Monday, March 28, 2011

The Sad, Unintended Consequences of the "Women's Movement"

The Women's Movement had some positive outcomes. We hear about those outcomes everyday in stories planted in the media. This Movement also had some terrible unintended consequences.

I wonder who planted this story? (Remember, "Jeffers Media Theory" states that no article or story makes its way into the media by accident... it is bought and paid for by special interests.) Whoever it was, me thinks they were making a different point than the one I received.... For every Oprah or Hillary there are 100 million women that are going to wind up like the subject of this article.

Read that article. Then read it again. And Again.

Please allow me to translate:

This 70-year-old, destitute woman, Susanna Wilson, no doubt influenced by the Women's Movement, twice divorced/rejected family - except when it suited her, as in when she inherited a debt free home from her non-feminist mother and "patriarch" father... something Susanna is only too willing to take advantage of with no thought for the future of HER own daughter. After all, Susanna is considering a "reverse mortgage", a financial instrument that will consume ALL of the equity in her home (given enough time), leaving her own daughter nothing.... despite the fact that the home was a family asset, not an asset that came about due to Ms. Wilson's efforts and belief system. In fact, it is Ms. Wilson's f*&^ed up belief system that is causing the family home to be removed from the family's resources.  Way to go, Susanna!

Allow me to sum it up:

Susanna's traditional, non-college educated parents, lived within their means, sacrificed immediate gratification so that they could be able to provide some level of security for their issue (Susanna). Susanna, Berkley educated, feminist, artist, free spirit... made no compromises (divorced twice), made no sacrifices (moved around, played hard, and saved not). The article does not mention anything about the relationship between good ol' Susanna and her daughter, other than to say the daughter is "unable to help" Susanna financially. My bet is the relationship ain't so hot in any event.

Remember "Broke Ass Grouch"? (Please read the original because the links and quotes work better there than here where I simply copied and pasted). I had this to say in my January 28, 2011 Post about some of the nasty, unintended consequences of the Women's Movement:


The story from Broke-Ass Grouch that I linked to recently has been rolling around my mind ever since I first read it.  Broke-Ass ("BA") is intelligent, witty, insightful, and brutally honest... with a glaring exception:  BA assigns blame to the wrong people. 

To my mind, and stay with me a moment while I piss off a number of special interest groups, BA was the victim of the university/industrial complex and the Feminist Marriage/Divorce Industrial complex. Herewith, BA in her own words:

Now, to be fair, Broke-Ass Grouch is neither Mexican nor was she poor until three years ago. Like many of you good-doers, Broke-Ass was raised by middle-class intellectuals to be a middle-class intellectual, and graduated from a snooty liberal arts college. Also, like many of you, she spent her career working at high-status, low-paying, terminally insecure work. 

To be fair, BA's first critical error - spending the present day value of $200k on a Liberal Arts college undergrad degree In English Literature - was made as a teenager.  Having been a teenager myself I can sympathize endlessly. The family resources that went into an English Degree from Bennigton College could not have been more ill spent. Let's give BA a Mulligan for that critical error... and let us learn a lesson.  If you are not rich, say liquid-after-tax net worth of $5mm+... don't let the University/Industrial complex extort a fortune for an education that could be had for a library card... $200k for an engineering degree from MIT might well be worth it; $100k for an engineering degree from Georgia Tech is most definitely worth it... knowing your Faust and Thoreau, et al? Not so much.  Still, BA can turn a phrase. Somehow, I think she would have been better off with a mortgage free house and a State University degree than the Lit Degree from Bennington.  Just saying.

More from BA:

Broke-Ass Grouch, like many in America, found herself abruptly cashless. Like many of the heretofore liberal elite, she had been trained exclusively in a non-essential trade (writing for a living), and thus had no marketable value in the general economy. Having lived a life of unexamined comfort and self-satisfaction, Broke-Ass now found herself with never more than $37.68 in the bank, and three little children to support (though she did count herself extravagantly lucky that her two older children's father sent them to private school, and that her 12-year-old used minivan hadn't collapsed in vapors -- yet). She began to see the primacy of McDonald's Dollar Meal and rifling through the bargain bins at Walmart, searching for tube socks and jeans made by 7-year-olds in Bangladesh for a dime a day.

Hmmm. Presumably BA had a husband or partner that was at some point supporting her and her children... but somehow her husband extracted himself from supporting her while still supporting his/her children.  BA does not comment much on this. I wonder why? I can only speculate, but my sense is that BA had a good thing and did not do everything within her power to protect and nurture it.  Maybe BA resented the Patriarchy aspects of marriage that exist when the man is the primary provider.  Maybe BA was not the loving partner she could have been. Who knows? Maybe BA prefers lonely poverty to a middle class existence as somebody's "wife"?  Look, for all I know the older children's father is a No-Goodnic... that just happens to send his children to private school.  And maybe he left BA for some young Tart in spite of BA's tremendous efforts to welcome him home from work everyday with the warmth of a family dinner as well as the incredible warmth BA generated in the marriage bed.

Maybe a lot of things... but I smell Feminist ideology on her writings, background, and college experience... while correlation does not imply causation, that ideology DOES NOT CORRELATE with a happy family life and long term marriage, if I may make use of understatement.
Plus, she still wanted her children to know the virtues of the liberal arts phenomenology -- the unalloyed pleasures of reading, thinking, investigating, experimenting -- even though said phenomenology had dumped her by the side of the road in middle age and left her for dead.
BA seems to recognize where she is... I merely submit that BA blames the wrong forces that put her there.  For mother's of young children, the disintegration of a marriage is usually an unmitigated disaster (to say nothing of its effects on the children).  Why no emphasis on imploring mothers to protect themselves and their family other than by divorce court? Our society has defined the proper role of a husband... it is there for all to see in our literature and media reports... when was the last time you saw the Media present a mother's roll in the family?  It is always one of "choice". Stay at home mom, working mom.... whatever (and BULLSH*T). None of us has much of a choice about most things, and the propaganda that we do has led many to a life of therapy and Prozak. 

Happiness is self-inflicted. Unfortunately, all too often, so is misery. So much of the misery of people who never miss a warm meal and always sleep in warm, clean bed comes from the culture wars and propaganda efforts of the special interest groups.  We ALLOW these groups to deceive us - or WE DO NOT.  We make that choice. The University/Industrial complex is only too willing to leave you as an indentured servant for the rest of your life... the Marriage/Divorce Industrial complex is only too willing to suck up vast amounts of resources that would otherwise be available to the FAMILY. It is up to us as individuals.

So what's this got to do with energy? Nothing.  This is a lesson in family financial planning... and a brutal one, at that. I daresay something along these lines should be part of a Liberal Arts education.


Susanna Wilson's story and Broke-Ass Grouch's story are hardly unique. This is where the vast, vast majority of women who cannot hold their marriages and families together will wind up... only it will be much, much worse in an energy constrained future.  Young women would be well served to steer clear, far and wide, of the "sisters" and their silly movements. Their movement is DEAD anyway.

How dare I say that? Simple. You can't win a multi generational political war/debate/argument by aborting babies or not having them (look, I did not write the rules of demographics... I merely point them out). Hispanics now number 1 in 6 Americans. They are Catholic!!! And Catholics just aren't big on abortion. And they are going to re-write feminist history, right out of the history books. Bye!

In the long-term battle between the Women's Movement and the Church... my money's on the Church.

And look, I am not terribly religious... though I am very much Pro-Life... I am just calling 'em like I see 'em. 

Young ladies: Don't waste your lives joining the side of the slaughtered. Don't let what has happened to Broke-Ass Grouch and Susanna Wilson happen to you. You are NOT special. You are one link in a chain of family that has stretch back eons and should go on eons more. Take responsibility and you will reap the rewards of family, security, a sense of belonging among other things... OR... take Broke-Ass and Susanna Wilson's path to resentment, anger, and poverty.


Anonymous said...

So very true.. However, I will point out that men who believe they can go it alone will find themselves in similar situations.

The basic family unit of a man and woman with multiple children came to be for a reason. Those who chose to ignore those reasons will suffer the repercussions. No Social Security/Medicare safety net is gonna stop it for long.


Greg T. Jeffers said...


Of course men who go it alone will find themselves in similar situations... these men are the other side of the trade.

Greg T. Jeffers said...

However, the cult recruiting program that the feminists run at collage age women is overpowering... this message needs to get out to young people BEFORE they destroy themselves.

John said...

Communist inspired destruction of the family unit. Great post! This is all related to marxism(communist manifesto). That poor woman has biblically reaped what she sowed. The sickist part about this situation is there are so many of these screwed up people who listened to these leftist ideologues they have dragged the rest of us down with them.

Greg T. Jeffers said...

They have harmed our government and our society... but they cannot harm the individual - you are responsible for you.

Anonymous said...

I would like to play the Devil's Advocate here.

The women's movement came about for a number of practical reasons-

-No vote for women and no political representation

-Women getting beaten up by husbands and boyfriends with no legal system remedy or response

-Women being threatened by priests and pastors that they will burn in hell if they- use birth control, get divorced from an abusive husband, challenge their husbands decisions. Of course, without birth control, women get endlessly pregnant with no say in the process.

-No women in Congress, Court System, or having any access to the power in the society

-Women being paid 2/3 of what men are paid for equal work production

-No or few women being promoted within private corporations

-And then general injustice that there are plenty of women just as smart and productive as the best of men who were not allowed to develop and profit from their abilities and skills in previous years.

-No role of authority in institutions like the Catholic Church and other conservative religious institutions.

And yes, I acknowledge that there are plenty of women who do unsavory things ie gold-diggers, cheaters, bad mothers, ruthless females, and general dingbats-Just like there are also plenty of dumb and unsavory men out there.

Best, Marshall

PioneerPreppy said...

Sigh... Marshal WTF?

Women were given the power to vote less than what a decade after all men were? If that. I don't feel like looking it up. And depending on the state women sometimes had voting rights at the same time men did. In some territories they had it from day one. Women had as much political representation as your average man and with a hell of a lot more empathy and less special interest to boot from the politicians.

Recent studies have proven domestic violence is a complete two way street and when placed under focus I am willing to bet it was back in the feminist fantasy bad ol days as well. I remember old women from my teen days who would brag about how they would clock their husbands and get away with it. Why? Because they had it set just the way they wanted it.

Men ie. the patriarchy did not control women socially or morally WOMEN DID... Let me repeat that Women controlled other women. You can see it in action even today in less femini-nazi societies. The older women had a vested interest in keeping the younger wild ones in line and they did very well I might add in doing so. Trust me here those patriarch's loved it when the young women managed to slip away from older female taskmasters and hone their manipulative skills a bit.

Women went as far as they wanted to go and as far as other women wanted them to go if they were good at what they were doing. Just like today women do not enter the dirty or dangerous jobs and they often fail at an overall view of upper management because of these gaps in their work records. Also even today women on average work 5 hours less per week then men. Yet their so called salary average is figured at an overall per week total. You figure out where the less pay comes from.

All the other points see above...

Except I would add there were a couple of female judges as early as the 1800's, especially out West. One in particular was so annoyed by women who played the poor gender "needs a white knight card" that her rebuffs of said females are quite funny even when read by today's standards.

Don't buy into the feminist fantasy and revisionist history. Women have almost always gotten exactly what they wanted from society handed to them on a silver platter by men. The sad part is it has finally become destructive and yet they are still getting it.

And here is the best part... It is killing this once great nation.

Greg T. Jeffers said...


There were some positive outcomes from the women's movement... since these are sold to us everyday via the media, I felt there was no need to repeat that material.... I thought I would point out some of the very negative unintended consequences of the movement.

My analysis of the financial outcomes for MOST WOMEN is this:

The VAST MAJORITY of women (and men) would be FAR BETTER SERVED by living humbly and in a state of compromise WITH their families. A very few, Hillary and Oprah come to mind, are well served by the movement while millions upon millions of other women are suffering from Depression, Bi Polar, Borderline Personality Disorder, et all, and I lay the blame for the preponderance of these mental health issues on all the way the social order has been arranged in the wake of this movement.

If your argument is that the "good things" you have pointed out overwhelms the "bad things" I have pointed out... I will leave that to the personal interpretation of the reader.

And I don't mine ANYONE playing devil's advocate on ANY issue I raise. Pioneer, Dex, and Coal guy and not a few others have schooled me more than once and I am the better for it.

Anonymous said...


I have long held that the vote should be restricted to males, over 21, with children that they personally support and a positive net worth. 25 would be even better, at any rate it shouldn’t be extended to, ignorant kids, bums, those with no interest in the US as a going concern (the childless), and busy body women. The misses disagrees of courses.

Jeannette Rankin of Montana became the first woman to serve in Congress in 1917 the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified in 1920. However women were a force before that Women were fhe force behind the 18th amendment prohibition idiocy, direct election of senators in the 17th amendment, and income taxes in the 16th. So far only one has been repealed, all four need to go.

The ideal that women could be beaten by their husband at will is disgusting; however, then as now, close knit families is the best defense. No slick lawyer is going to get you off when her brothers, brother in-laws and cousins show up to crack your ribs and massage your testicles. Even the sleeziest of guys understand an a$$ whooping.

Women were paid 2/3 of the wage for married men with children, single men also earned roughly2/3 of the FAMILY WAGE. They get “equality” at the cost of forcing married women out to work in order to make ends meet. Latchkey children which have morphed into today’s feral kids, etc. Pyrrhic victory if you ask me.

Smart women have always been with us, no doubt about that. However in the past they were forced into either the telephone company, the secretary pool, or schools. The biggest impact was to be made in the schools and the brighter maidens understood this. Today, people with the aptitude to be physicians, top attorneys, etc, are generally not found in schools. We are much worse off for it. Troubled kids grow up to be juvenile delinquents and eventually prisoners without ever having any invention. The sharp women who would have caught it and nipped it in the bud are too busy with their private practice, and there is no way a school can ever pay them what they’re worth. Same goes with the curriculum, the women who would intellectually dominate the schools are somewhere else. If you doubt that just go to a school board meeting; quick wit will not be found there. Alternately you can compare today’s curriculum against one from a hundred years ago; there is no comparison.


Anonymous said...


I am responsible for me, no doubt about that. However society is the water we must swim in; and when it is a polluted ideological cesspool… It does have an effect. How big of an effect I know not; but, it does have an effect.


Anonymous said...

The fraud of secular Humanist doctrine!!! People need a family, without one they are just used up old wind Bags. Patriarchy protected the weakest ones within the family by placing a burden on the strong to protect them. This permeated the traditional culture. The whole western world has now lost all virtue. I expect another dark age. I say this in the pre-Greek Mycenaean’s sense of limited or no transmission of current American cultural Identity. Jeffers is right demographics win out. There sure is a freedom to knowing that in the grand scheme of things, life is nothing but a vapor. Without the transmission of your values to your children, then grand children and maybe if you’re lucky great grand children, you are truly nothing but a failure. Whose time came and went with no lasting impact. The Greeks and Romans left us advanced language, art, poetry, literature, politics and philosophy. We leave our children fat, broke, stupid and entitled.


Idiot said...

I miss the good old days when women had to do what we said or it was "Pow! Right in the kisser." And like the others here, I think they simply whine too much. Barefoot and pregnant, I always say.

Greg T. Jeffers said...


Well, that was hardly my point. But this is an open thread.

My point was that ALL special interest groups outlive their original objective and just keep morphing into monsters that won't die.