There is No Such Thing as "Dirt Blindness"

 I came across this totally nonsensical article from last year which claimed as part of the authors' study the reason women all across the board all over the world do much more housework than men isn't because men are "dirt blind" but because women are afraid of being judged.  The question I have is by whom?  Their mothers-in-law?  Their friends?  This explanation isn't convincing at all.

I made a video today, in honor of Labor Day, explaining WHY men don't do as much around the house.  It really isn't rocket science as to why:

Men and Mass Murder

Mass murder and woman-hatred go together like bacon and eggs.

Racism and sexism go together like bacon and eggs. Most of these dudes are racist as well.

Dayton, Ohio, mass shooter Connor Betts

Male entitlement, of which violence is one form of it, IS the major cause of so many men's troubles and even poses a threat to the earth. They are conditioned to be narcissistic. They are taught, from childhood, that they are owed anything and everything, and this is especially true with regard to women. Men never can get it in their heads women don't owe them anything. They aren't things to put their d***ks in, they aren't incubators, and they aren't domestic servants for them. They are human beings, not things to possess and own, not things to be bought and sold (porn, prostitution, surrogacy). It is not women's "job" to fix men.

The attitude towards women is even worse in cultures and religions like Islam, which still see women as chattel, completely subhuman, who can be killed on a whim.

Nobody should be surprised by this article.

The fact that mass shootings are almost exclusively perpetrated by men is “missing from the national conversation,” said Gov. Gavin Newsom of California on Monday. “Why does it have to be, why is it men, dominantly, always?”

Good question, Gavin. Some postulate men are inherently screwed up; the root cause of their being fucked up is in the "deteriorating" y-chromosome. Others, however, say it is the way men are raised, and I tend to agree with this. If all men were as genetically fucked up as some claim, the human race would have been dead and gone a long time ago. After all, men make the choice to behave violently towards women; to say they can't help it is the same sexist shit that tells women they have to restrict their movements for fear of being raped and murdered. It is saying men can't help it, and they aren't responsible for their actions.  It is saying it is up to women to "control" men by restricting their movements and behavior.  It is horseshit, I think.

It all goes back to the idiotic sex roles kids are indoctrinated with early in life. The internet, with forums set up for men who think they are entitled to women because they see women as objects to fuck and pop kids out, merely exacerbates the problem:

Experts say the same patterns that lead to the radicalization of white supremacists and other terrorists can apply to misogynists who turn to mass violence: a lonely, troubled individual who finds a community of like-minded individuals online, and an outlet for their anger.

“They’re angry and they’re suicidal and they’ve had traumatic childhoods and these hard lives, and they get to a point and they find something or someone to blame,” said Jillian Peterson, a psychologist and a founder of the Violence Project, a research organization that studies mass shootings. “For some people, that is women, and we are seeing that kind of take off.”

...

Psychiatrists, however, say that the attention on mental health generated by mass shootings, and the common argument that mental illness is the explanation for these massacres, cannot explain the link between misogyny and mass shootings. Misogyny — or other types of hatred — is not necessarily a diagnosable mental illness.

Instead, said Amy Barnhorst, the vice chair of community psychiatry at the University of California, Davis, who has studied mass shootings, what ties together many of the perpetrators is “this entitlement, this envy of others, this feeling that they deserve something that the world is not giving them. And they are angry at others that they see are getting it.”

Narcissism and entitlement by men. THOSE also go together like bacon and eggs.

Stating the Obvious

I don't need articles like this one telling me what I have long known about our economy.

The system is rigged so that women have to avail to the marriage racket. Women are underpaid on purpose in order to force them into economic dependence on men and men get sexual access and free domestic labor in return. This is why women make up by far the biggest group of poor people. Marriage is the major means of upward mobility for women, and our society doesn't question it at all.

I don't need to read a book trying to explain the obvious. Second-wave feminists heavily criticized the "family wage" system pushed by unions and churches like the Catholic church because women not only were kept out of fields dominated by men, but the work that they did do was completely denigrated in pay.

This is why "equal pay for equal work" doesn't truly address the issue because men's pay has always been inflated thanks to the "family wage" concept that still influences our economy despite the fact fewer and fewer jobs pay "family wages." Most "male jobs" should pay little more than minimum wage.

ALL "Masculinity" and "Femininity" is Toxic

ALL of it. Sex roles are poison and limit and even destroy lives.

I cannot believe that a man who makes a choice and who isn't harming anyone else by taking his wife's name when they got married recently would evoke death threats by some deranged dudes.

It boggles the mind that some men are so insecure or hate women so much they think such a choice by a man they don't know can be seen as "emasculating." It shows me just how destructive the way we bring up children to think women and girls are so "icky" and "gross" that anything they do is seen as inferior to men.

People like to pretend that the decision to change your name after marriage is a purely personal choice — no more controversial than, say, the decision to get married in Summer or Spring or in a church or a garden.

But this is only the case if couples make the conventional "choice" and the woman changes her name.

Even if women make the "free" and "personal" choice not to take their husband's name after marriage, research tells us that this decision affects the couple's perceived status, with people assuming that the man is weak and the woman is a ball-breaker.

If, like Grant Phillips and his wife, couples subvert the convention even further with the man taking the woman's name, well then they better bunker down for the brutal backlash.

Why would these men — and yes all the abusive messages sent to Phillips were written by men — take time out of their day, and waste the keystrokes and the blood vessels abusing someone they don't know for doing something that doesn't affect them?

Heaven forbid any man treat a woman like a human being and not a possession and actually show respect for her, even honoring her and her family of origin.

There Is NO Such Thing as "Gender Equality"

There is NO such thing as "gender" equality. It is SEX equality. "Gender" is NOT sex; it refers ONLY to sex role stereotypes. And when you realize gender IS sex role stereotypes--and "gender" is a word that needs to be purged from the dictionary because it has been misused and conflated with sex--it IS the reason there is a divide. When you believe women are only good for screwing, popping out babies, and being a domestic servant, you believe in GENDER. Feminists--real ones, not the fake "third-wave" type who are not feminists at all--are in favor of ABOLISHING sex roles--"gender." When your writers cannot even understand the distinction between sex and sex roles, they have no business writing these kinds of articles.

Feminists made a gigantic mistake in the late 1970s in replacing the terms "sex roles" and "sex-role stereotypes" with the word "gender," a word that had previously been used only in linguistics. Giant mistake. The word needs to go because of its constant misuse.

Men Who Insist Women Should Cook for Them Should Be Ditched

It's amazing to me how outdated concepts of sex roles--gender--still persist even though times have so radically changed from fifty or sixty years ago. I was sure way ahead of my time as a little girl in 1963, the year Betty Friedan published The Feminine Mystique (of course at the time I had never heard of it), when I rebelled against the idiotic "women's work" around the house, being called "lazy" and "worthless" by my abusive parents while of course the males never did one goddamned thing around the house.

After all, nothing was expected of the girls in my family other than find some blue-collar idiot to marry, pop his kids out, and be a stupid servant around the house in exchange for the man "taking care" of them, to use my mother's revolting phrase as if women were little kids or invalids.

Naturally, I rejected all that.

I don't mind cooking for myself. I have never cooked a meal for anybody else, including and especially men, because cooking is expensive and a major time suck, despite all the howls by self-styled nutritionists and health food nuts, many of them MEN, bemoan the lack of home-cooked meals (ALWAYS prepared by women) these days. Furthermore, I am not some man's goddamned servant. If he wants a meal, he can fix it himself.

People always peddle the fiction that eating at home is "cheaper" and cooking at home is "healthier," but neither is true, plus people who make those claims always have sexist motives trying to guilt women to return to their "feminine" roles.

When you figure in the cost of transportation getting the ingredients, the cost of the ingredients and food, the time involved in preparing the food, and cleanup, it isn't cheaper at all. The time factor is the absolute worst when it comes to cooking anything other than basic meals. There is simply not enough time to fix five-course meals for dinner, let alone three times a day.

The last thing women need to hear is some sexist asshole trying to tell them they need to cook meals like their mommies and grandmommies did knowing full well their efforts would NOT be appreciated by their spouses/SOs and their kids.

In times of yore, "homemaking" textbooks like Teen Guide to Homemaking, a copy of the 1967 edition I bought on Amazon a couple of years ago, were very much mired in the 1950s idea that women had to fill all of the spare time available with making the home "arts" a full-time endeavor.

Given how "meal planning" was viewed in this book, that alone was a full-time job.

Here is an example of a "menu," which the authors of the book encourage young girls--and they WERE young girls back then because this was pre-Title IX--to literally have for each meal, and remember, this had to be done THREE times a day, FROM scratch for the most part. You couldn't go out and purchase microwavable meals (which didn't exist) or buy pre-made dessert dishes or pastries.

Breakfast:

Orange Juice
Scrambled Eggs
Bacon
Bran Muffins
Butter or Margarine
Milk
Coffee


Lunch:

Cream of Tomato Soup
Toasted Cheese Sandwiches
Baked Apple
Milk


Dinner:

Swiss Steak
Green Beans
Fruit Salad
Whole-wheat Bread
Butter or Margarine
Baked Custard
Milk
Coffee or Tea

Fuck this shit. I am SO glad that crap went by the wayside although mostly through necessity as women simply don't have the time to do this bullshit anymore.

Women Should NEVER Be Servants to Men

This kind of thing just makes me see red. It is the idea that women, including and especially those with paying jobs, are almost invariably stuck with doing the drudgery of housework and especially cooking at home. This is what author Arlie Hochschild wrote about years ago about the so-called "second shift" in two-income households.

Women are typically the ones stuck with child rearing on top of the homemaking bullshit. There is no excuse whatsoever for men not to be involved.

I have seen it where women and men try to justify the unequal distribution of household labor by saying since the man typically makes more money in the paying job, that means the unpaid labor by the woman somehow “balances” it out. This is stupid. For one thing, just because a man typically makes more money does not mean he works harder. For another thing, it isn’t the money factor that is the issue—it is the TIME factor. Housework and cooking especially are major time sucks out of the day. They are NOT “fulfilling,” no matter how much spin a masochistic woman might try and con herself into believing. They are drudgery, and cooking most of all because it cannot be put off the way other chores can be.

The doormat process begins during the dating period. I see red every single time a woman goes out of her way to cook and clean for a man she is dating. She has literally set the stage for this kind of abuse if she marries or shacks up with this particular man. The media and dating coaches will peddle the fiction that the way to express “love” for a man in the most kind way is to cook meals for him. What a load of garbage.

I can proudly say I have never cooked a meal for a man in my entire life of 62 years, and I never will. My philosophy is this: Dude, you want a meal? There is the refrigerator, there is the stove/microwave. Fix it yourself.

ALL women should have this philosophy.

It Is All By Design

Of course women are more stressed out and overworked because of sex discrimination in the workplace, workplace stress especially in careers like nursing and teaching, and being stuck with jackass husbands at home.

In these cases it is because men want it that way. They underpay women to force them into financial dependence while men get sexual access and free domestic labor in return.

Women need to ask themselves if it is worth it. Yes, society has to have reproduction in order to continue, but is it worth it by denigrating what women do?

Thank God this domestic garbage was something I never had to face. It has been really hard financially, but it is extremely liberating not having to orient my life around some entitled dude.

"Having It All" Was Always a Load of B.S.

As I wrote on this blog many times, the phrase was always a cruel lie given the way the vast majority of women lead their lives, so this article comes as no shock to me.

Although Helen Gurley Brown was credited with the phrase, she herself did not believe in it and absolutely hated that title for her 1982 self-help book. However, people more concerned with book sales overruled her, and the phrase stuck.

I was around then when the notion was all the rage. It had nothing to do whatsoever with feminism but the delusions of Mad Ave types. In reality, "having it all" was an impossibility, while DOING IT ALL was the reality given how shitty too many husbands acted regarding household responsibilities and child rearing.

On a related note, I have heard it said that because wives typically earn less than their husbands, they would do most or all of the housework to "balance out" the fact they earned less. This is without regard for how many hours out of the week household chores take. The notion is that the man makes more money not because of sex discrimination against women but that he works harder than his wife, so that justifies him acting like a lazy shit at home. The fact is, making more money shouldn't have anything to do with the division of housework. The time factor is.

Anyway, "having it all" deserves to be thrown into the garbage can because it is just another way to straitjacket women.