(This is the first of a three part series on the ways in which feminism serves the plutocracy. It was originally going to be a very long one-piece thing but after smoke started to come out of my ears I realized I would be less likely to suffer an cerebral rupture if I split it into several chunks. As I have been working on this on and off for six months I am not about to make any promises as to how soon the other parts will come out. Days, weeks, months, it all depends on whether or not there’s anything good on TV.)

One of the more pertinent facts constantly ignored by most MRAs and ground troop feminists – as opposed to their Generals – is that, in all likelihood, the second wave of feminism has from the very beginning been a plutocratic project. Both the left and the right seem oblivious to this, mostly because they have bought the oft-repeated lie that feminism is some sort of left wing ideology, a cowpat that is easily swallowed given Karl Marx’s support for the wiminz and the idiot left’s support for feminism. The main problem is that everyone keeps looking at what feminists say and not at what they actually do, at the actual outcomes of their actions.

When you look at who has actually benefited from the second wave, it is the rich bastards who come out on top. It is they who have gained the most from the feminists’ work. Is this all just a terrible accident? Are the women who lead the feminist movement really so dumb that they have not, despite decades of evidence, realized that they are doing the devil’s work? No, this does not seem at all likely. These women are not dumbasses, yet the great majority of them continue to do their masters’ bidding year after year, decade after decade, generation after generation. It is quite viable that one or two of the leadership might do this due to some intellectual blind spot or due to some psychological factor, but the idea that this is happening with all of them is ludicrous. A few unwitting helpers, and a multitude of all too willing hench-wenches, that’s what we have in the feminist leadership.

So what, then, are the plutocratic aims of second wave feminism? They are numerous, but the main ones boil down to this – feminize the workforce, spread irrational modes of thinking, and psychologically attack men from the lower classes. Sure, there are also other elements such as helping the plutocrats to crack down on free speech by screaming misogyny then asking Facebook to remove “objectionable” material – this is a well-oiled slope that is intended to eventually make it more acceptable for things like Facebook to censor other “objectionable” material such as calls for revolution or the dissolving of the state. Another obvious effect of feminism has been to help the New “Left” distract the lower classes from the issues that really matter – class and the environment – by harping on about less important matters such as the discomfort of high heels and the scarcity of female football players! Face it, lefties, it’s not as if Wall St cares whether their stooge in the White House is male or female, black or white, straight or gay – as long as the puppet dances to their tune, all is well. The feminist lapdogs also encourage a much harder line on law and order by spreading hysteria about “Violence Against Women,” knowing full well that in a culture such as ours women are of primary concern and that anything is justified to keep the sacred creatures safe – even if it means locking men up for a couple of weeks simply because they have been charged with domestic violence. How does this benefit the plutocrats? Well, if certain places can now lock men up for a couple of weeks without a conviction, why shouldn’t we be able to do the same for men charged with – but not convicted of – making revolutionary or anti-state comments? See what I mean by a well-oiled slope? But these are the lesser of the Second Wave’s attainments, the main three are, as I see it, the deadliest to the interests of the lower classes and they will be the focus of this series. First, we have the way feminism has ruined conditions for the lower class workforces…

Over the last few decades, feminism has convinced millions of shit-brained women that, somehow, 40 hours in a boring office or a stinking factory is more fun and fulfilling than looking after your own children in the comfort of your own home – because as every waitress knows, it is soooo much more rewarding to feed coffee and donuts to strangers than dinner to your own children. Somehow, the dumber members of the female sex bought the idea that – unlike their husbands, brothers and fathers – class would not stand in their way and they would become someone important. CEOs, doctors, lawyers, the kind of thing that the males in their family never managed to become. I have yet to decide whether it was sexism or pure idiocy that led so many women to believe in this particular fantasy, but I should also point out that many women seem to have bought the idea that being a housewife would lead them to break out in psychosomatic boils – I kid you not, Betty Friedan actually makes that claim in The Feminine Mystique – so I lean towards seeing it as a confluence of sexism and sheer stupidity.

Having bought the mirage of the workplace paradise, millions of female Zippies flooded into the workforce. This benefited the plutocracy in at least two ways. First, it brought down wages and salaries through increased competition for jobs. Simple numbers alone would have done this, throw in the fact that most of these deluded females were providing the family’s supplementary income rather than its primary one – and were therefore both able and willing to take less money for the same work – and you have an easily foreseeable recipe for disaster. How long do you think it took bosses to overcome any traditionalist objections they may have had to women in the workforce once they realized that Mrs. X was willing to work for less than Mr. Y? Not bloody long – greed trumps patriarchy any day of the week.

Secondly, it made the whole workforce more compliant. By filling as many parts of the workplace as possible with the sex which, historically, is less likely to rebel against oppression the bosses make it easier to downgrade wages and conditions, knowing fully well that a woman with a steel pipe is highly unlikely to kick in their door and smash their heads in, much less go up against a horde of blue-clad Stormtroopers. You show me one woman like Mother Jones, and I will show you a dozen men like Eugene Debbs. The plutocracy knows from their experiences with previously male dominated careers such as teaching and secretarial work that once the women take over you can reel out your dick and piss on everything without fear of any significant revolt. Even Chomsky, not a man given to saying things feminists don’t like, points out that when the U.S corporations started outsourcing to Jamaica in the 70s they deliberately chose female-dominated workforces as they knew they would be easier to dominate than the Jamaican men.

Once this initial gaggle of knuckleheads flooded into the workforce many of the more sensible women – the ones who realized that the ideal life did not consist of filling out forms or assembling widgets – were forced to go to work part time in order to supplement what was now their husband’s smaller wage packet. Good idea in the short term, but not so much in the long term, as this second wave of women brought yet more competition – again from members of the less rebellious sex seeking only a secondary income – and wages and salaries came down even further. Soon, of course, these women would have to be working full time just like hubby and now we have a situation in which both mom and dad can be working like dogs and still not be able to support a family – the kind of situation that a couple of years ago led British charity Save the Children to set up a campaign to help not children in the third world but kids in Britain itself! You don’t need to be an economist to realize this is a situation that has the plutocrats rolling with laughter and giggling with delight. The left, of course, would like to lay all the blame at the feet of things like outsourcing and mechanization, factors that have obviously contributed to the problem of lower wages etc, but steadfastly refuses to acknowledge the part the feminist movement has had in this attack on the lower classes lest it reflect badly on their feminist friends and, by extension, on women. The right, on the other hand, refuses to acknowledge it lest it make their capitalist idols look bad by associating them with feminists!

Incidentally, this filling of the workforce with women has, in turn, facilitated the transition from a human workforce to a machine workforce. Given that few people in the sixties could have predicted the explosion in technology that would soon make workers of both sexes redundant, I suspect that the original goal was to permanently feminize the workforce so as to more easily control it. But the plutocracy is smart – or at least it can afford to hire minions who are smart – and it has adapted the strategy to the new circumstances. What was initially intended as a permanent feminization of the workforce has become only a stopgap on the way to the obsolescence of the great majority of both working class and middle class workers. Permanent feminization, temporary feminization — either way you get a workforce that puts up with more shit, including being made obsolete by Robby The Robot.

So this is where feminism has dumped the common man and woman – in a cesspool, a near-Dickensian situation in which the average couple with children now finds itself working around 50% more than a few decades ago. From dad doing 40 hours in the office or factory and mom doing, say, 30 hours at home to both of them doing 40 in the workplace and then having to split the housework and childrearing between them. I’m no mathematician but I’m pretty sure that that adds up to about 55 hours for each of them. More work both in and outside of the home, less pay, less benefits, less dignity – just the way the plutocrats like it. Ask yourself also, why doesn’t the plutocracy destroy feminism? We know they can do it, they control the media and the government. Simply stop talking about all these feminist issues and within a couple of years feminism will be relegated to the dark corners of the internet, it will become to most people nothing more than a vague, malodorous memory. Yet year after year, decade after decade the plutocrats leave feminism to go on its merry way. They crushed socialism, anarchism, communism, the unions, even liberalism is being dismantled. Yet feminism remains untouched. There are only two viable explanations for this amnesty – at best feminism does the plutocracy no harm, at worst it is actually serving its interests. You already know which of those I think is most likely. So make no mistake, boys and girls – it may be the feminists who are carrying out the hit, but it’s the plutocrats who are paying the bill.