In yesterdays New York Times there appeared an article detailing
the way in which average womens pay had become closer to the average
mens pay. The main reason cited was the way in which the recent
recession had lowered the income for men far more than for the average
woman-- because men are more likely to be in the sort of high risk,
ground breaking fields which have not prospered lately.
An important figure in womens economics opined, " We would prefer
that pay converge in a strong economy but however it happens, we should
be happy it is happening."
There you have it. The goal of feminists is that women gain on men
even if it requires that men be crippled. In the economy, in schools,
in every field.
Presumably the driving idea behind this is that women will be
better able to negotiate their relationships with men if they have more
power and independence. The fact that men are slowed down to achieve
this is of secondary concern. There is really no other way to read
this. Why else should the relationship between womens income vs. mens
income matter?? Why else should slowing men down be seen as something
to be happy about?
There are two big problems here. First, very few women really
desire guys to whom they feel superior. So the next generations are
likely to be deranged and demoralized because of single parenting and
low birth rates among people smart enough to understand. Second,
crippling guys in school and the work place will mean that the future
of our society will be determined by the economic power of Asia much
more than we will like.

We all know exactly how Hyer.. will respond but so what? She and her
ilk do not really care what happens to our country... any more than the
person quoted in this article.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 1/1/05 2:54:01 PM