Senate Republicans Block Paycheck Fairness Act

by W.F. Price on November 18, 2010

The Paycheck Fairness Act, a bill designed to favor women in the workplace by giving them yet another weapon with which to extort money from businesses and employers, was held up by Republicans in the Senate, who managed to hold the Democrats to fewer than the needed 60 votes to pass the legislation.

President Obama expressed deep disappointment over the failure of the bill, saying that it would have ensured that American women didn’t bring home smaller paychecks to their families as “we emerge from one of the worst recessions in history.” The fact that the recession has affected mainly men and their paychecks didn’t seem to concern the president.

Republicans, as usual, were not concerned with men, but rather the effect the bill might have on businesses, which would be vulnerable to legal broadsides from disgruntled female employees and their attorneys, as the burden of proof that they are not “discriminating” against women would fall on them, and limits on damage awards would be removed.

{ 63 comments… read them below or add one }

DirkJohanson November 18, 2010 at 09:00

Good news.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 0
Ken November 18, 2010 at 09:03

How much you wanna bet the Senate will eventually pass a watered-down version of this BS bill and even the new Senators will act as Eunuchs when it comes time to vote on it?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 3
Herbal Essence November 18, 2010 at 09:12

I suspect there will be some kind of backdoor dealings, i.e. Dems saying we’ll renew Bush-era tax cuts for the super rich if you pass this bill. Who wants to bet Statist Fembot Republicans like Snowe, Collins, and Murkowski will be on board?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 1
RS November 18, 2010 at 09:20

I’m not republican, but I approve this message.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 1
Felidaeus November 18, 2010 at 09:45

If you’re commenting around the web on this, use this link to debate it: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/22/opinion/22Sommers.html?_r=1&hp

It isn’t a “fairness” bill. It is a “sue everybody” bill.

Is your secretary making less than your engineer? THATS SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION according to the bill, since that puts false sexual value on the engineer since he’s male.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 50 Thumb down 0
Ubermind November 18, 2010 at 09:50

The only place Obama and all liberals will find equility is in hell. A pitchork into everyones ass. It seems they are doing everything to get there.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 45 Thumb down 0
Ken November 18, 2010 at 09:58

“In the push for Total Equality…some become more equal than others!”
-George Orwell (Aniam Farm)

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 41 Thumb down 2
misterb aka misterbastard November 18, 2010 at 09:59

Actually I find it a slap in face for American men, regardless of colour or creed. All men needs to be angry at this bill, for being a pussified bill.
It’s your right as men to be pissed off at the Republican Party.

republicans, they used to be cocky sons of bitches. they tried invading canada once before. Now they’re business oriented cocking sucking beasts, who only care about the bottom dollar. And not to mention that they cater to feminists.

I rest my case . . . ! Case closed !!!!

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 27
Elusive Wapiti November 18, 2010 at 09:59

The fact that the recession has affected mainly men and their

Typo, I think.

Otherwise, this is news that at least the Repubs haven’t lost their minds entirely.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0
Felidaeus November 18, 2010 at 10:03

I’ve been over on reddit and am extremely surprised by the NON interest this has gotten. The general consensus among men and women, even on 2X, is “who cares, we already have an equal pay act, do something about net neutrality”.

We’re WINNING!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 2
Traveller November 18, 2010 at 10:10

“…the effect the bill might have on businesses, which would be vulnerable to legal broadsides from disgruntled female employees and their attorneys,”

I do not know if Republicans look outside the US frontier, but another bad effect of the bill would have been reduce even more the competitivity of the US economic system against the rest of the world. It would have been the cause of more job moving in Eastern Asia, more outsourcing. For sure Dems do not look at it, Repubs I am unsure.

This is the further proof women and leftists do not understand where the money come from: the business, the work, the innovation, the research.

Another thing, Obama, and I think every other American politician, is already in electoral campaign. We will expect more rethoric and more money wasting bills.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price November 18, 2010 at 10:18

Typo, I think.

-EW

Yup, tag not closed properly.

SingleDad November 18, 2010 at 10:19

OT: You know the micro-loans the UN is pushing to help women only, as this Ledbetter bill does.

Well, it fell on it’s face. Seems the ladies don’t like to repay the loans.

Notice how when ever you read a story on this being a positive thing you hear women, women, women are doing it for themselves.

Try to find mention that it is women not repaying their loans:

From the NYT our nations print media icon:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/18/world/asia/18micro.html?src=me&ref=general

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 6
jozin November 18, 2010 at 10:26

“Republicans, as usual, were not concerned with men, but rather the effect the bill might have on businesses”
Whole feminism has a negative impact on business and long term prosperity. So from this point of view it is OK. The question is how far republicans can and will go.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1
Felidaeus November 18, 2010 at 10:41

This bill is freaking scary.

So, the new bag lady just decided she was making less than the senior stock guy because she’s female. You think it’s silly? Doesn’t matter if it is or isn’t true. EVERY WOMAN just got drafted into a legal dispute because “any action brought to enforce the prohibition against sex discrimination may be maintained as a class action in which individuals may be joined as party plaintiffs without their written consent.”

No wonder the lawyers love it.

That’s silly? He’s clearly more experienced you say? Well regardless, the company has to prove in a class action lawsuit that the pay difference (1) is not based upon or derived from a sex-based differential in compensation (stock boy gets extra pay for lifting heavy boxes, a male dominated pursuit, which makes the compensation while maybe not “sexist”, possibly “sex based”); (2) is job-related with respect to the position in question (that’s nice and vague); and (3) is consistent with business necessity (prove it!). Avers that such defense shall not apply where the employee demonstrates that: (1) an alternative employment practice exists that would serve the same business purpose without producing such differential; and (2) the employer has refused to adopt such alternative practice.

“(1) an alternative employment practice exists that would serve the same business purpose without producing such differential”

!!!! “(1) an alternative employment practice exists that would serve the same business purpose without producing such differential” !!!!

The saddest people today are the lawyers pushing to get it passed.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 0
Keyster November 18, 2010 at 10:43

This was a bullet to men and businesses that employ women dodged.

The only groups pushing for it were:
American Association of University Women
National Organization for Women
National Association of Wholesaler Distributors
YWCA of Boston

Groups opposed:
National Association of Manufacturers
National Retail Federation
National Small Business Association
Emerson Climate Technologies
Food Marketing Institute
American Bakers Association
American Hotel & Lodging Association
Associated Builders and Contractors
College and University Professional Association for Human Resources
HR Policy Association
Independent Electrical Contractors
International Foodservice Distributors Association
International Franchise Association
International Public Management Association for Human Resources (IPMA-HR)
National Council of Chain Restaurants
National Council of Textile Organizations
National Federation of Independent Business
National Public Employer Labor Relations Association
National Restaurant Association
National Roofing Contractors Association
Printing Industries of America
Retail Industry Leaders Association
Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council
Society for Human Resource Management
U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Democrats don’t care what employers think, even in the middle of 10% unemployment. They’re the party of and for women as a special group.

It required documents be filed that showed “pay check equality”, and violation was a very grey area left for judges to interpret. Large companies would have to a hire an HR wench and lawyer just to deal with this government “ACT” full time.

Amazing how much power women’s groups have in our legislature. The facts are nebulious, but yet not seriously considered in the decision making process. All they have to do is ask and they get, because they’re all about “victim’s rights” and they influence how women vote.

As common as it is, it’s still amazing!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 1
Robert November 18, 2010 at 11:17

Paycheck Fairness Act Will Fatten Paychecks for Trial Lawyers, not Women
Submitted by anthony on Wed, 2010-11-17 14:48.
Article here. Excerpt:

‘The study concludes that “the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers.”

And yet the Senate will vote this week on “The Paycheck Fairness Act,” which according to the American Association of University Women is a critical piece of legislation that “can help create a climate where pay discrimination is not tolerated, and give the new administration the enforcement tools it needs to make real progress on pay equity.”

But the government’s own report by the Department of Labor concludes that there is no gender wage gap or pay discrimination once all relevant variables that impact wages are considered. And another recent study found that single, childless women between the ages of 22 and 30 out-earn their male counterparts by as much as 21 percent in large cities, and by 8 percent on average in urban areas, largely because young women are better educated than young men. This is more evidence that labor markets operate efficiently and discrimination against women has largely been eliminated by competitive market forces and the enforcement of existing laws by federal agencies, and additional federal antidiscrimination legislation is therefore unnecessary.’

http://news.mensactivism.org/node/15961

http://blog.american.com/?p=22704

Wall Street Journal: Washington’s Equal Pay Obsession
Submitted by anthony on Wed, 2010-11-17 14:42.

‘Women in the workplace don’t face rampant pay discrimination, and yet the Senate may soon pass a bill—already passed in the House—premised on the erroneous charge that they do. The Paycheck Fairness Act (PFA) would be a harmful addition to the many federal laws that already protect women and men from labor-market discrimination.

The original Equal Pay Act of 1963 made it illegal for firms to pay different wages to women and men who performed equal work on jobs in the same establishment. Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act outlawed discrimination against women and minorities in all aspects of employment, including hiring, promotion and compensation. Additional protections came with the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act; the 1991 amendments to Title VII, which boosted penalties for discrimination; and the 2009 Lilly Ledbetter Act, which essentially eliminated the time limit for filing discrimination claims.

http://news.mensactivism.org/node/15960

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703326204575616450950657916.html

There is this I add for interested parties;
Does empowering women really make men less ‘relevant’?

Submitted by anthony on Tue, 2010-11-16 16:05

“‘Of course, as the traditionalists see it, feminism made the fatal mistake of empowering women. In the last five decades, women have gained a plethora of rights; women have access to birth control, to education, to economic opportunity. As women have become more powerful and independent, the thesis goes, men began to question not only old chivalric codes, but the whole need for self-restraint. Why should men continue to protect women when women insist on being able to take care of themselves? The greatest benefit of the “old ways” was that a man could have his ego and his self-esteem boosted by knowing that he was needed by the fragile, delicate, vulnerable women in his life who relied absolutely on his strength and self-control.

Male privilege is not a guarantor of either happiness or health, and trying desperately to play the part of protector and provider has robbed generations of men of both. Feminism, in concert with these many new and exciting reproductive and contraceptive technologies, offers men a chance to rethink and re-evaluate their worth and their purpose. It offers them an opportunity to be intimate allies with their female partners, to forge relationships based on more than duty and dependency. It gives men a chance to be loved for the wholeness of who we are, rather than solely for what we can provide.’..”

http://news.mensactivism.org/node/15954

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/12/reproductive-technologies-men-feminism

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6
Robert November 18, 2010 at 11:20

Feminists made more than one mistake. They made so many, they cannot remember or keep track of them, even though they shirk responsibilty for their mistakes by “passing the buck” onto all men.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 3
Firepower November 18, 2010 at 11:21

Senate Republicans Block Paycheck Fairness Act

by W.F. Price on November 18, 2010

Republicans, as usual, were not concerned with men, but rather the effect the bill might have on businesses

These useful idiots one day have great potential to do something…well, idiotic – and tip over the whole apple cart, transforming America into a modern version of a Chinese-governed Dark Ages.

Sadly, even though they are the “best” alternative we have, Republicans would prefer associating with liberal Bill Gates than you.

Never forget in the past, white male Republicans had no compunction sending other white males down into coal mines to bleed their lungs white in order for their third Martha’s Vineyard mansion to have ample heat for greenhouses.

Until all oppressors – both elitist and feminist – are eradicated, the future of your sons is doomed.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 8
Robert November 18, 2010 at 11:23

Paycheck-fairness bill blocked in Senate
Submitted by anthony on Wed, 2010-11-17 17:25.

http://news.mensactivism.org/node/15963

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/paycheck-fairness-bill-blocked-in-senate-2010-11-17

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4
Firepower November 18, 2010 at 11:26

Keyster November 18, 2010 at 10:43

This was a bullet to men and businesses that employ women dodged

Not necessarily true: if Sire Obama hands out scads of “waivers” to union cronies for his Sacred Cow Obamacare – what makes you think special dispensation is denied other special interest groups – such as rabid feminists itching for Hilary to walk on water as the Once and Future President-ette.

His regime will stop at nothing to stop her.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1
Angelo November 18, 2010 at 11:26

Hopefully the Republicans can stop the slide and better yet roll back some of this nonsense.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5
Matt K November 18, 2010 at 11:36

Just curious…
Here in the UK, it is my understanding that these types of laws don’t apply to very small companies (6 employees or less?) Does anyone know if it works the same way in the US? If so, how does the cut-off work? By employee headcount? By revenue? By profits? By industry?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5
Firepower November 18, 2010 at 11:41

Matt K November 18, 2010 at 11:36

Just curious…
Here in the UK, it is my understanding that these types of laws don’t apply to very small companies (6 employees or less?) Does anyone know if it works the same way in the US? If so, how does the cut-off work? By employee headcount? By revenue? By profits? By industry?

In the US, it’s determined by whichever corrupt political party is currently in power – thus readily available to accept bribes to dispense favors to its special interest constituency.

The once bragged about “all men are created equal” dogma (and myth) has been fully exposed by America’s overwhelming modern, massive political corruption for the fraud it is.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 1
misterb aka misterbastard November 18, 2010 at 12:07

A bit harsh firepower, I like your style as well.

My advice for any white man, “never trust any politician.”
there’s an old saying “even presidents lie through their teeth”

the pooch had been screwed over so many times.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5
Ken November 18, 2010 at 12:13

Now I am no conspiracy-monger mind you, but just imagine (considering recent news on the subject) the US Govt passing a bill which “compensates” women with children who have no child-support payments! It’s possible (because such a thing was discussed years ago by Sen Pat Shroeder of CO)
a la a new tax regulation siphoning off tax dollars to unwed mothers making below say~Obama’s $40,000 a year mark for govt student loans?!
Think we don’t already have wealth-redistribution? It’s coming soon and men might not see it coming till it’s snuck under the door at 3am!
Single men are going to find their taxes going up BECAUSE they’re not married and the politicians will blame “deadbeat dads” (lumping us all into that category whether we have kids or not).

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 1
Nico November 18, 2010 at 12:18

“I suspect there will be some kind of backdoor dealings, i.e. Dems saying we’ll renew Bush-era tax cuts for the super rich if you pass this bill.”

It would be the best solution to emancipate further women from beta providers while increasing the gap between alpha/dominant males and betas.

Moreover, since feminists always compare the situation of the average woman with the top 10% males, it would fuel more skewed comparisons and more feminists laws.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3
misterb aka misterbastard November 18, 2010 at 12:37

i said this before, and I’ll say this again, the whole idea of wealth distribution is a stupid idea. No scratch that, its a brainless ideology. Steal from a hard working man and give it to an underachiever. I find this to be plain wrong.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4
TFH November 18, 2010 at 12:45

Actually, this bill passing might have caused a chain reaction that would have brought the costs down on women.

For starters, it would have caused another 5-7 million jobs to be outsourced to countries without such stupid laws.

This will cause the tax base to shrink, and as we know, feminism vanishes immediately as the tax base shrinks.

So I am in favor of anything that accelerates the collapse, as painful as it would be in the short term.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 7
post-modern devil November 18, 2010 at 12:55

Firepower posted:

Until all oppressors – both elitist and feminist – are eradicated, the future of your sons is doomed.

In defense of the Republicans, I beleive it is male nature to come of as elitist or condensending to those you beleive you are superior towards, particularly in cases the parties involved aren’t particularly close. I honestly can’t necessarily fault them for general male nature.

Most of the problems with the Republicans simply comes with the territory to being a political elite: they look at men and boys primarily for their utility and tie in social manhood and male identity with loving women, selfless sacrifice on everyone elses behalf, and emotional stoicism; i.e. the concept of manning up. No politician has true power without a general willingness of men to put the welfare of everyone else before their own so all politicians are an inherent enemy of the common man.

If anything, the biggest issue in respect to the Republican party in of itself is, aside from their white knighting, that they do NOTHING to combat the perception of being the party for mainly old white men (and their wives) which not only gives the Democrats the room to gain undeserved minority support, but also marginalizes the young white men who are lumped in with the old white men ignorantly despite both demographics largely hating each other.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3
NWOslave November 18, 2010 at 13:04

Since all laws pertaining to business are for the benefit of women at the expense of men the “Paycheck fairness act” which I like to call the “Marxist paycheck act” will come back around again. It’s not finished yet and it will eventually be passed in the middle of the night.

Between the bogus “sexual discrimination suit’s” and “child care” and “maternity leave” which companies use to lure women in to get their quota of worthless job’s in human resources and whatever they can think up, just to get Guv contracts and approval, it’s a wonder men get paid anything at all. All that money is taken from men to pay for women so they can “feel” important while doing nothing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2
NWOslave November 18, 2010 at 13:12

Let’s not forget the #1 employer of women is Big Daddy Guv, and at 70% of the 22 million people in the public sector with an average salary of 75k a year that’s $ 1,115 trillion.

Thats right, over 999 trillion dollars a year. I’m not even sure how to say the number that comes after a trillion, talk about a sink hole for men’s money!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
Szebran November 18, 2010 at 13:16

Why isn’t there an education fairness act. There is a huge disparity in education beyond high school between men and women. Many more women have college degrees and have better financing to pay for college tuition than men. How come the gov won’t decrease this disparity.
What about child custody disparity. Many more women than men get custody of their children.

This is more feminist double standard bullshit.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 0
CashingOut November 18, 2010 at 13:29

@NWO Slave:

At this point it would start making more sense to use scientific notation, as the numbers become so mindbogglingly huge as to resemble magnitudes on an interstellar scale.

Before anyone accuses me of hyperbole, let me break it down for you.

The number that comes after a trillion in scientific notation is 1 x 10^15.

The number of miles in 1 light year is ONLY 5.9 x 10^12

Divide this up, and you’ll see that for every mile, we can fill it with approximately 170 dollar bills, or 1 dollar for every 31 feet. Talk about drowning in debt.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
Anonymous Reader November 18, 2010 at 13:32

TFH
Actually, this bill passing might have caused a chain reaction that would have brought the costs down on women.
For starters, it would have caused another 5-7 million jobs to be outsourced to countries without such stupid laws.

Most of those jobs lost would have laid off men, not women….

This will cause the tax base to shrink, and as we know, feminism vanishes immediately as the tax base shrinks.

Unfortunately, the shrinking tax base in the US has been accompanied by more feminism, not less. Although there is a theoretical limit to how much debt the Fed can monetize.

So I am in favor of anything that accelerates the collapse, as painful as it would be in the short term.

QE2 seems to be another giant step in that direction..

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader November 18, 2010 at 13:37

Szebran
Why isn’t there an education fairness act. There is a huge disparity in education beyond high school between men and women.
Many more women have college degrees and have better financing to pay for college tuition than men. How come the gov won’t decrease this disparity.
What about child custody disparity. Many more women than men get custody of their children.

For the obvious reason: anything that increases choice and/or decreases responsibility for women is Good, and anything that decreases choice and/or increases responsibility for men is also Good.

This is more feminist double standard bullshit.

There is no double standard within feminism. This is important to learn, it took me years to do so. Just as there is no double standard under various forms of Marxism. Once you understand this, you realize that legislation like this “Perpetual Lawsuit Act” is not an accident. It’s not an ooopsie, we didn’t know that would happen. It is deliberate, studied, planned attacking of men. That’s what feminism is about. It’s what it was about 15+ years ago when VAWA was passed. It’s what feminism was about 24 years ago when the “deadbeat dad enslavement” act was passed. It’s what feminism was about 30+ years ago, don’t let any menopausal woman claim that she didn’t really want things like this to happen, because she’s only an “equality feminist” from the 70′s, that’s hogwash.

The permanent reduction of men to the status of serfdom / slavery is what feminism is all about.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 0
Gunn November 18, 2010 at 13:40

@NWOSlave

quadrillion

or a british billion

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Gunn November 18, 2010 at 13:50

oops meant one thousand british billion

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
CashingOut November 18, 2010 at 13:53

@ Gunn: That is here in the US. Problem is here we have a screwed up way of remembering large numbers like that. In older numbering systems, you had a million, which was 10^6. Everything after that was calculated by how many millions were in the number. A old british billion was a bi-illion, or 10^(2 *6) or 10^12. A british trillion was a tri-illion, or 10^18. A british quadrillion, which seems to have nothing to do with the number being named here in America, is 10^(4*6) or 10^24. I wish we had used these definitions in school, they would have been much easier to remember >.<

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
The White Rider November 18, 2010 at 14:35

To be honest I can’t believe this disgusting bill was even brought up. There’s mountains of proof and has been mountains of proof for years that the “wage gap” is bullshit. It’s a case of a lie being repeated so many times that most people, that is, the people who don’t know the facts, believe is it truth.

This bill seemed to be more like the “Pay me the same as him for working less time” act than anything else.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1
Druk November 18, 2010 at 15:07

NWOslave:
“70% of the 22 million people in the public sector with an average salary of 75k a year that’s $ 1,115 trillion. ”

You mean $1.1 trillion ($1,100 billion). While still quite a huge amount of money, not even close to $999 trillion.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
TFH November 18, 2010 at 15:39

Most of those jobs lost would have laid off men, not women….

Nope. That force has already shot its load. To the extent that there are overpaid private sector jobs in America, they are held by women.

You are wrong. Plus, you didn’t understand the part about the tax base, where even if men are laid off, the costs of their joblessness falls not on the men themselves, but on women, due to tax-base shrinkage.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3
greyghost November 18, 2010 at 16:02

If they got that much god damn much money why the hell don’t they take care of themselves

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
post-modern devil November 18, 2010 at 16:21

@ Szebran

Why isn’t there an education fairness act. There is a huge disparity in education beyond high school between men and women. Many more women have college degrees and have better financing to pay for college tuition than men.

Higher education as we know it today is a bubble. It is not economically feasible to force the general populace to jump through more hoops than necessary in order to acheive gainfull employment; all it does is needlessly shrink the amount of people to tax. Add to that the knowledge of many of the government scholar ships created to send kids off to college are financed by the tax base. Finally, consider how many of those students will actually be able to pay off their student loans especially when you consider how many of those kids are going to college for worthless junk degrees. That’s not even getting into the possibility of the Democrats forcing banks to hand out student loans when the banks inevitably freeze their assets on account of many unpaid loans and we literally have the housing bubble 2.0.

Two-thirds of college enrollment is already women, lets not drag young men into this mess anymore than they inevitably will be whenever the bubble bursts.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2
NWOslave November 18, 2010 at 17:09

@ Truk
You’re right, apparently I counted 3 too many zero’s.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
WOW November 18, 2010 at 18:29

Hire a woman, hire a lawsuit!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0
codebuster November 18, 2010 at 18:34

The permanent reduction of men to the status of serfdom / slavery is what feminism is all about.

How could this be, that feminism, insofar as we assume feminism to be a “women’s movement”, is so dedicated to the destruction of men? On the face of it, it doesn’t make sense, does it? Let’s take a closer look.

I’ve got a theory that feminism is, in a very deep and fundamental way, a manifestation of the slut mindset. If female sexuality is in a very fundamental way related to “violation”, then this goes some way to explaining why every woman has within her, this secret fascination with thugs. Rape fantasies, I guess, are normal and healthy [that's what they would say, isn't it], and just because a woman fantasizes about being raped does not mean that she wants to be raped [ahem... bear with me].

The women that act out this fascination with thugs, we call sluts. Violation is what thugs do and violation is what sluts crave. But the thrill of choosing thugs has ramifications, because the secret thrill that many women derive from being humiliated comes with its inevitable return undercurrent. It’s the hatred of the one doing the humiliating. A slut can never get off scot-free for her dumb choices, because her hatred of her abuser, for all her craving complicity, is its inevitable logical outcome. The thrill of violation and the bitterness of hate constitute aspects of a duality that is inescapable.

That’s why I associate feminism with the slut mindset, and it is the reason that we can regard feminism as a hate movement dedicated to the destruction of what sluts perceive as their violators… which is, of course, all men. The pleasure derived from a good thrashing is matched only by the hatred felt towards the thrasher. And with feminism as a manifestation of the slut mindset, the hatred of men is cast in concrete.

What do I mean by the slut mindset? Think about it. It’s all the stuff we associate with feminism. Failure to take responsibility, victim mentality, false accusations, lies, hatred of men, the whole package, it’s exactly what sluts do.

The bottom line? The personal is cultural. From the Diary of Anais Nin:

Sometimes in the street, or in a café, I am hyponotized by the “pimp” face of a man, by a big workman with knee-high boots, by a brutal criminal head. I feel a sensual tremor of fear, an obscure attraction. The female in me trembles and is fascinated. For one second only I am a prostitute who expects a stab in the back. I feel anxiety. I feel trapped. I forget that I am free. A subterranean primitivism? A desire to feel the brutality of man, the force which can violate? To be violated is perhaps a need in woman, a secret erotic need. I have to shake myself from the invasion of these violent images, awaken. Henry’s writing has that effect on me, his brutality of speech, his barbaric language, his primitive behaviour. Food and sex the primal needs for him.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Nergal November 18, 2010 at 19:01

” Feminism, in concert with these many new and exciting reproductive and contraceptive technologies, offers men a chance to rethink and re-evaluate their worth and their purpose. It offers them an opportunity to be intimate allies with their female partners, to forge relationships based on more than duty and dependency. It gives men a chance to be loved for the wholeness of who we are, rather than solely for what we can provide.’..””

Feminism offers men nothing, except sick,inhuman slavery. Feminism is a devaluation of everything men stand for. Logic,virtue, self-restraint (at some point. Not even hedonists thought they could “have it all”),the drive to excellence and perfection. Feminism is an ideological equivalent of the habits of the common pig. Basically,it amounts to laziness,squalor,degradation, shitting where you eat, and regression.

“There is no double standard within feminism. This is important to learn, it took me years to do so. Just as there is no double standard under various forms of Marxism. Once you understand this, you realize that legislation like this “Perpetual Lawsuit Act” is not an accident. It’s not an ooopsie, we didn’t know that would happen. It is deliberate, studied, planned attacking of men. That’s what feminism is about. It’s what it was about 15+ years ago when VAWA was passed. It’s what feminism was about 24 years ago when the “deadbeat dad enslavement” act was passed. It’s what feminism was about 30+ years ago, don’t let any menopausal woman claim that she didn’t really want things like this to happen, because she’s only an “equality feminist” from the 70?s, that’s hogwash.

The permanent reduction of men to the status of serfdom / slavery is what feminism is all about.”

I wish I could thumbs up this a million times. These attacks were planned with ruthless and malicious cunning, BUT (one caveat) there’s no way feminists could have accomplished it on their own.

I forget which dumb cunt said it,but it was something like :”The world being at best an utter bore, there remains to civic-minded,thrill-seeking females to overthrow capitalism…..etc,etc.”

But that shows the level of intelligence we’re dealing with here. It’s like saying, “There’s nothing good on tv…I KNOW, let’s throw a brick at it. Maybe THAT will put some more interesting shows on the programme!”.

No. Somebody helped these sick fucks craft laws to specifically target certain areas of men’s lives so that it would have a snowballing effect,hitting US,the men of today,the hardest….. and other men let them do it. That part wasn’t really our fault, none of us would do our mothers and sisters the way we are being done by them via feminism. When they said “Help women”,we stupidly said “Sure, where do we sign up?”. They figured that into their plans too, I guarantee you that.

In the future,though, considering how we now know more about women then they themselves do. If we are invited to “help women”, we should say either “Fuck no.” or say “Sure, here’s OUR plan to ‘help women’”,and keep the women themselves completely out of the process. Because the only way women know how to help themselves is by helping themselves to what WE have. And grinding salt into any open wounds caused in the process.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Porky D. November 18, 2010 at 19:13

Good news for now, but these things are like Freddy Krueger – only dead until the sequel.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Days of Broken Arrows November 18, 2010 at 19:43

How about a Death Fairness Act?

American men die seven years sooner than their female counterparts. Why have no measures ever been taken by the government to even this out?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0
Keyster November 18, 2010 at 20:20

It’s a case of a lie being repeated so many times that most people, that is, the people who don’t know the facts, believe is it truth.

That’s key to feminist strategy in every area they seek power over men. NOW headquarters is less than a half mile from the whitehouse. The president of NOW has been there 7 times since Obama took office. Not once when Bush was there. To politicians NOW is the voice of women because NOW is extremely active in lobbying in DC. Had the Republicans not regained power in Congress a couple of weeks ago (and Scott Brown not won Ted Kennedy’s seat earlier), this bill probably would have passed. This was the Republicans starting to flex their resurging muscle.

This bill was insane, which goes to show how out of control the Democrats had become. I’m not being partisan here, this is fact. You wanna know how we got VAWA, IMBRA, Title IX, etc.? Democratic legislation.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
MsExceptiontotheRule November 18, 2010 at 22:24

That’s it, I’m going to write all of the government people that I can to let them know how oppressive all of these ridiculous attempted laws are for *this* woman. As a person who puts in the extra time and effort to get promotions and raises the “hard way” – blood, sweat, tears, and bringing work home if needed – the last thing I want to see would be someone that is given raises and promotions due to my employer being concerned there might be a lawsuit if they did otherwise….

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5
misterb aka misterbastard November 18, 2010 at 23:17

I noted that public employees get off in abusing their authority. As one saying goes, only sickos and bastards get off from a thrill of using excessive force on civilians. Not to mention molesting a full grown man at public place.

As mention before. rationale men don’t like to be touch either inappropriately or without their permission. Even old people are not spared from public humiliation.

corruption is not that uncommon. Tax dollars gets misused by public officials. Even a mayor is not above in killing a hooker.

The LEO provided a good example. That’s just one example. Morality is nonexistent in the so-called public servants. Even tax man think he’s king of his universe.

A few good cops, often walk a fine line between death and survival. Sometimes good cops are often killed by their own comrades.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
misterb aka misterbastard November 18, 2010 at 23:18

ah shit, i posted a comment on a wrong article.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
Lovekraft November 19, 2010 at 03:52

Don’t get too excited. There are many other tools in their arsenal and they will just bide their time. Best to remain vigilant.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Firepower November 19, 2010 at 09:19

post-modern devil November 18, 2010 at 12:55

In defense of the Republicans, I beleive it is male nature to come of as elitist or condensending to those you beleive you are superior towards

This is a tendency of WEALTHY ELITES — not average people. Soldiers in small combat units stick together – even white and black. You do not see wealthy people loyal to anything but other wealthy people – and pure wealth itself. You also never see wealthy people in combat.

Most of the problems with the Republicans simply comes with the territory to being a political elite: they look at men and boys primarily for their utility and tie in social manhood and male identity with loving women

These are Right-Wing fascists. Pelosi and Obama are Left-Wing fascists. Republicans would READILY use poor white girls as brothel girls and poor white boys ditch diggers without one pang of conscience. THIS is the foulest, most insidious point about them.

Left-Wing Fascists would use whites as cashcows for freeloading minorities – as HOSTS to The Parasite. This, is their sin.

If anything, the biggest issue in respect to the Republican party in of itself is, aside from their white knighting, that they do NOTHING to combat the perception of being the party for mainly old white men*

Asterisk: RICH white men.

The only reason to vote Republican, sadly, is they are not Democrats – the worse enemy. Such motivation never inspires loyalty – not even the smallest shred of “patriotism.”

In order to defeat (destroy) the Leftist Liberal Fascists who RULE America, the Republicans will have to be tolerated a while longer until a Tea Party-like power can be installed.

Voting for “Not-Democrat” is the same as choosing Stalin and vile Communism because it is “not Hitler.”

Both parties have betrayed White Men and deserve no mercy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3
some dude November 19, 2010 at 10:43

The country needs to wake up and realize that they need men. Not in a new-age pussified man-baby, form but good old-fashioned gravel-shovelling form. And they aren’t going to shame us into working hard.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Firepower November 19, 2010 at 10:46

some dude November 19, 2010 at 10:43

The country needs to wake up and realize that they need men.

Expecting a “wake up” is the “shoulda” part in a shoulda-coulda-woulda realm.

If you thing “somebody” is going to “wake up” and “stop the madness” for you, you will be buried in your chains – with a head of gray hair.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
MRA November 22, 2010 at 02:26

Republicans are not friends of men. They are probably worse than the Democrats because of their deeper committment to the prerequisites and precursors of feminism (Free Market, Capitalism, Democracy, Liberalism, etc.). Republicans tend to be militant feminists in a way that Democrats are not (arming the Feminist Dystopia to the teeth, and spreading Western values worldwide by the sword).

Left vs. right in the mainstream Western political system is in fact a false dichotomy which offers no solutions to men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3
MRA November 22, 2010 at 02:31

“There is this I add for interested parties;
Does empowering women really make men less ‘relevant’?”

Who cares what females/feminists think. Men need to start defining the discourse and issues themselves and rejecting female/feminist framings. Rejecting female/feminist false enquiries like this one:

“Does empowering women really make men less ‘relevant’?”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
MRA November 22, 2010 at 02:42

Life is a zero sum game, gender especially so. Christian/Enlightenment Liberal [foundation of Western Civilization] wishful thinking about “universal equality and dignity” does not negate this basic reality. The whole question of gender equality is an absurd one; one that females/feminists engage in dishonestly. It is rebuked by Nature itself.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Rachel November 23, 2010 at 18:29

“How could this be, that feminism, insofar as we assume feminism to be a “women’s movement”, is so dedicated to the destruction of men? On the face of it, it doesn’t make sense, does it? Let’s take a closer look.

I’ve got a theory that feminism is, in a very deep and fundamental way, a manifestation of the slut mindset. If female sexuality is in a very fundamental way related to “violation”, then this goes some way to explaining why every woman has within her, this secret fascination with thugs. Rape fantasies, I guess, are normal and healthy [that's what they would say, isn't it], and just because a woman fantasizes about being raped does not mean that she wants to be raped [ahem... bear with me].

The women that act out this fascination with thugs, we call sluts. Violation is what thugs do and violation is what sluts crave. But the thrill of choosing thugs has ramifications, because the secret thrill that many women derive from being humiliated comes with its inevitable return undercurrent. It’s the hatred of the one doing the humiliating. A slut can never get off scot-free for her dumb choices, because her hatred of her abuser, for all her craving complicity, is its inevitable logical outcome. The thrill of violation and the bitterness of hate constitute aspects of a duality that is inescapable.”

As a woman I think I have an insiders view and I would strongly disagree. I think feminist have “rape fantasies” to express, consciously or subconsciously, their secret, shameful desire to be submissive to a strong man in the only context where they still can, one which they can’t control. You linked these fantasies to a desire for humiliation, but why did you assume that? I’ll answer tentatively, and you can correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s because for men the first thing you associate with rape is humiliation. But that’s not what they are thinking about. Women do not like to be humiliated. Any woman who does is a very disturbed person. Feminism is not an expression of, as you put it, a “slut” mindset and especially not a desire for humiliation. In fact the opposite is true, the whole reason feminism exists is because it’s a reaction against the perceived humiliation of the slavery of women. I’ll repeat it, women do not like to be humiliated. But while for men humiliation might be your first association with rape, that’s not necessarily true for women. Slavery might be humiliating, we don’t despise the slaves; we despise those who use men as slaves. In the same way rape might be humiliating for a woman, but we don’t look down on her for it, we look down on the rapist. She is, to use an often-abused term, the victim.

So the feminists who fantasize about rape aren’t thinking about the violence, humiliation, or degrading feeling that comes with real rape, what they’re thinking about is a strong, in control man who really wants them. To understand, let me ask you this, who would you think worse of, a slave? Or a free person who chooses slavery? In the minds of feminist it’s more acceptable to indulge in “rape fantasies” then to be a submissive wife because a submissive wife has a choice, but the victim of rape doesn’t. This is the feminist perspective. They will never choose to be submissive to men because in their minds it’s choosing slavery. But rape takes away that choice, and in my opinion this allows them to indulge their true desire for a strong male without actually violating their beliefs.

The desire for a strong man is scorned by feminist and viewed as a slave mentality. From their perspective it’s on the exact same level as an African American secretly desiring a return to slavery. However, men and women are not separate races, we’re separate genders. And when God instituted a natural hierarchy in nature he created women to be submissive to men and gave them a desire for strong men. I think all women, or at least all normal women, have a desire for strong men. So I imagine to deal with this most feminist live in a state of denial and repress this desire. If a feminist acknowledges this desire, and I doubt many do, it would be a shameful secret for her and a source of great anxiety them lest anyone find out. Either way, this leads feminist to becoming very defensive and sensitive over the whole entire issue of feminism, which certainly explains why feminists are so militant. And why so many women walk around with a chip on their shoulders. And why many women are uncomfortable with themselves. Because feminism is, ironically, a rejection of women’s inherent nature. As much as feminist can rebel against their position they can never erase their own nature. It can only be repressed and distorted and as a result some feminist find to their bewilderment that they feel strangely attracted by the idea of rape.

Don’t get me wrong. These women don’t really want to be raped. Rape is evil. And if they actually experienced it they wouldn’t be romanticizing about it. But they still have a desire for strong men that, while denied by their intellect and conscious, still exist in their baser instincts. These instincts point to the truth feminist simply refuse to accept, men didn’t subjugate women. Men didn’t have to. Women are by nature inclined to be submissive. Feminist won’t acknowledge that because they don’t understand submission doesn’t imply inferiority. God placed inherent into all of creation a hierarchy. Men are the leaders of women, not because they choose it, but because they are made to be by God. And so he gave them a more aggressive nature and a desire to lead. Women are under men, not because of subjugation, but because we’re made to be by God’s design. Women have a God given passive nature and a desire to follow good leaders. In the feminist view men and women are treated the same as two separate races. Believing this they saw wives in submission to husbands as slaves and they fought to bring women freedom. They were wrong. Male and female are not like two different races, but are two parts of a whole. Each side has a natural complimentary role.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3
knowthingman November 26, 2010 at 10:27

since when did we start making people or businesses PROVE that they aren’t guilty of allegations?

guilty until proven innocent? when did we abandon this constitutional precept?

i dont care if its just civil and not criminal. once a society accepts that the defense must prove their innocence instead of the prosecution proving GUILT, you WILL see it spread to criminal proceedings and you WILL be living in a police state.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 2 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: