Archive for the ‘economics’ Category

Feminism and the Health Care Bill

March 26, 2010

First off, if you need it explained to you why the health care bill is going to be a disaster, go somewhere else. Every big-name conservative pundit on the planet has already thoroughly explained this and I see no reason I should cover that ground again.

A mailing list I’m on had two different feminist posts about the health care bill early this week. (It’s not a political list, it was really off topic, but when does that ever stop anyone?)

The first one was cheering because the bill prohibits insurance companies from charging women higher premiums. Of course, they do this because women get sick more and live longer, so women cost them more. In order to charge men and women the same and not go out of business, they will have to charge men more to cover women’s expenses. As usual, men are paying women’s bills for them. Hooray for the modern independent woman!

The second one was bitching because under the bill, women will still have to pay for their own abortions except in cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother. Isn’t that terrible? Women have to pay for their children to be murdered! What terrible oppression! It’s only just to steal money from men via taxes to pay for the women they date to murder their babies!

In addition, a little dust-up on a blog I discovered about a month ago is illustrating further how liberals really feel about women.

I wanted to link to this blog before, because she has a couple of pretty good anti-feminism posts, though comparing her antifeminism and mine is like comparing a fluffy little Persian kitten with a saber-toothed tiger. I didn’t because I figured some of my trolls might go bug her, and she was obviously quite distressed when she got a few flames a while back. Well, I needn’t have worried: she got a really vicious flame all by herself, and nothing any of my trolls have ever dished out remotely compared, and I think she coped pretty well.

Here’s the post. If you read it, you’ll see that she starts by expressing worry about how this bill is going to further wreck our already crumbling economy and about how having such a lousy politician for our first nonwhite president is likely to lead to a revival of racism, and what a bad thing this will be.

Then she spends the rest of the post talking about healthy habits, and refers to Greg Critser, a liberal who wrote a book called Fat Land: How Americans Became the Fattest People in the World. He must have had a google alert or something set up because he found the post in time to make the first comment:

I think you are perfect scum and the only thing that might help you is if you mated with a “mulatto.”
Please die an early death.

This is worse than any flame I have ever gotten. I’ve never had anyone actually tell me who to have sex with and say they wanted me dead.

He didn’t say exactly what he actually found so upsetting, but I’m going to assume he was pissed that she dared to mention that the health care bill is going to be a disaster. What’s of interest here is the attitude towards women this shows.

Notice that he says that “mating with a mulatto” is the only thing that “might help” her. He didn’t try to deal with her mind, to persuade her of the rightness of his belief (or pretended belief) that the bill is going to work out well. Heck, why should he bother with her mind? She’s only a woman! She hasn’t even asked what it would take to redeem her in his eyes, he simply appointed himself the arbiter of what she is obliged to the universe to do, and already he has ruled out any other possibility. What if she read every liberal bestseller for the last decade, worked on campaigns for Democrats, and vowed to believe that Obama is the Messiah? Nope, that wouldn’t help, off with her knickers.

To the feminists who lurk here: this is the way liberals see you. If you were ever to dare go off message, stating that one particular policy or one particular politician was a bad one, however manifest the evidence, you shall then be designated as “scum” and deserving of untimely death. The only way in which you might then redeem yourself is on your back. Liberals do not believe that you ought to have the right to choose your own sex partners, but that you are obliged to sexually service partners whose qualities prove your utter submission to the liberal cause. Withhold sex from a black man? Clearly you are racist!

He doesn’t seem to be alone, either. One of her readers, a man, went to Critser’s blog and chided him for such a nasty and brainless attack. Critser didn’t even say “I didn’t literally mean that she ought to be forced to have sex with a man chosen to my specifications and then die.” No, what he said was, “Let’s let everyone decide if you are scum. Here the [sic] post in question:” and then he quoted the first couple paragraphs, where she worried about the poverty and prejudice this bill is going to lead to.

A few of his readers commented, vaguely expressing amazement that anyone would be so deranged as to say that this bill isn’t going to turn the country into Utopia, but not in the slightest upset that this liberal is ordering a woman to sexually service a man not of her own choosing and die.

Not only was that not a reasoned argument against anything she said, apparently he believes that anyone he has classified as “scum” does not deserve to live, or to escape sexual violation. Remember that when you support liberal politicians, feminists: the minute you defy them, they see you as meat to be used sexually or put to death.

Do you remember last year when that Holocaust denier posted angrily on his own blog because I wouldn’t post his antisemitic comments here and he insisted that feminists were joining white nationalism in droves because of the high black-on-white rape rate? He’s still wrong, but this is the kind of thing that makes him think it’s likely to happen. Though I doubt this blogger will join him even though she has just been informed that she is obliged to allow a half-black man to use her body whether she wants to or not; she’s Jewish.



March 24, 2010

I found this amusing:

Men ‘live longer’ if they marry a younger woman

See? Men who marry younger women aren’t immature, they’re just concerned about their health!

Have I linked this before? I don’t think so: SAT Math Scores Reveal HUGE Gender Differences

No doubt the reason for this is “sexism”.

Virgin at 50: The Mailbag

I read about a 2007 U.S. Department of Justice study that analyzed the prevalence of sexual misconduct in state and federal prisons and found that the majority of perpetrators were female staff who sexually assaulted male inmates. (By law, prisoners lack the capacity to consent to sex with prison staff.)

Female prison guards would rather have sex with convicts than have sex with me.

I then took a walk around my neighborhood and was accosted by a homeless guy with his female in tow who begged for change for “me and my woman.”

The homeless guy is getting laid, but I’m not.

I own a business that provides jobs. I created those jobs out of nothing. I know how to create things, build things, and fix things. Without guys like me, females would be shivering in dark, dank caves, wondering why there’s nothing to eat.

Feminists say that I’m pathetic, which is like a tapeworm calling its host pathetic. I say that a society in which females value convicts and the homeless more than they value a man who creates jobs is not only a pathetic society but a dying society.

Let me be the first to spit on its grave.

And let me be the second. Feminists believe that beta males like you – and that term is not an insult, my good man – will continue passively providing all the services that make their lives so pleasant while they have fun whoring for criminals.

Revenge of the white men

Millions of white men who voted for Barack Obama are walking away from the Democratic Party, and it appears increasingly likely that they’ll take the election in November with them. Their departure could well lead to a GOP landslide on a scale not seen since 1994….

It’s no accident that the flight of white males from the Democratic Party has come as the government has assumed a bigger role, including in banking and healthcare. Among whites, 71% of men and 56% of women favor a smaller government with fewer services over a larger government with more services, according to ABC/Washington Post polling.

Obama’s brand of liberalism is exactly the sort likely to drive such voters away. More like LBJ’s than FDR’s, Obama-style liberalism favors benefits over relief, a safety net over direct job programs, healthcare and environmental reform over financial reform and a stimulus package that has focused more on social service jobs — healthcare work, teaching and the like — rather than the areas where a majority of job losses occurred: construction, manufacturing and related sectors.

This recession remains disproportionately a “he-cession.” Men account for at least 7 of 10 workers who lost jobs, according to the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Blue-collar men have suffered 57% of the job losses. And blue-collar white men, who make up only 11% of the workforce, constitute 36% of those who have lost jobs. In total, nearly half of the recession’s casualties are white men, having held 46% of all jobs lost.

In 1994, liberals tried to explain their thinning ranks by casting aspersions on the white men who were fleeing, and the media took up the cry. The term “angry white male” or “angry white men” was mentioned 37 times in English-language news media contained in the Nexis database between 1980 and the 1994 election. In the following year, the phrases appear 2,306 times.

On a similar note, from one year ago:

A top economic adviser to President Obama has told a congressional panel the billions of dollars in the proposed economic stimulus plan should be allocated with social issues in mind, to make sure the money doesn’t go to just “white male construction workers” or the highly skilled.

Robert Reich, who served as labor secretary under President Clinton, was speaking to the House Steering and Policy Committee Jan. 7 about funding infrastructure projects across the nation.

“It seems to me that infrastructure spending is a very important and good way of stimulating the economy. The challenge will be to do it quickly, to find projects that can be done that will have a high social return, that also can be done with the greatest speed possible,” Reich said.

“I am concerned, as I’m sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers,” he said.

Feminists will no doubt be furious at me for saying this, but white males are people too.

Gunmen Still At Large After Boy’s Frantic 911 Call

Authorities said Wednesday that they are “astounded” by the heroic actions of a 7-year-old boy who hid with his younger sister in a bathroom and called 911 while armed robbers broke into his home and threatened his parents.

Only 7 and he kept a cool head in a terrifying situation and probably saved the lives of his entire family.

Well, well, well.

March 22, 2010

I had intended to take a couple more weeks off, but two things happened. One you all already know about: socialized medicine has been forced, by quasi-legal means, down the throats of the American people.

Feminists, of course, are stupid enough to be delighted about this. The government has enslaved beta males even further for their benefit! Men want to be free because they know who’ll have to do the work if they’re not. Women want to get free stuff. There’s a difference.

Men consistently vote more for capitalist parties (Republican, Tory, etc.) because they are the ones who have to actually do the work and produce the goods that the government then seizes and redistributes to those who voted for them. For women, depending on work done by others is simply normal life. Married women are more likely to vote for less socialist parties because they know that it is their husbands who will be robbed. But in general, for women socialism is nifty. They still have a man providing services for them and supporting them, only since the man is Uncle Sam, they don’t have to offer benefits to any particular man in return. No fidelity, no housecleaning, no children; they can screw around, murder their children, and spend their days at a desk pretending to do a job that they got with the threat of litigation, and still men will provide for them.

(By the way, do read Roissy’s as usual excellent post about this.)

The other thing that happened was personal. Long-time readers know that some brutal real-life experience with women is what made me start to question the lies I had always been told about the nature of women, and of humans in general. Really, I likely would have gone on my merry way believing that women really were the enlightened, rational, achievement-driven, compassionate beings I had always been told they were – and wondering why the ones I encountered seemed so different from this ideal – if not for two women in particular, who gave me a practical demonstration. (Which I have since unfortunately confirmed in the research that I chronicle in this blog.)

I’m not going to inflict the sordid stories on you. Let me sum up by saying that, quite aside from the disillusionment about the fair sex these woman caused, they hurt me personally very deeply and very deliberately. And they knew it.

I haven’t heard a word from one of them in over a decade and the other in almost as long, which is how I want it. But a few days ago, out of the blue, one of them emailed me.

I wasn’t happy to see her name in my inbox, but I assumed that it was the long overdue apology she owed me. The last few times we talked, she had… sort of… acknowledged her responsibility, and even bragged about how guilty she felt.

Silly me.

It wasn’t an apology, it was an explanation. Two pages of blather all about her her her, telling me all about what a difficult time in her life that had been and why she had behaved as she did. Because, you know, after what she put me through and after all these years, what I really want is to listen to this little narcissist psychoanalyze herself.

It apparently didn’t even occur to her to take responsibility for her own actions; no, she had been helplessly buffeted by psychological forces beyond her control, which forced her to go to a great deal of trouble to make me miserable.

There’s a lot of comments, including some I approved the last time I posted, that I want to respond to, but it’ll take a while. I am still limited on time. My new job requires that I learn a lot of new computer software, which is eating up a lot of my time. So readers, please be patient with me. If you made comments that require replies, I’ll get to you as time allows.

Link dump

October 23, 2009

Putting girls in their place

This PUA post is about why alpha males are the only ones who can really keep women’s behavior in civilized bounds. Beta males and other women can’t do it.

This makes it all the more important for desirable males to whip girls into shape whenever they get out of control. First, they are less likely to call acceptable acts “misbehavior” because they aren’t competing with the girl, aren’t bitter or resentful — they have enough choices that one girl isn’t a drop in the bucket — and have no genetic stake in how she behaves. Ideally this would be her boyfriend or husband, but even they may not step up enough because they’ll incur a higher cost in the form of a potential strain on the relationship’s harmony.

Women’s suffrage over time By John R. Lott, Jr.

He’s the guy who wrote Freedomnomics, in which he demonstrated how allowing women to vote causes the expansion of government.

Every Feminist’s Nightmare?

Rumor has it that when Professor Walter Block presented a lecture at Loyola College recently in which he argued that free-market competition diminishes rather than exacerbates the male/female “wage gap” the entire College administration, and the majority of the economics department, collectively swooned. There are even reports that they all collapsed simultaneously on the same swooning couch.

The Socratic Ideal of Student-Teacher Sex

A feminist idealizes cougar teachers molesting boys:

But I envy the relationship those Greeks had, back when terms like “statutory rape” didn’t exist. It strikes me as so perfectly symbiotic: The beautiful blank slate of a student takes knowledge from his wise and wizened mentor, and in exchange gives the joy of fresh enthusiasm. And sex. I won’t be so flip as to ask “What’s wrong with that?” (Obviously, there are many unpleasant examples of the Socrates figure taking advantage of someone vulnerable and non-consenting.) But I will say that, in its idealized form, doesn’t that sound kind of nice?

The True Horror in Hitchcock Films

San Francisco’s actual Chief of Police now is an affirmative-action diminutive Chinese-American female from the accounting department who is the laughingstock of the police force. The rate of unresolved murder cases in San Francisco is so high that the city has tried, unsuccessfully, to solicit help by offering $100,000 rewards to people who would come forward with information.

At a loss, the city’s leaders elected what else but a transgender person, Theresa Sparks, as President of the San Francisco Police Commission. Mr./Ms. Sparks’ qualifications for the job consist in his/her managing a vibrator company which was recently running a special under the slogan, “August is Anal Sex Month; 15% off select Anal Toys.”

To bolster this team with some serious dose of law-enforcing testosterone, San Francisco got itself a female District Attorney who bestows additional glory on the city by being half Tamil-Indian and half-black. Kamala Davis Harris refuses to seek the death penalty for murder, which is the law of the land, plea-bargains murder cases, and fails to prosecute criminals arrested with firearms. San Francisco police officers take a dim view of this, what with their own being murdered by criminals that the District Attorney has failed to prosecute. But the need to keep their jobs muzzles their mouths.

Of late, Ms. Davis Harris has made the news due to her office’s failure to prosecute Edwin Ramos, a vicious Mara Salvatrucha gangbanger and illegal Honduran alien, who had been arrested on illegal gun possession charges, and then released instead of being at the least deported. One month later Mr. Ramos would be arrested for the murder of Tony Bologna, 48, and his sons, Michael, 20, and Matthew, 16. The murder weapon has since been linked to two other murders.

San Francisco’s metrosexual mayor is given to utterances like, “You know we’re the only city — I think we’re the only big city in America … there may be an exception or two … that women are running the Police Department, Fire Department and our emergency services. That’s why I feel so safe.”

Women once again demonstrate that they can’t be trusted with responsibility for other people. Allowing women to play at being police officers or D.A.’s is murdering the citizens of the city these women are messing around in.

A Surplus of Women Means Fewer Proposals and Shorter Skirts

Here’s something more positive: Edgar Rice Burroughs and Masculine Narrative

Women do not understand work.

October 21, 2009

I was saying yesterday that the demands for paid maternity leave show that women have no comprehension of the purpose of work. Women are designed by millions of years of evolution to entrap men into providing for them while they raise their children, and that’s what they do. They see getting the government to force companies to support them while they’re not doing any work as only natural. Imagine a man demanding that his employer pay his salary for months while he wasn’t working.

Women genuinely don’t understand that the money their employer gives them is in exchange for the work they do.

This is a big part of why women vote for socialist programs. (I’ve had that link in my sidebar for a while, but regular commenter Silly Girl recently gave it to me again.)

It’s on my mind because I was just on the phone with my mother. My maternal grandfather built his own company, made it by the sweat of his brow. I refuse to give credit for the things I have to imaginary feminist heroines; most of what I have, I owe to my grandfathers, who both worked their butts off.

It’s a small company, but it provided well for us. When Granddad was too old to keep running it, his only son took it over. My uncle ran it for several years after my grandfather died, until he himself died; he was too young to die, but he developed a major illness and lost his fight with it.

My uncle was married to an idiot woman who drives me up the wall. She is a flaming pinko. She worships Obama. She adored Clinton. She hates America and never hesitates to say so, though oddly enough she’s still here. And she worked, until her recent retirement, at a modestly paying government job. Meanwhile, the money my uncle made running his father’s company paid for her to travel to Europe every summer and decorate the house with piles of expensive knick-knacks. You wouldn’t believe some of the expensive crap she bought. She can’t cook at all, so they ate out literally every night. I was at her house a couple of years ago and she showed me the new bed she had bought. She told me how much it had cost, which was several thousand dollars, and then justified it by saying that she had been lusting after it for over a year and then one day discovered that it was on sale.

I didn’t find this out until fairly recently, because the younger generation is often kept out of this kind of dirty family laundry, but when my uncle was alive, he frequently had to borrow money from his father to make ends meet because of her extravagance. This was horribly humiliating to him and apparently he regularly told her to stop doing it, but to no avail.

For years their votes cancelled each other out. He would vote Republican – for the party that at least tries to preserve some capitalism and property rights – and she would vote Democrat. In other words, all those years she was voting against the freedom that made the luxury she lived in possible.

You’re probably wondering why he put up with it. He loved her. I don’t know why, but the heart has its own reasons. She wasn’t a very good wife, but he loved her anyway. This is why I’m always cordial to her even though I can’t stand her, out of respect for his memory.

Well, now that the Democrat socialist programs she spent all those years voting for have finally succeeded in destroying the economy, my grandfather’s company is dwindling away. There’s very little business, so she’s not getting much money out of it. Some of the employees had to be laid off. It’s only a matter of time before it has to be closed down.

She’s really dumb, so I’m sure she has zero comprehension that it’s her own crowd that have brought this about.

My uncle’s death hit us all really hard. He was a prince among men, and he was much too young to die. (I wish I could have given him my health.)

But my mother was just saying that she’s glad that he died before their father’s company went downhill like this. After all those years of work, for him or my grandfather to see this happen would have been terrible for them.

And my aunt, a civil service parasite who never did a lick of productive work in her life, couldn’t possibly understand what it would mean to them. Yet, she and millions like her were allowed a say in the policies which are now destroying what so many men like my grandfather and uncle worked so hard for so long to build.

In simple decency to men, we can’t allow women the privilege of voting for people who will destroy their life’s work. Even women they love.

Link Dump

March 16, 2009

Sacrificing our children

A while back, I blogged about the issue of our young people traipsing off to Third World countries to engage in various do-gooding activities. Now, just to clarify, I don’t object to doing good for people, although I think we’ve forgotten that charity begins at home. I do object to the trend of many parents who are apparently bereft of all judgment and common sense giving their blessing to their young daughters in particular going to dangerous Third World countries as volunteers, whether as church volunteers or Peace Corps volunteers. Yet I have a feeling that the administration’s vaunted ‘national service’ plans, which will apparently be mandatory for all young people, will send them to such dangerous environments….

So why does this go on? Why are there not more common sense measures to protect these people, or beyond that, why is there so little caution on the part of the young women themselves, or their parents? Why do parents whose minor daughters (and sons, for that matter) are going to these dangerous places not refuse their permission? I asked the mother of one such young woman why she was willing to let her daughter go to such a dangerous part of the world, but she was not at all concerned: the group leaders know what they are doing, she said, and besides the young people thought the locals to be endearing, childlike people who are not at all dangerous.

The young women themselves are driven party by feminist ideas of ‘I can do anything I want; I can do anything men can do’, and partly by the natural feminine desire to help and nurture people, especially people who seem to be pitiable and helpless, like most Third World people.

One of the young woman had her head turned by the attention she received from the native men, who made a fuss over her pretty blonde looks, and supposedly even proposed marriage to her.

In other words, though these young women believe themselves to be equal to men in all respects, they are naive and immature, though they no doubt have a heart for the less fortunate.

International Women’s Day

The first IWD was observed on 28 February 1909 in the United States following a declaration by the Socialist Party of America [emphasis added]. Among other relevant historic events, it came to commemorate the 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire. The idea of having an international women’s day was first put forward at the turn of the 20th century amid rapid world industrialization and economic expansion that led to protests over working conditions. By urban legend, women from clothing and textile factories staged one such protest on 8 March 1857 in New York City. The garment workers were protesting against very poor working conditions and low wages. The protesters were attacked and dispersed by police. These women established their first labor union in the same month two years later.

Read the whole thing.

Not at Home to Mrs. Self-Knowledge

Women think they’re in control of their emotions, but their ’emotional intelligence’ really means that they say whatever they feel without a thought to the consequences. It’s not ’emotional intelligence’, it’s ’emotional incontinence’. Men think ‘honesty’ is a considered opinion to which he sticks. Women think ‘honesty’ is changing her opinion as frequently her knickers because it is how she ‘feels’ at that second.

Which is why we fellas don’t think women are actually capable of understanding ‘principles’ such as the rule of law. So, when we say women are ‘equal’, it’s because we’re forced to by law and society. Very few men actually believe it.

“Women. They’re just not like proper chaps”.

It is with this in mind, that I look upon Harridan Harperson-Dromey. Just what does she think her “court of public-opinion” would do to her?

Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature

Women are another recently discovered “oppressed class,” and the fact that political delegates have habitually been far more than 50 percent male is now held to be an evident sign of their oppression. Delegates to political conventions come from the ranks of party activists, and since women have not been nearly as politically active as men, their numbers have understandably been low. But, faced with this argument, the widening forces of “women’s liberation” in America again revert to the talismanic argument about “brainwashing” by our “culture.” For the women’s liberationists can hardly deny the fact that every culture and civilization in history, from the simplest to the most complex, has been dominated by males. (In desperation, the liberationists have lately been countering with fantasies about the mighty Amazonian empire.) Their reply, once again, is that from time immemorial a male-dominated culture has brainwashed oppressed females to confine themselves to nurture, home, and the domestic hearth. The task of the liberationists is to effect a revolution in the female condition by sheer will, by the “raising of consciousness.” If most women continue to cleave to domestic concerns, this only reveals the “false consciousness” that must be extirpated.

Of course, one neglected reply is that if, indeed, men have succeeded in dominating every culture, then this in itself is a demonstration of male “superiority”; for if all genders are equal, how is it that male domination emerged in every case? But apart from this question, biology itself is being angrily denied and cast aside. The cry is that there are no, can be no, must be no biological differences between the sexes; all historical or current differences must be due to cultural brainwashing.

Boys are still top dogs
Research suggests that males will always dominate the highest ranks of IQ

"But men are still in chaaaaaarge!"

March 8, 2008

You hear some variation on that whenever a feminist discovers, to her horror, that there really are people out there who dispute feminism, not just the straw male chauvinists they usually complain about.

They ignore the facts about alimony, divorce settlements, wife-initiated divorces, and default mother custody. And sexual harassment lawsuits. And affirmative action type laws and lawsuits forcing employers to hire women despite lesser ability and higher absenteeism and maternity leave, etc. etc.

What they zero in on is this: Most of the CEOs, elected officials, judges, professionals such as doctors and lawyers, and clergymen are still MEN.

This is true. It’s because these professions require a highly competitive spirit that few women have, and a lot of sacrifices that few women are willing to make. Many women, for example, go through medical or law school and only practice their professions for a few years, or part time; there are more women with the mental ability to pass the exams than there are women with the temperament to work hard at the profession. Women slightly outnumber men, so if women really wanted women in public office more of them would be there, but that’s not how we’re voting. Feminists will come up with all sorts of excuses, like my feminist aunt explaining why she’s voting for Obama after years as a Hilary fan, claiming that this particular man is better qualified than this particular woman, but it happens so consistently that I think they’re lying to themselves. As for the clergy, most congregations don’t want to be led by women. No matter what people might say, instinctively they do not wish to be led by women.

So how did feminism gain so much power in a society which is still ultimately dominated by men?

Three things have given women as a group, as opposed to some individual women in high office or running corporations, a great deal of leverage in society. One is the vote, one is the way the Sexual Revolution (which decreased men’s motivation to get married) and the higher taxes caused by the welfare state have conscripted women into the work force, and the third is alimony.

The first has meant that men who want to get elected have to pander to women. They have to promise maternity leave laws, legal abortion, or whatever destructive thing women have taken it into their heads to want. (Well, what the power brokers behind the scenes have told women to want.) Republicans have lost a lot of elections because they’re still too sane and moral to do this really effectively, though you notice they haven’t dared to overturn default mother custody, Roe vs. Wade, or any of the other insane measures feminists have demanded.

The rise in working women and the widespread easy divorce with alimony has given women as a mass a lot of financial power. There aren’t many women on Wall Street or anything, but there are a lot of women buying stuff. Men may still be the CEOs, but to make that buck they have to provide stupid anti-male movies, misandristic commercials, magazines that tell women that nothing is ever their fault, as well as all the piles of clothes and makeup and doodads women buy by the truckload. The diet industry is one of the biggest in the Western world, and of course it’s mostly women who buy the latest fad diet book, aerobics video, or magic pill that will make them skinny. You’d think after a few decades women would start to wise up and realize that obviously most of these don’t work or there wouldn’t be so damn many of them, but we’re talking about women here.

And by the way, as long as I’m on this subject, the main reason for the rise in obesity, diabetes and hypoglycemia, as well as numerous eating disorders, is that women stopped doing one of their most important jobs: cooking. Before Women’s Lib, obesity was rare and disorders like anorexia and bulimia unheard of. In addition, other health problems, including many learning disabilities, are caused by excessive consumption of sugar, corn syrup, and food coloring. Many behavioral problems in children are caused by allergies to some of the chemicals in processed foods. Women who had been told that they should be out “fulfilling themselves” as wage slaves, or who were forced by the changed economy to work outside the home instead of taking care of their families, didn’t have the time or energy to cook. Consequently, fast food and prefabricated food in cans or mixes became a huge part of our diet. These foods are full of chemicals humans were never intended to consume, and are crammed with bad things like trans fats and simple carbohydrates. Traditional women were providing a vital service to society by cooking food instead of toxic chemicals for their families to eat. Now they’re trapped in dead-end drudgery while they and their families slowly poison themselves.

Very few individual women have very much power after four decades of feminism, but women as a mass have a dangerous amount of power. And that power is not being used for good.