Women Ruin Everything

[vorlos]

http://voxday.blogspot.com/

Even, ironically enough, TITLE IX. I'm skeptical that even the most confirmed cynic could have seen this one coming. This isn't fourth- or fifth-wave feminism, we have clearly progressed all the way into the fantastic realm of metafeminism.

"In fall 2011, faced with the prospect of another season watching their daughter, Rose, play field hockey against boys, the Grenens had finally had enough. They wrote to the PIAA, which invited them to come to its offices in Mechanicsburg and give a PowerPoint presentation. At the meeting, in January 2012, Mrs. Grenen figured that she would have to persuade the PIAA to be on her side. But in the middle of the meeting, someone interrupted her.

"You're preaching to the choir," a man said.

The PIAA had been discussing the issue for years, but it felt that its hands were tied because of a Commonwealth Court order that was nearly four decades old. In 1973, the PIAA had a bylaw which stated, "Girls shall not compete or practice against boys in any athletic contest." The attorney general asserted that this provision violated the new Pennsylvania Equal Rights Amendment, which stated, "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania because of the sex of the individual."

In 1975, Commonwealth Court entered an order that declared the PIAA bylaw unconstitutional, saying, "The Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association is hereby ordered to permit girls to practice and compete with boys in interscholastic athletics ... ."

At the time of the order, few girls-only sports were offered. The order was meant to give girls who wanted to play sports offered only for boys the opportunity to do so. As the years passed, and more girls teams were created, the order began to be interpreted so that boys could also play on girls teams if the sport was offered only for girls -- which had the opposite effect of the order's original intent. The only way for the PIAA to change the interpretation of the order was to have the case reopened -- a task that would take legal man-hours and resources that the PIAA didn't feel it had. Basically, the PIAA needed people like the Grenens to fight the battle, and the organization would be glad to offer its support.

"It could be a large expense, and we still don't know the outcome," said Bob Lombardi, the PIAA executive director. "The Grenens have provided a great opportunity because they are attorneys to work on this."

Key to the Grenens' hope for reopening the case was a 1985 interpretation of the Pennsylvania ERA that said the ERA "does not prohibit differential treatment among the sexes when that treatment is reasonable and genuinely based on physical characteristics unique to one sex."

In fall 2012, the Grenens filed a petition with Commonwealth Court to reopen the 1975 case. The court granted the request -- a huge victory and likely the only hope to change the status quo.

On Feb. 26, the Grenens, the PIAA and representatives from the attorney general's office will meet in Harrisburg for a status conference. The Grenens and the PIAA's hope is that they will agree on a common-sense bylaw that will outlaw boys playing on girls' teams while staying in accordance with the ERA."

In other words, we are expected to believe that legal equality means girls being able to play on boys teams, whether there are girls teams or not, but boys cannot play on girls teams, even if there are no boys teams upon which they can play.

Even if you think, well, what does it matter, it's just sports, keep this in mind: Title IX is now being applied to science. Orwell put it beautifully. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. And the Sports Guy put it even better: women ruin everything.

Do you really think it was an accident that women were never permitted any voice in the governance of the Roman Republic or the great historical democracies such as Athens, Thebes, Imperial Britain, and Revolutionary America? Do you really believe it to be a mere coincidence that many modern democracies, including Germany, Italy, and the member states of the European Union, were not able to survive even 100 years of female suffrage

 

[Ensis]

http://voxday.blogspot.com/

Orwell put it beautifully. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. And the Sports Guy put it even better: women ruin everything.

Do you really think it was an accident that women were never permitted any voice in the governance of the Roman Republic or the great historical democracies such as Athens, Thebes, Imperial Britain, and Revolutionary America? Do you really believe it to be a mere coincidence that many modern democracies, including Germany, Italy, and the member states of the European Union, were not able to survive even 100 years of female suffrage

It was a wise thing to keep women out of politics; they are simply not meant for it.

The women suffragettes used jiu-jitsu on we men who were justly trying to prevent them from voting, which was against the law in those Halcyon days. I think the men should have dropped their then useless gallantry and prohibition against defending against scummy women, grown some stones and willingly used a mixture of dirty bare-knuckle boxing, kicking, kneeing, elbowing, clawing, gouging head-butting and dirty wrestling to put the loudmouth scum suffragettes who were trained in jiu-jitsu on their asses. I'm serious! Just look what England has gotten with women in high positions in politics such as Margaret Thatcher and Jacqui Smith among other troublemakers. We've got Eleanor Roosevelt, Janet Reno, Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, HELLary Clinton, Condoleeza Rice and Rosa DeLauro among others who are destroying our nation. And the worst part is ALL of those scum were.are jews, with the possible exception of Reno. And Reno sold her honor and honor of her entire family to the jews!

All of Europe, North America, Australia, NZ are in total shambles from allowing jew males and any women into politics!

Aaaarrrggghhh!!!!! Aaaarrrggghhh!!!!!

On the other hand, I have no tolerance for men mistreating and beating their wives, just to be macho and make the poor women be afraid of them. The same goes for mistreating and over-punishing their children.

 

[vorlos]

http://www.wnd.com/2005/08/31677/


Why women's rights are wrong

Published: 08/08/2005 at 1:00 AM

Vox Day is a Christian libertarian and author of "The Return of the Great Depression" and "The Irrational Atheist." He is a member of the SFWA, Mensa and IGDA, and has been down with Madden since 1992. Visit his blog, Vox Popoli.More ↓

The greatest media scribe of these latter days, Bill Simmons, is known for a certain pithy mantra. “The lesson, as always: Women ruin everything.” While one does not usually expect to find deep sociological truths in the sports pages, so great has been the degradation of the acerbic art once known as the editorial, so filled with fear are the vanilla-minded commentators, that one finds more veracity on a single page of ESPN than in opinion pages of the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal combined.

Now, at this point, it is customary for women to immediately reject any assertion that women’s rights are wrong as the Talibanistic ranting of an embittered man who has been denied ready access to attractive women’s bodies. In the interest of dismissing this red herring, I merely note that few men fortunate enough to possess a turbo Porsche and a record contract at 23 have any reason to be bitter about the hand that life has dealt them.

In fact, I very much like women and wish them well, which is precisely why I consider women’s rights to be a disease that should be eradicated. For what is rather more difficult to dismiss are the simple and easily verifiable facts that indicate women have seldom been less able to pursue their dreams and less able to achieve their desires than today, the Golden Age of Feminism.

Consider the two great laments of the modern American woman. For the unmarried woman, it is the reality that she must marry later in life than ever before, if she is able to marry at all. For the married woman, it is that unlike generations of women before her, she cannot afford to stay home with her children unless she is fortunate enough to have married to a man of the financial elite.

Both of these developments can be traced directly to women’s rights. Men’s increasing unwillingness to marry stems primarily from two causes — the feminized family court system that transformed marriage from a mutually beneficial contract into a financial and emotional liability, and the removal of paternal responsibility for the sexual behavior of young women. Ergo, the need for marriage has been eliminated while its liabilities have increased. As Blue America and de-Christianizing Europe increasingly show, in the absence of religion there is now very little impetus for marriage.

And few indeed are the women who understand that their present need to work is inextricably tied to the societal expectation that they will do so. When women began to enter the work force en masse in the latter half of the 20th century, the overall supply of labor increased, obviously. As per the iron law of supply and demand, over the last 60 years, this increase in supply has somewhat outstripped the growth in the economy and the attendant demand for labor, which is why real wages are still lower in 2005 than in 1973. Combined with the ever-increasing tax burden, this decline in real wages is why both husband and wife must now work when previously the husband’s labor alone would have sufficed.

(The decline in wages would be much more obvious to the casual observer if men had not begun retiring earlier at the same time women entered the work force. To state that young women are working today so their grandfathers can play golf is reasonable shorthand for what happened.)

But the greatest evil of women’s rights is demographic. Europe’s demise is all but assured, thanks to them, as women’s individual choices taken in the collective have stricken European society and brought on successive waves of feminist-friendly Islamic immigration by reducing Europe’s birth rates far below replacement levels. And women’s-rights advocates are now finding themselves in an ironic intellectual bind, as the onset of sex selection technology has them arguing that while a woman has a right to choose abortion, she can only do so for approved reasons.

This is because scientists are estimating that there are 100 million women missing from India and China and as the technology becomes cheaper and more widespread, this rate of loss is increasing. A U.N. official named Khalid Malik has warned that at present birth rates, with only 826 girls born per 1,000 boys, China will be missing 60 million more women within a decade. And in India, when a family already has two girls, a third pregnancy results in 78 percent of unborn girl babies being aborted.

The women of America would do well to consider whether their much-cherished gains of the right to vote, work, murder and freely fornicate are worth destroying marriage, children, civilized Western society and little girls. They can at least console themselves with the thought that, in the long run, it doesn’t matter what they do, because the women’s-rights ideology is an evolutionary dead end, and it is increasingly apparent that societies embracing it will not survive.

In the end, it’s not that hard to understand. A little girl who is not born will never vote, work or raise a little girl of her own.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2005/08/31677/#DSOKgdoI0yp84VVq.99