Money & Gender: The Hypocrisy of Feminism

According to the Feminist agenda, we want to get to a place in this world where gender differences are no longer viable. Where there are no traditional gender roles. Where everyone in a given profession is given the same rate of pay regardless of their gender. Where men and women function as friends and equal partners. This is called egalitarianism, and if you listen to most feminists this is what they say they want.

But do they?

The traditional patriarchal model has the male at the top. He’s the head of the family, the breadwinner, the ultimate provider. In the welfare state model, his place is taken over by the State. Next comes the female, who is the homemaker, the meal preparer, the mother, teacher, caregiver. She’s also a prostitute, as one of her duties is to provide the male with sex. She is dependent upon her male (or in his absence, the state) to provide her with the means (money) to keep her household functioning. She’s also subservient to her provider.

In the feminist model, we do away with these gender functions. No longer is the female viewed as homemaker and prostitute. No longer is the male viewed as provider. Both genders share equally in all functions,with male and female both viewed as providers, caregivers etc. Sex becomes a mutually agreed upon activity, rather than the payment owed the male for his providence. Every one is equal, and everyone has his or her needs met.

But some feminists want it both ways. They want their freedom, they want their emancipation, they want to work in the society and be paidthe same fair wage as males. But they still want men to provide for them. They still view the male as primarily the money provider. They see a mans value only in terms of how much money they can extract from him.

You don’t think this is true? Listen to the actual words  of feminists:

“I can’t get it up for a guy with no money.”

“You’re in no position to provide her with what she needs (i.e. money).”

“She should kick his ass out until he gets a job.”

“You see this body? Look at this body! You owe me Mister! Give me the money!”

On the one hand they will expound about how unfair the patriarchal system is, how it has kept women down and how the whole society is biased toward it. On the other hand the same women will be staying at home living on welfare and being totally dependent upon a whole group of men — the State. I guess as long as they don’t have to have sex with all the senators they think they are all right.

The welfare system makes it even worse, since it’s basis is the old patriarchal model. Welfare funding is always far less than a single mom can actually live on, so she must depend upon the clandestine help of others, work “under the table,” or, turn to actually crime. The last being moot: as soon as she acquires funds and does not report them (and receive an equivalent cut in benefits) she becomes a criminal anyway. The system seemingly is designed to create criminals. Monogamous marriage is out of the question, unless she can land herself someone in a far better condition than her own (fat chance, since the social stigma of welfare is enough to keep any man with real money away),  she will be screwed. The state will take away her benefits now that she has an “able bodied man” to take care of her (even if that “able bodied man” is worse off than she). The state would much rather see fornication than legitimize the welfare
family via marriage. This way the opportunistic politician, hoping to score points with the brainwashed working class, can advocate the abolishment of welfare, and point to all the “welfare sluts,” conveniently forgetting that the state created them.

I would propose doing away with the whole system and replacing it with a more equitable non-gender based system. Under my system, any adult making less than $50k/year would receive funding from the state equivalent to the amount under $50k they are making. People making $50k or less would pay no taxes. People making up to $75k would be taxed at a rate of 10% of the amount they make above $50k, and people making over $100k would be taxed at 90% of that portion above $100k. Under my system, rent and real estate prices would not be allowed to exceed the median national average. This would eliminate the proliferation of “for the rich only” areas, such as what Santa Cruz CA has become. Further, such universal utilities as water, electricity and natural gas would become nationalized and provided free by the state. Sales taxes, a national shame and unfair tax on the poor, would be eliminated. Health care would be free (including alternative medicine). In true egalitarianism there is an equality. “To each according to his need, from  each according to his abilities.” (The “his” implies “her” as well – it’s called “English.”) The community takes care of it’s own regardless of anything, in perfect love and perfect trust. If I give $10,000 to the community, I know that when a time comes and I am in need, the community will help me out. It’s called unconditional love. It’s called “brotherhood” (which implies “sisterhood” as well), agape, koininia; Greek words that describe this stare of unconditional perfect love and perfect trust. Gender, class, race, spirituality, ethnicity, age, all these divisions are dissolved. Every
one lives on an equal footing, giving and getting in equal measure over time. Sex becomes a matter of love and trust, rather than duty or obligation. I want to have sex with you because I love you. Not because I want you to pleasure me, but because I want to express our bond of unconditional love. The old exclusivity of monogamy is thrown out too. A new poly-fidelity takes it’s place where truly the “whole village CAN raise the child,” and the child is raised in an atmosphere of multiple parents and elders and teachers, all united for the sake of that child (and all the children of the community) in unconditional perfect love and perfect trust, existing not for themselves but for the whole.

That is true feminism. That is true egalitarianism.