Welcome to my blog!

Mehdi

I have two main problems with the Pickton verdict. With two of the victims, other men's DNA was found in the remains of their teeth NOT Willie Pickton's. The obvious interpretation is those girls were snuffed in a forced oral sex act, and the killer was not Willie Pickton. It is plain unfair to convict Pickton on those two counts.

With the woman whom the witness Ellingsen testified she saw being butchered by Willie Pickton, none of her remains have been found. How can anyone be charged with murder when there is no corpse to prove the missing person is dead? With no corpse, it needs dozens of impeccable witnesses totally united on every point of time, place and manner of death to convict for murder, not the tainted and unreliable testimony of one witness.
It's the classic philosophic conundrum: 'Alcibiades the Cretan says all Cretans are liars!' Where does that leave you? It's a curiosity! And the Ellingsen testimony was similar. What credence can you attach to a witness who says she saw an acquaintance being butchered, and just took drug money from the butcher: She did not go to the police. Her word is worthless. If she saw a girl being butchered, she should be jailed 10 years for failing to report it. If she was lying, she gets 3 years for perjury. Maybe that'll shake the truth out of her.

Al Capone was jailed for life on a charge of income tax evasion. He could not be convicted of murder. We just have to be satisfied with that. We can't play fast and loose with the law for the sake of closure. If Pickton were found guilty on 2 or 3 counts of manslaughter, he would still go to jail.

Killers, and very nasty people, are still out there.

* * * *

Happy New Year Everyone!

Bangs for the Buck!

You may have noticed I have a rather exalted notion of the place of a homemaker allowance in the scheme of things. We no longer believe in religion as a society, so to a considerable degree, we religiously believe in our entitlements. Health care and education, disability and old age pensions, unemployment insurance, holidays and job safety: These define us as people. And a homemaker allowance screams what kind of people we want to be, in what kind of world.

We work~not to serve the corporations~but to have nice homes. Family and home are the final end of our efforts, for most people. Well, Let's go for it! A home has to be made by somebody~Let's call them homemakers~and give them an allowance. Let's get our priorities straight. For the last forty years, every effort has been made to get women into the workforce, leaving one-income couples to fend for themselves, treated with benign neglect and subject to petty harrassment. Well, let's facilitate breadwinner and homemaker couples, and treat working couples to benign harrassment.

Promoting the one involves marginalising the other. We can't have it both ways. So an entire thought world starts to take shape around a homemaker allowance.

* Assume $300 a month for a basic homemaker with increments for any children or invalids they care for.
* Cancel survivor's pensions for working spouses to pay for it.
* Child allowances to be folded into the homemaker allowance: It is madness giving child allowances to working couples. We don't want working couples, so why subsidise them?
* Spousal inheritance rights to be limited in future to breadwinners and homemakers: the meaningful essence of a marriage.
* Breadwinners to have priority in the workforce: working couples coming last: and singles in between.
* Homemakers focussed on part-time jobs with no benefits: They're covered by their breadwinners'.
* No more talk about subsidised daycare: usually provided by homemakers.
* No more full-wage govt jobs to single girls. It's a policy of national suicide: desexing our young women.
* Stop encouraging women to expect equal representation anywhere. Women's equality is not to be confused with racial equality.

So we are looking at a radically reformed society, all on a voluntary basis. Nobody is obliged to take the allowance! But with millions of homemakers (mainly women of course) looking for part-time jobs with no need for benefits, the opportunities are golden. Quite how matters will shake down is anyone's guess: especially for single career women. They will be really scarce.

The economy cannot generate full-wage jobs for everyone. Young people go to school and live at home into their thirties. Employment conditions in the private service economy resemble peonage: Young people hold 2-3-4 jobs, on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, just to pay the rent! So the greater need is to allocate the few good jobs available on a rational basis i.e. one per family, let's say to the breadwinner.

Let's stop digging ourselves into a hole, and put more effort into getting out of it!

P.S. Happy Christmas, you all! I nearly forgot! And Hannukah and Ramadan, where appropriate. And let's not forget jolly old Saturn! He started it all. Remember?

The Feminist Revolution

Any attempt at separating the sheep from the goats is resisted by the goats. I want a homemaker allowance to validate middle class society. The media disallow any mention of the concept. I want an honest, smooth-running society: The goats want a free ride. And the sheep want to bleat.

The Feminist revolution defines the terms of our existence: Winners and Losers

a) Feminism was good for property values: Working couples pushed up the price of housing
b) Feminism undermined union power: Fighting men cannot fight women
c) Feminism was good for government workers: They could double up
d) Feminism was good for pensioners: They could get double pensions
e) Feminism was good for management: a heirarchy of mixed humans needs more management than a team of men
f) Feminism empowered groupies and no-lives, and immobilised couples with children

The big winners were management and rich property owners. Pensioners and govt workers were bought off. Ordinary middle class homeowners marked time. Anyone not in the property market, and future generations, lost heavily. But the really big losers were couples wanting good homes for their children.


WOMEN'S EQUALITY AND RACIAL EQUALITY


Let's say Feminism is 90% scam and 10% feeble-mindedness. (Hey, It's Christmas, OK!) A retard could honestly confuse women's equality with racial equality.

The key difference is that races are whole populations while men and women women are parts of a population.

black people = white people
black men = white men
black women = white women
black children = white children

It is loonie tunes to suggest black women should have parity with white children; or black men with black children; or white women with white men.

Who are valuable govt jobs to go to? This is the bottom line. Racially disadvantaged men or privileged women? Racist white men would rather govt jobs go to privileged white women than to disadvantaged black men. When Feminists demand more firefighters should be women, I say again, they are performing the base role of scab for the most nauseating element imaginable. (Keep calm uncle! It's Christmas!)

A black man with a wife and kids to support has to be able to bump a single white girl out of a govt job. That's self-evident. Carry on from there.

The solution has something to do with the ideal of completion: people realised to the fullest possible extent: individually and collectively. Equally fully-realised, racial groups would have similar occupational/wealth structures. Fully-realised, men and women would have different structures: Most women would be homemakers with part-time jobs, and most men would be breadwinners with full-time jobs. That is the main sense in which women are the equals of men. It just needs a little fine-tuning.

Female labour is still as generally socially-undesirable as child labour. Because a child or a woman can do a job is no reason for them to do it. They may be hurt by it. Let's focus on getting ourselves out of the hole, instead of digging ourselves deeper into it. We want a homemaker allowance. To be continued.

The Pickton Trial

In the case of Willie Pickton, accused of killing 6 of the 50 women who have disappeared from Vancouver's east side, the remains of 30 turning up on his farm, the trial having concluded, while the jury is retired, let me state for the record. My verdict:

4 acquittals
2 manslaughter

I do not believe the Ellingsen witness who said she saw Pickton butchering a girl whose remains have not been found. There's no proof she's dead even. That's an acquittal.

The DNA of other men was found in the teeth of two of the victims. They are more likely to be the killers than Pickton. Two more acquittals.

Two girls' blood DNA was found in Willie Pickton's trailer. Likely manslaughter given the circumstantial evidence.

With the remaining girl, the circumstantial evidence against Pickton is too weak to support a conviction. As with the first three above, it's the same circumstantial evidence! Without any hard evidence, that's another acquittal.

Killers and very nasty people are still out there! Police and crown counsel want to slam the door on Pickton and forget all about them. They mustn't be allowed to get away with it, any more than Willie Pickton. He was certainly a knowledgable bit player on the sidelines of some disgusting business.

Anyway, that's my prognosis.

The important issue as far as this blog is concerned is the female lawyers in the crown counsels' office. They are disposed to believe any accusation against a man: the wilder the better. Ellingsen had them eating out of her hand: She saw through them a mile off. Any girlie put through law school at daddy's expense, unemployable in the private sector, can get a job in the crown counsels' office. They are a stock joke; like the female eunuchs in the Castrating Broad Corporation. They have just wasted $100m of public money, and ruined any chance of catching the culprits.

The sooner we get the workforce back on a regular footing the better.

Ecraser L'Infame

Overall, the special feature of our dilemma is the collapse of Protestantism, which has left our warriors without a unifying principle. For 300 years until the 1960's, the Protestant work ethic was the pounding heart of European confidence. And it has gone! Leaving our alpha males discombobulated. The centre has collapsed. And into the vacuum are being drawn all manner of illicit elements: notably the corporate media.

My dream is that a homemaker allowance will substantially fill that void left by the collapse of Protestantism: the breadwinner and homemaker marriage being the central fact of worthwhile existence.

Purposeful thought is the responsibility of a society's warriors. To an extent, a society IS what its warrior males will kill and die for. And a society lacking a confident warrior class gets taken over and trashed for the fun of it. WE~the modern, middle-class, christoid West~are being trashed because we allow ourselves to be trashed. WE create the trashing process, not the elements that trash us: Feminists, media, corporations and minority types. They have no real existence: They are only what they can get away with being.

It does not matter who is taking us for a ride: how or why the media are taking us for a ride. The answer is always, We let them! We are the problem, not the runts who trash us. The tendency to put the boot in is universal. That's the runt in all of us.

(Incidentally, there is a bible commandment here. 'Thou shalt not seethe the kid in its mother's milk': a metaphor, You must not add insult to injury. You must not succumb to that temptation to take advantage of people who are in a position to be taken advantage of.)

You may object I am only addressing the symptoms of a rotten society: that getting rid of working couples, and bringing back breadwinner and homemaker couples, will not cure our malaise. But you may have the symptoms of flu~the stuffed up nose and itchy cough~without the flu. You still have to relieve the symptoms.

Similarly a pampered government class is always a symptom of a rotten society. Ottomans, Hapsburgs, Romanovs: They all coddled their government workers. Like the emperor system in old China floating on a cloud of eunuchs. Trudeau humiliated every honest man and woman in Canada with his indulgence towards the Post Office workers. Wasn't that his intention?

Similarly in South Africa under apartheit: The Boers all got jobs as bus drivers and municipal employees. If apartheit had been honest, those servant-class jobs would have gone to the blacks. Apartheid was always a scam. That was how the honest Boers lost control of their country.

I can't go into the details of a homemaker allowance: the tax angles and child benefits. That's not my forte. Just get the wagon train rolling, and fix the wheels as they fall off. Like unemployment insurance, the allowance will never be finalised. My contribution is to locate the idea at the heart of honest, 'middle-class' civilisation.


P.S. 'Anonymous': I also misspelled Pickton; but thanks for the thought.

intermezzo

When I say Feminists are being exploited as black labour to break the men~Which is the nicest thing you will read about Feminism in this blog~please remember: For the last thirty years, I have been polite and got nowhere. I can't mince words anymore. It's only their gender that stops them from being told what they are. Feminists are scabs! Happy now?

On planet Reality, if you go from a system where it takes a man's wages to support a family, to a system where it takes a husband and wife both working full-time to maintain the same family, the standard of living has been cut in half. On planet MediaSymbol, it is called Women's Equality! On planet Reality, it is called peonage.

The introduction of women into the workforce did not raise the standard of living but cut the value of wages. When women's incomes were added to men's for mortgage purposes, the price of housing went through the roof. And it now takes two incomes to realise the same standard of living one could achieve before. Where once a house represented 8 years of one man's savings, now it represents 30 years of two people's savings. The same house costs 7 times as much! when private home ownership is a staple of middle-class life, like bread almost.

Until the Feminist makeover, wages and prices were based on men as breadwinners and women as homemakers in single-income households. Men had a right to high wages, not as men, but as breadwinners with wives and families to support. And it is a try-on for Feminists to demand parity for women as singles and second-wage earners.

Feminism is such a blatant con, it is terrifying to think how they got away with it. Western society has to have failed at every point, and every organised element in it. But that's for another blog. For the nonce, the way out of the mess is a homemaker allowance. We don't want the media leading us by the symbols. We want reality!

Anti-Feminist Psycho-Babble

1. Employment masculinises. A boy with a well-paid job gets a car, a girl, a house and a family. When you masculinise a boy, you get a man. When you masculinise a girl, you get a female eunuch. Frontline employment simplifies matters for boys but complicates them for girls. Young single men were always allowed a grace period as potential breadwinners: fast-tracked to maturity: allowed the high-paying jobs that properly belong to breadwinner males. Whereas young single women allowed high-paying jobs are fast-tracked to old maids: effectively sterilised.

A homemaker allowance won't finally resolve this or any other problem, but it should contain it. Recognition of the breadwinner and homemaker entity implies priority for breadwinners in the workplace, with homemakers taking part-time jobs. Quite how singles will be affected is obscure.

Single men in management and the professions were always expected to do voluntary work as a condition of employ-ment. That could be a rule. Young women dislike that extra workload. These things were always done unofficially.

2. Castration complex. Life consists in an urge to grow into full, upright, responsible adults; as opposed by an anti-life urge to shrivel back into stunted no-lives: what Freud called the castration complex. A most confusing name! It is essentially infantile in nature: confined to Number One. An infant has no awareness of anything not tending to it. As it grows up, it becomes aware of other existence. But what happens if it doesn't grow up? It denies the existence of things in their own right. Everything is what the infant thinks it is. It denies the essential difference between men and women, and between sex and masturbation. And the male orgasm of course.

3. Anal types believe in symbols. A twink will take his girl friend to a gay bar: He still believes in heterosexuality. He will have sex with his boyfriend while his girlfriend watches: He still believes in the symbol. He sees a young mother going to work with her kids in daycare, and thinks it's women's equality. He thinks a pokey one bedroom apartment is superior to a spacious studio, and pays as much for it! The market price for a 450 square foot one bedroom apartment is the same as for a 1000 square foot studio. Guess which the market provides! The corporations love them. Twinks rule!.

4. Twinks like women. In passing I have to say: It is not a sign of healthy sexual development for a man to like women, if anything, the opposite. A really straight man feels degraded if his wife has to work. He wants to protect and provide for his woman. Whereas a pimp puts his woman out to work. Government workers arranged jobs for their wives when women achieved 'equality', marginalising the alpha males.

Once you go down that line~that men like women~you end up ruled by the silliest twink on the block: who most defers to women, who takes the most garbage from women. He is the most heterosexual! We need an alternative concept of the relationship between men and women, based not on feelings but a division of labour. Which is not to say you can't have feelings as well.

The only people who are happy in a non-sexual male/female environment are twinks and their pre-sexual girl-friends. Everyone else wants men and women in reciprocal roles. We are re-structuring the workplace for the benefit of an immature phase, making maturity a liability.

5. Female eunuchs. 1-2% of live-births are sexually unfinished either as males or as females. They have a kind of ingrowing penis (Spare us the details!) and are usually classed as females. So some 3% of apparant women are more like 'female eunuchs' as they have been called. They cannot make it either as men or as women in a world of men and women. So whereas sane people want the male/female thing to work~Which is how I see the breadwinner and homemaker marriage: the essence of the male/female relationship~female eunuchs don't want men and women to succeed.

Any hint of gender denial is close to insanity. If a man dresses as a girl at Halloween, that's fun. But if he takes it seriously, he is whacko. Once you deny the complementary natures of male and female, each incomplete in itself, joined in a mutually beneficial supportive/dependant relationship, there is no end to the lunacy.

6. Our Anal Media. Simplest explanations are best. A mental age of sixteen is needed to appreciate the breadwinner and homemaker marriage; and the media have a mental age of six. Somehow the media are stuck in the 'anal' stage: Everything is Number One. And a breadwinner and homemaker are not two Number Ones. They do not seek completion individually but in a union. And that is outside the media 'box': The anal mind cannot fathom that concept.

To the infant brain, a breadwinner is one thing, and a homemaker another: like a librarian and a lion tamer. And the people most afflicted are those with the highest IQ's. Educated women's brains come to a halt when they think of an argument. Finished! The argument is the conclusion.

If there is a particle of validity to the concept of a breadwinner and homemaker marriage, then the entire Feminist proposition, as it has been touted by the media this last forty years, is a scam.

Part-Time Work

I envisage homemakers taking the allowance and part-time jobs. I can see 8 million Canadian women (and nineteen men) accepting the allowance, 6 million of them with part-time jobs. Why the opposition to part-time work?

I dropped out in the late Sixties to write up an insight, and spent the next forty years looking for a part-time job I could live on. Some hope! (I eventually found cab driving.) Huge numbers of mothers and housewives would prefer part-time work. Old age pensioners and people with disabilities. Students, artists and athletes in training. Hedonists (bums). Probably 70-80% of the adult population would prefer part-time work, or would appreciate the option. The corporations can only treat part-time workers as garbage. The unions just want to ban part-time work. Can we please talk sense and try to rationalise the concept!

India and China must not make the mistake made by the West in abandoning the nuclear family. No economy can provide everyone with a full-wage job. For the foreseeable future, most third world economies will be based on subsistence farming supplemented with some seasonal and part-time work; and it has to be rationalised. Economies need a low cost labour component; and the key to the solution is for homemakers to work part-time, their benefits (and status) being met by their bread-winner spouses. They are not an exploited, immoral lower class.

The West is stoking up this vast inferno of entitlement because working wives are allowed double pensions (OK and a few men) and then sucks in cheap immigrant labour to feed the flames. Well, let's try to develop an alternative.

Why Equality?

We can't have both. Either we go with working couples, or we go with the nuclear family. Promoting the one involves marginalising the other. The corporations and the media put working couples first. I put working couples last, and seek to promote breadwinner and homemaker couples. That is the object of this blog.

When the issue is presented in those terms, there is little room for discussion. The merits of the single income marriage are obvious. So the issue is never presented in those terms. The media will allow no mention of the breadwinner and homemaker arrange-ment. It is thought crime. Politically incorrect.* Instead the discussion revolves around women's equality. And I haven't a clue where to go from here. There are doors opening everywhere. Let's try this one.

What Does Equality Mean For Women?

The Anglo world has been fixated with 'equality' since the Black Death in the mid 1300's. The only defence against mass extermination was the nuclear family: a farmer and his wife working their private farm, living private lives, supporting their immediate family, keeping to themselves. They would often survive the plague, while villagers living and working the village lands together succumbed in droves.

Somehow the farmer and his wife were the righteous people, and villagers and nobles were tainted. The private farm took over from the manor as the basis of socio-economic life. People became individuals and not class tokens: They acquired surnames. And for six hundred years, the whole logic of social progress was towards that end. Middle class people were empowered ~their values prevailed~while the lower and upper classes were disadvantaged.

So equality for women means primarily being a farmer's wife: There is an inherent equality between bread-winner and homemaker that just needs a little tweaking. They mutually support each other and depend on each other, performing complementary tasks: forming a reciprocal relationship greater than the sum of the parts. They seek completion not in themselves but in a partnership. The concept is fair and square: It just needs a little fine tuning.

Most importantly I suspect, the homemaker role needs to be recognised as such. Which is the first function of an allowance: It says, Thank you! An allowance isn't just money. It's a token of appreciation. Given the option, huge numbers of women would prefer to be home-makers, revolutionising the domestic scene and the workplace.

The important thing is for men and women to pull together and not against each other. If women pull against the men as equals, we'll get nowhere. Somehow this teensy point gets overlooked.

The media only talk the symbols. Here on this blog, we talk reality.

*If you doubt me, YOU try broaching the issue.

Attn: Generations X and Y

When I was growing up in the Sixties~If you can overlook the oxymoron~there were some 15 people in the workforce for every pensioner, who enjoyed a pretty modest lifestyle. Today we are approaching 3 people working for each pensioner, who enjoys an elevated lifestyle. You guys have to slash the pension obligations Trudeau dumped on you, to get himself re-elected.

Firstly you eliminate survivor's pensions for working spouses. As per my opening blog, they are an illicit inducement to get women to scab. Only homemaker spouses are entitled to survivors' pensions, as a reward for foregoing their own careers.

Now let me run this one by you. If an old-fashioned breadwinner husband works to support his wife, who similarly works as an unpaid homemaker to support him: and the husband retires and gets a pension to maintain him and his wife: and the husband dies: his wife continues to receive his pension as his surviving spouse, but takes a one third cut. All's fair and aboveboard so far.

But suppose the wife dies first, should not the husband also take a one third cut? The pension was designed for two people. Or if his wife works in her own right and does not depend on him financially, he should take a cut. Or if he has no spouse to share his pension with, he should take a one third cut.

So that a retired working couple, instead of each receiving a whole pension, would each receive two-thirds of a pension. And when their partners die, retired working spouses, instead of receiving one and two thirds pensions, would receive just two-thirds of a pension. (Similarly with working wives and gay couples: I'm trying to keep it simple. And it would only apply to CPP and pensions that are assumed by a surviving spouse.)

There are economies to be realised in recognising the breadwinner and homemaker marriage. I noted in the opening blog that it costs more than $1000 a day to keep an old person in an institution, when millions of homemakers would love to care for their old parents and infirm relatives, with just a little support and encouragement.

It's recognition and appreciation that homemakers crave, as much as the money. Corporate policy is to encourage women in the workforce with breaks and advantages, while leaving homemakers to fend for themselves. I propose we encourage the homemakers, and leave working women to fend for themselves. We admit women into the workforce as equals when they are truly up to it in all senses. If we put half the effort into the breadwinner and homemaker family that we spend trying to get working couples to fly, we might get off the ground.

And please do not ask if I voted for Trudeau in 1968. I shall smash your eardrums with the loudest scream in history.

Women In The Workforce

If I lose my cool in this blog and start raving that women in the workforce are useless, try to remember this: A team of eleven men and one woman may be as effective as a team of twelve men; but an outfit of six men and six women is a disaster. One woman on a team functions as a kind of mascot bringing the men together and making the team more productive and gung-ho. All the great women in history played this role. Margaret Thatcher for example was the only woman in her cabinet.

But women do not form teams among themselves, or with men, in any way comparable with men's teams. Regularly it takes a supervised heirarchy of scores of mixed humans to get a job done the woman's way that would normally be done by a self-regulating team of a dozen men. The mixed humans expect to be paid as much as the men, and the supervisors get paid most. That's the corporate style. The media call it Women's Equality.

If I undergo meltdown and start raving about women in the workforce, it is mainly to these sterile heirarchies that I object: They are a pathetic substitute for men's teams. We now have women working in the liquor stores, so there are security guards. I don't call that doing the job!

Here in Vancouver at the time of writing, the Picton trial is entertaining us: accused of murdering many of the 50 or so women who have gone missing in Vancouver, the remains of some 30 being found on his pig farm. It is a tremendously emotive case: like the Air India trial. But there is simply no case for murder against him, and never was. (I'm gonna look stooopid if he's found guilty.)

The crown counsel's office here in Vancouver, like all institutions that have been feminised, is useless. They have no idea of teamwork: of prosecution and defence each playing its part. They want to be prosecution and defence and police and judge and forensic expert. Female eunuchs want to be everything, and detest being left out of anything. Notably, the prosecution put on the stand the dream defence witness, a friend of Picton's who lived on the farm throughout the disappearing season, who testified the buildings on the farm were never locked, and with people coming and going all the time, there was no privacy: not a likely scene for mass murders and human butcherings. But I digress. He was hardly cross-examined. The defence weren't going to challenge him, neither could the prosecution. Fortunately his testimony wasn't obviously tainted. But it's no way to run a trial.

The retarded smelly millionaire pig farmer has friends, dozens of them, who stand by him, though he's accused of an horrendous offence in a great public media show trial, costing millions. Random observation.

(Just in passing: Did anyone else pick up on this? Public cock fights were being held on the Picton farm in suburban Vancouver, just like Haiti and remote tribal areas of Indonesia. There's multiculturalism for you! That'll bring in the tourists! One objection to cock fighting is that once people delight in blood thrills, they crave sweeter delights, like snuffing girlies maybe. Did nobody see the connection?)

I want a homemaker allowance used to reshape the workforce. There are some 3 million classic homemaker wives in Canada today with breadwinner husbands. We have a labour force of 15 million out of a population of 30 million. If 5 million women take the allowance, more than half the workforce would be affected by its terms: the breadwinners prioritised for the high-paying jobs, with homemakers back in support with part-time jobs: their benefits being covered by their breadwinner spouses. The remaining singles and working couples would fall between.

Most notably of course we can clean up the public sector: some 3 million jobs. It was never allowed for a husband and wife each to have government jobs before Feminism.

I regard a fireman's wife as the equal of a fireman. I regard lady firefighters as twaddle. A woman does not have to be a firefighter to be the equal of a firefighter. A lady nurse is the equal of a fireman. A lady firefighter is a wannabee: a nuisance exploited by the runt males to antagonise the alpha males. That's the line you'll see developed if you continue to watch this blog.

What Have We Done?

We exchanged a 1300 square foot studio apartment for a 300 square foot one bedroom. The lady wanted a one bedroom apartment: She thought they were nicer than studios. The men defer to their ladies' wishes. And we got sold a dump. We Believed In Women's Equality and Got Sold Working Couples. We went from single income households to two incomes, with no matching rise in the standard of living.

The introduction of women into the workforce did not raise the standard of living but reduced the value of wages.

To appreciate the mess we are in, recall the Sixties. Wages and benefits were based on men as breadwinners, and women as homemakers, in single-income households. Men had a right to high wages because they had wives to support: The men were empowered. But the corporations resent empowered working men, and determined to exploit the women's movement to break them. Feminism fitted the corporate agenda: that men had no special right to high wages. The corporate media backed Feminism. And the rest is herstory. The pheminists phucked the alpha males off the phace of the earth, and the runt males can't stop sniggering. Yippee for Pheminism!

The key to the situation is the single-income marriage, which has to be recognised as such. Always it was assumed in the definition of marriage as a union of husband and wife: which is only valid as an approximation to the breadwinner and homemaker arrangement. So we can either change the laws of marriage, which would be highly confrontational. Or we can opt for the practical approach: a homemaker allowance.

In all the discussion of gay marriage, it never gets mentioned that gay couples are only a minor theoretical problem. The great practical problem is working couples. The issue is not whether to extend spousal benefits to gay couples but how to cut them off to working couples. Working couples are the disaster not gay couples. Working couples mean wretched homes, abused children, neglected seniors, exploited women and marginalised men. In a word: peonage. That's the direction we're headed. And it's time we took stock of the situation.

Where Is The Money Coming From?

Generations X and Y take note. Cancel survivor's pensions for working spouses! Anyone with a job in their own right, with its pension, has no right to a second pension as a spouse. That is double-dipping! The worst example is government workers having cosmetic dentistry, and putting half the cost on their own dental plan, and the other half on their spouse's plan, to achieve 100% coverage on cosmetic dentistry. That's fraud! The principle is that anyone with a benefit in their own right cannot repeat the benefit in another's right. And the same applies to survivor's pensions for working spouses. Cancel them!

(And please do not suggest it is OK for working wives to keep their husbands' pensions because men can similarly have their wives' pensions. That is like saying you can cheat because I can cheat. Women live longer than men, and marry older men with greater incomes, so the net result is a massive illicit transfer amounting to a bribe. It's a corporate policy of paying women to scab.)

I met an Indian lady recently whose mum had suffered a stroke and had to be institutionalised. The daughter was devastated because she had a close relationship with her mother, and wanted to care for her, but couldn't manage financially; and no help was available. We as a society will spend $1000 a day on institutional care, but we can't arrange $1000 a month for the daughter to care for her mother. Money, money, money. Those are the values we need to examine.