The Suddenly Radioactive ‘Have it All’ Promise

by Featured Guest on July 11, 2012

By Aych

Has anyone else noticed that feminists now seem to be backing-away in disgust from the phrase “have it all”?

Across both side of the Atlantic, ass-covering duck-and-cover articles have recently appeared from normally-stalwart and unapologetic feminist authors in Salon, The Independent, and elsewhere.

There once was a time in the past, perhaps a decade ago, when feminists seemed to have no problem whatsoever with being continuously associated with three little words that would later come to haunt the movement:

“Have it all.”

Now, it seems, feminists wish to say feminism has nothing to do with the concept WHATSOEVER.

What a stunning volte-face, is it not? What a sharp turn of events, eh? It’s reminiscent of how the CPUSA stopped endorsing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact one day after the start of Operation Barbarossa.

Now, suddenly, “Have it hall” has nothing to do with feminism whatsoever.

Exhibit A: Rebecca Traister, one of Salon.com’s most reliable gender warriors:

“…my proposal is this: We should immediately strike the phrase “have it all” from the feminist lexicon and never, ever use it again.

Here is what is wrong, what has always been wrong, with equating feminist success with “having it all”: It’s a misrepresentation of a revolutionary social movement. The notion that female achievement should be measured by women’s ability to “have it all” recasts a righteous struggle for greater political, economic, social, sexual and political parity as a piggy and acquisitive project.”

This sounds oddly stung, hurt and defensive, does it not? Almost as if she’s realized that such a pledge can never be delivered.

Well, to paraphrase the bald-headed hard-ass “Stinger” from the movie “Top Gun:” Feminists’ egos have been writing checks their bodies can’t cash.

And, really, when you think about it, “Have it all” encapsulates one of the many ludicrous long-made promises that feminism can never bring to fruition.

Feminism says: If only men would stop being oppressive bastards, women could earn 23 cents more on the job! Without working harder, longer or differently!

Feminism swears up and down: If only men would do half of all the housework, women would be be free to become SuperMom, CEOs!

Feminism pledges: If only men would stop being attracted to beauty and fertility, every woman could successfully pair with wealthy, high-status men! Hypermagy for everyone!

Feminism proclaims: If only birth control pills were free, chocolate-covered peanut-brittle would rain-down from the sky!

And all women would have to do is to tilt their faces skyward, open their mouths and chew.

Well, what has become clear is that feminism has spent years promising unlimited free lunches without ever heeding the question of who would need to pick-up the tab. The reason for that is, in their view, the limitless bank account of Male Privilege is what would eventually cover that bill in the long run.

Well, sorry. Turns-out that the big treasure chest of Male Privilege won’t cover it.

Well, my dears, I’m sorry to say it: People, especially lots of formerly-hoodwinked and now-grown-up women, are increasingly starting to see that these checks cannot possibly be cashed.

So how are we to comprehend these feminists who are now vehemently disavowing the easy-to-remember riposte “Have it all” which they had no discomfort with early in the last decade?

I would argue that they have started to understand that they’ve now been found out. They know they’ve been peddling snake oil all of these years. They know the false front can no longer be held-up. The raw lie has been laid bare as reality has crashed-in through the wall like an anthropomorphic Kool-Aid Pitcher.

Now that even a feminist poster-girl for success like Anna-Lousie Slaughter has caught-on to the lie? Now, feminists are now looking to duck and cover. They’re putting as much distance between themselves and “Have it all” as much they humanly can.

So, just as how the chocolate rations in the novel ’1984′ had always been going-up, feminism had always been against making optimistic proclamations of: “You can have it all!”

Hell, after one of your biggest lies had suddenly become exposed, wouldn’t you suddenly start looking for cover?

{ 75 comments… read them below or add one }

Firepower July 11, 2012 at 08:16

The Feminist CYA Program is not limited to this one instance.

The CYA Program applies to ALL PC Liberal/Socialist policies exposed as failures.

ALL they are doing is spreading a distraction campaign until they figure out how to repackage the concept into different buzzwords.

Government and politicians do that all the time as Standard Operating Procedure.

For, that’s what Feminism is: a political ideology rooted firmly in current Government policy.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 50 Thumb down 11
Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) July 11, 2012 at 08:17

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 60
Jim July 11, 2012 at 08:20

Looking for cover? They’re looking for excuses. Fuck them and the women who bought into it. It’s too late. Many of them simply shit where they ate without care and now are about to get exactly what they worked for, independence. Too bad it’s not the same thing as reality.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 78 Thumb down 2
Boxwood July 11, 2012 at 08:26

The women of the 60′s are all 40+ now, as are the women of the early 1970′s. Look on any dating site. These women are today’s desperate spinsters, childless, they’ve hit the wall hard and only now are they coming out of the fog of cognitive dissonance. Trouble is, they’ve all gone bat-shit insane and need medicating from all of the said cognitive dissonance. Feminism has created a generation of entitled, psychopathic loser, childless women. The good news is – none of them have procreated and thus cannot pass on their poisonous dogma. They’ve eradicated themselves from the gene pool. They’re useful for a quick shag though, so they serve some purpose.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 78 Thumb down 3
"The One" July 11, 2012 at 08:27

W.F. Price wrote “And all women would have to do is to tilt their faces skyward, open their mouths and chew.”

AAAHAHAHAHAA!!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 1
Anonymous July 11, 2012 at 08:28

If you marry a woman who thinks she can have it all, you, her husband, are just an accessory to wifey’s fantasy. Your job is to pay for all the boring stuff like a home and transportation while Ms. Havitall indulges her ego. You’ll slide further and further down the pecking order until you find you rank below her career, her kids, the help, her animals……

The benefits of marriage are front-loaded. All the good stuff is up front. After that it’s like buying a car where the payments never end. Not too bad when the car’s new and shiny but pretty soon the car’s rusted out and sitting on blocks in the driveway with the wheels off. And you just keep paying and paying and paying and paying……

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 110 Thumb down 1
Dalrock July 11, 2012 at 08:32

Interesting point. I think you are on to something. The feminist dream will turn into a nightmare for many women, and feminists are already preparing for the backlash.

BTW, your Salon link is broken. However, I was able to find it with a quick search, and especially enjoyed this part:

There are, in fact, many excellent things to say about Anne-Marie Slaughter’s piece about her experiences as a working mother during her two years at the State Department as the first female director of policy planning.

The first female director of policy planning! You hear that girls? I broke into the all male sphere! I lead the way! I blazed the trail (for a whole two years, until it got hard)! Except she was working for a female Sec State, and not even the first female one at that. Not even the second, but the third.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 74 Thumb down 2
Brian July 11, 2012 at 08:34

Whatever. More women whose uteruses will wilt like dead flowers.

They deserve it. All of them.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 75 Thumb down 2
Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) July 11, 2012 at 08:38

From: http://www.savethemales.ca/001904.html

“How the Rockefellers Re-Engineered Women

February 1, 2007

By Henry Makow Ph.D.

Feminism is an excellent example of how the Rockefeller mega cartel uses the awesome power of the mass media (i.e. propaganda.) to control society.

In 40 short years, many women have lost touch with their natural loving instincts. Consequently, the family is in disarray, sexual depravity is rampant and birth rates have plummeted.

I will expand on the Rockefeller’s role, but first we need to remember that for a woman, love is an instinctive act of self-sacrifice.

She gives herself to her husband and children and is fulfilled by seeing them thrive and receiving their love, respect and gratitude.

A woman makes this supreme sacrifice to only one man who will cherish her and provide for his family. Men instinctively want to fulfill this responsibility. This is the essence of the heterosexual contract (i.e. marriage): female power in exchange for male power expressed as love. Sex is the symbol of this exclusive bond. Marriage and family may not be for everyone but it is the natural path for most.

Feminism has trained women to reject this model as “an old fashioned, oppressive stereotype” even though it reflects their natural instincts. ”

THE BIG PICTURE: THE CENTRAL BANKERS

People do not realize that feminism is mass indoctrination because they cannot identify the perpetrator, the means or the motive.

Recently Aaron Russo, the producer of Bette Midler’s movies and “America: From Freedom to Fascism” identified all three confirming what I have been saying.

While trying to recruit Russo for the CFR, Nicholas Rockefeller told him that his family foundation created women’s liberation using mass media control as part of a long-term plan to enslave humanity. He admitted they want to “chip us.” Google “Rockefeller Foundation” and “Women’s Studies” and you’ll get a half million citations.
The hidden goal of feminism is to destroy the family, which interferes with state brainwashing of the young. Side benefits include depopulation and widening the tax base. Displacing men in the role of providers also destabilizes the family.

A drastic paradigm shift is required to make sense of the world. The Rockefellers are part of the private world central banking cartel that also controls media, defence, pharmaceutical and other cartels. To protect their monopoly of credit and wealth, they are instituting a world police state (“world government”) using the bogus 9-11 attack and endless war as a pretext. Rockefeller told Russo about this plan a year before 9-11.

The poet Charles Peguy said, “Everything begins in faith and ends in politics.” The banking cartel needs a philosophy to justify enchaining mankind. That philosophy is Satanism. The cartel controls the world through a network of occult societies linked to Freemasonry, Communism, the Vatican and organized Jewry (Bnai Brith, ADL, AJC, Zionism.) The highest occult rank is known as the Illuminati.”

http://www.savethemales.ca/001904.html

zlzozlzoz

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 51 Thumb down 33
J July 11, 2012 at 08:40

@author

Great catch on your article.

You know what feminist’s greatest problem is?

They have spent soo much time trying t “rewrite” history as they see fit, they forgot to read what they were replacing.

Men have been able to do everything they only claim they can do better for centuries.

It is because of chivalry and the dreaded patriarchy that they are even able to exist!

What all these dumbasses who came before us should have asked was “we have been doing this for centuries, what do we need you for again? go back and make me a sandwhich!”

Insted they told them “you’re right, you are beeter than me even though history obviously contradicts you! Fancy a fuck?”

It the true leader’s (read male) job to lead, and not desire the vajayjay soo much they will sacrifice their legacy, primalcy, son’s (and daughters), heritage, inheritance, and way of life!

It is time to take it back!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 53 Thumb down 2
Josh the Aspie July 11, 2012 at 08:41

*snerk* The funniest part is that “have it all” is simply short hand for everything the feminist movement has promised openly to those women who would not be willing to go for the actual maxist goals of the hard core feminists. If they didn’t make such promises, but advertised their actual goals, they would have originally had a very sore time indeed getting any kind of support from the majority of the populous, male or female.

“You want me to agitate for the state to steal my children from me? You evil whore, they’re MY children! Away with you! Honey, protect me from the mean woman wanting to take our children!” *snerk*

Just like with all Marxist plans, they sell the idea that “if you like your x that you have right now, you’ll still be able to keep it”. At the same time they also promise more. These people know that this is a lie, or delude themselves into believing that there will not be a major trade off between the old social structure and the new.

Even in the article at the Independent, she says the following:

What I want to know is, when did we get so unambitious? When did feminism narrow its horizons so that the absolute maximum we’re prepared to fight for is the rights of a minority of women to be admitted into a sexist labour market whilst managing the school run on the side?

and

There was a time, not so long ago, when feminism had more imagination. Within living memory there were serious campaigns for universal free childcare, for wages for housework, and for a welfare state that could allow everyone, not just women, to balance work and family life.

So she wants women to be able to “balance work and family life” with the idea of family life being “managing the school run on the side”. And she wants all of this handled by massive government programs.

Yeah, she’s not advocating “having it all” at aaaaalllll. Nor is she a Maxist. Reeeeaaaalllly.

One little nit to pick. In the link for “salon” you used “heref” instead of “href”, leading to a broken link.

In the mean time, for any others wanting to follow the link, it’s here: Salon

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 46 Thumb down 1
MKP July 11, 2012 at 08:44

Interesting piece.

This relates to an important point that people have brought up at this and related sites before: the fact that the “leaders” of the feminist / female-supermacist movement – the feminist academics, the extremist authors, the lesbian separatists – are substantially more consistent and self-aware than your run-of-the-mill “you go girl” feminist. For many extreme-feminist leaders, they never cared about getting married and being loved as a wife and mother. It never appealled to them. Getting a job at some non-profit or some government office for “children and familes,” or being able to publish books and articles, or otherwise being able to nag and snarl and have people forced to take them seriously, is what they really wanted out of life.

The woman who is angry about her inability to “have it all” is not the well-known feminist author. It’s the average mouth-breathing cow who always just did what felt good, and who is now enraged that this hasn’t lead to all of her goals and dreams being fulfilled. She’s angry because she always thought she’d have some wonderful, fulfilling career, and also be married to some nice, reliable, well-employed man by this point in her life. Since it couldn’t possibly be her fault that she’s not, she’s going to cast about for someone to blame.

There are literally millions of such women in the USA alone, and I assume millions more in other countries. Two vitally important questions arise from this situation:

(1) Can these angry, deceived women actually be made to see how they ended up in this situation, or are they just going to blame “the partiarchy?” and

(2) Even more important, will younger women – the ones who are currently (say) 15 to 25 years of age – learn from these mistakes and make better choices themselves? Are they going to set out to be fabulous Carrie Bradshaws then get enraged when it doesn’t work out, or are they going to keep their eyes open and learn from what they see?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 61 Thumb down 0
Emanon July 11, 2012 at 08:47

Are you familiar with the leftist phrase “social capital”?

It was invented to try to ascribe a monetary value to the peaceful and harmonious interpersonal relationships that once characterized America. The fictional “Mayberry” in the old Andy Griffith TV show had high social capital, the LA Central shown in the movie “Boyz in the Hood” had low social capital.

Feminists have just about destroyed ALL of the social capital in the USA. There are very few solvent young men who are eager to marry and not many more who are willing to give it a try anyway.

Whether they like it or not, women ARE going to be on their own. The young women are starting to realize that men have pretty much lost interest in the standard script of career, marriage, and children.

It’s mathematically impossible for every female college graduate to permanently marry a male counterpart when there are 59 female grads for every 41 male grads. The 18/59 or 30% of women who are doomed to practice reverse hypergamy – marrying a less educated man – are unhappy about their “independence”.

Feminism is like the old timber barons who assumed that the forests of America were endless. They clear cut vast numbers of trees before they realized that someone had to replant them or they’d go out of business in a few generations. Now the supply of men raised and trained by patriarchs is just about depleted, and matriarchy (AKA single mothers) is not replenishing the supply of solvent and “marriageable” men.

BTW, there’s an article that shows the political divide between marrieds and unmarrieds here:

http://news.yahoo.com/marriage-gap-fuels-obamas-lead-over-romney-poll-100253696.html

“Obama leads among single voters by 54 percent to 34 percent, while married voters back Romney 51 percent to 38 percent, the poll found.

Obama has a huge advantage with single women, 60 percent to 31 percent, while Romney leads among married women 49 percent to 42 percent. Romney leads by 19 percentage points among married men, and Obama leads by 9 points among single men.

The poll showed Obama with an overall 3-point national edge on Romney, 46 percent to 43 percent, four months before the November 6 election.”

Single women are 2-1 for Obama. Hmm. Looking for a substitute husband, perhaps?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 60 Thumb down 2
bulldogo July 11, 2012 at 08:54

Could there be another reason for feminist journalists to not use the “have it all” catch cry?
If one COULD ACTUALLY have it all, then there would not be anymore to have.
If there was no more to have then … there is no more to take from men/patriarchy, whatever.
What would all the professional feminist journalists do then. You can only crow about how utterly superior/cool/great … women are for so long.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 0
Huck Finn July 11, 2012 at 09:04

OT yet interesting:

‘When economy gets bad, women dress to impress’

“When the economy goes sour, women stock up on products that can enhance their looks, a new study shows.

The reason is that women, consciously or not, are seeking to make themselves more attractive to the dwindling supply of men with good jobs, researchers say.”

http://lifeinc.today.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/11/12644392-when-economy-gets-bad-women-dress-to-impress?lite

It may be new to MSNBC yet futurist Gerald Celente wrote years ago that during the Great Depression (what made it great? sarcasm off) that people dressed nicer, took better care of their health, and attended cultural activities more frequently.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 0
Opus July 11, 2012 at 09:05

@Dalrock

I picked up on the expression in the quote ‘working mother’. Is that not an Oxymoron? – though one hear’s it all the time. Seems to me you are either working or mothering but not both. A bit like my describing myself as a working drinker, or even a drinking worker. If I work, my maternal status should be irrelevant to the outcome of my work: if I mother my work outside the home does not improve my mothering.

It is interesting that although the majority opinion as to Slaughter’s Atlantic article seems to be sympathetic, it has been ripped apart in the Androsphere as self indulgent tosh.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 1
Josh the Aspie July 11, 2012 at 09:08

Okay, turns out some of the quotes I was looking for were from Salon, not the Independent. I found them, so now I can add commentary on them. The emphasis below is mine.

Here is what is wrong, what has always been wrong, with equating feminist success with “having it all”: It’s a misrepresentation of a revolutionary social movement. The notion that female achievement should be measured by women’s ability to “have it all” recasts a righteous struggle for greater political, economic, social, sexual and political parity as a piggy and acquisitive project.

Again, note the Marxist language: “revolutionary social movement”, “righteous struggle” and “political parity”. Heck, she even lists “political” among the kinds of parity she wants TWICE. I think we know where her emphasis lies.

It is a trap, a setup for inevitable feminist short-fall. Irresponsibly conflating liberation with satisfaction, the “have it all” formulation sets an impossible bar for female success and then ensures that when women fail to clear it, it’s feminism – as opposed to persistent gender inequity – that’s to blame.

No. Thanks to the “have it all” phantom, she’s experiencing betrayal at the hands of feminism itself. She may well be betraying herself! The movement she actually needs more of – to advocate for universal daycare, better schools, a higher minimum wage, paid family leave, a workplace culture that doesn’t continue to treat all employees as if they were “men” in a historic sense, with wives at home taking care of their lives – takes the blame because thousands of years of sexual inequity have not been reversed fully in the past 50 years.

Wait. Wait wait wait wait. Inside the same paragraph she first sets up the standard as impossible, then says that if a woman fails to meet that impossible standard, it’s the fault of “gender inequity”. If it’s a truly impossible standard, then no one is to blame for someone not meeting it. She seems to be saying that it is an impossible standard only because of eeeeevil men. In which case, she is actually advocating that women “have it all”.

And then she goes on to say that any woman who does not support feminism “may be” betraying herself. She basically sets up any woman unhappy with feminism as a traitor to the movement which is equivalent to her own interests.

As another note, I’ll admit I have some run on sentences here or there. But Traister (author of the Salon piece) really mangled one in that second paragraph.

We don’t lay the same booby traps for men. We don’t constantly quiz and evaluate and poke and prod and take their emotional temperature, asking if they feel fulfilled and happy, if they have everything they want, if their every youthful aspiration has been met sufficiently, if they feel that they’re measuring up at the office, in the kitchen, in bed. If we did, we might find out that they – especially younger ones, increasingly used to sharing workplaces and domestic and familial responsibilities with women – also feel stressed, guilty, anxiety-stricken, unfulfilled, questioning. But it’s not likely that we would then use their admissions of discontent to diagnose a larger male inability to balance effectively, or conclude that they are not realistically able to maintain the dominance they’ve enjoyed for millennia because having so much power is a) bad for them, b) unnatural or c) impossible. We’d probably just blame their dissatisfaction on feminism.

Yup. Don’t bother taking into consideration the feelings of men. It’s natural that they’ll feel this way once feminism takes root. Heck, the way things were for such a huge period of time is so unnatural, they probably felt stressed anyway due to the unnatural nature of it.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 0
Keyster July 11, 2012 at 09:08

“You can have it all!” was first coined by Helen Gurly Brown (Cosmomolitan Magazine). It was NEVER the original intention of the first feminist 2.0 contingent. They wanted women to completely obsolve themselves from wifery, motherhood and dependence on men. That’s what the early Bra Burning protests were all about.

Feminism would have died off in the early 80′s had it not adapted it’s narrative to what most women were saying they really wanted – – which was equality AND retaining their sexual power over men. Much to the horror of the barren old hag/lesbian feminists, women still wanted to be sexually objectified by men; they weren’t willing to give up that power for feminist ideals of true equality. The SlutWalk phenomenon is a by-product of this…sexual objectification, but on THEIR terms.

That’s why we’re all here today discussing it. You combine Government enforced gender equality, with sexual power and complete dominion over reproduction – – and you create a falsely superior, if not dominant class of people. This is why men are confused, and finally becoming more resentful and angry one generation at a time. More and more are seeing something very wrong with this picture.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 79 Thumb down 0
jodark July 11, 2012 at 09:08

Move along everyone, nothing to see here. Just standard Cultural Marxist propaganda shifting. Let them work, it’s what they do best.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 1
Josh the Aspie July 11, 2012 at 09:19

@Emanon,

It seems likely to me that they are seeking additional government “free” money, and a transfer of wealth to them. If they see Obama as a replacement husband at all, I think they are simply placing his face as the face of the government, which they wish to husband them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1
walking in hell2 July 11, 2012 at 09:24

As stupid as American women are, they are realizing that their belief in feminism has sold them short. Even so, these rotten women will never apologize for what they have done to men.

And even though feminism as a doctrine is dying, the harmful institutions it bore–divorce court, child support agencies, and the domestic violence industry–are here to stay. The human byproducts it created–broken impoverished men, women-hating men, and bastardized children–are here to stay.

I for one would expect things to get much tougher for men because stupid women who refuse to take responsibility for their own actions will blame men and continue to make their life miserable.

The feminist institutions–divorce court, child support agencies, and the domestic violence industry–need more men as raw materials. Therefore, expect these institutions to become more aggressive towards men.

On a sociological level interpersonal relationships in America are terrible, and will probably get worse. When there is hatred between the sexes and when women turn their children against their fathers, you are talking about a putrid quality of life.

The forest has been clear cut; now expect desertification.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
The Trend July 11, 2012 at 09:37

We are at war with Oceania, we have always been at war with Oceania.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 48 Thumb down 1
Huck Finn July 11, 2012 at 10:01

Last week there was an MSNBC post about how ‘men can’t have it all’ either. We already know that most men don’t have it all and all men know life is about choices and trade-offs.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 50 Thumb down 0
Boxwood July 11, 2012 at 10:09

Hey guys,

My ex wife, who left me a decade ago is now an embittered 37 year old overweight hag, jealous of my new found life with children of my own, she needs a man to get it up for her fat arse.

There’s no takers for her shitty personality and her massive credit card and mortgage debt. She has two cats with more on the way. She can’t find a man, much less a husband.

Can one of you marry her already, so I don’t have to hear her complaining about it? BTW, she looks at least 5 years older than I am, and I’m 42.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 71 Thumb down 1
jaego July 11, 2012 at 10:12

Feminism is psychic inflation – and as Great Books says, it is related to to monetary inflation as both a cause and an effect. In any case, they are both tactics of the same Cabal and were instituted simultaneously to some extent.

When did it all start? Very long ago, when the Serpent said to Eve you shall be as a god….and she believed. This primordial error is an imitation of the Truth since God wants us to be gods, but only in communion with Him – not in and of ourselves and in rebellion. That can never be. In Orthodoxy, this becoming goldlike is known as Theosis. Or as Saint Augustine said, “God become Man that Man might become God.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 7
Peter South July 11, 2012 at 10:13

Last week there was an MSNBC post about how ‘men can’t have it all’ either. We already know that most men don’t have it all and all men know life is about choices and trade-offs.

Maybe they’re starting to realize how elitist this “have it all” phrase sounds.

Could be giving them too much credit…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
Highwasp July 11, 2012 at 10:14

OT – but just one look at the MSMedia this morning and I have to comment on all the female crap that ‘grabs’ the ‘headlines’…

Uh oh, Tosh, (the stand up comedian), has besmirched the femenazi’s holy grail with a joke about RAPE! And like Rush, who ‘mis-spoke’ about their cherished control over birth control, Tosh ‘sincerely’ apologized!

http://search.yahoo.com/search?cs=bz&p=Daniel%20Tosh&fr=fp-tts-701&fr2=ps

Then Obama (the welfare God) is declared ‘on top’ in the ‘polls’ over Romney due the Single Women vote:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/single-women-favor-obama-151713797.html

and apparently the ‘Marriage Gap’ is also fueling Obama’s lead over Romney… Feminism’s useful idiots hard at work.

But wait, the poor dearies have a new complaint, another crises for which they need special consideration: Superbug Dangers in Chicken Linked to 8 Million At-Risk WOMEN!

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/superbug-dangers-chicken-linked-8-million-risk-women-122809803–abc-news-health.html

and it goes on and on with Marion Jones, Nicole Kidman, Paulina Gretzky, Kate Upton, Jane Fonda…

Thankfully we have the Manosphere here online to offer some clarity and relief.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
Mr. Sinister July 11, 2012 at 10:17

Don’t be surprised when “feminism” becomes the driving force for suppressing and controlling women and creating/supporting the imaginary “patriarchy” that has been so vehemently decried. Only it’ll be called something different.

It’s a revolution in semantics; not of actual changes of results.

“Women need to have more freedoms.” -> “Women need to be protected because of these new freedoms.” -> “Women need to be protected from these freedoms…”

You don’t have to fight “feminism”; we men need to realize fighting and competing with women will just make you frustrated and cynical; nobody wins, because it drives us apart. Left to their own devices, in my humble experience, you’ll soon be demanded to take charge and put them in their place, even if you were never alpha enough to think that’s what you needed to do in the first place.

Soon; they’ll demand of all of us that we force them back into the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant, to make their/our family sandwiches.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 2
Boxwood July 11, 2012 at 10:18

Oprah ‘has it all’ and they love her.

Sarah Palin ‘has it all’ and they hate her.

I guess it depends on what the feminist definition of ‘having it all’ really is.

Does Orcah have a husband and children?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 0
anonymous July 11, 2012 at 11:17

On the ‘gender war’, we, men, have won!

Men, the Gender Wars Are Over — We Won
Sit back, brothers, and enjoy the slide.

Confidential Memo

To: All Men

Re: Operation “Feminist Movement”

Men, our long twilight struggle with the opposite sex is over. Our victory is total.

Can you believe the way things used to be? Remember when our fathers and grandfathers would drag themselves to mind-numbing jobs every day, having the sole responsibility for the feeding, clothing, and housing of their entire family?

And things were no easier before marriage, when men’s quest for sexual satisfaction was all too often hampered by the widespread moral code which taught women not to give out the “milk” for “free.”

Well, that state of affairs just wouldn’t do. So we men came together and did what we do best — formulate and implement a plan. First step, design the perfect world, the perfect male world. We decided such a world would consist of two things: less responsibility and more — and no-strings — sex.

Brothers, have we succeeded.

The amazing thing, really, is how easy it was, how fast the old world of obligation and responsibility dissolved. The first, crucial step, of course, was convincing women that they had it bad, that our jobs were “intellectually stimulating” and not the soul-crushing monotony that they in fact were.

It worked, and soon women were clamoring to join us on the job. It seems never to have occurred to them that we could have so easily prevented them from doing so — and yet we didn’t. We sidestepped without much fuss, actually, which had to have constituted the largest voluntary abdication of power in history. This alone should have tipped them off that something was amiss.

Right away, women at work began to solve our problems. First, men and women interacting more frequently inevitably led to hanky-panky, which led to the breakup of families, which led to less responsibility for us.

Full article at:
http://pjmedia.com/blog/men-the-gender-wars-are-over-%E2%80%94-we-won/?singlepage=true

Quite an interesting look on feminism. The author is genius!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 3
Dalrock July 11, 2012 at 11:23

One thing we must never let feminists forget is that second wave feminism is founded on a vague sense of unhappiness among women. Modern feminism exists to combat women feeling unhappy for reasons they couldn’t identify, a “problem with no name”. I know many will think I’m making this up because it really is absurd, but I’m not. Check out the wikipedia page for Betty Friedan (founder of NOW), and her book The Feminine Mystique which launched second wave feminism. The Salon piece is hysterical when read with that in mind:

We don’t constantly quiz and evaluate and poke and prod and take their emotional temperature, asking [men] if they feel fulfilled and happy, if they have everything they want, if their every youthful aspiration has been met sufficiently, if they feel that they’re measuring up at the office, in the kitchen, in bed.

No we don’t. But then again, we don’t celebrate throwing kids into the divorce meat grinder when men say the magic words “I’m not haaaaaapy!”

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 44 Thumb down 1
Gamerp4 July 11, 2012 at 11:27

“What I want to know is, when did we get so unambitious? When did feminism narrow its horizons so that the absolute maximum we’re prepared to fight for is the rights of a minority of women to be admitted into a sexist labour market whilst managing the school run on the side?”

Why would “it”(The reason i call “her” “it” because i dont know maybe she would mind me calling “it” a “she”) calls womyn as minority? If only she would have done a google search then “it” would have find out that ‘As of 2011 Female population in US of A is 50.8%’ (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html) Hmm minority ha :D lolz if that rate of population of female is whats called minority, then i am living in an insane world.

And what is with this word “Sexist” Oh yah! it can only be used for womyn, By Womyn, and against Womyn. Nop Womyn can’t be sexist, it is those damn Men and Patriarchy (Fuck i hate them if only i knew where Xenu is, I would throw them in a volcano and blow them up with hydrogen bombs) Ok so what is the solution for this Highly Sexist Labor Market, already there are laws, she might have forgotten THE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION LAW, THE SEXUAL HARASSMENT LAW, THE MATERNITY PAY LEAVE LAW.

And lastly Mr Rebecca is just frustrated that “it” didnt ‘Have it all’ as she was promised but still she doesn’t blame feminism for it NO! No! No! it would be against “it” policy and she would be called a Gender Traitor afterall there is an asset that can be blame well and they are disposable and pretty much NOBODY cares about them well “it” guessed it Blame the Patriarch Men, those pesky pigs are the reason “it” couldn’t have it all, if only all Men would become Kitchen Bitches and serve “it” every need and help “it” to achieve the height of her career, She Might “Have it all” but to her dismay there arn’t any “Good Men” left, so Yah blame them, Afterall they “are not realistically able to maintain the dominance they’ve enjoyed for millennia” Yes! Yes! Yes!, the sheer dominance i enjoyed, the privileges, MY GOD those were days when i could just be born, and go to school, enroll myself in a college, get higher education, find myself a good and satisfying job where i would bang my head on the desk or on the industrial lining, and would work like a horse day and night without any safety, and later would marry a womyn (bitch) and squat some children and would pay day and night for their expensive luxury and wouldn’t buy myself some time but would do everything thats needed and later if i am stuck in a cruise ship, i would gladly give my seat on a life boat to her and the children and would drown in the ice cold water and would wait for the slow death just for them to live their life.

Yep those were days of sheer dominance :D i am glad that Patriarchy was slayed by feminist, this is the one thing i am thankful for them.

But sarcasm aside I just wanna give this “it” one last pet on the Back and would wisely give her an advice, “that you reap what you sow”.

Well lets have some Budweiser now.

End.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1
greyghost July 11, 2012 at 11:41

Soon; they’ll demand of all of us that we force them back into the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant, to make their/our family sandwiches

Do not laugh this off. Mr Sinister you are spot on. This is how it will end. Involuntary Childless Spinsterhood look at the power of of commitment. Due to as TFH has repeatedly stated women cannot reason beyond their gina tingle. Now the stupid ass bitches divorced good men and blew off good men for the carousel and now their numbers are big enough the feminist leaders cant tell the lie and still rule the herd. This article is a bomb damage assessment photo of the PUA followed by the MGTOW. It does huge damage. You need both to get get 25 years worth of girl power in there to make it happen.
Outstanding work manosphere

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 1
J July 11, 2012 at 11:45

@dalrock

can you check your comments, I left a few on your website, and they never show. Was it something I said?

@greyghost
One need only read proverbs 31 to see that for thousands of years, men have valued the “working mother.” The problem is that feminists have brainwashed women throughout the world otherwise, and also made them think that she had to be a witch to all men, especially her man!

Women will have a lot of work to do, possibly, to earn men’s trust in the future?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
Dalrock July 11, 2012 at 11:53

@J

I just checked the spam bin and found one comment from you there. I’ve been getting hundreds of spam comments lately so I don’t always pick through looking for false positives. I’m not sure why askimet flagged you as spam. I double checked and you aren’t on my blacklist. Nothing you said.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2
J July 11, 2012 at 12:11

@dalrock

never know if you don’t man up and ask right? I really appreciate it!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2
russ July 11, 2012 at 12:23

The two most powerful feminist mantras have always been:

1. A Woman’s Right to Choose. Implying that men will be allowed no right to choose, yet they will be forced to pay for the choices that women make, and

2. Women Can Have it All. Implying that if women have it, all men will have nothing.

Both mantras have proven to be prophetic.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 1
MRA July 11, 2012 at 12:23

@ Aych
The link to Salon is wrong.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Uncle Elmer July 11, 2012 at 12:47

“Obama has a huge advantage with single women, 60 percent to 31 percent, while Romney leads among married women 49 percent to 42 percent. ”

Maybe Romney needs to start crooning like a Black Man.

It’s a successful old music industry formula that could be repurposed for political gain.

Come to think of it, wasn’t that Clinton’s shtick?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3
Huck Finn July 11, 2012 at 12:48

“for thousands of years, men have valued the “working mother.”

True. The traditional Biblical & Orthodox view is that there is no more important role than that of mother doing things such as taking care of and educating the children, providing a positive family home environment, cooking, etc. Holding a job to help support the family is fine when necessary though the time and effort outside the home should not become a full blown career that interferes with her duties to her family which come first. If a woman chooses not to get married and have kids then that is probably a different story regarding her responsibilities.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2
Will July 11, 2012 at 12:48

Russ,

Very astute observations.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
DCM July 11, 2012 at 12:51

They also claim they never burned any bras.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
Eric July 11, 2012 at 13:01

Aych:
I think that the whole article was another feminist lie.

Feminists are about power and will use whatever means justify their ends. Radical feminism is losing a lot of support, so they’re changing their disguise to a Socon variant—Radical Feminism with a Smiling Face.

The Socon feminist doesn’t chant feminist slogans and even sometimes opposes abortion (invariably after she’s had a few of her own). They oppose divorce (usually while in their second or third marriage). They even think men are useful, and kind of nice to have around. Some like going to church and hearing mangina pastors tell them stupid all men are.

But they still hate men and see us as inferiors.

Don’t fall for their lies. American women are educated in a toxic cultural milieu that programs them to compete with and depreciate men at every turn. It’s like a relationship with them: how many times do they say they love us, will be loyal, want a family—and usually all a complete lie. This Socon/Tradcon trend is a social version of the same lie.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 0
Keyster July 11, 2012 at 13:14

They also claim they never burned any bras.

The Bra Burning Movement of the late 60′s backfired badly when it was found men had NO objections to it and some women looked better (to men) than others without a bra. The bra was a symbol of patriarchal constraint.

Not long after the high-heeled shoe became the next target. It was compared to Chinese foot binding, (a ritual Chinese women did to keep their feet small and more feminine). They also made the woman’s rear end stand out and upright, as if inviting sex. Women rejected that wholesale after a few years. Then came the pantsuit…

No matter how hard feminists tried to convince women to stop being women, they would always revert to their true nature – – competing for the best men through sex appeal and feminine allure. Now they’ve become caricatures of themselves; weak, fussy men in drag.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 41 Thumb down 0
Uncle Elmer July 11, 2012 at 14:26

Keyster I am sure you are aware of the effect gravity had on those young ladies who sported the “braless look” throughout much of the 70s.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1
Norm July 11, 2012 at 15:00

I guess feminazis want to remove “Have it all”, because reality bites and you can’t and NEVER WILL have it all!! Men have swallowed the red pill and some are looking at imports. Reminds me of American car makers during the 70s.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
Art Vandelay July 11, 2012 at 15:01

Keyster I am sure you are aware of the effect gravity had on those young ladies who sported the “braless look” throughout much of the 70s.

Clearly men like Newton invented Gravity to oppress the females. Chauvinist pigs!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1
Charles Martel July 11, 2012 at 15:29

Here’s a comment on the Salon article at Salon.com.

Maybe you should save your outrage against people (only some of whom are women) who have goals and aspirations that cannot be understood in terms of the market and its drive for greater profits. The “bosses” are doing fine and they will still be doing fine if they grant their workers parental leave and affordable day care. Sensible people choose to have children when they are fertile, which is the same time that they are supposed to be mortgaging their souls to the corporate machine. Something has to give, and my preference is that it be the machine that gives.

This comment says it all. There’s no feminist backing away from “having it all.” The problem for feminists is that “having it all” is too hard, requiring too many trade-offs. This commenter and the authors of both linked articles above are all asking for the same thing. They still want it all but they don’t want to have to work so hard for it. So they default to the only argument feminists ever make. Somebody else has to pay more, subsidize them more, give them more special privileges, so they CAN have it all without making the compromises they’re currently making.

Feminism is communism with tits and this is what passes for leadership among feminists. Always the same thing. Somebody else has to pay more so they can have more free stuff.

Wimminz. Eating the seed corn everywhere.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 40 Thumb down 2
Team-Red July 11, 2012 at 15:44

I blame the Hippies.

These were the same people that spit in the face of American Troops like my Father when they were returning from Vietnam. Only three people went to the airport to welcome my Father home from Vietnam – My Grandparents and My Mother, who was only 20 at the time.

My parents are still happily married today.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 7
piercedhead July 11, 2012 at 15:44

Curiously, just at the same time I am experiencing a major about-turn on Feminism, the Feminists are turning about themselves.

I have made the personal adjustment made necessary by Feminism – I have disavowed marriage, abandoned career, and now live rurally and very simply on an income well below the official poverty level. I have full freedom, blissful peace, and almost zero interaction with any women. It is a sweet life, far more satisfying than my former blue-pill existence as a high-earning self-employed professional in the city.

What seems clear to me now is that this is a better life for men than any other. I can recall the life my father lived, and his father before him – both married to pre-feminist women of the old school – and I can say with certainty that there is no way that is preferable. It was the same life of quiet desperation that Thoreau spoke of in the early 19th century.

Wives have always been man’s burden, and the sooner a man learns to live without them, the sooner he develops an appreciation for his own life and the wider world.

Amongst the many motives attributed to the rise of Feminism, I must now add this: our male forbears were as sick of putting up with women as we are. They must have dreamed of being free of them as many of us do, but there was always the nagging problem of what to do with them, and what would become of them without men to support them – what was once called ‘The Women Problem’.

They knew they would never leave the safety of a husband’s hearth on their own, so they couched it all in righteous social reform language, told women all manner of flattery (knowing how susceptible women are to this) and constructed an economy where all the women could be herded together and maybe made to work for a living. Then men could quietly desert the scene. They may not earn so much, or have any great social status, but that is the price for being free of female inanity.

Any man unable to see his deliverance in all of this, and begs to stay on the reservation, will be left to the mercy of women (a horrible fate).

I suspect the Feminists are beginning to catch on to this design, and in their usual indirect way, are devising means of getting back their long-suffering husbands.

Too late ladies! This guy is lost to you forever!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 0
keyster July 11, 2012 at 16:10

The “bosses” are doing fine and they will still be doing fine if they grant their workers parental leave and affordable day care.

That’s code for “the privilaged white male class” is doing fine. “Affordable day care” is code for government subsidized baby sitters, before the little ones reach public school age, which IS government day care K thru 12. Then they borrow money from the government to go to college only to come home and live in the basement.

She can either be a man-like wage slave by day (and a whore by night), or she can be a mommy, but she can’t be both. I’m sorry Motherhood is such drudgery for today’s women, but it’s not man’s fault. Motherhood is your JOB. By design, that’s why you’re here. To produce and nurture baby humans. If you agree to this much, men will do the rest of the work. I know it’s not fair, but no amount of social engineering is gonna change it.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 6
Anti Idiocy July 11, 2012 at 16:26

Take back the day!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
a_guy July 11, 2012 at 17:05

I’m sure everyone has heard of Mark Twain’s maxim on statistics. Well, here is one way they can be deceptive:

Democrats and other assorted left-wingers always poll higher with single women than married women, and this is easy to understand, given the Left’s proclivity with social (wealth transfer) programs. Married women have shifted their dependence to their husbands, and thusly do not want Uncle Sugar taking more and more money away from hubby in terms of taxes, fines, and regulations. Single women, however, have no man to depend on (yet), and so want Uncle Sugar Daddy to have as much power and money as possible so he can take care of them. The single women don’t care that the money Uncle Sugar Daddy spends on them comes out of the pockets of the productive men (and a few, but not many, productive women) in society.

However, the single women/married women paradigm overlaps with another demographic: age. Younger women tend to be single more often than older women. And, as most people over 30 know, younger people tend to be gullible idiots. Younger men will fall for a lot of the left-wing nonsense up until life teaches them that nothing is free, including the “free” stuff from Uncle Sugar, leading to their finally realizing exactly how hard up the rear end they have been and will take it. Women never reach this realization of their own accord because they are the recipients of socialist wealth transfer, even when they are older. It is only when they hitch their wagon to a man and then watch that man get raped by the government that they object.

So, what we have with single women is both the woman’s privileged status AND youthful gullibility at work, which is why they will always fall for every lie the Left tells them, even up to the point where the Left has made its final move and is rounding up people in cattle cars. Any of you get, yet, why the Founders of the USA did not give the vote to women? And why the women’s suffrage movement was backed by Marxists to begin with?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1
Glenn July 11, 2012 at 17:19

Two words; Damage control.

Only problem is, the damage is done.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0
jg July 11, 2012 at 17:33

They aint done with their carnage yet. Take a look at this:

http://www.openmarket.org/2012/07/10/quotas-limiting-male-science-enrollment-the-new-liberal-war-on-science/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1
Charles Martel July 11, 2012 at 17:50

They aint done with their carnage yet. Take a look at this: Quotas limiting the number of male students in science may be imposed by the Education Department in 2013.

Well the Democrats aren’t called the Evil Party for nothing. And that is downright evil. A declaration of war on the men that literally make everything work. What could possibly go wrong?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 2
Charles Martel July 11, 2012 at 18:35

A declaration of war on the men that literally make everything work. What could possibly go wrong?

To answer my own question and to paraphrase Stephen Colbert, I imagine American science will be replaced with scienciness.

Scienciness. When you feel sure you know how things should work.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 2
Eric July 11, 2012 at 19:06

Martel:

“When you feel sure you know how things should work.”

I’m sure that a feelings-driven, non-outcome-based, values-neutral approach to the sciences and mathematics will work just as well as it has worked in liberal arts and social sciences. Just look how much better our society has become since it’s ‘progressed’ beyond all those harsh, objective things like laws, literature, and economics and embraced ‘postmodernism’ where everything is relative and no one gets their feelings hurt…

The feminists, for all their talk about being ‘earth goddesses’ always forget a famous line from an old commercial: ‘It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature.’

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
piercedhead July 11, 2012 at 21:30

I’m beginning to suspect that the government has come to the same conclusion about the worth of college education as the rest of us, and is starting to look for ways to reduce the cost of all those grants – but only those ways that don’t upset the single female voter of course.

There can be no doubt that putting quota on men in STEM would result in departments being shrunk, and maybe even closed altogether. Think how much government money was saved when all the men’s athletic programs were cut under the same reasoning.

As for the cost to the nation, the universities did not invent STEM – those fields are almost exclusively the product of exceptional men. That will probably never change.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
andybob July 11, 2012 at 21:56

Feminism is a quasi-religious ideology that is expunging one of its central tenets because the flock has begun to notice that it is a crock – and it took them forty years. Women should be embarrassed for falling for such an obvious lie, and exposing the essential childishness of their aspirations – but they’re not.

As usual, women are blaming everyone but themselves. I have even heard one feminist claim that the ‘having it all’ meme was invented by men in order to make women feel bad for failing to achieve it. Men, of course, just don’t understand the kind of pressure women are under to ‘have it all’.

Women are rejecting this meme with the lock-step conformity one might expect from a herd – imagine that.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 0
evilwhitemalempire July 11, 2012 at 23:27

The SlutWalk phenomenon is a by-product of this…sexual objectification, but on THEIR terms.
————————–

btw did you know they came up with a theme song?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm8OXtgPBRY

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Art Vandelay July 12, 2012 at 02:52

The movement she actually needs more of – to advocate for universal daycare, better schools, a higher minimum wage, paid family leave

I don’t get that at all. If you don’t want to raise your children what’s the point of having them in the first place? Just to check off a box on your life plan checklist?

I’m still waiting to see the first regular man who “has it all”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
ode July 12, 2012 at 04:00

Soon; they’ll demand of all of us that we force them back into the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant, to make their/our family sandwiches.

Even if a woman were to ask me, I would not give her that lifestyle.
Why should I, what’s in it for me? Why should I sign my name onto a financial contract that says I have to surrender 50% of my net worth because that’s what marriage is legally speaking. I’d rather reject a woman’s advances and let her get a job outside of the home. She can learn to fend for herself.

For the past couple years there have been plenty of man bashing, man shaming, man-up news articles trying to trick men into marriage. This is simply a cover up because feminists are to embarrassed to admit the truth and that is There’s actually a lot of women who would LOVE to be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen right now but they can’t find enough men to support them.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0
The Big Daddy C-Master July 12, 2012 at 04:38

“I’m beginning to suspect that the government has come to the same conclusion about the worth of college education as the rest of us, and is starting to look for ways to reduce the cost of all those grants – but only those ways that don’t upset the single female voter of course.”

The government isn’t trying to cut costs. Obama wants to make sure that every kid has a degree, even if the jobs the kids are getting are jobs their grandparents could have done with no degree and made more money. The number of janitors, waiters, maids, plumbers, and other menial jobs with college degrees has increased 100% in almost all of them from 2000 to 2010. Obama is still saying that kids “need” an education. Now he’s trying to make loans forgivable and push it on the taxpayer.

This gives kids an incentive to take out even *more* than they can afford and colleges will of course bump up their costs because of the phony demand caused by degree inflation. This steals from productive work that could be done in the private sector and leaves it in the educational establishment.

It seems they want to cut down on productive science degrees dominated by men, but keep the useless degrees in liberal arts degrees that women get. Men are dropping out of college anyways, and they are smart to.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
migu July 12, 2012 at 05:39

This is a perfect example of consolidating the gains. We have a new first step.

Next step. Right you all saw the stem quota link.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Firepower July 12, 2012 at 06:22

Charles Martel July 11, 2012 at 17:50

They aint done with their carnage yet. Take a look at this: Quotas limiting the number of male students in science may be imposed by the Education Department in 2013.

Well the Democrats aren’t called the Evil Party for nothing. And that is downright evil. A declaration of war on the men that literally make everything work

Wow, Democrats and Liberals did ALL THIS?

And they want do DO MORE? This is amazing news – spread the word.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 14
Just1X July 12, 2012 at 06:33

I think I understand the title IX stuff.

Lefties would prefer everybody (except their select leadership) be equal in the shithouse, rather than let any man work his way above the herd.

They hate to see someone win because he’s not the same as everyone else, more than they care about everyone having a decent life.

They are hate filled scum

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1
Charles Martel July 12, 2012 at 09:26

Firepower
Wow, Democrats and Liberals did ALL THIS?
And they want do DO MORE? This is amazing news – spread the word.

Thank you, Numbah TEN!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2
joeb July 12, 2012 at 11:48

I think they should stick with the Abortion rights concept , Because sooner then Latter they will abort themselves right out of the DNA pool .
But , If they choose to mate hope they all produce little girls then the toxic seed ends there .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Paradoxotaur July 12, 2012 at 13:29

@Art Vandelay: “Just to check off a box on your life plan checklist?”

I think that’s pretty much it. Women tend to do the same with professional degrees- it’s just a feather they want to stick in their cap (and gives them access to a greater number and concentration of high-earning men). It’s not like they actually want to shovel the gravel year after year. Look at the average professional career length for female doctors or lawyers. It’s pathetic. Assuming some women work full (~40 year) careers, it means a lot of women are leaving the professional fields after a few years (when the novelty wears off, the learning curve starts to flatten out, and the “career” seems to take on the characteristic of being mostly a lot of work) to let some chump shovel the gravel and pay off her loans so she can sit around queefing about the gender wage gap.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
The Dude July 13, 2012 at 09:10

What few take into account is that almost all feminists are also incredibly liberal. And with that liberal view has come liberal pressure to pass liberal policy. With that has come rampant immigration across the western economies of the world, where millions of foreign people have now moved seeking a better life. Throw into the mix globalisation and cheap travel, and more men are seeing the reality of their own women as they are exposed to alternatives now.

Marriage rates are not only falling off a cliff, those that are marrying are actually marrying outside the pretty sick pool that is local western woman these days, with far higher frequency too. Stats back it up, where cross cultural marriages are at an all time high and racial demographics are showing its men going foreign far more often.

Look at how many western men, if they do marry, are marrying foreign women instead. Look around you. Either women they met abroad or women who moved to their country and met these men there. Look at how many marry first generation immigrants too, where some semblance of foreign culture had a small role in her upbringing and produced something a little more sane.

Here in Australia, the divorcee who swears off Aussie women and goes Asian is far from unusual. Younger men are noticing this too, and many are marrying asian women instead.

Women on the other hand are not marrying more foreign men. Not unless those foreign men tick the long laundry list they have, and because many are still making their way or had fewer opportunities, they are off the radar completely in most cases.

Men are voting with their commitment, not attention. Women only realise this when they get older and the need for commitment is far greater than the need for attention.By then its either too late or she settles for some guy she cant stand, only to blame him for her misery later in life as she takes his kids and half his shit.

I feel feathers for women. They have taken men for granted and treated them with such disdain and contempt that its impossible to sympathise with them

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Anonymous July 13, 2012 at 10:22

@Paradoxotaur

I think that’s pretty much it. Women tend to do the same with professional degrees- it’s just a feather they want to stick in their cap (and gives them access to a greater number and concentration of high-earning men). It’s not like they actually want to shovel the gravel year after year. Look at the average professional career length for female doctors or lawyers. It’s pathetic. Assuming some women work full (~40 year) careers, it means a lot of women are leaving the professional fields after a few years (when the novelty wears off, the learning curve starts to flatten out, and the “career” seems to take on the characteristic of being mostly a lot of work) to let some chump shovel the gravel and pay off her loans so she can sit around queefing about the gender wage gap.

I call this Playing career woman , or getting her feminist merit badge. These are the most obnoxious kind of feminists. I have respect for women who work to support themselves and their families. But many are doing it to show that they are better than those other housewives who aren’t sufficiently pretentious.

Along the same lines, a quote I ran across the other day from the The Chicago Tribune:

“You no longer need marriage for sex or to have kids,” she said. “It’s optional and revered. It’s a choice and something women aspire to do when they and their partners can afford it.”

“Now, marriage is an achievement women make after they are educated and start their careers,” said Barbara Risman, professor of sociology at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Georice81 July 13, 2012 at 13:14

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYtF83ToMXA

I actually met this chick. She has had it all except for a husband. Sooooo, now it is time for her to find one within a year. Typical Narcissist way of thinking. Of course, she didn’t find anyone.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Firepower July 16, 2012 at 11:19

Charles Martel July 11, 2012 at 17:50

They aint done with their carnage yet. Take a look at this: Quotas limiting the number of male students in science may be imposed by the Education Department in 2013.

Why, Charlie -
I thought you said MRM – Winning!
And The Gubmint dare
impose this in
one year?

Wha hoppen?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Truth July 20, 2012 at 20:46

well , you know most women…. there minds and so called “logic” will change the second it no longer bennifts them any more.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: