My blog

Tag: children

  • The biggest losers in a feminazi world

    The biggest losers in a feminazi world

    Who are the biggest losers in an increasingly feminist world? WOMEN! But there are different shades of losers and some lose more than others. The losers are listed below in decreasing order of significance:

    1. Children– They are the biggest losers in a feminist dominated society. How does the children lose in such a society? Children lose because they are forced to grow in single parent households and sacrificed at the altar of protecting individual whims and fancies over the future generation. No fault divorce coupled with high alimony payments ensure that women have almost no incentives to maintain a healthy marital bond. Although, feminists will argue that women are not responsible for divorce but almost 80% of divorce are initiated by women!

    This problem is further exacerbated by delayed marriages and out of wedlock births. #MyLifeMyChoice type of arguments have removed the taboo from pre-marital sex as well as out of wedlock births. All this means that paternal investment in kids has gone down and the laws have left no incentive for fathers to invest in their offsprings.

    Sexual abuse of children increases in broken families

    If sexual abuse can be taken as a metric of exploitation, then kids are at the receiving end of all the abuse in broken families. The chances of a child getting abused in a broken family is several times higher than the case when a child lives with his/her biological parents. Another metric that can be employed is school performance of kids with absentee fathers. Broad survey of research shows that absentee fathers have a negative impact on school performance of kids. The article states:

    We find strong evidence that father absence negatively affects children’s social-emotional development, particularly by increasing externalizing behavior. These effects may be more pronounced if father absence occurs during early childhood than during middle childhood, and they may be more pronounced for boys than for girls. There is weaker evidence of an effect of father absence on children’s cognitive ability.

    Effects on social-emotional development persist into adolescence, for which we find strong evidence that father absence increases adolescents’ risky behavior, such as smoking or early childbearing. The evidence of an effect on adolescent cognitive ability continues to be weaker, but we do find strong and consistent negative effects of father absence on high school graduation. The latter finding suggests that the effects on educational attainment operate by increasing problem behaviors rather than by impairing cognitive ability.

    So laws that lead to broken families in turn harm future of children. And there should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that the primary goal of many feminists is destruction of family which in turn can be interpreted as destruction of childhood. The failure of blacks in American society can be traced back to broken homes and large number of out of wedlock births and absence of fathers in African-American society.

    1. Lower class females– The second biggest losers in a feminized setting are lower class women. Although high class women also end up as cat ladies due to feminist indoctrination and male hate but the biggest casualty is borne by lower class females. They lose out by bearing the feminist assault on family structure. While high class women preach feminism to their lower class sisters, they themselves are much less likely to divorce as compared to low class women. The study by Isen and Stevenson gives details on education attainment and divorce rates.

    Three things become immediately clear from the above data for US. Firstly, the rate of divorce has increased since 1950s for all classes (both race and sex). Secondly, the rate of divorce has strictly been higher for high educated females. Thirdly, percentage of divorce for blacks has been higher than whites. Since education and gender both determine an individual’s class in US, it is more than abundantly clear that lower class females have been on the receiving end of new legislations.

    Not only the richer females are less likely to divorce but they also end up with high alimony settlements and a comfortable lifestyle while their poorer sisters are left out in the wild without a mate plus dependent on welfare state given low/negligible alimony payments. At the same time, while the richer women still have the option to opt out of work in case of a divorce (or even within a marriage), the lower class women have no option to opt out of workforce and have to almost always support themselves and their children, often living life on subsistence, while flipping burgers in McD. The problems of black families are increased many fold due to the breakdown of their family institution and hence black women are even bigger losers.

    1. Lower class males– The lower class males lose due to decrease in their SMV and decrease in chances of landing up with a mate. Since women display hypergamy and have also increasingly joined the workforce, the role of lower class males as bread earners has diminished and they now have almost no utility for the modern female. If a women is unable to find a job she has nanny state to help her live on. Thus, most males on the lowest level of social pyramid find it almost impossible to attract any female.

    Also breakdown of social taboos on sexual relationships means that women are free to pursue alpha males leaving the betas of the old alone and lonely. Such men only have chance of ending up with an old female once she is past her prime fertile age and does not any longer have better options. Since society does not put any pressure on their youth to get married early, an entire generation of low value men are restricted to their parent’s basement and increasingly pursue other hobbies to hide their failure at attracting women. This is reflected in the coinage of terms like herbivore men in Japan and MGTOWs in the west.

    Whether the external impulses like porn, video games etc are able to compensate for life long partnership with women for these men is yet to be seen, but low SMV men are increasingly opting out of the society.

    1. Super high class women– These are the women at the top of the pyramid and are unable to find men who can overcompensate their value. Feminism has brainwashed entire generation of women and has de-emphasized the value of maternity and children. Women who are increasingly successful in corporate careers find it increasingly difficult to find potential mates who are better than them. While successful men have no problem in marrying down and settling for a less value women, female hypergamy ensures that highly successful women end up alone.

    Another factor which hurt these women is the blind pursual of career over family, thus forcing them to waste their best fertile years as corporate slaves. By the time they realize their folly, they are well past their prime age to attract high value men, who are interested in other younger women. The same women then shout at men to man up.

    While few women might be happy with being corporate slaves but many end up bitter in their old lives by giving up on timely maternity. Although marriage is not important for having children but the mad race for jumping corporate hoops ensure that successful corporate women delay child bearing to win cut-throat competition. While these women might bed best males during their small fertile youthful period, their value decreases exponentially with age, thus making them resentful later on in life due to male rejection. The rise of the cat ladies to douse the maternal instincts is a modern phenomenon, thanks to the propaganda against motherhood by feminazis.

    Who wins?

    Not everyone loses in such a society! The winners are high SMV men who get unbridled supply of young emancipated women ready to sleep with them without the burden of marriage. Although any male with an interest in family has to act over-cautious in such a society but if the idea is to be a philanderer than no society offers better options for a high SMV men. In case these men decide to tie the knot, since educated women have lower divorce rates, it also means they do not get a raw deal like their poorer counterparts. It is an almost win-win situation for them in each case. Just to emphasize, these men lose the most in a patriarchal society due to reduced access to prime fertile women and have almost all the reasons to support feminazi agenda.

    The question now is- where does India want to end up with its increasingly anti-family legislation?

  • Who should pay for your pregnancy?

    Who should pay for your pregnancy?

    Motherhood is one of the biggest and most wonderful gifts of nature to women. But in the modern economy, when women are increasingly joining the workforce, it has taken a backstage and has become only one aspect of the multifaceted lifestyle of a modern woman. Even after the advance of modern medicine, women still have to take considerable time off from work to fulfil their motherhood duties. So in such a situation, the question arises: who should pay for the cost of motherhood, or pregnancy to be precise?

    There is a story doing the rounds in the media where a girl was fired from her job when she asked for leave on medical grounds over and above the maternity leave that she had planned, due to complications during her pregnancy. It is a delicate issue and many people will react emotionally without looking at the whole picture. It is an expected reaction as traditional Indians still associate high value with motherhood, although it is increasingly disparaged as a worthless exercise by liberals.

    It is a very broad topic of discussion and has a very profound impact on the future of the nation, so it is essential to distil the case down to who benefits from a new child. Only when we know who is the ultimate beneficiary can we decide who should bear the cost of pregnancy.

    The decision to have a child is a private decision. Given how parents these days plan the time and number of children they want to have, it is almost a no-brainer to associate this decision with the parents. Since couples decide to have or not have a child, it means they are the sole beneficiaries from this decision, at least when they make the decision. Although a nation benefits from having a young population, most couples do not take it into account when making this decision. Since they hardly think of the nation or society during this decision-making, we will ignore this issue until the end before briefly touching on the ramifications.

    So, if a decision accrues private benefits, who should pay the cost? It is very simple if the case were made for buying a sports car. One does not ask his or her employer to gift them a sports car if he or she likes the car. Also, the employer gains no benefit from the employee having a sports car. A happy employee working hard is a side benefit, but there is no direct relation. Similarly, couples usually do not ask their employers if and when they can have a child, nor do employers gain any private benefit from their employees having children.

    This implies that the decision to have a child is a private decision and parents should take this into account before going forward with it. If this requires a woman to be out of work for a long and significant amount of time, it is not the duty of the firm to pay for her maternity leave while she does not work for the firm. There are two intertwined issues at play here which are often ignored. Firstly, small firms do not have enough working capital and often scrape through with their daily payments. The increased cost of an unproductive employee, if a pregnant woman takes maternity leave for three months, makes it difficult for many firms to survive. Also, it is morally wrong to expect the firm to pay for a private decision of its employee. Of course, if the firm is happy to pay for the pregnancy of its female employees, it should do it, but it cannot or should not be enforced by the state. Secondly, if the state decides to enforce compulsory maternity leave with benefits, it leads to the next problem, which is discrimination. If a small firm knows that its female employee will become pregnant and thus become unproductive for the firm in the future and it cannot fire her, the firm will just stop hiring young females. So the idea to correct one problem will lead to another problem.

    Since the Indian economy still depends significantly on the contribution of small and marginal firms, transferring the cost of the private decision of having a child onto the firm will have very bad consequences for the growth of new and young firms. But this also opens questions of discrimination in social policy. What about women who do not work and are stay-at-home mothers? Or women who work in contractual or small jobs, where firms are not forced to pay for maternity leave? The last set of women will not get the benefit of transferring the cost of their private decisions onto anyone else. So from a fairness perspective, why should a small section of middle-class women get subsidized by private firms for getting pregnant, while poorer women, also more vulnerable and needy, who work in the unorganized sector or don’t work at all, do not get any benefits?

    So who should bear the cost of having children? The cost of bearing children has been borne by the family throughout history and that is how it should be. The parents bear the future cost of bringing up their children, so why should it be different during the pregnancy period? Of course, firms can allow women to rejoin the workforce once they have fulfilled their maternal duties, but it is unfair to expect them to foot the bill for private decisions of individuals. It is daylight robbery if the state relinquishes its duty and passes on the tax to firms for its moral obligations.

    This brings us to the last point in this debate. While individuals and parents usually ignore the public benefits of having children, the state can very well understand such benefits. Not only does a young generation keep a healthy demographic and contribute future taxpayers, but new people also contribute new ideas. Parents might not always recognize this value, but a nation values future citizens. This is the reason that although feminists lambast motherhood in the West, their governments still try to subsidize maternity. Some countries like France, which pay high maternity benefits, have been able to maintain decent demography despite their young women increasingly trying to opt out of motherhood. But India is not a rich country and can hardly afford the cost of such benefits when it cannot even feed everyone. So, what is the way forward? India should inculcate the value of the family system in its citizens and shut down the propaganda against a big population, as most Indian states are already below replacement-level fertility, i.e. 2.1 children per woman. Putting emphasis on the family system will allow women to take help not only from their husbands but also from extended family during times of maternity, thus decreasing economic and emotional pressure. On top of that, government should decrease the cost of raising children by spending money on building healthcare infrastructure and repealing laws like RTE which have increased the cost of education, thus increasing the cost of having children. But before that, government should stop burdening young firms which are the growth engine of the economy and are needed for generating future jobs and income.