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.
  

• The topic of woman's suffrage is reserved for last because it is probably the worst thing that ever happened to America. It immediately resulted in an increase in government spending and safety nets as well as systematically stripping American's -both men and women - of many rights and liberties. Below is a portion of the research paper, "Did woman's suffrage change the size and scope of the Government?:
  

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?

On Obama's birth certificate

As a libertarian and anti-obama aficionado, I have to confess that I would relish seeing Obama's recently put out birth certificate exposed as fraud. It probably will be, even if his mindless cheerleaders refuse to accept it. And yet, one wonders what impact this debacle will bring in the long term, and whether proving Obama's non-American birthplace will be ultimately beneficial to America. On one hand, it can be reasonably said that the issue has been a costly one for Obama. It has simultaneously hurt his popularity numbers and fueled a Donald Trump campaign. Thereby insuring an Obama loss in 2012, although the extent this issue has costed Obama is not known.

On the other hand, a precedent has been set. And as anyone who has been paying any attention to American politics for the past 2 centuries will note, precedents invariably lay the groundwork for future action. Perhaps 20 years from now an Arab, or an Asian or African, will trample the American political scene and grab the election. And if anyone elects to doubt the newly-elected leader's legitimacy, then he will simply point out that it's all irrelevant; it's happened before.

Hence, we find ourselves in a catch-22, since not contesting Obama's legitimacy is hardly better than proving him illegitimate. The only thing that seems apt at this point is a complete blow up for the Democratic Party.

My life's intended navigation

While applying for Eagle Scout, one of the things I had to do was to attach to my application a statement of my life's ambitions and previously held leadership positions. I wrote thusly:

My primary material goal in life is to be a Renascence Man, being talented in many fields of study and skill. I am a dilettante at this point, but am working my way up. Specifically, I want to be a leader of men, first in the military and then in the Corporate world. I also want to be a part-time writer of both fiction and nonfiction, mostly for my own amusement. Being healthy and fit has also been an integral part of my aspirations. Currently I am hitting the weight room very heavily.

At this point, I am not certain which college I will attend. But the choice is essentially between the Naval Academy and Texas A&M, depending on 1) whether or not I want to enter the military and 2) which one I can get accepted into. Either way I plan on getting an engineering degree, probably in mechanical or electrical.

While I will most certainly go to college, formal education is by no means the core of my educational pursuits. I am a voracious reader and a born autodidact, so my intellectual endeavors will not be limited to the specific degree I obtain.

The leadership positions I have held in scouts are Chaplains Aid, Patrol Leader, Instructor, and Senior Patrol Leader. Being SPL was by far the most difficult, but most rewarding. Leading the troop was really my only genuine and long-term leadership experience, so while I certainly made some embarrassing blunders, I derived much growth from it.

The purpose of my life has been a direct implication of the way I view the world. I perceive the world as being a battlefield in an epic spiritual war; that some things are inspired by good, while others evil. Each individual has a distinct impact in the war. He or she has the ability and free will to fight for either side. And the future is in part determined by us. My allegiance to Jesus Christ stems primarily from my observation of evil and the need to fight it. Unfortunately, my mental state has been compromised as it is characterized by two conflicting motives. One is to accomplish merely for myself and my own enjoyment. The other is to edify mankind and serve the glory of God. It has been a strugglewithin between the two, but my goal is to have an unmitigated desire to serve the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

On the Wests decline and fall

It is not uncommon for people to take exception to my contention that we are presently witnessing America's decline and eventual fall. Blissful optimism is usually rampant in the days preceding a societies trough and dip. It is only when circumstances forcibly impose themselves will the general public reluctantly acknowledge the evolutionary state they are in. But by then it is too late. The damage has already been done, and the only precaution one can use is a mitigating one, not something that can prevent it entirely.

So in keeping with this narrative, SJ willingly leaps to sacrifice himself to the stinging edge of my intellect by regurgitating talking points about how there are bright prospects for Western Civilization. To read is to hope, but to hope is to be disappointed.

I don't see how you say "Western Civlization is approaching its demise." The people of America are still great and the economy is in recovery. Things will sort themselves out. Our ancestors have been through even harder times than these, we can make it too, no? We'll still be alive, and who's going to take our spot as numero uno?

You have clearly demonstrated that you have precious little substance to offer for the ongoing discourse, as your implicit misconception of the "Western Civilization" has lead your conclusions awry. As a tip from an interlocutor, I humbly advise you too delve deeper in search for the true meaning of "Western Civilization." Perhaps when you do so, you will realize that it has little to do with geography or world hegemony, but patriarchal capitalistic Christendom. These remnants have slowly but inexorably faded off into obscurity because feminists are stripping away the incentives for men to marry and women to mother children, because the globalist totalitarians have aggressively pushed for a world government, because neo-keynesians have preached the paradox of thrift and the benefits of spending borrowed money, and neo-conservatives have contorted their base ideology by implementing democracy across the world while letting democracy crumble on our home front. In fact, it is abundantly clear that you are unacquainted with the relevant factors in measuring the extent to which a civilization is declining. Because if you did, you would understand that while you are correct in saying "we'll make it, too," it is not relevant because "we" will not be inhabits of western civilization, but ones in a pagan, barbaric totalitarian one.

The prophets George Orwell and Aldous Huxley were not correct in their timing, most likely because that is the part that is the most difficult to gauge. But what will become readily apparent is that the dystopias those two men created in their books will bear far more similarity to the real world than most people grasp at this point. If it weren't an evolutionary imperative, motherhood would already be an outdated concept. Moreover, instead of being a wholly individualized concept, it appears that motherhood has transformed into a collective feminine entity where the state is every bodies mother.... as well father; the safety nets abound that serve as the sustainer of our inherently unsustainable society will eventually have to go by the wayside. And once they do, collapse will ensue as nations realize that the growth and health of their cultures was mere illusion. The soviet union demonstrated that even a remarkably ineffective and society-killing system can limp for 70 years before falling on a cliff. If there is anything thing the past 30 years will prove in a grand historical perspective, then it will be the seemingly miraculous effects of debt and collective procrastination. But it all must stop. Precisely when this will happen is uncertain, but the inability to time the incipient fall is irrelevant in gauging the probability of its occurrence.
Right now we are living in economic limbo where society still has vestiges of an advanced patriarchy and manufacturing set-up while the feminist-marxist dystopia creeps in. Considering that the Wall Street Journal openly called for ways to facilitate woman's advancement in corporate leadership and the reaction to the 2008 financial was more centralization, the evidence suggests that we are presently drifting to the latter scenario. And if that happens, I will relish the moment when this enormous experiment burns to ashes, perhaps then - probably only then - will a phoenix arise that is compatible with human nature and his material betterment.

What I would do to lower the unemployment rate

Below is what I wrote for an economics assignment. The topic was what I would do to lower the unemployment rate, so while it is sort of about that, I digressed a little because I wanted to make my contribution unique to the class. What was funny was that once the professor handed my article back he said: "I like it, but was it about lowering the unemployment rate, or saving western civilization?" And immediately everyone turned their heads to look at me (I sit at the back of the room). Epic. You really had to be their to appreciate it.

As it turned out, I talked to my professor after the class about it, and he expressed his agreement, very much so actually. So it was refreshing. Anyway here is the paragraph:

The two things that I would do to lower the unemployment rate are as follows. The first one is obvious: Cut taxes in half, for everyone, including corporations and higher-income individuals. And cut the Government work force correspondingly, except over a decade to allow the workers time to integrate into the private sector, which will no doubt grow due to the reduced taxes. This will re-allocate labor to more productive uses that are consumer-approved. The second thing that I would do is to provide significant incentive for women to leave the workforce to raise their kids at home and remove the disincentives for them to leave their children to the Nanny state, removing institutions such as welfare and public day care. This may seem harsh to some, as well has willfully controversial, so it needs elaboration. Real wages have declined since 1973 because of the rapid influx of women into the workforce. This increased the supply of labor without creating sufficient demand to meet it. This rapid influx of workers didn’t actually increase total output as much as would be expected. This also, in part, is why the American economy has transformed from an industrial manufacturing economy into a paper-pushing service driven economy, as it is the front desk jobs that woman find more psychologically rewarding and men find unsatisfying. So layers and layers of unproductive bureaucracy have accommodated woman’s economic empowerment. Also, employment is not necessarily positive-sum; the inflow of female labor has resulted in the unemployment and underemployment of many males. Granted, this is more of a pragmatic solution to save Western Civilization than a policy to really improve the economy, as countries where women are economically empowered tend to have higher GDP’s. But the pendulum will swing back, viciously. And there is one word to describe what all matriarchies eventually turn into: “grass huts.”*

*On the other hand, the grass hut effect may actually lower unemployment, since 3^rd world countries are notorious for combining full employment with astonishingly low productivity levels.