The IMF recently proposed that Ireland should lower women’s income tax by 5%, which it claims will raise Ireland’s GDP by 1.75%. Supposedly, the policy has nothing to do with feminism, and is only intended to benefit the Irish economy, but we heard similar arguments when it was decreed that only women should be able to receive food aid in the wake of the Haiti earthquake of earlier this year.
It didn’t take long for me to find an explicitly feminist IMF working paper that lays the groundwork for lower tax rates for women. The argument that the IMF proposal has nothing to do with feminism or women’s empowerment is obviously a lie, as the working paper that proposes the idea is chock full of feminist ideology.
The paper, titled ‘Gender Budgeting‘ and authored by US citizen Janet Stotsky, who is described as “an Economist in the Tax Policy Division of the IMF’s Fiscal Affairs Department,” opens with this statement:
Women are disadvantaged relative to men, according to key economic, social, and political measures of equality, but in many areas, such as education, differences are narrowing. The concept of externalities underlies the arguments for including gender considerations in budget programs and policies. Other arguments have a weaker economic basis but may be more socially or politically compelling. The experience to date with “gender budgeting,” which entails looking at gender issues comprehensively within the budget, has been mixed. To become more useful, gender budgeting should be integrated into budget processes in a way that generates tangible improvements in policy outcomes. The International Monetary Fund should encourage fiscal authorities to take into account the external benefits of reducing gender inequalities and to remove from fiscal legislation any arbitrary discrimination against women.
Pretty standard feminist fare so far — it’s all about equalizing things. As the paper goes on, different kinds of “inequalities” are highlighted, including one in particular where inequality is actually equal — the life expectancy gap. Stotsky argues that where male and female lifespans approach equality, it is actually unequal, because women should naturally live longer than men, so effort should be expended to widen the gap. This is similar to the feminist argument concerning suicide, in which high rates of male suicide are “natural,” and therefore nothing to worry about, whereas if female suicide rates approach male rates the equality becomes an inequality. These people really are shameless like that:
Health inequalities are measured as the ratio of female to male life expectancy. For biological reasons, average female life expectancy is higher than male life expectancy, and this difference exists in virtually all countries, but, as indicated in the table, the gap between female and male life expectancy tends to narrow in the low human development countries. Inequalities in health appear as excess mortality of female children and differences in life expectancy that do not accord with biological norms.
Now, on to the subject at hand, income tax is held to have an “implicit bias,” because women supposedly have extra expenses and duties that men do not have. In another IMF paper titled “How Tax Systems Treat Men and Women Differently,” Stotsky argues that differences in labor supply behavior suggest that income tax discriminates against married women, and that to achieve equality women should be taxed at a lower rate:
Studies of income taxation have long taken gender into account by explicitly con- sidering the differences in the labor supply behavior of men and women, and their implications for public policy. These stud- ies suggest that the labor supply response of married women, who are often assumed to be the secondary earners, to the income tax is greater than that of married men. This implies that to minimize the efficiency cost of the income tax, everything else being equal, married women should be taxed at a lower rate than married men.
Clearly, the intent of the IMF recommendation is gender equalization in Ireland, and the IMF should be honest and open about its social-engineering goals rather than pretend that such proposals are only for the good of Ireland’s economy. However, the IMF has a long history of dubious policy attachments, and in at least one important case it turned out that rejecting IMF proposals was the right thing to do.
In 1997, during the Asian economic crisis of that year, several East Asian leaders met to deal with the crisis and exchange notes and opinions concerning IMF assistance and policy, among other things. Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said that, if anything, IMF policies had been harmful, and declared his intention to avoid IMF loans if at all possible. The problem was, according to Mohamad, that the conditions attached to the loans would expose countries to financial manipulation at the hands of foreign banks.
Mohamad’s concerns turned out to be prophetic, as Malaysia avoided the worst ravages of the crisis while the currencies of several other Asian countries were hammered following their acceptance of assistance from the IMF.
Perhaps Ireland would do well to take a close look at the dangers inherent in dealing with the IMF, and take note of the fact that an American feminist ideologue has apparently been given free reign to impose her will on the people of Ireland through loan conditions.
{ 91 comments… read them below or add one }
This is an incredibly stupid, unfair proposal. Disgracefully so. Differential taxing on the basis of gender is in breach of human rights anyway, it would not be upheld from a constitutional point of view.
As far as I’m aware though, no one here is taking it seriously.
Funnily enough, there was a proposal in the Irish edition of the Sunday Times today, that Irish women TDs be paid extra money (I think the 5% was used here too). However this was very much tongue in cheek.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
36 
1
Irish males should perhaps look forward to lowering their salary by about 10-20% (by taking time off) and rely more on women`s salaries, as those will be taxed less.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
42 
0
I saw a comment in one Irish paper that said something like “They’re doing this to pit women’s interest against men’s, thereby handicapping any kind of sustained uprising against ruling class.” Very perceptive comment, and applies to Feminism in general. Not just in Ireland.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
66 
0
I never cease to be amazed (or horrified) by the sheer duplicity of these feminists. So women living longer than men is a biological norm – asserted without any evidence – but you try saying that mothers staying at home to raise their children is a biological norm and we all know the shitstorm you’ll get!
That paper also mentions the “well documented” phenomenon of “missing women… [who] would be alive… if there were no gender discrimination”. No mention of course of how many women would be alive if there was no abortion.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
54 
0
This will give further moral justification to the try to not pay taxes (as if there was need), or doing jobs offering more escape ways from taxation.
This is tied to the recent lowering in Europe of the limit of the cash use, from 12.500 euros to 5.000. Their project is totally abolish cash, like in science fiction movies where there is no banknotes but only electronic currency. With that, the state will control every single money movement and will give or remove money from people at will.
The periodic electronic meltdowns of stock market and failing trading automated softwares leave hope to the freedom: who will be in charge will be too idiotic for implementing a serious functioning system (no surprise, since they come from public employment and affirmative action and feminist background).
With the untrust towards government, many will return to barter and real value money, gold and similar. I sincerely hope this will be good for men and bad for women.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
33 
1
Sometimes wisdom comes from unexpected places. Other times folly comes from all sides.
Just as things are annoying as hell. Things are about to worsen.
Speaking of which, It never cease to amaze on the stupidity of some people. More laws, expect more headaches. Again I will say this, feminism are crafty bastards.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
26 
1
OT: I’ve mentioned previously about a mining disaster unfolding in my country; now all 29 men have been declared dead: http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/no-guarantees-grieving-families-3923931
I was talking to two middle-aged women about the tragedy and their attitudes were revealing. One said that nobody forced those men to work in the mine, and anyway they were getting paid good money. I pointed out that they were getting paid about the same as a middle manager working in an office, and then I asked her how much money would it take for her to work in a mine like that. She said she wouldn’t do it for any amount of money – so in other words, her life is priceless but those men’s lives are worth an office worker’s wage.
The other woman was, to be fair, horrified at the tragedy. I told her that 60-70 people die at work every year in our country [and that doesn't include marine or aviation fatalities, which means such dangerous pursuits as fishing and top-dressing] and she was incredulous. Just shows how insulated these women are from the reality that provides them with their comfortable existence.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
55 
1
India too has them, though they seem nominal at the moment:
http://www.forum4finance.com/2010/09/09/indian-women-and-tax-rebates/
Contrast it with the current inequality in US:
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/08/is-war-between-generations-inevitable.html
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
39 
0
It used to be that the police could arrest vagrants on the grounds of “having no visible means of support”, ie no cash on them (I dunno, it may even still be so).
I could imagine that in the future police state, people relying on trade and barter could be arrested on a similar principle, where “no support” means no cash card or subcutaneous chip.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
0
“That paper also mentions the “well documented” phenomenon of “missing women… [who] would be alive… if there were no gender discrimination”. No mention of course of how many women would be alive if there was no abortion.”
What’s much amusing about that statement is if we didn’t had gender discrimination many more women would have never been alive throughout the history of living alongside mankind.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
2
Sure, give men even less of an incentive to do the work needed to keep society running.
It is easy to migrate within the EU. Irish men will simply start to go where they are at least not taxed more than women.
Any country that taxes men more than women will soon have a lot of unmarried women aged 35+.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
43 
1
Where the interests of women go contrary to men`s is where the schism takes place.
Our society is a broken mirror: a vertical crack or schism that splits the genders and an horizontal split or schism that separates the classes.
Now I understand Arnold Toynbee.
We live in key times. A revolving door.
A mirror needs changing.
I wish I was Nostradamus.
But no! Surprise is better.
One thing is sure: this schism was introduced intentionally. Someone holds the strings.
But who?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17 
0
My bad, the first link in my first post should be:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Tirath-may-seek-lower-tax-rates-for-women/articleshow/5593966.cms
though that one shows the groveling tone towards women:
Like or Dislike:
11 
0
Actually, this would not change that much from the way things already are, even in the US.
70-80% of ALL government spending is a transfer of wealth from men to women.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
58 
1
Absolutely, and as I alluded to in my post above about the mining tragedy, there’s also never any mention of all the”missing men” who have died building and protecting our civilization.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
32 
0
Feminism is just a tactic used by communists to exploit the natural tendency of females to always have some sort of gripe against the superior males, just as the stupid lower classes always seem to hate the more competent wealthier people.
Communism was just a scheme to gain control over countries and/ or their economy. It had nothing to do with equality anymore than feminism does(that’s just some nonsense they feed to the proles as a smokecreen to hide what they’re really up to)
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
39 
6
taxing men to death is suicidal for any nation. It is highly doubtful that feminists would listen to reason at all. Considering that reason is foreign to them.
The ongoing assault against men continues unabated.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
33 
1
“This is similar to the feminist argument concerning suicide, in which high rates of male suicide are “natural,” and therefore nothing to worry about, whereas if female suicide rates approach male rates the equality becomes an inequality. These people really are shameless like that”
In other words, they are using the word “equality” to refer to equal opportunity, under the assumption that women naturally live longer than men, and not equality of results. Meanwhile, they use “equality” to refer to equality of results when they demand favorable treatment of women in the workplace and academia.
Spinning it in the way that they did is pretty much the only way anyone will accept such a stupid idea.
The Man, Woman, & Myth series has a good video explaining the differences between equal opportunity and equality of results:
http://www.youtube.com/user/manwomanmyth#p/u/4/XoXJ4Z9D59Y
http://www.youtube.com/user/manwomanmyth#p/u/3/T2bYMsjIVHA
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
1
women, etc., women, etc., (snort)
Advocating for less income tax for the chicks while females likely disproportionately consume most of the tax provided social services. What a bunch of fucking pigs. Oops, oh, er,….those kind, caring, competent, nurturing, altruistic, peaceful, strong, invincible feminist “wimmins.” ‘I love the smell of old world societal collapse in the morning’.
This is like shooting fish in a barrel of water. Good thing powerful globalist men working behind the scenes are behind them. Otherwise they wouldn’t have the guns, barrel or fish.
First, for 40 + years, modern feminism tosses about all kinds of data to the public with not knowing whether their info is correct. Then they shame the whole general public into going along with whatever they’ve spoken of. No one is allowed to properly examine their data because of the big restructuing industrialist globalism agenda that they’re unwittingly involved in.
In the mean time, basis the unexamined data, men’s jobs, material possessions, incomes, pensions, children and liberty have gotten pilfered along the way by these gender parasites.
History has already been written, Jezebel, and you’re not going to come out of this one very well, again.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
29 
2
Haven’t had the time to read the posts above, so sorry if this is redundant. Take a look at the comments after this article on the matter:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/24/ireland-imf-women-income-tax-cut-inequality
It’s amazing how much people, numerous women and one hell of a lot of men, have woken up in the last year or two.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
1
Ordinary folks don’t understand that an openly secret but undeclared war on males and maleness has been rageing beneath the tranquil surface of civility and polite society for some time now. And this gender war even though apparent to most local observers as a social problem between the sexes, is infact instigated and insinuated from an international economic point of view.
Those whom openly speak of a “gender war”, say it only in jest or are unaware of the depths and ranges to which Police-States, bankrolled by international financiers, motivated by a subdue-enslave-and-create-profit-off-the-people mentality, have inveigled and subverted their national governments and institutions.
It isn’t suprising at all just how globally uniform, are the multi-trillion dollar Country wide bail outs, the capital-restructurings and the quantitative easing measures, both in prologue and aftermath effects to the male sections of national populations.
Each financially crippled country, overborrowed from its previous rounds of coerced socialist spending, is either “assisted” by unrefusable monetary offer, or simply forced, by international credit refference blackmail, to accept beforehand of immediate need, agreement or discussion, inordinately large sums of IOU money. That is, by way of uncollaterised, non-asset-backed electronic debit entry to its imf and world bank accounts.
The ensnared country is then obligated by sovereign credit referencing agencies of the imf and world bank into signalling back to the money brokers, continuing, common and aligned intent of ready capability to repay and service the loans using social engineering techniques of gender conflict creation by legal enslavement of sections of their populations. That is, by further commodification of males and maleness via proposing more anti-male policies, antimale-legislation and more institutional led misandry by which the loan repayments and interim debt servicing is perpetually guaranteed.
Dog-stupid women in these subverted countries, because they are more willing parasites and egotistical theives whom always disliked honest work, continue to believe and agree with the false message of their hostage national goverments. That is, their hostage national governments which use feminism to excuse and justify theft, and the murder of innocents for property, in the name of womens rights and privilages.
But even more stupider are the men in these subverted countries, whom feeling self excused by repeatedly parroting the new social dispensation, because they are proud, vain and ignorant men, or simply inferior creatures after an illusory power over their fellows, accepted the dubious new State imperative, however absurd or contradictory … … That is, of womens rights, privilages and equality, for which they readily agree to serve as impliments and tools against each other and against their own interests. Now are these men whom loose both ways, not the greatest fools of all characters … ?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
34 
2
Man these people are arrogant. Seems like they would have some serious health problems being this rotten. Wonder if this robot girl had to take steroids to pump out that article. Funny how they’re targeting the Irish – the Irish were targeted in the USA in early times – I think it’s because they are strong willed people who don’t put up with smack.
I think these folks are digging their own grave on crack.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
28 
1
Our Jezebel has no morales. She thinks we’re fools for working and laughs at those who have and takes their money.
It’s time us men figured out we’re being robbed and start protecting our money. We men can be clever.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
33 
3
Actually if you read the superb research in Warren Farrel’s book ‘The Myth of Male Power’ you’ll be informed that male longevity isn’t naturally less than female longevity. In fact the biggest survey of male and female suicide (The USA Census bureau) concludes that from 1901 to 2001 the longevity of males went from being only 1 year less than that of females to 7 years. The much higher rates of male suicidality are part of that too.
I did a study in NZ of the disparity of health outcomes for men and women there back in the 1990s. I found that in ALL 59 recorded disease rates men typically outnumbered women 2 to one and their mean stay bed usage and morbidity rates are 50 % more. In layman’s terms that means they arrive in hospital in much worse shape, remain there longer and more often die there. Go figure.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
32 
0
And Poor India! Wow… talk about a ancient civilization that should have a clue!
I guess thats what happens when you worship Kali and the “divine feminine” … lol.
Looks like the scum buckets are targeting India particularly – they always had a weakness for PHDs… (and other pretentious bullshit…) but they have their strong points too… I’m betting on a MRA Ghandi coming out of that place.
BTW I never thought their ladies were that hot…
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
1
Oh, one other thing – at the same time spending on female health FAR outstrips that for male health in NZ. Feminists don’t give a damn about men. That’s clear.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
32 
0
Women should be taxed more than men. I am fully in favour of a ‘woman tax’ being levied on women.
Reason being that women consume far more than their fair share of all tax-funded services, plus they live longer by 10-20 years (and even feminists admit, this is a ‘natural inequality’).* After retirement, they generally depend upon state pensions (at present, largely male contributions).
When men and women pay the same rate of tax, men lose out while women reap the benefits.
Ergo, collectivism should be run by the chicks if it is going to be for the chicks. I support a higher tax rate for women than for men.
Funny, I’d never thought about it until they proposed the man tax.
But now that I have thought about it, it is grotesque to demand that men pay even more than they already do towards services which only benefit women.
I think it is far more fair that women pay a greater percentage of income tax – given our extensive welfare arrangements, of which women are the primary beneficiaries, it makes perfect sense that additional financial obligations be levied against working women.
Men, far less likely to be dependent upon the contributions of others, should be considered as having ‘opted out’ by default, and thus would not be obliged to pay the higher tax rate.
The great part about this is that it will help women to become truly independent, by earning and paying their own way, without being dependent on men – they truly will be fish without bicycles.
Thoughts?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
50 
1
Stupidity is rampant. Women don’t care how men and children are affected daily.
Debt is a bank’s way of generating profits to their own banking institution. And debt is a modern version of enslavement.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
1
*I am not convinced it is a natural inequality whatsoever, it is far more likely to be the result of men choosing (or having no choice over going into) professions and working life patterns which are more dangerous and more stressful.
But, the inequality being what it is, my point stands.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
0
I think it’s a case of what feminists would refer to as equal outcomes not really being equal. Women benefit more from tax and spend policies, so where tax and spend policies are applied equally to men and women, women gain while men lose. To make things equal, i.e. that men and women win equally, women will need to be taxed considerably more.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
34 
0
Anyone who thinks I am being nasty: women are fully entitled to stop excessively consuming public services at any time. If they did, and their consumption dropped down to the same level as men’s, I would not be proposing a woman tax.
Men provide, women consume, is not fair nor equitable. A woman tax would correct the imbalance.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
45 
0
Feminists, apparently, seem to believe that governments enact pro-women legislation because they care about women’s rights; they see politicians passing laws like VAWA and they cheer for more.
When the money runs out – as it inevitably will – then we’ll see how much governments actually care about women’s rights.
I guess the advantage we men have, such as it is, is that we know that governments absolutely do not care about individual rights, allowing them only as long as and to the extent that the financial benefits to the state exceed the costs.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
30 
0
Soon after Obama was elected, I remember Canada was about to deliver its budget. It appeared we would have a surplus.
Then Obama pays our PM Harper a visit and within the next week, the Finance Minister announces we will be running a deficit, as part of the global bailout program (lots of unionized autoworkers here).
Wonder what went on in that meeting.
And if you know me, debt is something I have a hard time accepting.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
26 
0
I think that surplus went to the democrat party. American government, always looking for quick cash. No wonder the American tax payers are sick and tired
They got shafted by the government many times over.
Like or Dislike:
14 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
7 
51
“Women are disadvantaged relative to men, according to key economic, social, and political measures of equality, but in many areas, such as education, differences are narrowing. The concept of externalities underlies the arguments for including gender considerations in budget programs and policies. Other arguments have a weaker economic basis but may be more socially or politically compelling. The experience to date with “gender budgeting,” which entails looking at gender issues comprehensively within the budget, has been mixed. To become more useful, gender budgeting should be integrated into budget processes in a way that generates tangible improvements in policy outcomes. The International Monetary Fund should encourage fiscal authorities to take into account the external benefits of reducing gender inequalities and to remove from fiscal legislation any arbitrary discrimination against women.”
What drivel! I admit that there *might* be some form of sexism that affects women, but oppression or whatever nonsense they make up simply isn’t true. Women have more power thanks to already unfair laws designed to *favor* them.
Apparently feminists want to make women into children that needs the government to provide for them.
Ugh.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
23 
1
According to John Perkins, author of “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” many of these transnational organizations are covers for ways to politically neutralize third world countries through the debt trap. (Similar to how China is influencing US policy politically through debt.) I don’t recall if he singled out IMF. Most Americans and Europeans don’t understand the importance of these transnational organizations until they actually go to these third-world countries and see these massive development programs in action. (Note: Take his book with a grain of salt.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man
My company where I work is composed of about 50% Europeans who fled Europe because their political policies robbed them of their work, so they fled to the United States. I know of no Irish here but many British are here. When we talk about US politics they lament the direction our country is heading, “but where else do we have to go?” they lament.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
23 
0
I wonder if the feminists would become the patsies of socialism. They suckered other women in other world nations.
Now they’re bent on destroying civilization in one act of stupidity at the time.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
1
Thanks for the tip. I wish I had time to read all of this stuff, but I’ll definitely make an effort to pick this one up. I think I’m going to start doing more work from Suzzallo Library to make writing this stuff easier.
Whatever the case, I’ve got an idea for something I want to write soon along these lines that ought to be of some value to our Indian brothers in their efforts.
Women need tax cuts to finance their desperate attempts to look young.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
38 
0
“Just getting my hair cut and colored on a regular basis is expensive, not to mention manicures and facials.”
Getting sperm shot all over your face costs you money?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
37 
1
I think so. I think that’s what my 27 year old wife wants to hear.
Like or Dislike:
16 
3
In spite of the headaches going on in this world.
Man it is good that men are starting to wake up. Unfortunately hard times are ahead. men will have to struggle for survival and endure hardships.
Even though it has been mention by other commentators. It is safe to say that there would be a resurgence of manly men. And women would be forced to back into the household, just to stay alive.
Like or Dislike:
15 
2
“It is safe to say that there would be a resurgence of manly men. And women would be forced to back into the household, just to stay alive.”
Yes and no. I don’t think we’ll ever go back to a completely traditional household system again. But this isn’t a bad thing. I think all we have to be realistic here. Traditional households will go on the rise, but there’s a number of non-traditional households that will still exist. (Like some with female head of households and such) I think once everyone realizes the poison that is feminism(my wife absolutely hates it), we’ll see people being the individuals they deseve to be and everyone treated fairly regardless of gender.
Like or Dislike:
11 
3
– Well spoken POIUYT. Thumb up for that.
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
Dear All:
Typical Feminism, same old, same old. The child gender (aka, female) once again is to have rights unrestrained by responsibility). Women can play with their toys, but they don’t have to put them away. But men have to put them away, but they don’t get to play with them.
Women have rights: men have responsibilities.
As per the often implied reasons why men had votes while women didn’t can be explained as per the foundation of men’s rights: responsibilities. Such can be seen in monarchies which had not been overthrown, such as the UK (yes, I know that there had been a republic for a short while).
The reasoning why men are assigned rights founded on responsibilites (while women are not assigned such rights–because they don’t have the concommitant responsibilites) is often made explicit when a government is formed following a revolution. A classic example is that of France.
Various layers of commoners complained, even as if they were Feminists, during the latter years/months/days of the French Monarchy. Some complains were just: others were not (and benefits given by the monarchy were generally ignored in general).
Once the the Monarchist government had been killed into submission, RESPONSIBILITES had to be embraced explicitly by the complainers. The logic was evident mathematically in the doings of such.
Because of the gore of the Revolution, the, “issues” often ceased to be the, “issues” and the gore was the issue. As such, those who assumed power explicitly systematized the state such that rights were restrained by responsibilities. The vote was given to men, as long as they were members of the National Guard. Simply put: “If you want a war, it’ll be YOUR butt on the line.” It worked. Even too well.
The problem of too much sword of state was suchly juxtaposed in short time with the problem of insuffiency of the sword and the French state (republic) was a sitting duck for Austria which began to agress upon it. As, the problem of too little sword was also address and conscription was brought in (and thusly, the electorate expanded)…
The logic of who should form government was altruistic and naiive. The first republicans of France decided to put into place bureaucrats in the national legislature. Those bureaucrats taxed the country quite highly and paid themselves (as bureaucrats) quite Feminist wages. The electorate reacted and kicked out the bureaucrats in parliament and replaced them with businessmen.
The businessmen decided to restrict the electorate on economic grounds using the same explicit logic used to restrain the military exploits of the state: you had to have a large enough income to get the vote. The resultant restraint was: “If you want taxes, it’ll be YOUR wallet onthe line.” And it worked. And, it was in that context that the true and mature male proverb was declared although not perfectly: “The one who is the richest is the most trustworthy.” Economic war is restrained by economic responsibility.
The feminists just assigned themselves rights unrestrained by responsibility routinely. They are exempt from sales taxes on various goods in at least one province in Canada (Manitoba). Those goods relate to the female-only use such as tampons (of course, there is no parallel exemption for males as per jock straps, etc.).
Women’s rule is children’s rule. The absence of restraint evidenced by the child gender is in evidence everywhere. This is just another discussion of some of that evidence.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
30 
1
In Aus men provide two thirds of taxation revenue whilst women are beneficiaries of two thirds of government expenditure. Meanwhile analysis of 2008 Australian Bureau of Statistics and Australian Taxation Office data shows the gender gap in hourly rates of pay for full time workers to be 1.3%. All this while women control over eighty percent of discretionery spending.
There is a huge transfer of wealth and resources between men and women. Unfortunately it seems women are incapable of appreciating the generosity and largesse it entails. What saddens me most is that I’m not in the least bit surprised.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
29 
0
“Various layers of commoners complained, even as if they were Feminists, during the latter years/months/days of the French Monarchy. Some complains were just: others were not (and benefits given by the monarchy were generally ignored in general). ”
I think this one is a little unfair. Comparing modern feminism to the French Revolution is a little extreme. The First and Second Estates did have special priviliges. The Third Estate was regally screwed.
Women as a whole never had the same problems that the Third Estate had.
Like or Dislike:
12 
0
What’s so amazing is how they’re taken seriously, just because they use words like “externalities” and state positions in such a seemingly reasonable tone; as if it’s a given that whatever they want just makes perfect sense. And that it would be foolish not to give it to them.
The child has been given the keys to the candy store and will gourge herself sick.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
1
Dear Silent Blood:
I agree with the gist of what you said. Certainly women have had lesser problems than those to which I referred in general (no surprise there). My point was that the republicans over-stepped in claiming actively and passively (especially passively) that the Monarchy was of no benefit to the commoner whatsoever whereas it was.
There was the keeping of the peace (although imperfectly, of course). And, governments did sincerely address matters of drinking water, garbage collection, sanitation in general, etc.
The imperfectly bad (and good) was replaced by the imperfectly good (and bad). That was my point.
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
What Irish homemaking women or women who earn significantly less than their husbands don’t realise is that the money robbed from their husbands will be unavailable to be spent on their own families.
Instead, this money will be redistributed to various social engineerng programs (the alleged will of the people) that redirect female dependency away from individual men to men as a collective.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
38 
1
Dear davout:
Exactly, that is to say, the male is targeted individually to being targetted collectively. But of course, feminist government bureaucrats will skim off a fair chunk of the resdistrubition transaction cost making themselves rich parasites. Thusly being encouraged by that ever growing schemes of government-administered parasitism, they will push for more of such, until the male goose who lays the golden sperm is plucked to death, and the parasite dies soon thereafter, at all levels.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
1
@ gender foreigner.
You seem to have good manners and polite too.
Even though the world is screwy as it is. History was just as brutal. Women don’t seem to get that in this day of age, life is easier. food is plentiful
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
16 
0
Could it be that prior to say the industrial revolution that the excesses of women (common women) were kept in check by poverty?
Then feminism is just the result of bored women with too much time on their hands.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
0
If society collapses, let’s NOT let the women crawl back for our forgiveness and protection. Please, let them suffer.
Of course exceptions can be made for family or friends who have proven themselves an upstanding individual.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
31 
1
A little harsh Herbal essence. But at the risk sounding a bit mean. I like your style.
I think we’re in the brink of collapse. Soon it would be back to living on the land.
And some native women need to learn how to pluck geese and skin animals.
Like or Dislike:
16 
2
Dear evilewhitempire:
I agree 100%. As far as limiting factors on the fulfillment of women’s endless desires, one could sum up the fact situation of which you speak as follows: “The will is strong, but the pocket book is weak.” Externally opposed restraint on women’s doings are the cake of all history. Women always need babysitters: they’re the child gender.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
16 
1
gender foreigner
If your interested here’s a guy with a somewhat unique take on this idea.
http://seanmaccloud.blogspot.com/2010/10/matriarchy-of-past-canard.html
While he comes off a bit crass his train of thought is quite interesting.
And here’s another guy with some interesting ideas about the liberating effects of birth control.
http://theantifeminist.com/a-very-brief-history-of-feminism/
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
@:”misterb aka misterbastard November 28, 2010 at 17:43
In spite of the headaches going on in this world.
Man it is good that men are starting to wake up. Unfortunately hard times are ahead. men will have to struggle for survival and endure hardships.”
I think that hard times will only make us stronger. What matters is the end result. To gain strength we must go through fire.
We must not concentrate on the pain ahead.
One day, when this is all over, we’ll miss the “good old times of cat fights” if peace ever erupts..but keep no hope..
What would we do if we didn’t have that fight? (or simili-war)
I don’t want to go back to the fifties. Not even the sixties.. Provider role? What’s that?
Fighting for one’s rights has always been at the forefront of man’s activities. Fighting is what we are good at.
There’s fighting as far back in time you look and there’s fighting for as long as life will exist.
In a sense, we know the future. So there is nothing to be afraid of.
We are a species in mutation.
If my statement is true, then we are bloody lucky to live in this period.
Mankind has always progressed more during tough times. Wars in particular have always given civilizations a great push forward through innovation.
Like or Dislike:
9 
0
I don’t think so. It will never be missed because for one thing *it* will always be trying to infiltrate. Peace would be simply the situation where it’s much easier (if not effortless) to keep it’s furtive attempts in check (what feminists call oppression). Sounds cynical perhaps, and maybe this is wrong. But peace is much better than imaginable. In these times we live very superficially – peace is deep… and it’s a system of order where all aspects of reality are correctly relating – nothing is missing nothing lost…
It’s not really a fight as much as a weather pattern. It happens naturally – it’s effortless… Man is just swaying in the wind as the feminine chaos goes rampant.
We are lucky to be alive… in such a intense period of war and revelation. Ignorance and unconsciousness is futile.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
“Getting sperm shot all over your face costs you money?”
God I lol’d.
Like or Dislike:
12 
1
Well now. This is largely along the lines of my prognostications.
And I am glad you used the passive, ‘let them suffer’; after all, in such a situation there would be no need at all to ACTIVELY make anybody ‘suffer’!
I have said before, that the worst thing that could ever happen to women would be to give them exactly what feminists have claimed to want.
Like or Dislike:
12 
1
LaughOrCry November 28, 2010 at 14:20
“I could imagine that in the future police state, people relying on trade and barter could be arrested on a similar principle, where “no support” means no cash card or subcutaneous chip.”
Of course, there are not soleley the two extremes. We can have our stupid government card, for saving the appearances. As many companies make something of the books, but not totally. This helps them survival and the possibility to keep workers employed.
Yes you are correct about making other forms of economic transations illegal.
In fact, already in this times, in USA they are guessing another massive state gold confiscation like it happened in the past. This night I had no time, but googling it, it seems already now Americans are forced to declare to IRS the possessions of gold bars. But not gold coins: every economics web site advice to save gold in form of coins, not simple bars.
As for the barter, I do not see any pratical way to enforce its prohibition. The problem will be the free agreement about the value of the good exchanged, so another pratical advice: become a salesman, at least a little, study game (imagine the huge pleasure to game a woman to barter her jewels – paid by her ex husband – for a slice of bread).
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
Wolves in sheep skin.
Like or Dislike:
9 
0
I mean the IMF. It ‘s not a surprise that my country did not ask for their further help.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
Seems to me that giving women a lower tax rate fly’s in the face of the EU ‘Human rights and Equality’ policy.
The Irish men should petition the EU court for Human Rights.
Like or Dislike:
14 
0
Snark- I would never personally make women suffer. It’s not in my nature. I leave that behavior to the men that make women’s vaginas tingle. All I’m saying is, women want bad boys and excitement so much, let’s let them have it.
Like or Dislike:
13 
1
“This is an incredibly stupid, unfair proposal. Disgracefully so. Differential taxing on the basis of gender is in breach of human rights”
There is no such thing as “human rights”. They are a Christian/Enlightenment/Classical Liberal/Western delusion. (Also a demagogic trick used by Machiavellian politicians.)
If x is bad, x isn’t bad because it is “in breach of human rights”; because human rights do not exist. It must be deemed bad because “it goes against my/our interests” (and my/our interests will not necessarily be the same as others).
Everyone is not equal – as the Christianity and the Enlightenment (essentially the same basic idea; the former spawned the latter) says. Dimorphic sexuality is inherently unequal and cruel. “Universal human rights” is an utter fallacy. No amount of nice words – a la Western Liberalism – makes these realities go away.
-
As for the main article:
“The IMF recently proposed that Ireland should lower women’s income tax by 5%, which it claims will raise Ireland’s GDP by 1.75%. Supposedly, the policy has nothing to do with feminism, and is only intended to benefit the Irish economy, but we heard similar arguments when it was decreed that only women should be able to receive food aid in the wake of the Haiti earthquake of earlier this year.”
It illustrates the alliance – the symbiosis – between neo-liberalism/Capitalism and feminism. It is not in the slightest unexpected.
The IMF is one of the world’s most foremost neo-liberal free market pro-Capitalist institutions. Here it is seriously recommending something so-called “radical feminist” (the instinct of all feminism always is radically anti-male – hence “radical” feminism is a redundant qualification) would conceptualize and greatly approve of. Notably the neo-liberal IMF are recommending it from the point of view of “stimulating the economy, increasing growth”. Feminism is being advocated on the basis of it being “good for the economy” – and therein we see why the “masculinists should be pro-free market” (free market will stop feminism) discourse is a fraud.
Like or Dislike:
8 
8
Somewhat related.
Nigel Farage rant against the EU:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fyq7WRr_GPg
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
@gender foreigner
“Dear Silent Blood:
I agree with the gist of what you said. Certainly women have had lesser problems than those to which I referred in general (no surprise there). My point was that the republicans over-stepped in claiming actively and passively (especially passively) that the Monarchy was of no benefit to the commoner whatsoever whereas it was.
There was the keeping of the peace (although imperfectly, of course). And, governments did sincerely address matters of drinking water, garbage collection, sanitation in general, etc.
The imperfectly bad (and good) was replaced by the imperfectly good (and bad). That was my point.”
I wasn’t trying to undermine your point. I just think there are better examples. Like the Trail of Tears deal with Native Americans. I think for the most part they weren’t actually oppressed, they actually agreed to go to the reservation. I admit that there was *some* racism but not at the levels we’re taught at schools. The same goes for women, there might have been *some* sexism but not at the levels that they teach us at our colleges.
Like or Dislike:
2 
4
faith n behgorrah! If THE TIMES says it, it must be so.
Sounds like you need a list of alpha rascals to help spend your paycheck. I wonder where one could be found
Like or Dislike:
2 
6
So, you take both positions then – a very wise, astute move.
Like or Dislike:
2 
5
“So, you take both positions then – a very wise, astute move.”
Oh no! Silentblood actually thinks that sexism and racism actually existed! He recognizes that humankind is a bloody and manipulative species and such stupidity exists regardless of creed, sex, race, or whatever! Hey guys let’s mock silentblood for being realistic!
Like or Dislike:
2 
7
What do you think is happening with the child credits?
When a single mother gets 7000 dollars how much lower taxes is that then the babies daddy living on his own paying regular taxes and getting nothing but the single person credit?
1000 upon 1000′s percent lower taxes lol
Just another thing that has been going on.
Like or Dislike:
7 
1
Course yea when the woman turns 35 and is too old for the hr job and is let go for a younger version yea she prob f*cked.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
Just saw an ad on indo tv about helping young girls have choices because one woman got married off so that her brother could go to college.
So that was somehow bad.
Even though they go to college they make like 400 a month what choice?
Woman getting married making out like bandits.
Guy works builds a house furnishes the shit and then takes the princes and gives her place to live.
Men the choice is to work work and then work.
Woman can marry rich marry poor work go to school.
Get married to man then have time to go to school.
Basically woman do whatever the f*ck they want allready.
Then they can divorce and remarry for the second chance at money.
Retarded shit.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
Or nowhere in the boys life path is their an opportunity to just get a free ride in life.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
It’s not your realism I highlight (and applaud,) but rather – your bravery at taking both sides of an issue.
pls pay attention
Like or Dislike:
1 
6
Ok, fine. I seriously doubt everything regarding gender issues right now are that black and white. It just so happens that we focus on the loud and vocal minority.
Like or Dislike:
0 
7
“If society collapses, let’s NOT let the women crawl back for our forgiveness and protection. Please, let them suffer.”
Herbal Essence,
I disagree with this sentiment. Certainly, the feminists with policy clout must be punished and in my opinion, the powerful men who enacted feminist policies need to be punished most severely. However, women in general must not be blamed for feminism unless there is explicit evidence that they have been active feminist advocates. A mercenary motivation is not the same as an anti-male motivation. While the effect of a mercenary motivation can be anti-male, the mercenary cannot be ipso facto deemed anti-male unless there is other evidence.
Both men and women NEED each other. If men do not retaliate and instead forgive, women owe men a permanent debt of gratitude. This is far more valuable than schadenfreude.
Like or Dislike:
3 
15
Unless there’s an upset on the budget vote on December 7th, the deal with the IMF is done. The international journalists are packing up to head to Lisbon to watch the impending bailout there. The IMF is done putting the screws to us – for now.
Discussion on boards.ie on the man tax.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
You say they will OWE ir. Fair enough. But will they PAY it?
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
Hollenhund,
We don’t know until societal collapse actually happens. My guess is that they would.
What we do know is that if they are not more receptive to men in such a situation, then the law of the jungle will apply.
Like or Dislike:
3 
6
Dear evilwhitemalempire:
I must assign an addendum to my comment regarding that historic poverty has checked women’s extremism. Again, drawing on the great academic work of excellent quality, The Garbage Generation, matriarchy is the cause of great historic and sustained poverty and on such poverty, such matriarchy self-sustains.
Matriarchy is consumption. Patriarchy is production.
Hunter-gatherer societies, such as those of aboriginal America are typically within the socioeconomic range of just one level above dead and yet they are matriarchal. Never having been to see Paris, they are satisfied with the farm (so to speak).
However, given that patriarchy has trumped matriarchy in the Americas (although with an overlay of paratistic, government- and otherwise-imposed matriarchy–Feminism), one can hold that contrary to the claim that, “No hunter-gatherer has ever decided to become part of industrial-capitalist patriarchy,” one can account to the contrary: Members of the matriarchal aboriginal cultures have not chosen to go back to pure matriarchal hunter-gatherer consumption because they have seen the light of the City of Lights, the provervial Paris of patriarchy.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
Sortave…
Hunter Gatherer societies are not matriarchal. Where do you get that idea?
There is almost no evidence of any matriarchy ever really existing. It’s just a quackademic fantasy.
What is the symbol of America? The statue of Liberty.
I shouldn’t need to ask you what is the statue of liberty…
Domestic civilization is the only matriarchy (more correctly matri-focal). Men may have built it – but women are the center of it. Domestic civilization is about the feminine. No women don’t rule visibly that isn’t their nature – they are a behind the scenes force. In domestic civilization the feminine is the focus. It is the drive, it is the purpose, the goal, the center. I call it the Matrix.
It’s a zoo for human beings. A giant house for the ladies. What is it full of? Malls. Who goes to the mall? Women.
You should read my blog.
Read “The Matrix” entry.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Dear CM:
Thanks for your commentary. I suggest strongly that all people read the excellent academic publication: The Garbage Generation. As I, I’m sure you will be amazed with the competence of its author (as well as his brave exercise of good intent).
The aboriginal matriarchy can be summed up in the fact that females act as communal vaginas. That is why the only sure account of lineage is by way of the mother. The absence of fatherhood as a concept in aborignal cultures assures the absence of male input and production. The male is socially and economically unemployed. There is no incentive for the male to produce as he cannot contain his production nor be valued as per his ability to produce.
That is why, “The People” is such a common concept in aboriginal culture. One CANNOT be more specific than that generality as fatherhood is a ghost. Please read, The Garbage Generation (written by a male American professor near retirement–justly afraid of Feminist violation of academic integrity, etc.).
In about 10,000 years of matriarchy, aboriginal societies wallow in having graduated from going camping to going camping. They get nowehere. Please read the book: it is amazing, amazing, amazing, and, convincing, convincing, convincing. I am convinced based on the evidence of his book contexualized by, among other things, my experiences living on Indian reserves as a teacher and experiencing the funded anarchy of slutaucracy.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2
Davout
Someone on here (I don’t remember who) said it best. (this is not verbatim)
“If they don’t suffer there will be no learning on the cultural level.”
That’s far more important than a bunch of insincere apologies and alligator tears.
Like or Dislike:
11 
0
@Davout
For procreation, yes. Two halves of a whole of a biological function.
However, I have lost interest in that silly ‘be fruitful and multiply’ game long ago.
Pray tell, what do I still need a woman for? For the record, sex is a want, not a need. Anything else, besides sex? I’m all ears.
Many men tried appeasement. Turn the other cheek and love your wife more. Didn’t work.
You need an iron hand and a resolute will to deal with overgrown children – a.k.a women.
Also, you have made the cardinal mistake of assuming that women understand basic male social concepts such as cause and effect, honor and respectful reciprocity. They don’t.
It is certainly valuable to your mangina, white-knighting side which is busy racking up pussy karma.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
I’m with TFH, this seems absolutely outrageous only because it is official, unconcealed favourtism, this will actually be written into law. It’s actual effects will be negligible considering the fact that almost all government activity transfers wealth from men to women in some way.
It’s like women getting much shorter sentences, that isnt official policy, it’s just the way things work out, it’s in the application now the wording of the law. Yes it would be a bit of a kick in the teeth if it did become law that female criminals get 50% of the time as male ones, but it wouldnt make any real difference to outcomes.
A 5% tax difference is nothing considering the entire government machinery (which in my country is 1/3 of the economy) exists to take siphen off the resources of men to fund social services for women.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
@mgtow
“Pray tell, what do I still need a woman for?”
My own experience is that some of the women in my life are far more perceptive about other people in general than any men I know. It helps to befriend these women and avail of their abilities. These women also benefit from my attributes as a man. These are complementary relationships.
My experiences are well in line with the common stereotype of women having ‘human’ knowledge and men having ‘abstract’ knowledge.
Women do understand cause and effect when the frame of reference is limited to short term self interest. Feminists definitely do. Example – Cause: No-fault divorce. Effect: Profit via alimony and child support. In this case it would seem that the men who enacted these policies did not understand cause and effect. The same goes for the men who enacted affirmative action, abortion laws and the smorgasbord of other feminist crutches.
Even today, support for abortion is higher among men than women. So one could argue that men would rather indulge the whims of independent women than encourage motherhood. If one associates honor with chastity until marriage and being a father, then most men nowadays are not honorable in that respect. By extension, men are unwittingly furthering the cause of feminism, all in an attempt to have sex without consequences, operating under the assumption that women would have sex with everyone if pregnancies could be ‘erased’. Women have responded predictably by having more sex not with all men but only with the alpha males and then demanding money to pay for their bastards who were not aborted. So, the inability to recognize cause and effect in not uniquely a female phenomenon.
Like or Dislike:
4 
4
The female supremacist who authored the “study” claims that men naturally live shorter lives. As is the golden rule with such feminist duplicity, the exact opposite of what this she-beast is asserting is in fact the case. In a state of nature, a significant number of women die during childbirth. This is why people have asserted (accurately, I think) that the “life gap” between men and women was negligible or even in the favor of men until relatively recently. That obviously argues that civilization and advancing technology is responsible for women living longer; ergo, in a state of nature, and contrary to what this liar asserts, women live around the same length of time as men, or less. Things like radically disproportionate social and medical spending on females vs. men is also a significant factor in the current life gap, but Mrs. Femi-Liar would rather not go into anything like that, because it cannot be used to support her female supremacist agenda (or more accurately stated, the female supremacist, divide-and-conquer approach of her bosses at the globalist IMF).
Others were accurate to point out that if anything, we need a special tax on women, since they contribute much less in taxes than they receive in benefits. Isn’t it remarkable that such academic-liars can seriously propose something that is 180 degrees from the appropriate action and analysis? What else is new, though. Feminists lying is about as surprising as the sun coming up.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
{ 2 trackbacks }