Taxes and Women

“Smart and SeXy” presents the latest research with regards to sex differences in intelligence and their biological causes all in one place.

In addition to pushing for a greater role in government in regulating behavior, the feminine imperative also results in massive increases in the size and scope of government in other areas; especially in increasing taxation to facilitate wealth transfers to the poor and increasing wealth transfers from men to women post-divorce. Women’s suffrage has been shown to have caused between a 25 and 33% increase in government expenditure within 11 years of its implementation for various governments at various times. According to IRS data, men in the US pay substantially more (almost double) in taxes than women; mainly because of their higher income. Comparing self-employed men to self-employed women, which conveniently factors out any potential make-work jobs for both groups, shows an even greater divergence with men paying more than three times the amount of taxes than women.[i]

Men earn more partially because of their greater devotion to the workforce in terms of hours worked per week and more uninterrupted, consecutive years of participation in the workforce. Superhaplotypes of the X chromosome [discussed in greater detail in the book] also cause there to be a greater number of very high IQ men than very high IQ women which causes men to be over-represented in the highest paid positions that require high intelligence. Such professions tend to pay more due to their greater difficulty and the limited number of people able to perform them.

Other western countries have similar patterns. One of the best studies on differences in government payments and benefits receipt by gender was done on the population in New Zealand. Taxes paid vary significantly across all age ranges, but during the majority of their lifetime men are contributing about twice as much in Tax revenue (14,000 vs. 6,000 NZD annually during working age) and are always contributing more than women during the entirety of working age.[ii]

On the other side of the coin, women receive substantially more income support benefits compared to men both in terms of monetary value per woman and in the number of women receiving benefits. How much more women receive than men varies with age, but it is higher at all ages and peaks at 4.8 times what men receive during the 35-39 age range. This is likely due to the increased support given to single mothers with dependents.

Direct Tax Per Capita by Age and Gender

Received Income Support Per Capita by Age and Gender

The above graph shows incomes support benefits per capita by age and gender. Income support is analogous to welfare and retirement benefits in the US. Throughout all points of life after working age, women collect more benefits than men; the exact opposite pattern of payments to the state. During child-rearing years, there is a large peak in benefits collected by women compared to men which reduces somewhat as children become adults and are no longer dependent on mothers.


Data from: Aziz, O., Gemmell, N., Laws, A. (2013) The Distribution of Income and Fiscal Incidence by Age and Gender: Some Evidence from New Zealand. University of Victoria Working Paper.

Middle of life benefits in the US follow a similar pattern for similar reasons. The Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) mostly provides money for single mothers or the children of single mothers. 86% of adult recipients of the program are women.[iii] In addition, almost 1 in 4 women (23%) in the US receive food stamp assistance at some point in their lives; about twice the rate of men. There are some racial differences in receipt of benefits, but the gender pattern is consistent for all races. Among whites, 19% of women receive food stamps at some point in their lives vs. 11% of men. For blacks, the rates are 39% vs. 21% for women and men respectively.[iv] White women are thus nearly as dependent on government food stamp benefits as black males. Other welfare programs in the US which in practice are substantially or mainly wealth transfers to single mothers from taxpaying men include the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), the Women, Infants and Children food program (WIC), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Child nutrition programs, public housing, section 8 housing and Medicaid.[v], [vi]

In a fundamental sense, these programs are equivalent to the cuckolding of all tax-paying men. Cuckolding is when a woman has a child by one man but convinces a second that it is his in order to deceptively gain access to his accumulated resources. Men with self-respect and dignity do not pay for the children of other men. Welfare programs are similar except deception is not required because the state acts as the coercive middle man who makes the cuckolding mandatory. It is also less obvious than the personal case because the costs are dispersed among all productive men and they generally never interact with the single mothers directly to see their money being wasted. This wealth, which would be better spent by productive men providing for their own biological children, is forcibly taken from them to pay for women who have made extremely poor personal decisions in their lives and produced children statistically much more likely to be involved in criminal and disorderly behavior. The increased criminality of children of single mothers is a large externality which costs a society a great deal in terms of increasing police and prison spending on top of the direct wealth transfer programs.

The recent introduction of the “affordable” health care act also acts as a wealth transfer from working-age men to women. Men go to the doctor and need medical care much less frequently than women. Before the new health care law, insurers were able to adjust prices based on gender to reflect actual costs. No more. Now men and women cannot be charged differently based on actual medical care use and single men are even required to pay for personal coverage which can only benefit women, such as maternity coverage. The result is that healthcare costs for young men have increased substantially more than for women of all ages. The average increase was 56% for men compared to 4% for women though in specific areas the average increase for young men has been as high as 200%.[vii]  Car insurance shows the opposite pattern where men are made to pay more due to their greater likelihood of getting into catastrophic crashes (women are more likely to have an accident, but those are usually minor). Unsurprisingly, there has been no attempt to enforce “equality” in this situation.

The greatest income support occurs at the oldest ages and is present in pretty much every western country. In New Zealand, older women receive about 20% more retirement benefits than men. Though the gap between benefits receipt isn’t as large per capita in retirement compared to other ages, men have a much shorter life expectancy than women which results in women in aggregate receiving substantially more benefits than is indicated by a per capita analysis. Women live 6-10 years longer than men on average[viii] and in New Zealand, only 39% of people over 80 are male.ii

In the US, social security, Medicare, and the “affordable” healthcare act have much the same effect as retirement transfers do in New Zealand. The elderly, who are mostly women, are probably the single greatest beneficiary of the new US healthcare law. The demographic gap in the US favoring women among the old increases from 1.3 women per 1 man at age 65 until there are about 2 females for every 1 male at 85 years old and older.[ix] Considering the size of the wealth transfer in old age, socialized retirement benefits constitute an absolutely massive redistribution of wealth from working-age men, who pay much more into the system, to old women who as a group withdraw substantially more. In addition, it is likely that these older women did not contribute much during their youth considering what is known about female work habits. Medical care especially imposes massive costs. Such costs increase exponentially for the very old, most of which are female. Again, this is money that would be better used by young, productive men financing their own families instead of transfers towards entitlements for old women.

Net Fiscal Impact by Age and Gender


The above graph shows the per capita net fiscal impact by age and gender in 2010 in New Zealand. The net fiscal impact is calculated by subtracting government expenditures (education, income support, healthcare, etc) from direct and indirect taxation. Only figures which are easily attributable to individuals are used. From these figures, it can be seen that women withdraw more benefits from government than they put back in for most of their lifetimes. In other words, they have a negative net contribution to government finances for the majority of their lives. Women do not pass the break-even point and start contributing positively until their early to mid-40s


Data from: Aziz, O., Gemmell, N., Laws, A. (2013) The Distribution of Income and Fiscal Incidence by Age and Gender: Some Evidence from New Zealand. University of Victoria Working Paper.


The net fiscal impact is a measure that subtracts the costs of state benefits from paid taxes to find the net impact on government revenue. Comparing genders shows that, in New Zealand, women have a negative net fiscal impact over most of their lives (see graph on the previous page). As a group, they take more money from the government than they pay into it. This difference must, therefore, be made up through increased taxes received from men. Men pass the break-even point and start contributing positively in their early to mid-twenties. However,

Women, on average, do not pass this ‘break even’ point until their mid-40s. This is due to a combination of lower workforce participation, higher health, and education spending, higher income support and lower direct and indirect taxation.ii

The cumulative net fiscal impact adds the net fiscal impact from all prior years in a person’s life to see the net effect of their whole life up until that point on government finances at a given age. As can be seen in the graph on the next page, women in New Zealand (and presumably in other countries with similarly generous government benefits) never make a positive contribution to state finances.

The positive net fiscal impact women make from 45-59 never outweighs the prior negative net fiscal impacts. As a result, when the large negative net impacts of the retirement years arrive, they simply add to an already negative profile. 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.ii

Cumulative Net Fiscal Impact by Age and Gender

The above graph takes the 2010 cross-sectional data for net fiscal impact on government finances for each year and adds all previous years to get an estimate of cumulative lifetime impact at a particular age for both genders. As can be seen from this estimate, the brief period for which women have a net positive impact on government finances is not enough to offset their previous received benefits. Women are thus on average a net drain on government finances when considering their whole lifetime and do not contribute positively to government finances.


Data from: Aziz, O., Gemmell, N., Laws, A. (2013) The Distribution of Income and Fiscal Incidence by Age and Gender:

Some Evidence from New Zealand. University of Victoria Working Paper.

The United States generally has less socialized benefits compared to other countries and does not demonstrate as extreme of a trend, but the overall shape is similar. Though, as stated previously, the degree to which the same pattern is present in the US is somewhat obfuscated because some things which in other countries would be factored into state finances, such as healthcare, are not in the US. Obamacare is essentially a bachelor tax which would not get factored into the net fiscal impact since the “tax” goes through private insurance companies rather than through the government. Other essentially male-specific “taxes” that would not be generally included are things like child support and alimony that mostly go from men to their ex-wives, but passes through the state which skims off the top. Factoring in make-work government jobs overwhelmingly populated by women would also reduce the net fiscal impact of women since those taxes are merely a recirculation of other tax revenue.

Average Net Tax Payments by Age and Gender in the US (1991)

The above graph shows average tax payments minus transfers per person by age and gender in the US. As can be seen in the graph, men pay substantially more taxes during the entirety of their working life, and receive less net transfers in retirement. More recent IRS data does not group by both age and gender, but still shows that men overall pay substantially more in taxes than women. That men over all ages pay more suggests the pattern above is still present today.


Data from: Aziz, O., Gemmell, N., Laws, A. (2013) The Distribution of Income and Fiscal Incidence by Age and Gender:

Some Evidence from New Zealand. University of Victoria Working Paper.


IRS data can be found here: Data on Salaries and Wages and Business Income, by Gender, Tax Year 2009. IRS Data.


Recent US data compiled by the international monetary fund shows that for most income measures men still are paying substantially more overt taxes across all age ranges than women and women are still receiving more in benefits (additional graphs can be found in that paper).[x] In other words, the general pattern discussed in great detail in the paper on the New Zealand population is broadly similar to the pattern which currently exists in the US and presumably all high tax, high benefit nations.

Virtually no quantitative indicators show that women as a population have any real capacity for being truly independent. They are heavily dependent on being subsidized by male taxpayers, husbands, and ex-husbands. The obvious conclusion that can be drawn from gender differences in taxation and benefits is that this data clearly demonstrates that modern “equality” is largely fraudulent. Women are no more independent now than they were when they were restricted to being housewives. The main difference between traditional societies and today is not that women are more independent, but that they are less directly dependent and more indirectly dependent on the productivity of men. They are, as a group, heavily reliant on state mediated wealth transfers from men.

In the past, men were only responsible for providing for their own wives and children. This constituted a fair and reciprocal symbiotic relationship between men and women. Men produced a surplus to support their wives and children, and in return, wives provided various household services and produced children for their husbands. Today, the once symbiotic relationship has morphed into a parasitic relationship where women depend on the coercive power of the government to extract wealth from men while providing little to men in return; both directly from fathers through child support and alimony that comes with easy divorce and indirectly through socialized healthcare, welfare, and retirement benefits. Maintaining this false, superficial equality requires an absolutely massive wealth transfer. The result is that working-age men have substantially less wealth to afford to form families of their own. This combines with the increasingly well-known costs of frivolous divorce to men to discourage marriage and disproportionately decreases the fertility of especially productive men relative to the less productive. Productive men have more that can be stolen so they take precautions to limit what can be taken by the state or potential future ex-wives. Given the genetic heritability of psychological traits, this drop in fertility guarantees that future generations will progressively have smaller and smaller proportions of productive men who can keep the current system solvent.

If you found this article interesting then check out Smart and SeXy by Roderick Kaine, published by Arktos in 2016.

[i]        Data on Salaries and Wages and Business Income, by Gender, Tax Year 2009. IRS Data.

[ii]      Aziz, O., Gemmell, N., Laws, A. (2013) The Distribution of Income and Fiscal Incidence by Age and Gender:

Some Evidence from New Zealand. University of Victoria Working Paper.

[iii]     (2012) Characteristics and Financial Circumstances of TANF Recipients, Fiscal Year 2010. US department of health and human services, Office of Family Assistance.

[iv]     Morin, R. (2013) The politics and demographics of food stamp recipients. Pew Research.

[v]      Gellman, L. (1999) Female-Headed Households and the Welfare System. Poverty & Prejudice: Social Security at the Crossroads. Stanford University. ttps://

[vi]     Bradley, K., Rector, R. (2010) Confronting the Unsustainable Growth of Welfare Entitlements: Principles of Reform and the Next Steps. Heritage Foundation. Backgrounder #2427 on Welfare and Welfare Spending.

[vii]    Lambro, D. (2013) LAMBRO: Obamacare will hurt young people most. Washington Times. The Washington Times.

[viii]   Bridges, B., Choudhury, S. (2009) Social Security as a Retirement Resource for Near-Retirees, by Race and Ethnicity, Nativity, Benefit Type, and Disability Status. Social Security Bulletin, Vol. 69 No. 1, 2009

[ix]     A profile of older Americans: (2012).  Administration on Aging Administration for Community Living. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

[x]          Batini, N., Callegari, G.,  Guerreiro, J. (2011) “An Analysis of U.S. Fiscal and Generational Imbalances: Who Will Pay and How?” IMF Working Paper, Western Hemisphere Department. April 2011


  • Efficacy of sildenafil citrate Viagra in men with premature ejaculation buy cialis online in usa Registered in the precise states they prescribe, doctors and healthcare professionals from all over the United States are employed by AccessRX

  • Women tend to be less supportive of an aggressive and expensive military than are men. This is due to instincts that had survival value during human evolution.

    Fossil evidence and anthropological studies demonstrate that prior to the development of agriculture, and certainly prior to the development of civilization, wars between the Paleolithic hunting bands were more frequent, and more lethal to men. Men who were victorious in war killed their enemies and took their women and their land. Thus they had more descendants than men who were defeated or who avoided war.

    For women there were rarely any benefits in war. If their band lost their husbands and male relatives were killed, they were raped, and taken by the victors. If their side won they had to share their husbands with captive women.

  • The mistake of the women’s liberation movement of the late 1960’s and early 1970’s was to assume that there are no innate differences between men and women. The differences overlap somewhat, but average differences are significant. The traditions,values, and institutions of a society should acknowledge and respect these differences.

    For one thing, women are less likely to enjoy casual sex and sexual variety. This is why most have not benefited from the sexual revolution, which has deemphasized marriage and destigmatized promiscuity.

    Also, women prefer successful men, while men prefer young women. If a man rises in his career he will be more desirable at the age of forty than he was at the age of twenty. This is not true for a woman. This is why no fault divorce is not a good idea.

    For various reasons men tend to earn more than women. I am not in favor of equalizing incomes. I am in favor of mitigating the differences politically with a generous safety net, and transfer payments from most men to most women.

  • Excellent article. It illustrates very clearly the dangerous folly that was the emancipation of woman. For a similar analysis from way back when read this one:

    There is a natural order of things. First comes God. Then comes man. Then comes woman. Then comes child.

    That’s why the bible tells women to be quiet in church and to submit to their husbands. The Bible is a timeless source of wisdom. No wonder an entire cast of Pharisees gets paid top shekels to corrupt and warp its essential message.

    There is only one way out of this mess: we must rein in and redomesticate our women. So long as we accept women as equals this insane, mad folly that is the current West will continue. We need a renaissance of strong, iron-hard masculinity. We need White Sharia.

    • Women were not the ones who tore down patriarchy. Men were; either to sabotage other men, to gain power or simply out of spite. So the first thing you need to do is to stop those people from screwing everyone over.

      The second and much harder thing you must do is get men to be good enough quality to qualify as patriarchs. It certainly sounds easy but the boomers are a wonderful lesson about how easy it is to lead straight off a cliff.

  • “This combines with the increasingly well-known costs of frivolous divorce to men to discourage marriage and disproportionately decreases the fertility of especially productive men relative to the less productive.”

    I don’t know about frivolous divorce, but I do know our overlords are not particularly impressed with your productivity. They have decided that you are more trouble than you are worth, and are now seeking to replace you with foreigners.

    Yet, you point the finger at women, an easy target, the red-headed stepchild of the coalition of the fringes. (Are we even that anymore?). Why don’t you go make friends with Sargon and bellyache about blue-haired feminists while non-Whites keep pouring in?

    And by the way, I understand some new industrial jobs are opening up for men, because White women voted for Trump’s economic populism, even though Democrats promise more gibs.

    You’re welcome.

    • Apparently you have no idea that the left supports bigger government and the right supports smaller government.

      You are in the wrong place.

      “Altright com”

    • I’m going to have to agree. Married women have the same incentives as their husbands so have very similar voting behavior. What happens after women’s suffrage is the elite proceed to attack marriage and men in order to reduce the proportion of married women.

      For example, if you look at the United States WS was in 1920, the decade was marked by feminism and relatively low government intervention and the 1930s was marked by a retreat of feminism and high government intervention. It is questionable blaming women for the change; FDR campaigned on a balanced budget and repealing prohibition so it isn’t clear how women could have known his actions in advance.

      • “What happens after women’s suffrage is the elite proceed to attack marriage and men in order to reduce the proportion of married women.”


  • “Women’s suffrage has been shown to have caused between a 25 and 33% increase in government expenditure within 11 years of its implementation for various governments at various times.”

    I stopped reading here.

    Is there some particular reason anyone should give a damn about this?

    If the expenditures are bad policy, tell me why. Otherwise, IDGAF. And I say that as a married mother and wife of a taxpayer. I can do without paying some Vietnamese lady to do my nails if it means three square meals a day for an abandoned White mother and child.

    If the money is being spent on outgroups, that’s a separate issue. Stop getting distracted.

    • That’s the selfish parasite mentality right there:

      YOU are using the state to steal from others, in this case on a systemic basis.

      And that’s bad policy.

      Or are you asking why theft is a problem when you like the outcome???

    • The increased wealth at disposal of the state is used to create the social welfare system. Having a large number of voters and resources who gain power the worse things get (because it increases the need for their services) results in the incentive to tear down the bonds of community and society because those are competitors as well as import the most dysfunctional people on the planet.

      • Thank you for the reasoned response. Do you think not having a welfare system would have any negative consequences?

        I suspect the “sink or swim” attitude would tear down bonds of community at least as well. As I said in another thread, if the community owes nothing to the individual, the individual owes nothing to the community. The devil take the hindmost.

        Moreover, again male business owners are at least as interested in open borders as female welfare bureaucrats. I wonder how much of those taxes paid by men are on profits they never would have earned but for their treasonous employment of foreign scab labor.

        I took this article as an argument against women’s suffrage, and it fails to make the case. It’s not enough to show that women’s suffrage has some negative consequences. Rather, you would have to show that the negatives are preponderant, and worse than the potential downsides of an all-male electorate.

        Support for missile attacks against Syria:

        Women: 14%
        Men: 31%

        The above gap is much larger than the ten point gender gap in Trump support among White voters in 2016.

        You anti-suffragists got nuthin.

        • Sorry. I seem to have misunderstood you. I’m a bit trigger happy on this issue for obvious reasons. I have come to the conclusion that men and women complement each other as voters.

          • Thesedrugs have beneficial estrogen agonist properties in some tissuesand antagonist properties in the breast, he said viagra dosage by weight Yan B, Wei JJ, Yuan Y, Sun R, Li D, Luo J, et al

        • We are living in a society that leftism has burned through. It is true that without a government social safety net people will have massive problems. In the past there was the solution of private social safety nets. You can find examples of mutual aid societies in the Roman Empire. In the middle ages, if you were afraid you wouldn’t have relatives to take care of you in your old age you could make a deal with a monastery to provide for you. Fraternal orders and their ilk are modern versions.

          The problem with corporate social arrangements is they involve people following power centers that are not the state. In societies run on spite and malice they are inevitably ground down by the state and replaced with atomic individualism.

    • Sorry you got triggered. If only women were forced to read about these things in school like men are forced to learn about feminism…

      • Reporting of quantitative and qualitative outcomes between studies is not standardized cheap cialis online The year in which women were diagnosed, the area of country in which they lived, living in an urban versus rural environment, and education level did not significantly impact the lag time

  • Redistributionism has always been a female trait, it makes them feel more socially secure. This has been known since the dawn of civilization. Letting them make political decisions was a grave mistake.

    • ” Letting them make political decisions was a grave mistake.

      Greedy men brought non-Whites here as cheap labor that the taxpayer must subsidize. Letting them make political decisions was a grave mistake.

      We could go back and forth on this till the last generations of White children has passed. That would suit our enemies just fine.

  • Why do gay men in San Francisco keep sending Nancy Pelosi back to Washington? So they can be unfairly taxed?

    • lol I wish lurkers on this site would just tell me why they disagree with me instead of downvoting my posts. Like how much of a faggot must you be to lurk partisan websites just to downvote people’s discussions?
      Like what does it look like when you guys do it? Are you hunched over your keyboard sniffling to yourselves “Hah! Got him again!”?

  • Women outside the kitchen huh ? Honestly what did you expect ?

    We should desecrate the graves of the cucks of 1920 who allowed it.

  • In light of recent events, I have come to realize that it is the neo-cons and neo-left – not the Alt-Right – who are the greatest threat to our freedom and well being. Over 6,000 civilians in Syria have been killed by American bombs in the past 15 months, and that is not including last night. We are at the edge of World War 3, and all the media can talk about is whether Trump just did this to “distract” the media from Robert Mueller’s investigation. They don’t give a damn about the dead. But if Trump insults Rosie O’Donnell? Outrage! Impeach him! But starting war is fine.
    Instead it is the Alt-Right and Alt-Lite who are leading the charge against the murder of innocents in other countries. Wrong as you are on most other issues (white sharia, opposing immigration and miscegenation etc.) you are 100% right on this. Like the punks and hippies of the left did in being anti-war, now you are doing on the right.
    Because of this, I will be leaving this site in order to rally around Tulsi Gabbard or some other anti-war Democrat. The anti-war liberals are still out there and I predict we will be back in full force by the time 2020 rolls around. (Glenn Greenwald and Max Blumenthal are already rallying.)
    Get ready for a hell ride.

  • Can somebody explain to me the difference between: gayness, misogyny, heterosexuality, non-misogyny, male feminism, womanisers, feminisers, womanists, “the cult of the woman”, romanticism, romantic love, chivalry, love (like in “I make love” or “love you”, the polite version of “f you”)?

    IMHO, Trump is a womanists. He positively loves women!

    • Gayness- men fucking men. Starts with disease vector and ends with ‘has incentive to tear down civilization because they don’t care about future generations’.

      Misogyny- traditionally meant men who despised female behavior to the point of being unwilling to marry. Now means someone who has an accurate view of female behavior

      Heterosexuality- men fucking women. The foundation of everything because it produces kids

      Male feminism- Men who support feminism; noted for low testosterone or high levels of sociopathy. Avoid.

      Womanisers- men who sleep with a lot of women

      “the cult of the woman”, – the idea that women are angelic creatures. Spread by sophists it occurs cyclically in the west every 200-300 years. Since women evaluate men by interest (because it helps show their value; men who are wanted by more women are probably better) this makes the individuals who succumb to such stupidity have less children. The modern age has unfortunately made it possible for infected individuals to transmit to everyone and punish those who do not respect their delusion

      romanticism- An intellectual movement that occurred in the 1820-30s

      romantic love- either young love that lasts a lifetime or adultery (depending on context)

      chivalry- fighting for the interests of the Roman Catholic Church and following certain moral principles.

      • “Misogyny- traditionally meant men who despised female behavior to the point of being unwilling to marry. Now means someone who has an accurate view of female behavior”

        Disagree with this one. I would argue that a misogynist is a man (or woman) who sees only evil in women. A man who believes women are good in some ways and bad in others is not a misogynist, whether his views are accurate or not. His views could be the exact opposite of the truth, yet still he is not a misogynist.

        Remember, men can be misanthropes even though they are men. So too women can be misogynists even though they are women.

        • I hope you enjoyed my sense of humour. Let me tell you my views on “misogyny”. “Misogynist” is an insulting term used by feminists (female chauvinists) for people (but especially men) who say things about women that feminists dislike. No person would accept being called a “misogynist” for the same reasons nobody accepts being called “evil”” of an “idiot”…
          It is an insult, like “feminist”, “philo-Semite”, “liberal”, “progressist” etc.

          • “Misogynist” is an insulting term used by feminists (female chauvinists) for people (but especially men) who say things about women that feminists dislike.”

            I suppose that’s true much of the time, but certainly not always. Spend enough time around here and you’ll see.

            The actual number of misogynists in the world is greater than you would estimate but less than feminists would estimate.

            What is a “female chauvinist” by your reckoning? A woman who believes women are morally superior?

Leave a Reply