Sucker! You Bought It! Sucker!

What have we done with 'women's equality'? We have gone from a system where one man's income was sufficient to raise a family, to a system where a husband's and wife's joint incomes are needed to raise the family. The standard of living has been cut in half since the Sixties. More than half actually, because we no longer have the nice homes and services and safe parks and playgrounds that depended on at-home mums.

Far worse in my opinion, young people are no longer being fast-tracked to maturity, but kept in dependancy: distracted with glitzy fabrications: all the while the corporate media giving us this rigmarole about 'wimminz eekwollitee wimminz eekwollitee'. Always the symbol: Never a word about the reality of working couples.

We have been sweet-talked out of our birthright. We had a champion 2400 square foot studio apartment. And some real estate sharpie talked us into trading it for a one bedroom apartment. So much nicer! Anyone would rather have a one-bedroom apartment. Studios are so confining. One bedroom apartments are much nicer: They offer superior life-styles. And we sold up, and bought the one bedroom. And it's a dump. It's 400 square feet. The living room is smaller than our old bathroom. The so-called 'bedroom' is a windowless cupboard smaller than the old can. (Remember when the can was separate from the bathroom?) And we bought it. Sucker! You bought it!

The entire 'women's equality' argument was couched in those terms. Do we believe in women's equality or do we think women are inferior? There was no mention of family: just the symbol. We were sold women's equality, but we bought working couples.

Go back to the Sixties. The unions were coming on strong, drawing much of their power from the idea that men as breadwinners were entitled to good jobs. The corporations determined to exploit women to break the men. Working couples were good for the economy. Two-income households increased the price of housing. Govt workers could double up. Pensioners could double-dip. Feminising the workforce required more management. Working couples are a social disaster. Feminism suited all the great anti-social interests: management, property values, govt workers, pensioners, minorities. Media social control consists in focussing on symbols to the exclusion of reality. And anyone who objects gets steamrollered.


A PRIMER IN POST-SEXUAL PSYCHO-BABBLE


Male is sexual life. Male is good. Male is sanity.
Neuter is castration. Neuter is evil. Neuter is insanity.
Female is a balancing act between male and neuter (in the words of Simone de Beauvoir). Everything female tends to neuter; the female being held in balance by the male.

The whole force of life is towards completion: Growing up. As opposed by an opposite force to grow back down. Which Freud called the castration complex. You start as an infant aware only of your own needs: Everything outside of you is a blur. As you mature, you become aware of the reality of the outside world and want to join in. As opposed by a tendency to hold back and think the pre-formed self is perfect.

Growing up is like putting a satellite into orbit against the gravitational pull of selfishness. The male tends to overshoot and go wild. The female tends to plop back to Number One. Men and women are kept in orbit by their influence on each other; which stops men from going wild and women from regressing into neuters.

Men are kept sane by asserting their requirements over the female. Women are kept sane by going along with men. Men stay sane by dominating women. Women stay sane by submitting to men. (Very crudely speaking.) Intelligence is always male over female. Form over function. Men experience intelligence when leading the female. Women experience intelligence when accepting male leadership. Men assert intelligence; women submit to intelligence. Assertive men are intelligent. Assertive women are stupid. Complaissant women are intelligent. Complaissant men are stupid.

As I keep remarking: All-out effort~athletics, education, frontline employment~is good for men but bad for women. It has a masculinising effect, turning a boy into a man, but a girl into a female eunuch.

Sauce for the goose can be poison for the gander.

Individual and Society

Which comes first? Without being too Fascistic, the fact is Society comes first. Decent individuals are a spinoff of decent Society. A large part of the Individual's maturing process consists in adapting to Society. You can't shape Individuals under hothouse conditions, stick them together, and get a decent Society. It takes a village to raise a child. The village comes first. The child has to be raised in a decent village. If you believe in the Individual as the ultimate end, you must believe in Society as the necessary means.

And the most important fact about Society is the breadwinnner and homemaker marriage. Individualistic middle-class society is based on a farmer and his wife (breadwinner and homemaker) pulling together as partners and not against each other as rivals.

If breadwinner and homemaker families mean middle-class society, two-income families imply lower-class society. Until the Sixties, Whites in America were advantaged: We had good homes and families. Blacks were disadvantaged: Their womenfolk had to work. Well guess what! To paraphrase the Prime Minister of my youth, Harold MacMillan, who shocked England with the remark, 'We are all working class now!' We are all niggers now!

Black to White standards in the Sixties were say 3:8. They are now 4:5. Blacks have grown from 3 to 4, but Whites have dropped from 8 to 5. We are achieving 'racial equality' not by raising Blacks up to White standards, but by dumbing Whites down to Black standards. And the key issue is family. Instead of helping Blacks achieve good families, we are denying good families to the Whites.

And the answer is a homemaker allowance: recognition of the breadwinner and homemaker marriage. Then we can promote Black breadwinners ahead of White singles. And eliminate the entire class of two-income government worker households, husband and wife each with government jobs, who have emerged as an artificial elite, protected from the general collapse.

The trouble is, Unreal Women prefer the choice of thousands of pairs of expensive shoes, none of which fit or will ever be worn, to one comfortable pair of all-purpose shoes that will last a lifetime. They feel empowered by 'women's equality' as an unworkable fantasy, and restricted by the working reality of the homemaker and breadwinner marriage. What are we to do?

Thank God for the Real Women!