Women caused the credit crisis:-

[jupta]

A brilliant, highly scholarly paper covers this issue in quite some depth. Although it's old.

A few highlights:

THE ANSWER to all our problems is staring us in the face. It may even be quite literally staring at you, right now, across the breakfast table.

So put the paper down, stare back and ask yourself a selfless question.

Does the woman in your life really need a job?

Admittedly, this is not a fashionable question. From Iceland to Australia, men are blamed for causing the credit crunch, while a more feminine approach to finance is proposed as the solution.

Of course there will always be a place in the world of business for exceptional women. Women also have an important role to play in jobs that are too demeaning for men, like teaching. But the general employment of women is another matter. Indeed, working women almost certainly caused the credit crunch by bringing a second income into the average household, pushing property prices up to unsustainable levels.

Economically undeniable!

And the budget deficit can be solved too:

It would be ludicrous to suggest that women should be sacked purely to give men their jobs. In many cases, their jobs should be abolished as well.

Women are twice as likely as men to work in the public sector. They account for two-thirds of the Civil Service and three- quarters of all public employees.

Yet they are barely represented in the useful public services of firefighting and arresting people. Encouraging women to leave the workforce would go a long way towards addressing the budget deficit without any downside whatsoever.

Excellent.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Not bad! At least it provokes some thought.

But would those unemployed partners just take more children? They would get bored otherwise and probably end up fucking around or living alone and working again. I don't think they'll shop more or less because of it though.

It's true I think that couples are expected to bring in double the dough and many prices rise accordingly. Screwing the odd single who wants a similar lifestyle.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Work Less Party

What technology does is increase the efficiency with which we can produce more goods and services. If we do not consume more, we have a surplus of labour and people lose their jobs.

Attempt to reduce the workweek to sustainable levels. I've had to convince people not to laugh at the idea -- nobody so far has thought it sane immediately -- so it's unlikely that this party will ever come to power.

[Unidian]

It's a start.

I like Bob Black's idea better, though.

[Iolaus]

Wow, Unidian, that is a great article. I feel a lot better about the fact that I hate my job and want to quit working. I feel very guilty even saying that! Why? Because I am well paid and right now the conditions are fairly good, compared to previous jobs. I ask myself why I don't want to go to work. Often enough, I don't have that bad a time once I'm there. So I frequently berate myself - what is wrong with you? What's so bad? But the idiocy, the servility, the kid-glove control, the way I have to lie to make the forms come out right, regardless of what I actually do, oh on and on...

Although the work contains much that is surprising and unexpected, and not in good ways, nonetheless I am quite bored with it, disagree on deep spiritual and practical level with the way things are done, that the entire field is motivated by profit and not by compassion, even though compassion is a huge buzzword in the field. Furthermore, the increase in rules and regulations and demands, compared to 10 years ago, is getting almost unmanageable.

When you get off the elevators and before entering the big doors, I dream that on my last day on the job, I will quickly while no one is looking in that little foyer by the elevators, tack up a huge banner over those doors which says:

ABANDON HOPE ALL YE WHO ENTER HERE

I work on a cancer ward.

I'd gladly give up the right to vote in this farcical democracy in return for not being expected to have a job. And I don't even work full time.

Jupta's ideas of who is controlling what, and who's idea it is to do this or that, and what the motives are, are generally sorta backwards. Much of what he thinks is the work of women is not.

[Jason]

None of this would have happened if all these women had been where they were supposed to be.

[jupta]

Jupta's ideas of who is controlling what, and who's idea it is to do this or that, and what the motives are, are generally sorta backwards. Much of what he thinks is the work of women is not.

I think that women, at least superficially, did play a role in the credit crisis. They are, for the most part, quite unproductive, and taxing on the resources of the society. For one, a woman who pays about 2000 dollars in taxes per year, and takes 15000 dollars in daycare payments, is, quite frankly, a burden. That's not to say that there aren't any female engineers, scientists or Fortune 500 CEOs.

Now, if you want to get deeper and deeper down into the problem, I'd agree with you that there is some other, more sinister reason.

[Gretchen]

Now, if you want to get deeper and deeper down into the problem, I'd agree with you that there is some other, more sinister reason.

Yes, like credit default swaps, bad mortgage lending policies for which Congress is to blame, conspicuous consumers with lack of restraint, poor foresight by the automakers, allowing banks to become one stop shops for all financial needs, hedge funds, computer driven stock investments, corrupt politicians, and the list goes on. Corruption and greed are alive and well around the world, and this is economically undeniable. I think men are just as culpable as women.

[Shahrazad]

Gretchen, of all the reasons you listed, you really nailed it with this one:

bad mortgage lending policies for which Congress is to blame

Very few people understand it, but the mess we are in now was caused by government intervention, not the lack of it.

[jupta]

Now, if you want to get deeper and deeper down into the problem, I'd agree with you that there is some other, more sinister reason.

Yes, like credit default swaps, bad mortgage lending policies for which Congress is to blame, conspicuous consumers with lack of restraint, poor foresight by the automakers, allowing banks to become one stop shops for all financial needs, hedge funds, computer driven stock investments, corrupt politicians, and the list goes on. Corruption and greed are alive and well around the world, and this is economically undeniable. I think men are just as culpable as women.

For any bad thing, you could blame a number of people, but there are certain groups that you can blame the most. I'd say that women are mostly apparently responsible for the subprime meltdown, not the Congress. As you can see here:

In 2003, one in five home purchases were made by single women.

In 2006 women were 32% more likely to receive a subprime mortgage than men.

In 2006 women were 41% more likely to receive a high-cost subprime mortgage than men.

In 2006, 30% of mortgage borrowers were women

In 2006, 38.8% of subprime mortgage borrowers were women.

Stupid consumers...overwhelming majority of women. Excessive dependence on credit - mostly women. This is not to say that men ARE NOT responsible. They are just not AS responsible. Not most of them anyway.

Now, there are corrupt politicians and other rich and powerful people - all of them men - who may have caused this entire crisis by allowing women to go out of the house, and mess things up. But that's another story. When I was referring to a 'more sinister reason', I meant this.

[Carl G]

Women caused the credit crisis like children created Santa Claus. Both were foisted on people and are false.

[Unidian]

Carl wins 10 internets.

[jupta]

Women caused the credit crisis like children created Santa Claus. Both were foisted on people and are false.

I wouldn't say that it is false - that would mean that it didn't actually happen. I agree that it may have been conjured up. In any case, women are like children - case in point.

[Shahrazad]

Jason,

None of this would have happened if all these women had been where they were supposed to be.

The site you linked to is hilarious.

[Iolaus]

Hi Jupta,

They are, for the most part, quite unproductive, and taxing on the resources of the society. For one, a woman who pays about 2000 dollars in taxes per year, and takes 15000 dollars in daycare payments, is, quite frankly, a burden.

I am not sure what you mean about taking 15000 in daycare. Are you in Europe? Does daycare cost that much in Europe? Why would a working woman pay so little in taxes? The tax rate in Europe is high, but at least the people get something for it. Here, we get wars. I'd rather medical coverage.

If women take care of children, that is not unproductive, although it is so intensive that it does require outside help. All adults produce more than they consume if they are fit. It must be so. But men and women do it differently. Men are indeed stronger and more productive - because they are not reproductive - it has always been so and frankly I have always thought men get the better deal. Do you not think so? If you don't think so, would you rather be a woman? No? I thought not.

If not, then why do you resent her who has a tougher, or less rewarding lot in life?

But anyway, I detect in you that relentless anti-woman diatribe and so discussion will likely be futile. It may be that women ought to stay home with small children. I think so too. But if they are going to have only two children, they won't need to do that for more than 8 or ten years, max.

I read your post on women and the vote, and while I am ready to give up my right to vote and stay home from work, most of what you said I disagreed with. It seems typical conservative screed. I think women shouldn't vote, and should be outside the laws as well. Men's government shouldn't concern them.

You know that the federal reserve is not a government body and is a privately held bank, right? And you know that women and their votes had nothing to do with most of the important decisions that have landed us in our current situation, right? And you know the world had ample problems before women could vote or act autonomously, right? And that the record of female rulers is pretty exemplary, right?

One reduced state power in favor of federal by causing senators to be appointed by popular vote instead of by state legislators. The other was the amazingly dumb prohibition.

Kindly explain this one, if you would. Never heard this.

It is bizarre that you find centralization of power a feminine point of view, in light of the classic male drive toward power, the more centralized, the more power. Look at the soviet system, nary a female in 70 years of any import.

[Iolaus]

Jason,

None of this would have happened if all these women had been where they were supposed to be.

Ha, you laugh.
I long to bring back the menstrual hut. It would solve so many problems at a stroke. What a powerful stance is the menstrual hut! Take that you corporate rulers!

Instead we cower and are forced to pretend to be men. I am not a man and I don't feel like one, and my body doesn't work like one.

[jupta]

Hi Iolaus,

I am not sure what you mean about taking 15000 in daycare. Are you in Europe? Does daycare cost that much in Europe? Why would a working woman pay so little in taxes? The tax rate in Europe is high, but at least the people get something for it. Here, we get wars. I'd rather medical coverage.

That's the average working woman in US. I don't know about Europe though.

If women take care of children, that is not unproductive, although it is so intensive that it does require outside help. All adults produce more than they consume if they are fit. It must be so. But men and women do it differently

So why don't they stay at home and do their job? Women working outside the home contributes NOTHING to society. Moreover, they incur deficits.

I have always thought men get the better deal. Do you not think so? If you don't think so, would you rather be a woman? No? I thought not.

Given an option, I would be a man. But that's because I don't like to live in my own fantasy world, not because men have a better deal. Seriously, how can you think men have it better? The case can be made that we handle it better, but we don't HAVE it better. Women are far better off than men. If only they'd stop pitying them selves and look around.

But anyway, I detect in you that relentless anti-woman diatribe and so discussion will likely be futile. It may be that women ought to stay home with small children. I think so too. But if they are going to have only two children, they won't need to do that for more than 8 or ten years, max.

Alright, which part was 'anti-woman'? And about raising children, they should do it for 20 years or so. After that they can help raise other children, or make sandwiches.

I read your post on women and the vote, and while I am ready to give up my right to vote and stay home from work, most of what you said I disagreed with. It seems typical conservative screed. I think women shouldn't vote, and should be outside the laws as well. Men's government shouldn't concern them.

It was a more or less thorough analysis of the world history that is apparent to all of us. I didn't make any statement about women voting or not voting.

And that the record of female rulers is pretty exemplary, right?

Not in modern times. Indira Gandhi was a dictator, who's only famous for declaring war on Pakistan(any other PM would have done the same), and unnecessarily annexing areas which would have joined India anyway. Margaret Thatcher was more or less insane. Angela Merckel has very little power, and didn't do anything of note. Sonia Gandhi is a hereditary 5th generation head of the INC, with very little say in anything that goes on in the party.

In history, you might have a case for Elizabeth I and Catherine the Great. Maybe even Isabelle of Castille. Other than that I can't think of any great female rulers.

One reduced state power in favor of federal by causing senators to be appointed by popular vote instead of by state legislators. The other was the amazingly dumb prohibition.

Kindly explain this one, if you would. Never heard this.

It is bizarre that you find centralization of power a feminine point of view, in light of the classic male drive toward power, the more centralized, the more power. Look at the soviet system, nary a female in 70 years of any import.

While I don't have the time to explain the statement now, I'll address your point. Females look for a Big Daddy, which happens to be the government. That is why they look for more centralisation. Males are far more individualistic, and would just like to be left alone with their own property that they've earned themselves. Males look to decentralisation. Look at how few Libertarian women there are. Even the ones that claim to be libertarian are most probably in it for the rebellious aspect of it, not the actual political model.

Now I'm not saying that centralisation is completely wrong. In fact, it is essential to a degree for society to exist. It just shouldn't be present at the level that it currently is.

There were far more women(albeit far less powerful than their male counterparts) in Soviet politics than there were in American.

[DHodges]

<add foe>

[Shahrazad]

Good idea, David. I forgot that function existed.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Women caused the credit crisis like children created Santa Claus. Both were foisted on people and are false.

How exactly is a child false?

[Carl G]

Santa and the credit crisis are false. Both are concoctions by those in power.

[Iolaus]

Jupta,

OK, so what does this mean:

For one, a woman who pays about 2000 dollars in taxes per year, and takes 15000 dollars in daycare payments, is, quite frankly, a burden.

I can't make heads or tails of it. It's the part about "taking" 15000 in daycare payments. It doesn't compute. Also, it is difficult to believe many people pay only 2000 in taxes. Of course, there are lots of very low paid, and hopefully mostly young, people in the work force.

So why don't they stay at home and do their job?

Aaron Russo says feminism was an elite agenda, propaganda movement to get women into the workplace and to weaken the family. There were some interesting supportive arguments I found elsewhere, such as certain big name feminists and their publications being supported by the Rockefellers.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-iSii-x ... onspiracy/

Given an option, I would be a man. But that's because I don't like to live in my own fantasy world, not because men have a better deal. Seriously, how can you think men have it better? The case can be made that we handle it better, but we don't HAVE it better. Women are far better off than men.

I don't know why women have it better. In general, they have had it a bit safer, and that is indeed a benefit. But they have less strength, less freedom, less brains, less ambition, less creativity and while their role as a mother is a consolation and better than the father role in a way, it comes at the price of a huge physical sacrifice.

Let me give you an example. Due to some discussions among friends, the idea came to mind today if I could magically become ten years younger. And a few years ago, I would have jumped at it. But now, my periods are finally stopping, and I thought, if I became ten years younger, would I have to have ten more years of them? If so, I will pass. I love life, I really do, and being younger is unquestionably better than being older, but I totally balked at the thought of ten more years of being tied to that cycle. It just isn't worth it. Ten more years for a man would be worth it.

Women may have had a good deal in the 70's, but now they live a life of drudgery that will bring them early to the grave. I don't pity myself, I pity the young women I work with.

Alright, which part was 'anti-woman'?

Many of your comments.

And about raising children, they should do it for 20 years or so.

And get the kids out of the damned public school system, too, while they're at it.

I didn't make any statement about women voting or not voting.

You made statements about their influence and what they vote for, which I did not think was accurate. Or, in some cases, not bad.

Females look for a Big Daddy, which happens to be the government. That is why they look for more centralisation.

Oh, OK, I see your point. And yet, the desire to centralize for men comes of their desire to amass power.

Look at how few Libertarian women there are.

Every time I take one of those tests I come out libertarian, and yet I think the libertarians are crazy.

[jupta]

I can't make heads or tails of it. It's the part about "taking" 15000 in daycare payments. It doesn't compute.

Childcare.

Also, it is difficult to believe many people pay only 2000 in taxes. Of course, there are lots of very low paid, and hopefully mostly young, people in the work force.

To be fair that was quite low. I think it's more like 5000 -8000$. Either way, men pay 115% of IRS taxes in US. And the workforce is 56% women. That just blares out - FAIL.

Besides, women work in sectors which are primarily fund operated, i.e, which sap the most productive sectors, which are mostly occupied by men. They don't actually 'contribute' anything to the economy, while extracting a lot of money from it. That would be OK, if they stayed at home. The whole idea of women working is ridiculous to me. Things would be a lot better if they managed the home, leaving the great outdoors to men. The Gini coefficient would support my point too. Calculate the disparity(0.34 approx.), and then see it magically equalise and sway to the other side when you add things like childcare and alimony, net profit and loss margins, (produce - income), durability, maternity leave etc. on the women's side of the equation.

Aaron Russo says feminism was an elite agenda, propaganda movement to get women into the workplace and to weaken the family. There were some interesting supportive arguments I found elsewhere, such as certain big name feminists and their publications being supported by the Rockefellers.

I'm well aware of that conspiracy theory. But I can't take a stand on that.

I don't know why women have it better. In general, they have had it a bit safer, and that is indeed a benefit. But they have less strength, less freedom, less brains, less ambition, less creativity and while their role as a mother is a consolation and better than the father role in a way, it comes at the price of a huge physical sacrifice.

Like I said, men HANDLE the pressure better. That does not mean we have less pressure. Our physical and mental superiority is there for a reason. Periods and childbirth are a problem of course, but they are kinda weighed out by the things that men go through. I'm not complaining, just pointing it out.

Many of your comments.

I just pointed out some facts which were against women. That doesn't mean that I am anti-woman.

And get the kids out of the damned public school system, too, while they're at it.

I don't understand what you mean here. Are you saying that public schooling should be abolished? If you are serious, then I agree with you.

You made statements about their influence and what they vote for, which I did not think was accurate. Or, in some cases, not bad.

Women are apolitical or moderate, inherently collectivistic, know less about politics than men, and are likely to vote based on the attributes of political candidates rather than the political models that they support. Yet, they form 54% of voting population of the US. If women are not to be relieved of voting rights, then at least don't encourage them to vote.

Oh, OK, I see your point. And yet, the desire to centralize for men comes of their desire to amass power.

They are countered by other men, and sometimes cooperate to prevent any single one getting all the power(see economics of John Nash.)

Every time I take one of those tests I come out libertarian, and yet I think the libertarians are crazy.

Your views may superficially match with theirs. There are also several definitions and versions of libertarianism, so I can't really say anything without seeing the test you took. Anyways, I don't see how this is relevant.

All in all, I think the motto of everyone during this crisis should be - "Disregard females. Acquire currency."

[Iolaus]

Jupta,

Childcare.

Ok, but like, for the third time, I do not understand your point. Women don't take childcare, they pay it. This contributes to the economy I suppose. In many European countries, childcare is supported by tax dollars. I don't see this as bad, but it distributes the responsibility for childcare to the adult population at large. This may seem unindividualistic, but really we humans are tribal creatures, and in tribes there is a lot of shared responsibility along with a lot of democracy and egalitarianism. So that is really the human norm.

It is healthier for society to support families, to support infancy and young childhood. If the women are going to work then this should be done. In most European countries, the travesty of women working long shifts while trying to use their break time to pump milk and coming in to work exhausted with a 3 month old infant at home does not happen, because staying home for six months to a year is supported. Also, working part time, which I think is a real good compromise for young mothers, is supported. This is why I laugh when people say America is child oriented. We are not. We are corporate, male oriented.

To be fair that was quite low. I think it's more like 5000 -8000$. Either way, men pay 115% of IRS taxes in US. And the workforce is 56% women. That just blares out - FAIL.

Oh, come on now! This is nearly equal! What do you want? Women still stay home with their kids a fair amount, and many of them still put less effort into their careers, sufficiently so that overall, they still make less than men, even if they are 56% of the workforce. I hardly see that as a failure, 115 vs 85.
But how do you account for them being 56% of the workforce when the population is not even that skewed toward female, and not all young mothers work? Is it because more men are misfits?

Besides, women work in sectors which are primarily fund operated,

This seems like an exaggeration.

Like I said, men HANDLE the pressure better. That does not mean we have less pressure. Our physical and mental superiority is there for a reason. Periods and childbirth are a problem of course, but they are kinda weighed out by the things that men go through. I'm not complaining, just pointing it out.

They handle it better because they are stronger and have a different hormonal mix. This means that an equal pressure is not equal in how it effects men and women. If the man can handle it, then it is not undue pressure. Besides, much of that pressure is sought out by the men. They deliberately put themselves into positions in which there is pressure and danger.

I'm not saying men don't contribute more and have more pressure, at times they definitely get themselves into a loss situation, because they took the risk. But I don't see why you think women have it better.

I just pointed out some facts which were against women. That doesn't mean that I am anti-woman.

I would consider it anti-woman when all the opinions are such that women are worthless in every single possible way, rather than seeing a wise balance of attributes. This is the QRS attitude, and I have never taken them seriously because of it.

I don't understand what you mean here. Are you saying that public schooling should be abolished? If you are serious, then I agree with you.

Well, perhaps we need states rights and get the federal out of everything. I do have a problem, which you probably don't, with letting whatever goes in inside of families be their business. Again, as a person with a tribal perspective, there should be limits to the amount of abuse which can occur simply because the neighbors will put a stop to it. I'm afraid some kids would grow up with an alcoholic parent or two, and little care or education. And many people don't want to educate their kids for years on end, so I think we should probably bring back the little red school house.

I'm totally and completely aghast at the public school system, and hated nearly every day of it myself. I consider it a crime of major proportions the way they wasted my time and held me back until it was too late. It's an institution for raising laboratory rats.
I'd make a fantastic teacher and I would enjoy doing it, but I'll never make that switch because of the arduous requirements of a 5 year degree. Plus, having to comply with the propaganda machine.

They are countered by other men, and sometimes cooperate to prevent any single one getting all the power(see economics of John Nash.)

Yet there is another side to men. It does contribute to structure, and perhaps to getting things done, although always at great pain and loss, and that is the alpha-male, beta-male problem, inbuilt into the male psyche, and which women don't have. It is primate behavior. Chimps do it, and men do it. Men bow and lick the boots of those in authority, almost literally, with their butt upturned in the air and kiss the hands of kings and popes. This is really sickening behavior, when you find out that this is the same, I mean the exact same bodily movements that beta male chimps do to the alpha male when he throws his weight around.
So long as a man agrees that someone is alpha, he is happy to become one of a large group of servile betas, such as soldiers. You won't ever get women to obey like that.

All in all, I think the motto of everyone during this crisis should be - "Disregard females. Acquire currency."

I rather think the motto should be to stop being such a gullible bunch of sheep waiting to be fleeced by the banking industry.
Currency? What currency? People call paper dollars currency, don't they? Whereas paper dollars are inferior even as toilet paper. Good kindling though.

[jupta]

Ok, but like, for the third time, I do not understand your point. Women don't take childcare, they pay it. This contributes to the economy I suppose. In many European countries, childcare is supported by tax dollars. I don't see this as bad, but it distributes the responsibility for childcare to the adult population at large. This may seem unindividualistic, but really we humans are tribal creatures, and in tribes there is a lot of shared responsibility along with a lot of democracy and egalitarianism. So that is really the human norm.

It is healthier for society to support families, to support infancy and young childhood. If the women are going to work then this should be done. In most European countries, the travesty of women working long shifts while trying to use their break time to pump milk and coming in to work exhausted with a 3 month old infant at home does not happen, because staying home for six months to a year is supported. Also, working part time, which I think is a real good compromise for young mothers, is supported. This is why I laugh when people say America is child oriented. We are not. We are corporate, male oriented.

Men pay for childcare, not women - google it. The reason I said they take it is because so many of them divorce the men they have children with. Where do you live? I can't believe you said women pay for childcare.

The corporate is not a male-oriented system. Rather it's very feminine - very little responsibility, and very flexible in ethics.

Oh, come on now! This is nearly equal! What do you want? Women still stay home with their kids a fair amount, and many of them still put less effort into their careers, sufficiently so that overall, they still make less than men, even if they are 56% of the workforce. I hardly see that as a failure, 115 vs 85.

That isn't equal. Men on average pay 12000-15000 per year, and do not consume nearly as much tax money.

115% of income tax means that the men pay taxes for the the whole country + the resultant deficits that arise out of the humongous fed spending bill, mostly concentrated towards women. I don't know how you got the 85 figure.

But how do you account for them being 56% of the workforce when the population is not even that skewed toward female, and not all young mothers work? Is it because more men are misfits?

Look up these things - gender-based quotas, affirmative action and marginalising of men from western society and economy.

Besides, women work in sectors which are primarily fund operated,

This seems like an exaggeration.

Women mostly work in the public sector, which is fund operated, i.e, non-profit.

I'm not saying men don't contribute more and have more pressure, at times they definitely get themselves into a loss situation, because they took the risk. But I don't see why you think women have it better.

For the very reason that men have more pressure.

I would consider it anti-woman when all the opinions are such that women are worthless in every single possible way, rather than seeing a wise balance of attributes. This is the QRS attitude, and I have never taken them seriously because of it.

You are making assumptions. I never said they were worthless in every way.

Well, perhaps we need states rights and get the federal out of everything. I do have a problem, which you probably don't, with letting whatever goes in inside of families be their business. Again, as a person with a tribal perspective, there should be limits to the amount of abuse which can occur simply because the neighbors will put a stop to it. I'm afraid some kids would grow up with an alcoholic parent or two, and little care or education. And many people don't want to educate their kids for years on end, so I think we should probably bring back the little red school house.

The state of children who've grown into bad homes can never be fully reconciled, no matter how much state you bring into the picture. Moreover, state intervention creates a disaster, eg., American school system. It also becomes a propaganda machine(see 'The deliberate dumbing down of America' by Charlotte Iserbyt) It's better to let things take their natural turn. Community intervention should be welcomed in such cases though.

So long as a man agrees that someone is alpha, he is happy to become one of a large group of servile betas, such as soldiers. You won't ever get women to obey like that.

This is completely wrong. Women are the first people to attach themselves to an alpha, and then they compel other men to do the same. The beta chimps submit to the alpha chimps in hopes of getting some of the females attached to them.

This is probably the root goal of feminism. Control the females, and you control the men.

All in all, I think the motto of everyone during this crisis should be - "Disregard females. Acquire currency."

I rather think the motto should be to stop being such a gullible bunch of sheep waiting to be fleeced by the banking industry.
Currency? What currency? People call paper dollars currency, don't they? Whereas paper dollars are inferior even as toilet paper. Good kindling though.

Well, I meant it metaphorically. If women's cries to join and stay on in the the workforce are disregarded, then the economy will succeed. By currency I of course meant actual wealth, which is not zero-sum.

According to the banking conspiracy, women were brought into the economy to break up families and direct labour and resources towards the state, which is happening right now. The produce of men is going through women to the government, and this process will increase and saturate in the very near future.