We'll Break It For You Wholesale

San Diego City Councilman Todd Gloria took to the microphone yesterday at KPBS to talk about the minimum wage increase agreed to in closed-door negotiation between California lawmakers and union representatives.

"Folks who work full time shouldn't have to live in poverty," Gloria said.

I don't think anyone works full time anymore. Obamacare took care of that. Plus, there are dozens of means-tested welfare programs available to the working poor. Earned Income Tax Credit. Section Eight housing allowance. SNAP. WIC. Free healthcare under Medi-Cal, and they get discounts on their utilities and telephone.

The "unintended" consequence of the state mandating a pay raise for this population, as seen in Seattle, is that these workers will ask to work fewer hours. So they can continue to qualify for their welfare entitlements! Restaurant employment in Seattle has declined since their minimum wage increase.

For balance, KPBS reached out to the San Diego Chamber of Commerce's Sean Karafin. He remarked that businesses will respond by "cutting benefits, cutting hours, or even cutting jobs."

What did Todd Gloria have to say to local businesses? "Well you know I met with and spoke to many small business owners when we crafted our city proposal."

It's possible that Gloria spoke to employers, but he doesn't understand them. Gloria has never worked in the private sector and had to worry about making payroll. Gloria mentioned how the state minimum wage went up in January and the unemployment rate went down. The reason the unemployment rate is so low is because the labor participation rate is so low. There is no real wage growth, which usually occurs at the tail end of an expansion.

What does this mean? Perhaps it means that California's next recession will be like the last one. California will experience more job losses than the national average and it will take longer for those jobs to come back.

One question Todd Gloria never gets asked, is what will raising the price of labor do to ease the tens of millions of Californians living in poverty?

Increasing the minimum wage is basically imposing a tax on employers. Take a taco shop with $100,000 in revenue. Their labor cost is probably around 40%, or $40,000. If you raise the minimum wage by fifty percent, then the taco shop must spend $60,000 in labor. But since they need to keep labor costs around 40%, if they don't cut staff, they will have to raise prices enough to make $150,000 in revenue.

Gloria told KPBS that the city's minimum wage hike is expected to "inject a quarter-billion dollars into the local economy." Todd Gloria counts rising prices as increasing demand. But does Gloria's forecasting factor in any layoffs or slower hiring in his model? Gloria ridicules those who don't see this magic increase in consumption. It is "never considered by those who reflexively oppose minimum wage increases."

It's interesting that opposition to minimum wage increases is portrayed as reflexive. Meaning, there is no thought involved, no principles involved, it's just an unconscious reaction.

Saying that workers will have more money to spend at local businesses if you force those businesses to pay them more is proof that Progressives never see a problem being solved by supply-side considerations, only demand-side.

Yes, Gloria, workers need higher wages because of increasing rents and utilities. Would rents be so high if there was less regulation on new construction? And why are utilities going up when energy prices are so low? Would that have anything to do with mandated renewable energy being so expensive?

Employers don't get a seat at the table. Low-income workers are sold a bill of goods that will come due next recession. They are subsidized so heavily that it makes rational sense to limit their income to under fifteen thousand a year.

And that kid who just wants a little spending money and on-the-job training will find no entry level jobs for them.

Cui Bono?

Imagine your autistic seven-year-old still isn't potty trained. He or she can't even tell you that they have to go potty, because they have very limited language skills. He or she might not have any vocabulary at all. They can't tell you when they are thirsty, or hungry, either. For many parents, seeing their kid getting dressed by themselves is only a vague aspiration.

These are very basic skills that you and I take for granted. Most parents expect that their children will learn how to tie their own shoes and ask for their favorite toy, and build on these skills until eventually they can lead independent lives.

But there are hundreds of thousands of California children with Autism Spectrum Disorder, who need varying degrees of specialized intervention to be able to achieve their independence potential.

This is personal for me. My partner is a licensed, clinical psychologist who operates a practice providing services to children on the spectrum. We hire young people who want to work with children and train them to high standards. Our interventionists make home visits using their own vehicles, and their casework is under regular supervisory and reporting standards.

Our starting salary is fifteen dollars per hour. There is some room for pay raises based on merit, but not much, because our reimbursement rates are set by insurance companies. One insurance company reimburses us forty dollars an hour for direct intervention.

Wow, big profit, you might be thinking. But hold on.

We are required to pay our employee's travel time, for which we pay minimum wage. So if our employee drives thirty minutes each way for a two-hour intervention, we pay them another ten bucks. That eighty-dollar reimbursement already costs us forty dollars. Plus, the IRS requires us to pay our employees a mileage rate, to compensate for vehicle wear-and-tear. That's currently fifty-three cents per mile.

Our therapists are paid as employees, not contractors. They get a W-2, not a 1099. Some of our competitors are paying their workers as contractors. Back to the two-hour intervention. We must factor in our employer's share of the Social Security Tax and the Medicare Tax. That's another two fifty. Finished? We're only getting started! We also pay workers compensation insurance and liability insurance. We have a group health care plan. And recently, California mandated that we accrue paid sick leave in order to pay workers when they can't work.

If there is any profit left over, it goes into overhead. The lights have to stay on.

If this sounds like we are obsessed with money, it's because our highest moral obligation is to keep the lights on and to keep providing services, and to make sure our interventionists don't have to worry that their paychecks will be deposited on the fifth and twentieth. My partner still drives an eleven-year-old Honda hybrid, and she may never be able to pay back her student loans in full. We're not in this for the money!

So when I hear that the California legislature has "struck a deal" with Governor Brown to increase the minimum wage to $15.00 per hour, it frightens me to think that we might have to stop providing services. And it makes me feel powerless against a governing body that makes laws without the consent of the people of California.

I've seen polls that say nearly two-thirds of Californians are in favor of a minimum wage increase. Why not put the issue before the voters, if it is such a sure thing? Maybe they could poll-test the following question: who should be paid more, a waitress who also receives tips, or an interventionist?

The best argument in favor of a raise in the minimum wage is that there are single parents and other family breadwinners who work at McDonald's or WalMart, and they are unable to make ends meet. Isn't that what the Earned Income Tax Credit is for?

Apologize For What?

President Obama's latest Apology Tour is winding down. Earlier in the week, he allowed himself to be photographed beneath a gigantic image of the Butcher of La Cabana, Ernesto "Che" Guevara. The Cuban regime has never been held to account for their human rights abuses under the Castro brothers.

But they did extract an admission of guilt from President Obama. Raul Castro and Obama had a joint press conference, and Raul went first. Castro chided Obama, saying he found it "inconceivable that a government does not defend and insure the right to health care, education, Social Security with provision and development, equal pay and the rights of children."

After Castro spoke, President Obama delivered his prepared remarks. Raul Castro, Obama said, "addressed what he views as short comings in the United States around basic needs for people and poverty and inequality and race relations, and we welcome that constructive dialogue."

The President of the United States allowed himself to be lectured by a communist dictator. Then they went to a baseball game together, ate hot dogs, and did the wave, while bodies and body parts were being carried out of Brussels metro.

Raul Castro made other risible statements, such as expressing his "concern over the destabilization some are trying to promote in Venezuela." The presence of Cuban advisers as overwatch in the Venezuelan security apparatus is a very poorly kept secret.

Obama and his policy flacks like to say that, "if you keep on doing something over and over again for 50 years and it doesn’t work, it might make sense to do something new." Cuba has been free to trade with every other country in the world. Whatever is keeping the Cuban people from realizing their human potential has very little to do with whether the U.S. does or doesn't lift its embargo.

Maybe Obama's apology tour could be considered something that has been done over and over and hasn't worked. The Obama Doctrine of extending an open hand for nothing in return hasn't improved our standing or our security.

Obama continued to share his personal regret for America's actions when he made his next stop, in Argentina. "Democracies have to have the courage to acknowledge when we don't live up to the ideals that we stand for. And we've been slow to speak out for human rights and that was the case here."

We didn't support the military junta that took power 40 years ago, but we didn't openly oppose it either.

That won't satisfy anyone. People who suspect the CIA had a hand in disappearing people now have a tacit admission of guilt. Saying that things were different back then seems trite and hackneyed, but in this case, it's true. Forty years ago was the height of international communist Soviet intervention. There is no question that the moral imperative has always been to oppose communism.

Anyone who thinks differently ought to become familiar with the Monroe Doctrine and the Reagan Doctrine. Kennedy especially understood the danger inherent with allowing communism a foothold in the hemisphere. Kennedy paid for that with his life. Perhaps a condition of lifting the Cuban embargo should be their opening all their files on Oswald's movements and contacts in Cuba. The Cuban government must be held accountable for their complicity in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

State Property

Children have a biological imperative to become rebellious as teenagers. After a childhood of identifying with their parents, teenage behaviors prepare them to separate from their family and begin their independent lives.

Until recently, the state had no interest in promoting the defiance of young people against their family. It seems the government has grown large enough to take an interest. Witness the state sponsorship of the transgender agenda.

In Michigan, the State Board of Education has published guidance that allows "all students, regardless of parental or doctoral input, to choose their gender, name, pronouns, and bathrooms."

"The responsibility for determining a student’s gender identity rests with the student. Outside confirmation from medical or mental health professionals, or documentation of legal changes, is not needed," the Board's draft document says.

Outside confirmation from medical professionals is not needed.

The Board may not be aware that the American College of Pediatricians has flatly stated that Gender Ideology Harms Children. The American College of Pediatricians' statement includes an official position that, "a person’s belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking."

Confused young people are nothing new. A school board that is reluctant to support parent's autonomy over their children is novel, though. "When contacting the parent/guardian of a transgender or GNC student," the Board advises, "school staff should use the student’s legal name and the pronoun corresponding to the student’s assigned sex at birth, unless the student or parent/guardian has specified otherwise."

The school board retains the right to identify your child.

This issue is a lot deeper than who uses what bathroom or locker room, although there is guidance for that, too. The Board advises that, "a student should not be required to use a locker room that is incongruent with their gender identity." What about students that are bothered by someone of the opposite sex changing clothes near them? They can request "an adjusted changing schedule or use of a private area in the facility."

So, the normies have to adjust their behavior.

This push for "transgender" "rights" is not advocacy for anyone's natural right to be gender confused. It is a flanking maneuver by cultural marxists to destroy the family. Once parents lose the right to raise their children the way they see fit, their children become property of the state.

Homosexual marriage advocates never really wanted gay marriage, they just wanted to redefine marriage to inevitably dissolve it. If any "loving" union can be a marriage, then marriage is no longer an institution concerned with raising the next generation.

The wholesale attenuation of traditional values always begins with colonization of the language. Gender pronouns, problematic. Misgendering someone, a slur. Then the media continues the preference cascade. It's like a poker player's tell. Once you see it, you can't un-see it.

The family has always represented the ultimate bastion of liberty against state encroachment. Now that the walls are really coming down, the collectivization can begin in earnest.

The Shield

It's ridiculous that any faith-based organization needs to have a new law passed to be able to freely exercise their beliefs. The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution already codifies this right.

Nevertheless, the Georgia State Assembly has passed HB 757, and called it the "Free Exercise Protection Act." The bill is intended "to protect property owners which are faith based organizations against infringement of religious freedom."

The phrase, "faith based" appears in the bill text twenty-three times.

The bill doesn't attempt to shield private property owners against infringement of religious freedom. The word, "private" does not appear in the bill text. Neither does the word, "corporate," except to refer to a "public corporate body created by or under authority of state law."

This law isn't meant to protect a baker from being compelled to prepare a lesbian wedding cake. Would that it did!

That hasn't prevented a moral panic and demands for Georgia's governor not to sign it. ESPN Radio's Kate Fagan said she was alarmed that a baker could refuse to sell a muffin to someone they didn't like. Then her and Sarah Spain giggled like Beavis and Butthead at her clever double entendre. Muffin, uh huh huh huh huh.

Fagan then said that she was proud that the NFL was threatening to punish Georgia by not awarding Atlanta a Super Bowl in 2019. "The NFL has the moral high ground" on this issue, she said.

To Fagan, the moral high ground is occupied by those who endorse marriage between homosexuals. It's frustrating that sincere, principled opposition to homosexual marriage is labelled as superstitious bigotry.

The NFL isn't the only private entity that is threatening Georgia legislators, who have enough votes to override a veto, with loss of commerce.

Disney has vowed to boycott the state. Disney receives generous tax incentives to produce media in the state, and is currently producing Guardians of the Galaxy 2 at Pinewood Studios.

"Disney and Marvel are inclusive companies," a Disney spokesperson said. "We will plan to take our business elsewhere should any legislation allowing discriminatory practices be signed into state law."

Is it "inclusive" to force a Christian minister to perform a lesbian wedding?

The loss of business is an effective wedge being employed to force rapid social change. It cuts both ways, though. The NFL enjoys an exemption from U.S. antitrust laws. When challenged in court, the NFL is often found to act conspiratorially to restrain trade and prevent competition. The last time, in 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 against the league.

Revoking the NFL's antitrust exemption wouldn't solve Georgia's HB 757 problem, which is that Americans are Constitutionally illiterate. But it would be a good start.

Stereotypes About Women

Thought leaders from around the femisphere are swarming to protect Hillary Clinton. The most risible has to be Amanda Marcotte's tweet from yesterday.

The sad truth is the anti-Clinton narrative relies on ancient stereotypes about women being untrustworthy. https://t.co/lXxEGNVIuL

— Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte) March 20, 2016

That is the first time anyone ever heard of this "ancient stereotype." There are lots of commonly accepted female stereotypes: They are bad drivers, they never shut up, they like to shop, and they are attracted to high-status men.

We may never know if Hillary Clinton is a bad driver. She hasn't driven a car herself since 1996. Her car did injure a police officer in 2001 when it breezed past an airport checkpoint, but to be fair, she wasn't driving it at the time.

One stereotype about women getting a lot of hype recently, is that assertive women are "bitchy." There was an effort by Sheryl Sandberg a few years ago to eliminate the word "bossy," from the language. The author of Lean In was concerned that the word "bossy" was having a negative effect on young women. But the same women who protest the word "bossy" are silent about the word "bitchy."

Perhaps "bitchy" is the n-word for women. "Hey, that's our word! You can't use it! Only we can use it!"

Another stereotype about women is that they look horrible when they age. They get droopy and jowly and ugly. Their hair changes from shiny and lustrous to dry and wispy. Their eyes change from bright and clear to dull and cloudy.

Still another adage about women, is that they are not as smart as men. Oh, but ask any woman whether she thinks women are smarter, and they will answer "yes." The fact is, men are distributed farther from the mean intelligence. A man is much more likely to be a genius than a woman.

Yet another cliche is that women are emotionally unstable. Their menstrual cycles affect their moods in ways that men never have to deal with. Does this instability diminish with age? At this point, what difference does it make?

If there is a stereotype about old women being ugly, emotionally unstable bitches, then Hillary wears it as effortlessly as her butch haircut and pantsuit.

But is there a stereotype for women being untrustworthy? That is a purely Clintonian hallmark.

Smile! God Loves You!

What would we do without feminists? We would be totally lost sometimes, not knowing all their little triggers and micro-agressions. Last year there was a mini-hysteria over catcalling women. Interacting with a woman on the street can now be construed as sexual harassment. A thousand slut-walks brought forth ten thousand memes, such as, "Still Not Asking For It," and "My Little Black Dress Doesn't Mean Yes."

It doesn't mean "no," either. For lots of men, a miniskirt says, "perhaps."

One of the things we learned during the catcall mania is that you must never remind a woman to smile. Joe Scarborough "demanded" a smile from Hillary, and received Twitter's explosive rage in response.

Smile. You just had a big night. #PrimaryDay

— Joe Scarborough (@JoeNBC) March 16, 2016

If you click on Joe's tweet, you will see the birth of a hashtag, #SmileForJoe, and images of all stripe of succubi, imps, hellions, hags and goblins.

Alpha Harridan Hillary is running for President Of The United States. Her flying monkeys spring into action at the tiniest perceived slight. The week before last, they displayed their fury at Bernie Sanders asking her if he could finish speaking. "Excuse me, I'm talking," Sanders said. And this week, Joe Scarborough practically assaulted her by "telling" her to smile. Maybe the President-In-Waiting and her little monsters could show a little forbearance?

Hillary keeps reminding us of the historic nature of her campaign. The first woman President. As if by merely being a woman she brings capacities unavailable to her male rivals. A woman's smile tells us that she is warm and nurturing.

NPR's Melissa Block doesn't seem to have the answer, but she thinks it is related to "not-so well-intentioned, unsolicited sidewalk advice." Block lamented that this week, Hillary's "smile was also fair game for comment."

Block continues, "I even spent some time this week reading scientific studies that measure the correlation between social power and gender and smiling. Or, as one study defined it, 'how the ideas of license and obligation translate into the micro-reality of facial expression.'"

So she's got nothing. Other than it's just like being harassed on the street.

Hey Melissa? Frown! God Hates You!

Mobbed Up

Donald Trump's event in Chicago last night was cancelled due to safety concerns as paid protesters overwhelmed security. It's hard to find police estimates of the number of people involved. Usually when left wing nut jobs gather to protest something, their allies in the press inflate their numbers.

It's clear this protest was highly organized. Bernie Sanders supporters and organizations allied with MoveOn.org helped bring thousands of people out, outnumbering police, if not Trump supporters. The protesters are thinking along the lines of Melissa Click who declared, "We need some muscle over here," writ large. Click's former sinecure gave her room to say things to people like, "I believe in free speech, but..."

The radicals are in charge now, and they want to shut down speech they don't like. The mayor of Chicago, who left Trump supporters defenseless in the face of intimidation, is patting himself on the back. He said, "For all of us who cherish the ideals upon which our country was founded, the hateful, divisive rhetoric that pits Americans against each other demeans our democratic values and diminishes our democratic process."

Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground, convicted bomber and terrorist, supported the brownshirts. Would anyone think that Bill Ayers supports "our democratic values?" Mayor Emanuel, if you can find one single paid protester who "cherishes the ideals upon which our country was founded," I would be very surprised.

The mayor went on to thank Chicago Police for "protecting people's first amendment rights." Which right is that? The right of people "peaceably to assemble?" Donald Trump's organization had to pull permits to have an event. Did MoveOn.org have to pull permits, or can they just show up ready to fight, er, I mean, peaceably assemble?

Leftist apologists like Cheri Jacobus are pushing back against the notion that the police advised Donald Trump to cancel the rally. This is what they're afraid of. That is what makes this a legitimate First Amendment violation. You no-platform someone you disagree with, contending their speech makes you feel unsafe. Then you send the Sturmabteilung to overwhelm the police. The next time, the city refuses to pull your permit, citing the lack of adequate public safety.

It's clear that Mayor Emanuel is on one side of this. The mayor is on the side of people like Maria Hernandez, a 25-year-old community organizer. She broke out into a dance as the rally was cancelled and said, "I've never been more proud of my city."

Mayor Emanuel should be on the side of Debi Patrick, a 53-year-old Trump supporter who lives outside Chicago. She was quoted as saying, "This is scaring the hell out of me, trying to leave here."

In a normal world, a big-city mayor should be on the same side as a taxpaying citizen, protecting her safety. Instead, he's on the side of the goniff whose actvities are paid for with Debi Patrick's tax dollars. MoveOn.org is a 501c organization. They are organized like a charity, and if you "donate" to them, it's tax deductible. It's money laundering, and while legal, it's also completely immoral. They should permanently end the charitable deduction and let these organizations wither and die.

It's like when the teacher's union and legislators collude during collective bargaining. The taxpayer, the Debi Patrick, is not welcome at the table. Her voice is moot.

The blue city model is so interested in the enfranchisement of marginalized communities, they ignore the voice of the taxpayer. That is speech they don't like. And they wouldn't get away with it were it not for the press, who dwell on Trump's "provocative speech."

Debi was asking for it.

Don't Let The Door Hit You On The Way Out

The latest celebrity to announce their relocation plans due to the rise of Donald Trump is none other than Keith Olbermann. He wrote an opinion piece for the Washington Post stating that he was going to move out of his New York City apartment building.

"I’m getting out because of the degree to which the very name 'Trump' has degraded the public discourse and the nation itself," he said.

Olbermann knows about degrading the public discourse. In 2009, he called Michelle Malkin a "big mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it."

But hey, at least we're talking about Keith Olbermann again!

Trump Derangement Syndrome hasn't affected just cow college graduates and NRO cuckservatives upset at their rice bowls getting broken. Entertainment icons have signaled to the lesser members of the tribe just how disappointed they are at Trump's popularity.

Samuel L. Jackson said that, "if that motherfucker becomes president, I'm moving my black ass to South Africa." It is for this reason alone that I pray that G-d's will is for Trump to become president. I need to see Jackson virtue-signaling in Soweto, Cape Town, or Pretoria. I have lived a virtuous life and I deserve this.

Cher has announced that if Trump is elected, she's moving to Jupiter. My serene joy is knowing that I will probably outlive Cher, and I get to have the image of her expiring in a puddle of her piss and shit while clasping the hand of the daughter who spackled over her twat.

The "reverend" Al Sharpton said, "I'm also reserving my ticket to get out of here if he wins." I hope Donald Trump sends his weaponized IRS to frog-march Al Sharpton to federal prison for tax evasion as his very first executive act.

Jennifer Lawrence said that Donald Trump winning would be, "the end of the world." She should busy herself with a husband and baby.

Whoopi Goldberg said, "Maybe it's time for me to move." Whoopi seems to understand that physical movement is important for good mental health. It's clear that she doesn't get enough physical exertion, like her ancestors did.

And America's sweetheart, Hannah Montana, said she gon' "move out da country" if Trump is elected. Calgary awaits, Miley!

Stop Big Potato

The California Assembly has passed Senate Bill 7, which would forbid selling tobacco products to persons under 21 years of age. News outlets are describing the bill's passage as having raised the smoking age to 21. I wonder if these esteemed purveyors of news and information understand the difference between purchasing a product and consuming it.

The progressive media reaction to the bill aligns with that of Los Angeles Times' resident nut job George Skelton. His article headline? Lawmakers show surprising courage against Big Tobacco.

According to Assemblyman Jim Wood, the bill would save the medical system millions of dollars. Thus, it would save thousands of lives.

"Adolescent brains are uniquely vulnerable to the effects of nicotine and nicotine addiction. 18-year-olds are much more likely to buy tobacco products for their 14-, 15-, 16-year-old friends," said Wood.

Underscoring the schizophrenic nature of this legal reasoning, members of the military are exempt. It wouldn't be fair that someone under 21 could die for their country but couldn't smoke. We love people who serve in the military, so it wouldn't be fair to deny them this tiny liberty that will kill them?

SB 7 deprives adults of a liberty, and probably won't work. Minors will still be able to get cigarettes. The way to reduce tobacco consumption is to tax it to death. But lawmakers are reluctant to do that, because tobacco taxes fall disproportionately on low- income people. It's a regressive tax.

SB 7 seems even sillier when you realize that you only need to be 18 to qualify for a medical marijuana card. Smoking cigarettes is harmful but smoking marijuana is not?

A government that is big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have. In this case, citizens receive healthcare from the government, therefore, the government is allowed to take away certain liberties. And make no mistake. These modern day Carrie Nation progressives want to outlaw tobacco use altogether. But why stop there?

Adolescent brains are also uniquely vulnerable to the effects of simple carbohydrates and sugar addiction. Is there anyone who believes underage smoking is a bigger health crisis than underage obesity? Adolescent obesity is what drives Michelle Obama's "Lets Move" campaign, which has even reached into our children's lunchrooms.

If we truly want to prevent obesity in our young people, we should be outlawing potatoes, and encouraging smoking. A pack-a-day habit of Marlboros will keep a 14-year old thin and thinking more clearly.

I can't wait for George Skelton to write an article praising lawmakers' "courage" in standing up to Big Potato.

All hyperbole aside, legislating to save "the medical system millions of dollars" is a dangerous precedent for liberty. If and when Obamacare collapses, America will be persuaded to institute single-payer. The "medical system" will be treating thousands of gunshot victims every year, all at taxpayer expense. Prohibition of firearms can thus be justified as reducing a public health hazard.

And it won't be just guns that will go away. The progressive marxist alliance is trying to classify argumentative speech as "cyberviolence" and "psychological violence." Public resources are squandered responding to allegations of hateful speech and the violence it "incites." Expect the dissolution of the First Amendment as well as the Second.

Sorry Rebecca, Daddy's Broke

Rebecca Traister's new book All Single Ladies has landed, and is garnering adulation from across the femisphere. The subtitle, Unmarried Women and The Rise of An Independent Nation strikes a note of triumphalism. Nobody has a problem with women being equal before the law, but why celebrate the devaluation of the institution of marriage?

Because single women comprise a quarter of the electorate, and they vote left. Encouraging women to eschew marriage is done in service to the marxist progressive will to power.

Curiously, Traister contends that single women have "played as large a part as anyone in saving marriage in America," by "demanding more from men and from marriage."

She's right about women demanding more from men and marriage. Getting married greatly disadvantages men. Why would any man choose marriage when there are plenty of women who will offer themselves sexually and cohabit in exchange for nothing in return? Marriage penalizes men who can be sued for divorce for any reason or no reason. Marriage penalizes fathers by prioritizing mothers in custody disputes. A man who fathers a child can be compelled by the state, under penalty of prison, to support that child, even if the mother leaves the marriage.

Now there is the concept of marital rape, in which any female can allege her husband has committed a felony by having sex with her.

Perhaps Traister is imputing total female agency over the attenuation of marriage. There are millions of women who allow themselves to be used for sex, during their most fertile years, in exchange for nothing. Surely many of them wish to be married. The reason they aren't has more to do with their men understanding the tradeoffs and choosing relative freedom.

Predictably, Traister appends her book with an index of policy proposals to improve the lives of single women. As Traister notes, "Conservatives have long feared that if women became more independent, men would become less central to economic security, social standing, sexual life and, as it turned out, to parenthood."

That's not what conservatives fear. Women can turn away from men, but they can't live without daddy. As men become less central, the government becomes more central to economic security, sexual life, and parenthood. A universal mandatory paid maternity leave will have to be subsidized by the taxpayers.

Rebecca Traister just wants the taxpayer to be her daddy.

Rebecca, daddy's broke. He doesn't have the money that you think he has. You're going to have to cut back your expectations a little bit, ok?

All The Cat Ladies

Rebecca Traister's book All The Single Ladies is coming out. She retweeted an excerpt from the book, remembering how she hated the part of Little House On The Prairie where Laura gets married.

"Laura's story was coming to a close. The tale that was worth telling about her was finished once she married."

This brings to mind the righteous feminist rage after Adele declared, "When I became a parent, I felt like I was truly living. I had a purpose, where before I didn’t."

Traister's new book puts her in the pantheon of feminists right up there with Gloria Steinem. The premise of All The Single Ladies is that men are unnecessary for feminine fulfillment. The presence of mood hormones in semen puts the lie to that.

Women who never marry condemn themselves to lives that are nasty, brutish, and short.

One out of three unmarried mothers live in poverty.

A child growing up in a two-parent home has much better chances than a single-parent home. A single mother is the biggest predictor of a child's future poverty.

Unmarried women have a twenty-three percent higher mortality risk than married women. Single women die earlier.

And unmarried women are unhappy. Since Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon ushered in the era of sanctioned misandry, women's happiness has been declining, both in absolute terms and relative to men. For thirty-five years now, women have been buying a bill of goods and all we have to show for it is generations of them wearing hostile resting face.

I'm sure Rebecca Traister has the answers. More government programs for women and unmarried mothers, right? Paid family leave, paid maternity leave, etc. This won't alleviate anyone's suffering. All it will do is encourage more women to become single mothers. If you want more of something, subsidize it.

Rebecca, how can you call yourself a feminist if you advocate lifestyles that make them poor and miserable?

Nobody wants to take WIC out of a baby's mouth. But the price we're paying is erosion of social cohesion. America used to have informal institutions to take care of poor people and unmarried mothers. Now all those civic institutions are being replaced with a government program.

Progressives won't volunteer at a soup kitchen because they contribute with their taxes. Which they like because it's not true compassion unless a bureaucrat gets to wet his beak.