The WomEconomist

Post image for The WomEconomist

by Keoni Galt on January 26, 2010

A Spearhead Fisking

In the last few months, The Economist has published several articles that celebrate the changes to society, the economy and life in the 21st century because of the advent of women in the work force.

Those of us that see the big picture of gender politics and the ulterior motives of the social engineers that inflicted feminism on the Western World as a means of population control read such articles and notice the sheer amount of feminist shibboleths and memes that are assumed as a given premise – in which the author presumes the reader already accepts the feminist point of view as normative.

As I labored to point out in We Are All Misogynists Now, there a number of assumptions that have been inculcated into mainstream consciousness by a variety of cultural influences; points of views that the larger society accepts at face value that are never questioned — just accepted as factual.

But when one learns to recognize these premises, it’s rather easy to start to deconstruct the kind of articles that pass for conventional wisdom in mainstream media outlets like The Economist. The following fisking will show just how many assumptions and premises of the politically correct, feminist mindset are taken as a “given” by some of the contributors to this magazine.

From: We Did It! The rich world’s quiet revolution: women are gradually taking over the workplace

AT A time when the world is short of causes for celebration, here is a candidate: within the next few months women will cross the 50% threshold and become the majority of the American workforce.

Just who is “celebrating?” Those that gleefully rejoice in watching more and more women forsake marriage and creating families with multiple children so that they can pursue the education-career track? How about the growing number of working women growing disenchanted and harried as they try to find “balance” between careers and home making responsibilities?

Women already make up the majority of university graduates in the OECD countries and the majority of professional workers in several rich countries, including the United States.

Note…professional workers. Get back to us when they make up the majority of blue collar, hazardous and physically laborious jobs as well. Until then, your cheers of victory for “equality” ring quite hollow.

Women’s economic empowerment is arguably the biggest social change of our times.

Now there’s something we can all agree on. The real question you should be asking is whether or not this change has been good for society or not.

Just a generation ago, women were largely confined to repetitive, menial jobs.

Just like most men. Except for most, you could also add hazardous and physically laborious to that description as well.

They were routinely subjected to casual sexism and were expected to abandon their careers when they married and had children.

Ahh yes. Now that women are 50+% of the workforce, casual sexism is no longer a problem! At best, telling Betty she looks “pretty in that dress,” will land a man (that Betty doesn’t find attractive – remember, it’s only harassment if he’s ugly,) in “sensitivity training sessions” and a permanent mark in his company file; or at worst, summarily fired and sued for “creating a hostile environment”

And of course, now women do not have to “abandon their careers” — I wish I could have “abandoned” my career once I got married…but I digress — they now have the freedom and joy of dropping off their kids for babysitting by minimum-wage paid workers at a day care center or the nearest State-run public educational system’s indoctrination and social engineering facilities (aka public school,) so now they too can pursue the fulfillment of being a corporate-drone wage slave in a cubicle farm…just like the lucky men!

Today they are running some of the organizations that once treated them as second-class citizens.

Running them alright…right into the ground.

Millions of women have been given more control over their own lives.

Got that ladies? Unless you become a human resource for a giant corporation, you don’t have control over your own life! Those of you that are stay at home housewives don’t even know how little control you have over your life!

And millions of brains have been put to more productive use. Societies that try to resist this trend—most notably the Arab countries, but also Japan and some southern European countries—will pay a heavy price in the form of wasted talent and frustrated citizens.

Oh yes, they most certainly will pay a heavy price…they will actually have above-replacement levels of children so that they won’t have to encourage mass immigration from poorer countries to prop up their tax base and menial, service-sector work force. After all, what a waste to have millions of female brains focused on nurturing and raising their own children…better to have them devising sensitivity training courses and power point presentations for their Human Resources department!

This revolution has been achieved with only a modicum of friction. Men have, by and large, welcomed women’s invasion of the workplace. Yet even the most positive changes can be incomplete or unsatisfactory. This particular advance comes with two stings. The first is that women are still under-represented at the top of companies. Only 2% of the bosses of America’s largest companies and 5% of their peers in Britain are women. They are also paid significantly less than men on average. The second is that juggling work and child-rearing is difficult. Middle-class couples routinely complain that they have too little time for their children. But the biggest losers are poor children—particularly in places like America and Britain that have combined high levels of female participation in the labour force with a reluctance to spend public money on child care.

Note the bolded section of this excerpt. This is the classic case of feminist cognitive dissonance. The idea that women who “juggle” work and child-rearing, would have nothing to do with why women on average making less than men? Or that many never attain the top-level positions in companies…that would have nothing to do with the time voluntarily taken off of work over the course of a career to meet familial responsibilities and obligations…nah, couldn’t be…IT’S SEXISM!

Dealing with the juggle

These two problems are closely related. Many women feel they have to choose between their children and their careers.

Many women FEEL? Feelings have nothing to do with the reality of opportunity costs my dear! I hate to break it to you, but you simply can’t be in two places at once. No matter how you feel about it, you can either take the time to be a great Mother or a great Career Womyn…not both.

Women who prosper in high-pressure companies during their 20s drop out in dramatic numbers in their 30s and then find it almost impossible to regain their earlier momentum.

But never forget…it’s still unfair and oppressive that these women make less than men on average!

Less-skilled women are trapped in poorly paid jobs with hand-to-mouth child-care arrangements. Motherhood, not sexism, is the issue: in America, childless women earn almost as much as men, but mothers earn significantly less. And those mothers’ relative poverty also disadvantages their children.

Now they’re “trapped?” I thought women have escaped the “trap” of Patriarchal oppression by eschewing marriage and entering the workforce to become “economically independent!?”

Demand for female brains is helping to alleviate some of these problems. Even if some of the new theories about warm-hearted women making inherently superior workers are bunk, several trends favour the more educated sex, including the “war for talent” and the growing flexibility of the workplace. Law firms, consultancies and banks are rethinking their “up or out” promotion systems because they are losing so many able women. More than 90% of companies in Germany and Sweden allow flexible working. And new technology is making it easier to redesign work in all sorts of family-friendly ways.

Sorry dear…these “trends” that are favoring the “more educated sex” are merely indicators of the misandry bubble. Eventually, all bubbles pop…

Women have certainly performed better over the past decade than men. In the European Union women have filled 6m of the 8m new jobs created since 2000. In America three out of four people thrown out of work since the “mancession” began have been male. And the shift towards women is likely to continue: by 2011 there will be 2.6m more female than male university students in America.

Take note, Men. Remember the opening sentence of this paragraph: “AT A time when the world is short of causes for celebration, here is a candidate: within the next few months women will cross the 50% threshold and become the majority of the American workforce.

Female empowerment = Male dis-empowerment

Isn’t it great that your fathers, your husbands, your uncles, your brothers, your nephews, your boyfriends…they’re losing their jobs at a record pace…BUT WOMEN ARE SOON GOING TO PASS THE 50% THRESHOLD OF THE WORKFORCE! Still feel like celebrating, ladies?


The light hand of the state

All this argues, mostly, for letting the market do the work. That has not stopped calls for hefty state intervention of the Scandinavian sort. Norway has used threats of quotas to dramatic effect. Some 40% of the legislators there are women. All the Scandinavian countries provide plenty of state-financed nurseries. They have the highest levels of female employment in the world and far fewer of the social problems that plague Britain and America. Surely, comes the argument, there is a way to speed up the revolution—and improve the tough lives of many working women and their children?

Of course there are plenty of calls for hefty state intervention. Never mind all of the social ills, the broken families, the neglected children…never mind the “tough lives” that are the results of these “modicum of changes,” more of the same is the only solution to make things better!

If that means massive intervention, in the shape of affirmative-action programmes and across-the-board benefits for parents of all sorts, the answer is no.

Why, how reasonable of you…especially since affirmative-action programs and benefits for parents of all sorts are already the law of the land!

To begin with, promoting people on the basis of their sex is illiberal and unfair, and stigmatises its beneficiaries.

You don’t say?

And there are practical problems. Lengthy periods of paid maternity leave can put firms off hiring women, which helps explain why most Swedish women work in the public sector and Sweden has a lower proportion of women in management than America does.

Don’t worry dear, this is changing real soon. Under the current economic conditions, America’s “Public Sector” is the only growth industry.

But there are plenty of cheaper, subtler ways in which governments can make life easier for women.

Ah yes. This is precisely what Governments are for, right? I forgot that little part of the Declaration of Independence…you know, the old “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for women.”

Welfare states were designed when most women stayed at home. They need to change the way they operate. German schools, for instance, close at midday. American schools shut down for two months in the summer. These things can be changed without huge cost. Some popular American charter schools now offer longer school days and shorter summer holidays. And, without going to Scandinavian lengths, America could invest more in its children: it spends a lower share of its GDP on public child-care than almost any other rich country, and is the only rich country that refuses to provide mothers with paid maternity leave. Barack Obama needs to measure up to his campaign rhetoric about “real family values”.

Real family values? How about changing the laws and the welfare system to restore the meaningful role of FATHER? Abolish the gender-biased family court system? Eliminate “No-Fault” (his fault) divorce? Oh wait, silly me, I forgot…men have nothing to do with “family values.”

Still, these nagging problems should not overshadow the dramatic progress that women have made in recent decades.

Isn’t it great that just about every time an article or report is written singing the praises of “women’s progress,” much of the articles are always full of statistics, anecdotes and examples of women who are struggling…but they always conclude with a statement that despite such problems, it is still “dramatic progress” that should be hailed as some sort of grand achievement?

During the second world war, when America’s menfolk were off at the front, the government had to summon up the image of Rosie the Riveter, with her flexed muscle and “We Can Do It” slogan, to encourage women into the workforce.

Now they merely indoctrinate them through mass media and educational brainwashing to get into the workforce. Never mind getting married and having children…get that degree! GET TO WORK!

Today women are marching into the workplace in ever larger numbers and taking a sledgehammer to the remaining glass ceilings.

More like taking a sledgehammer to Western Civilization, the nuclear family and society as a whole.

{ 126 comments… read them below or add one }

Black&German January 26, 2010 at 11:47

Thank you for parsing that Economist article! My husband and I were completely disgusted by it. There was another one in that magazine that drove us nuts, as well.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Brutal Corporate Male January 26, 2010 at 11:53

Once you start seeing the matrix, the propaganda is obvious. The Elites want-

1. Depopulation of the formerly independent-minded middle class
2. Fecundity and increasing prosperity of cultures with a much higher acceptance of bureaucracy and totalitarianism
3. Compliant middle-management with easy-access ‘ginas and no ability or interest in challenging the status quo
4. Countless millions of male worker bees for cannon fodder

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Firepower January 26, 2010 at 11:55

The Economist is a vanity press
for the very same protected elites
that live in gated compounds
while hypocritically sneering at
the attitudes of Texans who live near the border.

They can be all for women’s rights
when they just cash a trustfund check
funded by the corporation their granddaddy founded
back in the days
when only men were permitted to be oppressed
as workers in grandpa’s family coal mine.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German January 26, 2010 at 12:07

That was beautiful, Firepower.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker January 26, 2010 at 12:41

It’s amazing how people can write things like that with a straight face. In what way, exactly, is it a cause for celebration that men are increasingly falling way behind women? How does that work in the long run? No attention paid to that issue at all, as if the problem doesn’t exist. Instead, we have the classical obsession with the apex, and “achieving equality” up there while in the rank and file the men are basically leaving the building.

I’ve said it many times before. The most pressing issue in the coming decade or two in Western countries is becoming: “what do we do about all of the undereducated, underproductive, underperforming men in our countries”? No-one is even asking this question, yet. It’s rather amazing, really, and the only explanation I can find for it is a deep and broad animus in the culture directed against men. The culture knows men are falling behind and simply doesn’t care at all.

Women and children first, all over again. The brave new world aspect, though, is trying to run successful and prosperous countries with masses of underperforming men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Toby January 26, 2010 at 12:45

limit the amount of taxes you pay to 10% and de-fund this monstrosity of a society

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_traveler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven

Starve the beast.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman January 26, 2010 at 13:01

Oh, it is even worse at The Economist.

They had a ‘debate’ on the issue, between the extremist President of NOW, and a passive neutral man, with a mangina as a moderator.

But I went into the comments section with guns blazing.

http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/449/showCommentModule:1

How can a magazine that calls itself ‘The Economist’ actually believe the economically illiteration notion that women earn 75% of men for the same amount of work, implying that ALL male AND female bosses over an entire economy are sexist?

They should no longer call themselves The Economist, but rather ‘The Communist’ or ‘The Misandrist’.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman January 26, 2010 at 13:14

Oh my god, check out this Ilene Lang nutjob, harping on about the ‘pay gap’ :

http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/456

Note how all of their ‘featured guests’ in their ‘debate’ are feminists propagating a one-sided view. Some debate.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German January 26, 2010 at 13:17

TFH, They don’t believe it. They themselves have disproved that myth a number of times in various articles over the years. That was where I first discovered the truth.
Which was one of the reasons why I was so disappointed at this article. I subscribe to them so that I have a source of classically liberal truth, and instead I got this polemic. If I wanted indoctrination, I’d subscribe to Cosmo or Catholic Quarterly. I, and many others around the world, rely on them to be the last bastion of objective thought and logic, and they are letting me down more and more often. Ever since they were bought by Time.

Instead, we have the classical obsession with the apex, and “achieving equality” up there while in the rank and file the men are basically leaving the building.

It’s a strange victory, when the competitor doesn’t even bother to show up.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Firepower January 26, 2010 at 13:23

Black&German January 26, 2010 at 12:07

That was beautiful, Firepower.

I know. Thanks. ;)

The Fifth Horseman

omfg The Economist is still printing garbage!

dood.
Nobody reads it anymore. It’s an empty suit.

Here’s how many people care about the once more influential Newsday:

http://www.observer.com/2010/media/after-three-months-only-35-subscriptions-newsdays-web-site

35. Thirty-five. Thirty-fucking-five.

Quit bombing the futile rubble of Berlin. Find more targets of value to effectively use limited resources.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman January 26, 2010 at 13:30

I hurled a few more grenades about the ‘pay gap’ nonsense at The Economist :

http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/450

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Toby January 26, 2010 at 13:37

men are like the complex workings of a car engine to women. They think cars run on rainbows and sunshine until the engine dies and sets the record straight.

Men are also like car engines because they are taken for granted, expected to keep their head down and to do their job, their essential contributions hidden from view behind the veneer of misandry.

somebody with better literary skills develop these metaphors

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Steezer January 26, 2010 at 13:40

B&G, Time doesn’t own The Economist.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Firepower January 26, 2010 at 13:41

As the resident laureate here
I think that’s actually pretty good

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German January 26, 2010 at 13:44

Sorry, I meant the Financial Times.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
canadian girl January 26, 2010 at 14:07

You assume that women have a choice to work. For the average american woman and the average american man to make a decent life and provide for two or three kids, two incomes are essential. The new econonomy where typically male jobs are disapearing is not to the benefit of women. Wives or partners of the men that have lost thier jobs in manufacturing generally earn less and have fewer benefits. They have become far worse off.
It would be nice to have a stay at home mom home, but for the vast majority of families that is not possible. Why does all the blame for this situation fall on women?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Hawaiian Libertarian January 26, 2010 at 14:17

Why does all the blame for this situation fall on women?

You’re letting your feminine tendencies towards solipsism to obstruct your reading comprehension, my dear Canuck.

BTW – I say that with affection…I love Canucks! Some of my best friends are Canuck! ;-)

Consider my opening statement: “Those of us that see the big picture of gender politics and the ulterior motives of the social engineers that inflicted feminism on the Western World as a means of population control.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German January 26, 2010 at 14:18

For the average american woman and the average american man to make a decent life and provide for two or three kids, two incomes are essential.

That’s a flat-out lie, and every stay at home parent who is living frugally and doing without for the benefit of their children is slapped in the face every time someone writes this crap. I’m sick of reading it and won’t let it stand here.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Hawaiian Libertarian January 26, 2010 at 14:27

Oh come on B&G, two incomes are ESSENTIAL if you have to have the 6 bedroom, 3 car garage McMansion, the flat screen plasma TVs, all of the premium cable channels, 4 automobiles, the purebred, AKA certified family pet and the white picket fence! HOW dare you suggest families do without the essentials!?!??!?!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
canadian girl January 26, 2010 at 14:47

In my city the average income is about $45 000 per year. The cost of an average house is $350 000. With a five year fixed 4% interest mortgage, a twenty thousand dollar down payment, three hundred dollars a month in car or credit card payments payments and fifteen hundred per year in property taxes, you would have to make $75 000 per year to afford that house, an average house in my city.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Hawaiian Libertarian January 26, 2010 at 14:57

Who says you HAVE to live in THAT in house, in that city…and that you HAVE to have a mortgage to buy it?

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Outrageous real estate prices or women entering the work force en mass?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Steezer January 26, 2010 at 14:59

save the car and credit car payments by buying used and not spending what you don’t have.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
canadian girl January 26, 2010 at 15:06

Actually house prices began to rise faster than incomes in the mid nineties when Alan Greenspan kept interest rates low and the early 00s when subprime mortgates took off.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German January 26, 2010 at 15:11

Who said you have to buy a house in the middle of a city? Who said you have to buy a house at all? Who said you have to live in the middle of a city? We lived in a 2 bedroom apartment for 4 years and it didn’t kill us either. My parents spent 5 years living in a 1 bedroom apartment with 2 small children.
Some people don’t understand the difference between “needs” and “wants”. Asian immigrants get by on a pittance all the time, and their children do BETTER than ours do.

I’ve seen this declared so often, I’m going to do a post on my blog later to refute this assumption. I’ll link to it afterward.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman January 26, 2010 at 15:12

Actually house prices began to rise faster than incomes in the mid nineties when Alan Greenspan kept interest rates low and the early 00s when subprime mortgates took off.

Even though interest rates were even lower in 2004-05, and still lower now.

Truly, Canadian Girl has a perfect 0% track record of factual accuracy in every comment she has ever made so far.

Why does all the blame for this situation fall on women?

Because women need to learn about taking responsibility for their own actions.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Hawaiian Libertarian January 26, 2010 at 15:12

While that is undoubtedly true (Greenspan and the Fed purposely inflated the housing bubble…it’s obvious to anyone that doesn’t buy into the lies and deception fostered by the media and Keynesian economic partisan hacks), lets just say, back in the “bad old days” of Patriarchy, a man with a blue collar job used to be able to support a family of 4 in a modest dwelling.

The transition from a savings based economy into a debt-driven economy was certainly the beginning of the end…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman January 26, 2010 at 15:14

It is notable that people who whine about w0men ‘not being able to have it all’, HATE the woman who has actually demonstrated how it can be done : Sarah Palin.

So feminists don’t actually want to have both career success and a family. They want to instead rationalize why they have neither, and thus hate a woman that contradicts this narrative.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
canadian girl January 26, 2010 at 15:27

OK lets pretend that this average family trying to buy a less than average house in my city with no debt and an income of $50 000 per year, 4% interest twenty five year mortgage. I did a search on the realestate website and the only houses this fictional family could afford is in a neighbourhoods with a high crime rate and crappy schools. Wouldn’t the mom in this fictional family think, if I go back to work, I can afford to live in the nice and safe neighbourhood with good schools and nice nieghbours. Would the kiddies not be better off living in such a neighbourhood?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gx1080 January 26, 2010 at 15:29

So, a publication about economy does a paraphrased version of the Cunt-celebration on print, A Woman’s Nation?

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/11/04/a-womans-nation-changes-everything/

Wow. Just…un-fucking-beliavable. And women wonder why men are expending money on curses of the Crimson Arts, aka Game, instead of marriage, aka a masturbatory spectacle for women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Mr.M January 26, 2010 at 15:30

Why are you stuck on the idea of purchasing a house?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
canadian girl January 26, 2010 at 15:34

Because that is what the average family does. It is the American dream

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
crella January 26, 2010 at 15:34

The viciousness and swiftness with which Sarah Palin was attacked was astounding. Female jealousy in it’s most poisonous form.

Anyone ever noticed that the most vocal feminists really don’t DO anything? They scream about not enough women CEOs and doctors and the like, but what are they actually doing?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Feminist Wisdom January 26, 2010 at 15:38

TFH-

In her career, Sarah Palin has blatantly dodged or quit in the face of every challenge she’s ever faced. Her family life is a disaster. Her oldest son was a meth-head. Bristol got knocked up by an amiable meathead. Willow, in high school, drinks and does drugs.

It is shocking to me that a man as apparently intelligent as you can’t see through her.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German January 26, 2010 at 15:46

Yeah, but that’s not what they dislike her for. So his point still stands.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Feminist Wisdom January 26, 2010 at 15:53

B&G-Not sure what you mean.

TFH is disregarding ample evidence that Sarah Palin is neither a worthy leader nor a worthy mother.

It doesn’t matter why people hate her. TFH’s argument isn’t borne out by the evidence.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
canadian girl January 26, 2010 at 15:54

Oh I like Sara Palin. But she works out side of the home and makes more money than her husband. Isn’t she whats wrong with the American woman?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Hawaiian Libertarian January 26, 2010 at 16:04

TFH is disregarding ample evidence that Sarah Palin is neither a worthy leader nor a worthy mother.

Focus on your reading comprehension, please.

TFH wrote: It is notable that people who whine about w0men ‘not being able to have it all’, HATE the woman who has actually demonstrated how it can be done : Sarah Palin.

Successful career as an Alaskan politician while having a full family at home? Notwithstanding her resignation, this is what she achieved when she first gained national attention. She supposedly achieved what the feminists say they want for all women.

It’s just that she was an elephant rather than a donkey, so they hated her for achieving the feminist dreams while playing for the “other” team.

That being aside, you are actually making the exact same case here: while Palin has been held up by many conservative supporters *snicker*, as the example of a “modern women doing it all,” just like most every other women that “juggles” career and homemaking, she found out that trying to be great at both actually results in screwing up at both.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
David January 26, 2010 at 16:08

Black&German:

Ever since they were bought by Time.

David: I have bought a few copies of the The Economist over the years, and I have noticed a recent move towards social liberalism, not just its traditional economic liberalism.

I had wondered what the reason was. I suspect the editors see feminism as another liberalising tendency, tending to break down traditional, inefficient structures. Another possibility is that The Economist are probably hiring more young female graduates with feminist sensibilities, and they may be forcing change in editorial tone. I would be interested to know when Time bought The Economist. I noticed a more socially liberal tendency developing a few years ago.

What The Economist feminists will never consider is the “opportunity cost” of having women in the workforce, in the sense that the next generation gets a worse start in life in the absence of maternal devotion. It never seems to occur to economic liberals that someone has to keep the house and mind the children. Perhaps they imagine that is what immigrant women are for.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
sestamibi January 26, 2010 at 16:12

Canadian Girl, you’re an idiot. We have neighbors three doors down who bought at the peak of the real estate feeding frenzy and now their house is worth half what it was in 2005. We still have positive equity in our house, but it’s about 1/4 what it was back then too.

It’s The American Dream, not The American Entitlement.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
crella January 26, 2010 at 16:14

Why are you stuck on the idea of purchasing a house?

So many people are. My sister would be better off renting, she makes a good income, but the housing market in Massachusetts is still extremely overpriced. She continues to live with my mother since her divorce (9 or 10 years now) so that she can ‘save up enough for a house’. She could have rented years ago but she’s convinced that renting is throwing money away. So she lives unhappily with my mother until when? Owning a house is so beaten into everyone’s heads that they can’t think of any other option.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Epo January 26, 2010 at 16:39

Leave house-buying to homeowners. The older people and couples who haven’t spent their wealth are now buying summer/winter homes at record paces.

And when they die, which they will, it’ll all go for a steal, government bubble or no. Or just buy foreclosures.

In any case, buying a home through the usual real estate channels when young and mushy-headed is a prescription for disasteriffic consequences. Salespeople run game for a living. Find out about the places you like in your free time, while renting. Take no action until economically able to do so. See the ‘bad neighborhoods’ for yourself. (Or at least read up on them.)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Chris January 26, 2010 at 17:21

“what do we do about all of the undereducated, underproductive, underperforming men in our countries”?

I think they’re planning on sending us to concentration camps or something.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi January 26, 2010 at 17:39

”””””Chris January 26, 2010 at 17:21
“what do we do about all of the undereducated, underproductive, underperforming men in our countries”?

I think they’re planning on sending us to concentration camps or something.
”””””””””
Condone suicide. Massive pr campaign that it is the ok thing to do if you are in pain or just don’t feel like being involved in the petty shit the world has to offer. Or it could be like braveheart where death is a release and not a punishment from the government.

Or just wait till we are overrun. Probably more humane the first two ways.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German January 26, 2010 at 17:51

I did the budget calculations for becoming a stay at home parent.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Feminist Wisdom January 26, 2010 at 18:05

Hawaian Libertarian- Those kind of intellectual backflips to prove the worth of Palin would do a hardened feminist proud. So what your argument is, is that women who want to “do it all” hate Sarah palin because she tried to do it all and failed? Or because she was able to maintain the illusion that for a few months that she could be a successful governor and mother?

The woman could not even succesfully be a governor for a full term. She quit because people were mean to her.

For god sakes, it is such an insult to conservative politics to insist that Palin represents any kind of excellence, other than the excellence at reading off a Teleprompter.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German January 26, 2010 at 18:13

I thought the American Dream was about working hard to provide for a better future for your children?

We overpaid a bit for our house, but our neighbor bought almost the exact same one for $100K more. He’s stuck with it now.

I’ve lived in rent and now I’m a homeowner. The main benefit to home ownership that I see, is that if you manage to pay it off quickly (which we are on target to do), then you can live rent and mortgage free. Your costs are heavily front-loaded. You just have to pay property taxes (which can be really high), utilities, and maintenance after that. However, most people have mortgages constantly, or they have second and third mortgages. It’s crazy.
There’s also the issue of what home to purchase. You don’t have to buy a McMansion. You could buy a condo, or a townhouse in a modest neighborhood.

just like most every other women that “juggles” career and homemaking, she found out that trying to be great at both actually results in screwing up at both

This is the absolute truth.

I have a lot of free time (obviously), so sometimes I think about going back to work, perhaps part-time. But then the kids get sick, or school is canceled, or there’s snow outside and they want to go out and play, my husband goes on a business trip, Grandma invites us to a week at the beach, or whatever. Then I’m grateful that I have so few obligations and can just drop everything at a moment’s notice. Being a stay at home parent is about quantity time, rather than quality time. Quality time tends to happen spontaneously, it’s not something you can plan for in advance. The more free time you have, the more quality time you have.

I also like that we’ve learnt to live off of one modest income. That gives us the security to know that if he ever couldn’t work (disability or whatever), I could earn enough to provide for the family. That knowledge takes a lot of the stress off of my husband’s shoulders.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi January 26, 2010 at 18:17

So why don’t ya work fulltime for a couple years and save the money then buy the house and take all the stress almost off of his shoulders or do you not love him enough to give up the week at grandmas for a couple years.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Hawaiian Libertarian January 26, 2010 at 18:18

Those kind of intellectual backflips to prove the worth of Palin would do a hardened feminist proud. So what your argument is, is that women who want to “do it all” hate Sarah palin because she tried to do it all and failed?

No….my argument is that the feminists and ‘liberal progressives’ that preach women should pursue careers and have families if they want to, will hold up many “success story” women as examples all young girls should aspire too…but because Sarah was a “conservative” (believe me, I don’t buy that either), they reviled her and attacked her by going after her family.

It was rank hypocrisy, at it was rather blatant.

One can use hindsight and look at how her public image turned out (family in disarray, up and quitting the Governorship etc.), but AT THE TIME she came under the media attacks, she certainly had the appearances of representing everything the feminists movement supposedly stood for…except, of course, since she was an elephant, rather than a donkey.

Is that clear?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi January 26, 2010 at 18:19

Plus think about not having that mortgage payment and how much money you would have extra each month. You could probably have half the month of nights out for you and the hubby having a good time.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German January 26, 2010 at 18:21

It’s his choice for me to be at home. He doesn’t want to put the kids in daycare. If I went to work, he’d stay home, and we’d just have less money.

My family made the down payment on the house, and are paying for the renovations and furnishings. Also, my saved-up pre-marriage income (I used to earn more than him), bought the cars in cash. So I’m doing my part too.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi January 26, 2010 at 18:28

His choice for you to stay home but he took handouts on downpayment on home and furnishings and renovations.

Not to say I am not slightly jealous my parent never gave me shit. Of course that may be the reason I make my own way and do what the fuck I want.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Feminist Wisdom January 26, 2010 at 18:30

Hawaiian-Ok, I see where you’re coming from…but as I recall, a lot of women were initially very positive about Palin, even some from the Left. One feminist co-worker told me “I’m going to vote for her because she’s a woman, even though I disagree with her.”

As a whole, it soured quickly after they learned her positions and deemed them “anti-women.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Hawaiian Libertarian January 26, 2010 at 18:42

As a whole, it soured quickly after they learned her positions and deemed them “anti-women.”

i.e. – Supporting the right for women to shove tubes up their twat and suck the babies out of their wombs and down the drain.

Did I forget to mention I’m vehemently anti-abortion? :-D

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Canadian Guy January 26, 2010 at 18:45

The mentality level of women like “canadian girl” shows why us Canadian guys are all screwed.

The American (and by extension Canadian) dream eh? As defined by who?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German January 26, 2010 at 19:00

Of course that may be the reason I make my own way and do what the fuck I want.

This. There’s no such thing as a free lunch.
In exchange for the financial help, we moved to an area near their own home. It’s very, very expensive here. If we’d moved someplace else, we could have bought a much cheaper home and paid it off faster. It was a trade-off.

You must also not forget that working full-time costs lots of money unless you have free childcare (like Grandma — ours is far away). If your kids are in school, then you have to pay to live in a good school district, which would eat away at the second income. Work isn’t free; there’s always a monetary investment involved. Unless the work is especially rewarding, there’s a good chance or swift promotion, or the net income is quite large, it’s not generally worth it.
That’s why double-income families actually have a higher bankruptcy rate than single-income families. The additional income is largely an illusion.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Comment_Whatever January 26, 2010 at 19:05

Hawaiian Libertarian said:

Who says you HAVE to live in THAT in house, in that city…and that you HAVE to have a mortgage to buy it?

Why the Zoning Commission of course! Canada is a low-population nation, why are the cost of homes so high? ZONING!

Blatant, aggressive rent-seeking.

Oh, and that’s one of the reasons American’s aren’t competitive in other countries to.

In Brazil, while I will make half as much, I will pay a cost of living of less than a third. That means I will have MORE disposable income, not less. I ran the numbers a few times, looked confused, and ran them again.

Why is it low in Brazil? The Rent-Seekers aren’t as totally out of control.

People can yada-yada all they want about this, but why is a home in Canada 350,000 dollars? They have LOTS AND LOTS OF LAND.

Tolerating Rent-Seekers has DESTROYED America’s ability to compete in the world economy.

SRSLY.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
David January 26, 2010 at 19:10

Black&German:

That’s why double-income families actually have a higher bankruptcy rate than single-income families. The additional income is largely an illusion.

David: I have always been glad my wife works, at least part-time, in case I become unwell and unable to work. I suspect in many cases a wife’s job is seen as insurance against the husband’s losing his.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Comment_Whatever January 26, 2010 at 19:15

And by competitive, I mean able to work for half as much and have a better life and MORE disposable income.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
z January 26, 2010 at 19:19

HL wrote:

“Those of us that see the big picture of gender politics and the ulterior motives of the social engineers that inflicted feminism on the Western World as a means of population control ”

Thats pretty much my take on it. I think it originated with the Soviets to be exported to the West as a tactic in the cold war, but our current transnational elites have adopted it to do the same thing, but globally.

South Korea’s birthrate has been as low as .98, less than one child per female. Thats 200 people only making 98 babies. Japan’s birthrate is in the 1.3′s. America’s is right about the replacement level of 2.1. If it weren’t for the religious, America’s birthrate would be sub-replacement.

Canada’s birthrate is 1.54, a crisis. http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/westview/canadas_birth-rate_crisis-40524917.html

Canadagirl, or whatever your moniker is…………………….have you considered that Canada’s birthrate is in “crisis” (according to that article)? I guess you are happy to see Canada simply import in a new population culled (brain-drained) from the second and third world to be the new Canadians after the current group of Canadians commits natal suicide (in a huge geographical nation with humongous tracts of land btw…………….no overcrowding up there at all). Its like watching a nation commit suicide and give its land away in a way. 200 Canadians are becoming 154 Canadians with those numbers. If that birthrate trend continues, there will be too many old folks and too few young folks to take care of them with their taxes, a financial mess. Perhaps they will learn to like euthanasia up there.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
z January 26, 2010 at 19:23

Comment_whatever,

Amen. I so agree with that. Our housing prices are crazy high, and its hampered our ability to compete. Our old house (nice place) 25 years ago was 55K. Now its “worth” 210-220. Same house, but older. Its ridiculous. The “Fed” and zoning created this situation. We have tons of land here. If that home only had accrued in value up to 100K, then anyone wanting to live there would only have to make roughly half as much money to be able to afford it. Suddenly making 30K a year is as comfortable as making 60K is now. Everybody would win in such an arrangement, except the rent-seeking elites.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
piercedhead January 26, 2010 at 19:30

All this argues, mostly, for letting the market do the work. That has not stopped calls for hefty state intervention of the Scandinavian sort. Norway has used threats of quotas to dramatic effect. Some 40% of the legislators there are women. All the Scandinavian countries provide plenty of state-financed nurseries. They have the highest levels of female employment in the world and far fewer of the social problems that plague Britain and America. Surely, comes the argument, there is a way to speed up the revolution—and improve the tough lives of many working women and their children?

Are they still quoting Scandanavia? Hasn’t the recent spectacle of Iceland going stony broke given them pause for thought? How long do they really think extended paid maternal leave will last when the entire country can no longer pay its debts?

As for Norway, being a small country with a small homogeneous population sitting over vast oil reserves probably has more to do with its wealth and low crime rate than its mad fling with radical feminism. The Sultanate of Brunei also has low crime and high standards of living – and none of it was brought about by feminism. It’s Islamic and very conservative. But it’s a small country with a small homogeneous population sitting over vast oil reserves as well.

As for Sweden and Denmark – how long can they really last as they are? They stopped breeding at replacement rates ages ago.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Hawaiian Libertarian January 26, 2010 at 19:32

z, Cmt_Whtver,

I think I finally see the big picture quite clearly. Our entire system has been set up to entrap the average citizen into debt slavery. From exorbitant student loans, to 30 year mortgages, to 5 year auto loans and credit card minimum payment traps….our entire society has been subverted into a “buy things you don’t need, with money you don’t have” mentality.

And that it starts from the very top – the Fed. The ENTIRE premise of Keynesian economics and the Federal Reserve, is the idea that unless there is enough “money,” than the aggregate demand of We the Sheeple cannot be adequately met with services and goods.

So the Federal Reserve sells T-bills to China or other countries financial elite to print up their fiat currency and than loan it out to the central banking system, who are than supposed to lend it out to the smaller banks, who than lend it out to the masses.

It’s ALL based on DEBT.

THIS is why we have a runaway national debt with no hope of ever paying it down.

People just don’t understand that the entire “debt” economy is the very reason why we are in the midst of The Great Depression 2.0…and why Obama, Bernanke et al, are only going to make it worse.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kathy Farrelly January 26, 2010 at 19:33

“It’s his choice for me to be at home. He doesn’t want to put the kids in daycare.”

I think it just depends on the couple and their situation really, B&G.
I have mentioned here before that I am a stay at home Mom as well. My husband too wanted me to stay at home and I did.

Because we are both good savers, we have recently paid off our mortgage and are debt free. So of course there is no need for me to work. It helped that I had my own car and small villa with a modest mortgage when we met. I sold the place when hubby and I married it and was worth treble what I paid for it. It was a good investment. The money from that went in to purchasing our joint home, which we have now been in for fourteen years.

And no, we do not have a McMansion, plasma tv or home theatre. We do however have scribble all over the walls… Our young autistic son is a budding artist. :)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
David January 26, 2010 at 19:51

Kathy

I thought you were Australian. What’s with the “Mom”?

So you have known the joys of autism too. Join the club.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fedrz January 26, 2010 at 19:59

Hawaiian Libertarian,

Good observations on debt. I don’t know if people really get it how simple life is without debt. About seven or eight years ago, I was just so sick of it all this personal debt here and there. And, my goodness, does the “here and there” adds up to a big mountain of overall debt.

My debts ran me.

I determined myself to get out of debt, and when I went out into to the bush to work in camp, it was perfect. Camp life = no spending + free living, including food + 350-400hrs/mo + double time overtime = Big $$$$$$

I worked 21 days on, 3 days off. I slept the first day – all day. Then the next day I would go into town, and whack down a massive amount of money against my debts, go to the best restaurant in town and order the most expensive steak they had, then head out for a night on the town and spend money at the pub like a drunken sailor – er bush camp worker – get home at three am. Spend my third day nursing a hangover, and then back to work for another 21 days.

As I paid off my visa… snip!

As I paid off my overdraft, I told the bank to remove it… they were like “but, but… you should have an overdraft, in case you go over!” To which I replied, “Well, there’s a limit on my overdraft, isn’t there? Then I’ll just make that limit is zero! Works the same.”

You get the idea.

It took me a bit, but I have been debt free for a while now. Since then, it has been easier and easier to accumulate wealth – although, I did have a bit of a boost by inheriting a modest sum of money.

But, I refuse to go back into debt. I will perhaps if I start a business, but that’s it.

I also refuse to blow money on a nice car. I drive a reliable piece of crap! And, I just couldn’t care less anymore. I won’t be a slave to cars. It is not worth my freedom. I have enough money to easily pay cash for a new one now, but that will diminish my capital on a declining asset. No dice!

I am hoping, that if/when the shit hits the fan, and there are 10 fore-closed signs on every block… maybe then it is time to go into the bank and start making junk-ball offers on real estate that nobody else can take advantage of because they don’t have the means to do so – like what happened in the early 1980′s. And I mean junk-ball offers. They are free to say no.

Debt makes you a slave, and people should start calculating how much of their lives they sacrifice for a car, or for their visa bill, or for their 30 year mortgage.

We have become people that expect to spend their lives paying for various “debt necessities.” But, it didn’t always used to be this way.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kathy Farrelly January 26, 2010 at 20:02

Well David, when in Rome.. I usually use American spelling if I comment on American sites. Just thought it was a polite thing to do, I guess.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Hawaiian Libertarian January 26, 2010 at 20:12

Oh yes Fedrz, I’ve finally realized all that you say for sure.

Debt is the very antithesis of freedom.

Because of your debts, you just might continue to work at your shitty job with an asshole for a boss…because you’re afraid to quit and have “your” house and “your” car re-possessed.

Also, a debt ridden people are FAR more likely to pursue a career as an employee – for some kind of corporation most likely – as debt-ridden people will find the security of a steady paycheck from a wage to be a false comfort in the face of having such massive debt…which of course stifles the entrepreneurial spirit to boot.

Converting our economy from one that valued thrift and savings, into one in which easy credit, combined with rampant materialistic consumerism and a disposable mentality are all part of the exact same cultural paradigm shift undertaken by feminism.

A people who no longer have nuclear families, are dependent on the State, and up to their eyeballs in debt, have no time to consider freedom, liberty and the importance of individuality.

No sir…if you stop scurrying, you’ll lose out in the rat race!

I too have been working towards a debt-free existence. When I do eventually get there (and I will, very soon, I’ve already made significant progress on it,) I will never EVER put myself into debt aka wage slavery, ever again!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
jon January 26, 2010 at 20:20

When is the workplace gonna be segregated by sex? I just want to get away from them. I don’t care what they think of me or what anybody else thinks either. I’ll wank ’til I bleed, just spare me the misery of american women.

In regards to female supremacy, part of the reason women are looking better than they should right now is outsourcing. A lot of formerly high-paying jobs that were held mostly by men, like computer programmer, have gone overseas. The programmer jobs that remain in the US are frequently maintenance jobs that are less strenuous, lower paying, and more likely to be held by women. Retard supremacist business managers resent skilled workers who make more than about $20/hour. They played sports in college so they know how it oughta be. They’re just looking to outsource all the better paying gigs and this leaves a lot of guys out.

I’ve seen failed outsourcing projects a few times and it can’t last forever. Some stuff can be outsourced but it’s not unusual for the projects that get outsourced to be the ones that are the most unlikely to be satisfactorily completed by foreign contractors. There’s a project going on at work right now, a big new development project using fairly new technology, adobe flex, that was outsourced. I sit across from the guy who just got assigned to take it over. He says it’s gonna be a disaster. Not one of the contractors who the contracting company put on the project knew the technology so they all learned on the job. There’s a big ball of lies between upper management and reality. The end result is supposed to be a client facing product that has to sell.

I saw this same basic scenario before about 7 or 8 years ago. About half of existing clients got migrated to a new system and it was such a disaster that the product was scrapped and the big dumb corporation I was working for bought a small startup and used their product. They’re still using it. When I left, 100% of the development of the product had been done by plain ol’ white guys. No chicks at all. It couldn’t have been done at a big company, the only way was for the real work to have been done by dudes before the burden of PC blocked progress.

How many of you think a female dominated workplace will implode fairly quickly? Chicks fight. I’ve been around a lot of them and I have a hard time believing that once they actually end up dominant that they won’t pull each others’ hair out over trivial things. They do tend to be petty. I’ve been suggesting a sex segregated workplace at work a lot lately, for fun, but I really think it’s a good idea. I’d love to have a female nonsense free workplace.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman January 26, 2010 at 20:47

I have no debt. And I couldn’t be happier.

The real estate industry knows how to play on the emotions of economically illiterate women. There is a myth that someone having the bank own 80% of your house constitutes *you* owning the house.

Also, I have lost count of how many supposedly educated women think that ‘getting the tax break’ is somehow a bonus, when it is a tax reduction on interest paid anyway, the principal of the loan inflated due to the break being applied across all home-owners. Plus, what about property taxes? Or is the fact that that is deductible against other taxes somehow a windfall too.

The logic of not buying a house, at least in the next 15 years, is quite heavily corelated with the logic of not getting married.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman January 26, 2010 at 20:54

Feminist ‘Lack of Wisdom’ wrote :

TFH is disregarding ample evidence that Sarah Palin is neither a worthy leader nor a worthy mother.

I never said she is the best candidate for President.

But I did say that she has achieved what feminists claim all w0men should be able to achieve.

Yet, they hate her. Which exposes feminists for the frauds that they are.

I like Sarah Palin for one reason : She really gets under the skin of the right people.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
21Guns January 26, 2010 at 21:00

I like Sarah Palin for proving that women who wear glasses can still be considered hot.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman January 26, 2010 at 21:01

Feminist ‘Lack of Wisdom’ (who is a sock puppet of some regular) wrote :

In her career, Sarah Palin has blatantly dodged or quit in the face of every challenge she’s ever faced.

Nope. She has a strong track record of success. While I didn’t like that she quite the AK goverorship, she needed to earn money to pay legal bills, that her position could not allow.

Her family life is a disaster.

A loving marriage to an Alpha male is a disaster? No women ‘feminists’ are so intellectually empty.

Sarah Palin is neither a worthy leader

As opposed to Barack Obama?

nor a worthy mother.

As opposed to single mothers like Lady Raine?

See. This is why I like Sarah Palin a lot more than if feminists were just indifferent to her. She REALLY gets under their skin. She triggers a Sarah Palin Derangement Syndrome (SPDS).

The more exposure she gets, the better. I want misandrists to get vein-popping strokes at the sight of her.

it is such an insult to conservative politics to insist that Palin represents any kind of excellence, other than the excellence at reading off a Teleprompter.

Replace ‘conservative’ with ‘socialist’ and ‘Palin’ with ‘Obama’, and you have a factually accurate statement.

In fact, lefty insecurity about the inadequacy of Obama is another reason they hate Palin. Despite her flaws, she is superior to Obama in every way.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
sharpcool January 26, 2010 at 21:06

I seem to remember Sarah Palin being ruthlessly attacked from the very beginning of her appearance on the scene, before anybody really knew anything about her. It was less about her specific politics and more that she was a confident, unapologetic female conservative.

I mean I didn’t get the sense she was fit to be vice president either ( and also I’m tired of republicans as well as democrats), but the viciousness of the attacks from the Hollywood liberal elite from the top of their mansions was sickening. Talk show host David Letterman was especially relentless and mean spirited more than he usually is, but that’s not surprising because over the years he has succumbed to liberal mental illness as well.

The idiot media in general immediately began digging into her personal life and were shocked, shocked! that she actually had some family problems, as if this is something new. The hypocrisy of it all made me sick, because liberals hold up any female democrat as an inspiration, but as soon as one comes along that disagrees with their views, they want to destroy her.

It doesn’t really matter anyway, it’s all just a pathetic circus sideshow here in America. Maybe the liberals should run Tina Fey as their next presidential nominee in, they seem to give her awards for just being alive. Americans know more about what’s going on with Rihanna and Brangelina than they do about anything else. Idiots.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman January 26, 2010 at 21:10

It is funny how a relatively mild sentence from me caused a regular female reader to adopt a ‘Feminist Wisdom’ sock puppet and fly off the handle (effectively proving my point).

She may not be the best candidate for President, but Sarah Palin is *extremely* valuable for getting under the skin of lefto-feminOrcs. She is a normal woman with a normal level of family issues. But she has 3 things feminists envy : a good marriage to a good man, a lot of kids, and looks that have held up well for her age.

So they *hate* her. HATE. She really bugs the right people.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman January 26, 2010 at 21:12

Plus, there is no way she is less qualified for high office than Obama. Comparing the two might be like the Special Olympics, but she still has a background far more suitable for being President than Obama does (even though that isn’t saying much).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Soap January 26, 2010 at 21:52

@TFH

My brother likes to say that if Obama had the “hick” accent,and Palin had the Hillery haircut and oh-so-polished Hahvahd dialect,then the media would have been completely reversed on the worship/hatred scale for the two.

It’s the proper social credentials,he says.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Truth(er) January 26, 2010 at 23:57

BTW, Rosie the Riveter is a myth.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
crella January 27, 2010 at 00:59

other than the excellence at reading off a Teleprompter.

Well then she ‘s as good in that department as Teleprompter Jesus (tip o’the hat to Gonzo).

As a whole, it soured quickly after they learned her positions and deemed them “anti-women.”

Anti-abortion equals ‘anti-women’? I don’t remember anything else at that time that could be construed as anti-women…what other anti-women policies did she have?

Sharpcool- Exactly. You said what I was thinking, better than I would have :-) Even Hillary Clinton, with all her shady dealings and all the other baggage that comes with her, is a role model, because she’s liberal. The bias for liberalism in the feminist movement was fully bared by the appearance of Palin. They went for the throat, faster than I would have imagined possible.

Her daughter getting pregnant was supposedly the ultimate ‘proof’ that Palin was unacceptable for office, which I found hysterical, given the numbers of single mothers in America, and how the general consensus is that you don’t knock single mothers, that single motherhood is a ‘choice’ defended in most feminist circles. Not if you’re a conservative, I guess! Then, it’s cause for rage and shaming. As if butter wouldn’t melt in their mouths…..

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman January 27, 2010 at 01:39

what other anti-women policies did she have? </i<

a) Having more kids than lefty women.
b) Being better looking than lefty women who got fat despite having no kids.

It appears the 'anti-woman' Palin draws a huge audience wherever she goes, including on the Oprah show.

Expect further expansions of the definition of 'misogyny' and 'anti-woman' in the future.

Guys who are not attracted to obese women are misogynists.
Gay men who don't spend money on women are misogynists.
Men who date women several years younger than them are misogynists.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman January 27, 2010 at 01:39

what other anti-women policies did she have?

a) Having more kids than lefty women.
b) Being better looking than lefty women who got fat despite having no kids.

It appears the ‘anti-woman’ Palin draws a huge audience wherever she goes, including on the Oprah show.

Expect further expansions of the definition of ‘misogyny’ and ‘anti-woman’ in the future.

Guys who are not attracted to obese women are misogynists.
Gay men who don’t spend money on women are misogynists.
Men who date women several years younger than them are misogynists.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman January 27, 2010 at 01:41

Carrie Prejean is also anti-woman, by the way.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman January 27, 2010 at 01:45

I bet this ‘Feminist Wisdom’ sock puppet had no idea that so many people would disagree with her SPDS (Sarah Palin Derangement Syndrome).

Even though I don’t watch Fox News, I am relishing the even higher ratings boost Sarah Palin will yield there….

…..She bugs the right people.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
piercedhead January 27, 2010 at 02:04

Guys who are not attracted to obese women are misogynists.
Gay men who don’t spend money on women are misogynists.
Men who date women several years younger than them are misogynists.

Hello. My name is piercedhead and I am a misogynist.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
crella January 27, 2010 at 02:05

a) Having more kids than lefty women.
b) Being better looking than lefty women who got fat despite having no kids.

TFH, I’m glad I wasn’t drinking anything when I read that! ;-)

I imagine the head-scratching of men looking at Sarah Palin, fit and thin after 5 kids, and wondering what the hell happened at home, when wifey still has 100 pounds of ‘baby fat’ hanging around when their one child is already in kindergarten. The panic of the part of said women. Then of course the feminists hate her because she has a marriage, kids and a career, women knocked her for her accent, even! I think part of it was fueled by women seeing men’s reactions to Palin, and going off their rockers with jealousy.Palin REALLY touched a nerve, the white-hot hatred for her was really surprising, and not only that it came from so many different types of women, but that it was nearly all from women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman January 27, 2010 at 02:34

crella,

That is why I want more women of a Palin-like profile. Preferably non-white, so that we can bait feminists into even more over-the-top bigotry.

I want a second and a third and a fourth such woman to emerge and give feminists vein-popping strokes. This will finally bust open the sordid evil of feminism for the mainstream to see…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fedrz January 27, 2010 at 02:49

Hello. My name is piercedhead and I am a misogynist.

***Hello, Piercedhead*** — The Crowd.

(Somebody had to do it!)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
crella January 27, 2010 at 03:26

I had been hoping that the Edward’s official blogger flap would open some eyes, but that battle seemed to be fought mainly on the internet. TV news covered it, but not in much depth. I had wanted more of Ms. Marcotte’s comments seen by a broader audience. When you see them as they truly are, it’s so apparent!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
crella January 27, 2010 at 03:33

(side topic) This made me think of a donneybrook I had with Marcotte a couple years back…she had a blog entry castigating men who marry Asian women as ‘sick fetishists’ and being men ‘who want doormats’ and who don’t see their spouses as human beings. Her battalion of bobble-heads all chimed in, it was one of the ugliest threads I’ve read over there. I said (purposely ‘gender-neutrally’ Har!) that I was married to an Asian and they automatically assumed that-

1.I was male
2.I was uneducated
3.I was an Asian fetishist enslaving some poor Asian woman

and the vitriol poured forth. I let her go on for days, and then got on and told her I was not a man, and that she showed herself for the bigoted, sexist individual that she is. The thread came to a complete halt. It was one of my funniest moments since I bought a computer :-D

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
crella January 27, 2010 at 03:34

My first computer, that is….

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Migu January 27, 2010 at 03:53

Palin is a puppet like all national politicians. She was the counter to the dems nominating a black man. The repubs needed a minority on their ticket as well. She was a poorly executed political maneuvor. Who cares?

The econmist became the statist don’t know what happened really. Lew Rockwell publishes classical liberal articles daily, and it’s free. Visit his website. Fred reed, Glenn sacks and even that ghost Cristina hoff summers contributes to LRC. Sorry about the errors posted from my phone

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German January 27, 2010 at 05:25

@ David
I suspect in many cases a wife’s job is seen as insurance against the husband’s losing his.

It is, but only if her income is not used toward the family’s basic costs. If the income is going towards the mortgage, food, utilities, etc. then it raises the risk of bankruptcy, rather than lowering it. In other words, it is the ability to live on one modest income that provides the biggest safety buffer. If her income is going toward the basics, or you already live profligately and need every penny desperately, then the room for increasing income further is limited.

This is an interesting topic, so I think I’ll write a post about it on my blog later.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German January 27, 2010 at 06:12

SAHP really does depend on each family’s specific situation. Both of my parents worked full-time and it hasn’t killed me yet. I was just pointing out that being a SAHP is still possible, even on a single modest income.

I don’t know if people really get it how simple life is without debt.
Absolutely. We don’t have any debt other than a modest mortgage and we live really well on a single middle-class income.

I drive a reliable piece of crap!

Here, here! Let’s here it for reliable, crap automobiles!
Our family car is a new, but our truck is from 1996 and still going strong. It’s ugly, and the bed is a bit rusty, but it’s reliable transport and works well for hauling dirt. We haul a lot of dirt. And rocks. Dirt and rocks. And plants. Dirt and rocks and plants. LOL.
Never buying a new car again. It’s a total rip-off. Within a month, it feels like driving a used car again. So, what’s the point? One month of novelty?

30-year mortgages don’t make any sense, because you’d lose so much in interest. Buying a house also ties you down to one place, whereas renters can pick up and move much easier. But a mortgage that you pay off early could save you a lot in rental costs, and protect you from price fluctuations in the rental market. It depends on where you live, though, and what the housing market is currently like.

Taking out a loan for a generally appreciating asset like a home, a business, a modestly priced college degree can make sense, although it carries some risk. But taking out a loan to buy clothes or a car is pure folly. I’m never falling for that one again.

I’ve seen failed outsourcing projects a few times and it can’t last forever.
Me too. Everytime we outsourced development, we actually ended up hiring a ton of managers and quality people to watch the project because they kept delivering total garbage.

Also, I have lost count of how many supposedly educated women think that ‘getting the tax break’ is somehow a bonus, when it is a tax reduction on interest paid anyway, the principal of the loan inflated due to the break being applied across all home-owners.

If I had to do it again, I’d buy an even smaller house. Not only is a smaller house cheaper to buy and to run, it’s easier to clean, and cheaper to maintain.
The mortgage interest tax break thing drives me crazy. So much political nonsense. My mother really believes it, though, and thinks we’re nuts to try to pay off our loan early. According to her, you should drag it out as long as possible. We don’t even get anything! We don’t earn enough money to pay income tax, in the first place. LOL. It’s like a pyramid scheme.

She is a normal woman with a normal level of family issues.
Every family has problems, even the more successful ones. Really, I think the thing they hate the most is that she’s good-looking. It doesn’t jibe with their fantasy of “sexy feminists”. Most of the women I know with large families are thin, so that doesn’t surprise me. It’s a simple diet: eat less calories than you burn. Duh.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi January 27, 2010 at 07:03

””””” Black&German January 27, 2010 at 05:25
@ David
I suspect in many cases a wife’s job is seen as insurance against the husband’s losing his.

It is, but only if her income is not used toward the family’s basic costs. If the income is going towards the mortgage, food, utilities, etc. then it raises the risk of bankruptcy, rather than lowering it. In other words, it is the ability to live on one modest income that provides the biggest safety buffer. If her income is going toward the basics, or you already live profligately and need every penny desperately, then the room for increasing income further is limited.

This is an interesting topic, so I think I’ll write a post about it on my blog later.
””””””””””
lol you could have just said you enjoy your me time too much he he he

The secret is to yea have no bills and make money and raise your kids and have plenty of me time. That happens usually on the other side of some sacrifice of me time.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Rageagainstfeminism January 27, 2010 at 07:26

Imagine a woman comes home from work and picking up the kids. and she is tired and angry. The doorbell rings. Exhausted she struggles to get out of the chair. She opens the front door. There stands a feminist who exclaims; ” Aren’t you happy we liberated you”? There is a loud smack and the door is slammed. “@#%$^^& feminist”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Migu January 27, 2010 at 08:24

30-year mortgages don’t make any sense, because you’d lose so much in interest.

It makes perfect sense if you apply the concept of leverage properly. Just make sure you have a capital stock to back up your debt. In other words borrow only as much money as you have. Now you have full rights as an owner plus, the price of your house in liquid assets. You are 100% insured against default no matter what happens. Always keep the payoff amount in cash and invest the interest profits, then invest those profits, and so on. Invest yourself don’t give some weasel your wealth and hope for the best.

Remember also when buying a house, contrary to popular belief it is a depreciating asset. Treat like you would a car, but one that retains its utility for generations instead of decades. Finally only borrow against collateral never income.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
sestamibi January 27, 2010 at 08:52

Kathy & David–

Another parent of autistic son here. Except until about a year ago he was decorating his walls with his feces instead of scribbles.

Still, I wouldn’t trade him for anything. He’s the most beautiful boy in the world.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Firepower January 27, 2010 at 09:02

Gunslingergregi January 27, 2010 at 07:03

””””” Black&German January 27, 2010 at 05:25
@ David
I suspect in many cases a wife’s job is seen as insurance against the husband’s losing his.

Successful organisms adapt, evolve – or go extinct.

This is the Post-Feminist World.
A male teacher gets fired for not wearing his Department Issue Obama 2008 clown hat while chick teachers are encouraged to christen their 6th graders into manhood.

You tell me who’s on top…reaping the spoils of victory.

If she’s un-fireable she has the more secure job.

Government babes have the best healthcare. Let her work. I’ll spend the cash.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
sestamibi January 27, 2010 at 09:04

B&G re mortgages:

Best to get a 30-year mortgage rather than anything shorter. It leaves you with flexibility in pre-paying the principal–you can always make a 30-year a 15-year, but not vice versa.

Also, contrary to the conventional wisdom, I recommend ARMs. If you prepay, then the following year your new payment is based not only on the new interest rate, but also on the lowered principal left, so the latter may offset an increase due to the former. ARMs involve interest rate risk, but so do fixed rate mortgages (what happens if the rate goes down after you locked a higher one), without the expense of refinancing if rates go down later.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Firepower January 27, 2010 at 09:06

sestamibi January 27, 2010 at 09:04

B&G re mortgages:

Best to get a 30-year mortgage rather than anything shorter. It leaves you with flexibility in pre-paying the principal–you can always make a 30-year a 15-year, but not vice versa.

Not true. You must be helping your boy fingerpaint.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German January 27, 2010 at 09:31

Actually, he’s right. And that’s what we did. We took out a 30-year mortgage but are paying it back in half the time.
With a 15-year, the interest rate is lower, but prepaying a 30-year will give you a lower real interest rate.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi January 27, 2010 at 09:36

””””You tell me who’s on top…reaping the spoils of victory.””””’

Me

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi January 27, 2010 at 09:36

All the feminists are out having to pretend to work.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fedrz January 27, 2010 at 10:08

I drive a reliable piece of crap! — Fedrz

Here, here! Let’s here it for reliable, crap automobiles!
Our family car is a new, but our truck is from 1996 and still going strong. It’s ugly, and the bed is a bit rusty, but it’s reliable transport and works well for hauling dirt. — B&G

That sounds pretty luxurious to me!

Now, let me present my Vintage 1990 Toyota Corolla to you. Upon approach you will notice the dull-coat, protecting your eyes from any dangerous glare and covering the ever-lightening paint, which saves on body-shop bills, as each year it appears to be a slightly different colour and helps to satisfy your “novelty desires.”

The trunk has the security feature of a fake-lock, which will frustrate budding juvenille lock-smiths for hours – not realizing the only way to open it is from the latch on the inside. Over by the left rear fender, you will notice a series of speed-holes, lightening the overall weight which adds to performance and increases fuel economy, saving valuable pennies a year. Surrounding the speed-holes is the custom rust-coloured gold-digger repellent, saving you valuable thousands of dollars a year.

Moving around to the front of the car, you will notice a hole in the halogen light, trapping valuable moisture, and thereby serving a similar purpose to a St. Bernard’s barrel, should you find yourself driving in the desert, being plagued with a dry throat. Further, the front bumper is recessed by a considerable margin, giving you valuable extra nano-seconds of reaction time, should you need it to avoid a collision.

Over to the right side of the car, you will see the convenience of having a ready-made attachment-apparatus for the optional $200 passenger mirror. Also of note is the further security feature of a pre-filled door lock. Don’t worry, no budding juvenile lock-smiths will be able to jimmy around the metal inside, because it fits tight, kinda like a key.

(Ahem, please excuse me as I run around back to the driver’s side and unlock the door from the inside!).

As you enter the no-nonsense highly-functional interior, take notice of the scented-ambience of fine Canadian duMaurier tobacco, further enhanced by the “I don’t-give-a-rip” fabric, adding to your driving safety should you accidentally drop a cigarrette while manouevering through a treacherous mountain pass; just stamp your feet, pat the seats, and keep your sniffer and peripheral vision sharp for signs of smoke or, um, fire.

As I turn over the ignition, bringing to life the four cylinders of fury, you will notice a few added interior features, such as the sole dashboard light behind the tachometer, leaving the speedometer hidden at night and giving you peace of mind knowing you have a ready-made excuse should you get pulled over for a speeding violation. Also, the heater has the added convenience of only working on high and very high, reducing your choices and giving you simplicity in this ever confusing world. For the summer-time, there is the 2-windows by 100km/h air-conditioning system to cool you down – this obviously freon-free aparatus helps save the environment and gives you something to gloat about to your snooty neighbours with their high falutin’ Prius. The AM/FM Cassette Stereo is equipped with two bass-subdued speakers, adding to your safety by protecting your valuable ear drums. Also, please take note of the spacious and convenient trash bin located behind the two front seats.

As we put the four pistons of power to work on the open freeway, you might think that in a compact car it could be intimidating when big, solid German autos start crowding into your lane, apparently thinking the white lines are some magnetic guidance system that only works when his magnificent Mercedec is directly straddling them. Not so, I tell you. Just give the proper traffic signal, squint your eyes in anger, and crowd the bastard right back. Notice the added joy you will recieve watching his wide-eyed reaction, as it suddenly dawns on Hans (or Franz) that unlike him, you’re not kidding about a little bit of contact driving.

The final feature of this fine specimen of machinery is the peace of mind you will have by being able choose the cheapest parking spots in town, usually located in those desirability-challenged neighbourhoods. You simply know the thing will still be there when you get back, even if you leave the door unlocked, the key in the ignition, a full tank of gas, and a big sign that says, “Steal Me! PLEASE!”

Rest assured, it will still be there when you get back.

%@$#&in’ Car!

Lol!

I’m going on my 7th year in that little piece of shit now. I paid $2,400 for it, and now, I could probably only sell it for $500. But, it is still safe and reliable, and I’m gonna drive it till it explodes – except, it only burns about 1 litre of oil a year, so I don’t think that is going to happen – or until it fails the annual environmental Air-care inspection it must go through. Each year I keep wondering if this is the year… but it never is.

Beaters are Neater!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Globalman January 27, 2010 at 10:15

“and far fewer of the social problems that plague Britain and America.”
Whatever idiot wrote this has no understanding of what is really going on in the mind of the average swedish man. The average swedish man is not a very happy camper. You just need to sit down and get him drunk and then let him talk to know this.

Toby January 26, 2010 at 13:37
“men are like the complex workings of a car engine to women. They think cars run on rainbows and sunshine until the engine dies and sets the record straight.”
Toby, I laughed my arse off at this….this has my vote for quote of the day dude.

canadian girl January 26, 2010 at 14:07
“You assume that women have a choice to work. For the average american woman and the average american man to make a decent life and provide for two or three kids, two incomes are essential.”
Yes, Canadian girl. Your stupid sistas flocked into the workforce which more than doubled the real price of housing. After all, when pretty much only men worked and they had to pay for wife and kids the price of a house was set by the amount a man could pay on one salary. Housing used to be far cheaper than it is today. Well done ladies!!!

I laughed my fucking arse off the day I realised that the women rushing headlong into the workplace had morphed from the ‘right’ to work to the ‘obligation to work’. Welcome to the life of men. We have worked our arses off all our lives for 10,000 years while you wimmin sat in you safe and comfortable caves gas-bagging to each other about how oppressed you were that you were not allowed to hunt down the sabre-toothed tiger to get dinner!! LOL!!

It never ceases to amaze me CG that women are so stupid and so lacking in intelligence that they can not see they have been manipulated and used to destroy their very comfortable society they used to have. You know, in their ‘comfortable concentration camp’ also known as the family home where they became ‘brain damaged’ with the ‘disease with no name’. All quoted bits being feminist mantra by the way. You women are so stupid…..you really are. It’s all but pointless telling you anything because you simply can not connect the dots.

fedrz January 26, 2010 at 19:59
“My debts ran me.”
Anyone who has ‘debts’ might want to just get rid of them. http://www.theclassifiedfiles.com First book. Thomas should be paid for his years of work. In Australia numerous people are now getting their ‘debts’ zeroed out since the contract is fraudulent. It’s pretty amazing people won’t do this even when told they can. If you live in a common law country you can get your mortgage zeroed out if you bother to learn how that law works.

I now have no debt. We just closed another deal and we have another one that will be decided by the end of next month. If we get that deal too I will have regained all the ‘money’ I ‘lost’ from my marriage debacle in the elapsed time of 2.5 years and about 14 months work. Let me put that in perspective. I will have recouped in the secone place, in 2.5 years, the money I took 27 years to earn in the first place. Women hurl abuse at me for not wanting to be ‘married with children’ and obey their every command? And by not doing so I am making money at 10x my previous rate? LOL! I can take plenty of ‘abuse’ while sitting in my luxury apartment drinking my excellent wine and laughing at the idea of my ‘poor oppressed wife’ who, while married didn’t work but now in divorce is ‘forced by the patriarchy’ to work!! LOL!! And on a palty salary that would not keep her in nail polish when she was married too!!

Even if I consider just the last few years I now make ‘money’ at 5x the rate I did over the last 5 years when I am working because I don’t have to pay income taxes or for the ‘wife and kids’. Life is very good if you do not pay for ‘wife and kids’. Let the wimmin have their ‘freedom’.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German January 27, 2010 at 10:23

Fedrz,

That was so funny, I snorted tea out of my nose. :-)

Sounds just like the car my hubby had when I met him. We barely kept it alive long enough to get it to the dealership for a trade-in. On the way to there, the exhaust pipe fell off in the middle of the Autobahn and nearly caused a major traffic accident.

Hip, hip, hooray for crap cars!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Toby January 27, 2010 at 10:29

TFH,

You cannot possibly believe Sarah Palin is a good mother. One of her teen daughters got knocked up by her boyfriend is now raising the next generation as a single mother.

Palin has self-branded herself “a feminist” on broadcast television. She also prevented the father of her grandchild from having shared custody of his child. Her actions demonstrate the lack of respect she has for fathers and fatherhood.

A “mother” of Sarah Palin’s ilk would be considered an abject failure and publicly shamed in India or any other functional society.

Her oldest son is a drug addict. Her daughter is a teen mother. Her family is a sloppy unhappy mess. That is failure by any measure.

You’ve let your neo-conservative leanings get in the way of common sense.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Firepower January 27, 2010 at 10:38

Black&German January 27, 2010 at 09:31

Actually, he’s right. And that’s what we did. We took out a 30-year mortgage but are paying it back in half the time.

NO. actually you’re both fucking wrong. You can make “a 15 year a 30 year.”

You can convert a 15 year mortgage into a 30 year m0rtgage or fund ANY debt amount for a specified duration of time.

jesus, you must have BIG cans. It’s like communicating with Jessica Simpson.

Men Of Man Nation, take this as prime example: Never discuss finance or mortgages with the Lil’ Ladies – it’s a frustrating, dead-end experience. Just tell them to run along and play, and let the Baby Unicorn Princess continue paying that “like, mortgage thingy.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer January 27, 2010 at 10:55

Palin has self-branded herself “a feminist” on broadcast television. She also prevented the father of her grandchild from having shared custody of his child. Her actions demonstrate the lack of respect she has for fathers and fatherhood.

-TFH

I feel the same way about Palin, but I’m not sure people who haven’t had to deal with these types in custody disputes can quite understand why men ought to be extremely suspicious of these kinds of “conservative” women. They abound here in the more blue-collar parts of the NW and Alaska, and they have nothing but contempt for everything a man does except bring home a paycheck. This is why Palin comes off as conservative to Californians: she is all for resource extraction and the jobs that San Franciscans abhor (e.g. mining, logging, fishing, etc.), but that’s only because the paychecks men bring home from these feed the matriarchy. These women are perfectly happy to rule the home (and the local government, and school board, and libraries, and on and on) while their husbands risk life and limb out on the job.

Trust me: the “men are dogs” attitude is probably stronger in these parts than any other place I can think of in the US. Conservative farming communities are much, much healthier and more patriarchal — they are a far better model than the kind of community Palin comes from. In Washington state we are split roughly down the middle by the Cascades, and on the west side you find a resource extraction based economy, and on the east farming. The women from the east make much better wives than those from the west. The attitude toward men in the west is that he’s supposed to get off his lazy ass and do battle with the elements all day in return for a hot meal and maybe a warm bed at night. In the east the men are seen as stewards of the land and home. You’d be surprised how profound an effect these differences have on society.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Steezer January 27, 2010 at 11:22

Good thing I married a woman from the east!

Your split leaves out the central Puget Sound area, though: even if Seattle, Tacoma, Everett, and Bellingham still do have quite a bit of traditional industry left, a lot of what’s going on is what is fashionably referred to as the “knowledge” or “creative” industry, or in services. I suppose, in a sense, that is resource-extraction as well!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman January 27, 2010 at 14:22

I never claimed that Palin had MRA sympathies.

But she bugs the right people. Big time. For now, that is good enough for me.

Creating civil wars between the worst lefty-misandrists vs. relatively less statist women is beneficial to the cause.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman January 27, 2010 at 14:26

I am curious to know who the ‘Feminist Wisdom’ and ‘Toby’ sockpuppet* is(who are probably the same person).

*When a handle you have never seen before seems to know a fair bit about you, that is sockpuppet hunting 101.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zel January 27, 2010 at 15:06

The 6 Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey: 2010

The survey was conducted by Australian firm Demographia, and involved respondents in six western countries: USA, Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand.

It did not include Hong Kong, however, where housing is notoriously expensive.

http://www.demographia.com/dhi.pdf

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kathy January 27, 2010 at 15:36

“Another parent of autistic son here. Except until about a year ago he was decorating his walls with his feces instead of scribbles.”

Yes, it wasn’t only scribble here, either, sestamibi ;)

“Still, I wouldn’t trade him for anything. He’s the most beautiful boy in the world”

I don’t doubt it for a minute sestamibi.

My little bloke’s smile just lights up the room :)
He is a special gift alright… Hard work, but, I wouldn’t trade him for anything either!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Firepower January 27, 2010 at 15:42

yeesh

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Mary January 28, 2010 at 10:20

Hmmm… When you take a sledgehammer to a glass ceiling, it rains broken glass on everyone.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Firepower January 28, 2010 at 10:30

And when you paint with doodoo on the walls, it stinks up the place.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
joe January 29, 2010 at 09:48

I read the full article in that issue of The Economist and it was everything HL describes it as being.

It was the usual feminst BS, however, the cover says something different…

That cover with the female worker, and the words “We Did It”, so close after the biggest econimic crisis in modern times, is as clear as day.

People at The Economist know whats really going on, but they just dare not go against the norm.

That cover says it all.

Its like you cant just go up to someone in the street and say “hey buddy, women are the problem in society”, so you have to find other ways of doing it, like paintings, literature, even star trek! (the original series). You may laugh at the star trek reference, but it has numerous episodes in that first series that try to show the true nature of women. and how many people have now seen Star Trek? ALOT. and here I am talking about it 40 years later.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Sarah January 29, 2010 at 20:42

Would the people who don’t know anything about Canada please shut it?

While there is the opportunity here to have a lot of land at a cheap price, you have to live in butt-fuck-nowhere, the jobs in these places are very very few because of the small populations.

I live in the suburbs of Vancouver (not Vancouver proper, but the suburbs) and an average house in a rather small piece of land is still $350,000.00.

There is no way my husband could continue to work as a cabinet maker making $50,000.00 and afford an average-sized house while I sit at home (presumably cleaning and making him sandwiches, right?).

We don’t even have kids yet and I still have to work 9-5 to keep on a decent budget. I’m not complaining by any means, but don’t go around assuming that in Canada everyone gets loads of land for their $350,000.00 and that we ride our dog sleds in from our igloos to work in the morning.

Also our population is fine. We have a huge number of immigrants into our country each year, so our elders won’t be screwed over by our having fewer Canadian-born children… at least on the coast, anyway.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fedrz January 30, 2010 at 04:01

Would the people who don’t know anything about Canada please shut it? — Sarah

Calm down! Your skirt is blowing up over your head and your bloomers are showing.

What makes you think there are people here who don’t know about Canada, Vancouver, and “butt-fuck nowhere”?

And don’t tell them we don’t drive dogsleds and don’t live in igloos! What the hell kind of Canadian are you, anyway?

Do you see, gentleman? See what we have to deal with?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Sarah January 30, 2010 at 11:34

Do you see, gentleman? See what we have to deal with?

Because we sure as hell love dealing with guys like you.

The reason I think there are people on this site who don’t know about Canada is because they have demonstrated that they don’t. It’s interesting that being a person who lives in Canada you don’t attack any of my points (presumably because they are valid), but you attack my character instead (presumably because I’m a woman) even when you have never met me.

Please, read the other comments to which I a referring before you respond to mine.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Cannon's Canon January 30, 2010 at 11:41

i’m 12 years old and what is this?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fedrz January 30, 2010 at 12:02

Sarah,

You can read my thoughts about Canada here.

You mouthy arrogant disgrace to Canada.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fedrz January 30, 2010 at 12:49

And Sarah,

Not me, nor I think anyone else, is interested in listening to your fucking big yap on these issues – we’ve just spent a few days debating them, and certainly rehashing it all with a dumb, mouthpiece femcunt like you is low on the priority list – so, in advance, shove it up your slutty feminist ass, and stop showing up here out of the blue trying to “put men in their place.”

You’ll have to wait until we decide it is time to rehash those issues. You’re just plain out of luck, toots.

Go hang out at Pandagon, or Jezebel, or whatever rock you slithered out from beneath.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Zeta February 1, 2010 at 18:42

Just an interesting tidbit for those so inclined. Adrian Wooldridge, the Management Editor of The Economist, is a Bilderberg Group member. I’m looking at a picture of him attending Bilderberg right in front of me, in Daniel Estulin’s “The True Story of the Bilderberg Group”. Wouldn’t you know it, The Economist’s website lists globalization as one of his areas of expertise, and the Leigh Bureau website says he “is the coauthor or coeditor… of five books on globalization and business”. Does Bilderberg have anything to do with globalization? (That’s a rhetorical question.)

Some people may like to contribute this magazine’s pro-feminist slant towards mere opinion or economic ignorance (on such things as the imaginary “pay gap”). I don’t think so. If a kid sitting at home can disprove this stuff with five minutes of Googling, then you can be assured elites like Wooldridge know better. This assault on men is done consciously, by the people Globalman likes to call “the bad guys”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Zeta February 1, 2010 at 18:53

Oh, and just to clarify: the second Economist article linked to in this article by Hawaii Libertarian is written by… wait for it… Adrian Wooldridge. In addition to being the Management Editor for The Economist, he also writes the Schumpeter (business) columns.

Funny how things work out, huh?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German February 2, 2010 at 16:32

I wrote a post on living frugally. Thought I’d link to it here, for those that are interested.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 3 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: