16 June 2006
When they feel their wage-gap myth threatened by statistics and facts, such as that women earn less on average because they work less to take care of children, feminists sometime fall back on claims that single women without children earn less on average too. Predictably they don’t bother to offer any statistics, but then, maybe it is partly true. I do know a number of childless spinsters, including many who are a bit older than me and often with degrees (which I don’t have) but who earn less. At my workplace there is a university educated woman who is two-years older than me and who has been here five-years longer than I have, but I’ve been promoted above her.
This seems to be their own choice though, based on the belief that it’s not their responsibility or duty to work for the rest of their lives and support themselves; that’ll be a future husband’s job. Or an ex-husband’s job. Or maybe even the taxpayer if she whelps a bastard or two.
I’ve heard women say they don’t bother working overtime or going for promotions because they don’t want the stress, and clearly assume that they’ll be housewives (or “a lady of leisure” to use their preferred phrase) by their mid-thirties. One woman I worked with actually pulled out of applying for a promotion because she recently moved in with her reasonably wealthy boyfriend, and on the assumption this guy would no doubt marry her (which he won’t, if he’s sensible) she clearly figures the end of her working life is in sight and a life of leisure and daytime telly await. Another woman struggled to get a promotion and, within a month of getting it, quit her job to be a part-time barmaid. She was engaged (and had been for about three-years) and admitted she only wanted the promotion to prove to herself she could do it. After that, it was take-it-easy time, because future husband was, in her view, obliged to provide for her (rather amusingly, he later broke up with her and married someone else. Heheh!)
We are also told that women own less property or have less savings and assets than men, even childless spinsters. Once again, if we assume this is true, then it is easily explained by women’s assumptions that a man will come to provide for them.
Women are made out to be sensible with money whilst men are spend-happy morons. Admittedly I do know some women who are sensible with cash and men who piss their wages away on gambling or boozing, but generally speaking it is women who endlessly spend.
All I tend to hear women at work talk about is shopping. They spend their money as quick as they can on crap they don’t need and that has little or no objective value save for the fact that there are endless women who will buy it. I know of a few women who earn more than I do but who either live at home or share a flat with friends, meaning their costs are considerably less than mine, as seen as I have to cover rent and bills all on my own. So they probably have, I would estimate, approximately £400 (about $730) more disposable income than I do a month. Yet they are always broke as pay-day approaches. They admit they have no savings and have massive credit card debts. They buy stuff they don’t need for the hell of it, as if they were allergic to money.
I may not have a fortune stashed away, and I still just rent a one-bedroomed apartment, but I’ve managed to tuck away a reasonable amount of savings over the years, and it’s rare that one month’s pay doesn’t last until the next one. I also have no debts at all. Yet these women, with their wardrobes full of designer crap and empty bank accounts, express extreme surprise when I mention that I have savings and no debts. They’re puzzled and even suspicious that when I we get paid I still actually have money left over from last month’s pay. When we got a bonus last year, my female colleagues were shocked when I said I was going to save mine instead of going on a shopping spree; they thought I was “boring” and “weird”. One actually said that I should “get a girlfriend and spend money on her”, a comment I didn’t even deign to acknowledge.
We’re often told how women tend to live alone more than men, which is made out to be some great sign of how independent and empowered they are (feminists have no problem pointing this out whilst, at the same time, insisting women are all poor and hard-done by.) As many have pointed out before, this is primarily because women can get pregnant and get a house from the government. In actual fact, I know few working women who have their own houses. I do know a large number of them, many past 30, with good jobs who actually live with parents. On the other hand many men tend to move out and, if possible, get on the property ladder on their own. Or save up to emigrate, as I’m planning on doing.
It seems most modern women women are just lazing about spending their money on crap and believing that it’s the duty of a man – one with a good job and a house of course – to marry them and invite them to live with him, not to mention to live on his wages. After all, modern women think that they are entitled – owed, in fact – a career, but it’s us silly men who are the ones who have to work until we’re 65 and provide for them.
If it is indeed the case that childless single women earn less than men on average, and that women have less property or major assets than men, it’s their own choice based on their absurd assumption that Prince Charming will rescue them. Most women seem to spend their twenties wasting money on all sorts of useless crap and/or don’t bother putting in the time and effort to work to get a high-powered promotion with associated responsibilities and stress because they tend to assume that, in their early 30s, some guy with his own house will marry them and pay off their debts, put a roof over their head and provide for them happily ever after.
Not happening is it ladies?
Most guys, in particular the wealthy ones, are not stupid enough to risk marriage these days. Those that are know they’re in short supply and have the pick of women, so they’re hardly likely to go for a used-up career girl in her thirties who has a scowl, drying ovaries and probably a few STDs too.
So this is where the Man Tax comes in. Feminism is primarily a redistribution of wealth from men to women, and most importantly to remove women’s obligation to provide anything (domestic duties, children, loyalty, etc) in order to get men’s money. This is obviously where divorce settlements and child support come in. With men beginning to avoid marriage during the 1980s, welfare benefits had to be increased, not only to ensure the feminist dream of women being able to have children on their own without any awful men around, but to keep the transfer of wealth (80% of all taxes come from men and most of it goes to women, indirectly or otherwise) from men to women without the latter giving the former anything in return.
Polly Toynbee – a Guardian columnist, arch-feminist and unapologetic man-hater who’ll be the first tied to a stake above a pile of firewood when the revolution comes – once justified the Man Tax (the best way to “transfer money from wallet to handbag”, as she put it) by claiming that men tend to earn more and own more whilst poor wikkle womyn are the ones who keep the welfare state going through their taxes because they work more than men. Polly was oblivious to the fact that both points completely contradict each other, the second point is laughable and without merit, and furthermore that women only keep the welfare state going by the primary users of it!
What lies at the heart of this is that us men, by not having any choice in the matter because we can’t marry into wealth, work hard and so earn more on average, and tend to invest and save for the same reason. Women like to think they can have their flashy careers, spend money as they please, party away during their twenties and then be rescued and provided for by some poor guy who actually spent his twenties working extra-hard and saving and investing his money. As this isn’t happening, femmies are pissed off and are thus suggesting the Man Tax, a convenient way of getting their hands on our money. They can’t go raising taxes across the board, like income tax or VAT, because that will effect women as well as men. In fact, as more women enter the workforce and push men out of it, feminists are starting to get a bit annoyed at the prospect of working women supporting unemployed men.
(Obviously another handy side-effect of the Man Tax is to encourage lesbian relationships, or at the very least to knacker in male/female ones. If all men are being taxed 15% of their wages – on top of conventional tax – then women who want a provider will be best off hooking up with another woman, not a man.)
Despite their claims of being so wonderfully independent from us, women want financial security and stability, and the Man Tax is a last ditch effort to ensure they can continue obtaining this but without actually having to (a) work hard for it (b) sacrifice partying and going on shopping sprees throughout their twenties and actually save for their future for once, or – worst case scenario for today’s women – (c) stop whoring around and instead marrying young and earning the right be provided for by a husband by actually being loyal and caring to him in return.
posted by Duncan Idaho @ 7:26 PM
At 8:52 PM, MagicalSis said…
refreshing and funny….ugg
At 9:59 PM, Anonymous said…
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if a not insignificant number of domestic abuse and even rape claims come as a result of the woman basing all sorts of unfounded assumptions on what a guy says and does vis-a-vis ‘the relationship’, feeling entitled to be provided for (“because I’m worth it”) and then getting mad when they find out that the guy is not quite that gullible.
At 11:45 PM, Anonymous said…
One of the reasons women earn less than men do is because they retire five years earlier than men do Curiously, I have never heard any feminists complain about this source of gender inequality. I suspect this might have something to do with the fact that women’s pensions during these five years are subsidised by men who both retire later than they do and die younger than them.
I don’t think we should dismiss all concern about the pay gap, just because there’s a lot of exaggeration and profiteering involved. There are women who don’t want kids who get discriminated against because lots of women do want to have them and not work. I think they’ve a legitimate grievance. If you’re committed and take your job seriously it’d piss you off no end if you got shafted because of the behaviour of a bunch of lightweights.
At 4:59 AM, darkbhudda said…
“If you’re committed and take your job seriously it’d piss you off no end if you got shafted because of the behaviour of a bunch of lightweights.”
Exactly how the males felt in one of our departments when a female with almost no experience was hired for a entry level position and received the same rate as guys with more than 5 years experience and who were far higher than her in the company. She then slacked off continuously and left after suing for sexual harassment because they asked if she had a boyfriend. She got a massive payout.
There are only a couple of females who work back in our office and they are department heads. Everyone else who works overtime is male. Female IT personnel refuse to work back so the males have to cover for them. Being a company that supports people all around the world in different time zones
The female turnover in our company is ridiculously high, even though they bend over backwards to accommodate their every whiny need. Sometimes they quit without even telling anyone.
The receptionist role has the highest turnover rate because either the women are so rude to clients that they have to be fired or they quit because they don’t want to answer phones all day and greet clients. Sorry? What the hell did you think the job was?
Now in my department we have great female co-workers who do their job well and are efficient and polite. But I look at the other departments and shudder at all the backstabbing that goes on and the abuse females hurl at each other. And their egos. The lowest female secretary, sorry admin officer, thinks she is more important to the company than the managing director.
And can’t they put some clothes on? They actually have the audacity to wonder why they as a 20 year old female who is showing her muffin top (lower belly) is not treated as more important than guys in their 50s with decades of experience and dressed in suit and ties.
At 5:25 AM, Patrick Henry said…
Duncan Idaho -
Love your work!
I am in my early 30s and “still” (as everyone points out) unmarried.
I would get married tomorrow if the law were not stacked against me as you point out so eloquently.
Keep it up!
At 7:25 AM, Captain Zarmband said…
The “Man Tax” idea was proposed by The Feminist Party in Sweden. The result was they lost nearly all of their support and ended up going into political oblivion. Even women can work out that a “Man Tax” would remove money from their own husbands pay packets and as such would be detrimental to married women and their families. The only women who would benefit would be women who lived alone or with other women who, of course, were the very women who suggested the “Man Tax” in the first place. The more that the batty Polly Toynbys of this world screech their man-hatred the better for men as sensible women will rally against it and realise that they are better off working with men not against us. After all Feminism has not got anything of value for women. All the rights that women currently enjoy were earned by men in wars, men fighting for social justice and the benefits of technology invented by men.
At 5:05 AM, Anonymous said…
If feminists think it’s a travesty that single mothers don’t have greater income and feminists are so “good”. Then why don’t they put their money where their mouth is and send around the collection plate at feminist meetings?
In fact, wouldn’t they be able to send around people to single career women’s houses to sign them up for a direct debit payment every year, like with the World Wildlife Fund for donations to single mothers?