Friday, May 6, 2011

Why woman's rights are wrong

In realm of political correctness, an assertion that woman's rights are wrong is invariably met with the indignant reader posturing that I am a "misogynist" or "woman hater." But my personal opinions are irrelevant, the relevant question is not why I hate women - I don't - but why someone would ever support the advancing waves of feminism if the easily foreseeable consequences of them are societal collapse.
In fact, it can be conclusively demonstrated that woman's rights is a disease that society would do well to eradicate. The purpose of this post is to enumerate those cultural and economic ills that have accompanied woman's economic empowerment.

  • Because feminism has directed middle-classs women into the workforce en masse, real wage rates have been suppressed. This is why real wages were higher in 1973 than they are now. The reasons for this wage reduction are manifold, but are primarily the result of supply and demand. Whenever you have a huge influx in the labor supply without sufficient demand to meet it, like we had circa 1970's, real wages will go down. So, the modern American woman is caught in a spiral where she must work because her husband's wages are no longer sufficient.
  • Due to the way woman's economic empowerment has masculinized the female role, from being a household wife and full time mother to having a full time job, marriage is often delayed and at times completely forgone. As a result, birthrates - particularly for whites - are at record lows. In Europe it is even worse, as the birthrate numbers are as low as 1 child per 2 parents. This is not a symptom of a sound and sustainable society. This is compounded by mass third world immigration, all but ensuring a radical ethnic transformation in the West. In other words, woman's rights is little more than an evolutionary dead end, as societies that embrace it are rapidly being outpaced by those that don't.
  • Female economic empowerment has also deeply skewed the dating market. Because hypergamy (the desire for a higher value man) is what impels woman's mating drive, women have inadvertently shrunk their available dating pool, since hypergamy adjusts itself relative to the position of the woman. Whereas before the average male could display higher value by virtue of his job and higher income, the modern world where woman make almost as much as men makes it difficult for anyone but the most successful of men. Our evolutionary scientists have informed us that in pre-civilized times, 80% of the woman shared their genes in the reproduction process, while only 40% of males did so. In pre-Christendom society, this tendency translated into polygamy. For a millennium, Western civilization tamed femaled hypergamy through Christian monogamy, and thus layed the groundwork for advanced civilization. But because woman have shrunk the dating pool of possible higher value men, I predict that there will be a strong attempt to legalize polygamy within the next 40 years. So in that sense, feminism has brought about sexual market 2.0, but it is not characterized by progress, but rather a return to pre-civilization.
  • It also been the most significant contributor to the ongoing obesity epidemic and the explosion of the fast-food industry. Since the modern American woman seldom has time to consistently cook a healthy meal, kids have become fat because they eat time-saving crap like micro-waved processed and fast-food. Perhaps Michelle Obama should consider that in her poorly thought-out plan to save kids from the size of their own guts.

Giving women the right to vote significantly changed American politics from the very beginning. Despite claims to the contrary, the gender gap is not something that has arisen since the 1970s. Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditures and revenue, and these effects continued growing as more women took advantage of the franchise. Similar changes occurred at the federal level as female suffrage led to more liberal voting records for the state’s U.S. House and Senate delegations. In the Senate, suffrage changed voting behavior by an amount equal to almost 20 percent of the difference between Republican and Democratic senators. Suffrage also coincided with changes in the probability that prohibition would be enacted and changes in divorce laws. We were also able to deal with questions of causality by taking advantage of the fact that while some states voluntarily adopted suffrage, others where compelled to do so by the Nineteenth Amendment. The conclusion was that suffrage dramatically changed government in both cases. Accordingly, the effects of suffrage we estimate are not reflecting some other factor present in only states that adopted suffrage. [...]

More work remains to be done on why women vote so differently, but our initial work provides scant evidence that it is due to self-interest arising from their employment by government. The only evidence that we found indicated that the gender gap in part arises from women’s fear that they are being left to raise children on their own (Lott and Kenny 1997). If this result is true, the continued breakdown of the family and higher divorce rates imply growing political conflicts between the sexes.

As the evidence comes in, it is becoming abundantly clear that it the choice is between freedom or universal suffrage; you can't have both.

In the end, it is all about what you value. So is female equality really worth the destruction of marriage, sustainable birth rates, millions of babies, monogamy, and Western Civilization?

No comments:

Post a Comment