Vox Popoli

A self-declared evolutionary dead-end named FS has a bunch of them:

I have a few questions after reading ‘women’s rights.’ I’m a student, female, and I don’t plan on getting married (thus contributing to the downfall of Western civilization), although given my background, someone like yourself might think that this a good thing.

However, it just seems a tad..one sided, forgive me, as a naive young student, but you seem to be laying all the blame for civilization’s ills at women’s rights. Are women to blame for everything, since Adam and Eve? I knew a couple of women who married young (21 and 22), and since, really regretted it. But I guess you, as a man, can’t have that type of experience, which is why I think you’re being a little one-sided. And I have a few questions:

It’s difficult to know exactly where to start here, since many of civilization’s ills long preceded the women’s rights that date back to the early 20th century. She also seems to think that women had absolutely no rights prior to the development of special “women’s rights”, which is simply not the case. And women are not to blame for everything, the Sports Guys mantra notwithstanding, although it would obviously be very difficult to find another party to blame for demographic decline than the specific group who are declining to propagate the species. I further note that I know a lot more women than two who did not marry at all and eventually came to regret it, regardless, the plural of anecdote is not data. But on to the specific questions….

1) If women should merely stay at home and take care of the children and do nothing else, how should such a family survive in the days when you need a dual income and the cost of everything is going up?

FS doesn’t understand that the primary reason a dual income is required is because so many women are working now. This is basic supply and demand. If you double the work force, you halve the price of labor. Two incomes are now needed where one previously sufficed. Now, about thirty percent of women have always worked; the present situation exists because around sixty percent of women now work. Send the 20 million immigrants home and remove the 30 million women from the work force who entered it after 1950 and wage rates will suffice to support single-income families again. We’ll leave the inflation aspect out of this since I don’t think she’s equipped to have that discussion, but every regular VP reader knows why the cost of everything has been going up for the last century. That’s the price of having a central bank to “stabilize” the currency.

2) If women have no rights, what should they do when abandoned by their husbands? Ever hear of Jean Pare? She was a stay at home mom with four kids until her husband walked out on her when she was 38, so she had to work. So if women shouldn’t have any rights (much like in the days of yore), what option is there for someone like that to fall back on, without working?

First, I note that women are the ones walking out of most marriages, not men. Second, no one has said that women shouldn’t have any rights, only that they should have no special rights that depend entirely on their being female. But why shouldn’t a woman be expected to work and support herself if she isn’t married anymore? Are women children, totally incapable of supporting themselves? Whatever happened to that whole strong, independent motif? And the man is still the children’s father, if he can support them, then he should have custody and primary responsibility for them.

3) If women shouldn’t have rights, what should they do in the case of domestic abuse? Should they merely put up with it? Given the fact that, under a rule of thumb suggesting that women shouldn’t work and have no rights, should she just put up with it?

There’s no such thing as domestic abuse; assault is assault. If you are the victim of a criminal assault, you have the ability press charges. Of course, since women commit as much “domestic abuse” as men, an genuinely equitable legal system would see a lot more women getting arrested and jailed. As a general rule, if you don’t want to get hit, don’t hit someone first. There’s no shortage of cases where a woman assaults a man, he punches her back, and then he gets charged. That’s not justice.

4) As you mention: ” the feminized family court system that transformed marriage from a mutually beneficial contract into a financial and emotional liability, and the removal of paternal responsibility for the sexual behavior of young women.” — does that mean the standard of living and the cost of everything and needing to work is directly blamed on feminism, and not big business, corporate greed, the economic decimation of America’s Middle Class by U.S. Global Businessmen, has NOTHING TO do with it and is all blamed on women’s rights?

No, it’s clearly not all feminism. There are various other factors at work, although feminism, particularly women’s suffrage, are two important ones. But it would be worthwhile for many feminists to exam who has historically been supporting “women’s rights” and why they have been doing so. As I’ve pointed out before, until 1973, the most immediate effect of young, marriageable women entering the work force after 1950 was allowing old men to retire, collect Social Security benefits, and hit the links. Does that sound like a good trade-off for young women? After 1973, more women were entering than men were retiring, which was when average wages began falling.

5) If women’s rights should be reversed, should all other rights be reversed too? What about the civil rights movement? Should rights for Blacks and minorities be revoked as well? Why stop at merely women’s rights? And how would you justify that? After all, slavery has been quite beneficial to certian societies as well.

No. What about it? Yes, all special rights should be revoked… and note that voting is not and has never been a right. As for slavery, its return in the form of the growing sex trade is the direct result of the economic destruction caused in part by women’s suffrage. When women can’t find a man to support them, they often prefer to sell their bodies rather than find productive work because it’s an easier option, especially for the young and attractive.

6) If, as you mention: Europe’s demise is all but assured, thanks to them, as women’s individual choices taken in the collective have stricken European society and brought on successive waves of feminist-friendly Islamic immigration by reducing Europe’s birth rates far below replacement levels.” — does that have NOTHING to do with the fact that, living in a society where life expectancy is high, and women do not always need to have as many children – say, for instance, women used to have several children to ensure that at least 1 or 2 survived to adulthood..would fathers, in such a society, what would be the need for that?

This is incoherent. Perhaps FS could rephrase the question.

7) Talking about Europe’s demise, why not simply create substantial financial incentives for women to have chilren?

They already do in many European countries, with payments of several hundred dollars per month per child. Either they are insufficient or they don’t work very well. Also, merely having children isn’t enough, as the US welfare system has shown that creating an incentive for single mothers to have more children is the most effective way to create a permanent criminal underclass. Children within a functioning traditional family is what nations require to survive, otherwise vats of clones would be a viable solution.

8) Are women simply created to serve men and give birth to babies and have relatively little freedom? A
s you suggest, women’s individual rights are the demise of all that is good..

I don’t pretend to know what the grand purpose of woman is. But it is a demonstrable fact that when women are given free and full political license, the collective actions of women have reliably had the result of eradicating freedom, destroying economic growth, and demographically murdering the societies in which they live. If you think that’s a reasonable trade-off for three generations of liberated women before everything falls apart and the barbarian patriarchy returns, well, we can certainly agree to disagree.

9) Would you, if you were a woman, agree that your own rights have effectively curtailed western society, and agree to personally revoke your rights and stay at home and give birth to several chlidren with a husband?

Absolutely. Ann Coulter and numerous women who read this blog have often expressed the opinion that they would give up their vote if that would prevent all of their left-leaning sisters from voting. By the way, I already live, by choice, in a society where I have no current right to vote. I prefer genuine freedom and wealth to the pretense of it.

10) You write: “the feminized family court system that transformed marriage from a mutually beneficial contract into a financial and emotional liability, and the removal of paternal responsibility for the sexual behavior of young women.” — well, first of all, divorce was historically easier for men than for women, women historically were denied certain rights, such as earning income, inheriting property, etc, so I”m not sure what you mean by ‘mutually beneficial contract.’

FS needs to re-read her history. Women were never denied the right to earn an income and they had the right to inherit property for the entire existence of the United States. She is confusing social norms for law. If she doesn’t understand how marriage was a “mutually beneficial contract”, I don’t see how I can explain it to her. But I’ll try. In simple terms, women traded sex and children for a lifetime of being supported. This was generally considered of sufficient benefit to both parties, since it was not necessary to force either party into it. The declining numbers electing to marry under the present system indicates that the current system is considered less mutually beneficial by the prospective participants.

Second, ‘the removal of paternal responsibility and the sexual behaviour of young women’ — I see a contradiction here, if America is the land of personal responsibility, then shouldn’t young men realize their own responsibility of taking care of their children? Or is this another case of all the blame being laid at the feet of women?

Yes, men should be responsible for taking care of their own children. But it’s women who lobbied to remove the laws that historically gave custody to the father… even though the father didn’t receive support from the non-custodial mother. But no man should be held responsible for a child that isn’t his, as is legally the case today.

11) women stuck in traditional roles (not all, but those TRAPPED in traditional roles), generally are twice as likely as men to suffer from depression..how would you solve this, if women have fewer rights?

I don’t think it’s a problem that need solving, although I’d like to see the study you’re citing before I accept it. From what I understand, women are far more likely to be depressed and neurotic than men in general.

12) What should women do with themselves, if they have no rights, when the sons have left for college and the mother can no longer bear children? What should she do then, with no education, no rights, etc?

When did she lose her education? And why can’t she work if she’s not being supported by a husband?

13) Since today, in Western culture, which contrasts with the 12 century Jihadist culture, as you are inclined to think it is, instead of bereating women, abortion, consentual sex outside of marriage (men do it too), why not focus that energy into other problems, real problems? Since Western men have created structures to channel their aggression into business, the courts and sports (all of which they mostly dominate), why not, instead of setting aside their civilized rule of law, and fight “12th century” male culture, though warfare or, preferably, by using guile, such as removing the barbarians’ source of funding from oil profits and denying the barbarians easy entrance as immigrants? that way, you won’t have to put aside women’s basic rights?

The problems of Western society aren’t external. That’s why. How is one going to fight “12th century” male culture when one’s society is in demographic decline and aging rapidly?

14) if women’s rights are bar none, and you have a daughter, would you tell her that she should be nothing but a housewife and mother and little more? For the good of civilization, while her brothers go to to school and get education?

First, I don’t believe in going to school to get an education. Second, yes, I would absolutely encourage her to be a housewife and mother first and second, and then whatever else she wants to be. After all, there is absolutely nothing she can do that is more important than ensuring the continuance of the human race. Plus, I’ve got some excellent genes that practically demand propagation in these latter days of idiocracy.

15) In areas of science and technology, where men still dominate, would a greater number of increasing women be beneficial? To increase the volume of research done in this area? As well as an increase in differing perspectives? Or should this again, be entirely dominated by men?

No. Absolutely not. Technological advancement doesn’t depend upon numbers. Do you seriously want everyone living in grass huts?

16) If women have no rights, what kind of education should they be given? Would you prefer a Taliban style of education? Or perhaps a greek style of education where girls simply remained at home with their mothers learning to be wives for future husbands?

I don’t know why you think I have any problem with women being educated. I don’t. But you shouldn’t mistake a piece of paper from a paper mill with an education either. I prefer both boys and girls to remain at home, learning from their mothers. You’ll note that this system actually requires women to have excellent educations; the nature of your questions shows there’s no doubt that Spacebunny has a better and more comprehensive education than you presently have.

17) If women have no rights, does that mean that the gender that has always fought wars, made developments in science and technology, etc., will always have to be male, and that women shouldn’t, for the necessity for Western civilization, go into such fields?

It means that regardless of whether women have special rights nor not. The great failure of feminism has been the collective failure of women to achieve anything more notable than they were already achieving prior to the 20th century. I don’t consider the invention of the credit default swap and the ruination of the fantasy literature genre to be great steps forward for the species.

18) Since gender roles are changing, does it behoove men to stay at home with the children?

They’re not substantively changing. So, no. Short-term responses to a temporary legal environment should not be confused with permanent changes. Once the legal environment changes again, any apparent changes in gender roles will disappear.

A bad start:

It has only been a few weeks, but already it is clear that FDR’s legacy of the famous first 100 days is in no jeopardy. Of course, given the anti-constitutional regime the Roosevelt administration turned out to be, this is probably a good thing. And in the first month of the Obama administration, four things have become readily apparent about its nature.

First, Obama not only has a lack of executive experience, he also possesses no natural talent for management or executive decision making. While a large segment of the American electorate clearly believes that a mellifluous baritone and an ability to read from teleprompter is tantamount to executive excellence, the numerous nomination scandals and the bungling of the $827 billion stimulus bill indicate that the Obama administration will soon make even the disastrous Bush and Clinton administrations look like paragons of competence.

I have to say that I’m more than a little amused by the WND editor’s trepidations about my choice of words. The original column didn’t say “It’s not exactly new for women to openly fantasize about sex with a president”, but rather “It’s not exactly new for women to openly fantasize about being mounted by a president”. It’s always nice to know where the lines are drawn.

Now, I have no problem with their edits since it’s their site, after all. But I think this particular change is a little unfortunate because the sense of contempt is lost with the modification.

Just a very short fantasy series review today. But of potential interest to anyone who enjoyed Thieves World.

MJB very nearly pegs it:

Hmm…this being the 80s, he probably cruised around in a Trans Am.

Actually, it was a white Firebird with the T-top. To make it even more obnoxious, a girl I dated then drove an almost-matching white Camaro. As Heather #1 would say: how very! One of the more painful experiences in my intellectual maturation process was realizing that I had not only been a Soc, I’d been the sort of Soc that even Socs hated.

Sorry about that, Ponyboy….

I suppose it was inevitable, given the attitude of female journalists towards the last Democratic president. Even so, ye cats! And by cats, I mean giant freaking striped ones!

The other night I dreamt of Barack Obama. He was taking a shower right when I needed to get into the bathroom to shave my legs, and then he was being yelled at by my husband, Max, for smoking in the house. It was not clear whether Max was feeling protective of the president’s health or jealous because of the cigarette….

I figured that my friend and I couldn’t possibly be the only ones dreaming, brooding or otherwise obsessing about the Obamas…. Many women — not too surprisingly — were dreaming about sex with the president.

She voted in November and she’s heading for the shower.
She’s thinking really hard about that presidential tower.
She’ll spin the dial to massage dreaming of those juggy ears,
Because nothing gets a girl off like the thought of four more years.

White House fever.
She’s going out of her mind.
Obama fever.
It’s in the New York Times.

She’s got a callus on her finger and her wrist is hurting too;
She’s been self-abusing so much that her labia turned blue.
She feels awful for Michelle, but her legs are open wide
Because she can’t miss the chance to give the president a ride.

Obama slapped her on the ass afterwards and had a smoke.
As her husband raged outside, he just laughed and told a joke:
“See, this is how I plan to keep the nation stimulated,
The audacity of hope and change should not be underrated!”

Seriously, what is wrong with these women? And what on Earth possesses them to openly confess their psychotic sex fantasies in the newspaper? I have to note that among the many horrified comments following the column, far and away the best was this one: “Taking a shower and smoking a cigarette—-after having had sex with you, presumably? And it’s somehow unclear what your husband is angry about? Paging Dr Freud to the Warner residence!”

Thanks to the Mises economics blog, more than 800 people took the final exam, but the following list is comprised of the 55 individuals who were more or less engaged in the study and passed the final with a score of 18 or better. The first six individuals listed scored a perfect 25/25 and may henceforth claim their status as Grand AGDers. Well done, everyone!

Zeno
jSinSaTx
David
NaSultainne
cyn.ical
Drifter
Euthyphro
Sarah
Don Corleone
Rantor
Sgt Gideon’s Dad
Ann CScdn$
JK
Something Feral
Rusty
DL Carrol
Scott
HG
Roundtine
Salt
Anthony
Dallas
A Wiser Man Than I
Ian
Phil Mann
Scott G
Cunning Dove
Reader
Triton
Richard
Dr. J
jimmcopp
10S
lloyd
gene L
Lurker
DanG
druidhouse
freestater
Markku
Phi
Skimmed It
Elusive Wapiti
RustyO
Hugh Jazz
Jack
NotSure
Bikerdad
Brad
RL
ROC
Mike
Amiga
Giraffe
Allen

And of course, Guest. If you took your test as Guest, that’s absolutely fine, but that’s also how your accomplishment will be recognized on the blog. I think it was a very successful study, overall, although I wasn’t nearly as involved in the discussions as I should have been. Unfortunately, I’ve been a bit busy of late. I think I may have come up with a solution for that in the next study, which will begin sometime in March, but we’ll have to see. Please note that I still intend to delineate some of my specific differences with the points Rothbard made in AGD in a future post.

It’s worth noting, by the way, that the Voxiversity has officially gotten out of control. I recently received word from a reliable source that one of our intrepid AGDers actually convinced his wife to give their new boy the middle name “Rothbard”.

The Mises economics blog views intellectual property as a modern form of mercantilism:

It was thought in the middle ages that most all products required monopoly production. The salt producer would enter into an agreement with the ruler. The ruler would promises a monopoly in exchange for a share of the revenue. It was thought that this would guarantee access to a valuable commodity. How can anyone make a buck without a guarantee that his hard work would be compensated?

Well, it took time but eventually people realized that competition and markets actually do provide, as implausible as it may seem. As the centuries moved on, markets became ever freer, and we no longer believe that the king must confer a special status on any producer. They still do it, of course, but mostly for open reasons of political patronage.

And yet in this one area of “intellectual property,” all the old mercantilist myths survive. People still believe that a state grant of monopoly privilege is necessary for the market to work.

To me, the most damning point about the wrongness of intellectual property is the fact that the quality of literary and theatrical output was much higher prior to the IP era. I think Jeffrey Tucker is correct to point to historical monopolies as a means of clarifying the relevant issues, as government-protected intellectual property markets show much the same defects that monopoly theory would cause one to expect to see in any commodity market in which legal monopolies were granted.

The reason for the recent rally:

The Dow is heading up, and it’s not because Senatorial opposition to the stimulus is weakening. It started with the news yesterday that the Administration is on the verge of getting one huge thing right and will announce a suspension of certain mark-to-market rules on Monday. This will instantly reduce the risk for financial firms with bad assets on their books from future paper losses that could adversely affect their regulatory solvency.

So, if the financial authorities agree to pretend that the assets held by financial firms are worth more today than anyone is actually willing to pay for them because at some point in the distant future they are expected to be worth more, then investors can pretend that equities across the board are worth more today as well. Taking this logic further, if we all agree to pretend that half the people who aren’t working are actually employed, then the market should absolutely skyrocket!

I’m feeling more confident already. The animal spirits are unleashed. Make way for the Great Bull of 2009!

UPDATE – I don’t know about you, but I am feeling downright stimulated: Amid stunning new job losses and yet another bank failure, key senators and the White House reached tentative agreement Friday night on an economic stimulus measure at the heart of President Barack Obama’s recovery plan. Two officials said the emerging agreement was for a bill with a $780 billion price tag, but there was no immediate confirmation.

The obvious economic consequences of this labor trend appear to escape this NYT writer:

With the recession on the brink of becoming the longest in the postwar era, a milestone may be at hand: Women are poised to surpass men on the nation’s payrolls, taking the majority for the first time in American history. The reason has less to do with gender equality than with where the ax is falling.

The proportion of women who are working has changed very little since the recession started. But a full 82 percent of the job losses have befallen men, who are heavily represented in distressed industries like manufacturing and construction. Women tend to be employed in areas like education and health care, which are less sensitive to economic ups and downs, and in jobs that allow more time for child care and other domestic work.

Here’s another interesting fact. Those disappearing male jobs in manufacturing and construction tend to produce wealth. Jobs in education and health care are less sensitive to economic ups and downs for the simple reason that they are de facto government jobs, which produce no wealth. If you get sick and I work very hard to get you back on your feet, nothing new has been produced. We’re just back at the status quo we were at before you fell ill. Health care is a great thing, but it is a net wealth consumer, not a wealth producer, as the budget of California should suffice to show. And the panoply of Womyn’s Studies and Art History majors, to say nothing of the high school graduates who can’t pass a simple history exam, demonstrate the worthlessness of most modern American education.

But the trend does suggest a plausible answer to the question that John Derbyshire once posed. What follows in the sequence Farm – Factory – Office? Hunter-gatherer! The economic model of women engaged in economically non-productive labor while men sit around and do nothing is not exactly a new one. I believe it’s quite popular in Africa, as a matter of fact.