What Do Women Really Want?

So what if I go out on a million dates (yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah)   

You never call or listen to me anyway (yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah)   

I’d rather rage than sit around and wait all day (yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah)

Don’t get me wrong, I just need some time to play (yeah) 

…If you love me, if you hate me you can’t save me, baby, baby

All my life I’ve been good but now,

whoa ‘What the hell’

–  lyrics from ‘What the hell’ by pop singer Avril Lavigne

Lavigne’s creepy pseudo-bubble-gum ditty trashes the stereotype about “strong women” in a nihilist world of female angst and promiscuous dating where getting into Yale and clawing your way up to the Supreme Court is nothing but a strange dream for an elite few.

It brings to mind the age-old query, “What do women really want?” and shows that even today many “women” still don’t know. And that “women” are not nearly as strong and wise as feminism suggests they should be. Because by driving away men, feminism actually has made many women weaker and more confused than ever.

In an essay called What do Women Really Want?, pollster Celinda Lake and her co-writer Joan Kuriansky report on a study they conducted saying that:

 ‘women care about kitchen-table issues — investments in public education, affordable health insurance, protecting Social Security, equal pay enforcement, minimum wage increases and job training.’

In other words, after decades of feminist bluster about strong independent “women” , those women appear to want protective government socialism more than ever. Why?

Answer: Because they have not turned out to be just like the strong, independent men they envy and have been seeking to emulate, and who reject socialism.

Lake/Kuriansky reported on politico.com:

‘Democrats and Republicans alike need to understand that women have a different relationship with economic security than men. Women value “security” for the economy, while men value “opportunity,” according to a 2010 Lake Research Partners survey for the Center for Community Change and the Ms. Foundation for Women. The survey showed that women pick security over opportunity 70 percent to 29 percent, compared with 54 percent to 43 percent among men.’

A different relationship? Gee, aren’t we supposed to think that women didn’t need all this government economic “security”, that they could make it on their own like men have for millennia, often in brutal conditions.

 But we conservatives know this is all feminist mythology. Because millions of “strong” women are completely dependent on the government, i.e., since they got rid of men in their lives, they now get the men’s money via the IRS and the government.

And look at that figure: Men pick security over opportunity by 54% to 43%. It should be 10% security and 90% opportunity. 54% represents today’s eunuch man, the feminized metrosexual who is dragging America down by becoming more like today’s pampered, affirmative-action woman of whom he is terrified.

Lake/Kuriansky report:

‘This is no wonder, given the clustering of women in dead-end, low-paying jobs, the persistent gender gap in wages and the fact that nearly half of women are now unmarried or unpartnered — single, divorced, separated or widowed.

‘Dead-end, low-paying jobs’? What nonsense. All we have seen in the last 30 years is preferential systems escorting women into the best jobs while men are relegated to manual labor and clerk status.

And whose fault is it that women are unmarried or unpartnered?

That is a direct result of feminism/socialism. It is the disruption of a normal cycle as part of artificial and intellectual anti-man feminism. And it is intentional. Because socialism always makes people unhappy and angry and drives them apart socially, disrupting the bonds of true human happiness and replacing them with government checks and jobs, which are never any substitute.

Lake/Kuriansky write:

‘Either party could increase support among female voters through an economic agenda attuned to women, promoting policies that build families’ economic security, as Lake Research polling shows.

These policies include more affordable education and job training opportunities — 73 percent of women say this would make a very large difference in their lives and help improve the economy; affordable health care that is not dependent on employment (80 percent); equal pay and benefits for men and women (79 percent); and paid family and medical leave to care for a new baby, a sick child or an aging parent (68 percent).’

Yet when the American economy was roaring and everyone had everything in the 1950s and 1960s – jobs, families, homes, health care, security – “women” started complaining about everything and created the feminist movement which then destroyed tens of millions of women’s lives for good. Now they want what we had in the… 1950s and 1960s!

Gosh, it sure would be great to have The Good Old Days back again when men were strong and imprinted their rationality on women. And we all had everything.

‘Paid family and medical leave’? It used to be called “motherhood” before “women” decided that children are a distraction and that having an outside job is the ultimate goal, which men have known all along is nonsense. Because as men have known since time immemorial, work is a pain in the rear, from sunup to sundown and beyond. That is why the whole goal of leftist socialism – except for feminists, apparently – is to have people work less and less (labor unions demanding shorter hours, early retirement for government workers, idle poor people doing nothing for years on end etc.)

Lake/Kuriansky write:

‘Other priorities for women are investments in programs to help care for seniors. Women’s strong support of programs for seniors, such as Meals on Wheels and in-home care, hold up even against arguments for cutting these programs to address the federal deficit. In fact, strong majorities of women say there should be no cuts to Social Security and Medicare.’

Uhhh, ladies, here’s some really bad news in case you haven’t read a newspaper or the internet in the last 20 years. SS and Medicare are broke and unsustainable. Today they are consuming our children’s and grandchildren’s tax dollars 20, 30 and 40 years down the road. If you haven’t figured that out yet like conservative men and women have, maybe you should go back and study Economics 101 so that you can make rational decisions about our economic future.

Lake/Kuriansky write:

‘So what women want is not a mystery. Women want an investment in economic security for themselves and their families. Unless both parties advance budget proposals that protect education, job training and other critical services that help support and expand the middle class, their votes will continue to remain up for grabs.’

Yeah, right… That’s what women want. Yes. Certainly.

Which is… what? Even the “strong women” writers of this piece come away with no real answer. ‘Women want an investment in economic security for themselves and their families’, they write. So what. That’s what everybody wants, ladies. You are telling us nothing. Maybe you are not as smart as you think you are.  You must be… feminists.

 Please visit my website at www.nikitas3.com for more conservstive insights.