Post 1900+ Feminism is a Sexist Thief

Once upon a time birth occurred; Some were born with penises and some with vaginas and with those natural elements came an epidemic of political debate and entitlement.

The Cause;  An inalienable natural process that cannot be changed.

The Effect;  A sure and consistent *FOCUS* that can never be eliminated.

As with any inalienable item, its only use is *LEVERAGE* to change other non-inalienable items.  In political circles the more *FOCUS* it gets the more *LEVERAGE* it becomes.  Feminism is “empowering women”.  The phrase uses the inalienable item (Women) as leverage to the non-inalienable item (Power).  Power is the debate and *SEXISM* is the leverage.  Power is the ability to act or produce effects.

1)  Contrary to popular belief; Women have (as far back as I researched) been able to own property, conduct business, work, keep and manage their *OWN EARNINGS*.  However; In England, 1100 A.D.;  A legal belief ( called coverture ) put married men and women under “one financial entity” where the male became the “Head of the household”.  This law soon escalated into a power struggle between the men and women whom have *ACCEPTED* a legal marriage and as a result;  the **CORRUPTED** view that women are property of their husbands emerges.  ( ).  This corrupted view opens the door to the feminist movement announcing the slogan “empowering women” but isn’t specific enough to say “empowering married women”.  The all-to-generic slogan of course invites *ALL* women to jump onto the band-wagon claiming the victim and inequality (“male entitlement / privilege / dominance”) anytime and anywhere a male or plethora of males exist (IE. sexism).

2)  Since women have always had free market rights – The plethora of males in the free market resources is attributed to “gender-roles” and labelled as being “sexist”.  However, its quite apparent this was *NOT* a legal or dominance system (short of nature) that made gender-roles as it is so massively encouraged by advocates.  Gender-roles are observed in every life species on the planet.  While women have *chosen* to focus their workmanship towards nurturing other humans, Men have *chosen* to focus their workmanship to their environment (IE. free market resources) and as a result men have *COINCIDENTALLY* ended up *EARNING* a mass-majority of resources on the free market while women have ended up with other humans which *COINCIDENTALLY* claimed their own legal ownership/entity at the age of 18.  In other-words; human nurturing doesn’t yield ownership or entitlement to market resources because “slavery” is a big no-no.

3)  In a “free” market;  Value is a reflection of supply and demand.  When any person becomes dis-appointed in their own ability to produce desired market value (IE. market power = creating an effect on the market) in obtaining resources;  it becomes far *EASIER* to advocate (IE. build public support) for *legally forced* sharing of market resources (IE. “equality”) using an inalienable *LEVERAGE*.  Instead of working with the free market by creating opportunity and value; one can *TAKE* of the resources already in place based on public support of socialistic *legal* changes that *ENTITLES* inalienable characteristics to market resources.  The difference being “play the victim” or “advertise the value”.

Finding the path of least resistance to obtain resources, desires and to sustain life is what separates humans from the rest of living species.  When the “play the victim” is used to *TAKE* resources and encourage socialistic law it weakens free market principles; such as personal freedom, liberty, ownership, accountability and responsibility.  Socialistic empires *don’t* acknowledge personal property/ownership or rights.  What use to be “your earnings” becomes a collectively “ours” and now is legally conditioned on “sharing” those with a particular % of females at a particular % of wage with a particular % of paid leave.  Making such items *legal* items removes the free market variable of value.

Child Support, Feminism and The Rape Culture

I had a friend once (we’ll call him Fred) who was approached by another friend (we’ll call him Sam).  Sam once claimed that Fred owed him money for new tires he needed to put on his motorcycle.

Fred of course was confused, “Why do I owe you money so you can put tires on your motorcycle?”

Sam replied, “Because I let you ride it.”

Fred replied, “So you mean to tell me —

1) I don’t own your motorbike

2) You emphatically choose who gets to ride it

3) When you allow me to ride it I owe you money for something you volunteered?”

Sam replies, “Of course – what did you think?  Did you think Just because I volunteered to let you drive it that I was letting you do it for free?”


We all know stories of this nature and to many of us it may seem a bit off; but when it comes to child support; this is exactly the same episode played out in the legal system.  There seems to be this consistency that women emphatically contain all ownership of matters regarding their body, pregnancy and children while demanding payment for an act that was volunteered in the first place.

This stance implies the “rape culture”.  One in which entitlement has gotten so far out of hand that the act of two persons of opposite sex having sex is treated like rape by one side.  This is the same lunacy as saying that even though Sam volunteered to allow Fred to take his motorcycle for a spin; he actually “stole” it and now needs to pay up for damages done to HIS property.

Will the world ever *really* treat women with equality?  As they say, “Woman up” – take responsibility for your actions and that would mean emphatically protesting child support laws.