Jeffrey Epstein's Cuties 6

Feminism's future looks grim, and it's their own doing.

Over the past few weeks of this series, we've talked about the notorious pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, pointing out that his behavior with young girls was only considered to be wrong and criminal within the modern context of the last few decades.  At any time prior to that, and in any society other than ours, his taste for girls on the younger side would have been entirely unexceptional; his treatment of the girls, in that he paid them as agreed for services rendered and didn't beat them up, would have been considered praiseworthy.

In the Western world, modern women enjoy rights of autonomy that their great-great-grandmothers could never have imagined, and for good reason: in pre-technological society, it was impossible for most people and just about all women to have personal autonomy at all. The existence of women's rights is entirely an artifact that stems from the genius of the Dead White Males who invented the technology that created our modern world of unfathomable wealth.

In the previous article, we explored the ways modern women chose to use their newfound liberties for creating government programs which brought about societal changes which could not have been enacted without support from women voters.  Prohibition, our welfare system, raising the drinking age, and other programs dear to women voters' hearts have had disastrous unintended consequences.

This was somewhat predictable.  As President Reagan said, "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!"  What couldn't have been so readily foreseen is just how unusually impervious to corrective action these programs have been, despite their harm being clearly visible to all.

Voter-driven politics, coupled with special interest groups, brings about the law of Unintended Consequences written large.  Occasionally that's good: nobody anticipated that the interstate highway system, which President Eisenhower promoted for national defense reasons, would generate so much extra economic activity that the government got all its money back and then some in increased tax revenue.

But it rarely stops there: businesses which waxed fat building the interstate system didn't want to stop shoving earth around when the roads were completed, so they turned to other projects.  After they'd built all the worthwhile projects, they continued building to the point that much of our current infrastructure spending is wasted.  California high-speed rail, anyone?

Similarly, nobody anticipated that the race to the moon would yield so many technical benefits - integrated circuits, hugely increased computer capacity which let eventually to smart phones, and much more.  But it should have been entirely predictable that after the Apollo success, NASA would strive to find another mission: their bureaucracy wasted billions and billions of dollars in the failed shuttle program.

This is to be expected of any bureaucracy, whether it be in a government or a department in a large business.  This article about Shirky's principle "Institutions Will Seek To Preserve The Problem For Which They Are The Solution" reminds us of Upton Sinclair's famous line:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

The problem of people working in a bureaucracy being more concerned with their privileges and perks than with solving the problem they're supposed to address goes back to the Chinese invention of bureaucracy some 5,000 years ago.  We can't build the pyramids, or the Great Wall, or the Roman roads, or get to the moon without a bureaucracy, the problem is keeping bureaucratic spending within bounds.  "But," you might say, "those earlier bureaucracies are long gone!"  That's true, but in all cases, it took a collapse of the entire society to disband those bureaucracies.

It should be no surprise that most government programs advocated by women, with the sole exception of Prohibition, would be sufficiently immune to criticism as to be immortal, just like most programs advocated by anyone else.  The critical difference is that follow-on to other programs such as NASA and the interstate highway system merely wasted money.

Society can tolerate financial waste so long as entrepreneurs can grow the economy faster than grafters can waste money - which, up until now, has been the case.  What society can't tolerate is that the fact that the follow-on to these women-endorsed programs blights so many human lives.

How does a Child Protection Service agency get more money next year?  By finding more abuse, of course.  They change the rules, go into schools to ask kids if they have any problems with their parents, urge divorcing women to accuse their husbands of abuse, and many others.  Any criticism is ignored with the retort, "There's a lot of abuse out there," or "Remember those bruised children!"

The welfare system is also immune to criticism.  When President Clinton reformed the welfare system to help people find better lives in the private sector, even the Boston Globe admitted that former recipients were better off.  The California welfare department refused to implement Mr. Clinton's reforms because the social workers knew that the reforms would work.  That would reduce the welfare case load and cut their budget.

The New York Times tells us that public housing in New York City has become synonymous with dilapidated living conditions which many of its more than 400,000 residents have endured in recent years.  No heat. Leaking roofs. Mold and pests. Interminable waits for basic repairs, says the Times.  The MSM is silent about lead poisoning in NYCHA public housing even though the criminal misconduct of falsifying inspection reports in lead-infested apartments is far worse than what happened in Flint because there is no Republican they can blame.

Public housing has become so unlivable than many government-funded projects are being torn down.  In telling the expensive saga of one such "slab slum" which was being demolished, the Times casually mentioned a resident who'd had 13 children at public expense.

Ordinary government programs are subject to mission creep which only wastes money.  Women-driven welfare and other social betterment programs are subject to mission creep which blights more and more human lives.  The problem is explained in Mr. Olasky's book "The Tragedy of American Compassion."  We used to distinguish between "deserving poor" who were poor through no fault of their own and "undeserving poor" who were self-destructive through alcohol or drugs among other things.  Even if welfare programs start out with strict eligibility requirements, agencies labor night and day to increase eligibility to get more clients and a bigger budget.

Our official poverty rate has not budged a jot since the Great Society welfare programs were started, even though total welfare spending is around $17,000 per poor person.  If we just gave them the money, a family of 4 would have an income twice the official poverty rate, but where would all the agency employees find jobs?  Since welfare isn’t taxed, a Hawaiian worker would have to earn $60,590 to take home the $49,175 a person on welfare gets.  With those incentives, is it any wonder that the social problems that women claim to want to solve keep getting worse?


Although feminists initially claimed that their goal was to improve women's access to jobs and careers, feminism quickly morphed into a struggle for political power.  To name but one example, The Federalist reminds us of Anita Hill's 1991 accusations that Justice Clarence Thomas had committed sexual assault against her when they were co-workers.

Much like Ms. Ford's accusations against Justice Kavanaugh decades later, her evidence-free accusations didn't hold up.  At the end of the hearings, the American people believed Thomas over Hill by 58-24 percent, with only 26 percent of women believing Hill.

Having tasted fame, however, Ms. Hill and other feminists claimed that Sen. Biden, who chaired the committee, had treated her unfairly, although they stopped talking about that once he became the Democrat presidential nominee.  At the time, they vowed that charges of sexual harassment would be dealt with seriously in the future.

The Federalist showed that feminists use sexual accusations as political weapons instead of worrying about defending all women from assault:

Just a few years later, however, on "Meet The Press," Hill was defending President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, against serious claims of sexual harassment and assault from Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey. On Clinton's conduct, Hill stated, "We have to look at the totality of the presidency and how has he been on women's issues generally." When Tim Russert asked if this was "a double standard for a liberal as opposed to a conservative," Hill shockingly said, "We live in a political world and the reality is … there are larger issues other than just individual behavior." You can't make this stuff up.

Hill defended Clinton because his politics were "correct." In that moment, Hill laid bare the motivation of the leftist, feminist movement: If your politics are with us, you get a free pass - even on sexual assault.

Ms. Hill has since stated that she plans to disregard Tara Reade’s credible sexual assault allegations against Mr. Biden.  In spite of women finally attacking Mr. Weinstein, an A-level Democrat donor, for mistreating women, most Democrats still get a free pass on abusing women.

It's abundantly clear that, whatever it may have started as, modern feminism has nothing to do with benefiting or protecting women.  It's become nothing more than a tool for gaining political power regardless of any facts.

We see that women's voting power to translate their noble protective instincts into government programs has resulted in societally damaging outcomes.  What's worse, the political climate is such that criticizing the obvious outcomes of these programs is not permitted, not even in the land of the free and the home of the brave.  To name but one example, criticizing obvious failures which are inherent in the manner in which CPS and welfare agencies operate results in the retort, "Oh, I see that you're in favor of child abuse!" not to mention being accused of wanting to push granny off a cliff.

Programs to care for women and children were political from the beginning - Sen. Moynihan's career was nearly ended when he criticized Great Society welfare programs which were wrecking black families and later damaged other demographic groups.  Sen. Moynihan believed that intact, nuclear families offered the best hope for children to grow up to be productive, taxpaying adults.  He wanted welfare money to be sent to intact families to avoid creating incentives for women to get pregnant without being married.

This would have left women dependent on maintaining a long-term relationship with a man, however, and feminists would have none of it.  Not only does welfare money go to unmarried women, they lose their benefits if they seem to be affiliated with a man.  They're paid more money for each baby, but not if they get married.

Fighting to keep women safe from assault has also turned into a highly partisan political weapon.  Democrats who vehemently supported Ms. Ford when she accused Justice Kavanaugh of rape and Ms. Hill when she accused Justice Thomas of sexual abuse fell silent when Ms. Reade accused Joe Biden on much firmer grounds.

Mating, Dating, and Parenting

Having shown the ill-effects of womanly political power, let's look at the effect of women's newfound independence on the vitally serious matter of forming families and raising children to be productive adults who can carry our civilization forward.

Most of us are imbued with the "mating instinct" which drives most women to want to hang around with a man and drives most men to want to hang around with women.  These drives are so potent that many people we know persist in trying to find relationships with the opposite sex in spite of many painful experiences.

For all of human history, the richest, strongest, most powerful men ended up with the most beautiful women, and the most of them.  Everyone knows this.  When a reporter asked Melania Trump if she'd have been interested in The Donald if he wasn't rich, she replied, "If I weren't beautiful, would he be interested in me?"

Women also sought out strong, healthy men.  Absent birth control, she'd be either pregnant or nursing from the time she married until menopause - having 10 or 12 pregnancies was the norm if she didn't die during childbirth or from some other illness.  Bearing children of a weak man risked her life just as much as bearing children of a strong man who was more likely to live long enough for her to get her kids out the door, and children of a strong man were more likely to survive.  The only downside was that a strong man was more likely to rule her and deny her independence.

As women came more and more to expect independence, they turned away from stronger men.  Women now complain of "toxic masculinity" by which they mean men who act, well, like strong men.

One major component of "male privilege" is the right to die to protect the woman who's passing along his DNA.  The long-term problem is that weaker men who aren't as accustomed to bailing women out of trouble won't be able to protect them if our society ever turns less peaceful.

The story "Houston Rescuers Prove the Lie of ‘Toxic Masculinity’" described all the insults feminists hurl at manly men, but then explained what happened when Hurricane Harvey struck Houston, Texas.  Members of the self-organizing "Cajun navy" who wander the swamps of Louisiana trailered their boats to Houston to pluck stranded women and children to safety.

When a reporter asked why, one man said, “I’m going to try to save some lives.”  Save lives they did, sometimes at great cost: Houston police Sergeant Steve Perez, 60, was caught in the flood and drowned.  Next time someone complains about "male privilege," tell them about Sgt. Perez.  His wife had told him he was too old, but he said, "That's what I do," and went to his death.

As one woman tweeted, "It's not that women aren't brave.  They are.  But this is just what men do.  Great, gloriously toxic men.  Love them to death."

The Feminist Dilemma

The feminist dilemma is that the more they refuse to have anything to do with what they call "toxic men" who are strong enough and capable enough to save their lives when things turn ugly, the more they run the risk that there won't be enough real men to preserve our society when things turn sour as they always do eventually.  There's an old saying:  Hard men make good times.  Good times make soft men.  Soft men can't maintain good times.  Soft men die in hard times; hard men survive.  Hard men make good times, and on the cycle goes.

It appears that some women are catching on.  The widespread BLM riots, cries for defunding the police, and the prospect of an anti-gun Democrat administration have sent gun sales to levels not seen even during the Obama administration.

Some articles claim that many of these guns are being sold to first-time women gun owners, others say female interest in guns is a myth.  Regardless of how many women are buying guns for physical protection, guns won't help in a flood, a massive snowstorm, or when the power goes out.  That's when women and children need help from toxic men.

If there aren't enough toxic men climbing poles to fix wires, the lights, the phone system, and the Internet will fail.  Without enough blue-collar elevator mechanics, our cities will become uninhabitable, to say nothing of A/C technicians.  We've pointed out that if there aren't enough men to keep our high-tech agricultural system working, half our population will starve.  If we lose enough of the fossil-powered machinery that makes it possible for women to have independence, they'll revert to depending on men, the stronger, the better.

Women owe their independence to the graciousness of Dead White Males who allowed them to vote and to many Dead White Inventors who created the machinery that eases life enough for women to have any independence at all.  Women's rights rest on material prosperity.  If that's reduced too much, women will lose their independence along with it.

Given the stubbornness implied by my mother's adage, "A woman convinced against her will is of the same opinion still," we won't be able to undo any of these mistakes absent a severe crash.  If that happens, women's rights will disappear in company with their employment opportunities and the luxuries of technological living.  Women will once again need to belong to a man to avoid rape or even to survive at all.  The Prophet Isaiah foretold something along these lines:

And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach. Isaiah 4:1

Feminists had better be careful what they wish for.  Pampered actress Gwyneth Paltrow, whose sole skill is stimulating enough toxic male "lookism" to motivate men to to pay enough to see her that men who fund movies will want to cast her, whose vast wealth came about because men find her worth looking at, and whose continued control of that wealth lies with toxic men among her bodyguards, police, lawyers, etc. who defend her assets from theft of all kinds, expressed her hopes for the future:

I think what we are saying collectively as a culture and as a society is, "We are done with that paradigm of patriarchy of White men."

She obviously has no clue what made her luxurious life possible: absent the strong influence of men in general, and yes, white men specifically, she'd be, at best, just another beautiful possession in the harem of a powerful man, like countless attractive women throughout all of history until modern times.

Poor, unlucky Jeffrey Epstein!  He lived in the one, brief historical period when he couldn't get away with indulging his natural instincts.  In another fifty years, if we aren't able to find some way of stopping the societal havoc and destruction wreaked by the unwise yet impervious policies dictated by feminism, these programs will destroy the cultural and technological underpinnings that make women's rights possible.

Thereafter, as things were throughout the entirety of recorded history except for the last tiny bit, feminism won't exist and women will be enslaved once more.  We don't look forward to this, and we'll "rage, rage against the dying of the light" as hard as we can, but it would help if those who'd be worst affected weren't driving it onward with all power and influence they can command.

Will Offensicht is a staff writer for and an internationally published author by a different name.  Read other articles by Will Offensicht or other articles on Society.
Reader Comments

Whatever one rewards, one get more of. The converse is also true. That includes, among other things, welfare payments.

November 21, 2020 12:26 PM

There must be at least a dozen ways in which this thoughtful, well-reasoned piece will be misconstrued and found offensive by the brighter among us.

In the Careful what you ask for Department, I doubt that a Biden administration will be the one to create the desperately needed Department of L.U.C (Law of Unintended Consequences), but when it arrives it will grow like none before it.

This piece has left me seriously considering abandoning further reading of Scragged. Just how much info can we take about human nature, and how easily it can be manipulated?

Truly depressing... more wine please....

November 21, 2020 7:58 PM
Add Your Comment...
4000 characters remaining
Loading question...