What about the other twenty percent?

Interesting article on Stuff about eighty percent of Kiwi women being under pressure to "look pretty". On the literal face of it, this is a good omen. Sadly, not all good omens work.

I would like to state categorically that there are far too many overweight, ugly women in New Zealand who have taken it upon themselves to eschew their God-given duty to look hot. It's hard to know who to blame for this: Germaine Greer, the Welfare State, or simple laziness. Each of these factors has a contribution to make for some of the hideousness that infects whole tracts of New Zealand society, but it is by no means the whole answer.

Yes, Germaine Greer made some silly noises forty years ago about how women had the right to be free from traditional patriarchal society, and be considered as more than just male chattels. From my perspective, that seems like a wholly irrelevant point. Yes, we have more women at senior levels of business, politics and law. But what distinguishes Helen Clark, Theresa Gattung and Silvia Cartwright is not just that they rate highly on the fugly factor, but that they haven't fulfilled their prime biological duty of spawning children. After all, children get in the way of careers. Children maternalise women. They make use of a woman's native instinct to nurture--to cook, to clean, and to be a good wife.

As a formula for the rest of society, women exclusively at the elite--as much as the feminazi brigade may try to impose on us--does not work. To get to the top, Clark, Gattung, and Cartwright have had to suppress their irrational natures and start thinking like men. They have not always been overwhelmingly successful. Hence the Prime Minister breaking down at Waitangi when a cranky Maori lady was mean to her, Telecom's CEO getting her hair done every morning with no positive effect, and the GG being a not-too-well disguised pinko commie liberal.

And the formula doesn't work because women are required for the purposes of procreation. As much as the radical feminist group attempt to lock men out of the debate, men too are a fundamental part of this process. Yes, it's nice that we have a society in which some women can deny that they have breasts that evolved for a breast-feeding function, or claim that just because a woman has a clitoris, it is the man's role to stimulate it. Both silly arguments that aren't borne out by reality.

Left-wing feminists will point to such successes in society as proof that women can do it. Yes, women can do it. Again, that's not the point. They're merely distractions from the other half of the female population that are encouraged to raise children on their own, excluding men, and using males simply as sire-beasts. I'm not particularly concerned that males get objectified by this scenario: rather it's the hard-working, middle-class, predominantly employed men who pay for the consequences of children borne into non-existent families, and create the cycles of dependency that the Left needs to push its anti-human social agenda.

If men were still in charge of social debate, then there would be no discussion whatsoever of the right of a parent to give a child a whack for misbehaviour. Instead, the policy argument is being driven by obsessed theorists who have no concept of family practice. This little nugget of a non-issue is advanced liberal sociologists who miss the point: there is a remarkable difference between a father or mother in a traditional family unit who exerts reasonable physical discipline, and the psychotic acts that those from broken family units inflict on innocent children. Children do not die from biological fathers exerting reasonable discipline. They almost invariably face serious harm from a part-time male visitor, high on drugs, who decides for no reason to beat the shit out of the kid.

So why the debate on smacking at all? Because, yes, it is a social agenda, and the women driving it have suppressed their maternal instincts in the name of that agenda to such an extent that they do not care to see reason. The fact is that it is the rise of the welfare state that encourages many women to exclude responsible men from their lives, and expose themselves to irresponsible men, who, in turn, were invariably creatures of the welfare state.

Psychologically normal women, who intend to take care of themselves and function in a normal society, and contribute to society by making use of all their biological and professional talents, are in abundance in capitalist societies. Auckland City, as a microcosm of the capitalist world, demonstrates all the virtues of successful women who understand what they can contribute to both the business world, as well as enriching their personal lives. Contrast that with small-town Masterton, where a large proportion of women under fifty are single mothers who never intend to do anything other than subsist on state support.

The southern Wairarapa is an icon of a socialist society. It is also the classic example of social discontent. It ranks highly for violent crime, teen pregnancy, poor education and health statistics, high unemployment, drug dependency, and ugly women.

Auckland City, on the other hand, is a city that encourages and thrives on success. Unemployed people cannot afford to live here. Education and health is largely pretty good. And women understand that their primary means of attracting men is to stay hot. They learn quickly that if they want a family, they need to choose a partner who can support them during key stages in their lives.

Which is why the rising trend of women's concern for their physical appearance is extremely positive. It shows that they no longer have faith in the State taking responsibility for driving them into welfare dependence. To get what they want in life, they need to go and achieve it on their own: good mind, good career, hot body.

Not that Helen Clark would agree with this argument, but if Germaine Greer had come out and proposed this model for feminist society, there would have been far less discontent from disenfranchised men.