07 June 2012

The Paycheck Fairness Act

It failed.  That’s a good thing, if Barbara Boxer is to be believed:
“It’s the way every law is implemented. You have a law and it’s enforceable, in the courts. That’s how we enforce laws. You have to obey the law and you cannot discriminate against a woman, if this were to be the law. You cannot fire her and if you fire her then you’re going to get sanctions by a fair court and a fair jury. That’s how we do things in America.”
Of course, this law would have the general effect of increasing unemployment among women, since no rational person would want to hire them.  Not even generally irrational people would be stupid enough to hire women under such a regime.  Really, governments would be the only employer retarded enough to hire women in lieu of such regulation.

At this point, I don’t know why feminists just don’t go ahead and say that they want all the resources at the united states’ disposal, and that they don’t want to have to do anything to get them, other than having a slit and a pulse.  Because that’s basically what this sort of legislation amount to:  women being able to have a job completely on their terms, without having to worry about such mundane things like showing up or actually performing the tasks for which you were hired.  (As Boxer observed, no woman could be fired because the employer firing the woman would have to prove that the woman wasn’t fired because she was a woman.  This is a generally difficult thing to do.)

Really, this piece of legislation was nothing more than a shit test, writ large.  Thankfully, the US passed the test.

Furthermore, it can be said, in a sense, that feminists are desperate to be governed by masculine leaders, given the sheer inanity of this test.  The demands were so far-fetched that only the saddest-sacked of leaders would even take it seriously. When the tests start getting this severe, you can tell that there’s an absence of true masculine leadership.  The proper response is to laugh derisively and then sponsor a bill that declares women to be the government-approved maker of sammiches for male consumption.

At any rate, it’s nice to see that rational (read: masculine) leadership isn’t altogether dead in the US.  Hopefully this is the start of a new trend wherein the political advances made feminism are clearly and decisively reversed.  My only concern is that this reversal doesn’t lead down the road to totalitarianism.


  1. As a liberal, this kind of thing makes me feel sympathy for the average conservative who is pissed off at the stupid things conservatives do. I know how they feel now.

    It's like you're rooting for your baseball team. They were behind but they catch up (Obama wins in 2008). Then they decide on a new strategy in which they repeatedly bash their own knees with their bats. All you can do is watch in horror as they commit suicide.

  2. How is increasing women unemployment not a good thing?
    How is making government employment the only jobs available not a good thing?
    A civil service staffed by women and NAMs will be an idle and inefficient mess. And thats a good thing.

  3. "Thankfully, the US passed it."


  4. Despite Democratic support for the bill, women working for Senate Democrats in 2011 pulled in an average salary of $60,877, while men made about $6,500 more, according to a Washington Free Beacon analysis:


  5. @Anon.1- Well, as a libertarian, I applaud when both conservatives and liberals start self-destructing because that usually means freedom is about to expand.

    @spandrell- Who said it wasn't? I was merely observing that the bill would have an effect that was opposite its intentions.

    @Anon.2- I'll update that so it's more precise. I meant that the senate passed the shit test, not the legislation.

    @Anon.3- Male porn stars make 25% of what female porn stars make:


    I bet it's sexism.