As the exodus of well rewarded jobs leave our shores or evaporate as downsizing
efficiency marches onward, we are left with an inevitable conclusion. Life is getting harder, earning a livable income is
more difficult and the prospects for the future are less upbeat. Covering all the reasons for this shift - away from a secure
future - are continuous themes for pundits and reporters. The world is quite different from the fabulous fifties, when a father
could support a family without working overtime.
Today the rat race has become a segment on survivor. Eating rodents may not
yet be part of a steady diet, but there is no doubt that Big Macs are on the way out. Men are becoming endangered species
in the work place, because most are unwilling to toil for minimal wages. Women are more often single mothers and have far
less pride, when it come to feeding their brood, the end result of instant delight. The outcome of this kind of education
means increased females cashing a pay check, while more men flounder in a sea of sinking lifeboats. Drowning is the fate for
many men, their preserver can no longer keep them afloat.
Is this condition poetic justice as so many of those nurturing feminists would
have you believe or are the root causes for gender transposition a reversal of fortune designed to permanently alter political
The most striking movement in society is the ceaseless determination of the
State to protect it's own interest. They have the power, they will die to keep it. Expanding its reach and scope is the foremost
means upon which government preserves its dominance. The task of selling a beneficial character for a bureaucratic nightmare
is made relatively easy, when your subject operates upon an emotional compass. Is it really female bashing to state a factual
truth? Are women so insecure that they are unable to analyze their own genetic deficiencies? All too often the sad answer
is: they are . . .
Relying upon emotional shifts for making practical decisions is not an intellectual
basis for sound social policy. Can anyone really and honestly dispute that the predominant appeal, when selecting a candidate
for public office is based on principle, by either sex? If pragmatism was the standard, the public would vote for those who
can and would improve our mutual plight. But that is not the case. Women have a propensity to want a politician that will
make them feel better, and avoid those that offer authentic and practical opportunities to encourage them to earn a better
Earning is not the same as an after tax pay check. Securing personal prosperity
is not the proper role or function of government. It is the obligation of each person to make their own way in life. However,
the caretaker culture targets the female voter as the most likely candidate to buy the soap that politicians spew from their
platform boxes. The "goodie" bake sale has a very high cholesterol factor that often causes a communal cholera epidemic. Basic
support for an all encompassing administration for achieving egalitarian parity, is a fundamental flaw in womankind alignment.
Femininity impersonating as logic, causes political campaigns to offer cradle
to crypt promises. Deliberating upon pressing and determinative political policies, using a form of decision making that fosters
continual expansion of the State, is counter to the fundamental goals and aspirations of our founding country. The cohorts
that reconcile an ideology of socialism as advantageous to their gender, wage war upon their masculine brothers. Not just
those femi-nazis, even moderate feminists reject the natural partnership with men, when they cast their votes for 'pols' that
advocate the systemic emasculation of men from the workplace.
Denying natural, distinct and different roles between the sexes has caused
untold social discontent in the last fifty years. Collectivist politicians are the beneficiaries of the woman's movement,
and men have been paying the price for their unholy alliance. Do women truly believe that they have profited from their 'so
called' equality coming out party?
Career often means family is defined by a monthly support check. Exhaustion
and burn out are inescapable results from a culture that says you can have it all. The new age, free marketplace, international
interdependent corporate world wants women employees. They can still be intimated more easily, will work like a dog and mostly
lack the killer instinct to rise to the top. Men are now expendable, they have been replaced with a more docile robot model.
Men laboring in steelmills supporting families are becoming fond memories.
Women now sell more than cosmetics. Men are left to till the fields, lay the concrete, grease the cars and fight most of the
fires, while women appraise houses, analyze stocks, become judges and love being government administrators. Is our society
better off over the last half decade that introduced such equality?
Ask the politicians, they will say they are well worth their pensions! But
what about the disenfranchised family man who is labeled a bigot for challenging the all inclusion nanny state run by mothers
of the Oprah gender, that want it all to be free . . . fair . . .and equal? The class of women in congress are hardly an improvement
over the men demagogues, charlatans and scoundrels. Who elects them, any of them? More women voting translates into more prescriptions
plans, and day care for an entire society that has eliminated an independent work force. Now, government is the employer of
last resort and soon it will be the only well paying job available.
If you want earnest employment, rid the system of pandering professional politicians.
If you want personal self respect, keep the wives and purge the political process from feminist ideology. And if you want
society to return to the natural order, allow men to be men and not just a spectator at a WWE wrestling match. The connection
is evident and establishes a clear linkage in the decline of social institutions, stemming from the growth of big government.
Women vote overwhelmingly for inclusive policies, when the real solutions lie in regional and local self determination. Good
jobs vanish with every increase infusion of government intervention.
If the legacy of women in society is the NEA we all got gypped on our education.
Voters are not equal in the quality of their vote. The fourteenth amendment abolished the 'three-fifth' as applied to "original persons not free" for drawing districts. Too bad that our suffrage continues, because that concept
wasn't included and applied to voting in the 19th. Boys, the woman you date may well turn into the patron that runs the establishment.
Now answer, just how well is the current system doing? Lady Liberty has lost her way . . .
SARTRE - October 3, 2003