Feminists vs the Cheaters - cont.

In any political battle, it helps to have a boogey man, the way despotic regimes in the MENA have Israel (NAZI Germany disposed of any need for truth instead depending on propaganda to recreate "truth"). From there its a simple play book. Everything is the boogey man's fault. Everything. Whatever slight you feel, any shortcoming you have, any error in judgment on your part... all of it was caused by the "boogey man".

(In America we have entitlement AND military spending that is killing us... but the Left believes its the military and the Right believes its all caused by entitlement spending. Like I said, each side only needs a little bit of truth to mix in with their serving of Horse Sh#!.)

In building your boogey man, you only need (barely) enough facts. Most of it is lies, and you mix in enough truth to convince those that want to believe. This is not to say that women's suffrage or the civil right's movement did not have very, very legitimate grievances. They certainly did. What I am suggesting is that all SIG's outlive their originally stated purpose, often becoming the very pariah they so lugubriously decried.

The boogey man the Feminist/Left has created are crazed, if slightly daft and simple religious fanatics. Oh, there are a small cadre of loonies in that camp... but there is no data that I am aware of that supports the contention of a significant population within the electorate aligning with this faction. In fact, the F/L tends to lump anyone that does not support abortion as opposing "reproductive rights", and therefore a religious lunatic.

WTF??!! Men can spend decades in prison for groping a woman, married men can be convicted of a crime and sent to prison for forcing their wives to engage in sex. Access to birth control is near universal.  What right to not reproduce is it that the "boogey man" is imposing on anyone? Not a one. When someone buys a car, they accept that they have increased the probabilities of dying in a car accident than if they did not own a car. When people have heterosexual sexual intercourse they are accepting the increased probability of becoming pregnant... that pretty much describes how the "boogey man" see's this.  And since that is certainly somewhat reasonable, the F/L needs to infuse something more dastardly into the collective personality of the "boogey man". "They hunt. They love guns. They kill and eat animals. They believe in G-d." Oh, my! How awful. Of course the F/L are superior.... after all they only kill babies.

Inconsistancies do not help the "boogey man". But while there are simply too man people that support killing for economic interests (war) and capital punishment and police killings over drugs, there are millions of folks that (like me) reject all of that, and empire too. MILLIONS. Call us Libertarians or Constitutionalists (I suppose there is a difference, but I think that is really splitting hairs)... I prefer to label this group "thinking people"... the point is that not every pro-Life American is a nose picking war monger salivating to see a public hanging.

Take this Red and Blue state donkey dust you hear tell about. That may work when describing presidential elections, but the fact is that most states are purple, with only a minority of the county level starkly Red or Blue. The U.S. is purple, and world various shades of grey... but not for the Borderline Personalities dominating the "women's movement", a movement dominated by the progeny of the elite.

Let us look at some of the outcomes of said "movement".

Nearly 1/3 of female college graduates will not have children, with 20% of the general population leaving their childbearing years childless. I know this turns on the Zero Population Growth folks, but only because they have not given it much thought.

Highly educated women not breeding means that most (do the math... its the number of children born, not a binary code of "yes" or "no" to parenthood) of the next generation of Americans will be raised in a home absent an ethos of education. Further, education was supposed to increase well being and financial security... but with the exception of those with technical and professional advance degrees (physicians, dentists, lawyers, engineers) this hasn't exactly panned out.

It means MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of elderly women without families to interact with and care for them in their old age. It means millions and millions of immature middle aged adults, too... nothing matures you like having to be the being the adult...  No matter how many articles like this are planted in the media to encourage people to join in the childless existence... this is not an acceptable path.  What is the writer suggesting? That this is really a viable society-wide aspiration? Or is the writer merely recruiting and providing support for her constituency?

Special Interest Groups ("SIG's") do not wind down and go out of business once their stated founding intentions are accomplished. Nope, their goals continue to morph because the monster has to be fed... and all SIG's are monsters...

More soon....