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
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