Friday, March 29, 2013

Sexual equality or freedom

It is no accident that many of the leading proponents of Game have backgrounds in economics.  This excellent post by Dalrock exemplifies why:
Through a combination of legal and social “reforms”, the US now has what appears on the surface to be a dual family structure but is in legal reality a single family structure organized around the concept of child support.  Where in the past a woman needed to secure a formal promise from a man in the form of marriage before she could expect him to support her and the children she bore, in this new structure the law declares that any man she has children by are bound to support her and her children whether she marries or not, and whether or not she honors her own marriage vows.
While men were motivated under the old family structure, they absolutely detest the new child support system of family formation.  Under the old system a man who married before fathering children could reasonably expect access to his children and the opportunity to direct their upbringing (in concert with his wife).  Under the new system the children are de facto considered the property of the mother, whom the state compels him to pay so she can direct their upbringing generally as she sees fit.  Since the new system has removed the incentive for men to work hard to provide for their families, it has to rely instead on threats of imprisonment to coerce men into earning “enough” income.  Where men used to take pride in the birth of their children and celebrate with cigars, large numbers of men now fear fatherhood more than anything.
Under the new rules even if a man chooses the structure of marriage he is always subject to being forced into the child support model for any or no reason by his wife.  No fault divorce laws are unilateral and openly celebrated by both social scientists and modern Christianity as a tool for wives to threaten their husbands.  Fathers have gone from being the respected head of household to deputy parent serving at the pleasure of their wives.
Fortunately for society the awareness of the reality of the new system has been slow to spread.  Most men are either uninformed about the true nature of the family court or assume that the woman they marry would never detonate their family for 30 pieces of silver.  Because of inertia men continue to earn more than women, and those who have studied the question (Hymowitz, Farrell) have found that this is due to men choosing to work harder, longer, and/or more difficult and dangerous jobs than women.  While the MIT economist is correct that men earn fewer degrees than women, those men who do earn degrees are far more likely than women to choose majors with real economic value.  However, the gender earnings gap is still shrinking, and this has the author of the NY Times business article both puzzled and worried:
The fall of men in the workplace is widely regarded by economists as one of the nation’s most important and puzzling trends. While men, on average, still earn more than women, the gap between them has narrowed considerably, particularly among more recent entrants to the labor force.
He should be worried, but he shouldn’t be puzzled.  The hard earned lesson of the twentieth century was that incentives work far better than coercion when it comes to generating economic value.  Yet despite winning the cold war the US and the western world has quietly elected to move from an incentives based family/economic structure (marriage) to one based on coercion (child support).
For all of its flaws - and they are manifold - even the generally poor level of economics training provided by the American university system teaches the student of economics to think in terms of incentives and probabilities.  Dalrock has clearly identified where most of the non-economics observers have gone wrong in failing to notice that the change in male behavior is not coincidental with the changes in female behavior, but rather, is a consequence of those changes.

And Dalrock points to the root behavioral issue here: "The more women delay, avoid, and abuse marriage the less men will be willing to generate the surplus economic output our economy depends on."

If history is a reasonable guide, as the negative consequences of the male refusal to generate the surplus output that provides for women and children increase, the societal powers will respond with attempts to coerce rather than abandon their destructive ideology.  And these attempts at coercion will fail, as do all such attempts to build a complex society on a foundation of force rather than mutual and voluntary benefit.

Because women are collectively more short-sighted and more self-centered than men, giving them an equal voice in society is tantamount to a slow-motion execution for any society.  This is not theoretical, it is observable, as the equalitarian societies of Europe are already demographically in demise and in the process of losing their democracies and their property rights.

I understand that many people believe women's rights are important.  But are they more important than property rights?  Are they more important than democracy? What those who support women's rights are understandably reluctant to accept is that equalitarianism necessarily requires the elimination of democracy, property rights, freedom of movement, and even, in the end, capitalism and most of the tenets of Western civilization.  But like it or not, that is the choice that has been made, and is being made, even today.

The Founding Fathers of the USA were no more mindless sexists than the Conscript Fathers of the Roman Senate.  They knew full well what would happen if sexual equality was ever granted.  It is not a coincidence, still less ironic, that those who built the greatest and freest human societies have always vehemently opposed women's rights, while the totalitarians who most avidly sought to curtail human freedom it have tended to support them.

28 comments:

Scott said...

They knew full well what would happen if sexual equality was ever granted. It is not a coincidence, still less ironic, that those who built the greatest and freest human societies have always vehemently opposed women's rights, while the totalitarians who most avidly sought to curtail human freedom it have tended to support them. That sums it up pretty well, and yet, it still won't convince your average Libertarian or Republican women's suffrage is a bad idea.

Doom said...

Actually, this post suggests sexual equality is a possibility. The reason wise men in all of time have rejected this notion isn't because it leads to something, anything. The reason it is rejected is because it is a fiction. Creating a law that frees all animals and gives them equal rights is about on par.

The fiction of it, enacted and forced at gunpoint, can lead to something. But the fact that it has been enacted by gunpoint... well, that is actually the point, and endgame. By that time the gig is already up. We lost decades ago, nearly a century ago in America. We are just swimming in a dead fiction. Being distracted from the bruising barrel in our ribs. As the game comes to a close though, the gun becomes more bruising in an attempt to hold us in check.

Time fixes these things. Always has.

Anonymous said...

Not sure if the Founders were that wary of sexual equality, since they clearly set the stage for broad equality, though it didn't fully apply to women and others due to the conditions at the time. Though of course the safeguards (which have largely been overridden) against the "dumb masses" would also have controlled the female herd. I think what no one could foresee is that we would go generations without leadership, or with no more leadership than the head lemming heading for the sea.

Big Bill said...

Various groups of Jews and Muslims are fighting for changes to family/divorce/custody laws that will enable them to "opt-out" of the current neo-Christian feminist regime.

This includes things like agreeing to submit to the authority of a religious court to adjudicate claims and issue divorce decrees, to binding arbitration, to enforcement of religious judgments by secular courts.

This is where the first break in the dike will occur, I believe.

The other weak link is dyke advocacy. What with homosexual marriage coming down the pike, more open insemination arrangements (ever wonder why it is a complete stranger that donates?) People are going to be more open to a contractual regime or a religious regime, rather than the current white feminist dominated regime.

For example, the Uniform Parentage Act (which has been adopted by many states) is an explicit workaround of the "your sperm = your child = your perpetual obligation" common law regime.

In its original form (20+ years ago) the UPA requires a woman to be married, to get her husband to sign a document assuming all rights and responsibilities of the child produced, and to use a doctor as the sperm transfer agent to make an effective, binding legal insemination). Do it any other way and the father could say the child was not his.

This has been weakened in some jurisdictions by the feminists themselves, who have insisted on the elimination of the "marriage" part. No dad is needed!

The reason for the doctor go-between is to provide a barrier between the sperm donor and the court so the court cannot insist that the sperm donor (under common law) support the kid his sperm produced.

The doctor will always say "She is my patient. I will tell you nothing because of the Doctor-Patient privilege." Hence the court is blocked and cannot track down the donor. That is the sole purpose of the doctor requirement.

But think about it. What "disease" is the doctor treating the woman for? She is fertile. The only "diseased" person is the husband, who cannot fertilize an egg. Is sperm squirted into her vagina with a turkey baster a medical treatment?

Feminists have fought this as well, and can now get sperm straight from the sperm holding companies.

What feminists and other lesbians don't realize is that by weakening the laws to eliminate the doctor and not require a father (or a fictional father) they are weakening any argument they have that a man needs to pay the bills.

Sperm becomes a commodity.

And why should the use of a Natural Sperm Applicator (aka penis) versus a turkey baster make any difference in determining parental rights and responsibilities?

Why does a sperm donor NOT have to pay for his children when he gave his sperm KNOWING it was intended to make babies as opposed to some poor chump who just wanted to get laid?

Twenty years ago, when people smoked in singles bars, I foresaw a day in which every matchbook on every table would have a sperm donor contact printed inside. If she wants to get laid by some alpha she signs the sperm donation agreement first.

We are getting there. Slowly but surely.

We can work with lesbians to get the laws changed to permit "friend" donations (i.e. non-secret, no doctor involved).

Many bull dykes are already using their brothers/cousins sperm to get their femme dyke pregnant in order to create a blood relation to both dykes. Makes sense, right? The bull dyke will be less likely to run off.

I'm sure they would support a change in the laws to prevent a donor from being stuck with parental rights (and responsibilities!).

It is only one small step to challenging the plastic versus natural applicator distinction. And once that goes, we will have contractual parenthood.

Big Bill said...

"Since the new system has removed the incentive for men to work hard to provide for their families, it has to rely instead on threats of imprisonment to coerce men into earning “enough” income. Where men used to take pride in the birth of their children and celebrate with cigars, large numbers of men now fear fatherhood more than anything."

And can we drop that, "You have to be in the delivery room with me when I squirt the baby out" stuff?

Its crazy!

Think about it. Your woman will secretly go pee and turn on the water faucet so you can't hear her "tinkle". Your woman will hide her bloody tampons so you can't see them. Your woman will never let you see her take a constipated dump.

She does all of that to maintain her "feminine mystique".

Yet she will insist you watch her scream and swear as she poops out a basketball sized bloody baby.

It's like that awful chestburster scene in "Alien"!

I swear, I have flashbacks--PTSD!--every time I look at my wife's cootch.

Ladies, ask your mom to attend you. That's HER job.

Let Dad sit in the waiting room with cigars like a man should.

Loki of Asgard said...

Big Bill has some interesting ideas.

They include his sneering at "white" regimes and "neo-Christian" ones. He also thinks that one can work with militant lesbians to achieve greater justice for men, and that infants emerge from the digestive system.

I daresay we have a genius in our midst. We must attend his words with diligence.

Jack Amok said...

Speaking of child custody laws, last night I saw a great example of why single mothers shouldn't be allowed custody of boys.

I'm a coach of a Robotics team for 6-8th grade age kids. We were recruiting at a local Middle School STEM night last night. We had several robots we'd built (Lego NXT kits). A boy on the team had built a robot to tackle one of the more ambitious challenges, and the bot had only about a 50% success rate. A girl on the team had built a robot that tackled an easier challenge, and was pretty much 100% successful.

A mom, with her 10 year old son in tow, watched, and then said to her SON that "that one works better because it was programmed by a girl."

I wanted to backhand the stupid bitch across the room.

TheScoldsBridle said...

Honest thinking about cause, effect, and motivation are handled better by the male brain than the female.

It is not that women can't be logical, it is that it is not their default state, just like sexual monogamy is not in men's.

Chick-think is in a bubble now, and will eventually hyper-inflate into nothing.

In a decade or so, you will need several wheelbarrows full of female thoughts to purchase a single loaf of bread.

Daniel said...

I wanted to backhand the stupid bitch across the room.

Would have been funnier if the little boy's robot had done it instead.

Stickwick said...

I daresay we have a genius in our midst. We must attend his words with diligence.

Wasn't it Diderot who observed the proximity of genius to madness? It is so often misunderstood in its time. Years from now, we may look back on the wisdom of Big Bill and wonder where we might be if only we'd listened.

A mom, with her 10 year old son in tow, watched, and then said to her SON that "that one works better because it was programmed by a girl."

That could have been a wonderful opportunity to explore this thesis in front of her son. Okay, Ms. Feminist, how many women are pioneers in the field of robotics? If girls are so adept at programming, why are so few of them doing it for a living? If girls are superior, why do they need special encouragement to major in STEM fields? It could have been quite entertaining to see how she would answer those questions.

Cail Corishev said...

Okay, Ms. Feminist, how many women are pioneers in the field of robotics? If girls are so adept at programming, why are so few of them doing it for a living? If girls are superior, why do they need special encouragement to major in STEM fields? It could have been quite entertaining to see how she would answer those questions.

Just for fun, I'll answer as she surely would have:

1. Because of sexism, and besides, there probably are all kinds of women in robotics; you just never hear about them because sexism again.

2. Because of sexism; girls aren't in programming because they got scared away from math by Barbie when they were little.

3. Because the STEM fields are full of sexists, and besides, if women were in charge we wouldn't have wars, so stop attacking me with your hate.

The great thing about blaming the things you don't like on sexism (or racism, or whateverism) is that it explains everything always everywhere, and you can't falsify it -- at least not in the middle of a casual conversation. She almost certainly believes that every time a woman isn't excelling at something, it's because a man is stopping her. She doesn't have to prove the existence of an evil that's a tenet of her faith; it just is.

Loki of Asgard said...

Years from now, we may look back on the wisdom of Big Bill and wonder where we might be if only we'd listened.

Why, certainly, Madame Stickwick. Go ye forth and fight misandry with the aid of women who have no use for men. I will be ready to tidy up when you are done.

Sigyn said...

I've lured him away with brownies. He's missed trolling for the last week, I can tell.

A mom, with her 10 year old son in tow, watched, and then said to her SON that "that one works better because it was programmed by a girl."

Obvious response: "Hmm. She should've chosen the hardest challenge, not the easiest, since she's clearly the best. She let down the team, and if they lose, it's all on her."

tz said...

Sperm donors are still responsible - good note about the doctor, however we are also building a surveillance state that will have everyone's DNA, so nothing will be safe.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/30/16254404-kansas-demands-that-sperm-donor-pay-child-support?lite

tz said...

The rule of law and the natural law are important, and the rights of men and women can only properly be understood within that context.

To vote to destroy the rule of law, or to enact something tyrannical (suffrage, then prohibition, 18th amend) is not an exercise of rights, but of power.

Women were not given equality. They were empowered. Piers Anthony has the virtual mode series, and one plot has a magical realm where either men or women have magical (tyrannical) powers but not both with very rare exceptions which allow the switch.

This kind of switch happened in the west when Christendom was abandoned and feminism enthroned. There were many serious shortfalls where discrimination happened - but it was not addressed by enhancing the rule of law, but replacing it with designated victims and minorities that were authorized to destroy the rule and law in the opposite direction.

Some wonder why I don't fear Sharia. Under Sharia for all the other oppressive terms, I could safely raise a family. I would prefer the Constitution.

We've replaced law and order with whim and chaos.

Stickwick said...

Go ye forth and fight misandry with the aid of women who have no use for men. I will be ready to tidy up when you are done.

Oh, come on. What could go wrong? It's like this fire over here, a little out of control, but this dry kindling ought to put it out ...

Rally said...

Curious about the idea of jailing one for failing to pay child support. Doesn't seem practical, as you don't earn much money in jail. Sticking to wage garnishments sounds like a more practical plan. If a guy is getting reamed that much by the courts, a date with Bubba loses it's value as a threat.

I once did payroll for a company where some guys were having 60-80% of the paychecks garnished. Hard to understand at that point what made them keep going.

Loki of Asgard said...

Oh, come on. What could go wrong? It's like this fire over here, a little out of control, but this dry kindling ought to put it out ...

And failing that, straw works a treat.

HanSolo said...

The female herd does what it's told by the alpha mares and the apex alpha males. The vast majority of men are followers of what the female herd demands.

To fix the males you have to fix the females. If women want marriage and family they have to actively seek and reward them men that want that.

The female herd determines the market for sexual access and men respond. Due to technological and societal conditions that provide a safe and prosperous environment (either the woman can work or she can get gov't assistance) the male provider/protector role isn't needed as much at the individual level so women's hypergamy is more free to pursue sexy, rich or famous men, if even just for a night's pleasure.

Men belatedly and gradually respond to what the herd demands--sexiness over providership and so they're checking out of the provider track gradually and bit by bit shifting over to the casual-sex and don't-offer-women-chivalry track.

Always happy to help out said...

Oh, come on. What could go wrong? It's like this fire over here, a little out of control, but this dry kindling ought to put it out ...

And failing that, straw works a treat.


I prefer dry pine needles and cones.
And remember to add the unopened cans of beans once the fire really gets going.

stg58/Animal Mother said...

"Since the new system has removed the incentive for men to work hard to provide for their families, it has to rely instead on threats of imprisonment to coerce men into earning “enough” income. Where men used to take pride in the birth of their children and celebrate with cigars, large numbers of men now fear fatherhood more than anything."

And can we drop that, "You have to be in the delivery room with me when I squirt the baby out" stuff?

Its crazy!

Think about it. Your woman will secretly go pee and turn on the water faucet so you can't hear her "tinkle". Your woman will hide her bloody tampons so you can't see them. Your woman will never let you see her take a constipated dump.

She does all of that to maintain her "feminine mystique".

Yet she will insist you watch her scream and swear as she poops out a basketball sized bloody baby.

It's like that awful chestburster scene in "Alien"!

I swear, I have flashbacks--PTSD!--every time I look at my wife's cootch.

Ladies, ask your mom to attend you. That's HER job.

Let Dad sit in the waiting room with cigars like a man should.


Big Bill, you are the biggest pussy I have ever encountered. If your hold on the lust for your wife's body is that tenuous, You are probably a homosexual and you need to admit it.

I have had the glorious privilege of seeing both my sons, the fruit of my loins, exit the holy of holies. I almost severed the cord with Stick Around, but the autoclave nipped that in the bud.

These experiences have not lessened my need or desire to ruthlessly plunder that scorching hot, life giving, vaginal volcano or the lithe, voluptuous 5'10" body that gives it sustenance. Hell, I might even knock her up again to cement my legacy on the world.

FALPhil said...

"Various groups of Jews and Muslims are fighting for changes to family/divorce/custody laws that will enable them to "opt-out" of the current neo-Christian feminist regime."

Big Bill, your are using incorrect terminology. Just because someone is neither Jew nor Muslim (more correctly, "Mohammedan") does not mean that they are Christian or neo-Christian. In fact, a case can be made that feminism and Christianity are incompatible. Therefore, you should use the term "post-Christian".

Höllenhund said...

"Curious about the idea of jailing one for failing to pay child support. Doesn't seem practical, as you don't earn much money in jail."

Doesn't the US prison system already practice de facto forced labor?

Brian the Brain said...

The major ramification for these female-centric policies has been an ever-increasing need for more of our tax dollars. California, the most estrogen-soaked state on the West Coast passed a tax increase in 2012. Many of the California cities past tax levies. This is why I left California: Gov. Brown has become too much like my ex-wife - always demanding and laying claim to what ever money I manage to make. Then insisting that I need to keep less and less of my own money! What is my incentive to produce under these conditions? I work harder and keep less of my efforts? I did study economics in college and can tell you that having more women in the work force will put a stop to this. Working women are generally more materialistic (and less attractive) than thier "stay-at-home" counterparts. These women are more like men: they are worthless without a job and no one is going to come bail them out (remember about less attactive). These women will kill before they let someone take "thier" money! Let's get more of them in the workforce. Who will use the sexist, chauvanist, you-already-have-enough-money card on them? No politician I know.

The Scolds Bridle said...

RE: Girls and robotics.

Never use logic or a challenge question that can be responded to with a shit test.

Better response:

"If enough women start designing robots, those robots will probably all stand around facebooking each other and criticizing each others' appearance."

stg58 is a dipshit said...

"These experiences have not lessened my need or desire to ruthlessly plunder that scorching hot, life giving, vaginal volcano or the lithe, voluptuous 5'10" body that gives it sustenance. Hell, I might even knock her up again to cement my legacy on the world."

You look like a troll. Hope you have a wad of cash.

Anonymous said...

Howevеr, websites using black hat sеarch enginе гanκings tool.
Іn the scramble to meet ԁеadlines tο keep thеіг attention.
That is why you shоuld hire onе.


My wеbsite sosblogs.com

Pussy-ManiaGirls: http://goo.gl/w9Oepq said...

watching my collection, we have upload more video at here:

Collection Part 1:

Doggy Style and In Missionary Position

Hot Sex Anal With Amazing Girl Friend

Sex Under Hot Lights Bad Girls

Give Me The Cum

Cum In My Panties

Nude Amateur Teen Girls

Sexy Brunette Girls

Young Kinky Sluts

Busty Tattoo Chick On Car

Young Asian fucked anal

Latina Havana Ginger gets

Teen Threesome Porn

Hot Blowjob

Amateur Pulls Down Tanga

Sweet girl amazing hot

Sexy japanese babes getting their tight

TEEN BLONDE ANAL SEX ORGY




Collection Part 2:


Hot asian blowjob and pussy creampie

Sucking dick, Audrey put vegetables in all holes

Blonde love fuck

Naomi Russell And Her Royal Ass

Sexy blonde gives blowjob in the car

ASIAN XXX PORN VIDEO

JAPANESE XXX PORN VIDEO

ARABIC XXX PORN VIDEO

HARDCORE PORN VIDEO

GAY XXX PORN VIDEO

WATCH STREAMING PORN VIDEO

USA CELEBS XXX PORN

LATINA XXX PORN

LESBIAN XXX PORN

Hardcore Porn Celebrity

HOT TURKEY PORN MOVIE

INDIAN NUDES CELEBRITIES VIDEOS

UZBEKS Fuck PORN VIDEOS

HOT RASTA GIRL


100% MAKE you satisfy......








































Reply Delete

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.