The Triumphs Of The Feminists

FeministFeminist leadership has included quite naturally, numbers of women who have not liked men very much. A significant portion may prefer women for everything; nearly all have preferred them for preeminence. They claimed victimhood in time-honored fashion; the shtick was, they were only looking for equality. However in fact, they have shown a desire for their self-awarded ‘superiority’ to be recognized. That recognition must occur at the expense of males, since Feminism is in effect, a zero-sum game. As often with political games, that last is not admitted as it would tend to put off undecided folk.

American economic preeminence is an offense to the poor of the world; the poor must be raised up. That doctrine never mentions that America must be lowered to facilitate that raising, yet it is a firm part of the belief. That situation is identical to the feminists’ programs. You cannot, as an illustration, have more women CEO’s or more women Senators unless you arrange for fewer male ones. And the women press for government force to impose their desires. Female “Affirmative Action” is the heart of the Feminist agenda. The long-standing push heretofore stalled, for: “Equal pay for equal work” is the clue.

Most see that as a request for male and female police or firefolk to be paid the same, something few would oppose. But that is cover; what is really demanded is reclassification of jobs primarily performed by females such that their pay is raised to equal other jobs usually performed by males. It’s one thing to require a 110 pound female digging ditches to be paid the same as a 210 pound male doing that; it begs economic rationality to require female bank clerks be paid as male construction workers, but that is the goal. The Feminists wish to replace economics with politics.

None of this is free for the general population; it is a wealth transfer from males (and their families) to females. This part of the program has not gone very far to date; only equal pay for the same work has gained traction. But the inevitable quotas and governmental urgings are in work and slow progress continues. Politicians need it to help with the ongoing reduction of the American living standard that has been in effect since the 1970’s sent housewives to work.

At this point, the Feminists have prevailed to about the same extent as have Americas’s black citizens, which is to say that it is enough for a wise Feminist or black citizen to wonder about that old “Be careful what you ask for” advice. The Feminists, have attained:

1. Men are no longer expected to face adversity bravely, to give their lives for their families or to be able to fix things that are broken.

2. Women are privileged to go out from their homes, abandon spousal support and compete in the workplace…not instead of, but in addition to homemaking and motherhood.

3. Women may practice convenience-based prenatal infanticide from the onset of child-bearing capability; that may be publicly subsidized.

4. Women are no longer seen as precious for their unique functions as wives and mothers; they are merely a labor commodity competing in the market with stronger and often better educated, men. (The educational predominance is shifting, leaving society with fewer educated males.)

5. Women are now permitted to join men dying on battlefields.

Thus the Feminist triumph imposed by government. The unanswered questions include whether these ‘gains’ are really progress for women and to a larger extent, whether they represent progress for the American society. We will see; women, like that toothpaste that cannot be squeezed back into its tube, will not be returned to their former state. The new society can no longer afford that.

If the Feminist coal mine has a canary, it is the American kids who are increasingly raised in single parent poverty, deprived of education in mandatory public school warehouses and upon graduation (or dropping out) presented with ‘opportunities’ to spend their lives as new age serfs. This should please the Feminists; the girls face the same conditions as the boys but are becoming better educated. Feminism triumphant!

And men have joined in this; nor have those who have not supported it, lifted a finger in caution or concern. Both sexes seem to have forgotten that they are are not opponents, but a single species.

About Jack Curtis

Suspicious of government, doubtful of economics, fond of figure skating (but the off-ice part, not so much) Couple of degrees in government, a few medals in figure skating; just reading and suspicion for economics ...
This entry was posted in Affirmative Action, Culture, Equality, Feminist, Politics and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to The Triumphs Of The Feminists

  1. If you really think that improving the lives of the poor around the world necessitates that the US becomes poorer, you are stuck in 17th century zero-sum mercantilism. You really should read Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations. He does a great job of destroying the 17th century mercantilism, and he did it in the 1800’s. Good trade policies improve the situation for all parties involved. Good foreign direct investments improve the situation for all parties involved.

    As for the feminists, the points you make are what the feminists validly call loosing privilege. Moving from a superior position to one of equality is not being oppressed. The valid point is how this “equality” is achieved. If women do the work and earn the positions of CEO and Senator, wonderful. Meritocracy is a great thing. If “equality” is achieved through legally enforced quotas and affirmative actions, then there is a problem.

    If you really want to make a good point, focus on and cite laws that are legally enforced gender bias like hiring quotas and affirmative action. Stop with the conspiracy theory crap. No one is trying to make the US poor. And for the love of God, stop trying to reinforce the 1950’s gender roles. They don’t work, they never really worked, they didn’t even really exist in the 1950’s.

    • Jack Curtis says:

      Well, I don’t hold that world prosperity is a zero-sum game; that however, has been the thrust of various Administration spokesmen. Dr. Steven Chu, recent energy Secretary, made the point in a number of speeches, saying that the U.S. must use less energy so that others can use more. That idea has always accompanied the various Malthusians who have historically, been mocked by technology every time.

      The Feminist goals are zero-sum games because they pull someone down for every one sent up. That the overall society averages out doesn’t make life easier for the losers. This is the same blindness exhibited by Dr. Chu; the better way is to eschew crude compulsions in favor of technical progress. If warfighting is progress for women, it is technology that has brought them to it, more than anything.

      You find me a defender of earlier social models; I suggest that is your projection. I refer to and describe them, I have not extolled them. They have virtues and those came at a price. The same is true today in our now different society.

      The primary concern remains that men and women are one species, not opponents as the Feminists have set up for their purposes. For the species to prosper, I believe that we have to respect that. Nor is that a likely result of government mandates.

      It seems to me, that much of the results of government social mandates has been as much destructive as helpful.

      • Good to hear that you don’t think prosperity is a zero-sum game. The point your wrong on is no one else does either. The US needs to us less OIL, not ENERGY. We need to be transitioning to renewable sources to stay ahead of the curve on tech and infrastructure. The developing nations need OIL to develop and use as an energy source. The US has the wealth the capital and the know how to make and use better energy sources, and we damn well should!!!! This is not zero-sum.
        Not all feminism is zero-sum, and very few feminists believe themselves to be zero-sum. Painting with such broad strokes will not convince any one of your position, only convince people you are either stupid or sexist. Focus on the MEANS of change that varies dramatically, not the goal of change that does not. Affirmative action and quotes are horrible. More women winning office though merit would be great.
        If the intent of the post was to talk about how we are a single speices, well you did a very poor job of making that clear in the post.
        I really do want to help you write better, mostly for selfish reasons. I get really sick of trying to explain posts like this to close minded bigoted feminists that can’t tell the difference between your positions and mine.

      • Jack Curtis says:

        Seems to me we have little about which to disagree. The current administration has in fact, said we need to use less energy and has not limited that to oil, though of course both coal and oil reduction are included. It seems inarguable that a fuel in finite supply must be replaced as possible but the amounts being dumped into such apparent blind alleys as wind and current solar tech simply divert resources from the needed R & D, in my opinion.

        Feminists who demonize males are my target; far too much of political feminism strikes me as of that sort. Political feminists these days are mostly Democrats (in the U.S.) who deny sisterhood to Republicans merely for the political difference; that seems a biased and rather blind attitude and one unlikely to be constructive, hence my complaints.

        Feminism, like racism and other social subjects, has been politicized and thereby, distorted away from a rational response to changing social elements. I write in response to that; ot seems that my intent fails to reach you and likely some other readers. You’re welcome to make your points and I will respond and learn what I can. But I really see little disagreement in our viewpoints.

  2. the unit says:

    You mention police or firefolk …
    “Gov. Jay Inslee on Monday signed off on the final installment of a six-year effort to make language in the state’s copious laws gender-neutral. The state already has welcomed “firefighters,” “clergy” and “police officers” into its lexicon under previous bills, but under the most recent measure, terms like “ombuds” and “security guards” replace ombudsman and watchmen. Dairymen, freshmen and even penmanship also will soon be things of the past, replaced by “dairy farmers,” “first-year students” and “handwriting.”

    Ok, what they gonna do with hymen?

    • Jack Curtis says:

      Weren’t those abolished by k-12 sex education?

    • What truly amuses me is that “man” and “men” ARE ALREADY gender neutral terms. In old English there where weremen and wifmen. Weremen where male people wifmen where female people. “men” was a root that meant people. “were-” was a prefix that meant male. So Fireman Policeman Watchmen are people that fight fires, or police, or watch all without gender assignments. We have already removed masculinity from the language once, trying to do it again won’t help.

      • Jack Curtis says:

        Well, again that is fact incontrovertible. And “all men” includes women in good English for a long time. But in politicized terms, we deal with perceptions rather than with reality, so as you say, we have to change the language that needed no changing, merely to show that the current ‘Feminists’ have accomplished something. Politics, for me, prostitute everything.

        I suppose that smaller, physically weaker women were prizes for larger, stronger men when that was optimum for the species. Now, brains replace brawn and relegating half the brains to secondary productivity is self-defeating for the species; things have changed. But the pace of social change is always too slow or too fast to suit us. Politicians take advantage of that and are elected on promises to circumvent it. And in fact, once elected, make things worse, as using force seems typically to do. For all but the user, anyway. Or so it seems to me…

      • We do need a language change. We need to re-invent wereman, not attempt to re-neuter masculinity.

      • Jack Curtis says:

        Amen! It would be rewarding if the schools would just return to teaching English seriously, seems to me. But the post- Joseph Goebbels propagandists are likely having too much fun playing with out minds to allow that…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s