment insurance and the earned-income tax credit (EITC), and non-cash aid such as food stamps and public housing.
The authors find that in the U.S., social welfare spending differs from that in other affluent countries because it draws heavily on both public and private resources. By contrast, in Europe, government controls most of the resources and benefits. For example, in the U.S., government health care spending is targeted to elderly and low-income persons; the American middle and working classes rely primarily on employer-provided health insurance.
The U.S. government health care system is, therefore, more redistributive than the systems of most other developed nations.
Elderly middle-class Americans are also more likely to have private pensions than are Europeans. Middle-class parents in the U.S. pay for much of the cost of their children’s post-secondary education; in Europe, the government pays. Overall, in Europe, the upper middle class is heavily dependent on government benefits; in the U.S., it relies much more on its own resources.
But even setting aside the private sector, the U.S. still has a very large social welfare system. In fact, among affluent nations, the U.S. has the third highest level of per capita government social welfare spending. This is striking, given that government spending in the U.S. is more tightly targeted to benefit the poor and elderly.
When private-sector contributions to retirement, health care, and education are added to the count, social welfare spending in the U.S. dwarfs that of other nations. In fact, social welfare spending per capita in the U.S. rises to nearly twice the European average. As Garfinkel, et al. conclude:
For those who believe the absolute size of the US welfare state is small, the data presented … [in the book] are shocking and constitute a wake up call. Once health and education benefits are counted, real per capita social welfare in the United States is larger than in almost all other countries!Only one nation (Norway) spends more per person than the U.S. spends.
How much of this spending reaches the poor? The left often claims that the U.S has a far higher poverty rate than other developed nations have. These claims are based on a “relative poverty” standard, in which being “poor” is defined as having an income below 50 percent of the national median. Since the median income in the United States is substantially higher than the median income in most European countries, these comparisons establish a higher hurdle for escaping from “poverty” in the U.S. than is found elsewhere.
Read more: US Spends Far More on Social Welfare Than Most European Nations
February 21, 2014
Global GNP: Holland outside the EU would be reduced to the same level of global importance as Florida
 |
| Netherlands equal to state of Florida |
One million Rhode Islanders have as much wealth as 15 million Guatemalans. Texas has an economy the size of Australia’s. And New York has met its match, Mexico.
The map from economist Mark J. Perry at the American Enterprise Institute puts America’s $16 trillion GDP in perspective. “The map and these statistics help remind us of the enormity of the economic powerhouse we live in,” Perry writes, at least to the 4% of the world’s population that lives there.
The Netherlands economy (GDP) is approximately the same as that of the state Florida in the USA with a similar number of inhabitants (17 million people) .
This report underscore the fact that if the EU would break up - as most of the Eurosceptics would like to see happen - individual EU member-states would not be able to play any significant role on the global scene in relation to international trade, economics, finances, jurisdiction or military matters.
In other words a united Europe can be a master of its own fate but divided it will fall.
Read more: GDP Map of U.S. States Compared to World | TIME.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)