I had a girl friend once who taught me a lot. (A Japanese-American, BTW.) On one occasion I got into a big argument with her (about what, I forget), which ended when, finally, in extreme frustration, I exclaimed, “That’s not logical!” “I’m not logical,” she replied. I thought, Oh, that’s right. Deal with it.
There’s no answer for that, but for a man to know himself, who he is, and what he stands for; then she can take it or leave it. If she takes him, she will conform herself to the discipline of his logic–though she’ll continue to test him, so he’d better be sure his logic has integrity. If a man has to ask a woman to think for him, it just won’t work. If he’s so attached/dependent that he’s afraid he’ll lose her if he stands his ground–gently but firmly–he’s already lost anyway. And so is she.
What I’m coming to understand lately is that not only must I know where I stand, but past a certain point it’s useless to try to explain or persuade. Just state your position, and let her take it or leave it. ”Never argue with a woman” is not just a tired old joke; it’s real wisdom. If she’s worth your time, she’ll come around; if not, don’t waste your time. But in order to make this work, we males must be weaned, and few of us are these days.
Another time, another altercation, terminally exasperated, I asked her what she wanted. “I never know what I want until I get it,” she said. It was like one of those cartoon light bulbs went on over my head. “Aha,” I thought, “there speaks Woman.”
It’s certainly become plain by now that women really don’t know what they want; they may think they want one thing, but if you watch you’ll see that if they get it they complain even louder-and what they really respond to is usually something quite different. Thus do feminists dream of stevedores. And this is the answer to Devvy Kidd’s question about why women buy billions of “romance” novels–even as they demand that their own men behave like doormats.
It’s not that they really want their men to be doormats; it’s that they need their men to be strong, and how do you determine how strong something is without testing it? They do this instinctively, not consciously; naturally they think they want to win, but when they win, they lose. And don’t know why they’re unhappy. Being a woman is not easy; they can’t figure themselves out either, because, in the short run, they make no sense. For a woman, a straight line is not the shortest distance. Because in the natural order, her man is supposed to be breaking the trail, while she follows his lead.
I remember in my hippie days, out in the California Mountains, watching a young woman follow a young man on a trail in the forest. It was an archetypal scene, like Sita following Rama, the Last of the Mohicans: everywoman following everyman.
I had another girl friend once who wanted to arm-wrestle. She was a tough girl, but when I beat her, she was satisfied. I could see it: I’d passed the test, and right away she started fitting herself to me. (In fact, before I knew it seemed we were planning to move in together, which was more than I’d bargained for. I really wasn’t thinking ahead–which is the man’s job. Took some contortions to get out of that one, and I haven’t seen her since.) This is the fundamental, archetypal relationship of the female to the male. “He chases her until she catches him.”
Even Martha Burk and all the other feminists who so adamantly insist on entry to the boys’ clubhouse are doing the same basic thing: testing men. If they win, they lose, because boys can’t become men in a female-dominated environment. And any environment with females present is fundamentally female-dominated, regardless of appearances.
Every boy starts out utterly dominated by a female, a domination which requires decisive change to escape. But if he doesn’t escape his mother’s gravity field, the next generation of women will have no men to marry. That’s essentially our present situation. Few American males (myself included) would I call “men” in the real sense.
A woman cannot show a man how to be a man; what she needs is for him to bring her something she doesn’t already have–or know. Watch birds courting.
This whole process works just fine, more or less, in other species; but among humans, so much more complicated, with so many “choices,” it’s gotten seriously derailed. It’s not easy being a man either, especially in our time when the traditional processes that used to make men of boys have been lost. The best our culture has to offer these days are military basic training and football–neither of which has ever appealed to me in the least. In Burma, traditionally a young man becomes a monk for at least a few months, up to a couple of years. Having experienced a similar form of Buddhist monastic life, I can say it can be an excellent molder of character, if properly understood and applied.
A friend of mine does summer camps for teenage boys, wherein they learn wilderness skills and suchlike. And how to act. One assignment sometimes given is to sit all day in one place without moving, which is essentially the same thing that Buddhist monks do. It works. Young men need something to push against–preferably themselves–that won’t really hurt them or anyone else.
I’d say that male consciousness tends toward abstraction and identifying principles, then ordering thinking and behaviour on that basis. While female consciousness is based on feeling and pragmatic in the short term. Each has its place and use, but they are not “equal”; one or the other must be in charge, and it matters absolutely which.
I’m a fan of Jefferson also, though I certainly recognize his character failings. There were “men in those days.” They were all classically educated, too.
"If you allow them [women] to pull away restraints and put themselves on an equality with their husbands, do you imagine that you will be able to tolerate them? From the moment that they become your fellows, they will become your masters." -- Cato the Censor
.
Previous Philalethes Index Next
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"No mother loves her child. To her, a child is a status symbol - to prove she is woman. A child is the ultimate bangle.
In contrast, man finds his immortality through his children: they are his future. Woman finds only self-flattery through her children: they are her now.
Yes, a mother's love is deep - about as deep as a woman's mind." -- Kevin Solway
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Thursday, June 17, 2010
The Books
I guess you guys have noticed that I’m publishing a few of the “books” of some people from within the MM. Many of you have probably read them already. These guy’s names or their ideas keep popping up from time to time as they have written some really thought provoking stuff. They come from NiceGuy’s Forum where they have an excellent collection of posts under their “Best of” section. They have slowly been getting around more and more in “book form.” What I’d like to do is print them off in a numbered form, and then leave it together as a real “book,” but one where it is very easy to link these numbered concepts with a direct link within the No Ma’am blog so, that they are easily available to refer to.
Bonecrkr has been making the rounds as a book already, and Philalethes’ has written some amazing essays of his ponderings. Neither Bonecrkr nor Philalethes are active online anymore and most of these were written several years back already. And everyone in the MRM knows Zenpriest’s words… The ideas these gentlemen have put forth to others are some of the core philosophical principles that have been circulating around the web in regard to the MM. There are many, many more that have contributed and I’m sure if you asked any of these men, they would say that they got their ideas from reading other men’s ideas. That’s how our collective consciousness works, I suppose. We build off eachother’s ideas in the search for truth.
So, for the next few months, I’m going to print off one of their ideas/concepts each day, set by timer. Then when they are done they will be put together as a book on a section of my blog, the way I have a quotation library at the bottom of my blog. In order to create that one, I had to declare spring cleaning, but, I think just posting one of these fellows a day will be much better. Of course, I’ll be adding my own writing & posting in between. I’ve always really liked the theory of all of this stuff and how it relates into creating societies and civilizations etc. and I’ve often wished that I could quickly link to one of the specific ideas I got from these guys… .
Bonecrkr has been making the rounds as a book already, and Philalethes’ has written some amazing essays of his ponderings. Neither Bonecrkr nor Philalethes are active online anymore and most of these were written several years back already. And everyone in the MRM knows Zenpriest’s words… The ideas these gentlemen have put forth to others are some of the core philosophical principles that have been circulating around the web in regard to the MM. There are many, many more that have contributed and I’m sure if you asked any of these men, they would say that they got their ideas from reading other men’s ideas. That’s how our collective consciousness works, I suppose. We build off eachother’s ideas in the search for truth.
So, for the next few months, I’m going to print off one of their ideas/concepts each day, set by timer. Then when they are done they will be put together as a book on a section of my blog, the way I have a quotation library at the bottom of my blog. In order to create that one, I had to declare spring cleaning, but, I think just posting one of these fellows a day will be much better. Of course, I’ll be adding my own writing & posting in between. I’ve always really liked the theory of all of this stuff and how it relates into creating societies and civilizations etc. and I’ve often wished that I could quickly link to one of the specific ideas I got from these guys… .
Roots of American Culture and Community in Disarray
Committee on Ways and Means
Statement of Bill Wood, Charlotte, North Carolina
A personal submission not on behalf of anyone else and these are my own views.
ROOTS OF THE AMERICAN CULTURE AND COMMUNITY IN DISARRAY
Political leaders, religious leaders, conservatives, families (especially fathers), judges, and interested lawyers, along with the vast majority of Americans who believe in ideals of family and country must understand that open WAR HAS BEEN DECLARED ON THEM AND THIS COUNTRY. And it’s coming from many of the institutions that our taxes are funding and supporting! In terms of financial and human costs this war on America has been the most destructive war in America’s history.
While there has been progress in moving people off of the welfare rolls and into work, welfare still exists and many commentators note it exists to promote the breakdown of the family. A myriad of today’s social ills can be traced to the breakdown of the family and the undermining of marriage. Some of the testimony about the devastation of American families as a result of today’s culture war can be seen in several pieces of testimony I have submitted to the Human Resources Subcommittee:
.
THE PERSONAL IS THE POLITICAL
.
In 1926, an Italian communist named Antonio Gramsci ended up in Mussolini’s prison after a return from Russia. While there, he wrote his “prison notebooks” and they laid out a plan for destroying Western faith and culture. His plans included ways to undermine and discourage Westerners through the intentional collapse of the existing social structure from within.
.
Gramsci advocated not only Marxist class warfare, which was economically focused, but also social and cultural warfare at the same time. His theories and the “slow march through the culture” (or institutions) which he envisioned to destroy the West are enshrined in current American social policy. His theories surrounding “hegemony” and a “counter-hegemony” were designed to destroy Western social structure and overthrow the “West” from within.
.
Hegemony, as defined by Gramsci is that widely accepted system of values, morals, ethics, and social structure which holds a society together and creates a cohesive people. Western social structures holding society together (i.e. “the hegemony”) include: authority, morality, sexual restraint, monogamous marriage, personal responsibility, patriotism, national unity, community, tradition, heredity, education, conservatism, language, Christianity, law, and truth. His theory called for media and communications to slowly co-opt the people with the “counter-hegemony” propaganda message.
.
Through a systematic attack of these institutions he termed the “slow march through the culture,” Gramsci theorized that once these institutions were sufficiently damaged the people would insist on an end to the madness allowing totalitarian control of the Western world. A similar form of these theories was tried before America by the National Socialists (Nazis) headed by Hitler.
.
Many of the Gramscian Marxist Communist ideals have been implemented in government, education, and law. In practice, women have become the vehicle deceived and used in this quest to tear down and destroy Western culture. This has been done by enlisting their help in ripping apart marriage and the traditional family.
.
Careful study and review shows that Gramscian Marxist Communism encompasses today’s “feminist” movement. [iv] Feminism’s goals are to use women to undermine and destroy the culture by abandoning marriage and by not carrying on the critical task of “transmitting the culture” to the next generation. Today’s feminists use women to advance the destruction of women, children, and families while convincing them they are somehow a “victim” of the patriarchal structure. And the patriarchal structure is nothing but Orwellian NewSpeak for the social structures and institutions that have kept Western civilization together long before the social decay we see today.
.
America’s socialists and communists make no pretenses about their goals to promote the destruction of a cohesive society by advancing a welfare state and the complete breakdown of the family. Socialists have openly adopted the “counter hegemony” taught by Gramsci which is designed to destroy Western culture. “[T]he stronger the ‘counter-hegemonic’ strength of unions and left parties, the stronger the welfare state… When we argue for ‘decommodifying’ (i.e., taking out of private market provision) such basic human needs as healthcare, childcare, education, and housing, we have in mind a decentralized and more fully accountable welfare state then [sic] exists in Western democracies.” [v] This statement comes from one of the MANY American college professors indoctrinating students today. As noted by William Gregg in the New American:
.
Gramsci’s Marxist communist philosophy, with its goal and aim to completely destroy “Western” civilization is best summed up in the feminist phrase “THE PERSONAL IS THE POLITICAL!”
.
FAMILY LAW, CHILD SUPPORT, AND WELFARE FROM MARXISM?
.
Many people would be shocked to learn that much of the current “family law” system we have today, which is at the heart of so much of our modern social upheaval and America’s “welfare state,” was born in the Soviet Union. Still more shocking would be the revelation that when the Soviet Union discovered its system was a disastrous failure, it instituted serious reforms in the early 1940’s to try to restore the family and the country. The Soviets made these changes when fatherlessness (which included children from divorced fathers) reached around 7 million children and their social welfare structure (day cares, kindergartens, state children’s facilities, etc.) was overburdened. Yet in America, some studies suggest that we are approaching 11 or 12 million such children. All the while, the social and financial costs of welfare and fatherlessness are just now gaining more widespread attention. America’s fatherlessness crisis is primarily by judicial making with the cooperation of the legions of lawyers and bureaucrats who profit from family destruction which rips America apart.
.
Unfortunately, the Soviet reforms came too late and never brought about the extent of social reconstruction that would have allowed recovery from its self-inflicted social destruction. It was unable to stave off its widely celebrated collapse when the Berlin wall came down. Even though the Soviets tried in vain to restore the social values they had worked so hard to eradicate, America only pays “lip service” to much-needed massive social reform. Serious social reform has been largely absent from political debate. On the other hand, the systematic deconstruction of all of the social values that had made our nation great is being pursued passionately as one of our nation's primary socio-political goals.
.
“Family law” is one of the key tools of the “counter-hegemony” which is used to advance the social welfare state through the promotion of the social structural collapse of America. The early Soviet system focused on personal happiness and self-centered fulfillment with its roots in class warfare. When it was determined that this type of class warfare directed at the family was a complete failure, the Soviets worked quickly to restore the traditional nuclear family in the 1940’s. Shortly after this, the NAWL (National Association of Women Lawyers) began their push for adopting these failed Soviet policies in America.[vii] America’s version of “family law” has adopted much of the early Soviet failed version of class warfare, while adopting new and more insidious Gramscian versions with gender, cultural, and social warfare components.
.
The Federal Government continues to participate by paying the states incentives encouraging them to practice these draconian Soviet style, anti-family, child destroying policies. What a frightening use of our “tax dollars at work” to undermine and destroy the social order of America. Even going so far as to pay incentives on a slightly reformed version of Article 81 of The Russian Family Code. This was promoted in the United States by Irwin Garfinkel as “The Wisconsin Model” for child support and welfare reform. “The Wisconsin Model then became a center-piece for the national child support and welfare reform movement.” [ix]
.
ADOPTING THE FAILED SOVIET ATTEMPT TO DESTROY THE FAMILY
.
Instead of our constitutionally guaranteed “Republican form of government,” we now have a thoroughly entrenched Marxist Communist judiciary in the civil court system masquerading as “family law.” America’s family law courts are no longer about the law, they represent complete perversions of numerous legal maxims and common law traditions that American law was founded upon. [x] These abandoned maxims represent the “hegemony” of American culture and historical tradition in civil family matters. The reprehensible evil of being rewarded for one’s wrongs, and of punishing the innocent have been firmly entrenched in the state’s family courts.
.
No-fault divorce, “the child’s best interests,” and other components of family law in America were imported from the worst of the Soviet family law system. For example from a 1975 Louisville Law School review:
.
The US Library of Congress Country Studies on Romania also shows direct parallels noting;
.
INDOCTRINATING LAWYERS AND JUDGES TO DESTROY AMERICA
.
Gramsci wrote, "The conception of law will have to be freed from every remnant of transcendence and absoluteness, practically from all moralist fanaticism.” Law schools across America teach Gramscian “critical theory” as well as other communist ideals. A Westlaw or Lexis search reveals not just dozens, but hundreds and hundreds of legal articles, law reviews, and other materials on feminism, homosexuality, and various forms of Gramscian class “victimology.”
.
Today’s Gramscian Marxists have numerous “oppositional groups” headed by lawyers and promoted by judges and bureacrats. They advance such “counter-hegemonic” (culturally corrosive and culturally destructive) positions as homosexuality, abortion, the complete FRAUD of the non-existent “separation of church and state,” the (it only applies to destroying marriage and relationships) Violence Against Women Act, “outcome based education,” and the fictitious “global warming.” They passionately HATE the initiatives that undermine their attempts to destroy America such as Title IX reform, Faith based initiatives, the 300 million for marriage, vouchers and accountability for education reform, and the Ten commandments along with ANY other reference to a moral Judeo-Christian code, and private property rights.
.
High profile court rulings openly display this Gramscian Marxist theory in practice: the attack on the pledge of allegiance, the ACLU suing Judge Roy Moore over the Ten Commandments, and the recent Lawrence v. Texas pro-homosexual ruling. At the root of all of these rulings and many others is a violation of the judge’s oath to uphold the constitution. That constitution says that we have a Republican form of government, NOT a socialist or communist form.
.
CONCLUSION
.
Today’s Marxist Communists operate in law, government, religion, media, entertainment and education. They use Orwellian NewSpeak with words such as “tolerance” which actually means intolerance of things that prevent the destruction of all social structures and societal “norms”. Gramscians preach the religion of division, class warfare and social warfare while spouting their hatred of anything traditional, conservative, moral, or values centered – their battle cry is “the personal is the political.” They want all of Western culture completely destroyed and centralized government control erected in the place of the structure they seek to tear apart and discard. The fruits of the culture war they have engaged on America can be seen in the corrosive remnants of broken families, broken children, filled prisons, and a host of other ills underwritten by America’s taxpayers.
.
Those who deeply care about this country and our constitution must fearlessly engage in this culture war--; the war for America’s heart and soul. It’s not too late yet. There is still a critical mass and majority of Americans who are not ready for the horrors of the type of communism or national socialism that Gramscians promote. No form of Marxism or communism (even its most radical form of National Socialism) has ever survived without totalitarian control. If the support were there for these Marxist Communists and National Socialists, history has shown that they would not hesitate to attempt a forceful or violent overthrow of American government.
.
"If the family trends of recent decades are extended into the future, the result will be not only growing uncertainty within marriage, but the gradual elimination of marriage in favor of casual liaisons oriented to adult selfishness. The problem… is that children will be harmed, adults will probably be no happier, and the social order could collapse." [xiii] “In his book, The American Sex Revolution, Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin reviewed the history of societies through the ages, and found that none survived after they ceased honoring and upholding the institution of marriage between a man and a woman.” [xiv] Marcus Tullius Cicero, in a speech in the Roman senate recorded by Sallust said;
.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
.
Gramsci’s “march through the culture” can be turned back once the roots and methods are known. Recognizing the foundations of the current class and culture warfare, promoted in many levels of government, law, religion, media, and education provides relatively easy answers to solve these problems and to turn back the tide of their corruption and destruction.
.
[i] King, Jennifer. Who are the Real Radicals? Rightgrrl, December 1998. A brief exposition of Antonio Gramsci http://www.rightgrrl.com/jennifer1.html
[ii]Strinati, Dominic (1995), An Introduction to Theories of Popular Culture, pg. 168-169. Routledge, London.
[iii] Borst, William, Ph.D. American History. A Nation of Frogs, The Mindszenty Report Vol. XLV-No.1 (January 2003) Cardinal Mindszenty was imprisoned by the Nazi’s and later by the Communists in Hungary. Online version can be seen at http://www.mindszenty.org/report/2003/mr_0103.pdf
[iv] “Marxism and Feminism are one, and that one is Marxism” Heidi Hartmann and Amy Bridges, The unhappy marriage of Marxism and Feminism. -- opening page of Chapter 1, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. Catharine A. MacKinnon, 1989, First Harvard University Press (paperback in 1991)
“Sexuality is to feminism what work is to Marxism…” -- Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. Catharine A. MacKinnon, 1989, First Harvard University Press. Page 3
Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism. -- Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. Catharine A. MacKinnon, 1989, First Harvard University Press. Page 10
"Our culture, including all that we are taught in schools and universities, is so infused with patriarchal thinking that it must be torn up root and branch if genuine change is to occur. Everything must go - even the allegedly universal disciplines of logic, mathematics, and science, and the intellectual values of objectivity, clarity, and precision on which the former depend." A quote from Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge, "Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies" (New York, Basic Books, 1994), p. 116
[v] Schwartz, Joseph. Toward a Democratic Socialism: Theory, Strategy, and Vision. Joseph Schwartz, a member of the National Executive Committee of the Democratic Socialists of America, teaches political science at Temple University.
[vi] Grigg, William. Toward the Total State.The New American Vol. 15, No. 14. July 5, 1999. http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1999/07-05-99/vo15no14_total.htm
[vii] Selma Moidel Smith, A Century of Acheivement: The Centennial of the National Association of Women Lawyers, pg 10. (1999); See also ABA’s Family Law Quarterly, 33 Fam. L.Q. 501, 510-511. Family Law and American Culture – Women Lawyers in Family Law, Section B. The Crusade for No-Fault Divorce. (Fall, 1999)
[viii] The Atlantic Monthly; July 1926; The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage; Volume 138, No. 1; page 108-114.
[ix] The Child Support Guideline Problem, Roger F. Gay, MSc and Gregory J. Palumbo, Ph.D. May 6, 1998.
[x] Jus ex injuria non oritur. 4 Bin 639 -- A right cannot arise from a wrong; Lex nemini operatur iniquum; nemini facit injuriam. Jenk. Cent. 22.—The law works injustice to no one; does injury to no one; Lex deficere non potest in justitia exhibenda. Co. Lit. 197.—The law cannot be defective in dispensing justice; Lex non deficit in justitia exhibenda. Jenk. Cent. 31.— The law is not defective in justice; Commodum ex injurie sue non habere debet. Jenk. Cent. 161. -- No man ought to derive any benefit of his own wrong; Lex non favet delicatorum votis. 9 Co. 58.—The law favours not the vows of the squeamish; Nemo punitur sine injuria, facto, seu defalto. 2 Inst. 287.—No one is to be punished unless for some injury, deed, or default; Legis constructio non facit injuriam. Co. Lit. 183.—The construction of law does no injury; Nemo punitur sine injuria facto, seu defalto. 2 Co. Inst. 287. -- No one is punished unless for some wrong act or default
[xi]No-Fault Divorce: Born In The Soviet Union? University of Louisville School of Law, Journal Of Family Law. Vol. 14, No. 1 (1975). ppg. 32-41
[xii] Strinati, Dominic (1995), An Introduction to Theories of Popular Culture, pg. 169. Routledge, London.
[xiii] David Popenoe, "Modern Marriage: Revisiting the Cultural Script," Promises to Keep, 1996, p. 248.
[xiv] Linda Bowles. Damage for the Children. June 13, 2000. Worldnet Daily online.
[xv] A similar program which has been very successful is DAPCEP (the Detroit Area Pre-College Engineering Program http://www.dapcep.org/ ). The difference is that a program to undermine Gramsci should have BOTH parent’s involvement as its centerpiece. While it would be ideal if they were married, requiring BOTH parents is a start in the right direction.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related:
The Russian Family Code of 1926
Statement of Bill Wood, Charlotte, North Carolina
A personal submission not on behalf of anyone else and these are my own views.
ROOTS OF THE AMERICAN CULTURE AND COMMUNITY IN DISARRAY
Political leaders, religious leaders, conservatives, families (especially fathers), judges, and interested lawyers, along with the vast majority of Americans who believe in ideals of family and country must understand that open WAR HAS BEEN DECLARED ON THEM AND THIS COUNTRY. And it’s coming from many of the institutions that our taxes are funding and supporting! In terms of financial and human costs this war on America has been the most destructive war in America’s history.
When Nikita Kruschev banged his shoe on the table and declared, ‘We shall destroy you from within’ during the infamous "Kitchen Debate" - he knew what he was talking about.
[Comparing the culture of the 50’s to that of 1998] violent criminal offenses have exploded upward by 700%. Premarital sex among 18 year olds has jumped from 30% of the population to 70%. Tax rates for a family of four have skyrocketed 500%, consuming a fourth of their income. Divorce rates have quadrupled. Illegitimate births among black Americans has soared - from approximately 23% to more than 68%. Illegitimacy itself has jumped from a nationwide total of 5% to nearly 30% nationwide - a rise of 600%. Cases of sexually transmitted diseases have risen 150%. Teen age pregnancies are up by several thousand percent and teen suicides have risen by 200%. Between 1950 and 1979 - serious crime committed by children under 15 has risen by 11,000%...
Most Americans would agree that our society has changed for the worst over the last 30 years.” [i]
While there has been progress in moving people off of the welfare rolls and into work, welfare still exists and many commentators note it exists to promote the breakdown of the family. A myriad of today’s social ills can be traced to the breakdown of the family and the undermining of marriage. Some of the testimony about the devastation of American families as a result of today’s culture war can be seen in several pieces of testimony I have submitted to the Human Resources Subcommittee:
US House Testimony on Welfare Reform Reauthorization Proposals, H.R. 4090. April 11, 2002, 109 citations or references - consequences of welfare practices on the family unit, and exploration of the 1996 welfare reform bill’s requirements for strengthening families and marriage (ttp://waysandmeans.house.gov/legacy.asp?file=legacy/humres/107cong/4-11-02/records/billwood.htm)
US House Testimony on Teen Pregnancy prevention PRWORA, Public Law 104-193 (Hearing 107-48). November 15, 2001, 43 citations and references -- effects of fatherlessness and divorce on teen pregnancy. (ttp://waysandmeans.house.gov/legacy.asp?file=legacy/humres/107cong/11-15-01/Record/wmwood.htm)
US House Testimony on Child support and Fatherhood proposals (Hearing 107-38). June 28, 2001, 83 citations or references - Social consequences of failed divorce and child custody policies (http://waysandmeans.house.gov/legacy.asp?file=legacy/humres/107cong/6-28-01/record/chillegalfound.htm) -- Father absence, a byproduct of divorce, illegitimacy, and the erosion of the traditional family, is responsible for; filling our prisons, causing psychological problems, suicide, psychosis, gang activity, rape, physical and sexual child abuse, violence against women, general violence, alcohol and drug abuse, poverty, lower academic achievement, school drop-outs, relationship instability, gender identity confusion, runaways, homelessness, cigarette smoking, and any number of corrosive social disorders.
US House Testimony on The "Hyde-Woolsey" child support bill, HR 1488 (Hearing 106-107, pages 94-103). March 16, 2000, 75 Citations. – Concerning problems with nearly every state's child support guidelines.
.
THE PERSONAL IS THE POLITICAL
.
In 1926, an Italian communist named Antonio Gramsci ended up in Mussolini’s prison after a return from Russia. While there, he wrote his “prison notebooks” and they laid out a plan for destroying Western faith and culture. His plans included ways to undermine and discourage Westerners through the intentional collapse of the existing social structure from within.
.
Gramsci advocated not only Marxist class warfare, which was economically focused, but also social and cultural warfare at the same time. His theories and the “slow march through the culture” (or institutions) which he envisioned to destroy the West are enshrined in current American social policy. His theories surrounding “hegemony” and a “counter-hegemony” were designed to destroy Western social structure and overthrow the “West” from within.
.
Hegemony, as defined by Gramsci is that widely accepted system of values, morals, ethics, and social structure which holds a society together and creates a cohesive people. Western social structures holding society together (i.e. “the hegemony”) include: authority, morality, sexual restraint, monogamous marriage, personal responsibility, patriotism, national unity, community, tradition, heredity, education, conservatism, language, Christianity, law, and truth. His theory called for media and communications to slowly co-opt the people with the “counter-hegemony” propaganda message.
.
"... Hegemony operates culturally and ideologically through the institutions of civil society which characterises mature liberal-democratic, capitalist societies. These institutions include education, the family, the church, the mass media, popular culture, etc." [ii].
Through a systematic attack of these institutions he termed the “slow march through the culture,” Gramsci theorized that once these institutions were sufficiently damaged the people would insist on an end to the madness allowing totalitarian control of the Western world. A similar form of these theories was tried before America by the National Socialists (Nazis) headed by Hitler.
.
Many of the Gramscian Marxist Communist ideals have been implemented in government, education, and law. In practice, women have become the vehicle deceived and used in this quest to tear down and destroy Western culture. This has been done by enlisting their help in ripping apart marriage and the traditional family.
.
Since economic Marxism was a failure, Gramsci reasoned that the only way to topple… Western institutions was by, what he called, a “long march through the culture.” He repackaged Marxism in terms of a… “cultural war”….
“Gramsci hated marriage and the family, the very founding blocks of a civilized society. To him, marriage was a plot, a conspiracy... to perpetuate an evil system that oppressed women and children. It was a dangerous institution, characterized by violence and exploitation, the forerunner of fascism and tyranny. Patriarchy served as the main target of the cultural Marxists. They strove to feminize the family with legions of single and homosexual mothers and ‘fathers’ who would serve to weaken the structure of civilized society.”.
…[A]nother cultural Marxist (George Lukacs) brought the Gramscian strategy to the schools… As deputy commissioner in Hungary… his first task was to put radical sex education in the schools… it was the best way to destroy traditional sexual morality, and weaken the family. Hungarian children learned… free love, sexual intercourse, and the archaic nature of middle-class family codes, the obsolete nature of monogamy, and the irrelevance of organized religion which deprived man of pleasure. Children were urged to deride and ignore… parental authority, and precepts of traditional morality. If this sounds familiar, it is because this is what is happening in our public… schools..
…Under the rubric of ‘diversity,’ its hidden goal is to impose a uniformity of thought and behavior on all Americans. The cultural Marxists, often teachers, university professors and administrators, TV producers, newspaper editor and the like, serve as gatekeepers by keeping all traditional and positive ideas, especially religious ideas, out of the public marketplace. Herbert Marcuse was largely responsible for bringing cultural Marxism to the United States… He believed that all taboos, especially sexual ones, should be relaxed. “Make love, not war!” was his battle cry that echoed through ivy-covered college campuses all over America. His methodology for rebellion included the deconstruction of the language, the infamous “what does ‘is’ mean?” which fostered the destruction of the culture. By confusing and obliterating word meanings, he helped cause a breakdown in the social conformity of the nation, especially among the… young of America....
Marcuse said that women should be the cultural proletariat who transformed Western society. They would serve as the catalyst for the new Marxist Revolution. If women could be persuaded to leave their traditional roles as the transmitters of culture, then the traditional culture could not be transmitted to the next generation..
What better way to influence the generations than by subverting the traditional roles of women? The Marxists rightfully reasoned that the undermining of women could deal a deadly blow to the culture..
If women were the target, then the Cultural Marxists scored a bullseye… Women have traded the domestic tranquility of family and the home for the power surge of the boardroom and the sweaty release of casual sex. Divorce court statistics, wife and child abandonment, abortion and even spousal murder can be laid at [the feminists] doorstep to a large degree. [iii].
Careful study and review shows that Gramscian Marxist Communism encompasses today’s “feminist” movement. [iv] Feminism’s goals are to use women to undermine and destroy the culture by abandoning marriage and by not carrying on the critical task of “transmitting the culture” to the next generation. Today’s feminists use women to advance the destruction of women, children, and families while convincing them they are somehow a “victim” of the patriarchal structure. And the patriarchal structure is nothing but Orwellian NewSpeak for the social structures and institutions that have kept Western civilization together long before the social decay we see today.
.
America’s socialists and communists make no pretenses about their goals to promote the destruction of a cohesive society by advancing a welfare state and the complete breakdown of the family. Socialists have openly adopted the “counter hegemony” taught by Gramsci which is designed to destroy Western culture. “[T]he stronger the ‘counter-hegemonic’ strength of unions and left parties, the stronger the welfare state… When we argue for ‘decommodifying’ (i.e., taking out of private market provision) such basic human needs as healthcare, childcare, education, and housing, we have in mind a decentralized and more fully accountable welfare state then [sic] exists in Western democracies.” [v] This statement comes from one of the MANY American college professors indoctrinating students today. As noted by William Gregg in the New American:
.
Writing in the Winter 1996 issue of the Marxist journal Dissent, Michael Walzer enumerated some of the cultural victories won by the left since the 1960s:.
- "The visible impact of feminism."
- "The effects of affirmative action."
- "The emergence of gay rights politics, and … the attention paid to it in the media."
- "The acceptance of cultural pluralism."
- "The transformation of family life," including "rising divorce rates, changing sexual mores, new household arrangements — and, again, the portrayal of all this in the media."
- "The progress of secularization; the fading of religion in general and Christianity in particular from the public sphere — classrooms, textbooks, legal codes, holidays, and so on."
- "The virtual abolition of capital punishment."
- "The legalization of abortion."
- "The first successes in the effort to regulate and limit the private ownership of guns."
.Significantly, Walzer admitted… these victories were imposed upon our society by "liberal elites," rather than… "by the pressure of a mass movement or a majoritarian party." These changes "reflect the leftism or liberalism of lawyers, judges, federal bureaucrats, professors, school teachers, social workers, journalists, television and screen writers — not the population at large," noted Walzer… [T]he left focused on "winning the Gramscian war of position."
Cultural commentator Richard Grenier [notes Gramsci formulated] “the doctrine that those who want to change society must change man’s consciousness, and that in order to accomplish this they must first control the institutions by which that consciousness is formed: schools, universities, churches, and, perhaps above all, art and the communications industry. It is these institutions that shape and articulate ‘public opinion,’ the limits of which few politicians can violate with impunity. Culture, Gramsci felt, is not simply the superstructure of an economic base — the role assigned to it in orthodox Marxism — but is central to a society. His famous battle cry is: capture the culture.".
Gramsci recognized that the chief [obstacles] impeding… the triumph of Marxism were… those institutions, customs, and habits identified by Washington and the other Founding Fathers as indispensable to ordered liberty — such as the family, private initiative, self-restraint, and principled individualism. But Gramsci focused particularly on what Washington described as the "indispensable supports" of free society — religion and morality. In order to bring about a revolution, Gramsci wrote, "The conception of law will have to be freed from every remnant of transcendence and absoluteness, practically from all moralist fanaticism." [vi].
Gramsci’s Marxist communist philosophy, with its goal and aim to completely destroy “Western” civilization is best summed up in the feminist phrase “THE PERSONAL IS THE POLITICAL!”
.
FAMILY LAW, CHILD SUPPORT, AND WELFARE FROM MARXISM?
.
Many people would be shocked to learn that much of the current “family law” system we have today, which is at the heart of so much of our modern social upheaval and America’s “welfare state,” was born in the Soviet Union. Still more shocking would be the revelation that when the Soviet Union discovered its system was a disastrous failure, it instituted serious reforms in the early 1940’s to try to restore the family and the country. The Soviets made these changes when fatherlessness (which included children from divorced fathers) reached around 7 million children and their social welfare structure (day cares, kindergartens, state children’s facilities, etc.) was overburdened. Yet in America, some studies suggest that we are approaching 11 or 12 million such children. All the while, the social and financial costs of welfare and fatherlessness are just now gaining more widespread attention. America’s fatherlessness crisis is primarily by judicial making with the cooperation of the legions of lawyers and bureaucrats who profit from family destruction which rips America apart.
.
Unfortunately, the Soviet reforms came too late and never brought about the extent of social reconstruction that would have allowed recovery from its self-inflicted social destruction. It was unable to stave off its widely celebrated collapse when the Berlin wall came down. Even though the Soviets tried in vain to restore the social values they had worked so hard to eradicate, America only pays “lip service” to much-needed massive social reform. Serious social reform has been largely absent from political debate. On the other hand, the systematic deconstruction of all of the social values that had made our nation great is being pursued passionately as one of our nation's primary socio-political goals.
.
“Family law” is one of the key tools of the “counter-hegemony” which is used to advance the social welfare state through the promotion of the social structural collapse of America. The early Soviet system focused on personal happiness and self-centered fulfillment with its roots in class warfare. When it was determined that this type of class warfare directed at the family was a complete failure, the Soviets worked quickly to restore the traditional nuclear family in the 1940’s. Shortly after this, the NAWL (National Association of Women Lawyers) began their push for adopting these failed Soviet policies in America.[vii] America’s version of “family law” has adopted much of the early Soviet failed version of class warfare, while adopting new and more insidious Gramscian versions with gender, cultural, and social warfare components.
.
When the Bolsheviki came into power in 1917 they regarded the family… with fierce hatred, and set out… to destroy it… [O]ne of the first decrees of the Soviet Government abolished the term 'illegitimate children... by equalizing the legal status of all children, whether born in wedlock or out of it… The father of a child is forced to contribute to its support, usually paying the mother a third of his salary in the event of a separation… At the same time a law was passed which made divorce [very quick]… at the request of either partner in a marriage….
[Marriage became a game where it] was not… unusual… for a boy of twenty to have had three or four wives, or for a girl of the same age to have had three or four abortions. [T]he peasants… bitterly complained: 'Abortions cover our villages with shame. Formerly we did not even hear of them.'.
Many women… found marriage and childbearing a profitable occupation. They formed connections with the sons of well-to-do peasants and then blackmailed the father for the support of the children... The law has created still more confusion because… women can claim support for children born many years ago..
…Both in the villages and in the cities the problem of the unmarried mother has become very acute and provides a severe and annoying test of Communist theories..
…Another new point was that wife and husband would have an equal right to claim support from the other… The woman would have the right to demand support for her child even if she lived with several men during the period of conception; but, in contrast to previous practice, she or the court would choose one man who would be held responsible for the support. Commissar Kursky seemed especially proud of this point because it differed so much from the 'burgeois customs' of Europe and America..
Another speaker objected to the proposed law on the ground that some women would take advantage of its liberal provisions to form connections with wealthy men and then blackmail them for alimony. [viii].
The Federal Government continues to participate by paying the states incentives encouraging them to practice these draconian Soviet style, anti-family, child destroying policies. What a frightening use of our “tax dollars at work” to undermine and destroy the social order of America. Even going so far as to pay incentives on a slightly reformed version of Article 81 of The Russian Family Code. This was promoted in the United States by Irwin Garfinkel as “The Wisconsin Model” for child support and welfare reform. “The Wisconsin Model then became a center-piece for the national child support and welfare reform movement.” [ix]
.
ADOPTING THE FAILED SOVIET ATTEMPT TO DESTROY THE FAMILY
.
Instead of our constitutionally guaranteed “Republican form of government,” we now have a thoroughly entrenched Marxist Communist judiciary in the civil court system masquerading as “family law.” America’s family law courts are no longer about the law, they represent complete perversions of numerous legal maxims and common law traditions that American law was founded upon. [x] These abandoned maxims represent the “hegemony” of American culture and historical tradition in civil family matters. The reprehensible evil of being rewarded for one’s wrongs, and of punishing the innocent have been firmly entrenched in the state’s family courts.
.
No-fault divorce, “the child’s best interests,” and other components of family law in America were imported from the worst of the Soviet family law system. For example from a 1975 Louisville Law School review:
.
“Few members of the American legal community are aware of the fact that the Soviet Union has had, for some period of time, what can be described as a no-fault divorce legal system… [A]t a meeting with a group of Soviet lawyers in 1972, one of them asked, “Is it for a long time that you (California) have that system?” When informed of the January 1, 1970 effective date of the California law she remarked, “I think it is the influence of our law… [T]here are a number of similarities between Soviet and California divorce laws that suggest a “borrowing” or a remarkable coincidence.” (pg 32).
“For the Bolsheviks, with their Marxist disdain for religion, the influence of the ecclesiastical authorities over the family was an outrage. Since the family represented the major institution through which the traditions of the past were transmitted from generation to generation, the new regime had to destroy the old bourgeois notions of the family and the home. There was also a very urgent practical reason for disassociating family relations from the influence of the religious authorities… [T]he first task of the new regime in relation to the family was to break the power of the church and the husband.” (pg 33).
“Birth alone was declared the basis of family ties, and all legal discrimination against illegitimate children was abolished... Early Soviet policy was intended to attack these evils [of “patriarchy”] and to transfer the care, education and maintenance of children from home to society. This would mean the end of the family’s socialization functions, and would remove the child from the conservative atmosphere of the patriarchal family to a setting that could be entirely controlled by the regime.” (pg 34).
The Soviet press reported in the mid-thirties that promiscuity flourished... juvenile delinquency mounted, and statistical studies showed that the major source of delinquents was the broken or inattentive home… Additional public homes for children were established, and propaganda campaigns sought to persuade the public that a strong family was the most communistically inspired one. (pg 38, 39).
There was also the matter of seven to nine million fatherless and homeless children, according to Russian estimates of the early twenties. In derogation of Marxist ideology, the state had been unable to assist single mothers, and there existed almost no children’s homes, nurseries or kindergartens. Because of more pressing tasks and limited personnel and material resources the state had not been able to fulfill the conditions Engels had specified for extrafamilial facilities. (pg 40).
More seriously, anti-family policies were leading to a situation where many children in the first Soviet urban generation simply lacked the kind of socializing experience to fit them intellectually or emotionally to the new society the regime was attempting to build, with its emphasis upon self-discipline and control, perseverance, steadiness, punctuality and accuracy. While the family influence had been undermined, extrafamilial agencies had failed to provide a workable substitute, leaving the child prey to the noxious and deviant influences of “the street.” (pg 41) [xi].
The US Library of Congress Country Studies on Romania also shows direct parallels noting;
.
“Family law in socialist Romania was modeled after Soviet family legislation… [I]t sought to undermine the influence of religion on family life. [Previously] the church was the center of community life, and marriage, divorce, and recording of births were matters for religious authorities. Under communism these events became affairs of the state, and legislation designed to wipe out the accumulated traditions and ancient codes was enacted. The communist regime required marriage to be legalized in a civil ceremony at the local registry prior to, or preferably instead of, the customary church wedding..
Because of the more liberal procedures, the divorce rate grew dramatically, tripling by 1960, and the number of abortions also increased rapidly. Concern for population reproduction and future labor supplies prompted the state to revise the Romanian Family Code to foster more stable personal relationships and strengthen the family. At the end of 1966, abortion was virtually outlawed, and a new divorce decree made the dissolution of marriage exceedingly difficult..
INDOCTRINATING LAWYERS AND JUDGES TO DESTROY AMERICA
.
Gramsci wrote, "The conception of law will have to be freed from every remnant of transcendence and absoluteness, practically from all moralist fanaticism.” Law schools across America teach Gramscian “critical theory” as well as other communist ideals. A Westlaw or Lexis search reveals not just dozens, but hundreds and hundreds of legal articles, law reviews, and other materials on feminism, homosexuality, and various forms of Gramscian class “victimology.”
.
"The revolutionary forces have to take civil society before they take the state, and therefore have to build a coalition of oppositional groups united under a hegemonic banner which usurps the dominant or prevailing hegemony." [xii].
Today’s Gramscian Marxists have numerous “oppositional groups” headed by lawyers and promoted by judges and bureacrats. They advance such “counter-hegemonic” (culturally corrosive and culturally destructive) positions as homosexuality, abortion, the complete FRAUD of the non-existent “separation of church and state,” the (it only applies to destroying marriage and relationships) Violence Against Women Act, “outcome based education,” and the fictitious “global warming.” They passionately HATE the initiatives that undermine their attempts to destroy America such as Title IX reform, Faith based initiatives, the 300 million for marriage, vouchers and accountability for education reform, and the Ten commandments along with ANY other reference to a moral Judeo-Christian code, and private property rights.
.
High profile court rulings openly display this Gramscian Marxist theory in practice: the attack on the pledge of allegiance, the ACLU suing Judge Roy Moore over the Ten Commandments, and the recent Lawrence v. Texas pro-homosexual ruling. At the root of all of these rulings and many others is a violation of the judge’s oath to uphold the constitution. That constitution says that we have a Republican form of government, NOT a socialist or communist form.
.
CONCLUSION
.
Today’s Marxist Communists operate in law, government, religion, media, entertainment and education. They use Orwellian NewSpeak with words such as “tolerance” which actually means intolerance of things that prevent the destruction of all social structures and societal “norms”. Gramscians preach the religion of division, class warfare and social warfare while spouting their hatred of anything traditional, conservative, moral, or values centered – their battle cry is “the personal is the political.” They want all of Western culture completely destroyed and centralized government control erected in the place of the structure they seek to tear apart and discard. The fruits of the culture war they have engaged on America can be seen in the corrosive remnants of broken families, broken children, filled prisons, and a host of other ills underwritten by America’s taxpayers.
.
Those who deeply care about this country and our constitution must fearlessly engage in this culture war--; the war for America’s heart and soul. It’s not too late yet. There is still a critical mass and majority of Americans who are not ready for the horrors of the type of communism or national socialism that Gramscians promote. No form of Marxism or communism (even its most radical form of National Socialism) has ever survived without totalitarian control. If the support were there for these Marxist Communists and National Socialists, history has shown that they would not hesitate to attempt a forceful or violent overthrow of American government.
.
"If the family trends of recent decades are extended into the future, the result will be not only growing uncertainty within marriage, but the gradual elimination of marriage in favor of casual liaisons oriented to adult selfishness. The problem… is that children will be harmed, adults will probably be no happier, and the social order could collapse." [xiii] “In his book, The American Sex Revolution, Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin reviewed the history of societies through the ages, and found that none survived after they ceased honoring and upholding the institution of marriage between a man and a woman.” [xiv] Marcus Tullius Cicero, in a speech in the Roman senate recorded by Sallust said;
.
"A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victim, and he wears their face and their garments and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared. The traitor is the plague.".
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
.
Gramsci’s “march through the culture” can be turned back once the roots and methods are known. Recognizing the foundations of the current class and culture warfare, promoted in many levels of government, law, religion, media, and education provides relatively easy answers to solve these problems and to turn back the tide of their corruption and destruction.
.
- Institute non-coercive national unity and patriotism in public policy. The national unity issue destroys the divisive class warfare while reviving patriotism helps to restore some of the “hegemony” the Marxists so passionately hate.
- Mandate abstinence training in schools for states to receive health funds. Stop allowing the natural inhibitions of children to sexual advances to be torn down by the current trend of pro-sexual education brought to them by their teachers who are also authority figures.
- Conservative politicians should take some of their campaign time and effort to tap into and lobby for more than just money. Conservatives must lobby large businesses to partner with inner city churches and schools to create programs of opportunity in disadvantaged areas. This takes the race baiting and class warfare issue away from the left, and gets socialist government programs out of the involvement in people’s lives. [xv]
- Tie clear mission statements to EVERY government program and agency which include: promoting traditional marriage and family, restoring national pride, reducing divorce, reducing illegitimacy, promoting abstinence, and encouraging strong morals and values. Force a public debate on these issues and it will destroy the liberal Marxist establishment. Ever since welfare reform the liberal establishment has been slowly crumbling. Press the issues and accelerate their demise.
- CAREFULLY identify several congressional staff members who have a proven track record of being pro-family, with proven integrity, and have shown a level of frustration over today’s social problems. Assign them to a special research project to study Gramsci’s version of Marxist communism and how it has been implemented in America. Publish their reports and develop strategies based on those reports. (And if the lefties cry “McCarthy,” let the public debates begin! An honest reading of McCarthy’s record completely vindicates him and exposes them!)
- Press the Judiciary committee to amend Title 18 of the US Code to create provisions stating that no state or federal judge shall have any form of immunity whatsoever for engaging in actions which produce or promote taxpayer fraud. For any such act or acts, they shall be subject to both criminal prosecution and they shall be subject to suit in their personal capacity. Let the judges and lawyers scream about “independence” and then insist that they must interpret “independence” to mean that they should be free to break the law and commit fraud against the taxpayers of the United States.
- If Title 18 cannot be amended, then insert the provisions under Title 42 related to the Public Health and Welfare.
- End taxpayer funding of PBS. Expand libel and slander laws to include distortions, manipulations, or unbalanced reporting in television and cable news programs. Let the trial lawyers have a field day with the liberal media.
- Codify in the USC the mission of senior level bureaucrats and their guiding principles with explicit provisions noting personal liability for not adhering to these provisions. Codify the requirement for annual reports by heads of agencies demonstrating how they have complied with these requirements. For example:
-- Make the HHS Director’s mission something like “to work to restore traditional marriage and family while reducing the number of single-parent and broken families who need to collect welfare or child support.” Make it a mandatory reporting requirement on how this mission is being fulfilled.
[i] King, Jennifer. Who are the Real Radicals? Rightgrrl, December 1998. A brief exposition of Antonio Gramsci http://www.rightgrrl.com/jennifer1.html
[ii]Strinati, Dominic (1995), An Introduction to Theories of Popular Culture, pg. 168-169. Routledge, London.
[iii] Borst, William, Ph.D. American History. A Nation of Frogs, The Mindszenty Report Vol. XLV-No.1 (January 2003) Cardinal Mindszenty was imprisoned by the Nazi’s and later by the Communists in Hungary. Online version can be seen at http://www.mindszenty.org/report/2003/mr_0103.pdf
[iv] “Marxism and Feminism are one, and that one is Marxism” Heidi Hartmann and Amy Bridges, The unhappy marriage of Marxism and Feminism. -- opening page of Chapter 1, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. Catharine A. MacKinnon, 1989, First Harvard University Press (paperback in 1991)
“Sexuality is to feminism what work is to Marxism…” -- Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. Catharine A. MacKinnon, 1989, First Harvard University Press. Page 3
Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism. -- Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. Catharine A. MacKinnon, 1989, First Harvard University Press. Page 10
"Our culture, including all that we are taught in schools and universities, is so infused with patriarchal thinking that it must be torn up root and branch if genuine change is to occur. Everything must go - even the allegedly universal disciplines of logic, mathematics, and science, and the intellectual values of objectivity, clarity, and precision on which the former depend." A quote from Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge, "Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies" (New York, Basic Books, 1994), p. 116
[v] Schwartz, Joseph. Toward a Democratic Socialism: Theory, Strategy, and Vision. Joseph Schwartz, a member of the National Executive Committee of the Democratic Socialists of America, teaches political science at Temple University.
[vi] Grigg, William. Toward the Total State.The New American Vol. 15, No. 14. July 5, 1999. http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1999/07-05-99/vo15no14_total.htm
[vii] Selma Moidel Smith, A Century of Acheivement: The Centennial of the National Association of Women Lawyers, pg 10. (1999); See also ABA’s Family Law Quarterly, 33 Fam. L.Q. 501, 510-511. Family Law and American Culture – Women Lawyers in Family Law, Section B. The Crusade for No-Fault Divorce. (Fall, 1999)
[viii] The Atlantic Monthly; July 1926; The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage; Volume 138, No. 1; page 108-114.
[ix] The Child Support Guideline Problem, Roger F. Gay, MSc and Gregory J. Palumbo, Ph.D. May 6, 1998.
[x] Jus ex injuria non oritur. 4 Bin 639 -- A right cannot arise from a wrong; Lex nemini operatur iniquum; nemini facit injuriam. Jenk. Cent. 22.—The law works injustice to no one; does injury to no one; Lex deficere non potest in justitia exhibenda. Co. Lit. 197.—The law cannot be defective in dispensing justice; Lex non deficit in justitia exhibenda. Jenk. Cent. 31.— The law is not defective in justice; Commodum ex injurie sue non habere debet. Jenk. Cent. 161. -- No man ought to derive any benefit of his own wrong; Lex non favet delicatorum votis. 9 Co. 58.—The law favours not the vows of the squeamish; Nemo punitur sine injuria, facto, seu defalto. 2 Inst. 287.—No one is to be punished unless for some injury, deed, or default; Legis constructio non facit injuriam. Co. Lit. 183.—The construction of law does no injury; Nemo punitur sine injuria facto, seu defalto. 2 Co. Inst. 287. -- No one is punished unless for some wrong act or default
[xi]No-Fault Divorce: Born In The Soviet Union? University of Louisville School of Law, Journal Of Family Law. Vol. 14, No. 1 (1975). ppg. 32-41
[xii] Strinati, Dominic (1995), An Introduction to Theories of Popular Culture, pg. 169. Routledge, London.
[xiii] David Popenoe, "Modern Marriage: Revisiting the Cultural Script," Promises to Keep, 1996, p. 248.
[xiv] Linda Bowles. Damage for the Children. June 13, 2000. Worldnet Daily online.
[xv] A similar program which has been very successful is DAPCEP (the Detroit Area Pre-College Engineering Program http://www.dapcep.org/ ). The difference is that a program to undermine Gramsci should have BOTH parent’s involvement as its centerpiece. While it would be ideal if they were married, requiring BOTH parents is a start in the right direction.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related:
The Russian Family Code of 1926
Philalethes #2 - The Sexual Noise is Deafening
Quote: "... young women tend to get away with murder just by flaunting it."
Remember another feminist slogan of recent years: “If you’ve got it, flaunt it!”
I for one am increasingly tired of the constantly escalating level of sexual white noise in the culture. In summertime a lot of females parade around practically naked. For a long time I wondered why it is that women seem to have an overwhelming compulsion to bare their bodies in public; in winter I’ve seen them sometimes with serious gooseflesh when they could just as easily wear a little more clothing and be comfortably warm. Finally I recalled reading in Desmond Morris’ classic The Naked Ape (highly recommended) the simple, scientific observation that while other species’ sexual signals may be olfactory (scents–which is why dogs urinate on fireplugs) or auditory (birdsong), human sexual signals concentrate on our most developed sense, i.e. sight. When a woman bares another half-inch of skin, it’s never an accident: it’s an escalation, either of an attempt to capture male attention, or of competition with other females to do the same.
If human sexual signals were transmitted in sound, our present situation would be literally deafening.
Once again, women don’t make sense, at least on first observation: they behave in a manner obviously calculated (though often subconsciously so) to attract male attention, then they complain that males “can’t keep their eyes to themselves.” It’s just more testing. If nothing else, it’s a test of the male’s ability to deal with the stress caused by female irrationality. “I’m not logical. Deal with it.” What does not destroy you … makes you a promising candidate as a mate. From the point of view of Nature, their (and our) ultimate Boss, this makes perfect sense. Nature knows no restraint; she will escalate every contest to the ultimate.
In “traditional” cultures, women generally had the sense to discipline their collective behaviour, to keep the sexual noise to a level that wouldn’t cause a total collapse of social order. This is the origin of all the restraints which feminists complain so bitterly about, from marriage to the seclusion of women to the burkha: simply varying, often desperate attempts to govern the overwhelming sexual power of the female so that we can have human societies, rather than the life of chimpanzees.
In our “modern,” revolutionary culture, these restraints have been broken down, abandoned, and it’s a free-for-all. Women themselves are caught in the situation: as the level of competition rises, even women who don’t feel inclined to act like prostitutes feel they have no choice. Few women other than Camille Paglia are willing to admit that under the “patriarchy” women were far safer to walk the streets at night than they are now, in our “enlightened” social order, where women are “free to be themselves.” The simple fact is that (most) women, like children, on their own don’t know what’s best for their own welfare.
People who come to our country from traditional cultures say that our women dress like prostitutes: why advertise so aggressively unless you’re selling what you’re showing? But of course, as our “modern” culture spreads across the world, traditional cultures’ restraining patterns are breaking down as well. A recent issue of National Geographic shows this quite graphically, with a cover photo of an Indian woman and her daughter: the mother is dressed in a traditional sari, the daughter is dressed like a typical American teenage wanna-be whore, complete with pout. No culture can last when this behaviour becomes the norm.
Some years ago I had the opportunity to meet a woman shaman from the Iroquois nation. She was impressive: one of the few real, grownup women I’ve encountered. Calm, restrained, gentle, completely aware and in control of herself, she glowed with power. I sat in a room full of women at her feet, and was struck by the behaviour of a middle-aged, white-haired Anglo female sitting across from me. She didn’t know how to comport herself; she had her legs up so her underwear was clearly displayed to the room. I thought, “This is the best model our culture can offer as an adult woman?” It was sad.
I was amused to see the following passage in the Seneca Falls “Declaration of Sentiments”:
The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her.
The truth is, the history of humankind is a history of desperate attempts to escape the unconscious, unrestrained rule of woman, and thus the absolute rule of unconscious, ruthless Nature, by creating social constructs which, whatever their imperfections, at least offer us a life less “nasty, brutish and short” than that of the animal world from which we came–and back into which we may fall at any time. This is the real meaning of “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”
Remember another feminist slogan of recent years: “If you’ve got it, flaunt it!”
I for one am increasingly tired of the constantly escalating level of sexual white noise in the culture. In summertime a lot of females parade around practically naked. For a long time I wondered why it is that women seem to have an overwhelming compulsion to bare their bodies in public; in winter I’ve seen them sometimes with serious gooseflesh when they could just as easily wear a little more clothing and be comfortably warm. Finally I recalled reading in Desmond Morris’ classic The Naked Ape (highly recommended) the simple, scientific observation that while other species’ sexual signals may be olfactory (scents–which is why dogs urinate on fireplugs) or auditory (birdsong), human sexual signals concentrate on our most developed sense, i.e. sight. When a woman bares another half-inch of skin, it’s never an accident: it’s an escalation, either of an attempt to capture male attention, or of competition with other females to do the same.
If human sexual signals were transmitted in sound, our present situation would be literally deafening.
Once again, women don’t make sense, at least on first observation: they behave in a manner obviously calculated (though often subconsciously so) to attract male attention, then they complain that males “can’t keep their eyes to themselves.” It’s just more testing. If nothing else, it’s a test of the male’s ability to deal with the stress caused by female irrationality. “I’m not logical. Deal with it.” What does not destroy you … makes you a promising candidate as a mate. From the point of view of Nature, their (and our) ultimate Boss, this makes perfect sense. Nature knows no restraint; she will escalate every contest to the ultimate.
In “traditional” cultures, women generally had the sense to discipline their collective behaviour, to keep the sexual noise to a level that wouldn’t cause a total collapse of social order. This is the origin of all the restraints which feminists complain so bitterly about, from marriage to the seclusion of women to the burkha: simply varying, often desperate attempts to govern the overwhelming sexual power of the female so that we can have human societies, rather than the life of chimpanzees.
In our “modern,” revolutionary culture, these restraints have been broken down, abandoned, and it’s a free-for-all. Women themselves are caught in the situation: as the level of competition rises, even women who don’t feel inclined to act like prostitutes feel they have no choice. Few women other than Camille Paglia are willing to admit that under the “patriarchy” women were far safer to walk the streets at night than they are now, in our “enlightened” social order, where women are “free to be themselves.” The simple fact is that (most) women, like children, on their own don’t know what’s best for their own welfare.
People who come to our country from traditional cultures say that our women dress like prostitutes: why advertise so aggressively unless you’re selling what you’re showing? But of course, as our “modern” culture spreads across the world, traditional cultures’ restraining patterns are breaking down as well. A recent issue of National Geographic shows this quite graphically, with a cover photo of an Indian woman and her daughter: the mother is dressed in a traditional sari, the daughter is dressed like a typical American teenage wanna-be whore, complete with pout. No culture can last when this behaviour becomes the norm.
Some years ago I had the opportunity to meet a woman shaman from the Iroquois nation. She was impressive: one of the few real, grownup women I’ve encountered. Calm, restrained, gentle, completely aware and in control of herself, she glowed with power. I sat in a room full of women at her feet, and was struck by the behaviour of a middle-aged, white-haired Anglo female sitting across from me. She didn’t know how to comport herself; she had her legs up so her underwear was clearly displayed to the room. I thought, “This is the best model our culture can offer as an adult woman?” It was sad.
I was amused to see the following passage in the Seneca Falls “Declaration of Sentiments”:
The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her.
The truth is, the history of humankind is a history of desperate attempts to escape the unconscious, unrestrained rule of woman, and thus the absolute rule of unconscious, ruthless Nature, by creating social constructs which, whatever their imperfections, at least offer us a life less “nasty, brutish and short” than that of the animal world from which we came–and back into which we may fall at any time. This is the real meaning of “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”
.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
A Little Story About Debt, Gold, and Bondi Beach
Analogy: a swimmer is caught in a rip; a term describing a tidal phenomena where a strong current (that runs out to sea in a channel) drags you out to sea if you get caught in it. The rip represents any debt trap in this case and they both work in a similar way pulling you into deeper trouble.
A good article. I enjoyed the analogy...
But not as much as I enjoyed this video which makes the same point regarding the economic crisis:
A good article. I enjoyed the analogy...
But not as much as I enjoyed this video which makes the same point regarding the economic crisis:
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Men Harmed by Relationships More than Women
In the study of more than 1,000 unmarried young adults between the ages of 18 and 23, Wake Forest Professor of Sociology Robin Simon challenges the long-held assumption that women are more vulnerable to the emotional rollercoaster of relationships. Even though men sometimes try to present a tough face, unhappy romances take a greater emotional toll on men than women, Simon says. They just express their distress differently than women.
Well of course they are! NO MA’AM has been trying to explain this to people for a few years now.
I’m not surprised. Once you let loose the false notion that “gender is a social construct” and embrace the view that there are innate differences between men and women, it becomes rather obvious that women are “designed” to be scrumptious to men. The purpose of this is for women, being the “weaker” sex who are often “burdened” by children, to be able to procure protection and resources from their male love interests, often to the negative net-benefit of the male. In other words, women are designed to create self-benefiting reactions from a man towards her, and men are designed to be reactive to these manipulations from the female. In nature, men are “supposed to be” more reactive than the female.
Agreed!
Well, I’m not sure I agree with that. “Greater emotional benefits” are more of a subjective opinion than a hard fact. In the same vein of thought regarding “benefits,” one might also say that a person who is 150lbs gets “greater alcoholic benefits” from drinking 12 beers than a 200lb person. Yeah, sure. They’ll have a bigger hang-over in the morning too! And what’s the benefit of that?
Agreed again! My goodness, I don’t think I’ve ever agreed with female academics and social scientists so much! In fact, many men find this out in marriage after the first baby arrives and intimacy with his wife begins escaping him more and more. A woman’s calling to care for her baby, as well as such intimate skin-on-skin touching from childcare such as breast-feeding, and, well just even holding the baby, often fulfill the majority of a woman’s emotional needs. Touching and being touched by other humans is key to one’s emotional wellbeing. Women also touch and hug other women at far greater rates than men do. For men who touch, if it is with other men they are presumed gay and are mocked, if it is platonicly touching a woman, they run the risks of being considered "creepy" and possibly harrassing, and if it is with children they are considered pedophiles and put under criminal suspicion. Something that is a social construct is the hysteria generated by a man’s touch. No kidding when he gets into an intimate relationship with a woman that he is overwhelmed by it – he may have gone without for months or even years without real human touch, whereas she may only go for a day or two without human touch.
Hmmm… ok. But who is sowing the seeds of this? She does not say. However, it has been my experience, both within intimate relationships and in relationships with women in general, that women’s favoured weapon during any “strain in the relationship” is to first, foremost, and always, attack a person’s identity and self-worth.
“He didn’t want to kiss me – He must be gay!”
“He didn’t behave like a servile worm and give me what I wanted – He hates women!”
“You’re such a loser.”
Well of course they are! NO MA’AM has been trying to explain this to people for a few years now.
I’m not surprised. Once you let loose the false notion that “gender is a social construct” and embrace the view that there are innate differences between men and women, it becomes rather obvious that women are “designed” to be scrumptious to men. The purpose of this is for women, being the “weaker” sex who are often “burdened” by children, to be able to procure protection and resources from their male love interests, often to the negative net-benefit of the male. In other words, women are designed to create self-benefiting reactions from a man towards her, and men are designed to be reactive to these manipulations from the female. In nature, men are “supposed to be” more reactive than the female.
Agreed!
Well, I’m not sure I agree with that. “Greater emotional benefits” are more of a subjective opinion than a hard fact. In the same vein of thought regarding “benefits,” one might also say that a person who is 150lbs gets “greater alcoholic benefits” from drinking 12 beers than a 200lb person. Yeah, sure. They’ll have a bigger hang-over in the morning too! And what’s the benefit of that?
Agreed again! My goodness, I don’t think I’ve ever agreed with female academics and social scientists so much! In fact, many men find this out in marriage after the first baby arrives and intimacy with his wife begins escaping him more and more. A woman’s calling to care for her baby, as well as such intimate skin-on-skin touching from childcare such as breast-feeding, and, well just even holding the baby, often fulfill the majority of a woman’s emotional needs. Touching and being touched by other humans is key to one’s emotional wellbeing. Women also touch and hug other women at far greater rates than men do. For men who touch, if it is with other men they are presumed gay and are mocked, if it is platonicly touching a woman, they run the risks of being considered "creepy" and possibly harrassing, and if it is with children they are considered pedophiles and put under criminal suspicion. Something that is a social construct is the hysteria generated by a man’s touch. No kidding when he gets into an intimate relationship with a woman that he is overwhelmed by it – he may have gone without for months or even years without real human touch, whereas she may only go for a day or two without human touch.
Hmmm… ok. But who is sowing the seeds of this? She does not say. However, it has been my experience, both within intimate relationships and in relationships with women in general, that women’s favoured weapon during any “strain in the relationship” is to first, foremost, and always, attack a person’s identity and self-worth.
“He didn’t want to kiss me – He must be gay!”
“He didn’t behave like a servile worm and give me what I wanted – He hates women!”
“You’re such a loser.”
“Strain in a current romantic relationship may also be associated with poor emotional well-being because it threatens young men’s identity and feelings of self-worth, she says.”
“For young men, their romantic partners are often their primary source of intimacy – in contrast to young women who are more who are more likely to have close relationships with family and friends.”
“The researchers also found that men get greater emotional benefits from the positive aspects of an ongoing romantic relationship.”
“That means the harmful stress of a rocky relationship is more closely associated with men’s than women’s health.”
“Surprisingly, we found men are more reactive to the quality of ongoing relationships.”
(See the Fembot Bingo Card for a more complete list.)
Shaming language is far more the realm of women than men. A man gets pissed off and swears and shouts, and may even break something, and then he calms down after his outburst and returns to normal. But a woman scorned will make life hell for you for months afterwards by undermining your identity and self-worth. Haven’t you heard that “Hell Hath No Fury” line before? They weren’t talking about a woman’s ability to go Bruce Lee on people, you know.
In fact, other social scientists have found these differences to be stereotypical of male and female forms of aggression:
.
“Bullying styles are generally considered to fall under two categories, direct and indirect. Direct physical bullying is to, hit, shove, kick, trip, push, and pull. Direct verbal bullying can involve name-calling, insults, threatening to hurt the other. Indirect bullying, also known as social or relational aggression (Crick 1997) involves attacking the relationships of people and hurting the self-esteem. It is subtler and involves behaviours such as spreading nasty rumors, withholding friendships, ignoring, gossiping, or excluding a child from a small group of friends.
There is no doubt that stereotypically, males are more physical and direct in their bullying styles and females more manipulative and indirect (Olweus, 1997; Bjorkqvist, 1994; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist & Peltonen, 1988). Boys in our Western culture are encouraged to be tough and competitive and as they maturate slower and develop social intelligence at a slower rate they will use physical aggression longer than girls (Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, & Peltonen, 1988; Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kauliaien, 1992). However there is no reason to believe that females should be less hostile and less prone to get into conflicts than males (Burbank, 1987, in Bjorkqvist 1994; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). As females are physically weaker, they develop early in life other bullying styles in order to achieve their goals. Indirect aggression in girls increases drastically at about the age of eleven years (Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz and Kaukiainen, 1992) whereas physical aggression among boys decreases during late adolescence, to be replaced mainly by verbal, but also indirect aggression (Bjorkqvist 1994).
.
There is a growing body of research in gender differences of bullying and other adolescent aggressive behaviours. There are hundreds of studies dedicated to the topic, many placing the emphasis on boys or the forms of aggression, more salient to boys. Forms of aggression more salient to girls has received comparatively little attention (Crick, 1997; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995).”
Carrying on with the original article:
Well, sure women express emotional distress with depression. They are permitted to! Even when women are the clear destroyers of a relationship, such as by cheating on the boyfriend, all of her girlfriends and family are standing by to give her hugs and sympathy and tell her it ‘wasn’t her fault – he must have been a real bastard to make her resort to that!’ And of course, there are a host of men lining up to be her next victim, er, boyfriend, who will also be quick to excuse her behaviour in order to score points with her. She gets enormous amounts of attention by being depressed.
However, it is a little, how should we say, “unfair,” to surmise that men deal with distress not by depression, but with ‘substance problems.’ Yeah, ok, substance problems as the result of being seriously depressed maybe! And for the young man, rather than receiving the sympathy the woman receives, he will find that he is constantly derided for "not treating her well enough,” or that “he must’ve done something to deserve it!”
So, not only does he fail to receive any sympathy, but he also receives all the blame. Often times, entire groups of people, who should know better, will join in the “blame the man game.” (See the above reference to Sex Differences in Aggression).
To top it all off, society will call him a loser for showing his pain, and other females will find him decidedly unattractive for doing so.
It’s no small wonder, with no other place to turn, that he might try to find solace at the bottom of a bottle. One needs to only examine suicide rates by gender, which are several times higher for males than females, and rather than write it off as some male defect, actually begin to surmise that there are no shortages of depressed males of all ages who feel there is no suitable place for them to turn.
One could also rephrase this by saying that young men are treating love as a verb whereas young women are treating love as a noun – something which she gets from others. Who loves her is not as important as that she receives love from somebody. A man in love bestows it upon the object of his affection, namely, the one specific person whom he is enamoured with. Women… mmm… not so much giving… but a whole lot of receiving.
This is why Florence Nightingale comes to the following conclusion about women:
“Women have no sympathy… and my experience of women is almost as large as Europe. And it is so intimate too. Women crave for being loved, not for loving. They scream at you for sympathy all day long, they are incapable of giving you any in return for they cannot remember your affairs long enough to do so." – Florence Nightingale
.Shaming language is far more the realm of women than men. A man gets pissed off and swears and shouts, and may even break something, and then he calms down after his outburst and returns to normal. But a woman scorned will make life hell for you for months afterwards by undermining your identity and self-worth. Haven’t you heard that “Hell Hath No Fury” line before? They weren’t talking about a woman’s ability to go Bruce Lee on people, you know.
In fact, other social scientists have found these differences to be stereotypical of male and female forms of aggression:
.
“Bullying styles are generally considered to fall under two categories, direct and indirect. Direct physical bullying is to, hit, shove, kick, trip, push, and pull. Direct verbal bullying can involve name-calling, insults, threatening to hurt the other. Indirect bullying, also known as social or relational aggression (Crick 1997) involves attacking the relationships of people and hurting the self-esteem. It is subtler and involves behaviours such as spreading nasty rumors, withholding friendships, ignoring, gossiping, or excluding a child from a small group of friends.
There is no doubt that stereotypically, males are more physical and direct in their bullying styles and females more manipulative and indirect (Olweus, 1997; Bjorkqvist, 1994; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist & Peltonen, 1988). Boys in our Western culture are encouraged to be tough and competitive and as they maturate slower and develop social intelligence at a slower rate they will use physical aggression longer than girls (Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, & Peltonen, 1988; Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kauliaien, 1992). However there is no reason to believe that females should be less hostile and less prone to get into conflicts than males (Burbank, 1987, in Bjorkqvist 1994; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). As females are physically weaker, they develop early in life other bullying styles in order to achieve their goals. Indirect aggression in girls increases drastically at about the age of eleven years (Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz and Kaukiainen, 1992) whereas physical aggression among boys decreases during late adolescence, to be replaced mainly by verbal, but also indirect aggression (Bjorkqvist 1994).
.
There is a growing body of research in gender differences of bullying and other adolescent aggressive behaviours. There are hundreds of studies dedicated to the topic, many placing the emphasis on boys or the forms of aggression, more salient to boys. Forms of aggression more salient to girls has received comparatively little attention (Crick, 1997; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995).”
Carrying on with the original article:
Well, sure women express emotional distress with depression. They are permitted to! Even when women are the clear destroyers of a relationship, such as by cheating on the boyfriend, all of her girlfriends and family are standing by to give her hugs and sympathy and tell her it ‘wasn’t her fault – he must have been a real bastard to make her resort to that!’ And of course, there are a host of men lining up to be her next victim, er, boyfriend, who will also be quick to excuse her behaviour in order to score points with her. She gets enormous amounts of attention by being depressed.
However, it is a little, how should we say, “unfair,” to surmise that men deal with distress not by depression, but with ‘substance problems.’ Yeah, ok, substance problems as the result of being seriously depressed maybe! And for the young man, rather than receiving the sympathy the woman receives, he will find that he is constantly derided for "not treating her well enough,” or that “he must’ve done something to deserve it!”
So, not only does he fail to receive any sympathy, but he also receives all the blame. Often times, entire groups of people, who should know better, will join in the “blame the man game.” (See the above reference to Sex Differences in Aggression).
To top it all off, society will call him a loser for showing his pain, and other females will find him decidedly unattractive for doing so.
It’s no small wonder, with no other place to turn, that he might try to find solace at the bottom of a bottle. One needs to only examine suicide rates by gender, which are several times higher for males than females, and rather than write it off as some male defect, actually begin to surmise that there are no shortages of depressed males of all ages who feel there is no suitable place for them to turn.
One could also rephrase this by saying that young men are treating love as a verb whereas young women are treating love as a noun – something which she gets from others. Who loves her is not as important as that she receives love from somebody. A man in love bestows it upon the object of his affection, namely, the one specific person whom he is enamoured with. Women… mmm… not so much giving… but a whole lot of receiving.
This is why Florence Nightingale comes to the following conclusion about women:
“Women have no sympathy… and my experience of women is almost as large as Europe. And it is so intimate too. Women crave for being loved, not for loving. They scream at you for sympathy all day long, they are incapable of giving you any in return for they cannot remember your affairs long enough to do so." – Florence Nightingale
“While young men are more affected emotionally by the quality of their current relationships, young women are more affected by whether they are in a relationship or not, Simon says. So, young women are more likely to express depression when the relationship ends or benefit more by simply being in a relationship.”
“She also explains how men and women express emotional distress in different ways. ‘Women express emotional distress with depression while men express distress with substance problems,’ Simon says.”
.Of course, emotions have a purpose beyond just making us feel good or bad. They also have a biological purpose.
The emotions associated with “love” have an active purpose in reproduction, which is the most primal desire that exists in all living things after basic survival. It is a powerful force indeed, and neither player is good or bad, but rather both play their part just as with all other living things.
I am a believer in the theory of Rotating Polyandry. In a nutshell, the theory is that a woman’s “love” is based on a mating cycle of approximately four years. This is about how much time is needed for a man and woman to meet, have copious amounts of passion-fueled sex until the woman gets pregnant, gives birth and nurses the child until it is a more or less self-sufficient being that can walk, talk and feed itself. Of course, during this time when she is pregnant and with an infant, is when the woman and child will be most vulnerable of all and it is during this time that a male is most needed by them.
After this mating cycle is finished, in order to maximize a woman’s chances of passing on her genes throughout the ages, rather than being disadvantaged by having all of her children sired by the same man – in case of genetic defects and such - Nature makes her fall out of love with the man after his usefulness during this period. She thusly discards him for the next male, and goes through the process all over again. (Q: What's the definition of "confusion?" A: Father's Day in a Matriarchy.)
Also supporting this theory is that a man’s love for a woman is deeper than her love is for him. There is no biological advantage to a man falling out of love with a woman – in fact, just the opposite, as the more he stays in love the longer he will protect and provide. It works on the same principle that parents have a deeper love for their children than the child has for its parents – because nature dictates that the child must leave one day and strike out on its own. It is therefore better that parents are far more “in love” with the child than the reverse.
This also plays into the phenomenon of Male Spikes vs. Female Rhythms, similar to the above described differences between male and female forms of aggression.
It is incorrect to say that “women are more emotional than men.” It is more accurate to say that women have more kinds of emotions that affect them than men, while men have fewer emotions, but the emotions they do have run deeper.
The biological purpose for women having more kinds of emotions has to do with their role as nurturers of small children – who communicate far more through emotions than through direct communication. But, the biological purpose for a man’s emotions to run deeper is to cause him to sacrifice for women and children – sometimes with his life.
Of course, these innate differences between men and women come from our biological imperatives passed on to us from being part of the Animal Kingdom. However, humans are not animals. In fact, when one stands back and looks at things in a “big picture” sort of way, the art of being human is to conquer or resist our animal-ness. The conquering of these animal impulses plays a large part in “why” the dreaded patriarchy has existed since the beginning of recorded history and thus, civilization itself – for that was when we stopped behaving as beasts, and started refining what it was to be human by suppressing our natures for a greater purpose.
But, what do I know? I’m not even a social “scientist.”
DON’T GET MARRIED!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related:
Bonecrcker #47 – Living in La-La-Land
Monday, June 14, 2010
Philalethes #1 - Feminist Allies?
1). Quote: "I am sure in their own way groups like IWF mean well but the truth is, they're still feminists."
Close, but not exactly. They themselves will dispute the “feminist” label, which — since, like any word used by women, it can mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean at the moment — only confuses things. The truth is, they’re still women, and as such are different from men: they think differently, have different concerns and priorities, different strengths and weaknesses.
Our culture has already been thoroughly feminized, and we have all been conditioned to base our thinking on the primary, unexamined feminist dogma that the sexes are really no different, outside of “socially-imposed” role models. Even in this forum I find most participants unconsciously taking this idea for granted. So long as you do not question this assumption, the most you will ever accomplish is begging women — your masters — to treat you nicer.
"If you allow them [women] to pull away restraints and put themselves on an equality with their husbands, do you imagine that you will be able to tolerate them? From the moment that they become your fellows, they will become your masters." –Marcus Porcius Cato (the Elder, a.k.a. the Censor), 234-149 BCE
Which is exactly what this IWF “discussion” is about. The quoted message from a concerned man is very well reasoned and moderately stated, yet is dismissed out of hand, with hardly veiled contempt, by the female “moderator.” Why? Because she can. Because he asked, and in so doing ceded the authority to her from the beginning — and she couldn’t resist the temptation to use the power he handed her, all the more because she couldn’t respond to his points on the reasoned level he presented them. This is known as “changing the subject,” and has been a primary female tactic from time immemorial. Women instinctively regard such a man with contempt, even if he is their own creation — in fact, precisely because he is their own creation: how can the Creator regard her creature as her “equal”? Boys — “Is it okay for me to be me, mommy?” — are not “equal” to women. Just as women are not “equal” to men.
Get this: There can be no question of “equality” between the sexes. There can be parity, a balance of power based on recognized, differentiated gender roles — most of which are natural and innate — and territories of authority, so that each sex has something to exchange with the other, and thus both have reason to cooperate.
Only when boys separate from Mother and grow into men do men have such a territory from which to address women, and do women respect them as men. And of course women instinctively try to prevent their boys growing up and away, out of their sphere of power. Who likes to lose a possession, a toy? And neither is this bad for men, for manhood “won” without effort is not manhood. Which is why women cannot make boys into men, because they are instinctively uncomfortable with competition and conflict — which might result in someone’s feelings being hurt. We cannot look to women — even “intelligent” women like IWF or “iFeminists” — to show us the way out. For all their talk, they simply don’t know. The sexes are different. If they were not, there’d only be one of us here.
One of the few thinking men to be found these days in public is Fred Reed, whose latest commentary points out, in his usual inimitable style, the real, significant difference between the sexes:
"Women and men want very different things and therefore very different worlds. Men want sex, freedom, and adventure; women want security, pleasantness, and someone to care about (or for) them. Both like power. Men use it to conquer their neighbours whether in business or war, women to impose security and pleasantness. ... Just about everything that once defined masculinity is now denounced as 'macho,' a hostile word embodying the female incomprehension of men. ... Men are happy for men to be men and women to women; women want us all to be women."
Read Fred twice, or more. Despite his informal, uneven style — which I’m not sure is unconscious as it may seem, his style in itself is an expression of maleness, not “nice” but charmingly rough, beer in hand, direct and to the point, often ungentle but never inconsiderate — he repeatedly gets right to the heart of the matter. “…female incomprehension of men.” Exactly. And no amount of explaining or “inter-gender dialog” will ever entirely correct this. Women talk; men do. Ultimately, women will never understand men. If they could, they wouldn’t need us.
"Men are happy for men to be men and women to be women; women want us all to be women." Never forget this. Keep it in mind, and you’re well on your way to understanding women. Women want us all to be women — or children — because that’s what they understand. But, like children, ultimately they don’t know what’s best for them.
Quote: I wouldn't be so quick to cast the entire IWF as anti-male based on the stupid comments of one moderator. Those comments do reveal the hostility toward men which is so prevalent in Western society, even in women who reject mainstream feminism. ... I didn't hear the talk given by Hoff Sommers, but whatever she said, we need to remember her work as a whole before lumping her in with the man-haters. ... In general, they are our allies, despite the fact that their focus is on women."
They’re not my “allies.” They’re just women, blabbing on as women do, sometimes making sense but as often just talking to hear themselves talk — because that’s what women do. It’s not a matter of being “anti-male” or pro-male; it’s that level of “thinking” that is the problem. I’m not in a war with women, or feminists. They may be at war with me, but I refuse to cooperate — because if it is a war, then women have already won it. They cannot lose; on that level they own all the power. But a man — which is what I strive, hope to be — is not on that level; he has graduated from it.
As I’ve mentioned before, I’m not in the cheering section for such women as “iFeminists” or Christina Hoff Sommers. Sure, she makes more sense than most women these days, but she still thinks as a woman — as this quote makes clear, confirming my previous take on her. “Who stole feminism?” Nobody stole feminism; it never was anything else. Its true nature has become apparent as it has been allowed space to show itself. Restraint is the key; with it, we have human beings and civilization, without it we are overdeveloped apes living in chaos.
"The idea that women were repressed until the sexual revolution in the 1960's is absurd ... they were certainly restrained, a crucially different matter." –Melanie Phillips, The Sex-Change Society: Feminised Britain and the Neutered Male. Yes, women do occasionally make sense, and I’m glad to see it when they do; but I never take it for granted — or assume the next thing they say will make sense also. Women change; it’s their nature. It’s why men are designed, in ‘Enry ‘Iggins immortal phrase, to "take a position and staunchly never budge." So that women, finally exhausted themselves by their constant changes, can have something to rely on in this world.
Of course IWF’s focus is on women; what else would it be? Women’s focus (“Women’s Focus” is the name of a local “public”-radio feminist program) is always on women — and, if they’re among the increasingly few women who grow up, on children. It’s the natural order: women take care of themselves and their children, men take care of women and children. Women do not understand men, any more than children understand adults; this is why, when women have overt power as they now do, they naturally, instinctively do everything in their power to keep boys from growing into men, i.e. growing out of their field of power. Thus the drugging of boys in female dominated schools. The very existence of men — adult, independent males, no longer mother-dominated — is an intolerable challenge to female political power. No such matriarchy can survive if there are any men in the vicinity.
Actually, the “Independent Women’s Forum,” like “iFeminists,” is just another oxymoron. There’s really no such thing as an “independent woman.” It is only the civilization that men — with our annoying insistence that 2+2=4, even if you don’t feel like it — have created that allows these women the leisure time for their endless coffee klatches. No need to be annoyed with them about it; it’s what women do. But don’t take it seriously, either; when women talk, they don’t mean the same thing(s) by it as men do. The sexes are different.
Philalethes Index Next
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interview with a Womenfirster: Phyllis Schlafly
Jack Kammer: What if I was the kind of man, like a lot of men who have confided to me, who is sick to death of the corporate world and in a heartbeat would stay home to take care of their kids because they love them so much and they know the business world is a crock?
Phyllis Schlafly:… That’s their problem. As I look around the world about me, I just don’t find there are many [women] who want the so-called non-traditional relationships.
-- a radio interview, WCVT-FM (now WTMD), Towson University, Maryland, January 5, 1989
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
Philalethes #14 – Hyphenate Them Any Way You Want, A Feminist is a Feminist is a Feminist
A Policy of Castrati – Soprano Nation – by Fred Reed
Close, but not exactly. They themselves will dispute the “feminist” label, which — since, like any word used by women, it can mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean at the moment — only confuses things. The truth is, they’re still women, and as such are different from men: they think differently, have different concerns and priorities, different strengths and weaknesses.
Our culture has already been thoroughly feminized, and we have all been conditioned to base our thinking on the primary, unexamined feminist dogma that the sexes are really no different, outside of “socially-imposed” role models. Even in this forum I find most participants unconsciously taking this idea for granted. So long as you do not question this assumption, the most you will ever accomplish is begging women — your masters — to treat you nicer.
"If you allow them [women] to pull away restraints and put themselves on an equality with their husbands, do you imagine that you will be able to tolerate them? From the moment that they become your fellows, they will become your masters." –Marcus Porcius Cato (the Elder, a.k.a. the Censor), 234-149 BCE
Which is exactly what this IWF “discussion” is about. The quoted message from a concerned man is very well reasoned and moderately stated, yet is dismissed out of hand, with hardly veiled contempt, by the female “moderator.” Why? Because she can. Because he asked, and in so doing ceded the authority to her from the beginning — and she couldn’t resist the temptation to use the power he handed her, all the more because she couldn’t respond to his points on the reasoned level he presented them. This is known as “changing the subject,” and has been a primary female tactic from time immemorial. Women instinctively regard such a man with contempt, even if he is their own creation — in fact, precisely because he is their own creation: how can the Creator regard her creature as her “equal”? Boys — “Is it okay for me to be me, mommy?” — are not “equal” to women. Just as women are not “equal” to men.
Get this: There can be no question of “equality” between the sexes. There can be parity, a balance of power based on recognized, differentiated gender roles — most of which are natural and innate — and territories of authority, so that each sex has something to exchange with the other, and thus both have reason to cooperate.
Only when boys separate from Mother and grow into men do men have such a territory from which to address women, and do women respect them as men. And of course women instinctively try to prevent their boys growing up and away, out of their sphere of power. Who likes to lose a possession, a toy? And neither is this bad for men, for manhood “won” without effort is not manhood. Which is why women cannot make boys into men, because they are instinctively uncomfortable with competition and conflict — which might result in someone’s feelings being hurt. We cannot look to women — even “intelligent” women like IWF or “iFeminists” — to show us the way out. For all their talk, they simply don’t know. The sexes are different. If they were not, there’d only be one of us here.
One of the few thinking men to be found these days in public is Fred Reed, whose latest commentary points out, in his usual inimitable style, the real, significant difference between the sexes:
"Women and men want very different things and therefore very different worlds. Men want sex, freedom, and adventure; women want security, pleasantness, and someone to care about (or for) them. Both like power. Men use it to conquer their neighbours whether in business or war, women to impose security and pleasantness. ... Just about everything that once defined masculinity is now denounced as 'macho,' a hostile word embodying the female incomprehension of men. ... Men are happy for men to be men and women to women; women want us all to be women."
Read Fred twice, or more. Despite his informal, uneven style — which I’m not sure is unconscious as it may seem, his style in itself is an expression of maleness, not “nice” but charmingly rough, beer in hand, direct and to the point, often ungentle but never inconsiderate — he repeatedly gets right to the heart of the matter. “…female incomprehension of men.” Exactly. And no amount of explaining or “inter-gender dialog” will ever entirely correct this. Women talk; men do. Ultimately, women will never understand men. If they could, they wouldn’t need us.
"Men are happy for men to be men and women to be women; women want us all to be women." Never forget this. Keep it in mind, and you’re well on your way to understanding women. Women want us all to be women — or children — because that’s what they understand. But, like children, ultimately they don’t know what’s best for them.
Quote: I wouldn't be so quick to cast the entire IWF as anti-male based on the stupid comments of one moderator. Those comments do reveal the hostility toward men which is so prevalent in Western society, even in women who reject mainstream feminism. ... I didn't hear the talk given by Hoff Sommers, but whatever she said, we need to remember her work as a whole before lumping her in with the man-haters. ... In general, they are our allies, despite the fact that their focus is on women."
They’re not my “allies.” They’re just women, blabbing on as women do, sometimes making sense but as often just talking to hear themselves talk — because that’s what women do. It’s not a matter of being “anti-male” or pro-male; it’s that level of “thinking” that is the problem. I’m not in a war with women, or feminists. They may be at war with me, but I refuse to cooperate — because if it is a war, then women have already won it. They cannot lose; on that level they own all the power. But a man — which is what I strive, hope to be — is not on that level; he has graduated from it.
As I’ve mentioned before, I’m not in the cheering section for such women as “iFeminists” or Christina Hoff Sommers. Sure, she makes more sense than most women these days, but she still thinks as a woman — as this quote makes clear, confirming my previous take on her. “Who stole feminism?” Nobody stole feminism; it never was anything else. Its true nature has become apparent as it has been allowed space to show itself. Restraint is the key; with it, we have human beings and civilization, without it we are overdeveloped apes living in chaos.
"The idea that women were repressed until the sexual revolution in the 1960's is absurd ... they were certainly restrained, a crucially different matter." –Melanie Phillips, The Sex-Change Society: Feminised Britain and the Neutered Male. Yes, women do occasionally make sense, and I’m glad to see it when they do; but I never take it for granted — or assume the next thing they say will make sense also. Women change; it’s their nature. It’s why men are designed, in ‘Enry ‘Iggins immortal phrase, to "take a position and staunchly never budge." So that women, finally exhausted themselves by their constant changes, can have something to rely on in this world.
Of course IWF’s focus is on women; what else would it be? Women’s focus (“Women’s Focus” is the name of a local “public”-radio feminist program) is always on women — and, if they’re among the increasingly few women who grow up, on children. It’s the natural order: women take care of themselves and their children, men take care of women and children. Women do not understand men, any more than children understand adults; this is why, when women have overt power as they now do, they naturally, instinctively do everything in their power to keep boys from growing into men, i.e. growing out of their field of power. Thus the drugging of boys in female dominated schools. The very existence of men — adult, independent males, no longer mother-dominated — is an intolerable challenge to female political power. No such matriarchy can survive if there are any men in the vicinity.
Actually, the “Independent Women’s Forum,” like “iFeminists,” is just another oxymoron. There’s really no such thing as an “independent woman.” It is only the civilization that men — with our annoying insistence that 2+2=4, even if you don’t feel like it — have created that allows these women the leisure time for their endless coffee klatches. No need to be annoyed with them about it; it’s what women do. But don’t take it seriously, either; when women talk, they don’t mean the same thing(s) by it as men do. The sexes are different.
Philalethes Index Next
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interview with a Womenfirster: Phyllis Schlafly
Jack Kammer: What if I was the kind of man, like a lot of men who have confided to me, who is sick to death of the corporate world and in a heartbeat would stay home to take care of their kids because they love them so much and they know the business world is a crock?
Phyllis Schlafly:… That’s their problem. As I look around the world about me, I just don’t find there are many [women] who want the so-called non-traditional relationships.
-- a radio interview, WCVT-FM (now WTMD), Towson University, Maryland, January 5, 1989
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Reading:
Philalethes #14 – Hyphenate Them Any Way You Want, A Feminist is a Feminist is a Feminist
A Policy of Castrati – Soprano Nation – by Fred Reed
Tuesday, April 06, 2010
The Liberation of Men
To the woman he said, "I will make your pains in childbearing very
severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire
will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."
To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat from it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return." -- Genesis 3:16-19
And so it has been ever since, until feminism convinced women to unwittingly take on men's curse as their own.
And what's a man to do about it, after all? Despite corporate and feminist attempts at designing various ways for emasculated males to take on the pains of child-birth, there can never be a true understanding for males of what it is like to give birth. This is women's curse, and it is their curse alone to bear, for it is impossible for men to share equally with her in it - even if men were so stupid to want to.
Apparently though, this is not the case in reverse, for women seem to not only be agreeable to take on man's curse, but they are downright using every bit of power their feminine wiles can muster to force it into social and legal acceptance, and if it tosses men aside in the meantime, then so be it! Ever heard about Tom Sawyer & Huckleberry Finn and the great whitewashing of the fence fiasco? Well, this situation is similar, except that the one's holding the short end of the stick (men) aren't the one's doing the manipulating!
.
.
No, in the situation of men's curse, it is actually the women that are manipulating behind the scenes for the curse of toil and labour, without any real encouragement (nor discouragement) from the males. Apparently, women are demanding to alleviate men from their curse. Well, gosh and golly, I suggest that the slaves let them! What slave on the plantation would scorn his master for demanding the slave work less, so that his master may reap the benefits of being a cotton-picker?
But, it's not all quite so simple. Perhaps we should look at this a little closer.
Doing the Math
This morning, as I was watching the Business News Network (B.N.N.), Rona Ambrose, the Canadian Minister for the Status of Women (S.O.W.), trumpeted out the same old tired song about women on executive boards once more. The refrain goes like this: "Research has shown that having more women on executive boards is good for the economy. Therefore..."
.
.
Really? Is that so? Or is it simply that when you only consult advocacy researchers from an ideologically driven and politically activist arm of academia (Women's Studies), you will only receive results that are consistent with their ideology.
For example, since the stock market crashed back in 2008-2009, the Business News Network has relentlessly trumpeted that women who were investment managers fared better than men, because women are more "risk averse." And this is true, so long as you cherry-pick through your research and ignore any factors which don't support your ideology. The real truth of the story, however, is that while female investment managers lost less money during the crash than male investment managers, in the run-up to the crash, women also created less wealth because of their aversion to risk. All you have to do is run a few numbers to see what a fraud the Business News Network is promoting as "fact."
For example, if a man invests $10,000 and averages a return of 9% a year for 8 years, he will have $19,926. Then when the economy collapses and he loses 20% of it, he will be left with $15,941. And, if, during the same time frame, a woman invests $10,000 and averages a return of 6%, after eight years she will have $15,938. When the economy collapses and she loses only 10% because of her aversion to risk, she will have $14,345 left. Hmmm... so, sure, during the market crash, it appears that she "out-performed" because she lost only 10% as opposed to the man's 20% loss, but overall, you would still be better off with the man's pot of cash than with the woman's. In fact, the man still earned 11.1% more than her during the same time frame. These are quite some "facts" media shills like the Business News Network are promoting, aren't they? Indeed, making less money than men shows how superior women are, so long as the real facts are distorted and hidden. Makes you wonder why anyone would watch such a channel trying to learn "the facts," doesn't it? I guess they are trying to make sure that women aren't oppressed by math.
Another ideologically driven "fact" that gets bandied about is that women somehow bring more ethics and morality to the workplace - especially when they are on the board of directors of major companies. This "women are more ethically pure fact" is just more smoke and mirrors, since it has long been known that while men are more prone to break the law with crimes of violence, women break the law in greater numbers than men in crimes of deceit, such as perjury, fraud and embezzlement. The shucksters in academia and the media get their "women are more morally pure" trope from the fact that women are prosecuted less for these crimes of deceit than men are. Women are also given far lighter sentences for the same crime when they are actually convicted (this is true of all crimes), and so it is that there are more men in prison for crimes of deceit than women, even though women commit the majority of deceit crimes. This is indeed an interesting fact that insinuates many things about our society and our notions of "equality under the law," but in no way does it stand as valid research which proves women's ethical and moral purity is greater than men's. For these very women who release such "facts" which are obviously lies in themselves, it illustrates something very negative about their ethics and morals in the first place, wouldn't you agree?
And yes, my goodness, I know, women only receive $0.76 for every dollar a man earns! This has been debunked so many times by so many people that I feel rather foolish even mentioning it, but here we are. Women are not paid $0.76 for doing the exact same work as men, (this has been illegal in America since the Equal Pay Act back in 1963) rather, because of the choices women make and the lesser hours they actually work throughout their "careers," they only earn 76% of the wages that men do.
Imagine for a moment that there are two young boys, Jack and Tom. Both are eight years old and have identical abilities in every possible way. Both of them have a dream to be accepted to the basketball team when they enter university, and so they start practicing for when the day comes that they will be given the opportunity to try out for the team by shooting hoops each day after school.
.
.
Jack dedicates himself by shooting hoops for 60 minutes every day. Tom, however, has taken it upon himself to also have a paper route so he can earn a little pocket-money, and in order to make the time for delivering his papers, he only practices for 45 minutes a day. After four years of practice, 12 year old Jack will have spent 1,460 hours practicing as opposed to Tom's 1,095 hours, and by now, Jack is able to put the ball through the hoop with 8 out of every 20 attempts. Tom, however, is only able to sink 6 out of every 20 attempts, because he practiced less than Jack. Out of frustration at his lack of performance, Tom wonders if perhaps basketball isn't for him after all, and so he quits practicing and takes up karate instead, while Jack continues shooting hoops faithfully for 60 minutes a day. But after three years of karate, the now 15 year old Tom decides that he really did like basketball better than karate after all, and so he quits his karate classes and resumes practicing hoops for 45 minutes a day. At this point, after 2,555 hours of practice, Jack is able to sink 14 baskets out of 20, but Tom, who hasn't practiced at all in the last three years and is now a bit rusty, is only able to make 5 out of 20 baskets. But, both boys continue practicing for the next three years until they finally enter college and are able to try out for the team. By now, Jack has spent 3,650 hours practicing and he can sink 20 out of 20 shots every time and he easily gets accepted onto the team. Tom, however, has spent only 1,916 hours practicing over the past ten years and is only able to make 10 shots out of 20... and so he doesn't make the team. The two boys were of identical ability, remember, and their outcomes were different only because of the choices each boy made throughout the past ten years. Had Tom made the same choices as Jack, he probably would have made the team too.
It's pretty easy to see how this translates to the workplace. Is Tom only getting "paid" $0.50 for each $1.00 Jack makes? Nope, he's getting paid exactly what he deserves. Is there a patriarchal basketball players club conspiring behind the scenes to keep Tom off the team? No again. Choices have consequences. What a revolutionary concept!
All you need to know about how false the $0.76 propaganda which academic and media charlatans like BNN spews forth is this: If it were true that women only made 76% of the wages as men for doing the exact same thing with the exact same efficiency, then there would be no shortage of people who would simply buy a company, fire all the men, and replace them with the far cheaper labour of women. They would make money hand over fist while putting the competition out of business for secretly conspiring behind the scenes to pay men more than women. It's such a simple formula for success that it's amazing no one has thought of it before, eh?
Equal Opportunity or Equal Outcomes?
You can see the fraud of feminist "academics" and the media's complicity in perpetuating their lies fully exposed by the way they reported on Wal-Mart's recent Supreme Court case regarding whether there was "a culture of discrimination" against women in their organization. Keep in mind that even though Wal-Mart successfully defended themselves, they did not entirely "win" either. It was because feminist lawyers tried to launch a class-action suit that the Supreme Court said there was no definite policy at Wal-Mart which favoured men over women, and thus they did not entirely throw the law-suit out, but rather said that it must be dealt with in the lower courts on a more individual basis instead. And how did the BNN cover this story? Why, in order to get a "balanced and unbiased" view on the decision, they interviewed a feminist from Eastern Canada and another feminist from Western Canada. (Gee, I guess degrees in Journalism are about as useless as degrees in Women's Studies). The consensus was that this culture of discrimination against women was allowed to persist because there were too many of those dastardly right-leaning men on the Supreme Court still perpetuating the infamous "Old Boys Club." But don't worry, they pointed out that soon Obama will be able to stuff a couple more of these "morally and ethically pure" women onto the Supreme Court, so that when a case like this is inevitably brought before the court again, the decision will be in favour of women.
What they glossed over completely, however, was the absurdity of the argument itself, and the dire implications it would have had on Wal-Mart, as well as every other company in America, and they failed to extrapolate the implications further to its effect on the economy over-all.
One of the core arguments of the lawsuit was that men were promoted to management positions ahead of women because women were unable to work as many hours as men and women could not as easily move to undesirable locations where they would more easily advance their careers because of the other responsibilities women had outside of the workplace, such as caring for children or elderly parents.
In other words, if we take this back to our basketball example with Jack and Tom, the argument becomes that since Tom had other things to do besides practice shooting hoops, such as his paper route and karate classes, the university had no right to "discriminate" against him for only being able to make 50% of the baskets as Jack, and both boys should be equally accepted to the team, regardless of their actual performance abilities.
That's literally what was being argued in this Wal-Mart case. Because women have other responsibilities that are completely not related to the workplace, it is workplace discrimination for them not to receive promotions and pay commensurate to those who actually did work more hours and made more sacrifices which advanced their careers.
Thus, if the BNN were actually in the business of reporting the facts, and Wal-mart had lost their case, rather than reporting it as a "triumph for women," they would have been more accurate to report it as follows:
"Wal-Mart Forced to Replace Top-Notch Management with Mediocre Employees. Long-Term Outlook for Stock Valuations is Grim!"
This is not a slam against women, this is simply the truth. It wouldn't matter if the employees were male or female. If you take employees willing to work 60 hours a week and relocate wherever they need to, and replace them with employees only willing to work 40 hours a week and only in desirable locations, it doesn't matter which gender, you would be severely handicapping the company.
In the same way, if Jack and Tom's university would insist that out of the five basketball players on the court, at least two players who are capable of making 20 out of 20 baskets must be replaced with players only capable of making 10 out of 20 baskets, the performance of the team would suffer - especially against teams that are not burdened in the same way. It is pretty easy to see the numbers. If five players take 100 shots and 100 of them go through the basket, such a team will far out-perform a team that can only make 80 out of 100 baskets, which is exactly what would happen if the team were to replace two players at Jack's 100% ratio with two players at Tom's 50% ratio.
And you thought globalization and cheap foreign labour was the only reason the Western World is falling behind the Developing World, eh?
Equal or "Equal?" (Wink! Wink!)
.
.
"Differences [between men and women], including the products of social inequality, make unequal treatment not unequal at all." -- Catharine MacKinnon, "Reflections on Sex Equality Under Law," Yale Law Journal, 1991
When the Status of Women Canada, the "academic" juggernaut of Women's Studies, and the Business News Network (BNN) continually make the case that more women deserve to be on executive boards regardless of their abilities (due to outside choices women themselves are making in their lives), you will discover they never argue that it extends that women also, therefore, deserve to be equally represented in jobs that don't carry prestige and high pay. After all, when was the last time Minister Rona Ambrose got on the TV and argued how ridiculous it is that women are "oppressed" because they make up less than 10% of the garbage collectors in the country? I mean, you would think that the government would want women to take on more of the low prestige, dangerous and dirty jobs, since careless and clumsy men are accounting for over 90% of all workplace injuries and deaths. The government and Canadian employers would save billions a year in Worker's Compensation expenses by increasing the amount of women in these types of jobs. This is simple feminist math. If over 90% of all workplace injuries and deaths are males, then if we increase the amount of women in these positions to 50%, we will reduce such injuries and deaths by around half as well! It's so simple!
Of course, you know I am being facetious.
But seriously, what does anyone think will happen to the men who are in these high paying, prestigious jobs such as CEO or Chairman of the Board? When the government of Norway made it law that all corporate boards must have at least 40% women, do you think they simply created more positions and only hired women until they made up 40%, or did they keep the amount of positions the same, fire the required amount of men, and then replaced them with women? I think you know the answer without my stating it.
What you find in the workforce is the same that you will find almost everywhere else when you compare men and women. While our averages are pretty close to the same, how we reach those averages is quite different. For example, men and women both have similar averages of IQ, however there is far greater variability in male IQ than in the female IQ, which is clustered around the mean in greater intensity than with males. Thus, even though we have similar averages in IQ, there are far more males who inhabit the areas of extremely high IQ and extremely low IQ. This translates also into the workforce, where you will find that the very powerful and wealthy (like CEO's or those on executive boards) are mostly male, and also that most of the very poor, like the homeless, are male (85% of the homeless are males). It's not only intellectually dishonest to selectively observe only the men who have risen to the top while at the same time ignoring the men that have fallen through the floor, but it is also socially irresponsible. It's like taking the examples of Denzel Washington and Will Smith as successful and powerful black millionaires, and therefore claiming there is no poverty problem in the Black Community. But this is exactly what is done every single time that "our betters" in the government, academia, and the media address women in the workplace.
If, as a society, we are going to boot out qualified men from top positions to make way for less qualified and less motivated women, it will cause a chain reaction all the way down and increase the amount of those at the bottom. After all, if those who would have merited an executive board position are restricted from achieving those levels, they will be stuck being over-qualified and underpaid at the middle-management level, where again, they will be displacing those who should have merited middle management positions, and forcing those men downwards to lower management and basic employee status. Thus, the men currently in those lowest of positions will be losing their jobs and sleeping on the streets.
The Return of Aristocracy
It's not hard to see that if fully qualified men are displaced from high level prestigious positions, to be replaced with less qualified, less motivated women - while at the same time ignoring the fact that women are not equally represented in the less desirable positions like garbage collector, ditch digger, or enemy moving target - we will be returning to an aristocratic class structure in society, except based on gender rather than bloodline.
.
.
Again, it is just simple math. If women only replace men at the top, in the most prestigious and well paying of jobs, then you are virtually guaranteed to increase the amount of men in the dredges of the workforce, or drive those men out of the workforce entirely and into the streets.
Quite frankly, men would be twits if they continued working their tails off 60 hours a week trying to get ahead in the corporate rat race, if they had no chance of making it because a woman who only works 40 hours a week will be preferred for the job anyways. It will very quickly become that men will simply stop trying to be successful in those jobs at all and abandon them en masse for jobs where they don't have to put up with such nonsense. You don't think that will happen? Have a look at how men have virtually disappeared from the teaching profession since every man in close proximity to a child has become viewed as a pedophile. Men simply said, "No thanks," and moved on to other professions.
In a generation or two, you will see the class distinction between men and women quite clearly. Women: Good paying, high prestige jobs in air-conditioned offices. Men: Shutting up and shoveling the gravel to keep the electricity on and the sewers working. That's some "equality."
.
.
Hypergamy and the End of Marriage
.
The essence of hypergamy is that women "marry up" while men "settle down." Thus, we see in society that, while men are not necessarily "better" than women in general, women do insist that the men they marry are "better" than they are. Male doctors marry female nurses. Male lawyers marry female secretaries. Male factory workers marry the waitress at the diner, and so on. Conversely however, female CEO's do not marry auto-mechanics, but rather, they tend to seek out a mate who is "higher" than she is. The problem is, when you are a female who is near the top of the economic food chain, there are very, very few males who meet this criteria, and of the ones that are actually around, hypergamy dictates that those males are attractive to all the different levels of females below him. Not only are there slim romantic pickings for women at the top, but they have to stand in line with, oh, about a gajillion other women for the only men they are attracted to.
Now, many women counter this by saying that they "had to" marry upwards, because it was the only way they could be socially and financially mobile under the dreaded Patriarchy. If men were just to step aside and make room for women at the top, things would change. It's too bad that this is not the case though. In fact, there is much evidence that it is not men's super-sized egos that demands they must earn more money than their wives, but rather it is women themselves that are angry at husbands who don't earn as much money and thus, they aren't "pulling their weight." This is further evidenced by "kitchen-bitch" marriages, where the roles are reversed with a female breadwinner and the man being more focused on the home. The divorce statistics for regular marriages are bad enough, but in kitchen-bitch marriages, divorce rates sky-rocket to 90% - yes, that high!
Hypergamy is a very real force to be reckoned with - especially if we are to continue shoe-horning women into top positions of power and wealth. If we create an aristocratic class of women and a peasant class of men, then marriage - as screwed up and broken as it already is - will pretty much grind to a complete halt. The prince marries the maiden Cinderella who scrubs her step-mother's floors, remember? Snow White did not marry one of the Seven Dwarves.
Perhaps now you can understand why men work their tails off more than women to have a successful career. It fulfills women's hypergamy and makes men sexually attractive to women, whereas women are not considered either more nor less sexually attractive because of their social and financial status. They don't have near the motivation for it as men do! Furthermore, women are not socially considered to be deadbeats if they are not economic performers, nor are they considered to be "bums" if they take a few years off and let their husbands fully support them while they pursue other things they want in life. Working, for men, is not a choice like it is for many women. Either men work or they become invisible. It only makes sense then, that men will put in more effort to make their jobs "work" for them, while women, who have other options, will not view the workplace with the same intensity as men.
"Only 14 percent of female middle managers aspire to be CEO; the figure is 45 percent for middle managers who are male." -- Newsletter of the Women's Freedom Network, Spring 1997
Mutilated Beggars
During the economic crisis in 2008 and 2009, we termed the resulting recession as "the mancession" because the vast majority of the jobs lost were those done by men. If I remember correctly, it was three men losing a job to every woman who became unemployed. But, when the economic stimulus was injected into the economy, they had feminists appearing on the Business News Network (BNN), madder than wet hens that women were not equally receiving stimulus money as men. It really did make sense that more money was spent on men's jobs than women's, since those were the vast majority of the unemployed, but feminists demanded 50/50 equality in the spending of stimulus funds. See how this works? America had become A Woman's Nation because they finally outnumbered men in the workforce, and they were so gracious about it that they cackled and laughed and wrote about The End of Men, spitting in men's faces when they were down. But when it came time to deal with the problem and get men back on their feet, they screamed and wailed that they were victims for not receiving equal funds - funds they did not need nearly so much as men.
And further, when people mentioned that a lot of those men were supporting families, you could almost see the hatred spill from the now ex BNN news anchoress, Kim Parlee's eyes, matching the spirit of her "unbiased" panel: a gaggle of feminists pulling The Mutilated Beggar argument. You see, women support their families too! Therefore, it was sexist to insinuate that it was higher priority to put those men back to work instead of women.
.
.
Except... let's not forget that, at the behest of feminist and media brainwashing, we now claim that "all families are equal."
But they aren't.
When we talk of men and their families, we are talking about a man, a woman, and the children they might have together. When we talk of women and their families, however, we are talking about a single or divorced woman and the children she has. The man is non-existent in this paradigm.
But does that mean that man has truly ceased to exist?
Nope, what it means is that the man, whose job was taken by a woman, is now sleeping down by the river beneath a bridge.
You see, men take care of themselves, women and children. But women? They take care of only themselves and children, while leaving the man to fend for himself. Thus, if you wanted to benefit the most people in society with jobs, you would first give the work to men who then turn over their paychecks to their wives. This simply does not work the same way in reverse.
This Way to See the Great Egress!
"There is a great old story about PT Barnum. One of his shows was so successful that the crowds were becoming dangerous. People were so packed that there was a real danger of some of them getting trampled. So, he had his carnies open some of the gates and his barkers start shouting "This way to see the great EGRESS!" The herd surged through the gates and found out that "egress" means "exit.""
.
.
Feminism has done far more to liberate men than it has to liberate women, although most men don't think it has at first glance.
All throughout history, men have had the curse of having to work. Society greatly enforced the "gender role" of men being the breadwinner who then passes on "the bread" to females. Up until the feminist revolution of the past fifty or so years, the only men who got away with being socially acceptable without tying themselves to the responsibilities of a job, a marriage, and supporting a wife and children, were eccentric rich men. For the rest, if you didn't follow in the condoned path you were considered a social outcast. But remember, men only need to expend around 20-30% of their labour ability in order to survive - when yoked to a woman and children, the excess went to them, not to the man.
Women are as independent as a tropical fern in a greenhouse in Iceland. This goes all the way back to when we were living in caves. When the woman heard a rustling outside, she pushed her caveman out first, using him as a shield to check if it was a sabre tooth tiger. Once the area outside of the cave was secure, the woman took over the immediate area around the cave while she sent the man further out into the dangers of the wilderness to hunt mammoths and bring her back some meat for dinner. Once the male has made things safe and easy, the woman takes over and pushes the man away, insisting he move on and make more things safe and easy... and when he succeeds in doing it, she takes over that space too!
The same thing happens in the workplace. Work was never been "fun" for men. It has been oppressive and often downright dangerous. The 50 some odd men who gave their lives so that the Hoover Dam could provide electricity for women and make their lives much easier probably didn't feel overwhelmed with their "patriarchal power." But, as soon as men make a certain area of the workforce safe and pleasant, women immediately move in and claim they were "oppressed" by not having the opportunity to do such work throughout history. Today, women are not claiming they are being "oppressed" by not being represented in great numbers in the construction industry. But this kind of work is often dangerous and dirty, climbing around on roofs and scaffolding while pounding away with a hammer and being exposed to all sorts of inclement weather. However, once construction work becomes so computerized, safe and pleasant that one can build a house by sitting in an air-conditioned box, pushing buttons while gabbing mindlessly with one's friends, women will claim they have been "oppressed" throughout history for being "denied" the opportunity to do such work, and they will force the men out so that they may exercise their girl power.
I say, "Let them!"
Sure, men still have to find some work to do in order to provide for themselves, but so long as they aren't attached to women and children - which feminism has done everything possible to make happen - they really don't need to work that hard. If you don't get saddled down with debt for a useless degree, or a useless McMansion, or a useless wife who secretly hates your guts, but rather find something decent to do like being an electrician or a plumber, you could easily save up enough money by 35 or 40 to run off to Mexico or Thailand and live like a king, never having to be a wage slave again.
Women are demanding to have our curse because "They don't need no Ma-yan!"
Let them take it!
Work sucks! A bad day of fishing is better than a good day at work!
You Go, Grrrls! Men have better things to do!
.
.
Previous Index Next
To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat from it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return." -- Genesis 3:16-19
And so it has been ever since, until feminism convinced women to unwittingly take on men's curse as their own.
And what's a man to do about it, after all? Despite corporate and feminist attempts at designing various ways for emasculated males to take on the pains of child-birth, there can never be a true understanding for males of what it is like to give birth. This is women's curse, and it is their curse alone to bear, for it is impossible for men to share equally with her in it - even if men were so stupid to want to.
Apparently though, this is not the case in reverse, for women seem to not only be agreeable to take on man's curse, but they are downright using every bit of power their feminine wiles can muster to force it into social and legal acceptance, and if it tosses men aside in the meantime, then so be it! Ever heard about Tom Sawyer & Huckleberry Finn and the great whitewashing of the fence fiasco? Well, this situation is similar, except that the one's holding the short end of the stick (men) aren't the one's doing the manipulating!
.
No, in the situation of men's curse, it is actually the women that are manipulating behind the scenes for the curse of toil and labour, without any real encouragement (nor discouragement) from the males. Apparently, women are demanding to alleviate men from their curse. Well, gosh and golly, I suggest that the slaves let them! What slave on the plantation would scorn his master for demanding the slave work less, so that his master may reap the benefits of being a cotton-picker?
But, it's not all quite so simple. Perhaps we should look at this a little closer.
Doing the Math
This morning, as I was watching the Business News Network (B.N.N.), Rona Ambrose, the Canadian Minister for the Status of Women (S.O.W.), trumpeted out the same old tired song about women on executive boards once more. The refrain goes like this: "Research has shown that having more women on executive boards is good for the economy. Therefore..."
.
Really? Is that so? Or is it simply that when you only consult advocacy researchers from an ideologically driven and politically activist arm of academia (Women's Studies), you will only receive results that are consistent with their ideology.
For example, since the stock market crashed back in 2008-2009, the Business News Network has relentlessly trumpeted that women who were investment managers fared better than men, because women are more "risk averse." And this is true, so long as you cherry-pick through your research and ignore any factors which don't support your ideology. The real truth of the story, however, is that while female investment managers lost less money during the crash than male investment managers, in the run-up to the crash, women also created less wealth because of their aversion to risk. All you have to do is run a few numbers to see what a fraud the Business News Network is promoting as "fact."
For example, if a man invests $10,000 and averages a return of 9% a year for 8 years, he will have $19,926. Then when the economy collapses and he loses 20% of it, he will be left with $15,941. And, if, during the same time frame, a woman invests $10,000 and averages a return of 6%, after eight years she will have $15,938. When the economy collapses and she loses only 10% because of her aversion to risk, she will have $14,345 left. Hmmm... so, sure, during the market crash, it appears that she "out-performed" because she lost only 10% as opposed to the man's 20% loss, but overall, you would still be better off with the man's pot of cash than with the woman's. In fact, the man still earned 11.1% more than her during the same time frame. These are quite some "facts" media shills like the Business News Network are promoting, aren't they? Indeed, making less money than men shows how superior women are, so long as the real facts are distorted and hidden. Makes you wonder why anyone would watch such a channel trying to learn "the facts," doesn't it? I guess they are trying to make sure that women aren't oppressed by math.
Another ideologically driven "fact" that gets bandied about is that women somehow bring more ethics and morality to the workplace - especially when they are on the board of directors of major companies. This "women are more ethically pure fact" is just more smoke and mirrors, since it has long been known that while men are more prone to break the law with crimes of violence, women break the law in greater numbers than men in crimes of deceit, such as perjury, fraud and embezzlement. The shucksters in academia and the media get their "women are more morally pure" trope from the fact that women are prosecuted less for these crimes of deceit than men are. Women are also given far lighter sentences for the same crime when they are actually convicted (this is true of all crimes), and so it is that there are more men in prison for crimes of deceit than women, even though women commit the majority of deceit crimes. This is indeed an interesting fact that insinuates many things about our society and our notions of "equality under the law," but in no way does it stand as valid research which proves women's ethical and moral purity is greater than men's. For these very women who release such "facts" which are obviously lies in themselves, it illustrates something very negative about their ethics and morals in the first place, wouldn't you agree?
And yes, my goodness, I know, women only receive $0.76 for every dollar a man earns! This has been debunked so many times by so many people that I feel rather foolish even mentioning it, but here we are. Women are not paid $0.76 for doing the exact same work as men, (this has been illegal in America since the Equal Pay Act back in 1963) rather, because of the choices women make and the lesser hours they actually work throughout their "careers," they only earn 76% of the wages that men do.
Imagine for a moment that there are two young boys, Jack and Tom. Both are eight years old and have identical abilities in every possible way. Both of them have a dream to be accepted to the basketball team when they enter university, and so they start practicing for when the day comes that they will be given the opportunity to try out for the team by shooting hoops each day after school.
.
Jack dedicates himself by shooting hoops for 60 minutes every day. Tom, however, has taken it upon himself to also have a paper route so he can earn a little pocket-money, and in order to make the time for delivering his papers, he only practices for 45 minutes a day. After four years of practice, 12 year old Jack will have spent 1,460 hours practicing as opposed to Tom's 1,095 hours, and by now, Jack is able to put the ball through the hoop with 8 out of every 20 attempts. Tom, however, is only able to sink 6 out of every 20 attempts, because he practiced less than Jack. Out of frustration at his lack of performance, Tom wonders if perhaps basketball isn't for him after all, and so he quits practicing and takes up karate instead, while Jack continues shooting hoops faithfully for 60 minutes a day. But after three years of karate, the now 15 year old Tom decides that he really did like basketball better than karate after all, and so he quits his karate classes and resumes practicing hoops for 45 minutes a day. At this point, after 2,555 hours of practice, Jack is able to sink 14 baskets out of 20, but Tom, who hasn't practiced at all in the last three years and is now a bit rusty, is only able to make 5 out of 20 baskets. But, both boys continue practicing for the next three years until they finally enter college and are able to try out for the team. By now, Jack has spent 3,650 hours practicing and he can sink 20 out of 20 shots every time and he easily gets accepted onto the team. Tom, however, has spent only 1,916 hours practicing over the past ten years and is only able to make 10 shots out of 20... and so he doesn't make the team. The two boys were of identical ability, remember, and their outcomes were different only because of the choices each boy made throughout the past ten years. Had Tom made the same choices as Jack, he probably would have made the team too.
It's pretty easy to see how this translates to the workplace. Is Tom only getting "paid" $0.50 for each $1.00 Jack makes? Nope, he's getting paid exactly what he deserves. Is there a patriarchal basketball players club conspiring behind the scenes to keep Tom off the team? No again. Choices have consequences. What a revolutionary concept!
All you need to know about how false the $0.76 propaganda which academic and media charlatans like BNN spews forth is this: If it were true that women only made 76% of the wages as men for doing the exact same thing with the exact same efficiency, then there would be no shortage of people who would simply buy a company, fire all the men, and replace them with the far cheaper labour of women. They would make money hand over fist while putting the competition out of business for secretly conspiring behind the scenes to pay men more than women. It's such a simple formula for success that it's amazing no one has thought of it before, eh?
Equal Opportunity or Equal Outcomes?
You can see the fraud of feminist "academics" and the media's complicity in perpetuating their lies fully exposed by the way they reported on Wal-Mart's recent Supreme Court case regarding whether there was "a culture of discrimination" against women in their organization. Keep in mind that even though Wal-Mart successfully defended themselves, they did not entirely "win" either. It was because feminist lawyers tried to launch a class-action suit that the Supreme Court said there was no definite policy at Wal-Mart which favoured men over women, and thus they did not entirely throw the law-suit out, but rather said that it must be dealt with in the lower courts on a more individual basis instead. And how did the BNN cover this story? Why, in order to get a "balanced and unbiased" view on the decision, they interviewed a feminist from Eastern Canada and another feminist from Western Canada. (Gee, I guess degrees in Journalism are about as useless as degrees in Women's Studies). The consensus was that this culture of discrimination against women was allowed to persist because there were too many of those dastardly right-leaning men on the Supreme Court still perpetuating the infamous "Old Boys Club." But don't worry, they pointed out that soon Obama will be able to stuff a couple more of these "morally and ethically pure" women onto the Supreme Court, so that when a case like this is inevitably brought before the court again, the decision will be in favour of women.
What they glossed over completely, however, was the absurdity of the argument itself, and the dire implications it would have had on Wal-Mart, as well as every other company in America, and they failed to extrapolate the implications further to its effect on the economy over-all.
One of the core arguments of the lawsuit was that men were promoted to management positions ahead of women because women were unable to work as many hours as men and women could not as easily move to undesirable locations where they would more easily advance their careers because of the other responsibilities women had outside of the workplace, such as caring for children or elderly parents.
In other words, if we take this back to our basketball example with Jack and Tom, the argument becomes that since Tom had other things to do besides practice shooting hoops, such as his paper route and karate classes, the university had no right to "discriminate" against him for only being able to make 50% of the baskets as Jack, and both boys should be equally accepted to the team, regardless of their actual performance abilities.
That's literally what was being argued in this Wal-Mart case. Because women have other responsibilities that are completely not related to the workplace, it is workplace discrimination for them not to receive promotions and pay commensurate to those who actually did work more hours and made more sacrifices which advanced their careers.
Thus, if the BNN were actually in the business of reporting the facts, and Wal-mart had lost their case, rather than reporting it as a "triumph for women," they would have been more accurate to report it as follows:
"Wal-Mart Forced to Replace Top-Notch Management with Mediocre Employees. Long-Term Outlook for Stock Valuations is Grim!"
This is not a slam against women, this is simply the truth. It wouldn't matter if the employees were male or female. If you take employees willing to work 60 hours a week and relocate wherever they need to, and replace them with employees only willing to work 40 hours a week and only in desirable locations, it doesn't matter which gender, you would be severely handicapping the company.
In the same way, if Jack and Tom's university would insist that out of the five basketball players on the court, at least two players who are capable of making 20 out of 20 baskets must be replaced with players only capable of making 10 out of 20 baskets, the performance of the team would suffer - especially against teams that are not burdened in the same way. It is pretty easy to see the numbers. If five players take 100 shots and 100 of them go through the basket, such a team will far out-perform a team that can only make 80 out of 100 baskets, which is exactly what would happen if the team were to replace two players at Jack's 100% ratio with two players at Tom's 50% ratio.
And you thought globalization and cheap foreign labour was the only reason the Western World is falling behind the Developing World, eh?
Equal or "Equal?" (Wink! Wink!)
.
"Differences [between men and women], including the products of social inequality, make unequal treatment not unequal at all." -- Catharine MacKinnon, "Reflections on Sex Equality Under Law," Yale Law Journal, 1991
When the Status of Women Canada, the "academic" juggernaut of Women's Studies, and the Business News Network (BNN) continually make the case that more women deserve to be on executive boards regardless of their abilities (due to outside choices women themselves are making in their lives), you will discover they never argue that it extends that women also, therefore, deserve to be equally represented in jobs that don't carry prestige and high pay. After all, when was the last time Minister Rona Ambrose got on the TV and argued how ridiculous it is that women are "oppressed" because they make up less than 10% of the garbage collectors in the country? I mean, you would think that the government would want women to take on more of the low prestige, dangerous and dirty jobs, since careless and clumsy men are accounting for over 90% of all workplace injuries and deaths. The government and Canadian employers would save billions a year in Worker's Compensation expenses by increasing the amount of women in these types of jobs. This is simple feminist math. If over 90% of all workplace injuries and deaths are males, then if we increase the amount of women in these positions to 50%, we will reduce such injuries and deaths by around half as well! It's so simple!
Of course, you know I am being facetious.
But seriously, what does anyone think will happen to the men who are in these high paying, prestigious jobs such as CEO or Chairman of the Board? When the government of Norway made it law that all corporate boards must have at least 40% women, do you think they simply created more positions and only hired women until they made up 40%, or did they keep the amount of positions the same, fire the required amount of men, and then replaced them with women? I think you know the answer without my stating it.
What you find in the workforce is the same that you will find almost everywhere else when you compare men and women. While our averages are pretty close to the same, how we reach those averages is quite different. For example, men and women both have similar averages of IQ, however there is far greater variability in male IQ than in the female IQ, which is clustered around the mean in greater intensity than with males. Thus, even though we have similar averages in IQ, there are far more males who inhabit the areas of extremely high IQ and extremely low IQ. This translates also into the workforce, where you will find that the very powerful and wealthy (like CEO's or those on executive boards) are mostly male, and also that most of the very poor, like the homeless, are male (85% of the homeless are males). It's not only intellectually dishonest to selectively observe only the men who have risen to the top while at the same time ignoring the men that have fallen through the floor, but it is also socially irresponsible. It's like taking the examples of Denzel Washington and Will Smith as successful and powerful black millionaires, and therefore claiming there is no poverty problem in the Black Community. But this is exactly what is done every single time that "our betters" in the government, academia, and the media address women in the workplace.
If, as a society, we are going to boot out qualified men from top positions to make way for less qualified and less motivated women, it will cause a chain reaction all the way down and increase the amount of those at the bottom. After all, if those who would have merited an executive board position are restricted from achieving those levels, they will be stuck being over-qualified and underpaid at the middle-management level, where again, they will be displacing those who should have merited middle management positions, and forcing those men downwards to lower management and basic employee status. Thus, the men currently in those lowest of positions will be losing their jobs and sleeping on the streets.
The Return of Aristocracy
It's not hard to see that if fully qualified men are displaced from high level prestigious positions, to be replaced with less qualified, less motivated women - while at the same time ignoring the fact that women are not equally represented in the less desirable positions like garbage collector, ditch digger, or enemy moving target - we will be returning to an aristocratic class structure in society, except based on gender rather than bloodline.
.
Again, it is just simple math. If women only replace men at the top, in the most prestigious and well paying of jobs, then you are virtually guaranteed to increase the amount of men in the dredges of the workforce, or drive those men out of the workforce entirely and into the streets.
Quite frankly, men would be twits if they continued working their tails off 60 hours a week trying to get ahead in the corporate rat race, if they had no chance of making it because a woman who only works 40 hours a week will be preferred for the job anyways. It will very quickly become that men will simply stop trying to be successful in those jobs at all and abandon them en masse for jobs where they don't have to put up with such nonsense. You don't think that will happen? Have a look at how men have virtually disappeared from the teaching profession since every man in close proximity to a child has become viewed as a pedophile. Men simply said, "No thanks," and moved on to other professions.
In a generation or two, you will see the class distinction between men and women quite clearly. Women: Good paying, high prestige jobs in air-conditioned offices. Men: Shutting up and shoveling the gravel to keep the electricity on and the sewers working. That's some "equality."
.
Hypergamy and the End of Marriage
.
The essence of hypergamy is that women "marry up" while men "settle down." Thus, we see in society that, while men are not necessarily "better" than women in general, women do insist that the men they marry are "better" than they are. Male doctors marry female nurses. Male lawyers marry female secretaries. Male factory workers marry the waitress at the diner, and so on. Conversely however, female CEO's do not marry auto-mechanics, but rather, they tend to seek out a mate who is "higher" than she is. The problem is, when you are a female who is near the top of the economic food chain, there are very, very few males who meet this criteria, and of the ones that are actually around, hypergamy dictates that those males are attractive to all the different levels of females below him. Not only are there slim romantic pickings for women at the top, but they have to stand in line with, oh, about a gajillion other women for the only men they are attracted to.
Now, many women counter this by saying that they "had to" marry upwards, because it was the only way they could be socially and financially mobile under the dreaded Patriarchy. If men were just to step aside and make room for women at the top, things would change. It's too bad that this is not the case though. In fact, there is much evidence that it is not men's super-sized egos that demands they must earn more money than their wives, but rather it is women themselves that are angry at husbands who don't earn as much money and thus, they aren't "pulling their weight." This is further evidenced by "kitchen-bitch" marriages, where the roles are reversed with a female breadwinner and the man being more focused on the home. The divorce statistics for regular marriages are bad enough, but in kitchen-bitch marriages, divorce rates sky-rocket to 90% - yes, that high!
Hypergamy is a very real force to be reckoned with - especially if we are to continue shoe-horning women into top positions of power and wealth. If we create an aristocratic class of women and a peasant class of men, then marriage - as screwed up and broken as it already is - will pretty much grind to a complete halt. The prince marries the maiden Cinderella who scrubs her step-mother's floors, remember? Snow White did not marry one of the Seven Dwarves.
Perhaps now you can understand why men work their tails off more than women to have a successful career. It fulfills women's hypergamy and makes men sexually attractive to women, whereas women are not considered either more nor less sexually attractive because of their social and financial status. They don't have near the motivation for it as men do! Furthermore, women are not socially considered to be deadbeats if they are not economic performers, nor are they considered to be "bums" if they take a few years off and let their husbands fully support them while they pursue other things they want in life. Working, for men, is not a choice like it is for many women. Either men work or they become invisible. It only makes sense then, that men will put in more effort to make their jobs "work" for them, while women, who have other options, will not view the workplace with the same intensity as men.
"Only 14 percent of female middle managers aspire to be CEO; the figure is 45 percent for middle managers who are male." -- Newsletter of the Women's Freedom Network, Spring 1997
Mutilated Beggars
During the economic crisis in 2008 and 2009, we termed the resulting recession as "the mancession" because the vast majority of the jobs lost were those done by men. If I remember correctly, it was three men losing a job to every woman who became unemployed. But, when the economic stimulus was injected into the economy, they had feminists appearing on the Business News Network (BNN), madder than wet hens that women were not equally receiving stimulus money as men. It really did make sense that more money was spent on men's jobs than women's, since those were the vast majority of the unemployed, but feminists demanded 50/50 equality in the spending of stimulus funds. See how this works? America had become A Woman's Nation because they finally outnumbered men in the workforce, and they were so gracious about it that they cackled and laughed and wrote about The End of Men, spitting in men's faces when they were down. But when it came time to deal with the problem and get men back on their feet, they screamed and wailed that they were victims for not receiving equal funds - funds they did not need nearly so much as men.
And further, when people mentioned that a lot of those men were supporting families, you could almost see the hatred spill from the now ex BNN news anchoress, Kim Parlee's eyes, matching the spirit of her "unbiased" panel: a gaggle of feminists pulling The Mutilated Beggar argument. You see, women support their families too! Therefore, it was sexist to insinuate that it was higher priority to put those men back to work instead of women.
.
Except... let's not forget that, at the behest of feminist and media brainwashing, we now claim that "all families are equal."
But they aren't.
When we talk of men and their families, we are talking about a man, a woman, and the children they might have together. When we talk of women and their families, however, we are talking about a single or divorced woman and the children she has. The man is non-existent in this paradigm.
But does that mean that man has truly ceased to exist?
Nope, what it means is that the man, whose job was taken by a woman, is now sleeping down by the river beneath a bridge.
You see, men take care of themselves, women and children. But women? They take care of only themselves and children, while leaving the man to fend for himself. Thus, if you wanted to benefit the most people in society with jobs, you would first give the work to men who then turn over their paychecks to their wives. This simply does not work the same way in reverse.
This Way to See the Great Egress!
"There is a great old story about PT Barnum. One of his shows was so successful that the crowds were becoming dangerous. People were so packed that there was a real danger of some of them getting trampled. So, he had his carnies open some of the gates and his barkers start shouting "This way to see the great EGRESS!" The herd surged through the gates and found out that "egress" means "exit.""
.
Feminism has done far more to liberate men than it has to liberate women, although most men don't think it has at first glance.
All throughout history, men have had the curse of having to work. Society greatly enforced the "gender role" of men being the breadwinner who then passes on "the bread" to females. Up until the feminist revolution of the past fifty or so years, the only men who got away with being socially acceptable without tying themselves to the responsibilities of a job, a marriage, and supporting a wife and children, were eccentric rich men. For the rest, if you didn't follow in the condoned path you were considered a social outcast. But remember, men only need to expend around 20-30% of their labour ability in order to survive - when yoked to a woman and children, the excess went to them, not to the man.
Women are as independent as a tropical fern in a greenhouse in Iceland. This goes all the way back to when we were living in caves. When the woman heard a rustling outside, she pushed her caveman out first, using him as a shield to check if it was a sabre tooth tiger. Once the area outside of the cave was secure, the woman took over the immediate area around the cave while she sent the man further out into the dangers of the wilderness to hunt mammoths and bring her back some meat for dinner. Once the male has made things safe and easy, the woman takes over and pushes the man away, insisting he move on and make more things safe and easy... and when he succeeds in doing it, she takes over that space too!
The same thing happens in the workplace. Work was never been "fun" for men. It has been oppressive and often downright dangerous. The 50 some odd men who gave their lives so that the Hoover Dam could provide electricity for women and make their lives much easier probably didn't feel overwhelmed with their "patriarchal power." But, as soon as men make a certain area of the workforce safe and pleasant, women immediately move in and claim they were "oppressed" by not having the opportunity to do such work throughout history. Today, women are not claiming they are being "oppressed" by not being represented in great numbers in the construction industry. But this kind of work is often dangerous and dirty, climbing around on roofs and scaffolding while pounding away with a hammer and being exposed to all sorts of inclement weather. However, once construction work becomes so computerized, safe and pleasant that one can build a house by sitting in an air-conditioned box, pushing buttons while gabbing mindlessly with one's friends, women will claim they have been "oppressed" throughout history for being "denied" the opportunity to do such work, and they will force the men out so that they may exercise their girl power.
I say, "Let them!"
Sure, men still have to find some work to do in order to provide for themselves, but so long as they aren't attached to women and children - which feminism has done everything possible to make happen - they really don't need to work that hard. If you don't get saddled down with debt for a useless degree, or a useless McMansion, or a useless wife who secretly hates your guts, but rather find something decent to do like being an electrician or a plumber, you could easily save up enough money by 35 or 40 to run off to Mexico or Thailand and live like a king, never having to be a wage slave again.
Women are demanding to have our curse because "They don't need no Ma-yan!"
Let them take it!
Work sucks! A bad day of fishing is better than a good day at work!
You Go, Grrrls! Men have better things to do!
.
Previous Index Next
MGTOW
....................
..oooO...........
..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........
………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
....................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
