The hum of the pumps.

One thing to always remember is that feminism requires constant effort just to avoid moving backward.  We aren’t in a steady state regarding feminism, and despite the myth of progress there is nothing natural about how we have organized our society.  Feminists know this and therefore never stop working, refining and reinforcing their efforts.  For nearly everyone else most of these efforts have become a sort of background noise.  If you’ve ever tried out a good pair of noise canceling headphones on an airplane you know that background noise, even if quite loud, is impossible to really hear after a very short period unless you have the ability to at least temporarily filter it out.

The same thing happens with feminism, where we often can hear the loud clanging as a new piece of machinery comes online.  What we don’t tend to hear anymore is the cacophony of all of the existing machinery in the background.

The conservative position is to conserve the roar of background noise while complaining about the clanging. Thus when feminist efforts start to bear fruit conservatives inevitably complain about weak men screwing feminism up. This is of course a great boost to feminism, but ultimately having an “opposition” group that forever stands ready to make your every innovation permanent after a brief period of complaining isn’t enough. Conservatives have their place in conserving feminism, but by themselves they aren’t enough. Feminists need to excite and motivate younger generations to constantly push for more. If they don’t entropy will have its way, despite the best efforts of conservatives. This is where the background hum effect ultimately starts to hurt feminists as well. Each new generation of would be feminists takes feminists and conservatives at their word, that we have reached (or nearly reached) the natural state of humanity. Where is the excitement, where is the glory, in “blazing” an established trail?

Young girls will watch commercials like the one above and will grow up to be bossy women.  They will even congratulate themselves on how extraordinary they are for being a woman who is pushy and controlling.  But feminism is being presented to them as a largely completed project.  Sure they will constantly complain that the whole world is stacked against them, even while basking in their personal triumph over the patriarchy.  But more and more they will ask what is the point of showing that women can do what other women have already shown women can do, especially as the inevitable costs of decades of previous feminism show up.

This entry was posted in Ban Bossy, Feminists, The Real Feminists, Traditional Conservatives, Ugly Feminists. Bookmark the permalink.

76 Responses to The hum of the pumps.

  1. rugby11 says:

    Looking forward
    Head high
    With confidence

  2. Feminist Hater says:

    Good, let them start their businesses, let the Oppenheimers invest in them. I don’t care.

  3. Pingback: The hum of the pumps. | Aus-Alt-Right

  4. Casey says:

    “Women start up businesses at twice the rate of men”
    “So there…….”

    Typical feminist moxy. Stunningly ignorant and arrogant.
    I won’t be investing into Oppenheimer funds.

    Women are being supported at all levels of society so a dozen nets will catch them if they fall.
    Men are not being supported at any level of society, but rather torn down with glee.

    And you say that women are starting twice as many businesses as men against that backdrop? So what?

    100 years ago when men were supported across society to do their role, we started up businesses at a rate many multiples of 2x. But wait…….that was all due to patriarchy.

    Women are absolutely incapable of acknowledging the HUGE society investment in their perceived success. It’s all them, (not matriarchy) when they (seemingly) outperform.

    It’s easy to succeed in school/business when you are ‘quota’ filled into the role by the unseen hand of government lackeys.

    It would be interesting to know what % of businesses succeed past the 5 year mark by men vs. women start ups.

  5. Dalrock says:

    @Casey

    It would be interesting to know what % of businesses succeed past the 5 year mark by men vs. women start ups.

    Not a direct answer to your question, but close. Harvard Business Review: More Women Starting Businesses Isn’t Necessarily Good News

  6. Lyn87 says:

    Women starting businesses (especially in large numbers) is the direct result of programs that make it easier to do… systemic advantages that average men do not have, and never did. But anyone who has studied the charts knows that “the system” is synonymous with “the system that is paid for by men.” As a group, men are net lifetime tax payers, and women are net lifetime tax recipients, and none of the supposed strides made by women would have happened if not for legal, educational, and financial assistance on behalf of women and legal, educational, and financial hobbling of men.

    Imaging a group of people pulling a wagon to the local market loaded up with their goods for sale, while a second group of people get to ride in the wagon. The people in the wagon get to do whatever they want, and while the majority of them just sit there and eat themselves into morbid obesity consuming the goods in the wagon, a few of them spend their time working on arts and crafts, and an even smaller number do something really useful that might make real money once they all get to the market. Of course they get to do that because they don’t have to take a turn pulling the cart. Then the people riding in the cart get the idea that they are much better than the people pulling the cart, because while the pullers get to the market just like they do, the riders get to the market and have more stuff to sell when they get there.

    That system will last until the pullers stop pulling, so it’s a bad idea to tell them how stupid they are and how little they contribute.

    In the meantime, if all women took a week off then fewer fancy cakes would be baked and male executives would have to answer their own phones, while if all men took a week off it would set civilization back 500 years, and the chaos would take years to fix.

    What would happen if no men showed up for work today?

  7. theasdgamer says:

    I found a unicorn. She kept herself away from me and she is married to a man with some alpha characteristics. Comes from a good family. This girl blushed when it was announced that she was pregnant. Obviously, she hasn’t got a high notch count, being so modest about sexual things.

  8. @ Casey

    Eh, you missed the point.

    Women do start up businesses at twice the rate of men. However, what they didn’t tell you is that womens’ businesses fail a disproportionately greater amount than men. I can’t remember the actual statistic, but it was somewhere in the range of 5-10x+ more than men. If someone can find the actual statistic that would be great.

    There are multiple reasons for this.

    1. Men are generally working job(s) to support them and/or their families. They don’t have the luxury of time or money to try to “start a new business” when they need money for responsibilities.

    2. Women who are “supported” by husbands or men have the time and potentially money to start new businesses.

    3. Safety net when they fail, like you said. Relates to 1 and 2.

    4. There’s lots of grants for women starting new businesses from various companies. Not so much for men. This is similar to “minority” grants for college educations.

    5. Male businesses succeed much more than women led businesses because men work harder. This is especially so when you start a new business and have the responsibility of a family. Basically, you CAN’T fail or your life is destroyed.

    Male entrepreneurs will bust their butts for 14-16 hour days 6-7 days a week. Good luck finding a woman who works even half as much as that. There are a few, but they are the exception.

  9. The Question says:

    Feminism is LARPing with the state forcing us to play along. https://anarchistnotebook.com/2016/08/05/statism-and-larping/

    “The difference between statist LARPing and regular LARPing is that, unlike an anachronistic organization, the state puts a gun to someone’s head and say, “You will believe what we tell you. You will pretend.”

    So we pretend. It’s why people get outraged when we play make believe in ways that threaten state-reliant fantasies. They perceive the vulnerability inherent in their ideologies. Were it not for the state, the coercion that enables their type of LARPing to exist would end.”

  10. Hmm says:

    @Dal,

    In your article the Harvard Hamster is working hard: “The gender gap in pay would be considerably reduced and might vanish altogether if firms did not have an incentive to disproportionately reward individuals who labored long hours and worked particular hours.”

    I believe that falls under the description “equal pay for equal work”.

  11. Gunner Q says:

    “Feminists need to excite and motivate younger generations to constantly push for more.”

    In the business world, there’s a new push to mandate employers hire the first “qualified” applicant to come along. We aren’t to be allowed to screen our own employees! They’ve turned California into an ethnic soup near boiling and it still isn’t enough for them.

  12. theasdgamer says:

    Female entrepreneurs frequently start businesses knowing that they will fail in order to get a salary higher than they could otherwise.

  13. Lol. Sure, start your scented candle business. I’m sure it will last.

  14. Conservatism preserves changes once they’re made, which is why no new and penumbral “right” discovered in the constitution has ever been rolled back.

  15. DrTorch says:

    I’m wondering how many of these businesses involve daycare, home cleaning or hair styling. Perhaps baking cupcakes if you’re in an affluent E Coast city.

    Not knocking that women work hard, but I suspect the Oppenheimer stats could use some context, and I suspect that Oppenheimer is simply openly pandering to a perceived untapped market. Fine, but it’s pretty clear there is no male privilege, and there are protests to open pandering to men (think Hooters).

  16. feeriker says:

    So glad I don’t do business with Oppenheimer Fund. I wonder how many of their red pill male clients will bail on them after seeing that ad?

  17. Anonymous Reader says:

    Does the nice church lady down the block who used to sell scented candles, who then went on to sell overpriced cheap cookware, who now is trying to sell religious greeting cards…does she count as a “business”, I wonder?

    Feminism is overhead. It’s overhead at the social level and the local level and right down at the personal level: a woman who is arguing about “who should do the dishes” isn’t getting the dishes washed. She’s overhead, and can be replaced with a minimum wage employee plus machine…

  18. Dalrock says:

    @Feeriker

    I wonder how many of their red pill male clients will bail on them after seeing that ad?

    Probably both of them.

  19. Lost Patrol says:

    Sure they will constantly complain that the whole world is stacked against them, even while basking in their personal triumph over the patriarchy.

    All these endless triumphs over the patriarchy are beginning to ring hollow. I’m increasingly convinced “The Patriarchy” never got a foothold in this country. The damn thing on the one hand was everywhere all the time, watching over us all, giving every advantage to men in perpetuity; and keeping women well and truly in their place – and on the other hand was completely unaware and powerless to stop feminism from arriving at the point of glorifying the bossy bitch.

    I smell a rat.

  20. m11nine says:

    If they are talking about any and all schedule-C businesses, then I bet many would be the money-losing MLMs like Mary Kay, Avon, Tupperware, Amway, or any of the new kids on that block that we all see in our extended families. Husbands and credit cards are supporting this lifestyle.

    Sure, it would count as a business, but will never be profitable. See pinktruth.com to learn the dark side of this world.

  21. Fiddlesticks says:

    Agree and amplify as the happy alpha slacker: “I’m content to make just enough to buy the things I enjoy, but by all means, keep cranking it out at your biznis! Someone’s got to pay those taxes!”

  22. Anon says:

    One thing to always remember is that feminism requires constant effort just to avoid moving backward

    That is why I keep pressing on the quantification of this hard-working pumping. I wish more of the gents here did a deeper dive into the astronomical wastage of money, in order to estimate what would happen in case of a reversion :

    Most people, even some who are on to how much of a fraud the FI is, don’t realize how hard the pump is working…

    US Taxes are already too high. Yet…..

    The National Debt has grown by $10T in just the last decade. From $9T to $19T, in the last 10 years alone.

    That means Federal spending in excess of taxes collected was $10T from 2006-present. Again, taxes are already too high, yet this is spending in excess of taxes.

    Since most government spending is for women at the expense of men, and this represents only the most excessive froth of spending (again, merely what is in excess of already high taxes), this shows you how hard the pump is working.

    For the next fiscal year (10/1/16 to 9/30/17), taxes collected will be $3.6T, and spending will be $4.2T. So $600B of spending in excess of taxes.

    Without female suffrage, it is conceivable that taxes and spending are just $2T each (putting aside the fact that GDP itself would be larger under such lower taxation).

    Instead, the next 12 months will take in $3.6T of Federal Taxes and see $4.2T of spending. The amount spent on each woman’s FI fantasy is so much higher than what they themselves could produce in the free market (i.e. no make-work jobs for women), that future historians will see this as insane.

  23. Anon says:

    “Women start up businesses at twice the rate of men”

    Hey, so not only is the pay gap already eradicated, but women need to start paying men, in order to rebalance this distortion!
    _______________________________________________

    Any LLC or C-Corp costs a lot per year just to keep current, whether there is any activity or not. From $300/year in Delaware to $800/year in California…

    I bet they start out in order to so some status signalling, only for some man to pay the ongoing fees when the bills come due.

  24. Keoni Galt says:

    I personally know of several businesses in male blue collar fields in which the company stock is 51% owned in the wife’s name so that they are considered minority owned for the affirmative action qualification when they bid on FedGov contracts. Of course, it is the men who do all the work, it is only a female owned company in name only.

  25. Anon says:

    Keoni Galt,

    the company stock is 51% owned in the wife’s name so that they are considered minority owned for the affirmative action qualification when they bid on FedGov contracts. Of course, it is the men who do all the work, it is only a female owned company in name only.

    Plus, that is saving him from a far worse alimony judgement in the case of divorce, and hence probably prevents divorce altogether. It is sort of like having a pre-nup that actually works… There is no way for the woman to divorce the man without causing equal or greater financial harm to herself….

  26. Oleaginous Outrager says:

    openly pandering to a perceived untapped market

    I see this a lot, especially in many new ads aimed at the homosexual market. and it has me perplexed. Are these markets actually “untapped”? Are there substantial pools of disposable income sitting on the sidelines just waiting for the right pandering ads?

    If this were conscious virtue-signaling, it would be stupid but understandable. But if they truly believe there’s lots of free loot out there to be had if they send out the right feelz, they’re hopelessly delusional.

  27. Feminist Hater says:

    The market is topped out, they need someone to do something, they need investment opportunities. Since men are dropping out, they need someone to pick up the slack. They’re actually trying to get women to take it on. Should be a laugh, worked so well for the last 50 years..

  28. Lovekraft says:

    I wonder what minorities and women think when the latest advancement in space exploration occurs, in tandem with developments in artificial wombs. This shakes them to the core and I suspect a lot of the conflict between the races and genders is this panicked feeling that the useless will get left behind.

    Fast forward to a few cycles into the Mars colonization and I would bet anything that, somehow, feminists and other parasitical groups managed to pester, nag and threaten the builders enough to get a foothold. Just a matter of time before it all goes tits up.

  29. Lyn87 says:

    Anonymous Reader asks:

    Does the nice church lady down the block who used to sell scented candles, who then went on to sell overpriced cheap cookware, who now is trying to sell religious greeting cards…does she count as a “business”, I wonder?

    Silly Rabbit… she counts as three. The lady next door whose husband is subsidizing her MLM hobby that M11nine noted counts as another, and the 51%-wife-owned-for-the benefits plumbing business that Keoni Galt mentioned – where the husband does the work – counts as yet another (of course that’s the only one of the five that has employees and turns a profit).

  30. MarcusD says:

    Speaking of costs:

    Divorce remorse: Splitting up is hitting baby boomers hard in the pocket book — especially the women
    http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/divorce-remorse-splitting-up-is-hitting-baby-boomers-hard-in-the-pocket-book-especially-the-women

    Divorce in the U.S. surged in the 1970s and 1980s as the baby boomers reached adulthood. As they enter retirement, they’re still splitting up, and it’s having a disproportionate effect on women.

    Even as divorce rates for younger Americans have fallen, failed marriages among people over 50 doubled from 1990 to 2010, according to Bowling Green State University’s National Center for Family & Marriage Research. As a result, the overall risk for getting divorced in the U.S. has remained constant: About half of all marriages will collapse.

  31. Anonymous Reader says:

    it’s having a disproportionate effect on women.

    Sure, just as women suffer more from war than the men who actually get maimed / killed.

    There’s a whole lot of nekkid emperors out there…

  32. “Women start up new businesses at twice the rate of men.”

    If so inclined, one might ask the question whether men were offered the same:
    1. entrepreneurial support programs,
    2. corporate- and government-funded business grants,
    3. financial business loans with special, favorable terms for women and mothers,
    4. priority position in government and corporate contract bidding,
    5. priority position in corporate supply chain selection
    6. benefit from corporate supplier diversity programs and requirements that exclude competition based on sex and race.
    Were these benefits available to men in equal measure, would Oppenheimer’s assertion of outcomes be different?

    Alas, men are not offered such set asides and advantages, so….congratulations ladies(?)…I guess. Rather juvenile to witness adults victory dancing at the finish line and sticking their tongues out the opposition after being granted such an obvious and significant head start in the race.

    What must it be like to achieve success based one’s own merit, acumen, competence, skill, education, drive or character?
    Nobody cares anymore apparently.
    The fulcrum of success or failure is always based on penis or vagina.
    Besides, we have check boxes to tick and quotas to meet.

    https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/247215

    “So there.”
    Ah yes, we must close with a classic, immature, 13 year old, teenage feminist triumphalism remark. For those of you dolts not paying attention, “Girls rule, boys drool!”.

  33. jew613 says:

    I work in a blue collar industry. It’s almost all men. Occasionally a woman will decide she can do it too. Most quit very quickly. The reality that its hard work and not fun hits them hard. A small number genuinely learn the trade and are ok. The equivalent of a slightly below average man they will often get the lightest work which should go to the older and semi-disabled men. Third are the women who join up and find a man to carry their load. Supposedly there are women who are genuinely good at the trade. But I haven’t seen it.

    I imagine these women owned business go the same way, and I can’t stress enough that Feminism make women so ugly.

  34. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    I recently heard a commercial on the radio. Two young children at play, a boy and a girl. The boy said, Let’s play house. The girl replied, Let’s play office instead. She then started rattling off, in her high-pitched little grrrl power voice, terms like, “market analysis, quarterly reports,” etc. The little boy was left stunned and just said, Oooooo.

    I forget what the commercial was for.

  35. Tom C says:

    Maybe soon a man can claim to “identify as a woman” and be eligible for some of the government-funded grants and loans.

  36. Just Sayng says:

    The Presidential election is the perfect representation – you can vote for the woman that attacked a 12 year old and got her Rapist off on a technicality, who married a man who has raped numerous women, and flown to an island with child-sex-slave, or you can employ a man that has placed women in positions of power who support him and see the attacks for the lies they are. That is your choice – choose wisely…

  37. Lyn87 says:

    I just finished watching the third debate between Hillary and Trump. I lost count of all the times she used the word “Women” because she said it so many times. I know exactly how many times she said “Men,” though: zero. Of course she claims to be in favor of both “diversity” and “bringing people together.” Leaving aside whether it is even possible to achieve both of them at the same time, it is surely impossible to do either while focusing exclusively on half the population.

    If that’s not a case of the background humming of the pumps, I don’t know what is.

  38. Anon says:

    Lyn87,

    I just finished watching the third debate between Hillary and Trump. I lost count of all the times she used the word “Women” because she said it so many times.

    In a mature democracy, elections can be won solely on using the same tired old propaganda to buy women’s votes. They don’t even need new angles, the same ‘pay gap’ crap works every time.

    The reason the govt. is stupid is that they actually spend real money pandering to women, who will complain about the ‘pay gap’ and ‘rape culture’ all the same whether any taxpayer money is spent on them or not. In reality, the govt can buy women’s vote through sheer media propaganda, without actually passing anything. If the degree of female complaints will be unchanged whether any legislation is passed/funding is allocated, why not just release a deluge of fem-pandering media each time, while not actually passing anything? The govt. got Game, the poison pill of democracy – female suffrage – could be nullified.

  39. DeNihilist says:

    L can only say, it is about time. Some big time people trying to do right in the entertainment industry.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2016/10/19/oliver-stone-columbine-rachel-scotts-story-antidote-natural-born-killers/

  40. feeriker says:

    The reason the govt. is stupid is that they actually spend real money pandering to women, who will complain about the ‘pay gap’ and ‘rape culture’ all the same whether any taxpayer money is spent on them or not. In reality, the govt can buy women’s vote through sheer media propaganda, without actually passing anything. If the degree of female complaints will be unchanged whether any legislation is passed/funding is allocated, why not just release a deluge of fem-pandering media each time, while not actually passing anything?

    Alas, no. One of the poison fruits of the 19th Amendment has been the election of female legislators who WILL ensure that actual money –LOTS of it– is spent on WhatWomenWant, no matter how debilitating it is to the nation as a whole. If ZE-RO women were allowed the franchise and were restricted solely to their customary bitching and complaining to their fathers, husbands, and male legislators, then they could be gulled with empty lip service. Once they were given the franchise, that became impossible and society wound up drained of its productive energy as a result.

    Somewhere in the bowels of Hell, the male legislators of the 19teens who voted for the 19th Amendment are enduring eternal torture inconceivable to the living human mind.

  41. Anon says:

    Alas, no. One of the poison fruits of the 19th Amendment has been the election of female legislators who WILL ensure that actual money –LOTS of it– is spent on WhatWomenWant, no matter how debilitating it is to the nation as a whole.

    I am not so sure. The media deluge that can distract the average slut will probably work on Boxer, Pelosi, etc. all the same. I don’t think they can keep track of actual legislation if the media deluge is immersive enough. Plus, even if they do, there is always the possibility of female legislators ripping off other women if that just means more bribes for themselves..

    If the government can figure out that it can get the same votes from women at a fraction of the price it is currently paying, the grabby harpies in the legislature might be the first to sell out average women in order to line their own pockets. That is still cheap for the nation as a whole.

  42. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Women claim that govt money spent on them is really for the benefit of the children.

    The common narrative is of the “hard-working single mom.” Her selfish, sex-crazed husband abandoned his own kids and selfless wife, to shack up with a younger bimbo. Forcing the hard-working single mom to raise the family on her own. To deny her govt aid is to starve her innocent children.

  43. Anon says:

    Women claim that govt money spent on them is really for the benefit of the children.

    In reality, it is always men who place the well-being of children first. Women do no such thing.

    The majority of child abuse is by women. Women abort millions of babies. Women deprive children of their fathers, whereas men almost never leave the marriage if children are involved (despite the cuckservative narrative).

  44. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    The New York Times hand-wrings over the fact that not enough art museums are run by women: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/opinion/taking-on-the-boys-club-at-the-art-museum.html?_r=0

  45. Frank K says:

    “Women claim that govt money spent on them is really for the benefit of the children.”

    I actually heard this remark today as a justification for bigger teacher salaries. When she was told by a 3rd person that maybe she should pursue a different career she said “but it’s for the children”, I replied “then you have received your reward” I also pointed out that she will retire young with a fat pension.

  46. Avraham rosenblum says:

    The money that is supposed to go for children, the women use for themselves exclusively.

  47. Boxer says:

    I am not so sure. The media deluge that can distract the average slut will probably work on Boxer, Pelosi, etc. all the same. I don’t think they can keep track of actual legislation if the media deluge is immersive enough.

    I bet you’ve read Paul Virilio’s Speed and Politics huh? Me too. He’s one of my favorite critics of technology.

  48. Pingback: Word From the Dark Side,10/20/16 | SovietMen

  49. feeriker says:

    The New York Times hand-wrings over the fact that not enough art museums are run by women

    Y’ know, that actually IS a travesty. “Management” of an art museum –something that is mostly useless, unprofitable, incapable of survival without subsidies (i.e., stealing money from others), and frivolous– is the PERFECT “job” for a woman. In fact, ALL such museums should be “run” by women.

  50. Damn Crackers says:

    Need it be reminded that Oppenheimer developed the A-bomb?

  51. Hmm says:

    Inability to find a sex partner now a disability?
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/723323/Sexual-partner-fertility-disability-World-Health-Organisation-IVF

    Obviously infertility is a gendered problem – so we need to “degender” it…

  52. rocko says:

    @TomC

    “Maybe soon a man can claim to “identify as a woman” and be eligible for some of the government-funded grants and loans.”

    Our beloved United States Air Force has beat you to the punch. Apparently, as soon as transgender people get to serve openly, the U can opt out of PT tests while they are “recuperating” from their gender reassignment.

    http://americanmilitarynews.com/2016/10/transgender-u-s-air-force-airmen-can-now-skip-physical-fitness-tests/

  53. Anon says:

    The New York Times hand-wrings over the fact that not enough art museums are run by women: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/opinion/taking-on-the-boys-club-at-the-art-museum.html?_r=0

    I am pretty sure that a woman in charge of an art museum will start to see the collection as her own personal collection, and have no problem taking paintings, etc. out of the museum to display in her house.

  54. feeriker says:

    This story suggests what all this will lead to:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3855354/Ohio-moms-confession-details-smothered-3-young-sons.html

    Just wait a few weeks. Armies of feminists will be demonstrating at her trial, hailing her as a feminist heroine. Odds are that she’ll get a slap on the wrist anyway (anybody remember Susan Smith 20-odd years ago?).

  55. feeriker says:

    Dalrock, I somehow managed to “fat finger” that last comment (WordPress apparently auto-fills the avatar name, beating me to my own punch). If you could take that out of moderation and add my usual avatar, I’d appreciate it. TIA.

  56. Gina says:

    @ Damn Crackers –
    Oppenheimer (the firm) has no connection to Robert Oppenheimer of the Manhattan project.

  57. Damn Crackers says:

    @ I know, but thanks.

  58. Byzantine says:

    Another trap for men or sign of changing times?
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/20/italian-woman-who-bad-mouthed-her-ex-husband-in-front-of-their-c/

    We’ll just have to wait and see….

  59. “Women start up businesses at twice the rate of men. So there.”

    White women take advantage of Federal Minority Business Grants more than any other demographic. Women, despite their insistence of their capability to function as independent persons, also don’t pay taxes.

    When these petulant airs surface from time to time, it only reminds me how repulsive most women are.

  60. feeriker says:

    Another trap for men or sign of changing times?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/20/italian-woman-who-bad-mouthed-her-ex-husband-in-front-of-their-c/

    We’ll just have to wait and see….

    I’m betting that this is a “showboat” verdict that will have no effect in force. An appellate court will either reduce the fine to a fraction of the original award, or more likely will toss it out altogether. Worse comes to worst, the ex-wife can take it to the EU appeals court in Brussels, which has shown repeatedly over the last two decades that it won’t hesitate to overrule European national courts on any matter in which it doesn’t feel that the verdict is “progressive” enough.

    NEVER assume that any verdict favoring husbands and fathers in divorce and custody cases (and thus by extension their children) will survive the inevitable appeal. Sometimes they get lucky, most times they get the shaft.

  61. feeriker says:

    White women take advantage of Federal Minority Business Grants more than any other demographic.

    I don’t have any hard data at my fingertips, but I’d be willing to bet that a very significant number of these women-owned startups from grant money are firms that are structured specifically to land GOVERNMENT contracts, at all three levels of government. This is the only way that women AND minority-owned businesses (NOT the same thing, no matter what legal semantics would say; women, at 51 percent of the population, are NOT a freaking minority!) can rest assured of a guaranteed stream of (largely unearned) income that they would never come close to earning if they had to compete in the private sector on merit.

    I would also be very curious to see the statistics for the failure rates of these businesses – as well as how much federally-subsidized grant money and VC capital has been lost through this malinvestment.

  62. MarcusD says:

    Sex-Ed: A Catholic mother’s conviction
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1028817

    Is Contraception Just Accepted as Normal in Your Congregation
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1028796

  63. Oscar says:

    “Mary Beth Haglin was charged in July with sexual exploitation by a teacher. On Monday, she appeared on Dr. Phil, accusing the student of seducing her and sharing sexy photos with his friends.

    ‘Many people see him as the victim and me as the perpetrator. From a psychological standpoint and from every other standpoint, I feel like I am the victim’, Haglin said on the Dr. Phil show, citing the student’s intelligence and “elevated vocabulary” as part of the seduction.”

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/10/20/iowa-teacher-sex-student-dr-phil/92447690/

    Of course she’s the victim. The woman is ALWAYS the victim. Unless the accused is named Clinton, of course.

  64. Lost Patrol says:

    One (exactly one) woman fires up toy company on facebook – toy company immediately capitulates.

    “It’s 2016 people. Fisher Price needs to step it the f up and show women working in all types of fields and in leadership roles.”

    http://heatst.com/tech/fisher-price-bullied-into-changing-stay-at-home-mom-toy/

  65. mikediver5 says:

    Oscar, were you referring to Bill or Hillary?

  66. feeriker says:

    One (exactly one) woman fires up toy company on facebook – toy company immediately capitulates.

    “It’s 2016 people. Fisher Price needs to step it the f up and show women working in all types of fields and in leadership roles.”

    http://heatst.com/tech/fisher-price-bullied-into-changing-stay-at-home-mom-toy/

    How absolutely appropriate that this woman chooses a company that specializes in the manufacture of preschooltoys for toddlers. The exact mental age bracket that matches her own.

  67. Novaseeker says:

    Of course she’s the victim. The woman is ALWAYS the victim. Unless the accused is named Clinton, of course.

    I don’t think she’s getting off this one, though. The press hasn’t been sypathetic, since she admits to having had sex with the boy hundreds of times, and has admitted to violating her bail order (which prohibits contact) by seeing the boy at the strip club where she now works. She’ll be doing time one way or another, I think, unlike the usual case, because she’s pretty unsympathetic overall.

  68. Anonymous Reader says:

    mikediver5
    Oscar, were you referring to Bill or Hillary?

    What, in the end, difference does it make?

  69. Chris says:

    “Of course she’s the victim. The woman is ALWAYS the victim. Unless the accused is named Clinton, of course.”

    I don’t want to click on the link, because I’m sure I’ll read about how Phil unzipped the mouth of his sex-slave mask and agreed with her.

  70. Pingback: Going through the motions. | Dalrock

  71. MarcusD says:

    ‘You caused your son great harm by insisting on raising him as a girl’: Boy, seven, is sent to live with father after his mother raised him as her daughter
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3859618/You-caused-son-great-harm-insisting-raising-girl-Boy-seven-sent-live-father-mother-raised-daughter.html

  72. Micha Elyi says:

    One thing to always remember is that feminism requires constant effort just to avoid moving backward. …

    Feminists need to excite and motivate younger generations to constantly push for more. If they don’t entropy will have its way…
    –Dalrock

    The analogy with entropy is interesting. I realize that analogies are not fully congruent in all ways with the thing they are analogies of. Yet if the analogy holds as far as feminism requiring a society to be in a higher ‘energy state’ than a non-feminist society might be, then breakdowns or rejections of feminism should release ‘energy’ as the society drops to a more stable but lower ‘energy state’. This analogue of an ‘energy release’ might be something that could be profitably taken advantage of.

    Think about it. Look for it. If it’s there, go for it.

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s