The Socialization of the Costs of Sex

by W.F. Price on October 19, 2012

One of the beefs the traditional left has had with US economic policy – one I happen to have as well – is the socialization of business costs (or losses) while profit remains private. Because I did some manual labor as a teen and young man, I remember feeling pretty angry about the fact that immigrant farm workers had their health care and housing subsidized by the state while I had no such benefit. This was extended to a ridiculous degree in subsequent years, with illegals getting all of the benefits of residence and state services while their employers continued to pay them low wages. As I saw it, there was a partnership between the state and private interests that served to drive wages down for natives. Unfortunately, the typical white leftist at the time was a couple generations removed from blue collar work, and tended to have a sort of class antagonism toward working-class whites (e.g. you must be a “loser” if you work with your hands), framing everything in terms of multicultural universalism, by which they justified screwing less advantaged Americans in favor of hiring cheaper foreigners.

There are plenty of other examples, and many of us are paying dearly for this in our current recession, which was created essentially by socializing business costs and thereby creating an enormously inflated bubble. It’s infuriating when you think about it, and makes me pretty pessimistic about both candidates, who both, as far as I can tell, are in league with the thieves and crooks who caused all this trouble.

However, it seems that this is a problem that goes beyond the formal business world, and has pervaded society in general to the extent that many – perhaps most – people think the government (i.e. taxpayers) should bear the costs of their life choices.

The example most in the news today is the demands for subsidized abortion and birth control that have become a feature of the presidential campaign. You’d think that our country’s women’s top priority is getting the government to subsidize their sexual choices, whatever they may be.

Following what I was getting at yesterday, sex has always incurred some expense. Like it or not, men pay for sex (or its results) in one way or another. Traditionally, you’d pay by getting married and taking the woman on as your responsibility, or you’d pay a fee for a one-off (prostitution). If you took it without paying for it, as in adultery, rape or fornication, it was a crime, or something like that. If we were honest with ourselves, we’d have to admit that it still is a quasi crime; as the old system has been replaced with something significantly more confusing, sex crime laws have become far broader in scope and can be applied to any number of situations (such as prostitution) that used to be considered beyond the purview of the law.

Additionally, despite false promises of free sex from the 60s and 70s, when feminists used to get support from men by promising we’d all be getting laid for free when we had “equality,” it turned out that sex still had a lot of associated costs. Pregnancy, of course, is one of the biggest. At first, we socialized that, but then welfare reform threw the costs entirely onto fathers (not mothers, mind you). Combined with welfare reform, we had VAWA, which significantly increased the costs of marriage and cohabitation by legally handicapping men in relationships with women. So great strides have been made in restoring a heavy cost to sex, but this hasn’t been enough, because women have grown accustomed to sexual license with whomsoever they please, and the men they generally like either a) don’t have the money, or b) are desirable enough to not have to pay.

Although the latter is a bit counterintuitive (wouldn’t women desire men who pay for them?), it’s a function of female sexual psychology. Women generally use sex to ensnare the man they want (and they typically have high expectations), and then they begin to draw resources from him. It works in simple societies where people hold each other to account, but in more cosmopolitan settings it breaks down for a couple reasons. First, there are more than enough women to go around, so it’s easy to drop one and pick up another, and secondly there are other means for women to gain resources, such as jobs and welfare, and as long as those resources exist men who have no trouble procuring sex see no reason to provide for women, even if they have the means. And who can blame them? Although it’s a social catastrophe, it’s a perfectly reasonable attitude from a personal perspective, because, after all, the individual man didn’t create this mess in the first place.

Here’s a scenario:

A handsome young investment banker making six figures can go out to a bar and take his pick. Let’s call him Mark. Mark picks up a young woman named Amanda, she goes home with him, they have sex, and he enters her number into his phone, leaving her only a promise to call again. Perhaps he intends to do so, and perhaps not. Whatever the case, he feels no guilt or responsibility, because the woman, who happens to be in law school, also has a job at a nonprofit, and makes more hourly than the average young man in their city, so he doesn’t need to provide her with anything. Additionally, if there’s an “accident” (but in all likelihood there won’t be, because Mark is careful about these things) there’s a Planned Parenthood down the street. Not only does it provide her with birth control, but it will treat STDs and abort unwanted children resulting from her nightly excursions.

Sounds fine, so what’s the problem?

The problem is that this young woman, despite being a student and having a job, is essentially on the dole. Her nonprofit is funded in large part by state and federal grants, as is her tuition. Her sexual care at Planned Parenthood is also funded largely by taxpayers. Her life, including her sex life, is paid for by the average working Joe, but she isn’t sleeping with Joe — oh no: she’s sleeping with Mark, a guy who easily could afford to feed, clothe and insure her, but who doesn’t have to because of Joe. Although it isn’t really his fault, Mark is a freeloader.

Joe, for his part, makes do with monthly trysts with a mid-level prostitute, which he can barely afford after taxes and child support. Joe, who is an HVAC repairman, is paying for all the Amandas in his state, his ex-wife Lisa, and his hooker, who is named Elena.

Interestingly enough, Joe and Amanda have met. Joe was called in to fix the AC in her nonprofit’s office on a sweltering summer day. Because the AC was broken and the atmosphere was stifling, Amanda had unbuttoned the top part of her blouse, and poor Joe couldn’t help but look at her breasts. Amanda was furious, and called his supervisor, who apologized profusely, and when Joe got back from the job he caught hell. Fortunately, he wasn’t fired, but it sure was humiliating. Not as bad as having to deal with his ex-wife’s lawyer, but close…

I suppose we could say “life’s unfair,” and that would be entirely true. But should we make it that unfair? Should we set things up so that Joe has to support Amanda as much as Mark?

According to our nation’s single women, the answer is a resounding “YES!” Married women, however, have a significantly different take on it, for obvious reasons.

I’m not sure single women are consciously aware of how selfish they are being. I think they fully intend to find some man to support them, and think the only way they can do that is to have unfettered sex with all the Marks of the world they can get their hands on in the hopes that one of them will some day give in and marry her. The problem is that it’s a trend that reinforces itself; the more Amandas we have giving it away for free the less likely any given Mark will be to actually support any of them. The competition will escalate, desirable men will become even more reluctant to give women any financial support, and the screeching for more entitlements for single women will grow louder and louder.

It is exactly this trend that has led to the bizarre, unprecedented fixation on women’s sexual entitlements in our current election cycle. When you socialize the costs of a private activity – and sex is about as private as it gets – you create an unnatural imbalance that rewards the few at the expense of the many. You also run the risk of inflating costs to unsustainable levels, and I think that’s something young women ought to think hard about. But they won’t.

{ 58 comments… read them below or add one }

geographybeefinalisthimself October 19, 2012 at 11:12

Just out of curiosity, did you choose to name the freeloading slut Amanda in your example after feminazi slut Amanda Marcotte?

Coincidentally, Amanda Marcotte’s partner is Marc Faletti.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Anon October 19, 2012 at 11:13

Obama is only following well established precedent by promising everything and anything to women and everybody else and then placing the costs and bills on the public tab.

And so what if he does run the country into the ground ? It serves the people right for accepting the same things from his predecessors all along. Only there was not so much clamor nor uproar when they did it cause it served their petty interests then.

I’m all for more destructive socialism, more degenerating liberalism and more overwhelming bankruptcy to the whole fraudulent edifice. Maybe out of the ashes we might get general consensus as to what it means to live honestly and as equals before the same law.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Opus October 19, 2012 at 11:37

Your story of Joe et al reads like a parody but sadly it isn’t – I recognise that scenario in all of its details. Any form of contact even inadvertant visual can be spun by a woman as harrassement. Any form of touching can be spun by the woman as attempted rape, and marriage has been downgraded so that the ethos of the homosexual bath-house has been brought into the marriage bed – viz the man has no right to sex with his wife, even if they were intimate even minutes earlier – and of course the woman has the right to anonymity. Is it thus any wonder that there is said to be a marriage strike, a procreation strike and is it any wonder that some women (usually accompanied by a lot of shaming – “is he gay?”) are puzzled as to why guys walk away from free-pusssy; why they won’t make a move; why they prefer singledom. Thus unless a woman is uber-hot it is better to give it a pass – just in case, she is some sort of nutter, which given that she is still single is more than probable. You don’t know do you, so why take the risk.

Meanwhile the Marks of this world – who can blame them – are having sex with women who are throwing thelmselves at the Marks. Simple arithmetic persuades one that they cannot marry more than one of these woman and are probably better off marrying none – for who wants to marry a slut. Courtship, as we saw above has (with the invention of the boyfriend circa 1860) been abolished. There is no western eqiuivalent of the arranged marriage – you have to prove yourself in bed first, and the trick is to get the other party to commit before you do – thus keeping your options open. If she sleeps with you, you must assume you weren’t the first and won’t be the last, so prudence persuades you to regard her as a good-time girl. Any attempt to woo a girl is seen as more or less the action of an omega male and is rejected and probably with a call to the police claiming harrassment.

[Welmer , you are clearly on fire!]

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price October 19, 2012 at 11:39

Just out of curiosity, did you choose to name the freeloading slut Amanda in your example after feminazi slut Amanda Marcotte?

Coincidentally, Amanda Marcotte’s partner is Marc Faletti.

-gbfh

Nah, just a common name. I had no idea who Marcotte’s friend was.

Bob October 19, 2012 at 11:40

Good post. The man writes the truth.
Don’t worry, it’s only thime before the system
comes crashing down due to entitlements,
(at all levels) debt, etc. etc. The whole western
system is unsustainable. (prolonged due to FIAT currency
and Ponzi schemes)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Zorro October 19, 2012 at 11:41

Fascinating. And with such a simple solution.

Repeal the 19th Amendment. In 30 years, everything self-corrects.
In any democratic environment, women’s political issues are cyanide. Take women out of politics and watch sanity reign supreme again.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Pugs Fugly October 19, 2012 at 12:02

I’m the only one of my friends who has a manual-labor job. It pays really well for the area I live in, but I currently have no health-insurance because my company’s HR department lost the entire packet of enrollment forms for everyone on my crew (we were hired and started at the same time) and didn’t realize it until it was too late. The “open-enrollment” thing that companies do with new employees is ridiculous. You’re paying for a service — health insurance — you should be able to establish that service at any time. But I digress.

My last girlfriend was going to college for free, had her and her son on Medicaid, recieved food stamps and rental assitance, and was studying for a degree in (you guessed it) social work. She will eventually come full-circle and have a career that is state-paid, with state-benefits, where she’ll likely hand out taxpayer-funded state-aid to people who don’t pay taxes. Interesting system we’ve built here.

I can understand the people who actually get to indulge in entitlement programs voicing their approval, but the “white leftists” you mention (I was married to one for five years) who wax philosophical about it piss me off. As a man who puts in twelve-hour days of heavy lifting, who pays a disproportionate amount of taxes as a member of the Middle Class, I get angry when someone who drives a desk indoors all day tries to tell me that I owe anyone anything. Especially since it’s the incompetence of such a person (everyone in HR is female btw) who lost our insurance forms but suffered no consequence for it.

I mention all of this because I’m pretty sure I’ve slipped a disk in my back, but my only options for treatment would cost me hundreds of dollars and missed time at work. I can’t even take my kid to the doctor without shelling out a couple hundred bucks. I earn far too much to qualify for anything, while most of the people I know can visit a doctor anytime for free, often for something as frivolous as a case of the sniffles.

I’m not advocating anything here; I was happy to pay the insurance premiums for me and my daughter, but somebody fucked up and lost me that opportunity. Lately, I’m getting the sense that I fucked up by acquiring a professional trade that paid well.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price October 19, 2012 at 12:16

I’m not advocating anything here; I was happy to pay the insurance premiums for me and my daughter, but somebody fucked up and lost me that opportunity. Lately, I’m getting the sense that I fucked up by acquiring a professional trade that paid well.

-pugs

I know it’s a big step, but sometimes becoming self-employed is the only way to mitigate these problems. It’s just about the only freedom we’ve got left, I think.

samseau October 19, 2012 at 12:32

Price, this is a nice article. But the best part, here:

“Here’s a scenario:

A handsome young investment banker making six figures can go out to a bar and take his pick. Let’s call him Mark. Mark picks up a young woman named Amanda, she goes home with him, they have sex, and he enters her number into his phone, leaving her only a promise to call again. Perhaps he intends to do so, and perhaps not. Whatever the case, he feels no guilt or responsibility, because the woman, who happens to be in law school, also has a job at a nonprofit, and makes more hourly than the average young man in their city, so he doesn’t need to provide her with anything. Additionally, if there’s an “accident” (but in all likelihood there won’t be, because Mark is careful about these things) there’s a Planned Parenthood down the street. Not only does it provide her with birth control, but it will treat STDs and abort unwanted children resulting from her nightly excursions.

Sounds fine, so what’s the problem?

The problem is that this young woman, despite being a student and having a job, is essentially on the dole. Her nonprofit is funded in large part by state and federal grants, as is her tuition. Her sexual care at Planned Parenthood is also funded largely by taxpayers. Her life, including her sex life, is paid for by the average working Joe, but she isn’t sleeping with Joe — oh no: she’s sleeping with Mark, a guy who easily could afford to feed, clothe and insure her, but who doesn’t have to because of Joe. Although it isn’t really his fault, Mark is a freeloader.

Joe, for his part, makes do with monthly trysts with a mid-level prostitute, which he can barely afford after taxes and child support. Joe, who is an HVAC repairman, is paying for all the Amandas in his state, his ex-wife Lisa, and his hooker, who is named Elena.

Interestingly enough, Joe and Amanda have met. Joe was called in to fix the AC in her nonprofit’s office on a sweltering summer day. Because the AC was broken and the atmosphere was stifling, Amanda had unbuttoned the top part of her blouse, and poor Joe couldn’t help but look at her breasts. Amanda was furious, and called his supervisor, who apologized profusely, and when Joe got back from the job he caught hell. Fortunately, he wasn’t fired, but it sure was humiliating. Not as bad as having to deal with his ex-wife’s lawyer, but close…

I suppose we could say “life’s unfair,” and that would be entirely true. But should we make it that unfair? Should we set things up so that Joe has to support Amanda as much as Mark?”

You should have opened the article with. Great writing and story analysis, sucked me right in. But it’s too bad you buried it deep below the analysis.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
shmiggen October 19, 2012 at 12:43

This is pretty much the deal for all young women in any metropolitan area of the US. It would be interesting to find out what the percentage out of the total population of women are working for the government or relying on government largesse via a non-profit. Actually, this article has a corresponding video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLPDBGZiT54

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Norm October 19, 2012 at 13:26

Apples going bad in Washington state due to worker “shortage”. Your state has the second highest youth unemployment and yet can’t find workers to pick apples. You can make over $200 a day and you get excercise at the same time. This is what happens when everything is given to people, they become lazy.

http://www.gcnlive.com/wp/2012/10/19/jim-brown-for-goodness-sake-don%e2%80%99t-let-your-kid-pick-apples/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price October 19, 2012 at 14:22

You should have opened the article with. Great writing and story analysis, sucked me right in. But it’s too bad you buried it deep below the analysis.

-samseau

Thanks for the feedback, Sam. I tend to develop ideas as I’m writing, so sometimes you’ll see better points and explanations further down. It would probably be better to edit for that, but it’s inefficient when you have limited time and have to handle the editing yourself.

However, it’s interesting to see that people like the story format. Maybe I should think about writing some more stories as examples. It’s a good idea, and I appreciate it.

universe October 19, 2012 at 15:03

Nice breakdown of the fictional scenario.

Firstly, the immigrant issue.
The same occurs in Canada. Freshly arrived newcomers off the boat/plane receive an automatic basketful of benefits. Cons and illegals caught receive somewhat less. Something is definately askew with this set-up. There is money to be made with and inside the Canadian immigration network. This nation is regarded as the easiest country to gain asylum, refuge and effortless comfort.
Obviously it is the established collective citizen footing the lion’s share of the bill. Citizen Canuck are not given much room to air their opinions over such costs benefitting people contributing relatively nothing in the magnitude of the benfits received. CC barely allowed plain speaking over this issue is one matter but actual implementing of policy change, good luck. The invisible policy makers, those not replaced during administrative changes, are going to do what they want/believe anyway. Unless…, unless people, those not consulted concerning these matters, take the time to organize and speak toward change. As long as the feminist led and perpetuated moratorium on rational discussion and debate continues unabated, not much will change.
Immigration, however, helps replace the defenselessly murdered (abortion). The murdered infants equates to immoral acts but in numbers not equating to the quarter million of living specimens that Canada imports annually from elsewhere. Importantly though, the pre-murdered were enough to keep an economy rolling along as anytime before.

Re: the fictional scenario/relations between the sexes. The financial and social costs for ‘Amanda’s’ enabled life choices. That self-entitled without regard for how it impacts upon the lives of others, reason for being.
S’odd how the “social justice” to the many afar crowd is barren to the thought of it happening right under their very own noses. But not odd for the collective feminist being wilfully and defiantly ignorant to not only their own stated ideals, to the realities their ideals have produced but to the men whom feminists seek an alleged parity to. There is no parity sought only a resulting pretense to. If feminists exercised in reality what they endlessly mouthe (“equality”) men and men’s concerns from a non-feminist perspective would have been on the bargaining table 25 years ago. These people and those who spout the feminist line, the cowshit ruse of “equality”, are not your friends nor your equals as evidenced by their own behavior.

Given how debt economies have created second thoughts for many on the production mill, given that men are mostly footing the female lifestyle credit economy of our culture(s), given the penalties meted out upon many fathers without access/custody rights plus many other demographics of men ultimately and somewhat reluctantly paving an easier road for females at their own financial and social peril it is absolutely ludicrous that no debates, no fully informed discussion of these matters relating to female only bureaucracies have frequently occured considering the endless bleating of the sexual equality platitude. Just ludicrous.

We do not anymore need to be led by those lacking in sound arguement and judgement, no sense to understand this very matter and only out-of-control emotions backing it all. So much for the ‘powerlessness’ of women right? Only if they’re enabled.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
keyster October 19, 2012 at 16:11

The “Women for Obama” campaign bus is coming through my town this weekend, with Planned Parenthood’s own Cecile Richards at the wheel. She makes $450K per year.

Feminism continues to fight for emancipation from the male as provider and protector (ie-marriage). The stupid bitches can’t figure out that it’s THEM that will eventually be footing the entitlement bill, once the men go John Galt on their fat asses.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Avenger October 19, 2012 at 16:29

“but I currently have no health-insurance because my company’s HR department lost the entire packet of enrollment forms for everyone on my crew (we were hired and started at the same time) and didn’t realize it until it was too late.”

Too late? Your crew shouldn’t have started to work until they got those forms. Either send someone to the insurance office or fax them over and make copies. And then verify by a certifiate of insurance that there is actually a policy in force and it’s paid.

“I mention all of this because I’m pretty sure I’ve slipped a disk in my back, but my only options for treatment would cost me hundreds of dollars and missed time at work”

That would come under Workman’s Comp.and every employer must have it for his workers. There should be a certificate posted by law.Even that you should check with the insurer (or State)to see that it’s valid and paid up.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Paul Murray October 19, 2012 at 17:05

“The problem is that this young woman, despite being a student and having a job, is essentially on the dole. Her nonprofit is funded in large part by state and federal grants, as is her tuition.”

So, if a man erects an aerial and is paid by a private company, he’s doing useful manly work. If he erects exactly the same aerial but is paid by the government, he’s on the dole.

I see this over and over on teh webz, the notion that if it’s not the free market, then it cannot count as useful economic activity. Whether or not se is on the dole depends on what her nonprofit is doing and why the government funds it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Avenger October 19, 2012 at 17:16

Whatever the case, he feels no guilt or responsibility, because the woman, who happens to be in law school, also has a job at a nonprofit, and makes more hourly than the average young man in their city, so he doesn’t need to provide her with anything. Additionally, if there’s an “accident” (but in all likelihood there won’t be, because Mark is careful about these things) there’s a Planned Parenthood down the street

If she’s in law school she couldn’t be making much or any money on the side at some nonprofit. Nonprofits are all bullshit anyway and the CEO and workers make the same as a regular corp, they just don’t show any profit or put any earnings into the nonprofit to be used for its intended purpose later. I’m sure that tese breast cancer nonprofits have quite a surplus of money lying around..Some regular corps. are really nonprofit if they didn’t make a profit that year :) These are the companies you always hear the left bitching about that didn’t pay any taxes but all that means is that the corp. didn’t pay any after paying out salaries and other expenses. The board members and workers still all paid income taxes. Most small corps. never pay a corp.tax because the corp itself never makes a profit(all the money is paid out in salaries and other things so there’s no actual profit for the corp) but they still have to pay fees etc. to the State just to be a corp.
btw, I don’t think the girl would be going to a Planned Parenthood clinic. These places, esp. in the citiies, are mostly for the poorer females. She’d just go to a regular doctor and would have to pay or have some sort of insurance.
And btw, doesn’t Planned Parenthood charge? Possibly on a sliding scale and accept Medicaid?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jaego October 19, 2012 at 17:25

They make noise about the lack of agricultural labor but will not advertise so the huge number of unemployed young White Men can apply. Some of these jobs are skilled I know, so why not start teaching them the way they do truck driving etc?

Or is that if they hire White Men, they will have to treat them properly? And that the Social Service people aren’t willing to pick up the slack for White males?

They say that Whites aren’t willing to do these jobs? Or rather, they used to say that – they know it’s not true now. They also say that Whites can’t do these jobs – too lazy, too weak etc. Well we used to do this kind of work so that can’t be absolutely true. It’s true that many young Whites aren’t used to labor now. So why not break them in gradually via summer jobs? Of course, it’s always easire to hire Mexicans. And of course Mexicans wont welcome young Whites now either. A crazy situation created through greed and then the owners pretend to be idealists. So noble they wont even hire their own people.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Avenger October 19, 2012 at 17:25

@Keyster-it’s about what I would expect. It’s not much different from a regular corp.

Top salaries at the Planned Parenthood’s national office, according to the PPFA Federal Form 990 for the year ending June 30, 2010 are:

President Cecile Richards $353,819
Chief Operating Officer Maryana Iskander $288,886
Chief Financial Officer Maria Acosta $263,443
VP of Medical Affairs Vanessa Cullins $257,115
VP of General Counsel Barbara Otten $251,379
VP of Public Policy Laurie Rubiner $248,438
VP of Operations Karen Ruffatto $247,932
VP of Affiliates Lisa David $245,322

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
sestamibi October 19, 2012 at 17:36

Joe should cut Amanda open and the world would be a better place for it. When such becomes a widespread reaction, maybe the cunts will back off.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Davani October 19, 2012 at 18:27

I happen to be a socialist and a supporter of women’s rights. The last thing I want is some kind of uneducated, barefoot-and-in-the-kitchen woman who I can’t even have a conversation with on any intelligent topic.

And in most developed societies, both men and women do benefit from a liberal climate where women are educated and have family planning options.

However, in this country (the United States), there are unique challenges that don’t exist in other Western countries. The women here are very shallow, and use their rights to penalize, rather than include, the majority of “average” men who don’t make the cut in terms of their looks. Susan Walsh, the author of “Hooking Up Smart,” reports that on US college campuses, 80% of the girls have sex with 20% of the guys. If you visit a European, South-American, or Asian campus, I’m pretty sure you won’t find 80% of the women penalizing the vast majority of “average” guys.

I am all for egalitarian culture (e.g., expanding women’s rights), but only if the women themselves are egalitarian. In the US, much more so than anywhere else, they are not.

In effect, giving American women contraception enables them to jump on the sex carousel but not with most guys — only with a small number of ‘alpha males’ at the top. This is the problem right here. Moreover, this is at no cost to themselves, because they can abort any pregnancy, while discriminating against the “lesser” males. My point is that in other countries, women wouldn’t use contraception to essentially eliminate 80% of the guys. Family planning would benefit BOTH the guy and the girl. The girl isn’t looking to hook up with the top athlete or celebrity, she’s also very interested in other, regular guys, who have other good qualities, even if they don’t necessarily pass the “looks” test.

But American women are more shallow and discriminatory in their preferences than most other women, and this has to be taken into account. “Feminists used to get support from men by promising we’d all be getting laid for free” — in a normal society, yes; in this country, only the 20% at the top would be getting laid for free in this context.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Josh October 19, 2012 at 19:36

I stopped being surprised by women’s self-absorbed attitudes many years ago. Some women might not understand the extremely selfish nature of their political views, but I think most of them understand how selfish they are being, but they just don’t care. Most women probably believe men will just bail them out if things get really dicey, but they underestimate just how pissed off and alienated the average joe feels. The average joe has been whipped so much, and for so long, he has thrown up his hands in an act of survival.

Let all the empowered women pay for everything, since they have made it so very clear they view the average joe as a waste of oxygen. I come across so many spoiled, obnoxious, irresponsible, and ungrateful women every day. This may seem like something which would cause me much stress, but I look at these women as living reminders as to why I decided to no longer have anything to do with them. I am going to laugh my ass off when women realize they are trapped in the workforce, paying off all the entitlement programs they wanted.

A story regarding Atlas and Hercules comes to mind.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Justsomeone October 19, 2012 at 20:34

@Norm

It isn’t so much that the this generation is lazy, but more so that they’re snobs. This generation was taught that manual labor was beneath them and something to be ashamed of. They taught that white collar jobs are the ultimate social status. And if you don’t have a white collar job, you’re either poor, stupid, or uncivilized, or all three.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader October 19, 2012 at 21:04

Keyster
The “Women for Obama” campaign bus is coming through my town this weekend, with Planned Parenthood’s own Cecile Richards at the wheel. She makes $450K per year.

PP is a very wealthy organzaton with many donors from the “1%”, and yet Uncle Sap hands over about $1 million per day to PP. So we are paying a chunk of her salary, we taxpayers.

Of course, more and more the US government runs on money borrowed from China. Why it is a good idea to borrow money from China to fund abortions in the US is not clear to me…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel October 19, 2012 at 23:05

Paul Murray
So, if a man erects an aerial and is paid by a private company, he’s doing useful manly work. If he erects exactly the same aerial but is paid by the government, he’s on the dole………I see this over and over on teh webz, the notion that if it’s not the free market, then it cannot count as useful economic activity. Whether or not se is on the dole depends on what her nonprofit is doing and why the government funds it.

Now we know where you get your paycheck, Mr. Public Sector.

So, if a man erects an aerial and is paid by a private company, he’s doing useful manly work.

Correct. Someone has decided to pay for said aerial because they expect to earn a return on the cost of its installation. Which they pay for with money earned through useful economic activity.

If he erects exactly the same aerial but is paid by the government, he’s on the dole.

Exactly. Some useless bureacrat has made a decision to spend someone else’s money, taken under threat of institutional violence, on installing this aerial. A project that is likely malinvestment at best and is more probably total destruction of the value created in the private sector.

Think of the government aerial project as a street mugging at gunpoint followed by burning the victim’s wallet on the sidewalk in front of him. Where’s the economic value in that?

The acid test is, would you continue to get paid if the government disappeared tomorrow? If you would then you are doing things that are directly useful to other people. If you wouldn’t then you are a freeloader and a parasite. And yes, many people would starve under this scenario. There was a time when that would have bothered me. No longer.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Sun October 19, 2012 at 23:56

“Whether or not it is on the dole depends on what her nonprofit is doing and why the government funds it.”

I have no problem with governments except that they tend to be filled with idiots and incompetents. Private corporations tend to be filled with greedy and selfish slim.

They both suck in this society.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Avenger October 20, 2012 at 00:01

That’s a very simple view of life.
What if there was a new developement and since you must send your kids to school there was no school tere.Who would build it there and make sure it ran year after year?
What about the Post Office? While it’s true that’s it’s used less and less over the past 10-15 as a result of the cheapness of the Net and computers it’s still cheap and reliable and it’s always there.
And what about things that don’t involve immediate or even nearterm profit that no private company will touch like the government agency NASA? Of course everything in some way is profitable because privatefirms suppy NASA and other gov’t agencies and projecrand people are employed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Perseus October 20, 2012 at 01:18

Affirmative.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Elaine October 20, 2012 at 02:53

Charles Martel, by your reckoning, the armed forces are totally useless since they are funded by taxpayers. Would you want a country over-run by private armies ? If so, then you think we should all be like Somalia.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
ActaNonVerba October 20, 2012 at 02:58

And, it’s a self-perpetuating system because women absolutely go bananas if they are ever expected to go backwards (e.g. lose) in lifestyle or entitlements to which they have accustomed. They are very covetous beings, save a small minority of exceptions.

Married men have it crappy too. To paraphrase Esther Vilar, Joe now has to work to sell one of his neighbors’ wives a bathtub because his neighbor Sam sold his (Joe’s) wife a new carpet yesterday.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
numnut October 20, 2012 at 03:05

Here’s a quote from years ago just before the expansion of the VAWA lawz.

“I-VAWA earmarks at least 10% of its program funds to be granted to a certain type of women’s organizations. Biden’s press release identifies the favored groups: N.O.W.’s Legal Momentum, Family Violence Prevention Fund, Women’s Edge Coalition, and Center for Women’s Global Leadership.

I-VAWA would create a new Office of Women’s Global Initiatives that would control all foreign domestic-violence programs and funds in the Departments of State, Justice, Labor, Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security.”

http://www.ejfi.org/family/family-48.htm#village

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
numnut October 20, 2012 at 03:19

“Biden even wants the taxpayers to pay the lawyers’ student loans!”

“Biden’s bill will channel an estimated $55.5 million of taxpayers’ money to lawyers, and the special-interest ABA “Commission” will be in the catbird seat. The bill will authorize federal funding to create and maintain an electronic network, provide mentoring, training and other assistance, and set up a legal coordinator’s office in each state to match lawyers to victims. Biden’s bill will give a half-million dollars to the National Domestic Violence Hotline to train feminists in coordination with the ABA project.

The Biden bill will give a $75,000 grant to each of five states to create a pilot program to implement the network in coordination with the ABA “Commission.” After the five states get into operation, the bill will roll out the program nationally with annual appropriations of $8 million.

All this “domestic violence” legislation is based on the feminist myths that men are naturally batterers, that women are naturally victims of an oppressive patriarchal society, and that women’s accusations should be believed regardless of evidence.”

So you see this how the camel got his nose into the tent,the first salvo was to inform men they no longer had rights nor due process and that “the Law” was now actively looking to punish any male whomst dared resist ‘the system.’

The next salvo was to increment women’s “rights” into all aspects of modern life,now unopposed by these new second class citizen-subjects.

After that came more and more pork belly entitlements for wimmin,and more and more legal oppression for men.

The the system ran amok,empowering gender raunch and the lesbian-gay agenda in order to wage a war of extermination on the nuclear family.

This creates the new perpetual underclass.

Just so yall know-it was all done “legally.”

” First is the socialist collective. This permits activists to use the “if one is, then all are” type of collective rationale. But this is a rationale they will only apply in the negative. That is, if one worker is mistreated then all workers are, if one child is abused then all are, if one person is murdered then everyone will be murdered, and so on.

• The second is also based on the socialist-marxist theory of absolute outcomes. That is, if one wife is subject to violence, then all wives are subject to violence. Therefore, all wives must be protected. To do so, all citizens must be regulated, watched, monitored, and arbitrarily detained or tried if the absolute outcome is to be achieved.

• The third, and vital underpinning of this triangular rationale, is where the left-wing activists ideologically and simplistically divide society into victims and oppressors. In their world of ideological absolutes there are only the two classes.

Whilst these radicals are free to squander taxpayer’s dollars on propaganda they pass off as research, the rest of the population dare not criticize them or raise a murmur for fear of venomous retaliation. These activists can, and do, hide behind absurdly one-sided vilification laws, and shrilly accuse all who question them of homophobia. These ideologues are thus free to wreak social destruction without the slightest scrutiny and our pandering politicians assist and fund them.

http://www.ejfi.org/family/family-47.htm#eradicate

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
numnut October 20, 2012 at 03:27

The activist’s agenda of strangling the heterosexual family unit may be considered as remote, or even fanciful, by the reasonable observer.

However, at the dawn of the Third Millennium, democratic governments are literally falling over themselves in their rush to frantically legislate not only in the area of gay and lesbian issues, but in removing the legal rights and protections of heterosexual men, and particularly fathers, at an astonishing rate.

The hysterical, moral high ground claimed for these grotesque acts of trampling on our civil liberties are that we are in the middle of an epidemic of male- and father-perpetrated abuse based on the patriarchy, and that all fathers are child abusers and pedophiles.

Therefore, the general population must be protected from them at any cost. Because their propaganda says all patriarchal, heterosexual men are batterers, then they are pariahs who are beyond the pale and do not deserve legal rights.

Should our civilization somehow survive, it will truly astound historians in years hence that the eradication of the rule of law, the heterosexual family unit, and the elimination of the legal rights of heterosexual men and fathers was legislatively achieved by politicians who are charged with upholding the very laws they were charged to uphold.

Incredibly, these politicians were themselves mostly heterosexual men and fathers pursuing the gay/lesbian vote and the vote of women with “self esteem” issues and incapable of stable relationships.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
numnut October 20, 2012 at 03:30

VAWA had been increased to a multi-billion dollar industry that has it’s Federal tentacles into all of the States,and ALL legislation is geared towards *socializing the costs of sex.*

To say otherwise or resist is a CRIME.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
American October 20, 2012 at 05:26

Very Important here folks…. I don’t believe the white gender-feminist establishment want socialism for all, they want state funded socialism for the white gender-feminist community only, the rest of the country will have to work for a living. The gender, Gender-raunch community is very much a whites only community, and the socialism they want is socialism for gender-feminist whites only.
I know many white Gender-raunch who don’t like blacks, “White Trash”, any minority, or anyone who is not in their white gender, gender-raunch establishment.
The socialism white gender-raunch seek will be socialism for the white gender-feminist bureaucratic establishment only.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
American October 20, 2012 at 05:31

Hey numnuts, I agree we we to “De-fund”, the routine persecutions of innocent men, and “de-fund” the manufactured statistics that American law enforcement are crafting that serve to super-empower the white gender-feminist establishment over all others.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Iron John October 20, 2012 at 06:30

Hi Welmer. Nice work on this article. I’m very impressed with your understanding of this issue and your writing about it as well. Right now it has been linked by a veteran member of the Niceguys MGTOW forum/Mancoat and earned his praise as well.

http://www.the-niceguy.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=57338&hl=

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
American October 20, 2012 at 07:36

What will be the “Breaking point”??? How “Empowered” through perversion of American law enforcement, is the American going to let the Gender-feminist community get, before he says he’s had enough???

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Eincrou October 20, 2012 at 08:32

I just accidentally posted while not logged in. Sorry, disregard that post!

Elaine: “Charles Martel, by your reckoning, the armed forces are totally useless since they are funded by taxpayers. Would you want a country over-run by private armies ? If so, then you think we should all be like Somalia.

If you think his reckoning requires him to believe that, “armed forces are totally useless,” why are you going on about him supporting armed forces?

If your starting premise is correct (which I doubt), then he would not support armies of any kind and could not, “think we should all be like Somalia.” Your arguments are internally inconsistent and illogical.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
asdf October 20, 2012 at 08:48

Private or public work can both be totally useless. I’ve done both and neither struck me as inherently better then the other. You have to judge each on its merits. Private has the profit motive as a plus on the merit side but that alone isn’t enough (plenty of bad things are profitable).

Anyway, this distracts from the main issue.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Charles Martel October 20, 2012 at 09:59

Elaine
Charles Martel, by your reckoning, the armed forces are totally useless since they are funded by taxpayers. Would you want a country over-run by private armies ? If so, then you think we should all be like Somalia.

Nice straw man. You’re responding to a rhetorical point with argumentum ad absurdum.

The USA had no standing army of any significant size until the First World War. For that matter, the USA had no Federal income tax until 1913.

The problem for you and for most people is you’re so invested in the current system you can’t imagine how different and how much better the USA could be without the monstrous economic distortions imposed by the monstrous and suffocating Federal government. A USA without the ever-increasing subsidization of the unproductive for the cynical purpose of maintaining a base of support for the current political system. Without the uniformed death squads masquerading as “armed forces” operating all around the world. And without the imposition of female supremacy at the point of a gun.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel October 20, 2012 at 10:10

asdf
Private or public work can both be totally useless. I’ve done both and neither struck me as inherently better then the other. You have to judge each on its merits. Private has the profit motive as a plus on the merit side but that alone isn’t enough (plenty of bad things are profitable).

You personify the current intractable problems in the US and other Western countries. You’ve been living under the current system all your life so you have no idea where wealth and prosperity come from. It all looks the same to you.

So let’s just go 100% public sector. Let the government pay everyone with freshly printed fiat currency. All problems solved.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
criolle johnny October 20, 2012 at 10:13

This entire argument is backwards.
Instead of debating who is supporting Amanda, or who should be supporting Amanda, we should be debating when Amanda will be sleeping with Joe and Mark.
BOTH are paying for her ass and BOTH should get a crack at it, along with the rest of us.
Silly me, the three ‘F’s’: “If you’re not feeding, financing or fucking me, stay out of my business”.
Excuse me, but I AM feeding and financing you. I want the trifecta if I am OBLIGATED for the deuce.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
joeG October 20, 2012 at 10:16

WOW. This post is down right brilliant.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
T October 20, 2012 at 11:37

Davani,

You complain that women only want looks in a man.

But that’s all you men want- you want good-looking women, no matter how belligerant and stupid they are.

So how does it feel now that the shoe is on the other foot?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4
TFH October 20, 2012 at 12:52

Charles Martel,

The problem for you and for most people is you’re so invested in the current system you can’t imagine how different and how much better the USA could be without the monstrous economic distortions imposed by the monstrous and suffocating Federal government.

Agreed. Govt. spending as a percentage of GDP was pretty low even in 1960…

All Govt. spending, including defense, should be cut by 50%. A lot of things will settle back to their natural order with that. Feminism would be gone.

Of course, govt. spending can never go down in a society where women have the right to vote.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
biff October 20, 2012 at 13:54

Just one thing to note… Mark probably has to work in NYC. Mark’s marginal tax rate, including city, state and local is already approaching 50% (and there are some who would like to pump it up much further). Of course Joe pays some taxes too, especially payroll taxes, but he may actually get to use SS and Medicare (if they’re still solvent later on of course). Mark isn’t getting anyone pregnant as you noted–he’s not likely to have more than 1 or 2 kids at most. He feels like he’s subsidizing Joe’s offspring to some extent, and paying full boat for Antwan’s brood. (You didn’t go there with how Antwan and Lashandra fit into this story, but they do unfortunately…)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
TFH October 20, 2012 at 17:06

Dr. Helen has a great thread about how bad of a deal marriage has become for men :

http://pjmedia.com/drhelen/2012/10/19/name-5-reasons-a-man-should-get-married/

But the usual whiteknights are coming it to say that any red-piller is a ‘bitter little boy who needs to man up’. They are even attacking Helen herself…

Go in there and invade! Invade!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Davani October 20, 2012 at 18:09

T,

Most men in America seem to be fine with slightly chubby or below-average women. The rules of the game in this country are made by the women, because they have the market power. In this situation, the men can’t be too choosy even if they wanted to.

The following New York Times article describes how female TV stars in America have stopped even thinking about their weight, and are leading a lazy and cavalier lifestyle where they know their extra weight won’t bother anyone, and no one will dare raise any objections, least of all the “thirsty” and lonely men who are already faring very badly in this country as is:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/arts/television/women-on-tv-step-off-the-scale.html?pagewanted=all

Just look at the photos in that article. Did you know that Lady Gaga has gained 25 lbs. and now looks like dumpy white trash? How about the other TV stars discussed there? And that is directly applicable to the female population at large in the US, not just the celebrities. Clearly, women wouldn’t be leading this kind of “whatever” lifestyle if they knew they couldn’t get away with it… but in this country, they can. Why? Because men’s requirements for women here (including on the “looks” front) are nowhere near as rigid.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Davani October 20, 2012 at 18:18

I just want to mention one other thing here.

Did anyone notice that Barack Obama began the first debate by paying tribute to his wife? He includes her in most speeches and constantly says what a lucky man he is (but no one says what a lucky woman *she* is). Mitt Romney literally cries when talking about his wife Ann and how lucky he is to have married her. Same with many other influential men in America — men who, by all accounts, are powerful and good-looking enough to have supposedly enjoyed a buffet of desirable women. But even these top-tier men self-efface themselves and put their wives on a pedestal, and consider themselves “lucky.”

I have very rarely heard any American women talk about how lucky they are to have married their husbands. I just very rarely hear it, which is remarkable and gives you an idea of the “market balance” in this country.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
American October 21, 2012 at 06:35

The American Gender, Gender-raunch empowerment movement is rooted in the perverse and “Manufactured statistics” that American law enforcement are now engaged in crafting.
This perverse “Empowerment Alliance” between American law enforcement and Gender, Gender-raunch is not only perverse but un-constitutional.
The perverts in high places who crafted this Alliance, fueled by taxpayer dollars, may not be humbled anytime soon, but the officers on the street need to understand that the “protocol perversions and semantics games” they are using to enable womens violence and persecute an innocent man are no longer acts that are just protecting women. These law enforcement perversions and “manufactured statistics” are now being used by the “Gender-raunch” community to Inflame their way to empowerment, which is not only perverse, but unconstitutional.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Avenger October 21, 2012 at 20:52

Clearly, women wouldn’t be leading this kind of “whatever” lifestyle if they knew they couldn’t get away with it… but in this country, they can. Why? Because men’s requirements for women here (including on the “looks” front) are nowhere near as rigid.

I wouldn’t be too sure about that. The standard for female looks hasn’t changed. Some men will eat dog food if they’re starving but they won’t eat dog crap and these girls are in the crap category :)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
hv October 21, 2012 at 21:30

Davani,

you make some good points. I struggle too with the idea of restricting women’s rights. I want strong, confident independent women who aren’t barefoot and pregnant.

But.

but.

you are delusional if you think the problem you bring up about the results of feminism and female emancipation are exclusive to only America. That is the ultimate result of feminism and female emancipation. The only reason it isn’t as extreme in other countries is because of strong patriarchal and cultural values that elevate the average man and give him more status and privilege. But once feminism is introduced, it is only a matter of time before all those other societies become just the American ones.

When you give women freedom, as the social experiment in the West demonstrates, women will do what they want. and what they want is to slut it up with very attractive, dominant alpha men.. reject most other men… and only maybe decide to marry those other men once they hit their 30s and those other attractive, alpha males are taken or don’t commit to them.

I also think you’re wrong about European women not penalizing the average guy. Women everywhere are equally as shallow. The only variable is culture.. such that patriarchal cultures are able to discourage the worst impulses of women, ie., promiscuity and hypergamy, to enforce monogamy and give the average male a good shot at sexual access to a woman and to marriage and children.

There is no “solution.” If you give women rights and freedom, what you see in the US is what happens.

Also, you’re short sighted in your view that developed countries benefit from giving women access to birth control, contraception, abortion, etc. Sure, in the short term this seems to raise the living standards.. but feminism and these luxuries depend on State largesse on strong, resilient, prosperous societies that allow those luxuries in the first place.. and these are the very conditions that feminism ends up undermining in the long term. See this excellent post by Dalrock that elaborates on this:

How the destruction of marriage is strangling the feminist welfare state.

http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/10/15/how-the-destruction-of-marriage-is-strangling-the-feminist-welfare-state/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Ode October 22, 2012 at 03:50

Davani

I happen to be a socialist and a supporter of women’s rights. The last thing I want is some kind of uneducated, barefoot-and-in-the-kitchen woman who I can’t even have a conversation with on any intelligent topic.

And how does being educated by the American college education system make a woman have the capacity to carry on an intelligent conversation? If anything it is the opposite. The only thing a western “educated” woman understands is that the White man is the source of all misery on this planet for the past 2000 years therefore if white men become politically and economically marginalized then that will automatically create a bleeding heart Liberal utopia on this world or the closest thing possible. Folks save your tuition money, I just basically summarized 4 years worth of college in that one paragraph.

Having a college degree (except for a STEM major) almost guarantees she will never understand how the world truly works precisely because that would violate everything she learned in school.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
john thames October 22, 2012 at 21:08

I am a capitalist and enemy of women’s rights. However, Davani is correct when he describes the pseudo-egalitarian nature of women. They really just want their ass kissed on both cheeks, as always.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Tom Smith October 23, 2012 at 15:10

While I am no fan of either politician, at least Romney will stop this type of nonsense. It’s clear from the last debate that he believes that what needs to be cut the most are the social welfare entitlements- and for him- READ BETWEEN THE LINES- this means women’s entitlements (which are likely the bulk of all social entitlements).

I agree with Mr. Price that we should not socialize the costs of sex. It appears Mr. Romney (or more likely a large number of his supporters) will simply outlaw abortion and if not, put so many restrictions on it that it will become impossible. This does not privatize the costs, it simply is another “burden shift” to men.

Namely if abortion is outlawed, the rates of illegitimate (or non-marital children) will go up. And it is men that will have to pay the costs of this- because child support orders are rarely enforced against women.

If women want to have sex, they can pay for their own birth control; and if women want abortions they can pay for these as well. What man ever thought the government ought to give him free condoms because the urge to have sex was a “medical condition????”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
LD October 25, 2012 at 09:38

TRUTH. Kudos.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Mike Hunter November 12, 2012 at 06:02

I loled because in this situation I’m mark. I’m a young professional in a university town that bangs college girls going to the local public university; or slightly older women starting their 1st job. Sounds to me like the personal solution is to get an education, get a decent job, and stay away from marriage & children.

Do I mind that the HVAC repairmen of the world are getting the short end of the stick? Of course not. They know the score! Get a decent education in a field that is in high demand, then get a good job, and you’ll have a much better shot at living the good life.

If you have a low wage low skill job; or chose to go to school for an impractical degree (art history, musicology, women’s studies) then there is a much higher likelihood that your life will suck. If you decide to have children (whether you’re married or not) and you separate from the woman you had them with get ready to be screwed. If you refuse to realistically assess the world we’re living in, and make relevant life choices accordingly; then the only person you have to blame is yourself.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: