The “mystique” of feminism’s red roots

In my last blog, I wrote about the futility of the modern woman who forges her identity solely by occupation. These gals announce their irreplaceability, demand appreciation whether it’s earned or not, and then chase their tails around in a circle trying to force their view on the world, hoping it will all somehow ensure their own happiness. Really, what we have is a bunch of Scarlett O’Haras on our hands.

Now I’m not saying that you can’t have a career or big creative dreams or corporate aspirations or even fulfilling hobbies and avocations. I mean, I am writing a blog (with the office door locked, of course) as my beloved hubby cooks dinner and tends to our three wild boys. But what I am saying is that women must comprehend that with every life choice comes a consequence. The brainy types call this opportunity cost.

Or as is taught in the Austrian School of economics, it’s human choice and action. “All things are subject to the law of cause and effect,” economist Carl Menger wrote in 1871. “This great principle knows no exception.” It’s marginal utility: the contentment and pleasure experienced by consumers that affect their decision making when buying or not buying a product. So within feminism, the product is domesticity.

To maintain the mystifying position of defining your self-worth wholly through a job, there’s an outright assault on all that falls within this sphere, from parenthood to traditional marriage, to stay-at-home motherhood and the gendered division of labor. Feminists feel they must shun, ridicule, belittle, and even try to destroy all things that counter this dogma in order to convince themselves of their fulfillment and joy.

This is really nothing new. In her 1963 book, The Feminist Mystique, Betty Friedan wrote about an “unspoken … sense of dissatisfaction, a yearning” among housewives, a mystique that has “succeeded in burying millions of American women alive.”

In the work that catapulted her status to mother of second-wave feminism (the first wave being the suffragettes), Friedan explained what she saw as the exploitation of women in the home, and suggested that wives should instead seek independence and gratification through paid occupations.

“A real women can do it all by herself, but a real man won’t let her” goes the feminist mantra, which I fully embraced back in college in the ’90s. I was going to have it all, but by that, I meant that I was going to have a successful career.

If I ever wanted kids, eh, I’d deal with that down the road, when damaging sexual relationships and cat ownership no longer sufficed, and then I’d probably adopt, launching myself to the culturally celebrated rank of single mom. Who needs a father to raise a child, right?

If I was ever going to have a successful relationship, my boyfriend and I must be leftist soul mates, sharing in all domestic duties, splitting everything 50/50, and being the ultimate partners in life and love. Gender, nature, preferences, and innate talents and skills be damned.

By the time I met my husband to-be, I was dutifully spouting the hardline talking points learned through my women’s studies minor degree, including such gems as “Marriage is an oppressive institution,” “Housework is a tool of the patriarchy,” “Kids will only get in the way of my career,” “If we mess up, abortion is always viable option,” and “Ain’t no way I’m ever staying home, goddess forbid.”

My patient husband actually planned to propose to me a few times when we were dating, yet hesitated, since he was sure I’d say no – not because I didn’t love him, but because I was such an opponent of this mythical subjugator. Somehow I, Ms. Smarty Pants, got duped into thinking that marriage would change my awesome guy into a misogynist pig.

As Friedan noted, “Men are not the enemy, but the fellow victims. The real enemy is women’s denigration of themselves.” I guess I figured that if domesticity is a self-imposed prison, we’d both end up casualties of this ruthless patriarchal system.

It didn’t help that I was also an ardent atheist at the time, so rejecting tradition came easily for me. That is, until my wise older sister said, “Hey, you think you’re so nonconformist, yet you’re bending to someone else’s idea of marriage. Why not get married and make it what you want it to be?”

As we trekked down the highway one night, listening to Ween, young, in love, and already living together, I finally popped the question to my then-boyfriend. More than 16 years of marriage and three kids later, I often wonder how much less arduous our journey together would’ve been without all the feminist baggage I lugged around, but thankfully cast off, oh so slowly, bit by bit, mistake by mistake.

Just the fact we waited seven years to have kids or that I kept my maiden name up until my first pregnancy is ridiculous in retrospect. I saw marriage through the lens of self, not selflessness and cooperation. So yeah, I was a bitch.

Even Friedan, who was married for 22 years and had three children, admitted, “It is better for a woman to compete impersonally in society, as men do, than to compete for dominance in her own home with her husband.” Her marriage eventually ended in divorce, but at least Friedan had a family, and understood that her jobs as was wife, mother, author, and activist made life a balancing act. She grasped reality.

But not so of many of Friedan’s colleagues. Here’s a sampling of some of the propaganda that has given rise to the incessant, insane, and inconceivable third-wave-feminists we see today.

Catharine McKinnon: “All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman.” Andrea Dworkin: Women “must refuse to submit to those institutions which are by definition sexist – marriage, the nuclear family, religions built of the myth of feminine evil.”

Kate Millett: “The complete destruction of traditional marriage and the nuclear family is the ‘revolutionary or utopian’ goal of feminism.” Sheila Cronan: “Since marriage constitutes slavery for women … Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage.”

Alison Jaggar: The nuclear family is “a cornerstone of women’s oppression: it enforces women’s dependence on men, it enforces heterosexuality, and it imposes the prevailing masculine and feminine character structures on the next generation.” Linda Gordon: “The nuclear family must be destroyed, and … the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process.”

Gordon, who taught at UW-Madison during my time there, also espouses that “families have supported oppression by separating people into small, isolated units, unable to join together to fight for common interests.” So, just what exactly should be done about these familial components?

Well, “In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them,” of course, says Dr. Mary Jo Bane. Oh, just leave the child-rearing to the government experts. Egad!

I believe that Plato was the propagator of this notion of kids being held in common as to promote the health of the state. But in modern terms, it’s more Marxism than ancient philosophy. In The Communist Manifesto, Marx boasted, “Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at the infamous proposal of the Communists.”

Then Lenin ran with it, when he said, “Destroy the family, you destroy the country.” Just as the Bolsheviks regarded the family as a bourgeois institution that must be subverted, so too do the feminists.

“Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same,” explained McKinnon, “and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism.” So, if you’re wondering why chicks who participated in A Day Without Women were encouraged to wear red, now you know. It’s a proletariat thing.

Red is always meant to to represent the blood of the workers who struggle against capitalism, from the Jacobins, to the Bolsheviks, to the Maoists. So, don’t believe chicks when they say feminism’s about love, equality, women, and families. It’s a ruse, a big fat Marxist one.

Now, if you’re a socialist, no worries; feminism is the perfect fit for you. Embrace all that collectivism, group think, man-hating, God-loathing, and scapegoating. Celebrate an ideology that inhibits and circumscribes free will, and stifles human uniqueness, nature, biology, and choice. Castigate autonomy and tradition, and suppress the creative tapestry and life-giving power of womanhood. Go ahead, drink the red Kool-Aid.

But if you’re a normally clear-thinking chick, please reconsider. Be courageous, avoid the fad, buck conformity, and think for yourself. Even iconic feminist musician Ani DiFranco has her own anti-feminist take on the movement: “My idea of feminism is self-determination, and it’s very open-ended: every woman has the right to become herself, and do whatever she needs to do.”

So, if you’re a gal who believes in personal preferences, free expression, individualism, and independent thought, and you understand the innate opportunity costs of living in the real world, please don’t entertain the red delusions of feminism anymore. After all, it’s a mystique that has “succeeded in burying millions of American women alive.” Be truly rebellious: fulfill that occupational dream, if you want, but don’t be one of the angry grrrls. In the mean time, leave this domesticity thing to we strong mamas … we can handle it.

Source: Dissident Mama

Child Labour

Many people believe that it was the government that put an end to child labour in Western Nations but in fact almost all the children in Britain were already in school when child labour was banned. Likewise, child labor laws in the US were passed only after around 90% of the child labor had been eliminated anyway. A large part of the push for these laws came from labour unions who wanted to increase wages by reducing competition from younger workers, and as the business community was not particularly dependent on child labour any more it had no reason to lead a counter charge.

It actually requires an advanced economy to ban children labour. Children had worked throughout all of history, long before the onset of the industrial revolution had them conspicuously running around factories. It was a given fact of life because every pair of hands was needed to provide for a family, so the worked on the farm. As soon as Western economies were rich enough that parents could provide for their children without sending them to work they sent them to school instead. In the mind-nineteenth century before there was any mandatory education in the UK, 95% of children in Great Britain already had at least 5 and often as many as 7 years of education.

Further empirical evidence was recently provided, all to sadly, in Bangladesh where they tried to ban child labour prematurely only to find (as Oxfam reported) that the results were horrific. The kids went into prostitution, destitution, begging, stealing and starvation.

Image result for child labour in factories

It appears that every society naturally takes children out the workplace when they are rich enough. It’s not that parents, all throughout history, hated their children and therefore sent them to work! They sent them to work because there was no viable alternative.

As world poverty continues to decline, things are going in the right direction. Child labour has declined by one third since 2000, from 246 million to 168 million children. It’s not that we can do nothing in western nations to speed along this process either, in fact – with the  political will – we can. Charity can help, but the primary necessity is to open up free trade with the poorest countries in the world. Removing trade barriers to buying their products would help lift millions out of poverty abroad and lower the cost of living for families on low incomes at home. The next step would be to use our influence to encourage those countries to open up their economies to foreign investment so that companies from all over the world would flood in, bringing technology, skills, and infrastructure while bidding up the price of wages. As adults are able to earn increasingly more they will be able to take their children out of work and into education where they belong.

A. S. 04-03-17

If you liked this article you may also learn from this related article on workplace safety.

Source: Seeing Not Seen

Leftists are idiots example no. 45,214: Rachel Maddow

For reasons that seemed reasonable at the time, I thought yesterday would be as good a day as any to turn my attention on Trump. After all, when all you end up doing is punching the same leftist dummy, time after time after time, it gets boring after awhile.

Then a story comes along that reminds me to not to fight the obvious.

Yesterday, Rachel Maddow breathlessly tweeted that she finally had Trump returns to share!

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

I’ll let Slate explain what happened next:

Could this be it, the tax return that would bring down the Donald? If this was it, why wasn’t MSNBC cutting into its programming, instead of running a countdown clock to Maddow’s show? By 8:24 (pm eastern time; Maddow’s above tweet is time-stamped in PDT. Mr. Fool), Maddow was tweeting that the tax return in question was Donald Trump’s 1040 from 2005. By 8:30, still half an hour before Maddow started airing, the White House had responded to the MSNBC report, saying that Trump had paid $38 million on income of $150 million that year. An hour later, about 20 minutes after The Rachel Maddow Show started, Maddow would confirm these numbers, turning her big scoop about Donald Trump’s long-missing tax returns into a cautionary tale about overhype. Rachel Maddow, you played yourself—and us too.

The response on Twitter to Maddow’s “bombshell” was swift, ruthless, and well-deserved:

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Unthwarted by yet another flesh wound it has inflicted on itself, the left remains undaunted from its task of removing Trump from the presidency through disclosing Trump’s tax returns. To wit, I present example #45,215 supporting the thesis that liberals Are idiots:

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

It’s moments like these that I have to remind myself of a simple truth.

Stupid really is as stupid does.

The sooner the left impales itself, the better.

 

 

The post Leftists are idiots example no. 45,214: Rachel Maddow appeared first on A Simple Fool.

Source: A Simple Fool

FPF #14 – Trump's Golden Opportunity

On FPF #14, I discuss Trump’s golden opportunity to get out of Syria. It is clear that Assad will win the Syrian War, and now is the perfect time for Trump to pull America out of the war. ISIS will be defeated, and US involvement will unnecessarily endanger American troops. I also discuss Trump giving more power to the Pentagon and CIA to carry out wars without Executive supervision. I talk about Rand’s new bill to prevent the US from arming terrorists. I give updates on the war in Syria and Iraq. 
Source: Foreign Policy Focus – FPF #14 – Trump's Golden Opportunity

Humanity Would Have Benefitted More if Trump Kept His $38M in 2005

Rachel Maddow had a YUGE reveal on her show last night – she found Trump’s tax returns from 2005! Yes, someone dug up Trump’s taxes from over 10 years ago. Maddow hyped this up way too much before the airing of her show. When the facts were revealed it claimed that Trump paid $38M in taxes, making over $150M in that year.

The percentage comes out to be a little over 25% of his income. Technically, he was in the tax bracket to pay about 35% of his earnings for that year, but when you make over $150M, you can afford to hire the best people (as Trump would say) to pay the least amount of taxes. Again, the guy just barely making enough to be in the 35% tax bracket may not have this luxury. Most probably wind up paying more in taxes (as a percentage) than Trump. Don’t let a politician fool you into thinking the ultra rich will pay their “fair share”. Whatever that even means.

I’m glad Trump was able to get his taxes reduced, but honestly, he should’ve kept the $38M he paid in taxes. Humanity would have benefitted much more had he done that.

The problem with economic problems, is there what is seen and there is what is not seen. Here we see Trump paying $38M in taxes. What we don’t see is how many more people Trump could have hired if he kept that money.

The rich are the only people to create jobs because they have the capital to do so. Even if you are entrepreneurial minded, if you don’t have the capital you can’t hire anybody. The government doesn’t hire anyone, rather they create perverse incentives for the poor and cunningly cage them in an endless cycle of poverty.

When they steal your money, it’s largely wasted, sometimes even on burying past corruption, as recently happened with the Pentagon. Except it was $125B instead of Trump’s meager (in comparison) $125M.

Imagine how many jobs someone like Donald Trump would create for people with $125B instead of using it to cover up past corruption. The country would have so much more wealth.

And sure, Trump went bankrupt four different times, I know. But how many times would the federal government have gone bankrupt if they couldn’t print or borrow any amount of money whenever they please? My guess is once. They would have never been able to recover from that.

Source: Gimme Liberty

Book Review: Against Empathy

  Against Empathy is a book about the negative effects of trying to feel what other people feel by Canadian American psychology professor Paul Bloom. The book makes the case that concern and compassion function better in the absence of empathy. It also makes the case that empathy is a driving force behind much of the cruelty and irrationality in the world. The book is divided into six chapters and two shorter interludes, each of which explores a different aspect of empathy. Bloom begins by defining his terms and laying out the case he intends to make over the whole book and in each chapter, as any good academic would. Adherence to definitions for the purpose of avoiding confusion is done well throughout the book, and is especially necessary when a word as widely defined and misused as empathy is in play. Rather than arguing in favor of psychopathy, Bloom advocates thinking with our heads rather than our hearts so as to reach a more consistent and helpful morality. Nor does he argue that empathy is completely bad; only that it does more harm than good. The first chapter makes the distinction between cognitive empathy (recognizing another person’s feelings without feeling them oneself) and emotional empathy (experiencing the world as one thinks that someone else does). The shortcomings of the latter are the primary focus of the book, namely that empathy can lead to ignoring unidentifiable victims, denigrating logical choices that have superior results, letting our biases lead us astray, overrating present costs versus future costs, and sending unnecessary aid. The chapter ends with responses to objections raised by Bloom’s colleagues during the writing of the book. In the second chapter, Bloom explores the neuroscientific aspects of empathy, including mirror neurons, the role of preconceptions of other people, and the difference between understanding and feeling. The difference between cognitive empathy and emotional empathy is important here, and it can be detected in fMRI scans. Bloom then discusses how empathy is currently measured, as well as the shortfalls of such methods. Read the entire article at ZerothPosition.com

The post Book Review: Against Empathy appeared first on The Zeroth Position.

Source: Reece Liberty.Me

Taxation IS Theft & The Use of Force Doesn’t Require a State [Podcast]

I was scrolling on Facebook and saw a status by Rick Percoco claiming that without taxation, you wouldn’t be able to fund the government AKA the ***monopoly*** on the use of force. Obviously, we who rightfully claim that #taxationistheft realize this fact. I elaborate explaining just how come taxation is theft.

Another one of his statuses claimed that you need the ability to use force to act against those who act immorally. Again, I elaborate how you can have institution’s that are able to use force – even all individuals who own guns – that aren’t a monopoly on the use of force. Libertarians are not pacifists, and believe in the use of reactionary force only, after one violates another’s property. I break down why the market solution pertaining to the use of force would be superior to granting the most corrupt institution to ever exist a monopoly, as with any other good or service. As Rick seems to believe in liberty and the Constitution, I hope he hears this and it makes him change his mind.

Listen Here:

14 – Taxation IS Theft & The Use of Force Doesn’t Require a State

Source: Gimme Liberty

The Greatest Lie Ever Sold

Remember learning in school how government was the great protector of the people from the evil monopolization of businesses? You were taught that without government regulating monopolies, businesses could reduce prices dramatically to drive out all their competitors then they could gouge their prices at the expense of the consumers. Except they left out one tiny detail, this can only happen through the force of the state.

From an Austrian economic standpoint, it is stressed that ultimately, businesses have no control over their prices. Sure, they can raise their prices, but only at the expense of selling less goods. The price is determined by individuals acting in their own self-interest in the market. If Company A raises the price of apples by $.30 above the market price, people will eventually realize that Company B is selling apples at the market price, and will buy their apples from Company B.

If businesses don’t have the ability to raise prices at will, then this theory of monopolies simply cannot exist in the real world, unless the state gets involved.

The state has a monopoly on the legitimacy of the use of force. This means they can use force with little to no repercussions because most people grant them the legitimacy to do as they please. Only wielding this use of force, can monopolies actually exist.

Assume there’s a world with no state interference into the economy. Without getting into too much detail, we can say that consumers control the prices by voting with their dollars. Obviously, this allows any business to lower prices as much as they want, as long as they remain profitable.

As one business, say, BicycleTown, lowers their prices, others businesses selling bicycles are pressured to lower their prices, or they will go bankrupt. This will lower the general market price for bicycles. People will expect to be able to purchase bicycles at the new, lower price.

Assume further that BicycleTown was able to increase their economies of scale so much that they were able to drive all competitors bankrupt because they can’t compete at these new lower prices. There’s only one business selling bicycles left, yet the market price is lower than it has ever been.

As soon as BicycleTown tries to raise their prices from the current, low market price, they will be met with new entrepreneurs entering into the market. As more businesses enter, the price will have to fall back down to the market price.

In other words, they cannot gouge the price and expect to hold their “monopoly”.

However, when the state gets involved into the economy, a monopoly is attainable. The state can put arbitrary conditions (e.g. a minimum wage, expensive regulations, etc.) onto the market, which can force newcomers from entering a specific market. If no new businesses are allowed to enter the bicycle market, BicycleTown can then raise prices without fear of new competition.

We were sold a lie that the only way to prevent monopolies from forming was to have the biggest monopoly, the state, dictate certain rules and regulations. Bogus.

Source: Gimme Liberty

White supremacists reaching out to college campuses

TruePundit.com highlights a disturbing trend:

In recent months, America’s various hardcore white supremacist organizations have engaged in considerable outreach efforts on college and university campuses to convince students to join their fringe cause.

The flurry of activity includes putting up racist and anti-Semitic posters and fliers, affixing stickers, creating chalk messages and sending faxes and sending emails to student subscribers on electronic mailing lists.

Since around the beginning of the current academic year, white supremacy groups have attempted to proselytize on U.S. college campuses a total of 107 times — and 65 times since January, according to a report by the Anti-Defamation League.

Racist agitprop has appeared on campuses in over two dozen states — in hallways, in parking garages, on utility poles and on street signs.

One white supremacist group responsible for littering college campuses with racist posters and fliers is American Vanguard. The group’s website features propaganda about “an America based on the immutable truths of blood and soil.” Members “must be physically fit.” Also, “no non-white-Europeans.” “No hand/neck tattoos,” either, but “exceptions” are “possible.”

In November, American Vanguard members placed several posters around the campus of Purdue University.

“Defending your people is a social duty not an anti-social crime,” read one of the posters.

“We have a right to exist,” read another.

As I mentioned in my discussion with the kind Kenny the Wizard, identity politics lead to white identity politics. If leftists continue demonizing white people in general, and white Christian heterosexual men in particular, they’re going to become the very demons they’ve been made out to be.

While this is certainly a disturbing development, white supremacists would like nothing more than to be further attacked and demonized. That would only help their enrollment numbers.

Perhaps this is a good opportunity for everyone involved to step back, take a deep breath, and make sure that when we’re talking to someone, we look at that person as an individual, rather than as an element of a larger blob?

Saint Francis, pray for us!

 

The post White supremacists reaching out to college campuses appeared first on A Simple Fool.

Source: A Simple Fool