Tag: women

The consequence of female choices

I have frequently written on the way that some women choosing to work has a negative impact on the ability of other women to choose to stay home and raise their children. Despite the fact that the economic logic behind this statement is impeccable and the reality of these consequences are inescapable, many critics, especially women, have nevertheless scoffed at this and insisted that the decision of one woman to work cannot possibly have any effect on subsequent choices available to other women.

Their economically illiterate doubts make the following comments by the author of a new feminist book blaming the lack of female executive achievement on a “culture that undervalues an entire gender” all the more ironic:

The New York Times asks about the impact of women choosing to “flee” the workforce (a loaded question), Feldt explains:

They make it harder for the rest of us to remedy the inequities that remain. We have to make young women aware of how their choices affect other women. It should be acceptable criticism to point out that, although everyone has the right to make their own life decisions, choosing to “opt out” reinforces stereotypes about women’s priorities that we’ve been working for decades to shatter, so just cut it out. And, the “individual choice” women have to become stay-at-home moms becomes precarious when they try to return to the workplace and find their earning power and options reduced. If we could see child-rearing as a necessary task and not an identity, and if we could collectively recognize that facilitating it benefits us all, we would go much further in guaranteeing women’s choices than we do when we are expected to uncritically celebrate every individual’s decisions.

The amusing thing is that while Gloria Feldt asserts “We have to make young women aware of how their choices affect other women”, she is talking about the immaterial and imaginary effect of “reinforcing stereotypes” whereas I am pointing to a material decline in real wages as well as a reduced chance to marry a man who is capable of supporting a wife and children, much less is more successful than the woman interested in him.

The magic number matters

At least, it does insofar as a man is interested in lowering his probability of not getting divorced and asset-raped when marrying:

“The results presented in this article replicate findings from previous research: Women who cohabit prior to marriage or who have premarital sex have an increased likelihood of marital disruption. Considering the joint effects of premarital cohabitation and premarital sex, as well as histories of premarital relationships, extends previous research. The most salient finding from this analysis is that women whose intimate premarital relationships are limited to their husbands—either premarital sex alone or premarital cohabitation—do not experience an increased risk of divorce. It is only women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship who have an elevated risk of marital disruption. This effect is strongest for women who have multiple premarital coresidental unions. These findings are consistent with the notion that premarital sex and cohabitation have become part of the normal courtship pattern in the United States. They do not indicate selectivity on characteristics linked to the risk of divorce and do not provide couples with experiences that lessen the stability of marriage.”

Players and traditionalists, take a close look at that graph. When a woman has had 16 or more past lovers, the odds that a marriage to her will end in divorce rise to over 80%! Even “average” women with “only” five past lovers — women that few men would admit in public qualify as sluts — see an increase in odds of divorce to 70%.

I have to admit, that’s a more significant factor than I’d ever imagined. No wonder men value Chaste Janes more than Slutty Barbies! While numerous female writers advocate evasion, if not outright deception, it would appear that men would do well to make sure they have an accurate numerical history in order to determine which category a woman to whom they are attracted happens to fall, high divorce risk or low divorce risk. There’s nothing wrong with pursuing the former, just dont be surprised with the results when not only the odds, but the statistical evidence is stacked against you.

Eat, pray, die

Best stick to the cats, ladies

A British grandmother was strangled and beaten to death by her Tunisian boyfriend, an inquest heard today. Pauline Richardson, 64, had travelled with a friend to the resort of Port El Kantaoui in Tunisia in June 2008. She was due to fly back on June 29 and on that day visited Qabeel Jabir Al-Wardani, who was then in his 20s. Mrs Richardson missed her flight home and her body was discovered the next day.

There is a tremendous black comedy waiting to be written regarding the growing practice of post-menopausal women desperately chasing sex in the third world. The absurd thing is that they’re uniformly convinced the young con artists who prey upon them have fallen in love with them and genuinely wish to pursue a committed romantic relationship with them, presumably because of their superior if wrinkled white skins. Between the instaslut behavior of the 15-19 year-old on an airplane crowd – only a recent divorcee in her thirties is easier – and this geriatric imperial cougarism, one wonders if it is women’s suffrage or women’s travel that is the worse idea. It is customary to scoff at the Victorians who insisted that women travel with a guardian of some sort, but this sort of thing reminds one that such societal customs usually arise from necessity.

Never be nice

I’m totally serious, men.  Never, ever be nice to a woman to whom you are not related by blood or are not married.  Be polite, gracious, and civil, by all means, just as you would to but don’t ever be nice in search of female approval or make the mistake of thinking that they have a mindset that is anything but completely alien to your own.  They can not only rationalize anything that they perceive to be in their own interest, but will quite readily resort to the use of third party force to do so.  Roissy provides an informative example of this.
 

There is no equality

The easily observable fact is that equality does not exist. It is a myth. It simply does not exist in any material or legal sense.

Judges have been told to treat female criminals more leniently than men when deciding sentences. New guidelines declare that women suffer disadvantages and courts should ‘bear these matters in mind. The rules say women criminals often have poor mental health or are poorly educated, have not committed violence and have children to look after.

I think it’s particularly interesting that these UK rules declare that women criminals have not committed violence, especially if the reason that they are criminals is because they have committed violent crimes. It’s not hard to understand that Londonistan is going to look more and more attractive as it is compared with the lunatic secular alternative on offer.

Don’t marry debt

Marriage is already a financially risky move under the present legal regime. But marrying a heavily indebted woman would be financially insane, especially in the current economy:

Nobody likes unpleasant surprises, but when Allison Brooke Eastman’s fiancé found out four months ago just how high her student loan debt was, he had a particularly strong reaction: he broke off the engagement within three days. Ms. Eastman said she had told him early on in their relationship that she had over $100,000 of debt. But, she said, even she didn’t know what the true balance was; like a car buyer who focuses on only the monthly payment, she wrote 12 checks a year for about $1,100 each, the minimum possible. She didn’t focus on the bottom line, she said, because it was so profoundly depressing.

But as the couple got closer to their wedding day, she took out all the paperwork and it became clear that her total debt was actually about $170,000. “He accused me of lying,” said Ms. Eastman, 31, a San Francisco X-ray technician and part-time photographer who had run up much of the balance studying for a bachelor’s degree in photography. “But if I was lying, I was lying to myself, not to him. I didn’t really want to know the full amount.”

It sounds like the gentleman escaped just in the nick of time. In addition to the $170k in debt, Miss Eastman sounds exactly like the sort of woman who would not only rationalize lying to a man, but being unfaithful as well. In any case, how you manage your personal finances is a good indicator of how you will manage both a household and a marriage as well. The short-term oriented woman who can’t foresee the obvious consequences of credit is the same sort of woman who can’t foresee the obvious consequences of encouraging the harmless attentions of her male acquaintances and co-workers.

The truly dangerous thing about debt, where women are concerned, is that can lock them out of a career as a wife and mother. Unless you marry someone wealthy enough to pay off your debts without thinking about it, having children and staying home to take care of them simply isn’t an option. So, you’ll have sacrificed not only your own future but your children’s as well in order to spend five years studying 14th century Basque poetry and having sex with ten or twelve college guys whose names you’ll struggle to remember ten years hence.

The harsh reality is that a few years on the pole with a coke habit would still leave the average woman with a better long term prospect of happiness than the popular combination of student loans and a soft liberal arts degree from a reputable private university.

A strategy for the short run

Many women tend to get their panties in a bunch whenever I point out that their suffrage has led to less freedom and more government and their increased preference for paid employment has led to lower wages for everyone. But their protestations are more than a little amusing in light of the fact that one of the arguments against cutting the size of government is the negative effect this will supposedly have on women:

Women, recent studies here show, are far more dependent on the state than men. Women are thus set to bear a disproportionate amount of the pain, prompting a legal challenge that could scuttle the government’s fiscal crusade and raise fairness questions over deficit-cutting campaigns underway from Greece to Spain, and in the United States when it eventually moves to curb spending.

One major target in Britain, for instance, is the bloated public sector, with as many as 600,000 government jobs – or one in 10 – potentially on the chopping block. But 65 percent of state employees are women, including single mothers in part-time job programs, setting them up to suffer more than men.

Overall, a report published by the House of Commons indicates, women stand to bear the burden of 72 percent of the government’s cuts.

This is rather like people who oppose income tax cuts getting upset that the wealthy will pay less tax. Of course they will pay less taxes, because you can’t cut taxes from people who aren’t paying any, the perverted Bush spendable “tax credits” notwithstanding. Women disproportionately benefited from the great debt-funded expansion of government over the past four decades, so now that governments have to start shrinking due to falling tax revenues and debt-deflation, women should be expected to disproportionately suffer.

One point that those who favor more women in the workforce have never addressed is how counterproductive most of the additional women were. (Remember, one-third of women always been in the labor force; “women in the workforce” actually means “educated middle class women who in the past would have gotten married and had children but instead chose to join the workforce”). So, in summary, women got the vote, then used it to vote for politicians who would go into debt in order to hire them to harass the private sector. And we’re supposed to be suprised this didn’t work out well?

Advancing on their backs

The reason many female executives are so desperate for respect they never receive is because so many of them know perfectly well they don’t merit it.

34% of executive women claim they know a female colleague who has had an affair with a boss. Furthermore, 15% of women at the director level or above admitted to having affairs themselves. And worse, 37% claim the action was rewarded: they said that women involved in affairs received a career boost as a result.

If 15% are prepared to admit it, the Rule of Three suggests that about half of all female executives are advancing their careers on their backs. Progress!

Happy Unicorn Day!

Carrie Lukas illustrates why conservatives should be slow to embrace the leadership of women who call themselves conservatives:

August 26 has been dubbed “Women’s Equality Day,” in celebration of the anniversary of the 19th Amendment. Passage of that amendment was the culmination of years of hard work and dedication on the part of America’s noble suffragettes, and it is indeed amazing to think of all of the progress women have made in our society in the ninety years following that breakthrough.

It is amazing… amazingly horrific. Let’s contemplate exactly what that progress has meant in material terms:

1. Millions of murdered babies, disproportionately female.
2. A significant reduction in marriage rates and a large increase in divorce rates thanks to pro-female divorce laws and the heavily female-biased family court system.
3. The doubling of the female work force suppressing wages and creating a vicious cycle where married women who don’t want to work are forced to do so because their husband’s real wages are lower than in 1973. To forestall the expected ignorance-based protests, I invite you to first consider what happens to the price of a commodity when the supply increases faster than the demand.
4. National insolvency.
5. A massive increase in sexually-transmitted disease.
6. A significant reduction of personal freedom for men and women alike.

It will be interesting to see if a nation that institutes female suffrage can remain sovereign and at least nominally free for even 100 years. The UK gave up its national sovereignty to the EU only 81 years after it instituted women’s suffrage. The US might make it, but it’s by no means a sure thing.

It’s important to remember that because the vast majority of the women identify themselves by the herd and by sex rather than as individuals, they will usually see themselves as women first and [fill in the ideological identification] second. Thus we have the absurdity of a self-styled “conservative” woman celebrating profoundly anti-conservative and avowedly progressive progress.

As I have stated several times before, there is no such thing as equality! It does not exist in material terms, legal terms, moral terms, scientific terms, or spiritual terms. There is no evidence for it because it simply does not exist. Women who traded societal wealth and material freedom for nonexistent “equality” have made a terrible bargain since they literally traded something for nothing. The foundation of the suffrage argument is the false assertion that voting is freedom. My counterargument rests on the verifiable assertion that voting does not equal freedom. That is the crux of the matter.

The myth of the cougar

Science explodes an old spinsters tale:

The study of online dating, by the University of Wales Institute, Cardiff (UWIC), found men and women are still rather traditional when it comes to searching for their ideal partner. Women generally seek an older and, therefore hopefully, wealthier man, according to the UWIC study. Men, on the other hand, desire a young and attractive female, and often prefer a much younger partner as they themselves age.

One can hear Roissy cackling already. In one bit of anecdotal evidence, I got a call from a single 40-something friend of mine. He was on his way to a date… with a 23 year-old woman.