Tag Archives: Provider

News

Young women now being paid more than young men

1 Comment

From the UK Daily Mail.

Excerpt:

Young women have reversed the gender gap and raced ahead of men in the pay stakes.

Landmark official figures showed yesterday that a woman in her 20s working full-time will typically earn 2.1 per cent more than a man in her age group.

The average annual salary of a person in their 20s is around £20,000, according to the Office for National Statistics.

The turning of the tables comes after a decade in which younger women – increasingly better educated and better motivated than men – have been remorselessly narrowing the historic pay differentials between the sexes.

The achievement appears to be a death blow to the long-standing argument of equality campaigners that women are paid worse than men because they suffer from discrimination and disadvantage on the part of employers.

The new reckoning of the pay gap published by the ONS showed that until the age of 30, women can now expect better pay than men.

The majority of women ease up in their careers and devote more time to their children, a choice that in most cases hits their earnings potential.

[…]A spokesman for the Government Equalities Office said: ‘The narrowing of the gender pay gap is very welcome but it still remains too large, which is why the Government is committed to promoting equal pay and taking measures to end discrimination in the workplace.’

And finally, some sanity:

The insistence that the Government must act to close a pay gap that, for many women, no longer exists brought a scathing response from some critics.

Economist Ruth Lea, of the Arbuthnot Banking Group, said: ‘There is no pay gap for women who do not have children, and for women under the age of 40 the gap is now trivial.

‘We always knew that single women were paid just as well as men. The idea that women are discriminated against was always a fantasy. I think the equality lobby will be running out of things to say.’

But there isn’t any discrimination against boys in school – oh no, not at all. I’m sure boys do just as well as girls when they are taught female-oriented books by female teachers, all the way through school.

As men lose their traditional role of provider, and the authority and respect it brings, fewer men will want to marry, and women will have to settle for taxapery-funded IVF, taxpayer-funded day care and taxpayer-funded single mother welfare. The only upside to this is that it will be mostly women who will be paying those taxes.

News

Ontario man arrested for defending his home with a firearm

18 Comments
Political Map of Canada

From the Winnipeg Free Press. (H/T ECM)

Excerpt:

A Port Colborne, Ont., man whose home was attacked has ended up facing charges himself.

Niagara Regional Police say a man emerged from his home with a handgun and fired it after several Molotov cocktails were thrown at the home.

Police say three suspects wearing dark clothes got away in a car after the cocktails were thrown early Sunday morning.

There is nothing to suggest any of them were injured when the gun was fired.

By the time police and firefighters arrived, the homeowner had already doused several small fires and damage to the home was minimal.

Ian Thomson, 53, is charged with careless use of a firearm.

The point is that this is yet another step in undermining the traditional roles of men as being protectors and providers and moral leaders in their homes. Men are viewed as being unreliable because the responsible men are being passed over by young unmarried women, and when things don’t work out, they turn to government. It’s another step in the long march to turn men into immature wallets and sperm-donors who have no role in the family at all and just work at menial jobs, drink beer, watch sports, and sit around on the couch, while all-female arrangements (or the government-run day care system) raise the children.

What are the traditional roles for men?

Provider

Every time that the government taxes a man and redistributes his wealth, it removes the need for a man who can provide, and so women don’t have to choose good men to be providers. And that removes the responsibility of making good choices about men from a women. Moreover, if there is no father needed because the government pays for everything, then women don’t get the benefit of having a man to moderate them (which works in reverse, of course), and to help them to raise the children to have moral standards and a sense of accountability. The man gets the authority to do these things by being the primary breadwinner. Democrat dream programs like nationalized day care only marginalize men even more.

Protector

Every time the government passes restrictions on home defense with legally owned firearms, and even worse, on concealed-carry of firearms, it takes away the need for a woman to choose a man who is able and willing to protect his family. If a woman doesn’t have to depend on her husband to protect her (as a last resort), then she doesn’t have to court carefully and choose a man who has protective instincts, no criminal record, and who has a legally-owned firearm and the freedom to use it to defend her and the children. (Note: women should have concealed-carry permits and firearms, too – there is no difference between men and women here, both have to defend the nest and the chicks)

Moral/spiritual leader

Every time the government passes restrictions on smacking, school choice, mandatory sex education, etc., or undermines morality and religion in any other way, it undermines the role of the father as spiritual and moral leader, and makes it less important for a woman to choose a man who will be the spiritual and moral leader in the home. She won’t have to court as carefully, because it’s now the government’s job to educate the children on morality and spirituality. And the government will be there to undermine anything he does tell the kids with public schools, speech codes, etc.

The point of this is to show what happens when men and women vote for bigger and bigger government to provide more and more things. If women have sex with men too early and then develop the view that they are unreliable, then they vote for bigger government for security, then government will take over traditional male responsibilities. Similarly, the worst kind of lazy, cowardly, ignorant men will freely abdicate their obligations to work hard so that they can share with their neighbors and lead families. My point is to show how this can be be sped up or slowed down based on the policies people vote it. If you want men to have a BIGGER role in the family, then get rid of the safety net, cut taxes, and stop the courts and the police from penalizing men for acting like… men. You get the men you vote for. So vote wisely!

News

MUST-READ: How the feminist welfare state causes generations of fatherlessness

58 Comments
Minette Marrin

Story by Minette Marrin here from the UK Times.

Excerpt:

In a study presented to the Centre for Policy Studies (CPS), the sociologist Geoff Dench argues from the evidence of British Social Attitudes surveys since 1983 that there is a growing number of such extended man-free families: “Three-generation lone-mother families — extended families without men — are developing a new family subculture which involves little paid work.”

The culture is passed on, as you might expect. Lone grannies are significantly more likely to have lone and workless daughters than grannies with husbands or employment, and the same is true of their daughters’ daughters. Baby daughters (and baby sons, too) are imbibing with their mother’s milk the idea that men, like jobs, are largely unnecessary in any serious sense.

The problem with this new type of extended family, Dench says, is that it is not self-sustaining but tends to be parasitic on conventional families in the rest of society. In fact, it appears to lead inexorably to the nightmare of an unproductive dependent underclass.

Clearly one of the worst problems with such a subculture is that although it’s not self-sustaining it has a powerful tendency to replicate itself. A boy in such an environment who grows up without a father figure is much less likely — for many well documented reasons — to turn into the sort of young man a girl could see as a desirable husband. A girl who grows up without a father never learns how important a man could be in her own child’s life. She will not see her mother negotiating an adult relationship with a male companion, so she won’t know how to do it herself or imagine what she is missing.

Before anyone starts to point the finger of blame at such girls, it’s worth remembering that many of them are simply making a rational choice. Badly educated at a rough sink school, facing a dead-end, low-paid job that won’t even cover the cost of childcare, such a girl will naturally decide to do what she wants to do anyway and have a baby to love. She knows she will be better off having welfare babies than stacking shelves and better off, too, if she avoids having a man living with her, even supposing she could find one from among the antisocial, lone-parented youths on her estate. That is because the state subsidises this rational choice, disastrous though it has proved, and has done so for decades.

Women quite understandably now talk of such lifestyle choices as their right. They’ve been encouraged to. And the state has actually made poor men redundant.

Please read the whole thing, this may be the most important thing I have ever posted on this blog.

I want to suggest that it is women’s embrace of radical feminism that has caused the shortage of men. The “compassion” (just give bad people your money!),  and moral relativism (don’t judge me!), etc. that young, unmarried women seem to like so much these days are in direct opposition to marriage, family and parenting. It undermines the reasons why men marry in the first place. And I’ll explain why.

First, moral relativism. Women today seem to have lost the ability to filter out men based on whether they can commit and fill the role of father and husband. They prefer to “have sex like a man” and to not judge anyone. But the reason why they refuse to make moral judgments is because they don’t want to be judged themselves. Instead of learning how to be a wife and mother, women have embraced partying and hooking up. But hooking up (and friends with benefits, and cohabitation) DO NOT result in a man committing to a woman as a husband and father for life.

Second, big government. The solution that women embrace because of their fear of abandonment by men is to lobby for more and more government programs to give them security no matter how they choose. They don’t want to restrain themselves in order to avoid causing expensive social damage, e.g. – STDs, abortion, divorce, etc. They just want to do have fun and then have someone else pay the costs. But if working men have money taxed away to pay for things like abortions and welfare, then they cannot afford to form families on their own – especially if they want to raise Christian children outside the day care/public school system that they are paying for but won’t use.

Could it be that the reason that men are no longer suitable for marriage is because the incentives they had to marry (regular sex, the respect of filling the role of protector and provider, being able to lead the family spiritually in the home, and having well-behaved hand-raised children) have been taken away by moral relativism and big government? Could it be that the man shortage is caused by women who CHOOSE to be irresponsible about who they have sex with, and who CHOOSE to rely on bigger government as a fallback for their poor decision-making?

You all know that I want to fall in love and get married. This is probably the number one thing stopping me from doing that. The feminist idea that men are evil and can be replaced with government programs is now dominant in the West. This basically means that my children will be less prosperous, less free and less secure than I am. I do not want my children to have the poor character that results from being dependent on a secular left government for their livelihood. And I am also concerned about the kind of world the children will live in as the traditional family, which is a bulwark against state power, declines in influence.

I wish women started to think about how marriage and parenting really work. Instead of thinking about recycling and vegetarianism, women should be thinking about forming their own character for the role of wife and mother. They should be thinking about how to strengthen men’s roles instead of weakening them through premarital sex and big government. They should have the attitude of wanting to learn about obstacles that will prevent a good marriage – and not just ideas but threats to the finances and liberty of the family. They should not believe that “everything will work out as long as we love each other”. Love takes preparation and work.

By the way, this article from the libertarian Cato Institute explains more about how the government creates financial incentives for people to break up families and harm children.

Related posts