Feminists Want Money and Outcomes. A Response.

Someone declared March to be Women’s History Month while I wasn’t looking. Fine. I ignored Black History Month easily enough. But on the first day of this dubious period of reflection, Alia Dastagir wrote a list of Feminist demands entitled, “What do men get that women don’t? Here are a few things”

Eagerly, I read the piece, expecting to see some natural right unrecognized in women, which would be a terrible injustice. Or some state-sponsored restraint that women suffered but not men.


It’s just a list of demands that can be boiled down two categories: MONEY and OUTCOMES. Women already have all of the rights that men enjoy. They don’t suffer from the same legal or social restraints that men labor under.

But still, they want more things.

Roger Sterling gave us the proper response to the question of women wanting things:

But, let’s take a peek at this fresh list of terrorist demands.

Health: From gains to wait-and-see

Acknowledging women’s roles as primary caregivers, the 1977 conference named national health care as one of its federal priorities. In 2010, President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act, expanding coverage to millions of women, forbidding the denial of coverage based on gender and guaranteeing access to birth control, maternity care and breastfeeding supplies. The National Partnership for Women & Families called the ACA “the greatest advance for women’s health in a generation.” Trump and Republicans in Congress vow to repeal and replace it.


Yes, let’s ignore that 143-155% rise in cost of plans and the evacuation of major insurance providers like Aetna and UnitedHealthcare. Obamacare is failing because it ignored the most basic rule of insurance: Get as many people paying in as possible who are the least likely to require payouts.

Feminists don’t mind the health insurance death spiral because Obama gave them a handful of trinkets and gimmes, which further proves that feminists think in terms of short-term personal benefits and not long-term societal costs.

Sexual and domestic violence: Still too common

There is more awareness and condemnation of violence against women than ever before, yet statistics still paint a grim picture. One in 3 women have been a victim of some form of physical violence by an intimate partner, according to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and one in six American women will be the victim of an attempted or completed rape, according to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network. The Department of Justice reports that rates are even higher for transgender people and bisexual women.


For the sake of argument let’s pretend that the statistics presented are truthful (expecting feminists to tell the truth requires some suspension of disbelief). If one in 3 women have been a victim of some form of physical violence by an intimate partner, then that is a personal problem, not a societal problem. Unless the “intimate partner” (I like the way the author shoehorned lesbian relationships in with heterosexual relationships) clubbed a woman over the head and dragged back back to their cave, then the woman, by her own agency, picked the man who later beat her ass. The fact that 1 in 3 women have a propensity for men who whip women’s asses is an indictment on the self-destructive and irrational mentality of women, and not on any failure of the government or society.

In short, don’t want to get your ass kicked? PICK A BETTER DICK.

Paid family leave and childcare: Behind other countries

The United States is an outlier among developed countries when it comes to paid family and medical leave, which allows people time off to care for a newborn, help a sick family member or recover from a serious illness. The Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) provides up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave, but according to the National Partnership for Women & Families fewer than 40% of workers qualify for it. Some employers offer paid family leave, but the group says it covers only 14% workers. California, New Jersey and Rhode Island have implemented paid family leave laws and New York and the District of Columbia are in the process of enacting them.


Let’s boil this (paid family leave is) down to what it actually is: The employer is expected to continue paying you for not working. Feminists want something for nothing in exchange. And it does a disservice to women in general because it attaches an additional built-in cost (additional six months of salary to someone not working) to hiring/employing any potentially fertile woman that does not exist with a man.

Abortion was legal then and now. But …

Following the 2010 elections, more anti-abortion politicians seized power in state legislatures, leading to a proliferation of abortion restrictions across the country. State laws like Arkansas’ 48-hour waiting period create significant hurdles for rural and poor women, advocates say. There are only three licensed abortion providers in Arkansas, according to the state’s department of health. A limited number of clinics means a woman may have to travel long distances to access the procedure, and a waiting period means she incurs two days of transportation and lodging costs compounded by two days of missed wages, as well as two days of possible childcare (according to the Guttmacher Institute, nearly 60% of women obtaining an abortion are already mothers). Planned Parenthood says an in-clinic abortion can cost up to $1,500 in the first trimester.


“Seized power”? That’s a funny way of saying “won an election fairly.”

If abortion is that much in demand, why aren’t feminists building an abortion clinic on every block? Surely someone wants to get in on this emerging uterine scraping market? Abortion doctor too far away? No problem! “Get to your abortion facility of choice with our convenient Roe App! We’ll pick you up, take you to your appointment, and bring you back for a flat fee!”

Of course, that’s not what’s going to happen, because that would require the feminists to reach in their own pockets to produce a solution to a problem. No, their solution is to reach into the pockets of those who don’t agree with them (in the form of taxation) to pay for something that those people are personally and morally opposed to.

‘Equal pay for equal work’

The wage gap is narrowing, but has barely budged in the last decade, according to the non-profit Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR). Overall, women earn 80 cents for every dollar earned by men, according to the National Partnership for Women & Families, with black women earning 63 cents and Latinas earning 54 cents. Critics argue these figures do not reflect factors such as occupation or experience. One can’t, they say, compare the salary of a female teacher to that of a male lawyer. But economists say even when those controls are present, a wage gap persists. Female doctors, for example, are paid about $20,000 less a year than male doctors.


The Gender Wage/Pay Gap mythology has been generously and repeatedly dismantled here, here, here, and here. I will give it no more treatment here than this: Differences in pay, between men and women, is primarily due to the fact that men, in general, work more hours and take less time off of a job, than women. “Work-life balance” is not an argument that men are making often.

“Personal choices” is not an argument sufficient to satisfy feminists because, after all, “the personal is the political.” Like the domestic violence issue previously discussed, they must have political solutions to what are essentially personal problems. If employers will not give a female part-timer the same salary that a male full-timer makes, they will agitate for the law to force the employer to do so.

Political representation: At this rate, women will reach parity in 100 years

The number of women in politics is increasing — sluggishly. Women are 51% of the population, but make up 19% of Congress and only a quarter of state legislatures. Women are on course to reach parity with men by 2117, according to IWPR. Research shows women have different legislative priorities than men, and are more likely to introduce bills addressing the needs of women and children. Jennifer Lawless, author of Women on the Run: Gender, Media, and Political Campaigns in a Polarized Era, said the chief reason for unequal political participation is that women, perceiving bias, are less likely to run than men. When they do, she said, they are elected at the same rates.


Question: Why should men elect politicians who, in the authors own words, are less likely to advance their own interests than others? Why should a man vote for a woman who will “introduce bill addressing the needs of women and children” or whose “legislative priorities” exclude approximately half of the constituency? Chivalry is dead. Men are under no obligation to give up a seat on the lifeboat or subordinate their own policy goals to “women and children.”

If women perceive bias, therefore they don’t run, congratulations, your cowardice probably made you unsuited to run. Republicans running in majority-Democrat constituencies face “bias.” Democrats running in majority-Republican constituencies face “bias.” Whites running in majority-Black constituencies face “bias.” Blacks running in majority-White constituencies face “bias.” But in politics, having the fight is as important as getting the win. And today’s defeat might lay the groundwork for tomorrow’s victory (See: Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan).

Go soft-pedal this nonsense that women need their hands held through the bloodsport of electoral politics. You want to play? Bring your mouthguard and your cup.

Women are not a monolith

The 1977 women’s conference formed with bipartisan support, but in the decades since, women’s issues have grown increasingly politicized. Marjorie Spruill, author of Divided We Stand: The Battle Over Women’s Rights and Family Values That Polarized American Politics, said a major factor was the rise of a potent conservative women’s movement, led by activist Phyllis Schlafly, which denounced the feminist agenda and successfully mobilized to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment. The conference “made people really line up on extreme sides,” Spruill said. While feminists debated at the Houston Civic Center, conservatives held a dueling Pro-Life, Pro-Family Rally at the city’s Astro Arena.


Some women were disinclined to accept the poisoned fruit from Feminism, recognizing it for the empty promises and utopian delusions it held. These “conservative” women, to put it bluntly, recognized “Eve’s Great Con Game” and that there is more to be gained from obtaining time and leisure, and raising her children, using the resources of a grateful and compliant (some even shoot for loving) man, than using her own time to get resources on her own.

No, women are not a monolith, but Feminists are, or wish they could be one by gathering #YesAllWomen into one monolithic, proletariat“oppressed” class to fight The CapitalistsPatriarchy.

Archived Source


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s