patrick.net

lets make sure we extend 'equal opportunity' to the 'front lines' aka cannon fodder jobs.

Mandy Lifeboats says

How 'bout we just keep everyone at home?

How about we JUST send feminists to Iraq? I mean they're theoretically capable of doing practically anything according to the reports I've heard.

http://www.42sI2G4m5aU

Men and Women that listen to the Liberal filth, deserve what they become. Senseless bastards sitting around waiting for validation from the Liberals for their miserable existence. This is so NOT what the Liberal education promised them, a world where EVERYONE is a winner.

Turn that shit off and go get a job, they are out there for everyone.
You just have to weed out the Liberal HR mother fuckers that have taken the agenda beyond the classroom. Also don't patronize any business that doesn't hire you based on Liberal bias, mumbo jumbo bullshit.

"Don't believe the hype!" - it's ironic that those lyrics were written during Bush Sr's administration, but has fit more so to the last 3 two termers.

CaptainShuddup says

Men and Women that listen to the Liberal filth, deserve what they become.

You are so full of bullshit. I'm the most god-damn liberal person on this site and I appall the way men are treated in the family court system, which is the primary reason that marriage rates have plummeted over the past 30 years. The treatment of men as second class citizens in the family court system is the most antithetical practice to liberalism there is. Liberalism believes in absolute equality under law for all persons regardless of anything.

The 1970s misandry perversion of feminism has nothing to do with liberalism and everything to do with capitalism, the taking advantage of those with less bargaining power (in this case, less bargaining power in the family court system). Blame capitalism, not liberalism, for the destruction of the family. Capitalism says that financial gain justifies every means; liberalism doesn't.

MershedPerturders says

Men, math, and marriage

Unfortunate, but true. The family court system, not gay marriage, is what has killed "traditional" marriage. Why doesn't the Christian right protest against that?

Not all women are the same, but all family court systems are. That's what's important to remember. It's not most women who are the problem; it's every family court. Our legal system has adopted the philosophy that men are inherently evil, cruel, and inferior -- which cannot be further from the truth in the vast majority of cases -- and should be treated as such.

But there are consequences to screwing over half the population for decades. That half of the population reacts by changing its behavior. In this case, that is why fewer Gen Xer's got married and far fewer Millennials will get married. The family court system is the primary reason why half of first time mothers are single, and it's teen pregnancy; it's 30-something single women realizing that they will never marry but deciding they still want a child enough that they'll go it alone.

And what are the consequences? After all, 1970s pseudo-feminists misandrists said "a women needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" and ridiculed Dan Quale when he said men play an important role in the upbringing of children and eliminating men from the family unit would have negative consequences. [Yes, this is one of the few times Dan Quale was right.]

The result is that massive numbers of single mothers and their children languish in poverty as shown in the quotes below.

The poverty rate for single-mother families in 2011 was 40.9%, nearly five times more than the rate (8.8%) for married-couple families.

Today, 1 in 3 children – a total of 15 million – are being raised without a father. Of that group, nearly half live below the poverty line.

Around 45% of single mothers have never married, around 55% are either divorced, separated or widowed.4 Half have one child, 30% have two.

Quale, like Sinead O'Connor, was right. [Bet you never thought you'd hear those two being called right in the same sentence.]

One of the things that distinguishes liberals from either the left or the right is that liberals have loyalty to the truth, whatever the hell it is.

CaptainShuddup says

Also don't patronize any business that doesn't hire you based on Liberal bias, mumbo jumbo bullshit.

there are none left, they've been taxed or regulated out of existence.

Quigley says

The real reason women make less money than men is because they won't work as hard as men will (on average) to make a living, preferring the easier jobs and making up the difference by leeching from men. Even when they are in identical professions, they usually work less hours than their male counterparts and so make less money (if hourly paid) or are eligible for fewer promotions (if salaried).

this is why I wont work for a woman manager. Not because she's a woman and I discriminate, but because of the things you state. They NEVER work as hard as men, they are rarely prepared or intelligent enough to be working their job, and they got there simply by working the system.

Feminism is welfare for spoiled white women. It buy society precisely NOTHING.

Dan8267 says

After all, 1970s pseudo-feminists misandrists said "a women needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle"

you're only half the way there. There is no 'pseudo' feminism. The idea was flawed from the beginning. Women always worked jobs- even before feminism. Society, and even women themselves assumed they would be spending a lot of time raising children thus they assumed that the life paths of men were simply not open to them. Notice that since the advent of Feminism practically anything natural for men to do has become financially and socially impossible.

Gloria Steinem, whom you quote above admitted later that she was actually working for the CIA. Just recently Obama presented her with an award.

Once this thing collapses, these NWO women are going to be screwed beyond belief because they rely on this system to survive. They don't have families, they don't do anything useful, they require enormous levels of credit just to even sustain the way they look. What will become of them when reality hits? Who cares. They've stated by their actions that they have no allegiance to humanity- they're willing to kill infants in order to avoid what little responsibility they have in this world. They're beyond disgusting.
Meanwhile, the aging Boomer men on viagra laugh along at this because Feminism makes it far more difficult for younger competition to take them on. The younger men are career-crippled(in more ways than one, if it isn't Feminism- it's foreign labor or illegal aliens).

MershedPerturders says

you're only half the way there. There is no 'pseudo' feminism. The idea was flawed from the beginning. Women always worked jobs- even before feminism.

True. Women and children working was the norm, not the exception, in the nineteenth century and before, going back to at least antiquity. And the jobs women worked sucked ass -- as did the jobs men worked -- at that time ...nothing as cushy as an office job.

However, when I think of feminism, I think of the original feminist movement in the late 19th and early 20th century revolving around women having the same legal rights as men including the right to vote, own property, and sign business contracts. Granted, these issues were written about as early as 1792 in the book A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. However, it was in 1920 with the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment that ultimately answered the question of equality under law for women and fulfilled feminism.

All that came after 1920 isn't feminism even if it uses the same word for marketing purposes. I personally believe that the real feminism, the suffrage movement, is in itself so significant that the term feminism should have remained referring to that historical movement rather than being perversed by later political agendas. For example, by the definitions of the late 20th century, Susan B. Anthony would not be a feminist because she wasn't pro-choice on abortion. And I think that is utterly ridiculous.

Dan, good points but I think it remains to be seen how much of 'equality' really makes sense. While voting seems like an obvious right, the effect it had was turning our nation from a responsible republic into a tax-and-spend madhouse. It wasn't long after the Nineteenth Amendment that we got the New Deal which put us on the path to socialism.

Fact is, unless you are responsible and CULPABLE(which women are not) then you shouldn't be voting. The fact is the state is built on the notion of military might and women neither recognize nor contribute to it. While you can coddle this cherished notion of equality- the fact is the national democracies have no power in today's world, the corporations have all the power and there is no suffrage movement in the board room. Women voting was a mistake and men will lose on both an individual and collective level until they realize that.

MershedPerturders says

there are none left, they've been taxed or regulated out of existence.

AMEN!

MershedPerturders says

I think it remains to be seen how much of 'equality' really makes sense.

The term equal, of course, must be defined. It is defined in the phrase equal under law as to mean we all have the exact same set of rights and no one has privileges. As for what constitutes social equality, that's a whole different story.

MershedPerturders says

While voting seems like an obvious right, the effect it had was turning our nation from a responsible republic into a tax-and-spend madhouse.

I would argue that the Federal Reserve Act and the use of an income tax to fund a general spending fund is what got us into the "tax-and-spend madhouse". If all special interests feed from the same trough, then all special interests will act like greedy pigs trying to eat as much as they can before the other pigs eat it all.

That's why I propose using service taxes to pay for things like lighthouses, highways, etc. and using taxes on rent seeking to pay for non-metered services like the police, fire, and military.

MershedPerturders says

It wasn't long after the Nineteenth Amendment that we got the New Deal which put us on the path to socialism.

Socialism isn't inherently bad and is, in fact, absolutely necessary to run any society. The military, the police, the firefighters, the highway transportation system, the sewers, and the electric grid are all socialism and could not possibly be done effectively in any other way whatsoever. You cannot create a functional society with 0% socialism. It is logically impossible.

Don't treat socialism as a dirty word. Instead think about what distinguishes the situations where it makes sense to socialize costs and the situations where it makes sense to personalize costs. If you do that with an open mind, you'll find that there are sensible rules of when, where, and how to social costs and where to personalize them. Good economic engineering is all about finding and understanding these rules. Economics should be an engineering discipline, not a religion. There should be no economic doctrines.

As for the social safety nets that cost our society so much, they simply would not be necessary or at least nearly as large if it wasn't for the ridiculous and unjustifiable rich-poor gap. The cause of the welfare state is ultimately capitalism run amuck. Eliminate the injustices of capitalism and the welfare state ceases. Parasitic behavior at the top causes social dependency at the bottom.

MershedPerturders says

Fact is, unless you are responsible and CULPABLE(which women are not) then you shouldn't be voting.

I disagree with several implications of this statement.

1. All persons subject to the laws of a state should have a say in what those laws are.

2. It is highly dangerous to let anyone decide who is responsible enough to vote and who is not. Any person with this power would be corrupted by the power and would use it to serve his own selfish purposes at the expense of others.

3. Although I agree that most Americans are dumb asses and don't vote intelligently, I have yet to see evidence that women are measurable worse voters than men. And even if they were, the answer is to make people better voters, not to take away their right to vote.

MershedPerturders says

The fact is the state is built on the notion of military might and women neither recognize nor contribute to it.

In barbaric times the state was based on military conquest. That ended with WWII and the advent of nuclear weapons. Continuing that world view leads to the extinction of our species. Even our dumbest politicians recognized this fact back in the 1970s.

Today, the state is built on technological and economic accomplishments. Having intelligent, innovative pacifists is far more valuable to the state than having a bloodthirsty warrior. In fact, I would even extend this argument back to the earliest civilizations...

Who was the most important Roman to ever live? Julius Cesar? Hardly. Had he not existed, some other dictator would have taken his place and done more or less the same things. The specific battles fought would differ, but life itself would essentially be the same for the masses.

No, the most significant Roman to ever live is the engineer who invented concrete. His intelligence led to the development of roads, aqueducts, multistory buildings, and so much more that greatly impacted Roman life and even life today.

The inventor, the scientist, and the engineer do more for all societies than the warrior, the king, or the emperor.

MershedPerturders says

Women voting was a mistake

By that, I take it you mean that women don't vote for the things you like. That is disadvantageous for you, but it doesn't make it a mistake. They vote for what they want.

Now one can argue that certain things shouldn't be subject to a popular vote. For example, if the majority wants to bake all the Jews in ovens, we shouldn't go by majority rules. Why? Because people have rights and those rights are far more important than majority rules. However, the popular vote makes sense for voting on things that do not violate people's rights.

Would the country be better if only highly intelligent, computer programmers with intricate knowledge of Predator and Xenomorph lore voted? I believe so. But who am I to decide that? I would certainly be happier with the results of elections if that were the case, but that fact doesn't make it right.

CaptainShuddup says

AMEN

it's all part of the plan. They can only implement policies like Feminism if they have COMPLETE control of the marketplace. Of course small independent businesses can out compete- that's why they want them all destroyed. The end result isn't even equality for women- they're just using that as a selling point for their programs, which are designed to bring about a complete CHANGE in America- to be turned over to international bankers. When this is complete even those women won't have the freedom they were promised, nor will the blacks, nor will the gays or any other group they've conscripted into the cause.

http://www.T4YtgA2jnu4

Dan you offer up many reasons why women voting is a good, practical, and thoughtful idea. What you avoid or miss complete is that since women have been given the vote - the democracy has become a malleable mess of passions that can be manipulated by psychology, sociology, etc. The access that marketers and advertisers have to the public today would be inconceivable 60 years ago. Our entire society has been converted into a shopping mall. We have surrendered control to international corporations and this is due primarily to Feminism.

While women are ultimately similar in structure to men, they lack the logical component and the ability to subdue their emotions. The moment you suggest this to them, they immediately respond in a way that confirms this statement. Often times they apologize for this by claiming this is actually an ASSET ie. 'Women's Intuition', or some other crazy nonsense such as calling it 'creativity'.

Now if I wanted to transform a society, wouldn't I want to give control to the people who dont have control of themselves? absolutely. You can even observe this effect in retail sales. If a salesman is trying to get a couple to buy a product, he will rarely talk to the man- he will always talk to the woman. The women perceives this as meaning that she must be more powerful than the man, when in reality it's quite the opposite- she is more susceptible to suggestion than the man and thus the salesman concentrates on her. This is similar to what we have going on in the US. The women believe they are being EMPOWERED. Really, the nation is being DISEMPOWERED and fleeced of it's wealth.

One need only look at a woman’s shape to discover that she is not intended for either too much mental or too much physical work. She pays the debt of life not by what she does but by what she suffers—by the pains of child-bearing, care for the child, and by subjection to man, to whom she should be a patient and cheerful companion. The greatest sorrows and joys or great exhibition of strength are not assigned to her; her life should flow more quietly, more gently, and less obtrusively than man’s, without her being essentially happier or unhappier. -Arthur Schopenhauer

Women are directly adapted to act as the nurses and educators of our early childhood, for the simple reason that they themselves are childish, foolish, and short-sighted—in a word, are big children all their lives, something intermediate between the child and the man, who is a man in the strict sense of the word. Consider how a young girl will toy day after day with a child, dance with it and sing to it; and then consider what a man, with the very best intentions in the world, could do in her place. -Arthur Schopenhauer

http://www.theabsolute.net/misogyny/onwomen.html

what's happened on a interpersonal level is that men have been turned into tax-slaves, and women into tax-benefactors and thus they don't see the direct need for men. Thus the men whom they do have relationships with only provide for them a superficial function such as sexual thrills or various transient emotional support. But men are still required to support the system, for which they personally get nothing but enslavement. That's why they are either dropping out in huge numbers, expatriating, or finding ways to detach themselves from the system.

Do you ever hear women complaining? no one ever seems to point out that most women are enjoying the destruction of our nation. They've never had it better. That is the 'single' 'professional' woman, or at least thats the image the left projects. The moment a woman wants to pursue her natural desires of family, she is severely penalized and finds it financially unattainable. The ones in their 20s are severely confused and totally misinformed about what lies ahead of them. The typical experience of women in their 20s is one of extreme frustration as they cannot get men of their peer group to live up to their expectations instilled in them by(typically lesbian or bisexual) college professors. Again, go on OKCupid. Communicate with a few of these women. Scary stuff.

When we remove the FALSE images of romantic love, we find instead the economic and social functions of FAMILY, which the courtship process is meant to lead up to. Today's use of the term 'date' is really just a cover for what it really is, and entirely selfish sensual gratification ritual. When you remove the false notions of romance, it's fairly easy to see that the new economic rules have had MAJOR and DEVASTATING impact on the family. So much so that one would necessarily conclude that this result was by DESIGN rather than circumstance.