Category Archives: Feminism

Women: can’t live with them, can’t live without them.

Outlawing Abortion Promotes Female Chastity

Earlier I described some consequences of abortion prohibition.

Probably the most significant effect of such a policy would be to safeguard female sexual virtue. It should come as part of a package that would strengthen the family, including (1) making marriage more attractive to men by improving their legal standing including as regards their children, and (2) making divorce more difficult for women to initiate.

In short, the main aim of the prohibition will be to raise the costs of promiscuity and premarital sex to women, not to "save lives." This is because ideally, the children who under liberty are aborted will under prohibition never be conceived in the first place, as women, facing the new incentives, abstain from whoring themselves.

It may be true that young women eager to jump into any guy's bed are "stupid," but then so are criminals, but that does not mean there is no deterrence effect of the threats of punishment. Some of this effect will consist in greater parental guidance for young women, so the girls' "stupidity" is counteracted by greater parental strictness toward them.

The upshot is to make women somewhat more chaste and hence better marriage partners rather than the semi-prostitutes who have ruined their own capacity to fall in love. No man really wants to have a wedding where the bride has slept with most of the guests.

The obvious cost of the prohibition is the suffering of the women who still have abortions and are caught and punished. In addition, the situation resembles the drug war in that even though, unlike drugs, there is a victim, the fetus; like drugs, the victim will not complain. Disrupting the "mutually beneficial" in the narrow economic sense illegal abortions between the women and "doctors" will be a serious pain to society. (For example, society will still further become infested with spies, rats, and informers; police corruption will assuredly rise; some women are bound to die or be physically harmed from incompetently performed black market abortions; and so on.) If there is empirically much defiance of the law, punishments will have to be ratcheted up, and I am not sure juries will be prepared to send a woman to prison for 15 years for an abortion.

Poor Regular Men and Women

Men have enough trouble figuring out what women are all about; throwing 70 more undefined "genders" into the mix is at the very least unhelpful.

Feminism Corrupts Female Power

It's a mistake to think feminists want "equality" or ever did. If men and women are enemies battling for power, as the feminists would have it, then the end goal of the women cannot reasonably be a détente; instead, it must be unconditional surrender of the men.

And here's one strategy to achieve total dominance: the feminists indeed wanted to free women -- contrary to all reason -- to have as much sex as they wanted, but that was only step 1. Step 2 is now to have women use sex to accuse their lovers of rape.

Thereby bringing all the coercive might of the state upon their heads. All is fair in love and war which are, according to the feminists, the same thing!

What a clever roundabout plan hatched by some crafty dominatrix long ago.

The intellectual error here may be the failure to distinguish between 3 kinds of sex:

1) holy sex in loving marriage;
2) degrading but consensual casual sex / one-night stand / willing whoring;
3) rape.

Feminists deny that (2) is at all possible. To them, all sex is perfectly great. Many women, however, subconsciously disagree and, when feeling used and degraded by (2), pretend, to salvage some of their dignity, that the sex was, after all, not consensual. An accusation of rape ensues.

No one benefits and everyone loses, both men and women, in the longer run.

Men and Women: an Un-PC Difference

It's hard not to conclude that while men are an order of magnitude more physically violent than women, women in their turn are an order of magnitude sexually dirtier than men.

As an extra subtlety, however, nothing is worse than a violent woman or a male sex fiend.

Poverty of Identity Politics

How many identities has the political correctness movement been able to synthesize?

So, there are blacks and maybe brown people, though the latter tend to be foreigners, and we seem to be killing them in large numbers; there are a number of sexual disorders which have received the blessings of the PC; and there are the women who, though a majority, have been lumped by feminism into a single homogenous mass. Seriously, is that all?

Consider Jerry Seinfeld's stand-up routine on immigration:

I am for open immigration but that sign we have on the front of the Statue of Liberty, "Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses...," can't we just say, "Hey, the door's open, we'll take whoever you got?"

Do we have to specify the wretched refuse?

I mean, why don't we just say, "Give us the unhappy, the sad, the slow, the ugly, people that can't drive, that they have trouble merging, if they can't stay in their lane, if they don't signal, they can't parallel park, if they're sneezing, if they're stuffed up, if they're clogged, if they have bad penmanship, don't return calls, if they have dandruff, food between their teeth, if they have bad credit, if they have no credit, missed a spot shaving;

in other words, any dysfunctional defective slob that you can somehow cattle prod onto a wagon, send them over, we want 'em."

Why aren't the PC defending, for example, all of those miserable bastards? Why aren't they legitimate (and oppressed) identities?

Or take Ko-Ko's little list of society offenders, including "the pestilential nuisances who write for autographs; all people who have flabby hands and irritating laughs"; etc.; why aren't the PC championing them?

What the Diverse Really Want

Kill all white men, according to one such, Bahar Mustafa.

As an economist, however, I feel it is my duty to point out that it would not be in the self-interest of the "queer feminists," whatever ideology or "identity" that signifies, to kill all white men, because of... you know, the civilization that would, uh... collapse.

Hat tip: Lew Rockwell blog.

Catholic Equality Mongers

His communist Holiness expresses the following opinion:

We should support with decisiveness the right to equal pay for equal work. Why is it a given that women must earn less than men? No! They have the same rights. The disparity is pure scandal.

But no arbitrary Smith has a "right" to earn the same or more as any arbitrary Jones, including in a special case of this general rule in which Smith is a woman, and Jones is a man.

Francis said the "radical equality" that Christianity proposes between husband and wife must bear new fruit.

Francis has spoken out frequently about how the Catholic Church in general must give greater value to the "feminine genius"...

But if men and women are "equal," then there is no special "feminine genius," because the feminine is equal to the masculine is (presumably) equal to neuter.

I'm not sure Francis has thought any of this through.

That Rolling Stone Article

So, it's not a problem that people were falsely accused, a national scandal was created viciously, chaos reigned on the University of Virginia's campus, and lives were ruined.

No, it's that many unsophisticated people unfortunately pay attention to such trivial injustices that caused the "message" about the "culture of rape" to be "lost."

If the massive slander had never been exposed, then the ends would have very well justified the means for the leftists or feminists; how sad for them that the perfectly valid general ideological "point" might now be overlooked because of this particular irritating failure. I'm sure next time the feminists, etc. will lie more carefully.

Another Glass Ceiling Broken

Women are having nearly as many extramarital affairs as men.

How the Free Market Will Help Families and Children

In a number of ways. First, it will create powerful incentives to women not to have more children than they can "afford." The private safety nets may well refuse to assist a genuinely irresponsible mother. By "afford" I mean that a family will not have a marginal child, if the parents feel that this child will impair the standard of living of both the parents and their existing children "too much," i.e., below what they find acceptable.

Second, it will strengthen the institution of marriage, insofar as women will know that it is in their interest to have a provider for them and their children. No public welfare here!

Third, it will eliminate taxes, thereby easing the burden on the majority of the population.

Fourth, it will create ever greater prosperity, thus, e.g., making day care, if such a thing is desired, more affordable. Both (3) and (4) will reduce the utility of a second income from the mother's wages. An average man should be able to support his entire family on his own paycheck alone. This does not mean that women ought not to work; merely that they will have an expanded choice about what to do in life.