One thought on “Feminism is subversive, destructive and unfair – so why do we bother?”

1. Yes in “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State: in the Light of the Researches of Lewis H. Morgan” Engels near the end of his life sets out the feminist project. The only thing new is the idea that you can change sex. Other than that its all familiar stuff. The utility to modern feminists is that no matter how upper middle class and privileged they are they can claim to be members of an oppressed “class”. This cuts across the obvious, that classes such as Royalty, Aristocracy, Bourgeoisie, Rentier etc. had women in them often in powerful positions, just as in the oppressed classes. “Boutique Feminists” find a theory that backs up their claims to be oppressed while pursuing campaigns against builders, white van man and pursuing high incomes from “work” that has a good “work life” balance (which means is as convenient as possible). So one has already “privileged” often pampered individuals cloaking their self centred demands in the “oppression” of their female class. Nice trick.

   I’ve referenced before the research done in Sweden when they realised theirs was both a highly sex segregated workforce, with few women in senior roles outside Politics where there were quotas. The results found that women crowded into public sector work where they worked fewer hours, had much more leave, sabbaticals, and opportunities to have flexi hours or work part time and importantly could earn good salaries without taking on more responsibility by climbing the managerial ladder. Given they couldn’t get women to work more, harder and be ambitious. The solution in public policy was to get men to work less, be less hard working and less ambitious. First by exhortation and then by measures of “compulsory” parental leave for men and shaming those that continued to work through their leave. In effect a test of Hakim’s “Preference Theory”. Fortunately for the Swedes, and their huge female dominated public sector, their private industry is almost exclusively a male preserve and highly developed. Largely sidestepping this attempt to make its workforce less productive and work round the compulsory time off it continues to generate surpluses to fund the massive and far less productive female dominated public sector. In the UK we ignore such demonstrations of preference theory and continue to fund a ballooning and less productive public sector (busy with WFH, 4 days for 5 days pay etc.) from high taxation on the productive workforce and industries. Filling the gap in funding, as the private sector struggles to increase productivity, with borrowing and QE (actually just more borrowing) largely from our own Pension Funds. In the post war even a Socialist Gov. realised that exporting, positive balances on trade and reducing debt. were important. Today’s feminised nation has a belief in a sort of magic money tree that will allow all women to be paid at “girl boss” rates despite only popping into work once a week and sending a few e-mails now and then. Labour will yet again find themselves off to the IMF or whoever else they can find to bail us out when inevitably the wheels fall off the fantasy.

   LikeLike

   Reply