Pomidor Quixote
Daily Stormer
March 14, 2019

Front-hole students in the United Kingdom will soon start to receive free period products to account for the menstruation spend gap between men and women. Men just don’t spend money on tampons, and that’s sexist.

The paradox of equality…

You’re supposed to be for equality because men and women are equal but you’re also supposed to work towards equality because men and women are not equal.

Daily Mail:

The Government will fund free sanitary products in schools to tackle period poverty, Philip Hammond announced today.

Mr Hammond said ‘some girls are missing school’ because they can’t afford to buy them.

The Chancellor said the Department for Education would develop the new scheme in time for the next school year in September.

The surprise announcement came amid a small spending spree in Mr Hammond’s Spring Statement today.

Mr Hammond said: ‘In response to rising concern by headteachers that some girls are missing school attendance due to inability to afford sanitary products, I have decided to fund the provision of free sanitary products in secondary schools and colleges in England from the next school year.’

A spokesman for the National Association for Head Teachers said they welcomed the move, saying it was ‘the right thing to do‘.

…

Liberal Democrat Education spokeswoman Layla Moran claimed victory over the announcement.

She said: ‘With 1 in 4 women saying they have experienced forms of period poverty, the Liberal Democrats have been fighting to ensure schools and hospitals are places where you can get free tampons and pads.

”However, this is not a silver bullet and we must continue to demand better for girls and women. It is vital the Conservative Government bring in more ambitious measures if we are to bring about the full eradication of period poverty.’

…

The move is a response to statistics that show some women are being forced to choose between paying the bills and buying tampons.

If women require more money to be spent on them in order for them to be able to act more like men, maybe them acting like men is not very natural, you know?

Maybe it’s not good for the economy either.

We’re literally paying women to exist.

From an archived entry of Nicolas Kilsdonk-Gervais’ blog that looked into a fiscal research report from New Zealand:

Legions of feminists will ferociously type smash the patriarchy! at their Internet rallies, calling out for the end of the male supremacy in all spheres of life. Yet, few of them acknowledge the fact that one of these spheres, the government (the institution granting them rights), is entirely supported by male taxpayers. Economically, women cost more to the state than they benefit. Put another way, the government (or men) is literally paying women to be alive. Strong independent women are only that way because the state is transferring money from men to them. Feminists are not seriously against being dependent on men, they are just against men having the full control over their money.

Let’s explore a fiscal research report in New Zealand.

The real gender gap: the tax gap

While the 77¢ for a dollar wage gap has been under the spotlight for the past years, the 200¢ for a dollar tax gap has, to my knowledge never been mentioned, at least not by our supreme feminist leaders Barack Obama and Justin Trudeau. A quick glimpse at the data reveals a massive difference in taxes paid by men and women.

The first thing that comes to mind is that half of women might be at home raising kids. However, the workforce participation rate gap between men and women doesn’t seem to exceed 10% in either age group. (see figure 4 in source)

The second thing that may come to mind as a confounding factor is that women spend more for children in education and health. Nope. No support for that either. Men and women spend approximately the same amount in both education and health (see figure 10 and 11 of the source).

With the exception of the age group between 45-59 (a 15 year span) years old, women cost more to the state than the tax they provide. In contrast, men generate more tax revenue than they cost between 23 and 65 (a 43 year span). In the brief period in which women generate more or as much tax money than they consume, men outscore them by at least 3 times.

By large, the cumulative tax money given to women outweighs the tax money generated by women. The short period of positive impact of women between 45 and 59 is countered by 65 other years in which their allocated tax expenditure is more than what they supply the state.

Men, on the other hand, appear to have a positive cumulative net fiscal impact from approximately 40 until 80 years of age. For these particular taxes and public expenditures, the net fiscal incidence on men is approximately zero when cumulated over all ages. (p. 22)

Overall, the research suggests that male taxpayers are the only ones to ever have a positive contribution in taxes. Based on Figure 17, the closest that the average woman will come to having a positive fiscal incidence is when she is at minus $50,000 around 55 years of age. While feminists are demonizing men for benefiting from all liberties and rights they have constructed, they have oddly remained silent over the fact that anonymous male tax payers are paying women to exist. Read that sentence again.

The fact that feminists want a stronger government is not a coincidence. While historically, women had to choose a wealthy husband for resources, they can now stay single, be lesbians, marry a poor man, or use the sperm bank, and the state will still transfer male taxes to them. Interestingly, within 10 years of women’s suffrage, the government doubled their tax revenue and expenditure in the USA. The government has somehow become the new providing husband, by taking money from anonymous men who have no say about their money. While women are still strongly financially dependent on men, men are simply unable to use the money they make for their own interests.

We can assume that it’s pretty much the same or worse in all Western countries.

“The right thing to do”

What does that even mean? It’s on a similar level to “it’s who we are.” People keep repeating it, but they never offer any reasoning as to why.

Why is it the right thing to do for the government to take money from men and to give it to women?

Why is that who we are?

That Layla Moran whore even claimed they have to keep demanding better for girls and women. They won’t stop until every penny men make is under their control.

Layla Moran

They want to completely enslave men, and we’re on a path towards that. We’ve been on that path since they first got the vote and started demanding more and more stuff.

Letting women into schools and into the workforce is stupid.

The data shows that women won’t ever contribute back to society.

When they work they don’t have kids. Birthrates decline and they have a negative fiscal impact.

Working literally turns women into useless money draining flesh toys.

Motherhood is the only useful thing they can ever do, and being a career woman is antithetical to motherhood.

We could give like $4000 a month to every man if we caged all of these emotional money black holes.