Wednesday, February 28, 2007

All Gender Wage-Gap Arguments Lead to Totalitarianism

I am assuming we all know that the "$0.76 paid to women for every $1.00 a man earns" argument is a completely distorted statistic which feminists and their political lackies are using as propaganda to fuel their ceaseless battle on males in the war for female gender supremacy/Marxism.

Yet how often do we hear some feminist "useful idiot" spout off that they believe women should get "equal pay for equal work?" It is one thing for us to acknowledge that certain feminists, such as those at "A Bird's Nest Blog" , are truly ignorant people who haven't got a clue what they are talking when they speak of such things. And ignorant is the kindest word for people who rally behind such claims while ignoring that the populace fully supported laws making such discrimination illegal way back in 1963. For those mathematically challenged students chasing after their "BA in Gender Studies," 1963 was 44 years ago - that is twice the length of time your average Gender Studies Graduate has lived. We can go into the historical socio-economic conditions which allowed such imbalanced conditions to arrive on another day... perhaps after you attach yourself to the idea 2007 minus 1963 = 44 years, therefore, you are a moron.

In case you are a feminist, currently enrolled or enthralled in Gender Studies, please read the following pieces to establish that you are indeed a misled "useful idiot:"

Now, it is one thing for the "general population" of feminists to be so glaringly guilty of a lack of facts and history. We have rightly come to not expect much in the way of intelligence and integrity from them. However, standing conspicously out in the open like a naked Debra Lafave at the Boy Scout Jamboree, is the never discussed willingness of prominent politicians to use this distorted "fact" in order to gain votes. Truly a treasonous act.

First, let's establish that when a politician like Canada's Maria Minna, or a US Presidential Candidate like John Kerry or Hillary Clinton, yammers on and on about "$0.76" and the need to do something about it - they know! They know they are lying! If they don't know that what they are campaigning for has been solved over 4 decades ago... then who should? Let's establish that not a squeak of feminist flatulence is emitted from a Presidential Candidate without an army of people researching every fact and detail, and every noise made is carefully crafted by a team of individuals who analyze every aspect of the electorate's psychology in regard to said noises. There are no "mistakes" when you run for leader of the free world!

So what are these people saying to us? They are using the Hegelian Dialectic to establish that the "Truth is Relative" and then they are saying "who says your truth is more real than my truth?" This fact is established by them arguing that something can be done about it, rather than taking a realistic approach and saying: "Men & Women are different, and therefore they make different life-choices which will cause a wage-gap without discrimination being the cause." A simple acknowlegement of this fact would permanently kill the "Wage Gap" argument in a fortnight - But, where is the totalitarianism is that?

So what do the enlightened ones propose can be done to solve the "Wage Gap?" Well, in Canada we have feminist theorists who get on the News and discuss such aspects as passing laws forcing businesses to give "flexi-time" to women so they can juggle having a family and a career. I seen one woman who argued that even the Prime Minister's office & the Canadian Parliament should be forced to adhere to "flexi-time" laws so that more women & single moms can consider running for public office while juggling family duties. (Need I say it? OK, fine then! Being leader of your country is a 24/7 job and your family life certainly and neccessarily suffers from it... YOU MORON!)

Of course, a politician can rally the populace to such a scheme because of "economically disadvantaged single mom's" and the "best interest of the child." That feminists and the government are complicit in creating the bursting "single mom" demographic and therefore, also directly contributed to the widespread poverty of children seen in the typical single mom "family" is something that is competely ignored. Historical revisionism is not known to be a tactic too low for Marxists to stoop to... the end does justify the means, as is common throughout all Marxist social planning.

What are some other solutions to the Wage Gap? Daniel Amneus, in Chapter Two of his book The Garbage Genereation , chronicles how feminist Carolyn Shaw Bell proposes "a special tax to pay for the welfare benefits of families headed by women, and sufficient to increase these benefits so as to wipe out the income differential between poor children with only a mother and well-off children with two parents. The tax would be levied on all men." Another raving lunatic feminist, Howard University Ph D candidate Martha Sawyer, backs up this theory by speculating that "the cost of these fatherless families should be paid by "the most advantaged category, monied white men." For those of you who think this is some dream-like fantasy, let me remind you that Gudrun Schyman of Sweden's Left Party has proposed such a gender-biased taxation system. But who's to say this is not a version of equality? The Truth is Relative... Excuse me for a moment, I feel something coming back up the down pipe.

So, lets have a look at what intervention in the wage-gap "problem" will really look like:

- Currently the "wage gap" is NOT caused by a women working for $15/hr while keeping pace with the man next to her earning $20/hr. The wage gap is caused by the average woman working less hours in a week, women taking time off when they have children, women retiring earlier, and women choosing jobs for "emotional fullfilment" rather than the financial bottom line. THIS is what causes a "wage gap" between men's & women's lifetime income. Period, end of story. Take your Hegelian logic and shove it! This is black and white. If feminists would acknowledge these simple facts, wage-gap arguments would suddenly shift to the question: Is it possible to force "un-natural equalization" upon a situation that is "unequal by natural consequences?" The answer of course, is written in black on a white sheet of paper: NO. It is impossible to create "perfect equillibrium" without the use of totalitarianism - and even then...

- It is safe to assume that no-one forces women to have children - her body, her choice. Therefore all negative (& positive) consequences of her choice are completely her responsibility. Society is relieved of any responsibility for this. If you choose to go out and buy the biggest house in town, but the mortgage payments bite into your "pub money," - is it my responsibility to buy you drinks while I'm an apartment renter?

- If we forced every business to hire 50% women and 50% men, we might go a ways to eliminating the wage gap - as women will also be taking construction, farming, mining, military combat and garbageperson jobs. They will not be choosing what to do with their life however. This is how things worked in the USSR. When you finished highschool, you were told what job you would do for the rest of your life. This is not a stretch. The Liberal Party of Canada recently stated they have a "short-list" for women MP's so as to reach their quota of 33% female MP's. The Liberal Party obviously does not believe in the "free market of voter democracy" at all. But this is the start of the harrowing situation we will get if these "intellectuals" refuse to put Hegelian logic aside for a while.

- One must also realize that mathematically, hiring 50% women and 50% men will still result, over time, in more men being in the workforce than women. Currently women work fulltime while they are single & childless, but there is a natural tendency for women to cut back their commitment to the workplace when children arrive on the scene (her body, her choice, of course). In fact many women wish to only return to the workplace on a part-time basis after taking time off for having children & never fully return to working in the capacity before they had children. This is not patriarchal oppression, but rather women choosing a lifestyle which is in accordance with nature. This phenomena has been displayed in places like Britain, who have discovered that 50/50 gender quotas for entrance into Medical Schooling results in less doctors available to the public, because female doctors tend to pull back out of their professions after a decade or so, whereas male doctors plow right on through until retirement. A mathematical solution to this situation would be to dictate that businesses hire perhaps 60% women and 40% men so that as time erodes on the workplace, the overall the balance works out to a 50/50 "gender balance" in any given 50 year period.

- Now, imagine that in our forced 50% hiring situation, the average woman still puts in less hours a week than her male colleagues. (I don't have the exact figures, but it is something to the tune of full-time women working 10hrs/wk less than full-time men). This will likely happen even more when she figures out garbage collection & combat duty are not glamour jobs. Well! We will still be able to show a wage gap! Yup, men will still earn more. The great Hitlery Clinton proposed her feminist solution to this problem when she put forth the "Paycheck Fairness Act" to the New York Senate. Carey Roberts describes Hillary's proposed act here: "...On April 19 Senator Clinton introduced the so-called Paycheck Fairness Act, a law that would pressure employers to fatten women's paychecks, regardless of the number of hours worked or job qualifications." This is nothing more than saying "each according to his abilities & each according to his needs." Classic Marxist talk! And everytime politicians have previously monkeyed with divorcing financial gain from productivity, it has turned into an economic & social disaster of monumental magnitude. What the hell is this gringa thinking?

- Of course, even if Hillary Clinton's insane Paycheck Fairness ideas were to be enforced, it would still not eliminate the wage gap! Women DO take time off from their life-time career to have children. 5 years off out of your career for the children seems to be about the norm. Let's just say that the average person has a 50 year work-life. 5 years equals 10% of that, therefore, feminists will still argue that there is a wage gap. Add onto that number that women tend to retire earlier than men, by say another 5 years, and now you have a wopping 20% wage gap even though you have previously legislated the work place with gender laws. Well, there is only one solution for this problem: MORE LEGISLATION/TOTALITARIANISM! Yes, the only way to eliminate this aspect of the wage-gap is to force women to go to work immediately after giving birth and forcing women to work the exact same amount of years in their life as men. This also means that women would no longer be allowed to get an education, take 5 years off to have children & then choose to only return to employment on a part-time basis as many women currently do. For such actions would also contribute to the "wage gap."

The entire wage-gap argument also goes directly against core principles of a free enterprise economy. When I hear a feminist yammering on about the need to force businesses to allow flexi-time & provide childcare for women in the workplace, I think the following: If a woman was so valuable to her employer that he could not afford to lose her, he would willingly provide her with those things to keep her! And, if a woman was such a hot-shit commodity to an employer, she would not need to have laws forcing her employer to hire her back after paid maternity leave - he would hire her back immediately because it was in his best financial interest to do so! And, if you force employers to provide such services to women while paying them the exact same wage to a man who does not require such extra benefits... will this not result in a man becoming a "better product for cheaper?" I mean, if a man gets paid $40,000/year and that's it - he stays at the job longer (less training expenses), he does not take absense for a year & leave his employer in a lurch trying to find a temporary 1 year employee (who will require extra training expenses), the man will not add to expensive inefficiency by requiring the employer adheres to his personal schedule, the man will not demand that his employer subsidize the daycare expenses of his children (= $$$), and so on and so on. The logical conclusion to this nonsense is that while both men and women get paid the same, a woman may still cost an employer $10,000/year more than a man! Therefore, by free-enterprise economics, employers will still try to keep more men on staff than women, because in general men will mean profit while women will represent the same profit MINUS expensive benefits based on gender. Men will be a superior product, and even if people don't want to say it, employers will still know just by looking at the bottom line. The only way to get rid of this is for the government to take control of private businesses to ensure "proper" quotas are met, and are not influenced by other factors of mankind and nature!

This is beginning to sound a whole lot like totalitarian Communism, dontcha think? Quickly browse these quotes from prominent feminists and see what they think about women in the workplace:

"No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." -- Simone de Beauvoir, "Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma" Saturday Review, June 14, 1975

"If even 10 percent of American women remain full-time homemakers, this will reinforce traditional views of what women ought to do and encourage other women to become full-time homemakers at least while their children are young... This means that no matter how any individual feminist might feel about childcare and housework, the movement as a whole [has] reasons to discourage full-time homemaking." -- Jane J. Mansbridge, Why We Lost the ERA, p.100

"The care of children infinitely better left to the best trained practitioners of both sexes who have chosen it as a vocation... [This] would further undermine family structure while contributing to the freedom of women." -- Kate Millet, Sexual Politics p.178-179

"In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them." Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman

Do you see the natural progression of the $0.76 argument? Do you wonder why, here in Canada, 2 out of the 3 major political parties are demanding that "State Run Daycare" be a top priority? Do you know who else provided state run daycare for women so they could be "equal" in the workplace? Vladmir Lenin, thats who! :
"So in 1918, Lenin introduced a new marriage code that outlawed church ceremonies. Lenin opened state-run nurseries, dining halls, laundries and sewing centers. Abortion was legalized in 1920, and divorce was simplified.

In a few short years, most of the functions of the family had been expropriated by the state. By 1921, Lenin could brag that "in Soviet Russia, no trace is left of any inequality between men and women under law."

All of this nonsense is a direct result of Hegelian logic. Once again, Cultural Marxists have chosen feminist agent provocateurs to start a never ending argument against nature! And it really is an argument against nature, and in fact, a direct assault on the family! Yes, $0.76 is an assault on the family! The entire $0.76 argument completely ignores hypergamy. And this is a big deal. Really, it is. If women's attraction to men is based on hypergamy (logically too, for it supports benefits for the next generation), then to eliminate the wage-gap which results as a natural occurence, will also directly take away a large portion of men's attractiveness to women. It would be similar to offering all the males in the country a state-supplied piece of tail 2.6 times a week and wondering if men will still ask women out on dates. Ask yourself what would happen to marriage, families & future populations if men had all the free pieces of ass they could get their hands on! - Don't have to work, don't have to shower, don't have to be polite... you'll still get laid! Think about all the intricate ramifications to even the smallest aspects of society. It is positively endless - and very destructive.

This is where people should ask why left-wing, yoga practising, bottled water drinking, Green Peace loving, wouldn't eat a turnip unless it is organically grown & raw with dirt still on it, vegetarian-vegan, nature is best HYPOCRITES are so obviously supporting an un-natural form of the family & society. How can human intervention on anything in the natural world be bad, but directly monkeying with the mating habits of humans in an un-natural way is considered to be downright desireable? One has to ask these left-wing useful idiots what they would say if the government intervened in the natural way Bald Eagles mated? What would they say if at the start of government intervention, Bald Eagles were producing 3.9 offspring per female... but after government intervention to help Eagles with reproduction, Eagles were producing only 1.5 offspring per female... and the Eagles were dying out as a result? What would happen? These same leftist hippie freaks would be marching on Washington demanding that the government stop monkeying with nature!

It's really not that hard to imagine mankind as just another animal on the planet, is it? Don't the same leftist hippie freaks demand that we all believe in the Theory of Evolution? Don't they all believe that we are evolved from animals, and in fact, we still are animals? Wouldn't that assumption also demand that we acknowledge we have "mating instincts?" Is it "unfair" in nature that a male of the species chooses a female with the best attributes for passing on his genes, and that the female of the species chooses a male with the best attributes for ensuring the survival of her & her offspring? This does not seem to be a stretch with other animals. Why is it evil in regard to "human animals?" Evil to the point that direct intervention is encouraged! Think about that while you sip your wheat-juice. Feminism is un-natural and continually chooses arguments against nature!

It all makes sense, however, when one recognizes that all things feminist are solidly based in Marxism. It's goals are not "justice" between the genders... it's goal is destruction of the family & capitalism. (The patriarchal family, of course, IS Capitalism ). It wants the system to self-destruct because only after the destruction will mankind rise out of the ashes and realize a "new kind of humanity."

"Women, like men, should not have to bear children... The destruction of the biological family, never envisioned by Freud, will allow the emergence of new women and men, different from any people who have previously existed." -- Alison Jagger - Political Philosophies of Women's Liberation: Feminism and Philosophy (Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co. 1977)

Ah, yes. Marxofeminist Utopia! It is also interesting to note their rabid opposition to religion (Marriage comes from religion, remember. The gov't didn't invent it!). People who believe in religion are freakin nuts, according to feminists like Amanda Marcotte and her cronies. In Communist Russia, people who believed in religion were thought to be mentally insane and were locked up for it. But what the Marxofeminists don't seem to recognize is that they too have "blinding irrational faith." They somehow believe that destruction of society will result in a better society. That all situations where it has been attempted has proven to be a massive human disaster does not deter them at all. So confident are they in the face of logic, history and human decency, that they don't recognize the massive amount of "religious faith" they are displaying with their belief that they are creating a better kind of humanity. All common-sense would resoundingly indicate otherwise.

Now you can believe what I'm saying about the wage gap, or you can surf on over to "A Cuckou Nest" and read what the head cuckou believes causes the wage gap and how to solve it:

Uccelline said:

I think it’s important to consider the factors behind the choices we make. If women take five years out of their careers to have children, or work ten hours less per week, these things hardly happen in a vacuum. I suspect such statistics reflect necessity more than choice; if more men took responsibility for childcare, I think you would see a distinct shift.

"Women lawyers don’t marry waiters, but male lawyers do marry waitresses” - those are the stereotypes, sure. But to me this says more about how our culture measures the value of a man as opposed to the value of a woman than about individual dynamics. Women don’t have to be educated or high-earning, they just have to be pretty and pleasant. Men don’t have to be pretty or pleasant, but they should be smart and rich. These expectations hurt everyone, male and female.

Of course, I believe Uccelline is a useful idiot who hasn't got a freakin' clue about anything in life except for knitting and mindlessly bashing men. Anyone who can argue "equality" and then in the same argument declare women are not "equally responsible" is truly a useful idiot in the first degree. This is why she automatically shifts the wage-gap "problem" to men, and then states that hypergamy "expectations hurt everyone, male and female" but of course, she would be hard pressed to define why these expectations hurt everyone... I mean, are children hurt by this too? And more specifically, HOW are children hurt by this? We do know that children fare better with fulltime parental guidance, don't we? And not being poor because of your father's economic performance certainly doesn't hurt children...

But people like Hillary Clinton and other leftist politicians... do you really think they are useful idiots? If I can find out this kind of information on my own, free of charge... what do you think someone with a multi-million dollar political campaign budget and an army of researchers & staff must know in regard to such arguments? And if they don't know, who should?

Makes you wonder, if the general public only knew... would the 0.76 argument suddenly turn to a discussion of whether the gallows will still work if they are only 76% the height of regular gallows?