Fake independence

When I really started thinking about economics, I happened on the question: Who creates wealth? And I realized that I have never created any in my life. I move around --for services rendered-- the wealth that others create. Earning a living is not the same as creating the environment in which people can earn a living. It's sorta like the difference between having money and having cash in your pocket.

An anti-feminist blog I recently found has now gone private. But I have used Google's cache to find a way in. This set of blunt thoughts from the author about women and men, wealth and independence.

Women Bearing the Brunt of Austerity in Britain

The feminist movement is a giant ponzi scheme, which never generates its own wealth or culture, but constantly steals from others lower down. The women at the top are either the lawyers, professors, and government workers, or the biggest victims. Victimhood buys its own status. The ones paying in are forced to - the men with alimony and child support around their necks; and men who pay taxes.

The so-called liberation of women was built off of the backs of men. Without men, empowered females have nothing. Government cutbacks prove this. Women are the first to suffer from government cutbacks, a line which seeks to show women as victims. What it really shows is how men have for so long been forced to foot the bill of female liberation. Men get to work the hot, uncomfortable or dangerous jobs (or live in polluted Asia to avoid the minefield of feminist culture) while women seek air conditioned comfort. All those HR jobs are provided by men who are doing the real producing, in other words.

The New York Times' Women Bearing the Brunt of Austerity in Britain* is one of those articles that says the above without meaning to say it. That women bear the brunt of austerity means that men bear the brunt of taxpaying and receive few government services in return. Men are sidelined.

Austerity measures will bring something of a better balance to society. Take day care, for example. Why is the government doing the mother's job? Why do women believe the feminist propaganda that women's work, in the home, is inferior to being a banker or a professor? Let men do those jobs so that women can stay at home and be proper mothers. The article offers typical womanist victimology:

“It would just be like losing a right arm,” she said. “I’d have to drop that one day a week, just to be able to be at home with Joshua,” her 2-year-old. 

OMG lady, you mean you'd have to stay at home and be a mother? How outrageous! What a victim you are!

Incidentally, if women are so empowered, why do they become such pathetic weakling victims the moment the government pulls the plug on a program? Is it real empowerment if you're so utterly dependent on something else? Isn't that more of a parent-child relationship? Aren't women, so completely government dependent, simply being child-like?

The modern woman moans and groans when heavily-indebted and heavily-taxing governments start to pull back from places to which they never should have gone:

Manchester, where Ms. Bradshaw, her partner, Lee Mellor, and their rambunctious blond boys live in a neighborhood of worn brown row houses, announced last month it was shutting its day care centers, which serve 800 children.

Like many cities and institutions around Britain, Manchester is searching for savings to close the gap created by the national government’s withdrawal of £3.5 billion, or about $5.6 billion, in support to localities this year, a drop of nearly 12 percent under Prime Minister David Cameron’s tough austerity program. Billions of pounds more are to vanish by 2015.

Mr. Cameron, a Conservative, has also lifted a requirement that the municipal authorities fund and operate Sure Start children’s centers, which offer services including prenatal checkups, breast-feeding support and day care. Their creation was a flagship achievement of the Labour government of the former prime minister Tony Blair; many strapped local councils are now closing the centers or scaling them back. 

Here we see Mr. Cameron being made out to be the bad guy, just like daddy is bad when he says no to the children and their requests. People - women above all - have defined their lives a little too closely to the government, and have refused to become independent. This is part of the lack of responsibility that has been drilled into women.

Manchester is broke. Britain is broke. The West is broke. Largely because feminism wanted to build some false utopia, where women could play cowgirl and empowered raunch bitch with no responsibility. In fact, the party lasted a lot shorter than I would have predicted. Maybe this is just a speed-bump on the road to greater skankiness.

The following words can only come out of a culture that is thoroughly Marxist and thoroughly white knight, as, again without meaning to, it shows just how spoiled women are:

As Britain shaves public services and benefits, advocates contend that women bear more than their fair share of the pain.

“The idea that what we should be doing is rolling back the state, it has really important implications for women,” said Professor Sue Himmelweit, an economist and policy coordinator of the Women’s Budget Group, an advocacy group. “Women lose particularly from public sector cuts. First of all, they lose their jobs.”

Women account for two-thirds of employees in the public sector, where the government’s budget monitor says 710,000 jobs are to disappear. They rely more heavily than men on public services and financial assistance and are expected to lose 70 percent of the £18 billion being cut from benefits like housing support and tax credits for the working poor, says the Fawcett Society, a group pushing for greater gender equality.

Because they are poorer and live longer than men, women will be disproportionately affected by reductions in services to the elderly. 

The last bit, whining about women's longer lives, is a Hillary Clinton-type comment ("The greatest sufferers of war are the women because they lose their men.") Rather than looking at the gigantic elephant in the room called Men live fewer years than women, those with an opinion just spin women live longer than men into the old entitlement machine. Women are victims because they live longer than men. Their longer lives entitle them to more money - from men through the state. 

And further up in the block quote, it is noted that women "bear more than their fair share of the pain." Isn't that because women have all along been receiving more than fair ? Isn't it because feminists have used the government to entitle women off of the backs and hard work of men? Isn't it a bit of justice that women should suffer cutbacks? This is the sort of princess thinking that is destroying our society. Daddy always gives me a new car for my birthday. Poor me. This year, I get a miserable new bicycle and a Louis Vuitton. I hate daddy!

But despite all that foot-stomping and temper-tantrumming, the following words from the article really take the cake:

 “I’m not going to be as independent when I’m older,” she said. “It’s almost like we’re going back, women are becoming more dependent on men now.”

Her co-worker Teresa Angeletta, 53, sees progress slipping away.

“It’s like when my mum would wait for my dad — he’d come home with his wages and put them on the table,” she recalled. “She didn’t have money of her own.”

How were these women ever independent? As the cutbacks show, they never were, but had simply changed whom they depended on. Or had they: Weren't these women all these years simply dependent on male taxes? Instead of daddy coming home and laying his wage directly on the kitchen table, the government did it, grabbing money from men. Women still didn't have their own wealth.

Progress slipping away: How was grabbing tax from men to give to entitled princesses ever progress?

Recap: Women in the above article complain that they aren't receiving such a gigantic bigger share from the government than men anymore, but a smaller bigger share. Women complain that they live longer than men so need more gov money. Women complain that they have to stay at home and mother children - like mothers, for God's sake. Women complain that they might have to accept money from a hard-working husband.

Ladies, you ain't independent, and you never were. If this article doesn't prove that, then you're hopeless.

____________________

*This reminds Ex Cathedra of the famous likely NYT headline when the Second Coming happens: World To End Tomorrow. Women And Minorities Hardest Hit.