Why Governments Love Feminism<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\nStop laughing — young Master Harold’s argument is that governments actually love feminism, which explains why the Bush Administration has embraced pro-woman policies like limiting access to birth control and banning D&X abortions. Because governments love feminism!<\/p>\n
But why? Why do governments love feminism so much? Well, first, let’s define feminism as something it isn’t.<\/p>\n
\nFeminism has very little to do with equality between the genders, and it also has very little to do with the rights of women.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
That’s right, feminism is actually a brand of skin cream. Who knew?<\/p>\n
\nFirst and foremost, feminism is about various groups seeking to acquire power and money, and to build huge self-serving empires in which millions – literally millions – of people nowadays have a vested interest – a vested interest that is, in fact, highly detrimental to those societies in which these people operate.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
To be fair, this is true. Approximately 150 million women in the United States alone have a vested interest in feminism allowing them to have a rough level of legal equality. And it’s detrimental to the society as a whole, except the opposite.<\/p>\n
But why does the government love this crazy system of working to allow men and women to choose their own destinies? To understand, let’s engage in an overly simplistic and easily refuted thought experiment:<\/p>\n
\nTo see how their game is played, I just want you to imagine a society – a somewhat idealised society – wherein the women are happy to spend their days being closely associated with their homes and their children, while the young men and the fathers are reasonably happy to troop off to the workplace – wherever this might be.<\/p>\n
And, further, I want you to imagine that most of the people in this society are mostly quite content with their situation.<\/p>\n
In other words, it is a reasonably happy place.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
And then I’d like you to imagine that the people who aren’t content with their situation are simply beaten until they shut up. And since nobody’s complaining, everything’s wonderful!<\/p>\n
\nAnd now the question that I want you to contemplate very deeply is this one.<\/p>\n
What\u2019s in it for government?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Well…accepting arguendo<\/em> that the fake world you describe ever could exist, I’d say that the government benefits by having a relatively stable and orderly society, which will work well to churn out workers for the coal mines and soldiers for our nation’s glorious armies, which will crush our licentious enemies.<\/p>\n\nHow can government – and government workers – benefit from having to exist within a society of people who seem to be quite happy and at peace with each other?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Uh…they don’t have to break up fisticuffs?<\/p>\n
\nOn what grounds can the government say to the people, \u201cYou need more government. Give us more tax money.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Oh! Well, let’s see, they would use it to build roads, fund police departments, raise armies, educate children, provide health care and social services, build parks, fund the judicial system, build jails, fund libraries, and, you know, do all the other things that governments do.<\/p>\n
All right! Well, we’ve answered Harry’s question, so now…<\/p>\n
\nWell, clearly, in such an idyllic society, it would be very difficult indeed to persuade the people to part with more of their own resources – acquired through their own labours – in order to fund \u2018more government\u2019.<\/p>\n
However, if this reasonably happy society can be disrupted by some force or other – some force that induces \u2018disharmony\u2019 within the population – an increase in crime, say – then the government will find it much easier to extract a bigger piece of the society\u2019s pie. For example, if there is an increase in crime, the people will far more readily agree to fund a bigger police force. If the men and women start fighting against each other, and begin to split apart, with married couples getting divorced, then the government can justify extracting further resources from the people in order to create a larger social services workforce to look after the women and children who are now on their own.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Aha! So feminism is the cause of all evil in society, no matter what! Because everyone knows that crime didn’t exist prior to the 1960s. Indeed, no government existed at all before evil ol’ feminism caused divorce, but evidently didn’t allow women to work because…something.<\/p>\n
\nAnd the point that I am trying to get across here is this.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
You’re a complete moron?<\/p>\n
\nGovernments benefit not by the people being at peace with each other, but by them being at war with each other in some way.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Wow, man, that’s deep. And incredibly, incredibly stupid. I know MRAs have this big crossover with libertarian douchebaggery, but in reality, governments are instituted by people, at least in liberal democracies, of which America is one. And those governments have a vested interest in not having to do too much, because the people, bless our flinty hearts, have a tendency not to want to pay too much in taxes, you know, ever, which leaves our government perpetually cash-strapped. Except for the Pentagon.<\/p>\n
\nOf course, governments can benefit from many other things too, but the point here is this. Governments clearly benefit from what I shall henceforth simply call \u2018disharmony\u2019 – societal disharmony; such as crime.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
And again, there was no crime before feminism! Damn you women and your two pillars of feminism. Basic equality with men — okay. But that long part where you advocate committing crimes — that’s been nothing but trouble.<\/p>\n
\nAnd because governments have massive power in comparison to ordinary individuals, they will tend to use this power to create more and more societal disharmony – with much success. Of course they will do this. Why? Well, because governments, and millions of government workers, benefit from disharmony, and they are not going to use their huge collective force to undermine themselves – which reducing \u2018disharmony\u2019 would do.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Which explains, among other things, why police routinely encourage murders, why schools teach our students that violence solves everything, and why the EPA poisons people.<\/p>\n
Well, actually that last one might be happening under the Bush Administration, but you get my point.<\/p>\n
\nAt the very least, government workers do not want to lose their funding, their jobs, their security, their pensions etc etc etc. And so they need to be perceived to be needed.<\/p>\n
Better still for them, are bigger empires with bigger salaries, and much more status and power.<\/p>\n
After all, in this respect, they are no different from anyone else!<\/p>\n
And, collectively, by hook or by crook, these government workers can, and will, create the most monumental force in order to get these various benefits for themselves; a force that the people simply cannot counter.<\/p>\n
Indeed, it would be bordering on the preposterous to believe that such an enormous body of government workers would not exert a force in a direction from which they, themselves, would benefit.<\/p>\n
After all, these people are not gods. They are human beings!<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
And by human beings, Harry means that they’re evil, and that they choose to go into government service and get those lucrative five-figure salaries and all the stock options that the government usually offers, all so that they can systematically destroy society from within. It’s all coming into focus now.<\/p>\n
\nIn a nutshell: These government workers want bigger empires with bigger salaries and bigger pensions. They want more status and more power. And, collectively, they will exert such a huge force that no-one can actually stop them from getting these things; as the monumental growth in government over the past 120 years or so in the west has clearly shown. (Central governments have grown more than one hundred-fold over the past 120 years.)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
The last 120 years? Why, you’d almost think growth in central government had nothing to do with feminism, but instead things like our radically higher standard of living and radically larger population! But no, it’s probably all about the government using feminism to build torture centers at Guantanamo Bay.<\/p>\n
\nNow, because the main aim of feminists is to create as much disharmony as possible between men and women in order to fund their own empires, governments just love them; because, remember; for governments, the more disharmony, the better.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Wait — because I’ve been lulled to sleep by Harry’s rambling, repetitive tripe, I missed the part where he showed that feminists were actually out to create disharmony. You know, with any statements or evidence or stuff. Let me go back and read here…<\/p>\n
<\/embed><\/object><\/p>\nWell, I’ll be darned — there isn’t any evidence! Why, it’s almost as if Harry’s just come up with some random strawfeminist jackholery to serve as the perfect foil to his fictitious government that doesn’t act like any government on earth. But I’m sure Men’s News Daily wouldn’t publish something like that! Not with their high standards!<\/p>\n
\nSo let us return to our rather over-simplified society, and see what happens when married couples with children within this reasonably-happy place start more often to divorce and to separate.<\/p>\n
Well, typically, the men will go off and live on their own somewhere, but they will continue working. The women, however, will have to choose some combination of going out to work and staying at home with the children.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Because obviously<\/em>, men wouldn’t want to raise the children, and women wouldn’t let men do that. And men and women never<\/em> would do something as crazy as work together to adjust schedules so that kids were taken care of. That’s impossible!<\/p>\n\nIf the women decide to stay at home, then they must be given a source of income by the government. This means that the government must take away money from others in order to fund them. And, already, this means creating a whole system of laws involving lawyers, judges, administrators, social assessors, financial offices and various allied bureaucratic systems.<\/p>\n
In other words, divorce and separation provide a whole plethora of benefits for governments and their workers.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
This is, of course, true, except for the majority of cases where women do in fact work, because, you know, they live in a society where women are allowed to work full-time. It’s strange, I wonder how that happened?<\/p>\n
\nFurthermore, of course, no-one in the population wants to see women and children left destitute, and so government now gets the benefit of some further popular support for its endeavours. Thus, the government also wins on this score.<\/p>\n
And, of course, the women who are put into this position with their children are now at the mercy of the government.<\/p>\n
In other words, they become dependent on the government; which is also great for government.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf you women do not vote for us, then you will get a smaller income from the government!\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
This, in turn, explains why the rest of society is happy to keep voting for this bizarre, threatening government that doesn’t let women work, because of feminism.<\/p>\n
\nNow, of course, women who have divorced – whether or not they have children – might instead decide to go out to work; in which case the government wins yet again – because it now has more workers from whom it can take money through the tax system.<\/p>\n
In other words, encouraging divorce and separation is a winning strategy for government.<\/p>\n
Indeed, it is win-win all the way.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Exactly, because no woman would choose to work while married; that never<\/em> happens, am I right, ladies? And the government will need that tax money to pay for all the women who aren’t working, because they are working and now they have money to pay for them not working so they can get the money from their work and now I’ve gone cross-eyed.<\/p>\n\nAnd, most importantly, this remains true whether or not the women have children, and whether or not they go out to work. It is the growing division between men and women that is the key to the government\u2019s winning strategy.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
And government loves division between men and women, given that the government is an entity much like the Yeti or the Blancmange<\/a>, completely alien to humanity, and not, in fact, a large and diverse organization made up of human beings.<\/p>\n\nIn summary, therefore, government has an enormous amount to gain by increasing the divide between men and women, because this enables government workers to justify the creation and the controlling of many large empires, they can more easily extract higher taxes, they can tax more people, they can make more people dependent upon them, and they can gain themselves some extra popular support.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Wow. That’s just an incredibly stupid article, one that has no rational basis, one that invokes that most famous of philosophical arguments, “If A=B, and B=C, then A=Feminists are Evil.” And I’m just glad it’s done.<\/p>\n
\nBut this is just the beginning.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Wait — what?<\/p>\n
\nMany, many further benefits accrue to the government when the close relationships between men and women are broken apart. For example, the negative social consequences of not having strong fathers around their children are positively huge. These tend to impact most directly on boys, but the repercussions reverberate across the whole of society – for decades. For example, youngsters – both girls and boys – without fathers in the home are far more likely to \u2026<\/p>\n
\u2026 live in poverty and deprivation, \u2026 be troublesome in school, \u2026 have more difficulty getting along with others, \u2026 have more health problems, \u2026 suffer from physical, emotional and\/or sexual abuse, \u2026 run away from home, \u2026 get sexual diseases, \u2026 become teenage parents, \u2026 offend against the law, \u2026 smoke, drink alcohol and take drugs, \u2026 play truant from school, \u2026 be excluded from school, \u2026 behave violently, \u2026 give up on education at an early age, \u2026 make poor adjustments to adulthood, \u2026 attain little in the way of qualifications, \u2026 experience unemployment, \u2026 have low incomes, \u2026 be on welfare, \u2026 experience homelessness, \u2026 go to jail, \u2026 suffer from long term emotional and psychological problems, \u2026 engage only in casual relationships, \u2026 have children outside marriage or, indeed, outside any partnership.<\/p>\n
Indeed, a whole cascade of social problems – i.e. a great deal of \u2018disharmony\u2019 – is generated by the effects of youngsters not having fathers around.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Oh my God, he’s not done, is he? He’s still arguing the same claptrap he was before, only moreso.<\/p>\n
\nBut, clearly, governments benefit fantastically from this; because governments can use these enormous problems to justify even further increases in both taxes and power.<\/p>\n
After all, the people want to be protected from all the negative social consequences of fatherlessness – and, of course, the victims themselves could clearly do with a bit of extra help.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
It’s not fair — he’s now leapt into an insane universe where the breakdown of society is good for government because a broken society makes government bigger, and hey, government isn’t part of society, right? And in a democratic society, the breakdown in society wouldn’t lead government to, say, lose badly in the next election, because…who knows? He’s now completely jumped the rails of reality and gone off into another word entirely.<\/p>\n
I’ll save you the 3500 (not kidding) more words in which he spins his obviously insane argument into proof that feminism is the cause of global warming, immigration is a secret government plot, and governments are actively working to make marriage more difficult. Okay, that last one may have some merit when talking about California, but I don’t think Grumpy Harold is talking about gay couples.<\/p>\n
All I know is that feminism is far worse than I ever thought it could be. Here I thought it was a philosophy that said men and women should have equal opportunites. Little did I know that it also was the lynchpin in making ours a communist society. You might have mentioned that, ladies. Oh well.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
You know what I haven’t done for a while? That’s right — rip some MRA’s screed to shreds. To be fair, I’ve been busy, what with the election, and the fact that MRAs have that deep well of anger that … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[31],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5452","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-feminism-sexism-etc"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5452","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=5452"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5452\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5452"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5452"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5452"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}