Pages

Friday, February 27, 2009

Chris Brown: 'Rhianna Hit Me First'

I knew that there was more to this story. Especially since the lace curtain media has all but convicted Brown based on the words alone of the R&B pop star Rhianna:

Chris Brown will reportedly plead self-defense in his court case, claiming Rihanna attacked him. The 19-year-old singer...is set to accuse Rihanna of starting the altercation on February 7. A source told Life and Style Weekly magazine: “Chris is already building his case. He's saying she threw a phone at him, then hit him in the head and basically just lost it. He's saying she attacked him”...

Who knows what the real facts are in this case? But the full extent of the man-hating that we have in our culture is obvious when one observes the actions of the female mob, egged on by a gynocentric media, rushes to pour its sympathy on this woman based on a simple and single accusation. Hello? Hasn't anyone heard of innocent until proven guilty? Had it been Brown who made the first allegation, I guarantee you that the response from our society would have been a much more measured "wait and see" approach.

If one plays the odds, then chances are that both are correct. Rhianna started the fight...as is the case in 3/4 of mutual combat DV...and Brown retaliated. Also note that, as is typical in female-committed DV, she's alleged to have used a weapon to compensate for Brown's greater size and strength.

HT: Glenn Sacks

UPDATE 1: Here's Exhibit A of the gynocentric lace curtain media. Rhianna's nightmare? Funny, seems that it's Chris Brown who's in trouble right now with the law based on her allegation, and it's Rhianna that's basking in a sea of sympathy.

UPDATE 2: Seems Chris Brown gave Rhianna the what-for. If her accusation is true, that he attacked her, then I say throw the book at him. But if her fat and bloody lip was the result of Brown defending himself against an enraged Betty battering him with a weapon, well, my sympathy for Rhianna just fell off a cliff.

UPDATE 3: Perhaps the DV episode really wasn't that bad. That or she feels guilty because she knows she started it. Bottom line is, Rhianna's back with Brown. HT: Erik.

Friday Roundup

Could be worse ways to go, I guess. Russian man dies after winning Viagra fuelled sex bet.

The Law has been stood on it's head by feminists and the family law industry. Here's another case of a boy who has been raped by a woman and then forced to pay child support to the rapist. You know, I thought one of the basic principles of law was that the law should not reward breaking laws. But I suppose that once we started rewarding those who break marriage contracts (as well as others who encourage them to do so) without just cause to profit from their infractions, this wasn't all that far behind. HT: MarkyMark

Obama administration to raise taxes on the rich and on businesses.

It figures. Just like those who sold Africans into slavery were Africans themselves, the UN says 60% of those convicted for trafficking in sex slaves are female. And 60% is after the female sentencing discount has been deducted, so I suspect the real number is higher.

Here is the No-Nonsense Man Marc Rudov on The Morning Show With Mike and Juliet, taking on the issue of double standards wrt DV and engagement rings. Agree with him or not, one thing's for certain: a lot of women complain about double standards that harm or discomfort them, but they're blind to the greater sum that work in their favor.

Want an illustration on just how far off the rails the American family has gone? Two men. Three women. Four kids. Big Love's got nuthin' on these polygamists.

Thursday, February 26, 2009

I Support Freedom of Association...

...even if that means that men are excluded, as long as that same freedom of association is extended to men as well. This means that private organizations that wish to exclude women for whatever reason they want to, may do so.

Thus, while these female DV workers chose to close their doors rather than treat battered men, I support their right to not serve men and their male children. However, that doesn't absolve them of the fact that they'd rather throw down their helmet and pads and stomp off the field rather than serve a member of the hated oppressor class beat up by one of their saintly sisters. Because the victim has a penis rather than a vagina, that disqualifies him from being treated there or attended to in a similar manner as women. Whatever one thinks of them, at least one has to give these chauvinist DV shelter workers points for honesty:
The intervention response team has workers at Brisbane Water command police stations who contact victims as soon as possible to guide them through the court process. The service has successfully operated under the auspices of the domestic violence court assistance scheme for five years. But after “constant interference” by the department, the management committee unanimously voted to hand back responsibility and funding.

“We are not prepared to compromise the integrity of our service by operating under the onerous and inappropriate conditions being imposed by the department,” Ms Spicer said. “In fact, our constitution doesn’t allow us to work with male victims,” Ms Gaunt said. “We have told the director-general we have to relinquish the funding because we cannot work with males and the constant interference by the department also has a lot to do with it,” Ms Spicer said. “Our workers are not trained to work with men - some days we have more than 25 women in our safe room at Gosford. “Can you imagine how traumatised they would be to put a male in there? It is bureaucracy gone totally insane.” 
Get that? It's 'onerous and inappropriate', a 'compromise of [their] integrity' to work with men who are brave enough to come in after having been battered by a woman. Also, their workers 'aren't trained to work with men', as if men are some sort of bizarre alien species. And as for how 'traumatized' a woman would be if a beaten-down man were to be put in the same waiting room as a woman...as if men were some sort of ghastly beast that "sight-rapes" every woman he lays his swollen, black-and-blue eyes on?

Lastly, I note how they have counselors present at the police stations to guide female (but not male) DV accusers through the court system to press charges against the accused? Doesn't this impugn the impartiality of the police? Doesn't this suggest that the five-oh are just tools of the matriarchy, just low-level enforcers of the feminist Leviathan?

HT: Glenn Sacks

Water: The New Oil

When I was a child, I recall my grandmother--who worked as a "landman" in the oil business with my grandfather--stating that in a few years, water will be vastly more important than oil.

My prophetic grandmother was right: That day is here, with water "shortages" (I'll get to that term in a moment) multiplying across the world and, because Americans don't seem to care about anything unless it happens to us, right here in the states too:

Water upheavals are intensifying because the population is growing fastest in places where fresh water is either scarce or polluted. Dry areas are becoming drier and wet areas wetter...[e]conomic roadblocks, such as the global credit crunch and its effects on Mulroy’s attempts to sell bonds, multiply during a recession.

Yet local governments that control water face unyielding pressure from constituents to keep the price low, regardless of cost. Agricultural interests, commercial developers and the housing industry clash over dwindling supplies. Companies, burdened by slowing profits, will be forced to move from dry areas such as the American Southwest, Udall says. Even before the now decade-long drought began punishing Las Vegas, people used more than 75 percent of the water in northern Africa and western Asia that they could get their hands on in 2000, according to the United Nations. Over the Sierra Mountains from Las Vegas, Shasta Lake, California’s biggest reservoir, is less than a third full because melting snow that fed it for six decades is dwindling. A winter as dry as the previous two may mean rationing for 18 million people in Southern California this year, says Jeffrey Kightlinger, general manager of the Metropolitan Water District.

In 2002, 8 percent of the world suffered chronic shortages. By 2050, 40 percent of the projected world population, or about 4 billion people, will lack adequate water as entire regions turn dry, the UN predicts. “We can no longer assume that cheap water is available,” says Peter Gleick, editor of The World’s Water 2008-2009 (Island Press, 2009). “We have to start living within our means.”


Ironically, the solution to water scarcity is laid out in painful detail in the article. The fix is easy...make water a commodity. Water is not yet commodified as are other resources like lumber and petrochemicals; its collection and distribution are political questions rather than market questions and interests of those constituencies with the largest political clout beats out the interests of those who lack influence. And this is what makes reform a thorny issue. Those who are accustomed to "cheap" water will fight this commodification...they would have to pay for their water use on the open market...tooth and nail.

But one of the beauties of a marketplace is how it prevents the tragedy of the commons like we're seeing here. Markets are wonderful tools for transmitting information, and the pricing mechanism serves as an excellent allocator of scarce resources. For example, in markets where a commodity is scarce, prices will be high. This mechanism naturally suppresses waste. Furthermore, high prices will motivate suppliers of a commodity to bring more of it to market, thus increasing supply, easing demand, and lowering prices until an equilibrium is established. Surely this scheme is preferable to the disruptions caused by forced rationing imposed on consumers who have no natural self-interest to curtail their consumption.

As for shortages, they result from cases where no pricing mechanism exists at all, or if the government arbitrarily keeps prices low, thus encouraging more consumption and discouraging more resources being brought to market. In other words, "shortages" are hardships created by our own ignorance.

The same phenomenon that makes water increasingly scarce these days is also the chief impediment to relieving that scarcity: politics. For one problem with establishing a market for water is that various left-wing groups and many governments will resist it. They see markets as crass capitalism infecting their socialist utopias where those in political power decide who gets what ration of water, not the aggregated desires of individuals. They see water as free, and the concept of charging money for a free resource is offensive to them. Convincing the politically connected and government agents that serve them to surrender that power to the Invisible Hand will be quite difficult. To illustrate my point, that socialist-mercantilism-in-lieu-of-capitalism will be a huge obstacle to reform, I give you Las Vegas' water czar, Patricia Mulroy:

One thing Mulroy has ruled out, even in the economic meltdown, is using water as an excuse to limit Las Vegas’s growth. “During the next 50 years, this country’s population is expected to explode by another 140 million,” she says, citing U.S. Census projections. “I always ask, ‘Where do you want the people to go?’”

Mulroy also opposes the idea of privatizing water, or giving investors power to set prices. “You’d be telling people, ‘Pay me enough or I withhold it,’” she says, her voice rising, in the cafeteria of Clark County’s terra cotta-colored municipal headquarters. “It’s like you’re telling me [where] I can live.”

Mulroy’s unflagging commitment to keeping Las Vegas green and growing gets the blessing of casino owner Stephen Wynn. “Pat is the best public servant I’ve met in my 40 years on the Strip,” says Wynn, who credits her with teaching him to save money by using treated groundwater for the lagoons surrounding the artificial volcano at the Mirage hotel, now owned by MGM Mirage.

See what I mean?

Another problem is that the suffering of the poor in areas where water is scare--in other words, they will have difficulty in paying for their water--will be used to derail this marketization process. Just as in the "food shortages" of the 1980s, we will be deluged--by those with a political agenda of "free water"--with images of emaciated and parched people dying for a drink, when the solution is Sam Kinison simple: give them U-hauls and help them move to where the water is.

A third problem will be rising prices in products where water is a factor of production. This will have ripple effects through the economy, namely in industries like agriculture. Food prices will probably climb as food production in areas where water is naturally scarce becomes more expensive and possibly economically untenable.

Make no mistake, though: if we fail to commodify water, the problem will continue to get worse as the tragedy of the commons runs its course. There's no conserving one's way out of this, as the city of Las Vegas has found--it cut its water use by 20% in seven years and still water scarcity persists. The cold equations of resource scarcity in the face of unregulated consumption--either by oneself, my preferred method of regulation, or at gunpoint by government--will force a decision, one way or the other. Marketizing water will ensure that water is used and allocated in the most efficient manner.

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Take The Koran Challenge



found at Barking Moonbat

Monday, February 23, 2009

Don't Crap In Your Own Nest...

...and then expect us to feel sorry for you when you have to live with the smell:
Aside from my husband and baby daughter, I have a 13-year-old son at boarding school who I miss desperately and drive to see as often as the school permits, a 94-year-old grandmother in the West Country who lives for my visits once a fortnight and an undomesticated, widowed mother. There is an ex-husband who believes his schedule is far more important than mine and must always come first when we're divvying up our son's holidays, and a French nanny who seems to think my job is to facilitate her social life. I have a job that makes no allowances for the fact I have children who don't always get sick with three weeks' advance notice. The boarding school and nursery assume I wait around at home with nothing to do but attend conferences and plays and sports events on their schedule. No wonder I'm filled with a permanent nebulous, undirected rage that my life has become a Gordian knot of obligations, responsibilities, guilt, duties and expectations. I can't even go for a walk in the park without factoring in the needs of half a dozen people. I resent that every second of my day is owned by someone else. Yes, I'm angry. I'm angry with a world that still doesn't acknowledge how hard women work, in and out of the workplace. I'm angry with men for dumping the childrearing problem in our laps. I'm angry with women for refusing to admit it's too much, that we can't do everything all the time. Don't get me wrong, I adore my husband. 
Let's rack up the choices here, shall we: (1) A second marriage, with child; (2) a first marriage, with child and an ex husband; (3) boarding school; (4) nanny; (5) a high-powered job; (6) an expensive house; (7) day care; (8) refuses to let Dad raise the kids; (9) a semi-dependent parent; and (10) takes time to get bikini waxes. Now which one of these, I ask, happened by accident? Did any of these fall on Mz Stewart like a meteor from space, or did her choices directly lead to her shouldering all of these burdens?

So she ladles all these tasks onto her plate because she thinks she can and has to do it all. Unfortunately for her, choices have consequences, no matter how angry she gets about it:
What is it like to be a man and have nothing to think about but the task in hand? No wonder the vast majority of our great scientists, thinkers and artists are men. Think how much room they must have in their heads without all the domestic clutter their wives are taking care of. Am I angry? You haven't heard anything yet.
What's it like to be a man? Well here's a sampling: We have duties and obligations, but there's a catch: we don't choose them like you do. Men have scant few choices compared to women, and we're just left with more than our share of obligations. But we just suck it up and get it done. Lucky to be born a man? Lady, you don't know how privileged you are, a middle-class white woman born in the West. There are literally millions of men and women in other areas of the world who wish they had your problems as they scrape and toil for that evening's meal.

Kicking the Legs Out From Under Marriage

Last week, I spied an article in USA Today about a Federal advert campaign aimed at convincing vacillating Gen Yers to marry. Our government is spending $1.25M per year for the next four years in order to extol the virtues of marriage, albeit somewhat lukewarmly in my opinion:


"We're not telling people 'Get married' but 'Don't underestimate the benefits of marriage,' " says Paul Amato, a Pennsylvania State University sociologist and adviser to the National Healthy Marriage Resource Center, which is spearheading the campaign. The resource center, a federally funded virtual clearinghouse, works under an agreement with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Administration for Children and Families.

Sure makes you want to run out and get married, don't it? Personally, I think this is just wasted money, what with the center-left Brookings Institution's hedging about whether a marriage problem even exists in this country:

"What we're talking about is a slow but steady increase in the percentage of Americans who don't intend to get married and probably won't," [William Galston of the Brookings Institution] says. "This trend represents a meaningful change in our society. Whether or not it constitutes a problem depends on broader, and contested, propositions about marriage in relation to the common good."

and with singles-rights groups agitators wanting government to treat marrieds, cohabitors, and singles all the same

"Most people want to get married someday, and most do. That's not at issue," says Nicky Grist of the Brooklyn-based Alternatives to Marriage Project, a non-profit advocate for the rights of the unmarried. She and others have organized an ad hoc coalition that will ask the Obama administration to stop using anti-poverty money for marriage promotion. "What's at issue is really two things, from our perspective," she says. "Should government tell people when to get married? And should government and society privilege marriage over all other relationships? Our answer to both those questions is no."


If we as a society can't even agree as to the empirically demonstrated benefits of the social norm of marriage, those same norms that assured humanity's survival and progress for the last several thousand years, than I don't think that government spending a paltry million dollars in ads each year for four years will sway fence-sitters too terribly much. Particularly when the word is pretty much out that men and women both have a lot to be cynical about re: marriage--women don't need to get married in order to be financially secure with their children, and men wisely shun marriage's fast-track to the poorhouse and/or the jail cell.

But the elephant in the room that the article completely missed was how this paltry ad campaign is dwarfed by government spending that discourages family formation in the first place, and actively works to dissolve those that do form in the second. Through a myriad of programs and laws that subsidize single parenthood, discourages family formation, and encourages divorce, including massive annual Federal subsidies to the divorce industry amounting to $3.7B in 2007, the same Federal government that appears to weakly promote marriage on one hand is busy smashing marriage to pieces with the other.

Conservatives are naive to think that $1.25M can undo the damage that $3.7B+ annually wreaks on the American social fabric. And given that only 22% of the 18-30 crowd had a "strong belief in the institution of marriage", while 14% were strongly opposed, 23% had a "practical"* or "realist" view of marriage, 19% were "enmeshed in the magic of love"** ***, and "divorce is not an option" for a mere 36%, I'd say that such social cons are fighting a Phyrric battle indeed.

Lastly, if you have the time, take a look at the comments. Amusing--or depressing--reading to be had there, depending on your POV.

* Even the supposedly pro-marriage survey team thinks that cohabitation is a more 'practical' or 'realistic' method of entry into marriage. With friends like these, marriage doesn't need enemies

** 'Magic of love' == bathing one's brain in chemicals. Fear not: these spellbound lovebirds will find that the magic will eventually wear off, and if magic is all they had, well divorce isn't far away.

*** I also noted that 2/3 of these 'magical romantics' were women. Any man that would marry a person so ignorant of basic biology and so detached from reality deserves what he will get when the honeymoon ends.

Sunday, February 22, 2009

Ron Paul on Bill Maher

Via Vox, I came across this vid:



The guy isn't the most eloquent in the world, and unfortunately we elect our politicians these days based on how skillfully they blow sunshine up our rears with talk of 'unity' and 'change' and promises to pad our wallets. Paul didn't have a chance during the election when the Establishment and the Media had already picked their faves.

But Paul is right, and the Establishment and Media* have it wrong. Repubs have near-zero credibility on spending or on the economy or on the size/scope of government. The Repubs would do the same as the Dems are doing now, which is why they were voted out of office. Paul did led slide an assertion that Clinton--a democrat--was somehow good for the country, when the fact remains that Clinton simply rode the wave of the dot-com and housing malinvestment booms and did little to rein in spending and regulation; what little Clinton "did" was rammed down his throat by a radical Republican congress. Most of my adult life has been under a Republican administration, but I can read history, and I can see that Democrats have zero credibility as well on spending or regulation or the growth of government.

Paul is right...we need to rein in government, abandon the self-licking ice cream cone of our overseas presence, cut taxes, cut spending, and free a market that has been unfree since the days of Wilson (a point that Paul stumbled on). Hopefully we won't have 11-15 years of the GD2, but it's sure starting to look like it.

* I was on travel last week, and picked up a USA Today newspaper. Gag. No wonder Americans are so stupid these days. The paper was all about the bailout plan, foreclosures, and the PRK's sorry state. The articles on those topics were just Keynesian talking points and did little to advance understanding of the issues. Disgusting. Maybe it's just a prejudice of mine, but I suspect that the person who gleans their news from the Internet is a much more informed and educated person than one who obtains their data from the traditional print media.

Saturday, February 21, 2009

The Difference Between First Class and Coach...

...may be found right here:

Friday, February 20, 2009

Friday Roundup

Here's some sobering news. With the porcine bailout bill, total federal obligations now surpass the entire GDP of the rest of the world combined.

Octomom strikes again, but this time in a different no/lo income woman who is also exploiting the state's femnabling of her behavior to the hilt.

No surprise here. Non-custodial mothers are not only much less likely to be required to get a job and support their children, but they default (as in, become deadbeats) at a rate higher than that of men. Oh, and non-custodial parents take a bigger hit post-divorce financially too.

It's long been rumored that women's sports are nexuses for lesbianism. This straight woman claims that she was pushed off a basketball team for being straight.

Reason #224843 to keep your kids out of public school. 12 yo girl ordered to take pregnancy test by the school nurse based on rumors being passed around by psychologically abusive classmates. Oh and the test was negative.

This is enough to make one want to hurl. Lincoln, the guy who basically started our country on the downward slope to tyranny, rated the #1 president by historians.

Now here's real leadership. Bank owner distributes $60M to his own employees during economic downturn.

Pelosi and Reid's car o the future, just for you:


Thursday, February 19, 2009

Is That a Hockey Stick In Your Pocket?

Or are you just really excited that the government can print money?





I am glad that Beck is showing the effects of the government inflating our money supply and, in effect, imposing a 50% tax on us all through 2015. However, one obvious flaw in this video clip that readers of America's Great Depression would spot instantly is that the gold standard only prevented the government from directly inflating the money supply; it did not prevent inflation entirely. How did that happen, you ask? Well, the government, through permitting the practice of fractional reserve banking and through setting interest rates low, encourages borrowing. So while the government printing press isn't printing out more money, additional money is magically dumped into circulation through the process of fractional reserve banking and what Rothbard calls the "acceleration principle". This is indirect inflation.

Thus, while Beck's chart is not an accurate reflection of the money supply over the first half of the 20th century, I am hopeful that the visual effect of the hockey stick--from direct inflation--will have the requisite impression on people.

HT: Sell Civilization Short

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

WapitiVersity: How To Change the Oil on a 2008 Hyundai Santa Fe 3.3 l

Note: Readers should remember that I am merely a well-trained monkey who only operates heavy machinery for a living, not fixing it. I am nowhere near an automotive professional. You may wish to consult one of those guys before proceeding.

I changed the oil on my 2008 Hyundai Santa Fe recently. As I had never changed the oil on something newer than a 1999, there were three major differences that I encountered that I thought I should spread around.

The first difference was the oil filter used. Newer cars use oil filter cartriges that are inserted into the oil filter canister/housing, as opposed to the traditional screw-on oil filter.

The second difference was the location of the oil filter canister/housing. Rather than underneath the vehicle as is usual, the oil filter canister/housing is located on top, on the back side (i.e. right-hand side) of the engine when viewed from fore to aft.

The third difference was the presence of o-rings on the oil filter housing cap and oil filter spine. These will need to be replaced at each change.

Here's the step-by step guide on how to change the oil:

Step 1: Get ready. Have a set of metric sockets available, and a small regular-blade screwdriver (to pry off o-rings), and a funnel available. Purchase your oil filter (for this change, I used a Fram CH9999) and 5 qts of 5w20 oil or similar (I use Valvoline 10w-30 in the summer on this car, Valvoline 5w20 in the winter).

Step 2: Pop the hood. Remove the oil filler cap and engine fascia. There will be two bolts and four acorn nuts securing the fascia. All six use the same width socket.



Step 3: Locate the oil filter canister/housing cap. Unscrew and lift cap, spine, and cartridge out of canister. Should be able to back cap off threads by hand. Have rag ready to catch dripping oil. Discard old filter. Set cap and spine aside.



Step 4: Raise your vehicle. I rented a lift, but pulling your vehicle up on ramps or placing it on jackstands will give you the room you need. Locate the oil pan and oil drain plug, just aft of the plastic shield that (somewhat) protects the bottom of the engine. Unlike on my Volkswagen, there is no need to remove this shield to access the oil drain plug.



Step 5: Back out the oil drain plug. Oil will come out after a few revolutions, so have your catch pan ready. Drain old oil. Replace drain plug.



Step 6a: Lower vehicle. Lube top and bottom contact points on filter cartridge with clean oil. Insert cartridge into center of oil canister/housing. Cartridge should fit snugly.

Step 6b: Replace small o-ring (filter set should come with two new o-rings) on oil filter spine. Will probably need to pry old ring off with screwdriver. Roll new o-ring on over the bottom (smallest) point of spine. Lube o-ring with clean oil. Insert oil filter spine into oil filter cartridge in housing.



Step 6c: Replace large oil ring on oil filter canister/housing cap. As with the o-ring on the filter spine, will probably need to remove this o-ring with a regular-bladed screwdriver too. Roll new o-ring onto cap. Lube o-ring with fresh oil. Screw cap onto threads at top of filter housing. The cap says torque down to 25 n*m, with no torque wrench available, I just used hand tight, which was about how tight it was when I removed it.

Step 7: Using funnel, fill with new oil. Should take about 4.7-ish quarts of oil. Replace oil filler cap.

Step 8: Replace and tighten down fascia. Crank 'er up and check for leaks.

You are done!

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Female Anti-feminists

Well at least these Indonesian moslem women can recognize a snake in the grass when they see one. These women were protesting HRC's visit to Indonesia recently:




It's just too bad that Western women aren't as alert to Satan's seductive mendacity. Pride really is the original sin:

"Really, honey, you can be just like a man..."

Source: Reuters

If Admiral Ackbar Hosted A Talk Show



Monday, February 16, 2009

Who Is Your Mommy, and What Does She Do?

Part II: What Does A Matriarchy Look Like and Do?

(click here to read Part I)

The Matriarchy that exists today in the West rode in on a feminist Gramscian Marxist horse, and as a result has much of the same look and feel. Yet the Matriarchy is not simply a Marxist phenomenon, where women (as represented by feminists) are jockeying with other groups for political power. No, the Matriarchy seeks to supplant the previous patriarchal hegemony on not only an economic level (as Marxists would be satisfied with doing) but on a social level as well. As sociologist Stephen Baskerville writes, matriarchal feminism

extends the socialist logic and may actually exceed its intrusive potential. “Women’s liberation, if not the most extreme then certainly the most influential neo-Marxist movement in America, has done to the American home what communism did to the Russian economy, and most of the ruin is irreversible,” writes Ruth Wisse of Harvard. “By defining relations between men and women in terms of power and competition instead of reciprocity and cooperation, the movement tore apart the most basic and fragile contract in human society, the unit from which all other social institutions draw their strength.” Politicizing sex takes the logic of class conflict a great leap forward. The charge of “oppression” is leveled not at broad, impersonal social classes but at the most intimate personal relationships. The oppressor is not the entrepreneurial class or entrepreneur but the husband (or “intimate partner”), the father, even the son. To relieve the oppressed, the all-powerful state nationalizes not only the private firm but the private family...

Matriarchal feminism is thus the third in a sequence of collectivist twentieth-century philosophies. Preceded by fascism--which nationalized the culture yet was content with directing economic activity and the use of private property--and socialism, which nationalizes the both the economy and private property and is content to merely direct the culture, matriarchal feminism does both, nationalizing the whole of society, right down to the individual family member level, for the benefit of women and women alone.

As its Gramscian Marxist heritage suggests, the Matriarchy despises the traditional nuclear--patriarchal--family. For it to achieve its "takes a village" utopian vision, where women care for each other's children in a shiny happy plastic society, the authority of the family--and ultimately the patriarch, the father--must be usurped. The first of these usurpers was compulsory schooling, which established the precedent of the State assuming responsibility for the upbringing of children. Closely following compulsory schooling was the advent of the welfare state, the second usurper which annexed responsibility for the care and feeding of full grown adults away from human families and from the spiritual patriarchal family--the Church. While both of these usurpers temporally preceded matriarchal feminism, they nonetheless enabled it by legitimizing the intrusion of the state into the family, first with one's children, and then into the private affairs of full-grown adults.

The next usurper was the seminal--if the reader will forgive the pun--one: divorce. Divorce is the atom bomb of the Matriarchy, the alpha and the omega, simultaneously a rite of passage for its members and the source of much of its power. Baskerville again:

Divorce injects state power — including the penal apparatus with its police and prisons — directly into private households and private lives. “The personal is political” is no longer a theoretical slogan but a codified reality institutionally enforced by new and correspondingly feminist tribunals: the “family” courts. These bureaucratic pseudo-courts permit politicized wives to subject their husbands to criminal penalties...without having to charge the men with any actionable offense for which they can be tried in a criminal court.

...feminists long ago recognized [divorce's] political power. As early as the American Revolution, divorce has represented female rebellion: “The association of divorce with women’s freedom and prerogatives, established in those early days, remained an enduring and important feature of American divorce,” writes Whitehead. Into the nineteenth century, “divorce became an increasingly important measure of women’s political freedom as well as an expression of feminine initiative and independence.” But it was in the twentieth century that feminists teamed up with trial lawyers and other legal entrepreneurs to institutionalize “no-fault” divorce — a measure that subtly but decisively amounted, no less, to “the abolition of marriage” as a legally enforceable contract...

From here the subsequent usurpations followed in a deluge. The welfare state expanded exponentially to cover not only children who were poor as a matter of happenstance but those kids deliberately impoverished by self-serving, "freedom"-seeking actions of their mothers--the feminization of poverty. Feminists imposed no-fault--in reality unilateral--divorce on a gullible public, which served to fan the flames of divorce further. The Welfare State expanded further under the guise of Welfare Reform in the mid 1990s, only this time, the State harnessed those men who were evicted from their children's lives to underwrite the filching of their own children and subsidize a vast patronage machine for the benefit of those who have a vested financial interest in keeping the gears of the divorce machine cranking along. And those women, now "liberated" from the home and family

entered the workforce at functions that extended the domestic roles with which they were comfortable. Thus rather than caring for their own children within the family, women began working in new professions where they care for other people’s children as part of the public economy: daycare, early education, and “social services.” This transformed child-rearing from a private familial into a public communal and taxable activity, expanding the tax base and with it the size and power of the state, while also driving down male wages. Soon, a political class paid from those taxes began to take command position in control of vastly expanded public education and social services bureaucracies, where they supervise other women who look after other people’s children, further expanding the size and scope of the state into what had been private life

Let's review what we have seen thus far. We have seen a social system in which women are dominant at the most basic level of society; that dominance bubbles up all the way to the top. If a man fails to make his wife happy, he is summarily cashiered for the bulk of the property held in common with his wife, possibly with the aid of a domestic violence action that locks him out of his own home. Unmarried men face a similar threat--fail to make your girlfriend happy, you face arrest and incarceration from nebulous accusations of domestic violence or rape, both of which also marshal the guns of the state against you. Furthermore, both married and unmarried men face the constant threat of having their children confiscated, access cut off or severely curtailed under the threat (again) of state enforcement action, and a not insignificant portion of his future earnings are awarded to the woman he used to trust. All men labor under the constant threat of a nebulous accusation of sexual harassment--a crime defined as a male perpetrator and a female victim--in the workplace, all men date under the constant threat of a nebulous accusation of sexual assault, another crime defined as a male perp and a female victim. It is not difficult to imagine the tyranny that occurs in a society when one sex lives, works, and plays under a constant threat of compliance with the other sex's wishes or face forcible, eviction, enslavement, arrest, and/or incarceration.

We have also seen a social system that labors to advance the interests of women before those of children and men; in fact, entire governmental agencies are peopled chiefly by women who work for the benefit of, and to eliminate any constraints on, women. And as Baskerville notes, not only does the system serve to facilitate women ridding themselves of any responsibility to a man, it seeks to do the same vis-a-vis women's children too:

We have created a panoply of mechanisms and institutions allowing divorcing mothers to rid themselves, temporarily or permanently, of inconvenient children: “safe havens” have legalized child abandonment by mothers; daycare is tailored to the needs of mothers, not children; foster care relieves single mothers who cannot provide basic care and protection; “CHINS” petitions allow single mothers to turn over unruly adolescents to the care and custody of social workers; “SIDS” and in some countries infanticide laws have even made the murder of children semi-legal. And then of course there is abortion. When one adds the extension and proliferation of institutions not normally associated with divorce but whose purpose is to relieve parents in general and mothers in particular of childrearing duties — public schools, organized after-school activities, convenience and fast food, psychotropic drugs to control unruly boys — we can begin to see how massively our society and economy have been gearing up for decades to cater to divorce, facilitate single motherhood, marginalize fathers, and generally render parents and families redundant

No such agency exists for children, and certainly no such agency exists to advance the interests of men in a similar fashion. Even those men who populate governmental agencies, all the way up to legislators in Congress or agents in the Executive, join women in being more moved by the problems of women than those of men--an artifact of a traditional cultural imperative that privileges women over men as compensation for women's social and physical vulnerabilities.

Furthermore, we have seen a social system where women have been empowered at all levels of society, and most importantly at all levels of government, while men have been symmetrically disempowered by that same government. Through routine violations of the anti-peonage act and the 4th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, routine ex parte TROs, through judicial pro-mother bias, through the female sentencing discount, and through rape shield laws that prevent the identification of an accuser in the media (though the accused's good name is fair game), the legal position of men is far weaker than women, even in the darkest days of a feminist's fevered imagination of what patriarchy used to be.

Yes, we live under a matriarchy. Unfortunately, or thankfully, depending on one's perspective, it cannot last. We'll either collapse from within because a modern complex society cannot long survive the ghetto form of the family, or (less likely) fall to an external invader who is encouraged by the weakness he perceives in our once-great culture. I'll close this post with my final citation of Baskerville:

Decades before the family crisis became obvious, sociologist Carle Zimmerman demonstrated that family atomization preceded civilizational collapse. Zimmerman showed how Greek and Roman decline was preceded by a renunciation of family life, first by educated elites and then others, and argued that our own civilization is on a similar trajectory. Zimmerman was writing during the post-war baby boom — before “second wave” feminism, no-fault divorce, same-sex marriage, and “demographic winter” — when the family was generally assumed to be stable. Yet he predicted these developments based on long-range trends — mostly elite intellectual fashions — whose significance few others grasped. Indeed, Zimmerman emphasized how difficult the decline is to perceive while it is taking place: “These changes came about slowly, over centuries, and almost imperceptibly.”[90] Today, even as the family crisis becomes undeniable, there is still little awareness of its full ramifications and how close we are to the point of no return."

Educating Alfie Patten

Most men wake up from their feminist public school indoctrination about the nature of unrestrained female sexuality sometime in their twenties. Some earlier than that, some much later, and this awakening is usually after having dealt a nasty surprise in the dating/marriage meat market.

Unfortunately--or maybe fortunately--little Alfie Patten, the 13 yo boy who is said to have sired a daughter after having been raped by his 15 yo girlfriend, is getting his education in the cuckolding ways of the promiscuous modern human female much earlier than usual:

News of the World can today reveal that as well as second maybe-dad Richard, a THIRD lad, 14-year-old Tyler Barker, fears he may have fathered little Maisie. And amazingly the News Of The World has uncovered claims that Chantelle was sleeping with as many as EIGHT teenage boys around the time the baby was conceived on the Old Town estate in Eastbourne, Sussex. Richard, a trainee chef, said he had sex at least three times with Chantelle at her home

Of course, this could all be a put on, that saintly Chantelle is the victim of a terrible character assassination campaign. Whether true or not--and I think it's more likely to be true than false--I can imagine the negative effect that all this is having on him, and his ability to be a father and a husband. Either way, these revelations already stress what is most assuredly a tenuous relationship between father and mother. Teenage couplings don't exactly have a stellar 20-yr success rate.

I suspect that there are some harsher lessons still to come. He's already learned two: that a girl who will shag a boy outside of wedlock is likely to be shagging others and in any case isn't much of a catch, and that females are held to a much lower standard of behavior than males (viz the lack of prosecution for rape). Lessons coming up in the near future for dear Alfie--if he is indeed the father--include the possibility that he was used as a sperm donor, the possibility that he was cuckolded into acting the father to another rogue male's (whom the mother fancied more) children, the inevitable maternal gatekeeping that is certain to present itself, custody and visitation, and alimony issues.

And lest you, dear reader, think I'm being too hard on poor Chantelle, let me now shift fire to the parents of these kids. For instance, who in the blazes lets their children have opposite-sex kids enter their bedrooms, let alone repeatedly spend the night?

We dated after meeting at the local shops and I liked her. I thought she was pretty. I used to stay overnight at her house on Fridays and Saturdays. “We used to sleep in the same bed and within two weeks we’d had full sex. It was in her bedroom while her mum was downstairs.

The only piece missing from this picture are divorces/single moms on either/both sides of this equation, but it appears that both children came from intact homes, although the mother's family is on public assistance.

Yep, this is a teachable moment, lads, and the best experience is the crappy experience of others. This girl appears to be an unreconstructed ho and Alfie is shaping up to be a naive patsy. Let their example be a warning to ya.

Sunday, February 15, 2009

Who Is Your Mommy, and What Does She Do?

Part I: Matriarchy Defined

I have used the term "matriarchy" here at EW several times to describe our society, without really defining what I mean by the word and how our society fulfills that definition. Perhaps it is time that I do so, since this concept is central to some of my critiques of government and activist-group policy.

What Is Matriarchy?

The etymology of the word "matriarchy" is straight forward: rule by mothers. But that cold definition lacks the semantic meaning and imagery sufficient for it to be very useful as a descriptor in everyday conversation. So in order to freight up that word with meaning and heft, I will define what a matriarchy is and what it looks like. Often definitions of words spring from the definitions of other words and terms we know well; thus I think it useful to first define matriarchy's polar opposite, patriarchy as:


[a] social system in which men dominate...a social system in which men are regarded as the authority within the family and society


Other sources similar to this one add to the above definition thusly:


...patriarchy as a system that privileges men over women, and also men over other men. A pro-feminist analysis of patriarchy acknowledges that gender interacts with other dimensions such as ethnicity, power and social class. Patriarchy is seen as a hegemonic gender order imposed through individual, collective and institutional behaviours.

Patriarchy as an embodied set of beliefs about the 'natural' gender order (frequently backed up by notions of biological or deific determinism) often operates through a collective willingness towards 'gender blindness', a refusal to observe and study the effects of gender on social relations and power.


These two definitions of patriarchy then can help us describe what a matriarchy looks like. First, a matriarchy is a social system in which women dominate, where women are regarded as the authority within the family and society. Next, matriarchy imposes a hierarchy based upon considerations of sex: women are purposefully privileged over men, and also over other women. Third, matriarchy is also a hegemonic gender order that empowers women and disempowers men, as well as places women and women's concerns before those of men in the individual, cultural, and governmental spheres. Last, I note that a matriarchy by definition rejects "deific determinism"--i.e. it rejects God's created order of things--and therefore, as is the case with all Marxist humanist schools of thought, adopts the acquisition and use of power as true north in its moral compass instead of Biblical truth.

Next: What A Matriarchy Looks Like and Does

Saturday, February 14, 2009

Quote O' The Day


We've lost two people in my family because you dickheads won't cut trees down


Uttered by a frustrated Australian man to the tree-hugging Nillumbik city council, who apparently disapproved resident's requests to clear underbrush or even mow grass on their property or on public land adjacent to their property.

Friday, February 13, 2009

Friday Roundup

Too cheap to hire a baby sitter? No problem! Just cook your child in the oven until she stays put.

Full air traffic control transcription of US 1549's last minutes before it ditched into the Hudson.

Little wonder that manufacturing jobs are leaving the USA, and that Asian engineers and doctors are flooding here. The hard sciences and engineering disciplines are distinctively missing from the list of top 10 college majors in 2009. What is there? English, psych, education, poli sci, marketing. The few bright lights are business admin, econ, nursing, and bio. The wealth-creating disciplines are almost completely missing, and have been replaced by wealth-consuming disciplines.

This reminds me of a post I wrote over a year ago about the feminist's ideal family containing multiple women and no men. Apparently my prediction has come to pass: are you a single mother who cranks out kids for a welfare check, but wants to legally siphon off more from the government? It's caveman easy! Just move in with several other women and bill the government for the child care that each of you provide for the others' illegitimate bastards. These four sisters pulled in nearly half a million dollars in money from the state since 2006 for caring for their collective 17 children.

Israel's female cadidate for PM takes a page from HRC: falling behind in the polls, it's now apparently sexist to suggest that she may lack the experience to lead Israel. But it's not sexist to say that Israeli women should come first before Israeli men. Nope.

Mangina UN Population Fund leader sez that falling marriage rates, rising divorce rates, and bastardy is a victory for human rights against patriarchy. Little does he realize that patriarchy itself is responsible for advanced civilization in the first place. Though he's right about one thing, though: the economic base that supports patriarchal civilization is disappearing. What he conveniently doesn't mention is what it is being replaced with.

Click here to see why we fight. Frickin animals.

For once I wish that the media would get it through their thick head that more government is left-wing, not right, and that government synthesis with religion is left-wing, not right wing. Thus fascism is an expression of the Far Left politics of the 1920s and 1930s, not the scary "far right".

In the words of the immortal Mills Lane, "let's get it on!" And it's good for you too. (Thanks to Triton)

Okay, this is just bizarre. Salma Hayek whips one out in Sierra Leone. Creepy. Although I guess the LLL militants are doing the victory dance right now.

This woman took aging spinsterdom a bit too seriously. She had 118 cats.

Holy crap! 12 yo boy sires baby with 15 yo girl in the UK. Tell me again why this girl isn't in jail for rape, as a 15 yo boy who impregnated a 12 yo girl would be? Update: she's not in jail because the police not only gave her a pass, but they gave this rapist their full support:

Social Services in Eastbourne admitted to “concerns” over the case but vowed to give “all their support”, including intensive monitoring. Police said they had investigated but had decided to take no further action as it was “not in anyone’s interests” to prosecute.

I bet if the father was 15 and the mother was 12 going on 13 it would be in someone's interest to prosecute. Female sentencing discount rides to the rescue again...


Holy crap 2! Photo of Suleman at some undetermined point prior to childbirth. Recall that she is on disability for a back injury, people. Oh, and imagine that there are nine humans in that one photo.

Thursday, February 12, 2009

What Do Women Want?

Dude, even they don't know (NYT link requires registration) (related story that reports the same data here). But it appears that their bodies want, well, anything. Literally. Read on:
No matter what their self-proclaimed sexual orientation, [the female subjects] showed, on the whole, strong and swift genital arousal when the screen offered men with men, women with women and women with men. They responded objectively much more to the exercising woman than to the strolling man, and their blood flow rose quickly — and markedly, though to a lesser degree than during all the human scenes except the footage of the ambling, strapping man — as they watched the apes. And with the women, especially the straight women, mind and genitals seemed scarcely to belong to the same person. The readings from the plethysmograph and the keypad weren’t in much accord. During shots of lesbian coupling, heterosexual women reported less excitement than their vaginas indicated; watching gay men, they reported a great deal less; and viewing heterosexual intercourse, they reported much more. Among the lesbian volunteers, the two readings converged when women appeared on the screen. But when the films featured only men, the lesbians reported less engagement than the plethysmograph recorded. Whether straight or gay, the women claimed almost no arousal whatsoever while staring at the bonobos.
Now contrast this with the results from the guys:
Males who identified themselves as straight swelled while gazing at heterosexual or lesbian sex and while watching the masturbating and exercising women. They were mostly unmoved when the screen displayed only men. Gay males were aroused in the opposite categorical pattern. Any expectation that the animal sex would speak to something primitive within the men seemed to be mistaken; neither straights nor gays were stirred by the bonobos.
It's hard to know where to start with the results of this ongoing study. For the men knew what aroused them: straight men only by pictures of women, homosexual men only by pictures of other men. And no men were aroused by images of bonobo sex.

This was not the case however with women in this study, whose bodies were aroused by pretty much everything as long as it had some sensual quality to it. Thus images of women masturbating, of two men making out, of male-female coupling, of lesbian lovin', and chimp porn all got women's engines revving. Regardless of their reported sexual orientation.

Now it could be indeed true that the researcher's hypothesis is correct that women's anything-arousal is an evolutionary defense mechanism that evolved to protect women against injury from rape. But given how this naked assertion appeals to a Theory that doesn't move me much, this speculation doesn't convince.

So, what lessons does one draw from this? Two come to mind. First, it appears that the social notion that men's sexuality is somehow beastly or out of control is a vile slander in light of the above evidence to the contrary.

The second lesson is that there may exist an empirical and not simply religious reason why God designated men--for all our faults as a sex--as heads of the family and of the church. For the data suggests that men are by nature not as flexible and therefore less likely to brook aberrant behavior.

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Quote O' The Day

Thought that this quote would be appropriate given the bailout bill. Who owns the fruits of your labor? I can tell you who owns mine...putting aside income taxes, I pay tribute to Caesar each month in the form of child support. A penalty for a crime that I didn't commit and was never convicted of.


The citizen is sovereign only when he can retain and enjoy the fruits of his labor. If the government has first claim on his property he must learn to genuflect before it. When the right of property is abrogated, all the other rights of the individual are undermined, and to speak of the sovereign citizen who has no absolute right to property is to talk nonsense. It is like saying that the slave is free because he is allowed to do anything he wants to do (even vote, if you wish) except to own what he produces


Frank Chodorov, The Freeman, 1990

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

I Guess Half A Loaf...

...is better than none. A feminist gal rethinks her feminist past...but not completely enough to totally repudiate the fembot rhetoric ricocheting inside her skull. Otherwise, this is a wonderfully instructive post by an older wiser woman about the opportunities she's lost after having bought into feminism's false bill of goods (HT Coffee Catholic):


I thought that men would love independent, strong women, but (in general) they don't appear to. Men are programmed to like their women soft and feminine. It's not their fault - it's in the genes. Holly Kendrick, 34, who holds a high-status job in the theatre, agrees: “Men tend to be freaked out if you work as hard as them.” This is why many of my girlfriends are still alone. The truth, though, is not that men haven't accepted women's modernity - the alpha woman who never questions her entitlement to the same jobs, fun and sexual gratification as them - but that women haven't either.

Sas Taylor, 38, single and childless, runs her own PR company: “In my twenties I felt I was invincible,” she says. “Now I wish I had done it all differently. I seem to scare men off because I am so capable. I have business success but it doesn't make you happy.” Nicki P, 35 and single, works in the music industry and adds: “It was all a game back then. Now I am panicking. No one told me that having fun is not as fun as I thought.”


Men shun strong independent women not because we have ego issues, not because we're scared of capable women, but because we recognize that the strong independent women is usually a facade. Under that blustery strength and independence is an insecure, weak little girl that is afraid that her dependence on others will be found out, that she'll be exposed as a fraud.

Moreover, men intuitively know that we need to find mates who are strong enough to be more than independent, they need to be strong enough to be interdependent. Dating and marriage are dangerous enough for men, we don't want to waste our time with the queen of diamonds whose need to prove her strength and independence will eventually lead her to be act strong and independent without us around (but not without our money...so much for "independence"). We don't give a rip about your success either--that is unless we're looking for a sugar momma. Do you really want to be that person? If not, then your impressive CV is a check in the negative column because the reason why most men want to marry is to have children...and your career (note I did not say job) is most certainly an obstacle to that.

Lastly, I think that men intuitively know that no one is entitled to anything in this world. Certainly not to jobs or fun or sexual conquest. And we're right to think that women who think they are entitled to any of the above are to be avoided or mocked. Or both.

Not a Good Sign

Uh-oh. Moneyed investors flee to gold...even more than they already have.

Hang on folks, we're in for a bumpy ride.

Boycott V-Day?

Marc Rudov calls for guys to boycott V-day, aka Vagina Day. His take on modern dating-cum-marriage is horribly cynical--unless one takes divorce into account, and then he looks absolutely prophetic:


Visualize the annual V-Day ritual: women clucking around their office water coolers and late-morning Pilates classes in anticipation of receiving Vermont Teddy Bears or long-stem roses, while men are wringing their hands, dreading this day, resenting the pressure, wondering what, if anything, would please their wives and girlfriends. Why such anxiety? No man wants to end up in the proverbial doghouse without sex.

What a pathetic picture: women using sex as a weapon; men living in fear. The evidence of “romance heaven” is clear: alimony and child-support cash registers are ringing nonstop, the marriage rate is falling, infidelity is rampant, the out-of-wedlock birthrate is skyrocketing, and children — society’s future parents — are more dysfunctional and immature than ever.

What is Valentine’s Day, really? An annual tribute to legal prostitution. After all, traditional dating and marriage are the chief platforms of an age-old prostitutional bartering system through which women receive gifts, cash, bling, stock, cars, meals, homes, vacations, clothes, college tuition, business partnerships, and spa memberships in exchange for sex.


It is a shame that our view of the purpose of marriage has drifted so far off the Christian reservation that our culture has come to see it as a purely economic institution and little else. And viewed through such secular goggles, it is hard to dispute Rudov's cynical view that the end function of dating and marriage is to channel resources from men to women in exchange for sex and children. Put another way, marriage without God is not all that far removed from a john picking up a hooker on the street. The only difference is the price the man pays for access to sex and to his children. Which is one reason why I advise non-believing men to avoid irreligious marriage--it's just plain exploitative. Of the man.

As for me, I'm not as hard-over about V-day as Rudov is. Yes, there is a lot to hate about the materialistic nature of V-day, just as their is with all of our holidays. And I very much dislike the cultural messages everywhere that intone that the way for men to make their women happy--and thus assure a romp in the hay--is to give them trinkets and fattening foodstuffs. Moreover, I heap scorn on the kinds of women whose overwrought sense of entitlement leads them to expect their men to do something nice for them or else they'll withhold the nookie. Those kinds of women deserve to grow old and remain single with their cats and battery-powered electrical appliances.

In the end, V-day is just a reminder to make it a point to let Mrs Wapiti know that I'm crazy about her and think that she's the perfect God-given gift of a woman for me, a guy who's done nothing to deserve the Grace that he's been offered. I hope that each of you will consider doing the same for the special one in your lives.

Monday, February 9, 2009

The Reality Beyond the Lace Curtain

Man, I do so get tired of the Lace Curtain, a term coined by arch-MRA Warren Farrell to describe the conspiracy* that constantly bangs the drum of the feminist agenda--in this case, perpetual female victimhood--in the media and in the culture. I schwacked on Campbell Brown a couple of months ago for pulling this crap. Then I read this in the Gray Lady about how bad women have it because they have to work harder to support their families--oh the horrors--even though their men are bearing the brunt of layoffs.

In an age where men are being laid off in numbers far exceeding that of women, jeopardizing their marriages and their family's standards of living, it's still all about the women and how bad the women have it at home and in the workplace now that they have to pull their man's load too:


“Given how stark and concentrated the job losses are among men, and that women represented a high proportion of the labor force in the beginning of this recession, women are now bearing the burden — or the opportunity, one could say — of being breadwinners,” says Heather Boushey, a senior economist at the Center for American Progress.

Women may be safer in their jobs, but tend to find it harder to support a family. For one thing, they work fewer overall hours than men. Women are much more likely to be in part-time jobs without health insurance or unemployment insurance. Even in full-time jobs, women earn 80 cents for each dollar of their male counterparts’ income, according to the government data.

While women appear to be sole breadwinners in greater numbers, they are likely to remain responsible for most domestic responsibilities at home. On average, employed women devote much more time to child care and housework than employed men do, according to recent data from the government’s American Time Use Survey analyzed by two economists, Alan B. Krueger and Andreas Mueller.

When women are unemployed and looking for a job, the time they spend daily taking care of children nearly doubles. Unemployed men’s child care duties, by contrast, are virtually identical to those of their working counterparts, and they instead spend more time sleeping, watching TV and looking for a job, along with other domestic activities.

Historically, the way couples divide household jobs has been fairly resistant to change, says Heidi Hartmann, president and chief economist at the Institute for Women’s Policy Research. “Over a long, 20-year period, married men have stepped up to the plate a little bit, but not as much as married women have dropped off in the time they spend on household chores,” Ms. Hartmann says. This suggests some domestic duties have been outsourced, as when takeout substitutes for cooking, for example. And as declining incomes force families to cut back on these outlays, she says, “women will most likely pick up the slack.”
The simple fact of the matter is that the state of the female job market is a result of their own choices. They choose to work in jobs that pay less with less time at work so they can choose to be home with the children. These jobs pay less because (a) they don't work as long--duh!--and (b) there are a lot of women competing for these sorts of jobs, which depresses wages in accordance with the law of supply and demand.

That women whine about the work-family balance (do not men have a work-family balancing act to do as well? Must not be newsworthy...) does not take away from the fact that they chose their circumstances. If they want to work full time and leave child care to their husbands, all they have to do is choose that reality. If they want to stay at home full time and have a husband who is around more often, all they have to do is choose that reality. However, they in general do not--women choose to be the ones who care for children, choose to refuse to support a house-husband, and choose to live in the big house with the 1.4 kids and the 1.8 vehicles. All of which cost money.

And then there's the sort of jobs that women take. As Vox points out, women generally prefer jobs that do not produce wealth; they may or may not add value in some sense or another, but their work is a net resource consumer. Medicine, law, education, child care, government, retail sales. All are fields which prominently feature women. All consume capital resources. But few produce wealth. And all this feminine navel-gazing and woe-is-me victim-mongering obscures the real danger to women in this economic downturn where their men are suddenly unemployable:
What follows in the sequence Farm - Factory - Office? Hunter-gatherer! The economic model of women engaged in economically non-productive labor while men sit around and do nothing is not exactly a new one. I believe it's quite popular in Africa, as a matter of fact.

Thus women should be quite concerned about what happens to the other half of the species. For their health, safety, and comfort are literally a function of what happens to their men.

* Conspiracy, as defined by Farrell, refers to a group of people who think and act alike and who have a similar political outlook. The roots of the word are 'con', meaning with, and 'spire', meaning breathing. So they con-spire together, meaning that they are in harmony with each other.

Friday, February 6, 2009

The Problem Is Choice

The problem, as the Matrix's Architect so aptly put it, is Choice. No, I'm not talking about the kind of 'choice' that squirts out a live 25-week baby only to let him suffocate and die, bagged in a biozard bag, in a refuse bin. While that's most certainly problem--as any murder is--that's not the kind of problem I'm discussing here.

Rather, I'm talking about how our legal culture transfers rights from one person to another in matters of reproduction:


As in the UK and in much of the United States, paternity fraud is the law of the land. By failing to set any form of legal consequences for paternity fraud, courts and the law encourage it as this article makes clear (National Post, 1/7/09).

[L]et's be clear on what paternity fraud does. It places in the hands of the mother the father's parental rights and allows her to make the decision about whether he will support--and play the role of father to--the children. The legal preference for paternity fraud tells women that it is OK to defraud men. So when a woman becomes pregnant the law says loudly and clearly that it is her free choice whether or not to tell him that the child is not his, or that she is not sure.

If she were to tell him the truth, then he could make his own free, informed decision about whether he wanted to take up the obligations of parenthood or not. If he chose to do so, as many men do even though they're not the father, then he should be saddled with parental duties and receive parental rights. But it should be his decision, not hers.

But...to secure a man's legal obligation of support, all a woman must do is lie to him and maintain the lie for a short period of time. Again, his decision is not his, it's hers. Nowhere else in law do we place the rights and duties of one free adult in the hands of another person.


This is one of the reasons why when people claim that feminism grew out of the Classically Liberal tradition of individualism, I just chuckle. If it did, feminism would recognize that one person's rights are equal to anothers, and transferring those rights to another person violates that principle of individual rights and autonomy. In addition, Classical Liberalism intones that one is responsible for their actions and their actions alone.

Instead, feminism strips rights and freedom from men to subsidize the parochial interests of women. Moreover, feminism infantilizes women just as bad as Victorian chivalry in isolating them from the consequences of their choices.

Lastly, when one hears someone invoke "the best interests of the children", it's a good bet that there's a woman in the background who benefits at least tangentially, if not directly, from the transaction.

Thus, if one wonders how feminists--allegedly heirs to the Liberal tradition--can countenance paternity fraud, the answer is simple: follow the money.

Thursday, February 5, 2009

Quote O' The Day


There are no necessary evils in Government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as heaven does its rains, shower its favours alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing


Andrew Jackson, in his message accompanying his central bank veto, 1832

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Reality Check for 44

They say a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged. I am hoping that Mr. Obama's mugging by the political reality of international relations occurs soon enough to engender an attitude adjustment about how the world works. Hopefully this happens before a whole lot of Americans are killed.

Let's face it: international politics is Lord of the Flies played on a world stage. The countries that give the impression of strength are left alone; those that give off the air of weakness invite conflict. We need to be the 800-lb gorilla, without acting like the 800-lb gorilla.

Thus Mr. Obama's rookie mistake in offering to open talks with Iran only emboldens our enemies that much more. We are tied down in military actions across the globe; our people are weary of spending blood and treasure to install a modern democracy in a region whose values and political institutions do not support such a system of government. Our large military is too spread out and worn thin to offer a credible deterrent to up-and-coming states such as Iran who threaten us and our interests. Our enemies know this. And know we offer to talk, when it is obvious to all that that is all we can do.

My solution? Get our troops home. All of them. Get them out of harm's way, and posture them in such a manner as to be able to project a killing blow against those who mean us harm. Leave Iraq sooner rather than later, and extricate ourselves from the various Asscrackistans as soon as possible. And in the meantime, let us get ourselves back on our feet economically by refusing to implement any more bailout bills, shrinking the size and scope of government, and letting the people keep their money so that they themselves get the economy going again.

Let us become the country that, once more, has amiable relationships and trade with all, and entangling alliances with none. Let us be the city on the hill that others aspire to be, and stop being the world's policeman who jams 'democracy' down the throats of unwilling countries at the point of a gun.

This strategy will keep Americans safe and secure far more than airing our weaknesses for all to see.

In Pictures: Thermopolis, Wyoming

Took the fam on a smallish vacation the other day to Thermopolis. The town is famous...well, locally anyway, for the geothermal hot springs there. The springs and an adjacent parcel of land now known as Hot Springs State Park were purchased from the Shoshoni and Arapahoe Indian tribes in the 1860s for $60,000.

Unfortunately, there was a lot of snow on the ground (and will be for a couple more months) so we didn't get much of a view of the vibrant colors that exist there. But what we did see was pretty cool. Enjoy the pictures.





A view of the springs. Outside air temp was about 25F




Another view of the springs




The Wind River canyon south of Thermopolis. As you drive south and descend in elevation, the exposed canyon walls go from an average age of 200M years old, in the Jurassic period, to more than 600M years old, in the pre-Cambrian period.




The Big Horn river, as viewed from the north side of Hot Springs SP.




Free range, naturally raised bison grown by the state inside Hot Springs SP.




More bison. The local hotels feature bison burgers and steaks made from animals from this herd.




A 2x2 mule deer buck that came and visited my family and I as we were eating dinner in the Safari Club, the restaurant in what used to be the local Holiday Inn. Better hope you like taxidermy if you're eating there. Picture was taken from a distance of about 15 feet.



Monday, February 2, 2009

Weird Internet Search Term o' The Day

Somehow I don't think this is very halal:

Sunday, February 1, 2009

In Pictures: Recovery of US Flight 1549

Received these pictures via email. When looking at them, I couldn't help but think of the B-rate suspense film Raise the Titanic.

Add aircraft onto the list of things that the French build well, right behind wine, cheese, and helicopters with rotor heads that spin backwards.