Women don't need men. Really.

Greetings!!

It's been said that women need men like fish need bicycles, or something along those lines. Our women today are Strong and Independent!

They don't need men that love them and care about them. Nope, just your wallet and some hott sexx action if you please!!!

However, it turns out that, thanks to feminism and its corporate sponsors, women are literally shooting themselves in the foot.

Thanks to the Howard Center, we see how women are actually worse off because of their widespread support for feminist fringe benefits:

Lethally Reliable Predictor

Criminologists have long believed that murder rates will climb when the number of young people grows, especially in areas where unemployment runs high and urban populations are growing. However, a new study by Rutgers sociologist Julie A. Phillips suggests that the homicide rate may track less closely than previously thought with the size of population centers or with the number or employment status of the young people. But one all-too-certain portent of murder remains: namely, divorce.

Examining county-by-county data collected between 1970 and 1999, Phillips uncovers a pattern that contradicts rather than confirms conventional wisdom among criminologists. In analyses that she calls “intriguing,” Phillips shows that the statistical relationships between homicide rates on the one hand and unemployment and population size on the other are both negative, so manifesting “effects that run contrary to common theoretical expectations.”

As most criminologists would expect, Phillips does discern “a positive association between the proportion [of] young [in various areas] and homicide rates within U.S. counties across time.” But Phillips’s multi-variable analysis establishes that “criminogenic forces, such as poor social conditions…, can alter the association between the relative size of the young population and homicide rates.”

One particular social measure especially helps Phillips recognize areas with the kind of “low social control” that looses murderous impulses, even if those impulses are “less heavily concentrated in the young age ranges” in the affected areas than some theorists might have expected. The indicator of social breakdown that Phillips highlights as a predictor of murder is the divorce rate.

Unlike elevated unemployment rates and burgeoning population size—both surprisingly linked to lower homicide rates—high divorce rates do augur bloodshed. In four out of five of Phillips’s statistical models, the county divorce rate emerges as a statistically significant predictor of the homicide rate (p < 0.05 in all four models). “On average,” Phillips accordingly observes, “higher levels of the percentage of the population divorced are associated with larger homicide rates within counties over time.”

County coroners, it appears, will often be called on for grim duties wherever the divorce courts are busy.

(Source: Julie A. Phillips, “The Relationship Between Age Structure and Homicide Rates in the United States, 1970 to 1999,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 43 [2006]: 230-260.)

Violent Homes, Violent Neighborhoods

Progressives never tire of decrying the evil of domestic violence, particularly that directed against women. Curiously, however, they rarely say anything about the cultural erosion of the social institution that best shields women from such violence: namely, marriage. Still, the evidence continues to accumulate showing that marriage matters a good deal in reducing women’s vulnerability to domestic violence. Indeed, a study recently published in Public Health Reports indicates that a woman seeking safety will want to live in an intact marriage herself—and in a neighborhood filled with intact marriages.

Conducted by researchers at the University of Tennessee and the University of Cincinnati, the new study examines the effects of “contextual risk” on the prevalence and severity of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV). The Tennessee and Cincinnati scholars calculated the “contextual risk” for IPV for a nationally representative sample of 2,273 couples with children ages 5 to 17, using data collected from these couples in 1990 and 1994 by interviewers and Census officials. Those calculations highlight the importance of marital status as a predictor of Intimate Partner Violence.

“As might be expected in a sample of households with school-aged children,” the researchers report, “stably married couples . . . have the lowest rates of I[ntimate]P[artner]V[iolence].” For stably married couples, the researchers calculate an incidence of 16.2% for overall IPV and of 3.5% for IPV involving “physical violence with injury.” In contrast, the researchers find that “cohabiting couples show the highest rates of IPV.” Among cohabiting couples the rate of overall IPV runs more than twice as high as that found among stably married couples (37.5% among “stable cohabiting couples”; 33.6% among “new” cohabiting couples). The rate of physical violence with injury runs four times as high as that found among stably married couples (16.1% among stable cohabiting couples; 14.1% among new cohabiting couples).

Though the incidence of overall and severe IPV does run higher among newly married or remarried couples than among stably married couples, it still runs far below that observed among cohabiting couples. (The researchers report a rate of overall IPV of 18.7% among newly married or remarried couples and a rate of IPV with physical violence with injury of 7.0%.)

Nor is it just a woman’s own marital status that determines her vulnerability to domestic violence. The authors of the new study establish that “neighborhood context” also helps determine that vulnerability. And in determining whether a neighborhood is “advantaged” or “disadvantaged” the researchers look at—among other social and economic characteristics—the fraction of households in the neighborhood that are headed by single parents. When that fraction rises, the neighborhood becomes more disadvantaged.

The researchers note that, compared to violence-free couples, “couples with IPV are more likely . . . to live in neighborhoods of high disadvantage.” Among couples who reported Intimate Partner Violence, 27.3% lived in disadvantaged neighborhoods; among couples who reported no IPV, only 18.3%. Among couples who reported severe domestic violence involving injury, more than a third (35.2%) lived in disadvantaged neighborhoods, compared to less than a fifth (19.1%) of those who reported no severe domestic violence. Statistical tests identify all of these neighborhood-context effects as significant (p < 0.001 for all neighborhood effects).

Those truly intent on reducing the incidence of domestic abuse are those at work to reverse the national retreat from marriage.

(Source: Greer Litton Fox and Michael L. Benson, “Household and Neighborhood Contexts of Intimate Partner Violence,” Public Health Reports 121 [2006]: 419-427.)

Ironically, feminists and their overlords in business and government continue to do all they can to destroy marriage and family life. And many women, many of whom view child support, no fault divorce, abortion and discriminatory laws such as VAWA as their God given rights, are marching right along to the Piper's tune.

All the while, they are ultimately creating the conditions that may return them, like their Spartan sisters of old, to the status of mere chattel property. The Special Rights that women currently enjoy are generally very hard to enforce during periods of prolonged social and political upheaval.

On a slightly different track, I invite you to watch this film, entitled, Jihad on Horseback. It's all about Jihadis and what they do best, kill defenseless men, women and children, burn homes, and plunder booty.

Booty, by the way, includes human beings, with female captives used as sex slaves and overall beasts of burden. All in a day's work for certain bloodthirsty followers of the "religion of peace."

The viewer will note that most of the survivors interviewed are women. Women who have watched their men be slaughtered, women who have been gang-raped, women who have cradled the bodies of their dead children.

What does this have to do with feminism? you may be asking.

A few things.

1) Western women have it better than the vast majority of the women on this planet; and yet through their selfishness and shortsightedness, they have allowed themselves to become pawns in a deadly game of social engineering that will ultimately lead to their own enslavement and disenfranchisement [a][b][c].

As it is written:

The wise woman builds her house, but with her own hands the foolish one tears hers down (Proverbs 14:1).

As an example, Radical Islam is making massive inroads in Western countries that are paralyized by political correctness and feminization. From a historical perspective, hostile takeovers of countries have usually NOT lead to significant gains in the rights of women. Indeed, the opposite usually occurs as the native women are brutized and enslaved by the invading army.

See The Rape of Nanking, 34:13, for a classic example of this.

In essence, a situation not unlike the chaos in Darfur could easily play out in the West at some future time, unless of course, we as a society get our act together.

However, that remains to be seen.

2) Society is an artificial construct, and like the economy, it is a fable agreed upon. Women will not be able to fool men forever, nor will men remain ignorant to the injustices visited upon them indefinitely. As government and popular culture continue to provide powerful incentives for men not to form stable marriages, relations, or families with women, men will in turn become increasingly desensitized and insensitive to the wants and needs of their former helpmeets.

And of course, when good men that actually give a damn fail to act, then bad men like our Sudanese Arab friends will act with impunity. Be it externally or internally, men with a very, very low opinion of women as a class WILL come to the fore, and at that time, any legitimate gains made by women will be erased. We may indeed see the warrior class make a comeback in our lifetimes.

It is becoming increasingly clear that feminism is indeed a symptom of a larger sickness, one that threatens to take our Western civilization back to an age of darkness and barbarism.

Feminists, take note.

Kumo.