How essential are women in the labor force? How critical are the job functions they perform when compared to men? I wondered about these questions while the American establishment uses the might of their bullhorns to persuade everyone that having women in higher education and corporate positions is absolutely essential for society. A simple thought experiment, however, can definitively show the opposite: women are not at all serving critical or important job functions at a level above men, and society is better of with them not participating full time in the labor force.
One way to approach this problem is to look at job statistic numbers that quantify how many women work in a particular field while also measuring the quality of labor they contribute. The problem with this method is that it doesn’t clue us in on how essential a woman’s production is. Women can be 20% of the electrical engineering force, for example, but such a number does not explain the contributions they’ve made to engineering and what would happen if that number was decreased or increased, especially when they are working alongside productive men who get the job done regardless of their failures.
I instead propose a simple thought experiment that will offer a clear and instinctual answer to even those who are firmly on the side of “equality” (i.e. the disempowerment of straight men). Imagine that a new law is about to be passed that forbids one particular sex from engaging in any type of employment or labor. Which of the following would lead to the greatest amount of economic harm to the country?
- Men are forbidden from working, and are forced to tend the home
- Women are forbidden from working, and are forced to tend the home
If women stopped working, there would be measurable harm to the economy overnight, because they make up a significant part of the service sector, especially in fields related to PR, marketing, education, waitressing, and human resources. The absence of women in most jobs outside of day care and nursing, however, could not only be replaced by a man, but one that is at least comparable to her ability, and not inferior to a significant degree, especially if you gave him the training and time to improve. The less communicative skill that men have to “read body language” and be a “people person” would be balanced out by massive productivity gains from a lack of office gossip, sexual harassment trainings, female sick days related to the menstrual cycle or irritable bowel syndrome, pregnancies, and distracting interoffice affairs.
Any economy that prevents women from working would in my estimation recover in 4-10 years once currently idle men are enticed by a sudden increase in job salaries and benefits along with the opportunity to work in male-only environments where their every statement is not placed under the microscope of the HR gestapo that is overeager to blacklist men for daring to make a politically incorrect statement.
On the other hand if men stopped working, there wouldn’t be enough talented and skilled women to take over their positions, even with dedicated training. You could give it a full generation of time, but it still wouldn’t provide enough women to cover even a minority of the positions lost, especially in STEM fields where strong analytical and logical ability is needed to even begin a rigorous education. The programs that have sprung up in the past two decades to encourage women to study fields they are not good at (science, computer programming) have barely caused their participation to increase, and not at all stopped women from dropping out entirely for reasons that can often be summarized as “YOLO” or “it was boring.”
In the scenario preventing men from work, manual labor jobs in construction could not be filled unless we dose women with testosterone. The safety of communities would decrease as only women became policemen and firemen. We’d have to increase the salaries of garbage men to over half a million dollars per year to entice women to work in them, possibly leading to diseases caused by bad sanitation not seen in centuries. A shortage of specialist surgeons would decrease the life expectancy rate. The all-female media would provide stories and news entirely based on feelings and emotions instead of facts. Any field you pick besides day care, nursing, and education would not be able to recover even 50% from a lack of men not working. Take a minute to try imagining all female farmers, truck drivers, and mechanics. A film depicting this scenario would start off as a comedy before quickly turning into doomsday horror.
No matter what society managed to do to train the all-female workforce, the economy would never recover, and this only concerns the economical effects. In terms of the societal effects, birth rates would certainly plummet or, if women insisted on having the occasional baby, there would be such a critical shortage of labor that basic functions of society wouldn’t be fulfilled. There would be food shortages so severe that two-hour Soviet bread lines would be seen as utopian.
While the door could be open to any female immigrant who was willing to plug the gaps, it’s unlikely they could fulfill even the most basic jobs above working as a bartender, because the issue with female employment is not one of quantity but quality. In spite of our best efforts to encourage women into science by giving them two legs up in the system, they still prefer easy majors that don’t involve any math, and even women who pursue medicine pick the easiest specialty like dermatology because she covets time off more than having to play real doctor by being on-call in the middle of the night when a patient has an emergency.
If men were prevented from working, the family unit would have to invert to something that has never been sustainably done in human nature. Women would have to sacrifice their natural role for a new role that wouldn’t come close to sustaining the economical or social basis of society.
Imagining all these scenarios in your head couldn’t lead to a more vivid result. Forbidding men from working would lead to a definite economic and demographic collapse of a nation and fast accession to third-world status while forbidding women from working would lead to only short-term economic harm while quickly increasing the demographic status of a nation that would then require less third-world immigrants. The likelihood of a cultural collapse would be eliminated. The economic basis of the economy would be strengthened in the long term as a tighter supply of labor prevents the corporate elite from keeping wages depressed while shuttling profits to overseas accounts, which has been steadily happening in America since the 1960’s.
Therefore a man’s labor, when measured collectively, is essential for society, while a woman’s labor, outside of the home, is not. While there are three or four women who have made great contributions to science and human resources over the past century, the absence of those women would not have led to a societal collapse, while the absence of all the men who made great contributions certainly would have. Extending this argument further, it doesn’t take much effort to conclude that besides working in niche fields, women are not needed to participate in the labor force on the level we currently have in America. Forcing themselves to do so is perhaps the greatest misallocation of resources that the Western world has seen since World War 2.
The results of this thought experiment displays the set of naturally given sex roles of the human species. Men are the mules of the species, with an analytical mind and focused determination that facilitates their constant labor. Women are the nurturers of the species, with a more sociable and cooperative mind that facilitates maintaining the hearth and raising children. I’m not making the argument that men are “superior” to women, but that men have strengths over women when it comes to the labor required to maintain at least the economic basis of any society that ensures its proper functioning and even survival. Women have strengths over a man when it concerns other duties that are just as essential to a society’s survival, but it is not working in offices and doing a man’s job to a fraction of the capability and competence that he could do with the same encouragement and training.
Civilization did just fine before women starting working en masse starting in the middle of the 20th century. Most advances since then have come from improvements in medicine, hygiene, transportation, and communication, all of which men were essential in creating while women primarily serve as the end users of those benefits instead of innovators who advanced them. The big steps backwards we’ve taken have been cultural, based on forcefully pushing women into roles that they are not naturally made for, all to benefit the parasitic elite who enjoy cheaper labor and easier population control thanks to diminished family and nationalist bonds.
Western society is actually engaging in a soft version of the thought experiment I’ve proposed, where women are encouraged to work and are given preferential treatment over men in the labor market while men are increasingly shamed and discouraged to work in a way where their merit and effort is rewarded.
Since the current society we now have is one that goes halfway towards the harmful experiment I’ve conducted here, that means we will see severe economical, societal, and cultural problems that would not have come about had we not inverted traditional roles by denying men the roles they naturally excel at while encouraging women in roles they naturally don’t excel at. Until this grotesque societal experiment ends, one that no historical civilization can vouch for, the only result of a nation that takes it on is a complete economical and cultural collapse.
This article was originally published on Roosh V.
Read Next: Women Must Have Their Behavior And Decisions Controlled By Men
I remember reading it on rooshv. And I still agree 100%.
I’ve come to believe that women in the workplace in men’s traditional jobs is a big, fat, ugly social engineering experiment. The key to understanding it is to constantly remind yourself that every one of these social engineering experiments is not designed to create or learn or enhance, but to destroy. The goal is the destruction of Western society so that it may be replaced. The really ugly story is in the answer to, “Replaced. By. What?”
I’ve heard it argued that the main reason to move women, wholescale, into the full time labor force is to create more taxable income for the government. More cash to line the coffers of the powers-that-be.
Not sure if it’s true, but makes a bit of sense to me.
Its true. System is predicated on growth, all that “pent up demand” was unlocked when women started working(now you need two cars per household, spending on makeup and handbags went thru the roof, etc).
The traditional family was sacrificed on the altar of capitalism
It may sound sensible, but is it? Look at the real unemployment numbers. 93 million not working. Employment of women dropping, that of men eroding.
Point is, the social engineering experiments of the Left always sound sensible, but seldom work.
Chief examples: Communism and her ugly little sister Socialism. Both seem nice on paper (fundamental flaws aside), yet both keep failing. We keep being told wrong peeps were in charge.
They never learn.
I agree. Putting the majority of women to work full time will simoultaneously result in an expansion of social services such as unemployment, disability, etc.
Dont forget the make-work jobs created to facilitate these services…all about keepin folks busy!
The non-profit industry is a good example (12% of the nation’s jobs are non-profit, which are funded by the government).
A variety of ambigous names (New Beginnings, Redemption Services, etc.) all aimed to do shit that people should do on their own: find a job, not be a drug addict.
I definitely like that you bring up this matter. I usually find that male critique against gender quotas and the idea that women “are paid less for the same work” is much too tame, that it doesn’t touch upon the fact that men are so much more productive but only suggests that women choose different fields. And this gap in productivity has definitely increased during the half a century, since technology has enabled men to create bigger things (buildings, bombs, computer hardware) with their brains that they couldn’t before, when all we had was our manual labour. Ironic as it may seem, while man is physically stronger than woman, he’s even more so mentally. One only needs to have a look at open-source software projects at places like github.com etc to see that 99% of this development is done by men. For that reason it’s reasonable to assume that something like 99% of the economic value today is created by men, hence making women very overpaid and of no value. Women in the workforce are really a burden on society that fills no purpose except in areas like TV news and similar, where their pretty faces are welcome.
Society would do best to let women return to their natural role, and I believe the culture that does this the most is the only one that will survive. That culture will have thriving economies and happy families, while the Western world will just plunge deeper into poverty and despair.
“Women are nothing but machines for producing children.*”-Napoleon
*For some reason, I always have found Napoleon’s observation on women humorous as harsh as it may sound for some.
I also had an insight that men are like the machines in The Matrix films. Men are creatures that nature designed to protect and support women, much like we do our machines, but we “rebelled” against our biology in a way by evolving to become stronger and smarter than women. Only western chivalrous nations that protect women and give them special privileges to be “equal” allows women to dominate men and this is an expensive illusion to maintain (how much money is wasted on all those programs and gender quotas?)
Women (and nature) demand that men be stronger to have children and this isn’t a bad thing (check out Idiocracy, a classic film). Strong men and pretty women improve society. The welfare state and feminism weakens society and invites invaders to take it down, which they are.
not sure if idiocracy is really a classic film, but it probably should be.
Perhaps not a classic, but disturbingly telling for what was supposed to be dumb comedy.
yes, it is a very smart film. one of my all-time favorites.
I never knew the Nazis had attack- dinosaurs until I watched that flcik
The problem is not that women are protected, its that this protection is socialised. This means that women begin to resent their husbands because they don’t need him. They can get rid of him and keep the benefits.
They would feel differently if the only way that they could survive is by keeping their man.
And this is the foundation of the concept of the “welfare state husband”. The state substitutes as a husband to women by making men into serfs to serve women.
It’s certainly a win-win for feminists who hate men (or are lesbians) and want the income from men without having to have sex with a husband. But it’s not as easy an out as one might think.
For starters, socialism has an inherent problem in that it’s easily corruptible much like any large institution. While a wife can hold her husband personally accountable for sharing his paycheck with her, the welfare state is run by a president who “answers to” millions of voters with disparate interests and big money lobbyists. And bureaucrats? They don’t even have to PRETEND to care! Voting, one of the biggest things that the feminist movement claims credit for, is one of the most worthless rights around. Sure, go ahead and vote. See if that helps you much.
Heck, feminism now is probably on the lower list of socialist government priorities behind keeping the corporate oligarchs happy, a welfare state for non-western Patriarchal families to breed, and race preferences. Women women feminists are being thrown under the bus along with white males that the Democrats did this to about 70 years ago.
Indeed. In fact, the man becomes the Dispensible Man.
The irony is that men are actually better at tending to toddlers as well. The simplistic tasks of feeding, changing diapers, etc. can be learned quickly (despite what the femcentic media would have us believe).
Many women like to make a ballyhoo over their importance to the childrearing process; this is actually a trick, since it makes men think that they are incapable of doing something as simple as changing a diaper. Note how many women will go into emotional fits in public over small child rearing actions; they are trying to convince onlookers that their job is rocket science.
In the end, like most things involving women, it’s an affectation. And in this case, it’s a leveraging tool for power within the relationship. It’s her way of saying “There is no way you could exist without the work I do.”
In reality, you could do anything she can on a higher level.
“Many women like to make a ballyhoo over their importance to the childrearing process; this is actually a trick, since it makes men think that they are incapable of doing something as simple as changing a diaper.”
Men can do this just as well as women, I agree. Problem is, men typically get bored out of their minds when confronted with “kid stuff” on a regular basis. Women can plod on where a man would just outsource it (to a woman, no doubt) and get on with the “real work”.
Not saying this is good or bad, but; in my experience, it’s the way it is. Most men don’t really care for children until their capable of acting like adults. In my mind, that’s the same thing as saying “They don’t really like children”, they really like adults who look/behave like them and carry their genetic material.
i suspect this is an area where women’s emotional nature works to their advantage. they sense how to behave around young children better than we do, and that’s why child-rearing is one of their strengths.
I guess they leave the heavy lifting to us, then.
I think you have put into words my dislike for children
Schopenhaur would agree: “Women are directly adapted to act as the nurses and educators of our early childhood, for the simple reason that they themselves are childish, foolish, and short-sighted—in a word, are big children all their lives, something intermediate between the child and the man, who is a man in the strict sense of the word. Consider how a young girl will toy day after day with a child, dance with it and sing to it; and then consider what a man, with the very best intentions in the world, could do in her place.”
Do you have any solid evidence to back that up or is it purely anecdotal? Because what you are saying plays right into the feminist agenda, where the woman gets custody of the child in case of divorce. Because she happens to be the “natural caretaker” of the child.
This is a good point. Yet how vital is the father in the child rearing process as the provider, the educator of practical and intellectual pursuits and the dominant factor in setting boundaries and enacting discipline? A rhetorical question of course. That divorce courts favour the female in custodial pursuits almost regardless of situation is an enormous travesty. My advice is to make sure you marry and have children with a woman who acknowledges, accepts and is happy with you being the boss. That doesn’t mean to say she must be a pushover. She just understands the natural order of things and is a willing participant in it.
Weininger goes even further in regards to why women make better nurses than men. He claims that it is because women are so self-centered and incapable of empathizing with anyone but themselves that they make good nurses. A man, he hypothesizes, would become too mentally distraught with the job because he would identify with his patient’s suffering far too much. In other words, women are better nurses because they don’t actually care about their patients.
Exactly. The woman automatically getting custody has a very negative impact overall impact on the children and ultimately society.
Years ago men were not even allowed to be present during the birth of their own children. It’s not that they didn’t want to be present, it was simply not done. They had to wait outside for the good news.
We’ve come a long way since then, but we still have a way to go. So making comments like “Most men don’t really care for children until their capable of acting like adults” is shooting yourself in the foot. All it accomplishes is giving those feminists more ammunition during those days in court when things go sour.
Also, there is also more abuse in homes without fathers. In studies of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse, fathers living with their children emerge as strong protectors—both through watching over their children’s activities and communicating to others that they will protect them. In one study, abuse was 10 times more likely for children in homes with their mother and an unrelated boyfriend.
The thing is, fathers are way more important than previously thought and it is somewhat discouraging to read some of those comments. Many fathers are perfectly capable of childrearing. The BBC documentary Biology of Dads is an eye-opener:
The men in elite roman society were responsible for child rearing for both boys and girls starting around age 8.
Letting women raise children perpetuates the subservient class
you make solid points, but I think what we are trying to say isnt that fathers cant raise children its that in the early years lets say 5 and younger….mothers are what children need in bunches. like all mammals, until a certain magical age is reached, the young mammal has an OCD like obsession with the mother. its why you dont seperate puppies from mom until around 7 weeks. for humans our 7 weeks is roughly 5 years.
the point isnt that fathers cant do what mothers do in those 5 years so much as mothers far and away outclass what even the best fathers can do in those 5 years.
fathers cant breastfeed for example which is vital. and conside what it takes to raise a child in those early years. women being as some have said, always in a weird state not quite a child but not a man….this state of mind endears them to children. to raise a child in those years you must play childish things, you must listen to baby gibberish and talk back to them so they learn to talk, you must essentially care for something that is beyond useless and has no way of communicating with you beyond crying. you must quite literally be in the mind of a child and behave in a mostly childish fashion because children can only understand the logic of a child.
you must play like a child to raise a child.
women always remaining childish….far outclass anything a man can do in the first 5 years….granted it is good for the child to see his father in those first 5 years and to interact with him and even play with him….but the true role of father excels as the child gets older.
Maybe it’s different in the U.S., but those days of the woman being granted automatic custody are long gone in Canada. Most custody is shared 50/50, which also nullifies most, if not all, child support. I know this because I used to work for a family law office. Also we have parental leave, not maternity leave. It amounts to one year, which can be split anyway the couple sees fit. Usually the woman takes the first 6 and man takes the last 6 (when people opt to split it). Thanks to the invention of the breast pump, daddy can be at home while the kid is still getting the benefits of nursing. Lots of dads opt for this nowadays. I’ve got a guy right now who works for me who is on leave. He’s loving every minute of being the full time caregiver for his little one. A friend of mine and her hubby opted to take the first 3 months together. They were both home. She rode out the rest of the leave and then didn’t return to work at all. Somebody’s career has to take the backseat once kiddies come along. It’s up to the couple to decide what’s best. Very few people I know still believe mommy is automatically better than daddy at handling the children. It’s sites like these who continue to propagate this myth.
Are you sure you can breastfeed a child? Or can you pretty much milk anything that has nipples?
I’m not changing any damn diapers. That’s women’s work.
Indeed. How quickly they can not give a shit about you when the wind changes.
There’s plenty of evidence for it. In pre-civilisation times, if the mother died, the child died, no matter the efforts of the father.
You are confusing issues here. The issue is not that women get custody. The issue is that divorce in its present form exists. Women generally get divorced because it is in their interest.
We are not talking about pre-civilisation times here.
That is a good thing. From what I understand more and more fathers get custody nowadays in the US and European countries as well.
Which part are you addressing?
Yes we are.
We are talking about divorce court, feminism and child custody here. That has nothing to do with pre-civilisation times.
The problem is that when the shit hits the fan the judge will ask you if you are able to take care of the young one(s).
What are you going to say then? That it was never your job to feed the kid and change diapers because you’re a man? That’s a one way ticket to seeing your kid one weekend every 2 or 3 weeks.
It has everything to do with it. The present is built on the past. Civilisation is an eye blink in the story of human evolution.
I see. So nowadays if the mother dies what will happen to the child then?
I’ll humour you.
That child will be set back. A father can never be a mother no matter how much you want it.
Elite roman society collapsed, didn’t it
What if you wife is sick? You going to call on the neighbors or your mother? 🙂
Bingo – you nailed it. That’s why this old Germanic married a Russian woman. Never regretted it although Slavic women are very strong-willed at times.
And what do you think will happen if the father dies?
It is a good thing. Not sure about the US, but many European countries have similar laws. I can guarantee the guy on leave right now is going to have his career take the backseat to his wife’s. This is because she makes more money than him. It makes sense for their family unit. I will have to accommodate his childcare responsibilities, in the same way I have to accommodate a working mom. I see no problem with this. We live in a world where most couples can’t afford to have someone home all day, so we have to allow people to balance home and work responsibilities. We need a new generation, after all. It takes a village.
The 50/50 custody agreement isn’t without it’s own problems though. Kids end up living like little transients being shuffled between 2 houses, even on school nights. Not sure there is a solution to that though. It certainly is a fair system.
Nobody is so sick they can’t change a diaper, unless she’s in the hospital.
That said, the grandmothers should be involved absolutely.
That child will be set back.
Evolution provided for two seperate and different rolls for the parents. Both are crucial.
In pre-civilisation times, if the father died both the mother and child would die. This is why women panic at the thought of anything happening to you.
That I agree with totally. However, during divorce is does not make sense to automatically grant custody to the mother. There have been cases where it was clearly not in the best interest of the child to do so, and yet this is exactly what was done.
well to be entirely fair if you are in a divorce court and you are the man…the odds that you arent fucked before you walk in there no matter what you did or didnt do are pretty low. you could be dad of the year literally and still get ass raped in a divorce court.
I am speaking of how it should be.
The odds are indeed still stacked against fathers in divorce court. On the other hands, the number of single father households has increased ninefold since 1960.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/07/02/the-rise-of-single-fathers/
thats both terrible and good. eh either way divorces are going to be one of the top 5 things that bring America to ruin. a country cant survive on broken families.
Hmm.. breastfeed?
All joking aside, the best at almost everything – chef, clothes designer, musician – are almost always men. Our DNA drives us to go farther and work harder (some say because we CAN’T have children, so we work hard to create in other areas).
Of course, the best joke of all is the “Woman of the Year” award given to Bruce Jenner by Glamour. As the Major said, “Any thing a woman can do..”
“That divorce courts favour the female in custodial pursuits ”
Had an argument with my GF who is a family lawyer about this just yesterday. She claims, that in her experience (which she admits is anecdotal, but waaaaay more practical experience in terms of numbers of cases she has been involved in than any of us here), the fathers usually don’t WANT custody, but use it as a bargaining tool. She said judges have been known to observe that before the divorce, NEITHER parent wants the kids, and NEITHER parent wants them after. It’s only during the divorce itself that the kids are used as a bargaining chip.
Sometimes I think that God gave women these tasks (breastfeeding, giving birth) so that there would at least be something they could bring to the table.
In the entire recorded history of the world if the father died the woman simply started sleeping with any of the dozen backup suitors she kept around just for that purpose.
When an enemy tribe attacked your village and killed off all the men, those women became wives to the new tribe. Their lives never changed. They know their role. They’ve never forgotten it.
Women have never truly suffered in society, even during the days we wuz livin’ in caves.
I am talking about before recorded history which forms the bulk of human existance.
And how would you know that? Adultery and violence amongst other things are often reason for divorce.
“pre civilization times” When was that exactly? What era? If the man died the woman would remarry or fend for themselves like we have always done.
it is nearly always the mother who raises the children, and the children look to her as the person who raises and nurtures them. Of course women should get custody. Very few single dads are capable of doing it alone.
You mean that is how you imagine it was, in your head.
This is because these days the state and the whole environment in general tend to side with the mother. Which goes against the supposed feminist ideology, which states that men and women are equal.
For example, when a mother goes out with her friends and the kids stay home with their father women make a big deal out of it and think it’s great that he is babysitting the kids. His OWN kids! What is up with that?
Are you a feminist? Feminists are pro equality, right? Equal rights for men and women. If that is the case, surely you will be delighted to be informed that today almost a quarter of single parent households are headed by fathers. It used to be 14% in 1960.
source: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/07/02/single-father-households-are-growing-much-faster-than-single-mother-ones/
But keep in mind that those are percentages. The quantity of single mother households has continued to rise as well. And these are the results:
Never said anything about feminism. AND EQUAL IS NOT THE SAME! I know many single mothers, tons of them, but no single fathers. Women are designed to bear and raise children. Dads do not give birth or breastfeed, do they? So many dads do not even show a slight interest in their kids. It is usually the women left with that responsibility.
Well now, I suppose that it’s only “equal” when it fits your narrative then. Some people are more equal than others, right? You are contradicting yourself; it’s either one way or the other. You can’t have it both ways.
All you came up with is anecdotal evidence. This is evidence from anecdotes, where only one or a few anecdotes are presented. There is a larger chance that these may be unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases.
On the other hand, I presented numbers and statistics. I presented facts and also mentioned the reason why there are tons of single mothers and what the consequences are. Apparently those tons of single mothers are doing something wrong. Based on the numbers and statistics rather than anecdotal “evidence”.
The increase in single father households shows that men are interested in raising their kids. That is an irrefutable fact.
Sorry Melanie but you have now become quite boring.
When you need endless cannon fodder, as the would-be rulers often do, women have a very important role in that need. They must produce for the benefit of the state.
Yeah, well moderate feminists like to claim that Men are good physically but Men and women are the Same Mentally, this is total BS, it’s just a Fairness argument stemming from women’s tendencies to think in terms of Fairness, Clearly History has shown and present Day achievements, That the might of the Body and of the Mind belongs to Man.
“Burden on society”. Let’s also address the fact that women retire earlier. This means that the thousands of $$$$ spent on their student loans are often never close to being paid back. So it’s actually costing us money to educate women, where they can “play with the boys” for a few years.
Women have always worked. Today’s problem is not that women work but that men are forced to hire them when they would otherwise prefer to hire a man.
no, the problem are:
1. women believe you can have both a career and a family
2. women believe that work is a prize instead of what it is i.e. a form of slavery
both believe were brought by 1&2 waves of feminism
You can have both a career and a family. Nothing wrong with that.
I’ve never met a woman who thinks that work is a prize. Most of them complain about their jobs.
“Society would do best to let women return to their natural role, and I believe the culture that does this the most is the only one that will survive. That culture will have thriving economies and happy families, while the Western world will just plunge deeper into poverty and despair.”
Islam. I don’t know about thriving economies and happy families, but they are taking over and putting girls in their natural roles.
Islamic countries have a high rate of self harm among their women. There is a reason for that.
Western countries have a high rate of mental illness and substance abuse among their females. Isn’t there a reason for that too?
Nothing you have written here is backed up by any science or evidence that isn’t purely anecdotal.
“Ironic as it may seem, while man is physically stronger than woman, he’s even more so mentally. One only needs to have a look at open-source software projects at places like github.com etc to see that 99% of this development is done by men”
Working in tech myself, I know how tough it is for women to break into – because of attitudes like yours. It’s not that women aren’t as able, it’s that these establishments have been typically male-dominated. Do you forget that while many western power structures were established, women were kept from working/fighting/etc, and yet you don’t consider any of this when you ask why, in 2015, so many sectors of the workforce are gender biased towards men. You don’t consider that history has set out to keep women away.
Lol, imagine entire tech departments of large companies ran by a 100% female team. It would be a complete disaster. More than half of them out constantly, everything would take forever to get done, thus shutting down the company to the point it couldn’t even do business, leading to bankruptcy; confrontations and attitude with other staff and very little actual work. And then half of them would quit within a year.
Then you’re right back to where you started: Needing to hire 95% men. Now you know why women aren’t wanted in critical positions and even more so _women themselves don’t want to be there._ Women run screaming from accountability and responsibility thus why 95% of them take the easiest majors and jobs.
They’re flaky, moody, unreliable and most of them pretty dimly lit bulbs, with the absolute most intelligent women being strictly average intelligence. They don’t get along with with others and are anti-team players. All by their very nature. They’re complete sh*t as employees. How am I so certain of all of this? _I’m an employer myself and have been for decades._
Again, all of this is based on nothing more than your own speculation/experiences. “It would be a complete disaster”. Good to know you have so much insight.
You do not have to imagine. A woman tried it and failed miserably.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1168182/Catfights-handbags-tears-toilets-When-producer-launched-women-TV-company-thought-shed-kissed-goodbye-conflict-.html
So are you saying tech is an easy field for men to break into? Since you are already acquainted with the field, back up your words with real action and start a tech company of your own. Hire only women. Keep us posted.
no, it is hard because they do not have the mental capacity to do so. I have known many capable female developers, but the raport ratio between capable men and women in this field is at least 10:1 in favor of men based on my observations.
The key is in treating the women’s work as non-essential.
So I have a slight disagreement.Only slight. I think men and women could make it work with women working IF….. there were not this constant droning of academia and the press to put radfem ideas in women’s heads.
If we had a model that acknoleged eguality but not sameness, it could work. For example, working part time but staying home with kids is of equal importance. But a different role.
But rather than focus on common sense solutions, feminists focus on the “pay gap” (and just generally raise hell about self-serving crap.)
I accept my lot as a male. I have no choice but to work. I signed the social contract that I would pay for her and any kids because I am a dude. As a female, she has the right of choice. To enter and exit the job market mostly as she pleases.
That is okay EXCEPT…..
It is obvious if you have no right to choose (dude), you will be more committed to the only role you have. If women would see themselves as pinch hitters, so to speak, they will ususally make less. That is fair, and feminists should acknowledge this.
When you wage war on the male role in such a manner, it is only normal that the burden for many young men becomes too much to bear. They drop out. Not worth being belittled but still expected to “man up”. And to see gender warriors tout the “strong women” who need the support of training wheels in many cases to be “equal”. Like the female army rangers.
Fortunately for me, we are living the life of an 80’s feminist. Which was not yet dysfunctional. My wife stayed home with kid when young, for a few years made more than me as she found a bilingual job market niche. I saw that as unemployment insurance at the time. Pinch hitter support. But I never counted on it. I was the breadwinner, so the pinch hitter cash went straight into the mortage and paying off debt. And acquiring assets rather than living more comfortably as consumers. We even bought a second larger home with her earnings.
I was glad we had made that choice not to count on her income to live no matter how high. When she got burned out and laid off, she decided that she would go back to being a housewife and cook. And freelance when she feels like it.
Because she was entitled to choose . And let me know at times that “a husband has to support his wife”. My counter demand was that we not take on debt based on her income. Some bad arguments resulted at times, but that is the “deal” we have always had.
We made it work. I had to make some compromises as she was the one with the freedom to make choices. As I never had that luxury. Fortunately, she did make the right ones that helped us both mostly.
With my salary, I was able to provide a single car and small townhouse. With her help, we have a larger home and the townhouse is now rental property.
THat is because I never counted the second paycheck 100 percent.
I do not know if that arrangement would work today or not.But the key to may problems is not taking on debt.
Women working is fine as long as it is considered an extra. Still better to have her on the job than at home watching soaps all day when the kids start school.
The problem with this is it ignores the harm we do by allowing / encouraging women to work. First, there is the harm they cause financially and emotionally to their families when the homemaking duties are not tended to, day care staff must be hired to raise the children, and the family suffers from poor quality meals and activities since adequate time is not put into preparing meals from scratch and planning family outings.
Secondly, there is the harm they cause in the workplace through reducing wages, friction and distraction with male colleagues, excess time spent training and remediating them, and overall lower productivity.
Third there is indirect harm, including harm to the displaced men, lower competition in the workforce, and other unseen factors.
I heard an army statement the other day that said they went from zero female generals to 32 in the last few years. Does anyone really think they are going to be making battlefield decisions well when put up against a male enemy general?
Good points. I have yet another one to add too – their ability to create “jobs” for themselves through the political process. Women tend to want easy jobs that are close to their natural skill set, jobs like say being a social worker, where they manage households. Only thing is that for there to be a need for social workers, families need to be broken. Which means that they in order to create job security for themselves will assault healthy and traditional family structures, while enabling unhealthy ones. When children grow up with sodomites as parents, you can be sure that they will need care later on, creating a need for social workers.
So women being able to create jobs for themselves creates even more harm.
I had issues with management I wanted to bring up to H.R. and… HR was worthless (as usual). It’s mostly women and race hucksters. Why not just get rid of HR?
If they create with the help of government, the current model
“Only thing is that for there to be a need for social workers, families need to be broken.”
Great fucking point. I have known quite a few female social workers, and I know that the majority of them would say that a man is not necessary to a woman/family’s life.
Then, these same women will turn around and pat themselves on the back for helping broken families.
I agree it was NWO plots that put them into the wrokplace so the elite could tax income. We failed the 1st major battle in the 50’s when the housework became lighter and women had time to watch soaps, TV commercials etc. If this freedom from heavy household labor had been turned into entrepreneurial home activity, the proles could have won that battle against the elite.
We failed.
We need women who are aware of the need to have their labor fight the NWO. Whether it is by canning veggies and cooking to avoid paying restaurants. Or being an enemployment pinch hitter by back up work. Or using inccome to pay debt.
There ssimply is not enough to do for a woman at home not to become spoiled today. Cooking is great, but after the kids leave, it is not full-time.
100 years ago, before washing machines, microwaves, electric ovens, women had to build a fire to cook , make soap, scrub the clothes, go to the well. Even in the 40’s, there were slop jars to empty.(Slop jar is bucket in house you use to urinate/deficate in when it is too cold for outhouse).
Men and women need to think in terms of re-inventing the self-sufficiency compound. Steps are:
1)Get out of debt. Using women’s labor outside home if necessary.
2)Self-sufficiency ewuipment. Can be gardening tools, rabbit traps or even hair cutting tools for you wife’s home busness operation).
3)Self sufficient nuclear family. Fewer members working outside the compound for NWO the better.
I am basically working on 2 and 3. An immense task that never ends. As you must educate other family members to make it intergenerational.
The war against the nuclear family began well before feminism. It began with revenuers smashing whisky stills and before. Whisky was a high value added product that could be kept for years and sold when the price was right. When this was made illegal, farmers became slaves to the market whoether they had to sell their corn at going rate to corrupt business people whose great grandchildren today run the NWO.
The only hope to claw back is to re-construct compounds, community solidarity, extendend families etc.
In the meantime, it is our task to keep everyone productive to emancipate the proles.
Starts by educating our women ! And leading by example !
This isn’t a new idea guys. About a century ago, old style socialists were AGAINST women’s equality for the reasons mentioned above. It allowed employers to pay less because of women’s labor in the factories and contributed to poverty as many women worked side-by-side with their men while families weren’t taken care of.
So capitalists secretly funded… the women’s movement. Just like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerman want to replace all STEM workers with low paid H1b’s.
The harm of the women’s movement was evidence early on in the African American community since entry level jobs in middle class professions that had gone to African American men were taken by white women. I even know white women who liked the idea and had the gall to compare their “historical oppression” to black men while taking jobs from black men. Affirmative action initially, and largely still is, an economic system that crushes black families os that white career women can be affluent. Without black men working, the African American communities collapsed and without welfare, it would have been genocide.
There’s a memorial to the victims of Communism recently erected in DC. Perhaps one to the victims of feminism should also be put up.
Really? I haven’t seen this. The Washington Monument?
West Point recently welcomed its first female commandant. I’m sure you’ll agree that that bodes well for our future.
A spot on observation. Women have a negligible position in the economy when it comes to creating monetary value. How many jobs have been created by women the last 20 years? Probably less than 0,01 % of the jobs created by men in the same period. And that is despite all the effort that has been put into “empowering” women.
I’ve thought about this subject a few times, but you still provided a different aspect that I had not considered. Bravo.
If all men stopped working, the consequences would be much worse. There would be no electricity, no transportation, no industry, nothing. It’s not possible to sustain the current population of the planet without our current energy sources. This would lead to a civil war, mass starvation, and basically reducing the current world population to 1/10 or less of what it is now.
“I’m not making the argument that men are “superior” to women”
Well, I am. Men wouldn’t be able to reproduce without women, but they would live just fine by themselves. Most women, on the other hand, would die in a couple of years without men. Can you imagine a group of women hunting a big animal? Me neither.
I’ve had this argument with a feminist back in my early Red Pill days, and her arguments were: “But women were held back. They need time to catch up with men now.” Blah, blah. Basically, keep working your ass off in the worst possible jobs, but “help” women get these jobs too, no matter the fact that they don’t want to. Women are not people of action, they are people of words. They don’t want to be equal than men, they want to be told that they are equal to men, so that they will “FEEL” equal, or even better to men.
http://40.media.tumblr.com/781a60db6c33d76066d4f9d194e00ca9/tumblr_ncr45nlQtk1skr6sfo1_400.jpg
The notion that “women were held back” is silly because, unlike some blacks who could make that claim, the women are from the same families as men are and therefore have access to the same family resources to help put them through college, etc. It reminds me of Obama claiming victimhood for being half black. As half-white, doesn’t that privilege balance out his half black ancestry?
It’s SJW race mathematics!
I remember giving black men as an example to that fucking feminist. Her response must have been a really big nonsense, because I can’t even remember it.
Jessie can stick her claim on “gender equality” for all I care.
Picture commenter = the definition of entitlement. You don’t “deserve” anything, go earn it bitch.
What this cupcake doesn’t realize is that programming is a “horrible job” too. It’s hard as hell to get good at, requires constant retraining and laser focus. She thinks “programming” is changing her fucking Facebook profile to private.
“What this cupcake doesn’t realize is that programming is a “horrible job” too.”
Exactly. It all sounds like fun and games to them, like putting on a new outfit to play dress up. Today I’ll be Barbie the Programmer!
Then they realize the actual work involved (devoid of allotted attention whoring). All of a sudden, it’s time to get knocked up, stick the company with the bill, and get the hell out of there.
Yep, they usually hit on the higher-paid managers and then spread their legs real wide and then go on leave (permanently). They just got of the jam their in all the while getting a healthy raise being a gold digger.
Then a few years later, they get bored and then find them a toy-boy while their “husband” is working.
They cannot stave off poetic justice forever.
The other day I was talking to a guy who was as blue pill as it comes. Really, he makes David Futrelle look like Mr. Universe. At any rate, the guy mentioned how earlier that day an older woman (in her mid 50s) tried to make a pass at him. He said he found it “revolting” and he turned her down.
Point of the story: Many blue pill losers will ignore post-wall women, regardless of the social power these women hold.
This is the true kick in the gut for these women. They cannot even get a glance from the men they used to depend on for manipulation
Software development requires a lot of that but more importantly it requires abstract thinking 3-4 steps ahead; something the mind of a woman was never designed for. It’s that simple..
Maybe they also hear about how well paid programming is, and they want to put their hands on that money. They think it’s easy money, like prostitution, but no, it isn’t.
Yes, I’ve been in IT for a very long time and never have worked in a place where any woman was even remotely good at coding. They tend to bomb out fast and become “managers” (which screws things up ever more).
The biggest problem is that women only want these jobs out of penis envy. Men are lauded and receive accolades for using strategy, science, and logic to build machines, design buildings, and create reliable means of obtaining food and water. On top of that, your best chefs tend to be men, a lot of red pill guys have picked up the art of cooking out of necessity (and some have even excelled at it), and lately I’ve been seeing single guys who keep cleaner houses than some of the women I’ve dated. So the women who bitch about men wanting them to just stay in the kitchen can’t even say they have a monopoly on THAT anymore.
That being the case, women basically bring to the table something they were biologically hard-wired to do; it requires no great skill or logic to get pregnant or to give birth, as evinced by the herds of Wal-Mart shoppers you see on any given Saturday. For this reason, nobody’s handing out Nobel Prizes, grant money, or any other awards to women just for being able to reproduce or maintain a home. So women decided they needed to get into the same fields as men so that they, too, could get accolades heaped upon them and be told how “smart” they are. Who knows? Maybe if people handed out awards and gave time square speeches honoring women for carrying kids to term and for not letting their homes devolve into third world hovels, they’d get out of the workplace. Maybe a band could be playing like at the end of Star Wars Episode IV.
it requires no great skill or logic to get pregnant
it requires no great skill or logic to get fucked
fixed it for you
That Jessie sounds like a real keeper!!
Wow, this “babe” is a winner. Imagine if she lost to a game of chess with you. She may try to cut off your cock.
I’m sure mommy and daddy are very proud of their little princess and her Cicero-level philosophical chit-chat.
(Running off to vomit now….)
Liberal social engineering whether it be Prohibition or giving women the vote has been most damaging to our society. As for the ’empowerment’ of women argument well the Women employed by the SS in their Concentration camps were extremely empowered and are often considered to have been the most evil of the SS guard force, women like Maria Mandel, Ilse Koch and Dorothea Binze indeed there are books out there and studies which show the Women of Germany were so well involved with the Holocaust that they took evil to new depths Hitler’s Furies I believe is the title. At the same time we also can discuss the infamous Stella Goldschlag the infamous Blond Poison who betrayed her co-religeonists to the Gestapo, sent countless Jewish Men women and children to the death camps to be murdered in her place.
PS. More articles like this I appreciate unlike the 9/11 nonsense.
Yup. ISIS even has their own female militias to violently enforce their ultra-strict codes of decency.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3377183/Mother-mutilated-murdered-ISIS-breastfeeding-baby-public-woman-spotted-child-burkha-Syria.html
I am sure they feel fully ’empowered’ but then again with Breyer and Ginzburg the Dr. Josef Mengele and Maria Mandel of Judicial Law on the supreme court well everybody has its hitlers.
“More articles like this I appreciate unlike the 9/11 nonsense.”
You sure think you know your Nazi history. So you have no excuse for not knowing and understanding the connections and implications of Operation Paperclip, to Operation Northwoods, to why JFK wanted to disband the CIA, to the JFK assassination, to 9/11.
“9/11 nonsense” = Reichstag fire nonsense
Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.
Sir John Harington, Epigrams, Book iv, Epistle 5.
My obsession with the Holocaust is a desire to look Human Evil in the face and understand it. One of the things I learned is that it is easy to happen among those given to fear mongering and paranioa and for those who see conspiracies that really do not exist. Blaming the Government for blowing up the towers during 9/11 is easy to shoot down as it requires too many people and where things like that happen well somebody always talks and word gets out such as the Death Camps such as Auschwitz even the Soviet Gulags are being exposed to a world that does not want to hear about them. When Hitler’s SD dressed dead concentration camp inmates in Polish uniform and staged their little raid on that radio station shooting it up to start WWII well somebody ultimately talked there too. If what you suggest had happened somebody ultimately would have talked.
You either don’t understand the concept of a tribe who thinks its chosen to enslave the world, are one of them, or are one of their stupid, well-paid cuck-whores.
“holocaust”
stupid.
Watch Hellstorm, and get back to me on true Human Evil.
I understand them extremely well. And I also understand people like you and know how to deal with your kind. Your hateful extremely IGNORANT comment has been flagged and reported.
Forbid women to work? I would’nt much mind cleaning my own hotel room or making my own latte, nor would a longer rent a car wait time put me off traveling. But, what to do with the now useless wimmin who stay in the USA despite “no girlz allowed” workplace laws? Just like illegals they’d take jobs from “real” Americans.
The point is they are *more* useful fulfilling non-career roles, as they did throughout history until the last few decades, and still do in many societies throughout the world. They would revert back to what their grandparents, and all ancestors before them did.
Expensive child care is the only thing driving women out of the work force. The issue is it is driving out teachers and other jobs where women probably may be better used. Female engineers or managers make enough to afford child care.
Excellent article. Wow very neat thought.
It’s a very interesting topic to ponder. I submit this:
The basic laws of supply and demand state that as demand drops, so does the cost of the product. The inverse is also true (more demand = higher costs). With that said, what would happen if all married women with children became stay at home mothers? I speculate a few things would happen.
-Overall wage increases due to a sudden and sharp drop in the available labor pool.
-Cheaper childcare services as more mothers would be home with their children, reducing the demand for childcare services.
These are just a couple of economic examples I came up with off the top of my head using the supply vs demand principle. If you were to branch out past that principle, we could probably talk ad naseum about the subject.
A woman I work with recently confessed to me that 90% of her take home pay goes to child care. I asked her why was she working at all and her response was “I need at least 8 hours away from those little $hit$”. Probably with commuting expenses, dry cleaning, and other such expenses they are actually losing money by having her work. That and she treats work like a vacation which probably explains the reason her boss told me once “she does her job just well enough I don’t have a reason to fire her”.
That would suggest the woman is a narcissistic shithead who should not have been a mother to start with.
Most working moms are narcissistic unless they are a teacher or just working part time while the children are in school. The thought of having a kid then ignoring the kid is quite bizarre to me. Maybe women don’t feel complete until they have one, but why bother if then you hate the thing?
And what if we do not have a choice but to work? It`s kind of expected these days.
Who is setting that expectation? Other women? The media? Don’t blame in on men because most either don’t care or would rather have their wife home raising the kids and maintaining the household.
Women? The media? Or the fact that if we don’t we would have no money and starve. In my experience most men I know do not want to support their partners. They expect them to go out and work. There is a lot if pressure on women to work. And yes, most men I have met immediately want to know what a woman does for a living.
Well if you are single men are going to want to know what you do for a living. Most men are not interested in dating a gold digger.
If you are married or living with a man, the only reason they want you to work is because if they don’t make sure you do then they will get soused when it comes to alimony in a divorce.
Again, where does this pressure to work come from? The end result of sexist and unfair family law? Other women? The idea that women spent a generation demanding equality and now have it?
Please enlighten me.
And if a woman does not have a career and chooses to be a stay at home mother, then she is a gold digger? Please, if that were true we would only date billionaires.
Most women would prefer to only date men with money, but women are not rational. You do whatever your hamster tells you to do.
And you know that is what most women want do you? Also, they do not speak for all of us. You just assume that is what women want.
I know that is what all women want. All women have the same inner desires.
So you are a mind reader are you? There are billions of women in the world, you fucking idiot.
I like the article except for the implication that men couldn’t perform work in daycare or nursing. In nursing, particularly, men were largely nurses until recently because the work was considered bloody (literally) and physically challenging. Men didn’t like their idea of their nurse wife, or daughter, handling the body parts of strange men. Except for biology (mothers producing breast milk), men can work in daycare as well.
On the other side, women in industry has been useful in a limited context. When the house is empty because the kids have grown up and gone away, and many men who’ve been injured in war or the dangerous workplace need a provider, it is useful to have the woman contribute. The key is that this historical duty wasn’t viewed as “fun” or empowering for women but rather as a chore like it was for men.
What western chivalrous patronage created with feminism was the notion that a woman’s life should be like a princess with all the goodies men have without the liabilities and that work is a playtime. It’s not. Many men find careers they find fulfilling apart from the money but for the majority of us, winning the lottery and becoming “househusbands” to a life of luxury wouldn’t be a terrible thing.
All the negative aspects of women in the workplace are due to the feminist notion of supposed equality and victimhood. They’re ball busting b*tches and encourage other women to act this way. Remove the notion that women SHOULD be equal to men, and it’s ok. Work returns to the role it should properly be: As a method to contribute to the household finances.
Winning the lottery and becoming a housewife would be great for me! In the absence of that highly unlikely event, both my husband and I will continue to work outside the home, while practicing a degree of financial restraint not often seen today. Our lottery prize will come when we are both able to check out of the paid labour force at a pretty young age. Both parties working outside the home is great, as long as you continue to live on one income. The problem is most couples don’t do this. They overspend on unnecessary consumer goods, run up huge amounts of debt, and then are forced to work harder and longer, while the debt continues to grow. Not a healthy way to live. As for women taking men’s jobs, they may have to some degree, but globalization as done far more damage. The biggest sector to suffer job loss in the last 50 years has been manufacturing, which moved into the third world countries, in order to fulfill our insatiable need for a constant stream of cheap consumer goods. All the while we in the west run up more and more debt consuming.
Feminists often try to deflect blame from the impact of women flooding the workplace to globalization and that’s true, to a certain extent. Note that even as Asia is trying to take tech jobs away from American men, feminists are griping that the government needs to give more special preferences to women to go into tech (I chuckle because by the time the initiative gets off the ground, those jobs will be gone for google and facebook have their way.)
The single biggest household expense, literally, is housing. Back in the bad old days of the Patriarchy, my father bought a full home with a 10 year loan. Sometimes, it would be as much as 15 years. Next on the list is education and healthcare which were targeted by “government affordability” programs that also drove these expenses, like housing, up rather than down.
Manufacturing goods are also creeping up in cost. Have you checked out how much an iphone costs? The oligarchs now rarely pass on those savings to the consumers. I go to the shopping mall with my wife and see Chinese made shoes selling for a hundred bucks that cost perhaps 10 bucks to make. (Instead, I shop at Off Broadway and often find shoes made in South America or even Italy! for the same price)
The dual income household paradigm you mention, where two career couples work and save CAN often work but then again, how much better is this than a half century ago? Back to my father: Paid off the house in 15 years (decided to get a second loan for some child expenses), had a month of paid vacation, and raised children in a working class neighborhood where they could walk home safely from school.
And note: He was from a working class background. Due to feminism, working class people are now struggling to survive and the middle class have to scrimp to catch up. When most career women are unable to find a man at least as successful as they are, they wind up not getting married and/or having kids. So what’s the point?
I don’t disagree with much of what you say, and frankly I don’t think we are better off today, so really there was no point. That said, to suggest everything wrong with world today is due to women working is shortsighted.
House prices: absolutely over inflated and the biggest burden of every family. Is this because women work, or because unnaturally low interest rates are causing people to act like a kid in a candy store when they get their mortgage approvals? I recently read that in Canada, if the rates were to go up to 6%, something like 20% of people would be out of their homes. My sense of schadenfreude would love to see this happen, but lets face it, financially responsible people will also suffer when the giant fire sale on homes drives our properties down as well.
Manufactured goods have absolutely become cheaper, thanks to third world production. Sure, there’s a huge markup, but the cost to the end user is down. In the 1980s, my family was the only one on the block with a VCR. It cost $1200, back then. How much does a Blue Ray player cost today? That’s only one example, but it applies to most consumer goods.
Your father’s blue collar job might very well not exist today, let alone afford a family to survive on its income. Is this because women have flooded the blue collar workforce, or because manufacturing is mostly done overseas?
Are you so sure, that all the aforementioned factors are a direct result of women working, or could it be a consequence of technology (overseas manufacturing) and unfettered government spending falsely propping up economies (low interest rates)? I’ll agree that it’s possible women entering the workforce started this mess, but it’s equally possible many of the economic/social problems we have today have nothing to do with this. A lot has changed in the world since the 1950s, and not all of this is due to feminism, of which by the way, I am not a tremendous fan. At least not today’s version of it.
In answer to your question about housing prices and whether financially responsible people would suffer if they were no longer subsidized. This is clearly false. Financially responsible people would see more of their income in savings from not having to bail out the irresponsible people. In addition, higher house prices hurt everyone in the form of taxes and poor economic performance.
Heck, another bailout is no longer possible because the Fed in the states have nowhere to go in lowering interest rates (going below zero would kill the dollar as a world currency and there goes any hope of buying foreign oil or bluray players.) The fed even recently made this small announcement that they can’t afford to bail out banks a second time. They’ve spent all their “stimulus” money on basic propping up the bad players.
Regarding cost of bluray players. Bluray players are cheap now because they’re well developed technology. When they first came out, they were expensive like flat screen TV’s (I have one I paid a grand for about 10 years ago.) Now, you can pick them up for $300. Color TV’s were relatively cheap in the 80’s compared to buying them 10 years earlier, of course. And iphones today are a king’s ransom to pick up DESPITE being made in China!
My father’s job was as a corporate salesman for a major food brand that makes candy and snacks. He would talk to store owners to get better product placement. In any case, more women flooding the job market in his industry, like others, is a contributing factor along with outsourcing and H1B’s. We can quibble over how much but we can both agree: It doesn’t HELP when suddenly employers are flooded with double the workers, eh?
Finally, was feminism ever “good?” Perhaps what makes feminism bad is when it’s pushed onto all women. Coco chanel was making millions before the civil rights act in the states. Plenty of women who wanted “independence” could get it, quietly, just like men did who had social issues to overcome (religious discrimination, etc.) My father had to deal with discrimination against Polish Americans in particular.
Feminism demanded rights for ALL women that MOST (and by most, I don’t mean a narrow majority but rather a vast majority, such as 80 percent to even 90 percent) didn’t want to live up to. Earn as much money as men, but marry up. Get voting rights, but don’t fight to protect them overseas. Big government policies to pay for a welfare state, but complain when the products of the welfare state attack women walking home from work.
Feminism, as a mass movement for women, is a failure because it never really was real to begin with. It’s a stooge of various leftist and corporate interests and a product of western chivalrous patronage (white knighting.)
a. You are 100% correct re: Government subsidies and I was making the same point, although in a less detailed (and apparently less comprehensible) fashion. The issue right now, as I see it, is that a massive crash will hurt all parties in the short term. And short term isn’t all that short. Don’t know what 08 did to your investments, but my husband and I took a big hit. Not sure how many more of those we have time to recover from. Believe me, I loathe the current system, but it’s becoming a “too big to fail” scenario. So it’s not that I don’t agree with you in principle, I’m just being a bit more pragmatic at this point in my life.
b. My example of electronics, was perhaps a bad one. But Capitalism thrives on affordable, disposable products. The Walmarts of the world simply wouldn’t survive if you only ever needed one pair of really good quality winter boots. Cheap products combined with far too accessible credit, combined with a population that apparently has the self control of a person with frontal lobe damage, and here we are.
c. Twice the workers does impact competition and wages, no doubt about that.
d.The problem I don’t think was the original intent of feminism per se. It’s not that women were being oppressed in the West, far from it, but it wasn’t a great system to really try and get ahead. You point to certain examples such as Coco Channel, and that’s great, but that’s an exceptional person. Throughout history there have always been both male and female outliers, but they don’t represent the norm. The issue is most certainly however that of responsibility. You “red pillars” would be surprised I think to realise that a small portion of the female population agrees with SOME of what you say. That’s because the portion of the female population that does act responsibly is punished for this in the same manner you are. The funny thing is, women who are legitimately successful get that way by “thinking like men”. I don’t mean trying to act like men, just approaching life rationally and analytically. It’s the only way to accomplish anything.
P.S. I’m Canadian, which is why some of my words are spelled “kinda funny”. Damn American spell check, I’m being oppressed by your rules 🙂
Hi,Alex. Thanks for making yourself known. I’d hope that a female reader may be swayed by your comments,for her own good. I see you working! P.S. I’ve noticed that Only women who are already in relationships (safe) are in agreeance,with “red pill” perspectives. The single women don’t care,because “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it”,but they eventually get older and men date younger……angry man-blaming articles won’t comfort them,nor negatively impact us,so who’s losing in the long run? The single men who care early on or the single women who only care later on?
Either way coupled women are the only women investing. This tells me everything I need to know,namely that those women will be “so invested” later,but not quite yet. I for one have and will run them off,for trying to have their cake and eat it too……at my expense.
Thanks for the shout out! Not sure I’m as much on “your side” as you think. Yeah, I’m in a very happy relationship for which I am eternally grateful. I was financially “safe” long before I entered this relationship though. If I hadn’t found this relationship, I might very well be alone. I am successful both in my career and financially, and like any man knows, that takes tremendous discipline and sacrifice. So, if I’d ended up sacrificing my personal life for my career, I’d have no one else to blame but me. I didn’t do that though, because I realised fairly early on that life is about balance. I think my biggest issue with this latest “wave” of feminism is that we seem to be teaching people (women mostly, men too though) that they are entitled to a certain lifestyle. They’re not. You don’t get to stamp your foot until everyone agrees with you. It doesn’t work that way. Life is, and has always been, about action and reaction. There are consequences to every choice everyone ever makes. And life isn’t fair. It never was. The good news is, it’s equally unfair to both men and women. Different, but equally unfair. You can sit around whining about it all you like, but that won’t change the cold hard facts. Best to learn to work within the parameters you were given.
People have become overly sensitive and self-entitled to shielding from emotional distress,which seems to be the standard,sadly. I personally believe this is due to a Care based Morality,rather than a Justice based Morality being employed on a legal and societal level,due to women being the voting majority and primary demographic employed in the education system. I.e.: “The Three Reasons Women Shouldn’t Vote” (by TFM on YouTube) by contrast men have a Justice based Morality and favor Equality Under the Law,unlike women,who have a Caring based Morality and favor Equality of Opportunity/Outcomes,in part due to their Own Group Bias. I.e.: “Regarding Equality” (by TFM on YouTube)
What I meant by “safe” was “in a relationship”,rather than financial stability. The reason for this is “with great knowledge,comes great accountability” or its opposite “ignorance is bliss”……ladies and not gentleman benefit from ignorance on these subjects,in this wise. As for things being “diffrent,but equally unfair,for both men and women”,I say tell it to the workplace death gap,the suicide gap and more to the point “The Women are Wonderful Effect” (Wikipedia)….
“Female In Group Bias” is literally,by definition Sexism. Women are it’s root,not men.
I guess I can never thoroughly trash feminism because I never wanted children. Not because having children was somehow the patriarchy oppressing me, but because I don’t particularly like them. Children are highly necessary, but a tremendous pain in the arse, as far as I’m concerned. 60 years ago I wouldn’t have been stoned for this, but it certainly would have been a severe impediment. I had choices. Those choices however, are not without consequences. Genuinely not wanting children takes you out of the vast majority of the mating market place. I realised this early on, and compensated for it by becoming financially independent. Just the same way a man compensates for his shortcomings. I’m currently a 40 year old very financially successful woman. I’m in a relationship, so what I’m about to say is moot for me, but the reality is my 40 year old equally successful male counterpart has more dating options than me. Fat, balding, middle aged men are actually deluding themselves if they think women suddenly find this attractive, but there is certainly a grain of truth to my aforementioned statement. No amount of social engineering is going to change this, and I’m ok with it. I had advantages earlier in life that my fictitious counterpart did not. I chose not to “reap the bounty” of my earlier afforded advantages, and I compensated for it, found the sweet spot for me and live a happy life. I would never however advise a young woman who wants a family to follow in my footsteps. That would be foolhardy. You say women benefit from “ignorance is bliss”, but we both know the ignorance only lasts for so long I guess my point is, life has always been about choices, nobody gets to have it all. So when I said life is different but equally unfair, I wasn’t undermining some of the struggles men face, I was directing my statement at the current SJW movement which apparently doesn’t recognize this. Apologize for the misunderstanding. You bring up suicide, and that’s an interesting point. I volunteer on a crisis hotline. Women are way more likely to attempt suicide, men are far more likely to actually go through with it.Partially this is due to men having access to more violent and permanent methods, but it’s also due to men being socialized not to reach out when they are having trouble. Women are lauded when they act like men, but men are still stigmatized for acting like women (i.e.. talking about their problems). That’s very sad.
I chose to largely stay out of the 08 crisis. My 401K took a hit, but we didn’t buy a home and left the money in cash (which held up reasonably well.) I wish I had bought in at the (raised) bottom in 09 but instead we’ve had to rent while waiting for bubble 2.0 to burst.
The Fed is hinting that a bailout of the last scale isn’t possible for this reason: They’ve been propping it up all along for the past 8 years. They’re out of gas and the economy is sputtering. I don’t think everyone loses.
There ARE good products available if you look for them. Not everything is cheap junk. Heck, my wife and her friends don’t buy baby goods from China (most of it is cheap lead lined plastic that will poison their kids.) I try to buy mostly well made stuff but do so discreetly sometimes buying second hand.
The reason I chose Coco Chanel is that many feminists generalized that all men were somehow Bill Gates and to argue that the plumber who snakes out their toilet is “privileged”. It’s kind of a funny paradigm in how women in the west so disrespect men. Either they’re rich CEO’s to be soaked and despised or… “losers” who earn a living honestly and invisible. It’s like their toilets fix themselves.
A fun example of this is my friend’s ex wife who took him for granted. He was taking care of the kids AND earning the living while she spent her (high) discretionary income getting drunk at bars with her friends. (He met her at a bar so big surprise there, eh?) When he tried to pressure her to clean up her act, she used the speed dial for a divorce lawyer thinking she’d win that lottery. But her drinking history, DUI’s, etc. and not knowing what foods her own kids ate forced the sexist judge to award JOINT custody (it would have been sole if the buddy was a woman). In any case, no “child” support or alimony for the ex. The day after she moved out, her windows to her new place went bad with a $10K repair cost. Her ex would have done that on his own on the weekend. She asked to reconcile, he said no. This is kind of a microcosm for how men in the west are regarding post feminist era career women.
Anyways, back to sociology and how this ties in: Most of us normal schmoes (and I’ll count myself in those ranks), had problems. The women had problems and the men had problems. So what did feminism really accomplish other than to ultimately be dupes for the oligarchs and hurt the men who were natural allies?
Ahhh Canada. I have Polish friends up in Toronto. I’ve heard legends it’s the new Sweden of North America (including fresh NOGO zones with all the 3rd world immigrants who have recently discovered that USA has comparatively bad welfare benefits.) I would have LOVED to have shown every Mexican down in the states the portion of “Bowling for Columbine” and how great Canada is. If you love welfare, swim over to Canada (but wear a really thick wetsuit! 🙂
You all have what I’d a snowy defense,that our own southern border lacks. It cools drinks in the winter and deters illegal immigrants in the summer…..nature’s best,at it’s coldest!
Hee hee! How right you are!
a. our RRSPs (that would be your 401k, I think) took the same hit I believe. It didn’t ruin us, but it right pisses me off that we suffered at all. Aren’t we (collectively) the people doing the right thing? Yet still cleaning up everyone else’s act. Charming.
b. Good on you for renting. We tried that forever. I actually believe strong arguments can be made that renting, as long as you are financially responsible, is the better bet in the long run. Ever notice how people love to talk about the bought vs sold price, but never mention all the upkeep and taxes in between? After the 08 hit we were more motivated to buy because, well, property is still reasonably safe right? Bear in mind in Canada we’ve YET to suffer the housing bubble experienced in the States. In any event, we bought eventually. HUGE down payment, no government subsidies for us. Probably at the worst possible time though. Fuck. It’s like you can never get perfectly right, no matter how much you try. The outcome remains to be seen I suppose, but I don’t predict it ending well for us or anyone else. Sincerely hope your prediction that not everyone loses is correct.
c. We also don’t buy crappy products, using the same methods as you. That was a general statement. I fully expect the nice quality furniture we bought, with cash, to be divided up in our estate. Not the way most people live though.
d. You’re friend’s ex-wife sounds like a right twat. Sounds like she kind got what she deserved, which is good. Can’t help but put some of the blame on him though, see point B re buying cheap quality goods 😉
e. Ahh Toronto, exactly where I live. The land of social justice and a massively inflated real estate market. Couple with that with our abhorrent winter climate and you got yourself some kind of post apocalyptic dystopian nightmare. Welcome to my and your friend’s world.
c. Men are largely undervalued in our society, that much is true. Not the outliers, the ordinary schmoe who just get its done. There are differences between the sexes, and they should be appreciated. In a functioning society, everyone brings something to the table. That “something” is context specific and can change with time, but it still exists. We are now beyond that point.
Best:)
PS I have significantly more assets than my husband. But all that money won’t open a jar of pickles. The minute I figure out a way to do this, his ass is to the curb:D #veryexpensivepickles
I don’t have kids (*sort of) either,so I know it leaves a certain void,for me at least. It’s generous of you to mention it,as I know that it’s quite personal. You were wise to compensate financially,rather than a different method. I haven’t been able to stabilize myself,due to boatloads of unusual and even cruel circumstances,but I’m working on it with all my might. You seem to have a refreshingly rare understanding of Assortative Mating. This is good for planning successful mating strategies,which you did even against the odds,so congratulations! To the old,fat,bald (I’m balding/shaved) rich guys and by proxy cougars,I suppose….id suggest that they have no idea what they’re saying about this relationship thing! Do they even internet?! I’m not so slack in my approximations! About the suicide/attempt rates,if memory serves (because lazy)….women attempt 3/1 what men do and men succeed? 4/1 what women do. I’m sure you see the corresponding disparities. Man bad,woman good has been a constant,since before my first and last hour of kindergarten and it’s only getting worse. Back to “The Women are Wonderful Effect/(female) In Group Bias (Wikipedia) the gender Sentencing Gap knows what’s up. Said BIAS was a definite factor for my (former) psychologist,a female,who laughed at me when I mentioned considering suicide,as it’s been a temptation for decades,but I never mentioned it to anyone,other than her and she laughed out loud and said “I think that would be a cowardly thing to do!” …..but I know she literally can’t see the inJustice of this,because she can’t empathize directly with a male,due to In Group Bias,among women only. Was she callous as a person? Yes. Was it even stronger than the male response? Yes. I’ve seen other guys mention it,to men and the men told them to man up,but without malice. This isn’t made up,but it is denied. The lady even looked genuinely shocked,when I said “it’s nice to be able to talk about my feelings,instead of pretending I don’t have them” …..As though her suspicions had been confirmed. This isn’t (primarily) men shaming eachother about expressing emotions,in relative moderation,it’s women who are. Many men have said it,but deaf ears are for “weak men” and open ears are for “weak women”. Intro aforementioned “Effect” & “Bias”,for the why’s. There’s a reason men don’t open up to women,it’s that we are punished for it,while being told to explore it! (Not to be confused with being overly emotional)
*= I technically have reproduced,due to being “seed jacked” while unconscious and because of the crazy legal environment and precedent,for my hypothetical case,being more risky than rewarding,I haven’t pursued the case,as it may just be me getting blamed and falsely accused,with all the sexual offender registry,child support and jail time that always follows. So “she wins” ,in this and that case because false allegations are going Unpunished,due to the consensus of punishment deterring “real victims” (like me) from coming forward.
…….seriously?! I’m not going to get destroyed,for a woman or Her kid. P.S. I’ve actually stood up to “femininity bashing”,in ways only an overtly concerned male could. I don’t play “don’t be yourself” and neither should anyone else! You seem kind. If women do indeed have a Caring based Morality,it’s on display here. You’re husband made out handsomely.
My 401K has recovered but I’ve learned my lesson. I’ve rebalancing my portfolio. Regards to renting. If I had bought at the last (government bailout) crash, I’d be better off but… a silver lining is that my company my be relocating offices to about 15 miles away so my landlord will be happy when I leave (he can try to sell at the market high) and I can rent closer to work. The owners who buy crack shacks in the exoburbs waste about a month of their lives commuting? Me? I bike that time to work and it’s (helped) in keeping me (pretty) fit. I agree with you the friend buying “cheap” didn’t work out. I WARNED him. He seems to have a taste for trashy women though. I read that 90 percent of Canadians live on the USA/Canada border. This means that despite Canada being huge (and having a Saudi style economy with lots of resources to sell to the primitives down South), it means relatively limited living space. We’re considering moving to less “blue state” digs in the USA. Perhaps South Carolina. I would say that all men in the states are largely bashed including the CEO who is targeted by gold diggers. Either men are rich (and therefore got their wealth evil) or poor (losers, subhuman) while crack mothers are the highest form of life. (Really. Politicians go on and on about how they need help, blah blah blah.) Try… doing less crack or cigarettes, less publically funded pay TV, fewer Obamaphone (for jobs you aren’t going to), and go to the library and crack open a book on office work. I was born working class and studied a book everyday. Could be tough but the way the Germans do it: A little every day, and you can crack the Polish calvary’s defense 🙂 Then again, the men help to undermine themselves by being such p*ssies. My wife says that many American men are likable but they’re such wimps, she finds it disgusting. hence RoK.
My wife likes keeping me around (even though poisoning me would get her a cool million in insurance money) because she wants my help in keeping it safe. I also think she likes having me around for a perspective that’s “real”. But in dating, it’s hard to find keepers like that. Most of the women are raised in the states, and even much overseas, to treat men like garbage.
OK, I wasn’t going to mention this but… my wife and I are expecting a daughter. I’m thinking: That girl is going to have incredible guidance on how to find a good man who will be a good provider and to be a decent woman to boot. My wife’s friends complain they can’t find a good, decent, wealthy man. I know why. My daughter won’t suffer the self-imposed ignorance these women subject themselves to.
Haha! That’s the most I’ve seen the world”crack” used in a post.(3x)….good one!
“Cool Million” was funny too! Later….
I’m sincerely sorry to hear of your circumstances. Frankly, I can’t say whether or not you’ve brought this upon yourself (how would I know?). I’m also lazy at this time of night, but your suicide stats sound about right to me. And it’s very telling. I can say that everyone has grappled with the thought of suicide, whether or not they admit it. I’m not saying this to undermine your problems, but to tell you there is NO SHAME in this. The shame is pointed squarely at a society that allows it to happen. It doesn’t matter whether you’re a man or woman, we all struggle with aging, and loneliness, and a general lack of fulfillment. Was the world better in previous generations? Maybe. Have any of us ever asked? Has anyone ever actually told us the highly personal truth? Who can say? I can say though that that the cards shouldn’t be stacked against you just for having a penis. They also shouldn’t be stacked against me for having ovaries. We are animals, but really highly evolved animals. We all know better.
I really, sincerely, hope you find happiness.
Merci. Almost forgot. Happy New Year!
I appreciate the sentiment,although it probably won’t stick. I’m not certain what you meant by “stacked against me (women) because I have ovaries” unless you’re referring to the biological clock… I was referring to unbalanced Equality Under the Law. What would be an example of legal and social biases against women?! I know of none that can be empirically quantified. If that’s not what you meant,then fair enough. I have a tic tocking biological clock,as well!
The girl this woman gave herself has my face and eyes,the recessive alleles I have are all over her and she’ll pass them on to Her children. Happiness is for wealthy men,their wives and their children. (if any)
Congratulations on your pending bundle of joy! Canada is a lot like you describe. Housing is actually tight, because, well, most of what we own is virtually uninhabitable. As for resources, actually we are better off than the Saudis, but it’s much, much harder to extract. Economies of scale and all, we aren’t so good until the US officially pisses off every middle eastern country to the point of no return. Not convinced your foreign policy won’t accomplish this eventually, mind you, lol!
Renting kind of rocks, for a host of reasons, notwithstanding those you’ve already mentioned.
If I were having a daughter my advice would be the following:
“listen, you have a s—t ton of options ahead of you, but choose wisely. You want a career, fine, but that will come with sacrifice, and that’s ok. As long as it’s what you really want. You want a family? Behave yourself and cash in early. Fair?Probably not. But this is time tested advice I’m giving you, and a few years of leftist policies and social engineering don’t change a GD thing! You can whine about it if you like, still ain’t gonna change.”
Funny you bring up Germany. I was actually raised by German parents. Maybe that explains my attitude.
My husband could also make out handsomely if he poisoned me. Yet he doesn’t. I’d like to think this is due to my excellent skills in bed, but frankly my performance is average at best. Maybe sentimental reasons? I’ll keep ya’ posted 😀
I was speaking in theoretical terms. I meant that in a perfect world, neither sex should be penalized. I don’t know of any disadvantages women suffer, specifically because they are women, in the Western world. The biological clock is what it is, a little quicker for women, but ticking in everyone. Mother Nature doesn’t involve herself in politics.
Largely agreed with this final caveat:
I don’t think women “cashing in early” is necessarily unfair. Unequal, yes, but this is due to abuse of the terms “fairness” (as well as fascism and equality). (Anyone who thinks they know what the term fascism means, should watch The Big Lebowski and the Dude using it in various instances. 🙂 (Poles have a special place in their hearts for that film.)
Imagine you come from a home where your dad made a fortune in oil versus your friend whose father made a fortune in art. Is it “unfair” that you prefer art to oil? Of course, when we want something that someone else has, or the advantages at least, then it seems unfair but measuring fairness is a bit trickier than that.
In many ways, women getting their genetic lottery check when they’re young is a challenge. Do you want to give an 18 year old kid their 100 million inheritance? Yeah, a lot of them blow it. But hey, when utilized properly, it’s a HUGE benefit. Or would you rather work your butt off to retire at 55 when you only have 30 years or so left if you’re lucky?
Simply because so many young women blow their opportunities of youth doesn’t mean it’s unfair. It means they had parents who weren’t thinking in their best interests and were worried about fitting in society. “Get a big career and then think about marrying when you’re 35. There will be lots of handsome, wealthy men who will be happy to marry a successful career woman whose independent and demanding!”
Those parents should be arrested for child-abuse but the problem is, the authorities are teaching them to do it. 🙂
Rush Limbaugh said that feminism was made for ugly women to still have access to mainstream society. A woman whose 18 and not good looking, well, a career is going to be her best bet to try to bring something to the table, right? Except when I dated back in my 30’s, those women still wanted the men to pay for everything while her income was put into the bank to pay for a divorce lawyer if I got uppity.
So in the end, a handsome poor guy is still a poor guy and an ugly career woman is still an ugly woman. But note that this is largely due to women who insist that beauty be the only thing a man should expect from them.
My wife has a friend whose gorgeous, smart as a whip (when it comes to her career) and… wanted a handsome guy who fulfilled a Disney fantasy. She went to the dance club (not a bar) and the handsome guy she bagged…
is an idiot. And a drunk. And spends her money on strippers.
She has two gorgeous children from him and is considering divorcing him. I know what you’re thinking: Her potential ex should get together my friend’s bar drunk ex. Yeah, they’d be a good match actually. Similar lifestyle and stuff to talk about.
So in the end, I don’t see what feminism has accomplished except for hurting men, children, society and indirectly, women themselves. This is why I don’t think women should be allowed to vote anymore than, and I kid you not, I saw a girl of 8 at the shooting range using a small rifle. But then again, if we let adult women vote why not let 8 year old girls shoot? It can’t be any more dangerous, can it?
Agreed. The subtly of words,occasionally evades me. You’re a well-tempered person,to have refrained from capitalizing on my obvious misbehavior,which verged on lashing out. Few of my overall points were addressed,but such is the nature of interpersonal communication. Enjoy the fruits of your good fortune and labour….it’s the right thing to do!
“Winning the lottery and becoming a housewife would be great for me! In the absence of that highly unlikely event, both my husband and I will
continue to work outside the home, while practicing a degree of
financial restraint not often seen today. Our lottery prize will come
when we are both able to check out of the paid labour force at a pretty
young age.”
So, you’re basically Trevor and Carol from the opening of Idiocracy,
I don’t know your reference. I watch very little tv or movies, however I’m not sure how keeping oneself out of debt could be viewed negatively.
They keep putting off kids because the timing isnt right. Then she has fertility problems, and he dies of a heart attack. Well educated, well paid, high IQ couple has no babies. Then they cut to a dummy who plays football who screams “Im gonna fuck all you bitches!” and you see how many kids he has…all trash, all losers, then THEY have kids, you get the idea…
Ok. I get it. And yes that is certainly a problem. Smart, educated people are no longer reproducing , leaving stupid people to populate the earth. Not good for humanity, and not good for my taxes! Neither of us wanted children, not so that we could keep a BMW in the driveway, but for a host of personal reasons, including some pretty bad genetic stuff on my side. Kind of sad really, because we are one of very few couples I know of that could have raised kids on one income. A lot of people could, if they cut out many of their “necessities” like 2 brand new cars in the driveway and a tv in every room. Kids/no kids….career/no career… Whatever comes your way, reducing your general consumption of crap will leave you happier and healthier. Trust me.
I don’t know why women want to work in the current environment if they don’t have to. Rude customers, inept managers, general crap… I’m hanging out for a lotto win. They get a free pass out of the bull**** and don’t take it. Idiots.
Where do you live that the economy is so strong and cost of living is so low women can opt out of working?
Because they don’t want to be economic slaves to men. Beta-husbands would simply abuse the power and beat their wives. Being single would no longer be an option for women, Men would probably take 3 or 4 wives have 25 kids and not spend time with any of them. Women that aren’t attractive would starve to death. It would be a disaster for women.
How would a single guy support 3-4 wives who presumably stay at home with the 25 kids?
Also, they wouldn’t be spending any time with them because they’d be working 24/7 trying to support the 28-29 lives that depend on him.
Beta’s beating their wives? 25 kids? What world are you living in. Women who can’t find a beta shlube to marry would just join a convent like they have centuries.
What bizarro-world have you emerged from? None of your arguments have any historical merit whatsoever.
Of course, I’m probably just feeding some idiot troll….
Huh? You realize this distopian nightmare you’ve constructed in your head isn’t something you need to imagine, right? Just read some history. Look back at the early 1900’s or anytime earlier than that for what ACTUALLY happens when women don’t work in mass numbers. Not a lot of wife beatings, slavery to husbands or 25 kid families back then. Almost no 3-4 wives per man bullshit you’ve made up in your head.
In fact, to many women today, the “Betty Draper” lifestyle looks like a fucking dream they’d never want to wake up from. Husband provides for them, kids they love, plenty of time to sit around and chat with their friends. Yes, there was a lot of cheating by men back then. I think the women were happy about it as long as it was discreet because it indicated that they weren’t going to have to be their husbands sole sexual outlet.
Feminism is a lie. Women bought into it hook, line and sinker, but, my god, the life before and after feminism is a joke. Most older women now realize this (those that really started the revolution). And statistics tell us that women today are less happy, have fewer children and more problems than they had in the past.
Good job.
Here is a dumb feminist that finally woke up and realized the poison of feminism.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/12/29/feminist-founder-of-femen-brazil-apologizes-to-christians-and-declares-herself-pro-life/
Women that aren’t attractive actually would have a much greater chance of finding a husband than they do now. Right now we are seeing the unintended consequences of feminism: a true free market where the most attractive women command disproportionate cock and where the most alpha men command disproportionate cunt.
If women were returned to the home, the societal standard of men having a moral if not social expectation to look after their women and not gad around as bachelors would return. Around 1900 men were encouraged to get married almost as much as women were: it was generally gay men like Oscar Wilde who flagrantly refused to marry, and most hetero men were encouraged to marry in order to carry on the family name.
If women don’t work, who is supposed to feed them? Their fathers? Their brothers?
A husband or big government (or ex-husband who has been divorced raped). Both are already true now so I don’t see how it would be a big change.
My points exactly unmarried women would starve unless we all collectively pay for their food. So which is better a country full of starving women, 75% of your labor wages going towards feeding women, or women working and feeding them selves.
You are obviously a bitter woman.
No such thing would happen.
You would have to marry a Beta if you were an ugly woman and have to deal with it.
There would be no starving women because if you did not marry a beta you would either join something like a convent or the government would feed you much like it currently does through sexist programs like WIC, etc.
The only difference would be that you don’t get to spend your 20’s pretending you are a career woman and whoring it up.
Society will be much better once the charade is up.
You obviously think the government gets its money from thin air.
I don’t like unattractive, no value added, fake career women in the workplace either. But I would rather them waste the resources of who ever hired them then triple the governments WIC costs.
Actually the government might be more efficient if it just paid the outright cost for women pretending being a single career woman is a viable option.
You. Are. An. Idiot. Did you choose today as the best day to reveal all of your idiocy or was this the byproduct of an extensive year of production? Everyone has one bad day right?
Women don’t, rarely have, barely will, feed themselves. They don’t seek out their own meat. They don’t clean their own streets. The rarely put themselves in harms way. In fact much of their wealth comes from piggy backing. Off of taxes. Off of men doing the jobs that matter. Off of white knight employers who will listen to her talk his ear off to discuss things that have little to do with the work at hand. The article is an extreme of one polar or the other. SO if women worked solely, do you think we would have a government system to support anyone? Government would be destroyed as women wouldn’t be able to uphold it even if they did take it over.
Women are also very pragmatic. If they weren’t offered jobs, you don’t think the system of dowry wouldn’t be re-instated to ensure the women and her family wouldn’t be taken cared of? Without careers do you think many women could afford to be unattractive? Their once source of sustenance would be appealing to men. They would be fucked as there are boatloads of women unemployed who would fit the bill.
There are a surplus of homeless men to women because vaginal sex with a soft female body is the ultimate primal utility over a maimed male. If the male can’t provide society discards him. If a woman can’t, there is always her primary function vaginal sex and continuing the species.
This is the point of women having large families. So they could essentially create a legion of loyal soldiers to watch their bodies pass into the night in their later years. Less children, less likely to be in a home and more likely to be in a nursing home. Fact.
“You obviously think the government gets its money from thin air.”
Well, there’s been this thing called Quantitative Easing…
We already have an answer for this: The welfare state. All this talk about how career women would be empowered and help men has been shown to be a bust in the post feminist era. Women who don’t have a man to support them, and don’t get a great job, go on the welfare state and breed poverty making society worse. The expense of the welfare state has harmed the interests of everyone, including career women themselves. When a man is unable to find work, he either becomes a “baby daddy” or homeless or criminal. Welfare mothers and male criminals: That’s the legacy of feminism.
At best, when a career woman marries a man whose her “equal”, she may or may not divorce him half of the time. For men, life is just as hard as it has been for the past million years or so. Thanks for nothing.
Yes, their parents and brothers. That’s how it works in the Middle East. Women stay home and tend to the house duties. Until marriage, then it’s her husband’s responsibility to feed her while she takes care of the house and kids.
But like the guy before me answered, Western women have the welfare state to feed them.
The article also tangentially raises another interesting issue. Why does the labor market discriminate against manual and craft professions and careers that are predominantly male based in terms of pay? Why do intellectual jobs (so called mind work roles) attract higher remuneration than roles that require the use of one’s labor, agility, talents, and ingenuity. Why is the mechanic, the construction worker, the farmer, the fisherman, forestry worker always paid less for work that’s essentially more important to society than someone supposedly “using their mind” in a large bank (like JP Morgan or Goldman Sacs) who bean counts in accounts or HR Departments.
Additionally, I think you’ll find that a lot of “blue collar” men actually love what they do, unlike they’re “white collar” cousins who might have more money and status toiling in their 9/5 clearing house, but, who ultimately create nothing of value for themselves or for society as a whole.
Believe it or not, mechanics and plumbers make VERY good money. It’s hard to find an honest one who will charge a reasonable rate and even then, I pay those guys at least $80 an hour (which includes their costs for the shop, etc.)
Feminism promises educated women (and white knight men) easy money for a college degree but those HR gigs can be hard to find. I have a friend who got her degree and certification to work in HR and she’s still looking.
Employers don’t like paying for intellectual work anymore than manual work. This is why Zuckerman and Bill Gates want to replace all those workers with H1bs.
True, but in general the accountant is paid much better for his “labor” even though technically he uses practically none of “labor” in the workplace.
Also,men as rule, have to often do the shit jobs that women simply will not or cannot do that are essential to society, like working in the city’s drainage network, working as undertakers and gravediggers, out in all weather on oil rigs or in fisheries. These roles are essential to society and more important than anything Facebook or Apple do everyday, yet the people that work there are called geniuses and paid a king’s ransom.
Agreed but as I said, a lot of these income disparities are due to immigration policies. Consider construction: A mere 40 years ago, it was a reasonably well paid profession for the working class and a skilled craftsman could make serious buck. Even now, a lot of expensive homes are sold with shoddy illegal immigration construction work that has to be redone because it was done poorly while “craftsman” homes last hundreds of years and merely need the electrical work redone.
Big business wants to deflate the wages of middle and even upper class America as well via immigration. Why do oligarchs love the third world so much?
Cheap hookers?
The thing about the manual labor work that only men do is that that labor does not require much education and it can be imported from third world countries for lower cost.
The thing is women don’t really work all that much. And to actually make the workplace “friendly” to women you need inefficient policies such as sick leave, maternity leave, personal time, more paid time off, flex hours, etc. etc.. Which are essentially policies that provide for women with time off not to work.
When women are actually at work how much do they actually contribute? In offices I have worked at in the past the answer is not much. They tend to come in late, blaming child care or a school drop off, and then leave right at quitting time. If there is extra work it is usually the men who are staying late to get it done. Women even bring their personal politics into the office. One company I worked for would actually pay women to have a once a month “women’s committee”, fully catered mind you, to discuss “women’s issues in the workplace”. So while all the women of the company get a paid for lunch and essentially two hours to gossip all the men have to pick up the slack.
Women in the workplace is no value added to society. Perhaps allowing for single, younger women or the hardened lesbian with no children to work a few years as an assistant, nurse, or HR rep is fine, but this delusion that adding women to the workplace is a net gain for society needs to end.
Since women have been almost forced into some fields where they are not able to do the work, they get moved up and manage all the men doing the actual work. Creating a hellish work environment.
And then they resort of blaming things such a “sexual harassment” instead of doing actual work. The best society is one segregated on race and gender with expectations for both. This everyone needs a Coke delusion needs to end. (Yes please call me a fascist).
Except women actually are allowed to have excuses like that, because men don’t feel the need to equally care for children. Might I also add, women HAVE to work in today’s society. One provider just cant make enough money to support a family.
Women don’t have to work. They are just told they need to do so by feminism and other women. Most women in my office spend 80% of their tax home pay on child care. I know for a fact because I know how much they make since I pay them and all of them openly discuss how much child care costs.
And when women do “work” they produce little actual work product. The amount of work product a man can produce in 40 hours is probably at least 150% of what a woman produces. Again, I know because I supervise both. Men consistently give me their deliverables on time or before the deadline whereas women, who are assigned lower level tasks, consistently make excuses and ask for extensions. If a man were to do this he would be branded as an “under performer” and managed out or just fired.
You forgot where I said ONE PROVIDER CANT MAKE ENOUGH MONEY TO SUPPORT A FAMILY. 🙂 Jeeze some men are just reading what they want to hear.
Said the same thing 5 years before
Bastards called me REGRESSIVE.
But I like hookers….
If they go on strike you could go game them instead? 🙂
Cost me money either way . I’d rather have a guarantee
I’ve actually been to job interviews where I’ve been told that they already have too many male employees and they have to keep interviewing until they can find a female who can do the job. Following up 1 year later they had hired a female who quit after a few months… and they were interviewing again for another female. Its not about performance, its about ‘diversity’. Ellen Pao and all that.
Yeah I have been to interviews before where it was between me and another woman. One guy basically told me “look you are wasting your time, just answer the questions and get out of here, we were told to hire the woman”. The response in my head was “great…thanks for wasting my time…I woke up earlier and drove over here sitting in traffic for an hour…glad I could be part of your charade at my expense”.
About 3.5/4 months ago I had an interview for a position left vacant because of a pregnancy. After 4 weeks of head fucking and high hopes (brilliant feedback) they ended up hiring a female from within and now I heard she left because she moved with her boyfriend somewhere else. May I also add that the second female did not have the qualifications I had and worked in reception prior to getting that job.
Oftentimes they will create make-work positions just to hire women, so that the “quota” will be filled.
One day I was at our local university doing a remodel for their athletic department. I actually by accident overheard the athletic director trying to persuade a young lady by phone to come from Ohio to do an interview. The pay was, if I’m not mistaken, $50,000 per year. Well, he comes out of his office with a frustrated look. He straight out told us she refused to come down to do an interview because she couldn’t leave her part time job at a shoe store. For one, makes me wonder if he also had a “quota” to fill. Two, forget lasting a few months, this one didn’t even make it to the interview. Three, I never found out what the job entailed, but I bet it was being a desk jockey. And the last one, she was working at a shoe store. I guess that, between a job at a state university, even a small one, with potential benefits like medical, a 401k, and possibly some tuition on a possible degree, or staying at a shoe store where she had dibs on the latest $600 Prada pumps which she’ll just stash in her closet, well, it’s rhetorical. Yay equality!
If that was in the US, have them put that statement in writing and file a complaint to the EOE.
As if that would happen…
Women have so much to offer……
Some articles relating to women in special Forces say the same thing, it’s interesting what a woman would have to offer SF that Men haven’t offered already?
Fantastic article. Men go on strike for a week, the world falls to pieces. Women go on strike for a week, I’m not sure most people would even notice.
But that was the reason I left my wife at home? Who’s going to tell me I’m a great husband and dad now between blowjobs? My wife?!?!
Apparently I need more coffee to kickstart my brain this morning…I had to read that 3 times to get it.
Hah! It’s all good. Lethargy happens to the best of us.
Well I’m coming off a 2 day food-poisoning(?) dilemma, so that could be part of the problem as well.
Ouch! Hopefully you are getting better. There is still the party to be had tonight. By the by, Happy New Years in advance! You wrote up a solid article earlier this year. All the best for 2016.
Thanks. Yeah getting better. Finally out of the weeds and just need to recharge. Happy New Year to you as well; plenty of partying to be had indeed.
Glad you liked my article. I have another one I’m about to start on. Just haven’t had the energy or focus because of my tummy trouble, heh. Hoping to get started on it during this extended weekend.
Ha-ha-ha!!! That was funny. I had to do a double-take on it to figure it out. Maybe it’s because of ten years of marriage that has me a bit out of sync. 🙂
Hillary’s equal pay policy really is female socialism. Take from men and give to women in the name of ‘equality’.
This gets at the question of what is (and should be) the purpose of a healthy government. I’ve been working on an essay exploring the subject, and the conclusion is something which I’m tentatively calling Libertarian Statism.
Essentially, a healthy society is both strong and free. To that end, a healthy government would safeguard a set of classically liberal rights, while employing a libertarian approach to carry out its explicit function of maintaining and growing the strength of the nation.
For example, working for the government is not a right, and hence is a privilege. So, the government should prefer to employ qualified men (qualified women as a last resort), simply because a woman’s greatest contribution to the strength of the nation is not doing a job that a man can do, but cranking out sons to be factory workers, engineers, doctors, scientists, and soldiers to defend the Republic. Instead of subsidizing bullshit majors (I’m looking at you, Gender Studies), the government, if it is going to pay for higher education, should subsidize only the education that will strengthen the nation (STEMM degrees).
Furthermore, repealing a lot of un-libertarian laws would improve things as well. Most employers would rather hire men, because they tend to work longer hours, and they don’t take time off for maternity leave. If an employer wants to reduce his profit margin by hiring more women, he should certainly be free to do so.
This extends to other areas as well. Immigrants do not have the right to come here. It’s a privilege. So, the government should orient its immigration policy towards strengthening the nation. This means letting in more culturally similar immigrants (Europeans), while limiting or outright banning culturally dissimilar immigrants.
Great article. Everything would improve if women stayed at home.
Women should only work at or very near their homes where they can take care of the children, tend to their domestic duties and bring in supplementary income (if required), just like pre-industrial revolution.
The “real work” outside the home and primary breadwinner should be the man.
Technology has evolved to the point that many small businesses and careers can be done right from home. Running a website designing company (my wife and I are doing this shortly), a small E-bay shop, medical transcriptionist, etc. are all real jobs/businesses that can be done right at home for supplementary income instead of pursuing the pointless corporate rat-race.
They get the best of both worlds this way, without compromising on the upbringing of their children, all the while “empowering” themselves without them actually even realizing it.
Together, with homeschooling, this is an excellent combination and you, your wife and children will all be much better off overall.
The internet has gone a long way in decentralizing the economy, in ways that may allow us to return to a pre-industrial revolution arrangement of community and family. Just as it has done for the free flow of information and public debate.
Good point.
I would say that women should prioritize their roles as caretakers and nurturers, and should work in proportion to their need a home. Ideally, a woman with young children should be a stay at home mom. However, when her children are old enough to start going to school, then it would be good for her to do some kind of part time work to keep from being idle. Finally, when a woman’s children are all adults, then it would be good for her to work a full time job. A stay at home mom with nothing to do can be a real pain in the ass (and wallet) for a man.
Absolutely. Caretaking and nurturing are God-given roles for women, first and foremost, and hence, must be done by women from home.
All else done at/near home is supplementary/optional, whether part-time job, small business, non-profit, etc. and should be at a minimum while the children are growing up and slowly increased as children get older. Grandparents could also be of great help, if available.
“A stay at home mom with nothing to do can be a real pain in the ass (and wallet) for a man.”
Agreed, that’s why I’m a strong advocate of homeschooling in combination with stay-at-home mom because it’ll keep the wife busy for many years as well and she won’t have to worry about making money.
Check out some of my other ideas for going full old-school in the RoK article “An Old Schoolteacher’s Reflections On The Failure Of Modern Education” (comment near bottom).
You have some great ideas for home-schooling. To these I would add shared/cooperative homeschooling. I know some folks who formed a group with two other couples. They share homeschooling duties, rotating subjects and meeting locations throughout the week. The kids benefit from more socialization, and each couple has less of a burden than they otherwise would.
This perspective is unbiblical and demonstrably false. The bible teaches Mutual Submission in marriage. I.e.:
“Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.”
-Ephesians 5:21
For in-depth analysis of gender dynamics in the bible and additional empirical evidence,see: “How Complementarian is the Bible?” (On YouTube) …….meaning men are allowed to (though women aren’t having it), stay home and “nurture and be a caretaker”,for children.
Even on the woman’s dime! ……but Hypergamy doesn’t care about being “biblical” on cashing in and collecting a free ride. Later.
Idle? For fuck sake mothers are not idle! Get a fucking life, The men n here just cant stop moaning, We should work or we shouldn`t work; make up your dumb fucking minds.
Your sounding like a feminist
Job should only be secondary for a woman. Her first priority should be the home.
If women stayed home instead of trying (and failing miserably) at being equal to men in the corporate world, we’d see an improvement in the office almost immediately. The female influence in the office has been one of backstabbing gossip and vapid politics. She is also a hefty liability. If she gets knocked up, the employer is forced to pay her for several weeks while she’s out on maternity leave. Women are also more than willing to sue their employers at the drop of a hat over imagined offenses like “sexual harassment” and “discrimination”, while at the same time having no qualms whatsoever about banging her boss if it means a promotion or a raise for her. If I owned my own business, I would never hire a woman. Too much risk for not nearly enough reward.
If you owned a business, you would be good to operate as you wished, until you reached 15 employees and over, then the Title VII Equal Oppurtunity Act would kick in, which allows for the abuse this article and other commenters pissed of about.
Basically the desire for women in the workplace is the same kind of concern trolling as importing immigrants for labor.
These positions are actually facades for compassion and egalitarianism, ironically put forward by people who otherwise despise profit and capitalist inequality.
Perhaps it is time to clarify that the imperatives of the ethnostate – that is, a society centered around males and majorities, should always be held above economic concerns, because a rich society is just a decadent commune if it is not founded on the principles of nationalism
I have observed two women who were into STEM in my lifetime. One was when I was in college and she was studying Electrical Engineering at VT. Not an easy major as many intelligent men I knew were dropping out of it. The other is a product architect at the company I work for.
But those women are exceptions, not the rule. There is always room for such women in the workforce provided they understand that it is a man’s world and any feminine disruptions will not be tolerated.
I will say that nursing, as Roosh pointed out, is definitely something women are better suited at. My little preemie son had excellent care from the NICU nurses that I don’t think most men would have been able to provide.
As a man looking into STEM (12th grade), I agree entirely. I’ve known highly intelligent women that belong in the sciences, but it’s not “sexist” to point out that it tends to be a male thing, and not because of “sexism”, but just preferences. Why are so many women complaining about lack of females in STEM not even in STEM themselves!?
this is the real problem. It’s ok if a woman doesn’t want to be a doctor or lawyer because she wants to raise a family and it’s difficult (if not impossible) to do both well. As a woman, This is what they’ve left out. I think it’s perfectly ok for women to engage in whatever career they excel in, but have to accept sacrifice to do so. It’s also perfectly fine to want to be a kindergarten teacher to have more time off, less, stress and be with your own family, but just $!%@^ admit it haha. Or just as noble to be a stay at home mom. 3rd wave feminism seems to have left all of this out. They forget to tell you that, You can be a nuclear engineer, but if you want to be the best nuclear engineer, you’re probably not going to be able to bear and raise 5 children also. You can *not* have it all. You have to choose. If this was reinforced, THEN we’d have a stronger workforce. It’s perfectly fine for an educated and able woman to dedicate her life to her career, but she doesn’t get to flake out halfway through to make babies. It’s a choice you have make when you’re very young, and if it were honestly presented that way, only the most dedicated women would pursue these fields. If at 18 you’re debating children vs no children and a pHD, you’re more likely to err on the side of caution (children) than pursue the field. It would work itself out naturally.
“One was when I was in college and she was studying Electrical
Engineering at VT. Not an easy major as many intelligent men I knew
were dropping out of it. The other is a product architect at the
company I work for.”
The one caveat there on top of that is: the biological clock. It hits a very solid, if not the majority, of women, and when it does, boom, there goes a good 7-10 years of training and development down the part-time chute when if you’d given the job to a man he would’ve stayed or at least stayed in the industry.
“The one caveat there on top of that is: the biological clock. It hits a
very solid, if not the majority, of women, and when it does, boom,
there goes a good 7-10 years of training and development down the
part-time chute”
Isnt this why there is a shortage of drs in the UK? Most of the women go part time or quit entirely (solution: import drs from the third world! brilliant!).
Well now that’s where feminism really failed women, and I am a woman. You can’t “have it all”, you were lied to. (And why on earth did you seek fertility advice from a cosmetics manufacturer–just kidding) Mother Nature simply didn’t get the memo about your career aspirations. Women can absolutely have healthy babies well into their 30s, prior to the invention of birth control, they usually started in their early 20s and ended as late as their early 40s. But the age of first birth is important and should be accomplished in the 20s. It’s not fair, it’s not right, and it’s not going to change. Take heart ladies that there are plenty of things equally unfair to the gentlemen folk. Now pick your poison and live with your choices.
and that caveat is why she should not even have the choice of career woman.
and it isnt just about hitting the wall….her eggs start aging the second they are formed in the womb. when she finishes maturing via puberty and is officially an adult at least according to biology….thats the signal. her eggs are freshest and most able to bear children.
eggs of women in their 30s and 40s are less healthy because they are older. not to mention the body is less able to endure childbirth.
it isnt just hitting the wall and her looks.
women really should be having children starting around 16 or 17. thats when her body is most able and her eggs are at their peak.
Wrong! A 16/17 yo. body is not fully developed. That is a very bad idea.
Early 20’s is the best time to have a baby.
you are quite wrong
girls mature quite a bit quicker than boys.
a girl can be in her adult body by the time she is 13 even. compare a 14 year old girl to a 19 year old….sometimes you cannot tell them apart.
most girls by the time they are 16 are physically mature and since girls dont mentally mature there is no reason to wait for them to mentally mature. they are physically matured. and these same girls know full well they are sexually mature….14 year olds flirting with and dating seniors in high school. they know full well they are sexually mature and use that and the worse part is that poor 18 year old senior can get nailed to wall with false rape charges for underage sex.
the biggest problem with letting her wait till her 20s(whatever early 20s actually is as some might think 24 is early 20s) is she gains worldly experience and todays world will pollute her with feminism and thus ruin any motherly traits she will have.
hell girls shouldnt even goto public schools….they should have their separate schools. teaching them things in relation to being a mother. teach them the basics of reading and writing and math…but beyond not she should know how to take care of a home which being out in the world till her 20s and going through school and college will not help her with, it will hamper her.
by 16-17….she should be getting married off.
You are wrong. I would suggest that you look up the numerous problems both teenager and baby have when the mother is mentally and physically immature. I doubt you will because I suspect you are a troll.
Let me guess, you are also against teen mothers receiving any social assistance.
About 22yo. is ideal for childbirth. Now go back to your cave Warren Jeffs.
simply not true.
a 13 year old and a 19 year old are both teenage pregnancies you cannot lump all teenage pregnancies under the same umbrella.
but I see you cant see reason because OMG I SAID WOMEN SHOULDNT HAVE RIGHTS or some other crap. and you’ve resorted to petty insults.
FYI….if a 16 year old was married off and had kids she shouldnt be needing assistance. see my scenario finds them men who can take care of them….yours creates a clusterfuck free for all madhouse.
troll go away…get back under your bridge
WRONG!.I know you didn’t look up the risk of teenage pregnancy.
I also know that older men who impregnate teenagers don’t hang around and leave me to raise their children. My experience comes from over 35 years in healthcare. Ever witness a 14yo. with a fractured pelvis from giving birth? A 14yo. has not physically developed and is NOT a 19yo. in growth and development.
Finally, here’s a little pic for you. Use it to fap off to while dreaming your utopian troglodyte fantasy. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e8669038872dfcfdda0210601f789a762a5706d09c4db524101dd1da46e5b737.jpg I’m sure in time she will grow titties
No further response will come from me.
i quite literally just told you a 13 year old or 14 year preganacy is NOT THE SAME as a 19 year old and you just used the “Ever witness a 14yo. with a fractured pelvis from giving birth?”
really?
I just said
“a 13 year old and a 19 year old are both teenage pregnancies you cannot lump all teenage pregnancies under the same umbrella.”
Ive also stressed the words “physically mature”
fucking hell….way to ignore my arguments.
i swear you feminists liberals have no brain
not every single 13 year old in the world is physically mature….but plenty of them quite literally look like 18 year olds and flaunt their sexuality with no repercussions which was yet another part of my point you dont mention…..i know in high school me and friends ran into this very same problem….we’d see an attractive girl, hit on her, find out 30 minutes later oh shit you’re HOW OLD???? we’d eventually abandon ship and talk amongst each other and be like fuck….13 year olds have some serious boobs. you literally cant tell the difference in some cases. yet had we not had the good sense to abandon ship it would of been our asses in trouble not hers for you know flirting back and wearing skimpy clothes…..no never blame the poor innocent oppressed girl.
at age 16 or 17 they are normally physically mature. hell I’d bet serious money your great grandparents had children around that age. it wasnt that uncommon 100 years ago.
so whatever. fuck off liberal troll.
“at age 16 or 17 they are normally physically mature. hell I’d bet
serious money your great grandparents had children around that age. it
wasnt that uncommon 100 years ago.”
Look, there’s fairly solid scientific data that the age of first menstruation has plummeted over the past hundred years or so. Around 1910 it was roughly 16-17, but it’s now happening on average at 13 or 14 for white American girls. That’s a combination of better public health and shittier hormones that we’re pumping into everything. My only point being – the ability to bear children doesn’t correlate terribly well with physical adulthood, at least not anymore, if it ever did.
well in those earlier years….women were baby making factories in a lot of ways. you got married when it was determined you could actually bear children.
so Im not sure what else the requirements are for having children in a healthy manner beyond “physical adulthood”. I mean if she has a family that can help and the father is around…..theres not to much stopping a child coming out in a healthy fashion besides the aforementioned shitty hormones we put into. I think the biggest mental block is we’ve been conditioned to think liking a 16 year adult bodied girl is the act of a pedophile yet its not. a pedophile is one who likes actual children. there is a huge difference contrary to popular opinion and it is a beyond taboo subject because society has quite literally no mercy for pedophiles(but ignores the fact that when you circumcised your son you raped him)
Im also not sure we have better public health….I mean sure we’re not dying at the age of 30 anymore, but have you seen your grandparents? they exist because they take 40 pills a day. and look at the young people….out of shape fat asses addicted to every and anything….so Im not too sold on our better health thing.
“I think the biggest mental block is we’ve been conditioned to think liking a 16 year adult bodied girl is the act of a pedophile yet its not. a pedophile is one who likes actual children.”
The distinction you’re looking for is ephebophilia as opposed to paedophilia. Notwithstanding the seeming desire to permanently hold people in puberty, I don’t have a formed view over whether this is a good thing or not. And neither should feminists given the way forty year old women were panting with desire over 17 year-old Justin Bieber.
yeah thats the word. i can never remember the word. the thing here though is it wasnt but a short 100 years ago preceded by thousands of years of existence or millions depending on your point of view, that we humans literally married girls off as teenagers as soon as they were able to bear children which is when they are teenagers. and we often did it to noticeably older men because the fathers of these girls wanted to make sure the man was capable of taking care of his daughter and any children and in return he got her during her absolute best years both according to looks and child bearing age. to that end the daughter had 0 choice in the matter.
this system is the back that built the modern world and the modern world decided fuck what got us here, we magically know better…..and well we here in the red pill can see clearly the world is burning badly.
whether or not that system is THE BEST….it worked well, and it seems a far cry better than the madhouse that is going on today.
You just admitted to being a paedophile. Do you realize what happens to girls in countries where they have children too young? Do you know what it does to their bodies and how dangerous for her and the baby? A person`s brain and body develops into their twenties. Yes, we do develop mentally. We are not infants our while lives. Pervert.
I went to college, because my parents could never afford to put me through University and I didn’t want to accrue huge amounts of debt. I took mechanical drafting because it could lead to gainful employment. My last semester was a co-op and I was placed in high precision machine shop. I don’t think my boss was too happy getting stuck with the girl placement, but free labour is free labour, right? I kept my head down, worked hard and by the end of the semester was showing a real knack for actual machining. He offered me an apprenticeship. I’d never seen myself working in a trade, but I’d have been a fool to give up an opportunity for free education. (It wasn’t free because I was a woman btw, it was free for everybody). You’d be right to question what the hell a woman could do in a machine shop, but high precision machining involves very little physical strength and it turns out tiny, delicate hands are actually better at handling highly sensitive measuring equipment. I graduated at the very top of my class but there was still the issue of physical strength limiting my overall career prospects. So, I went into CNC programming. Turned out I also had a real knack for that too! I’ve since switched careers completely, not because I couldn’t handle it, but because manufacturing is largely going overseas and I feel longterm I might not have great prospects (especially due to my physical limitations in the field overall). Prior to my career switch though I made boat loads of money as a programmer, so I have this to say:
a. I went into a male dominated industry and did just fine. Despite what the media may say, it turns out you men are perfectly respectful of women who work alongside you, as long as said women actually know what they’re doing.
b. As a woman, I had physical limitations in my chosen career field. I realized this, and found my niche. I didn’t expect anyone to handicap me. I believe this attitude ties in to point a.
c. I never experienced any discrimination. The closest to it would be my first boss, but hell, once he realized I was an asset, he thoroughly encouraged me. No big deal.
I didn’t want kids, but if I had, my previous career would have certainly taken a hit. Actually, I wouldn’t have pursued my previous career had I wanted a family. Imagine a pregnant woman waddling around a shop? Hilarious.
Sorry for the long post, but I for one have ZERO sympathy for women whining in the workplace, and I miss the world of manufacturing, where “issues” just didn’t exist.
A woman can only find true happiness with a husband and a child they have together, not as a career-bitch, not having little half-breed spawns from different fathers, not banking on cash and party life, and not traveling the world becoming more “experienced” on the carousel.
They are lost. Men on the other hand, have a possible redemption, through red pill tactics and ‘upgrades’ from their plugged-in lifestyles. It is up to us to break out of the technocratic dystopia our planet has become, because they will not live forever, but those who breed will outlive them.
As long as women feel the need to work I am more than happy to live of the social welfare checks they pay for. Fuck ’em.
I hate to say this, but in the West, this would cause immeasurable harm to the economy. We live in a consumer economy and women buy the majority of consumer goods. Until we change the foundation of the economy, we cannot bar women from the workforce.
That’s a “too big to fail” argument. I get it, but it’s still shit, akin to feeding a heroin addict more heroin because you’re afraid the withdrawal symptoms would cause the addict to shit himself.
Interesting you mention heroin… Give the addict naloxone or, in this case, a gradual withdrawal from consumerism. Ease them off of it, as naloxone allows the heroin addict. You prefer tearing off the bandaid, which is the polar opposite approach. Either would work.
Sadly you are right. Chanel’s stock price would go to zero overnight lol
Heh. Though, that would open new niches for reality TV: “Homely Housewives”, “Hard-Up Hubbies”, you get the picture.
Women who tend to work at corporate jobs have high amount of stress (they can’t handle) even if it’s minimal paper filling job. Women are not meant to do these kind of jobs; it’s not natural. Liberals and people who are politically correct will say that I’m misogynist for saying this but it’s true. When you look at a woman who is in the home kitchen, baking cookies for her children and being submissive to a man, she is much happier.
Women’s best place is at her home at the guidance of her strong masculine husband.
Women reveal their worse attitude when they are put in a leadership position or a workplace (which is not natural for women).
I seen this all around. If a man gets a daughter, the best thing he should do is try to raise her to be a good woman and make sure she stays out of any worldly influence. A woman don’t even need a PH.D. or college education. Shit she don’t even need high school diploma. If a man expects a woman to lead and have some education then that man is probably a faggot. If you are a strong capable man with leadership skills and entrepreneur spirit who can bring money to home and have strong mind and body, a woman who cooks, cleans, and fuck you is the best woman to have.
You don’t need a split income with your wife. Let her stay home and do homely things which will make her happy. Just be able to have her submit to you and you make A LOT of money (in case you want kids), to build a strong stable family and raise healthy and sane children.
You don’t need your wives to hold second job. Just make a lot of money and keep tight supervision on her to make sure she stays away from any men.
Middle Eastern Islamic culture has the right idea although they can be too extreme…. just make when you invite a male guest to your home, your women stays in her room and away. … Be traditional. If you want to look at strong white culture. Take a look at RUSSIA. No need to look at America or Western Europe.
spot on and thanks for saying:
“A woman don’t even need a PH.D. or college education. Shit she don’t even need high school diploma.”
its true….though elementary schools start the brainwashing so that might even be too much.
that said….this does create a terrible problem. the red pill is about that plate spinning dont settle down crap….so raising these kinds of girls = suicidal because there are no men to take care of them. its a serious problem.
I would only add when it comes to making money….yes a lot of money is good, but money management is better. I know we like to rag on girls for their 600 dollar shoes in the closet….but lets be honest, we men buy useless crap too.
“we men buy useless crap too”
Yes definitely especially when men buy things to impress other men/women and to show off. Like someone buys expensive sports car with loan (he can’t afford) just to show off to girls and other men and buying things for status purpose to show off and impress others.
not just cars but yeah. men and our mancaves….you know video games surround sound TVs and so on. or even our thousand dollar guitars. though I would argue we do get more use out of useless crap than women who will buy a 3000 dollar wedding dress and wear it once.
$1,000 guitar? That’s piker… I bought a $4,000 guitar. 😛
http://warrguitars.com/phalanxseries/
Amen my good brother as you nailed this one. Russia is very traditional and I lived next door in Ukraine for a time. Ukraine is very much like Russian (especially Eastern Ukraine) and speak Russian.
Coming back to America was very hard on me as I felt like a true man in RU and UA and liberated from all of the non-sense.
I want to go back soon. Put my Russian gal and two boys on a 777 and my Benz in a cargo crate and never look back at this.
Also, having visited Western Europe, their civilization is the equivalent of a patient being in a hospice and only days to live. They are in serious trouble but queers, lesbos, trannies all run a muck there.
Society wastes so much in scarce resources when it comes to educating and overeducating women. Many of my friends wives have advanced degree like areas such as law and medicine and they might only work part time if at all. The total number of years they put into working in the profession is usually less then five and they almost always get out after baby 1 is on the way. A man would probably have put in 25-30 years before retiring.
This may not be the appropriate place to ask, please forgive me. I am new to this site and in need of advice on this issue. I am a black girl, young (19 years old) and married to white man. We have a 2 year old daughter and I feel very much fulfilled being a mother and wife and taking care of the home. However, my parents along with my husband, will not allow me to focus on being a homemaker and taking a break from college for a while.
I feel sick when i think about how often my daughter has to be taken care of by strangers at daycare, and how much time and energy I am sacrificing by making my home and family come last after school. I am on the honors list for now, but it doesn’t help me receive any satisfaction compared to how i feel after a day of making sure our home is clean, everyone’s fed, and spending quality time with my family.
My parents, who were raised in poverty, believes that if our combined incomes are less than $100,000 a year, then we are failing as adults and parents. My father has even gone so far as threatening to take my car he bought for me at 16 if I don’t leave my husband to focus more on school. (My husband has a truck, but we use my car more often.)
I am expected to be 100% in both roles, but it is too emotionally draining. I feel i’m going to start failing in both areas unless i make a choice. My husband believes that being a homemaker is a good idea for a few months, but that we wont be able to financially support ourselves in the long run if i don’t finish school and start a career. ( He makes around $40,000 a year) On top of everything else, he wants to add another baby to the mix. I would love to have another baby as well as catering to my child and husband more than i do now.
I live in america, in a region where a stay at home mother is highly frowned upon and looked at as lazy, stupid, worthless. But i view it as a way to make sure my children are cared for and raised with my beliefs, not someone elses, also as a way to please my husband in every way that a wife should without the added stress or possibility of failure in an area where women naturally shouldnt have to worry about.
I don’t know where else to turn for advice, but i see most men and women on this site are more family oriented so I am hoping to receive good feedback or at least be directed to a post that can help me. Thank you so much.
Women should not be working in webcam porn advertisements, either. Fuck off spammer.
In agreement with the overall point. However having an actual law to ban one gender or another is quite authoritarian. Id rather it just be culturally imposed. As you mention there are women who are outliers who do have ability above nurture and should contribute to important discoveries or labor markets. They are few and far between, but knowing at least one female scientist whose iq is above 130 and makes huge contribution to a very specialist field i can see that her talent would be wasted as just a mum. Shes the acception and if this idea was ever taken seriously how would it incorporate these?
Only thing women should work in is being a SEX SLAVE.
I don’t agree with your basic premise that anyone should be prevented from working. It’s the basis of a free society that we all pursue our own happiness. In addition, I’m at work today in a hospital and if there were no women working today, a holiday, well the patients would get no care at all from meals to nursing to X-ray to the physicians.
“The Three Reasons Women Shouldn’t Vote” (by TFM on YouTube) &/+ “Regarding Equality” (by TFM on YouTube) …..these videos aught to sum it up. Women aren’t worth the money and effort. P.S. say no to cougars,they’ve coasted long enough!
“Stride mother…”?
The less women working, the more jobs for men, the more stable families can be created and the healthier a society becomes. It is basic logic that i talk about on my site often. History shows us that patriarchies are the most lasting social setup around.
I live in China and have a Chinese girlfriend so everything that follows must be taken in context. .
.
I out-earn her by 2:1. Next year I think I can land a job that pays 3 times as much while she has no such prospects. That will make my earning potential 6:1 over hers. We want to get married and make babies at that point.
.
At that point it makes no sense for her to take a job: her “job” is to care for the kids and keep house.
And once she has babies you will outearn her infinitely.
CALLING ALL FEMINSTS, lol
But the VALUE of her labour in raising our kids properly will be invaluable.
.
There is a certain wisdom to “bare foot pregnant and in the kitchen”.
.
Objectively, I am a better cook then her but she can get by.
.
I have not really investigated the divorce laws of China, but it is generally a rare happening.
Indeed. She can produce multiple money earning organisms…
Well, she can produce multiple orgasms. . .but really I don’t expect to personally benefit from the earning capacity of my progeny. Knowing them and loving them is payment enough, eh? And maybe, just maybe if I raise them properly, society will take a turn for the better.
If you want an example of women and progressive liberalism bringing society crashing down take a look at Argentina. Former president Christina Kirchner and her husband claimed to have cut poverty to 5% of the population among other things. It turns out they have been lying. Since Mauricio Macri (a former civil engineer) became president, he has uncovered a huge mess including the national statistics and census institute been lying about ohh little things like claiming inflation is 14% when its actually it turns out about 30%. It turns out a majority of the 100 billion bonds that the previous administration issued are inflation indexed. These people can’t be allowed to run things.
Men should provide and protect. Girls should produce and raise offspring. And, successful men should have multiple girls. Game in a nutshell. Interestingly it seems a lot like Islam.
Absolutely wonderful article Roosh! Wow, this one absolutely hit the bulls eye from a 1000 meters away.
I’m 49 years old and spend most of my working career in IT. I started when I was 24 and since that time, I’ve the workplace turn this horrible state you’ve just explained.
Now, adding fuel to the fire, you mix in Affirmative action that is not only mandating how blacks and other minorities are put in positions that otherwise would go to much more talented and hard-working people, plus on top of the number of men who are coming out of the closet (seems to be more and more each day), lesbians, hardcore SJWs and work is now one big hellhole (no matter where you go. You name it sucks – GE, HP, IBM, Chase Bank, etc.). All are jumping on this “new work force” mantra and it is absolutely screwing everything up.
If I could retire I would do it right now. Turn in my badge, computer, etc. and never look back. I was on that course back in the early 2000’s but the economic downfall plus losing money on my various property due to the 2007 debacle put that on hold.
There are many very talented men who are getting replaced by Indians, Chinese (yes right directly from the mainland lacking proper background checks) literally getting all of the details of how everything works because of cheap labor.
There are no leaders in American management anymore except for maybe Allen Mullaly who just retired from Ford.
This situation is even worse in a good number of European countries, so men like us are truly screwed over. Most good men in the workforce have lost their ability to care and this is allowing other countries to run right past us in technology. The Chinese are almost caught up with us and that will mean that American and Western Europe will take a deep plunge economically very soon (it something doesn’t change very fast).
Example, China was pissed that IBM maybe have been hacked their systems through US-sponsored snooping code. To “calm the harmless Chinese” IBM simply sat down with them and showed them the code line-by-line to not lose a business deal. With business leaders like IBM has, America is truly screwed.
Also, IBM refused to learn from HP and the monstrous mess that Carly Fiorina made at HP. I worked at IBM for a short time as a contractor and they were continually orgasmic over a vagina running the show now. Never seen so much vaginal worship in my life. Really sickening and yet IBM is performing very badly of late. Glad to have jumped ship out of there a couple of months ago.
You add in massive immigration problems, a useless leader like Obama and most of Congress and the picture painted looks horrifying.
God help us.
Again, thanks for article, I wish it could make the lame-stream news.
I’ve learned a lot from you and the real men on this website. I wish we could form a new country and start over.
Women who failed to score in the land a man plan have always been in the paid workforce since there’s been one, except for the posh set which could afford to support sisters, aunts, and cousins who’d failed to get a ring on it or who married scoundrels or wasters. What changed beginning in the 60’s was that married women were expected to pull their own economic weight save for when their children were of tender years. These dual-income families had such an economic advantage by the late 70’s that PATCO (Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization) walked out partly because even their relatively posh salaries could no longer afford a Long Island lifestyle on a single income. They were demonized by the then Ronald Reagan administration as jeopardizing lives and the economy for petty and selfish reasons. Nor did they get a lot of sympathy from the vox populi who’d embraced, or sucked it up, that dual-income was the ticket to a middle-class lifestyle.
Of course this article is correct; women, outside of nurturing professions like teacher and nurse have no business being in the workplace. However I think most of us reading already knew this. The elites want more labor and the feminists want women to be men. But again we all know this. What we don’t know is how we will organize and if not take society back, at least find ways to harm our enemies. And until we do, it’s just depressing reading this stuff over and over.
Oh, for pity’s sake. False dichotomy, much? Here’s a better way to put it: assume average intelligence is distributed normally (i.e. a bell curve) in both men and women, but the male curve is shifted slightly to the right (i.e. on average, men are smarter than women). There is still a huge overlap between the curves, and that means there are many women who are much smarter than many men. Which society do you think would prosper more: one that devotes that considerable chunk of female brain power to changing diapers, or one that uses it in any number of fields? My ex-wife is CFO for a group of auto dealers with sales over $1 billion/year. My two daughters are in university – one is studying math/physics/chem with an eye to being an actuary, while the other is studying media engineering. They are both extremely intelligent (top 2%). I can’t foresee a world where I’d want them to NEVER work. Of course I hope they decide to marry and have kids, and that they’ll take some time off to be with their children, as my ex did. So what if women aren’t creating the next iPhone? It’s just as important to have your books balanced, or your pension fund properly invested, or your TV ad properly produced.
This, BTW, is the problem with “one pulse, one vote”. The muzzies treat their women like breeding cattle (which is one reason their societies without oil are fairly poor – they don’t use 40% of the brainpower available), and so will eventually triumph at the ballot box (see Steyn “America Alone”). If votes were somehow tied to contributions (i.e. tax paid, military service, etc.), our educated women would outvote the brainwashed burqa wearing non-persons.
“Of course I hope they decide to marry and have kids, and that they’ll
take some time off to be with their children, as my ex did.”
Real talk then, sport: it’s probably time to let go any dreams of you ever being a grandfather. It’s not going to happen.
You and your ex-wife guaranteed that two ways: first, you put them through higher education. Second, you didn’t hold your own marriage together, I’d guess because she left you to “pursue her dreamz”.
By putting them through university, you’ve enabled them jumping on the female hamster wheel of consumerism, and your (tellingly, ex-)wife has given them all the example they need to put off kids until it’s almost or completely too late, and given them a deep suspicion of marriage and strong statistical odds of broken marriages themselves if they choose to take the plunge. Shall we review the rates at which the children of divorces become divorced themselves? Shall we review the rates at which the children of working mothers go on to have dysfunctional relationships or (let’s hope not) abuse their own kids by neglect?
Neither of them are in courses or professions where they’re going to add materially to human development in physics, medicine, etc, etc (“actuary” = risk management, “media engineering” = camera operating), so their “top 2%” intelligence is going to waste anyway. They’d have been better off preserving some of their genes for more ambitious male kids, but as said, the odds are on those genes are now not going to be passed on at all.
Oh, and a protip: about the worst thing Western civilisation could do for itself right now is invent the next iPhone.
That’s a good hit ,Marcus! I was thinking the same thing,with one aside:
“….Why 43% of Women With Children Leave Their Jobs” … – (The Atlantic)
Completely agree with the leading premise Roosh but the difficulty is that our high tax, debt laden, largesse ridden culture makes it damn near impossible for a man to provide 100% of the take home income, unless he is in the professional services, silicon Valley or North dakota when the oil prices were good.
There’s ofcourse ways around this, live somewhere cheaper, make a homestead and farm, go off and work for a few months and then come back. But as shown by the proliferation of real oilfield housewives of x, type docs, most of the time women end up spending the money their husbands risked life and limb to earn, and live a life akin to a day royal pig
I love how you choose computer programming as one of the two field examples when it was founded by a woman, good job hahahahaha
I know right?! He didn’t mention her or her male math teacher or the man she trained under,while creating the very first computer program!
“Before every accomplished woman,is a more accomplished man.”
-Unknown
That’s actually debatable, as some historians disagree.
I’m a nurse. Our workforce is predominately female. I administer pain relief, wipe your ass when you’re bed ridden or in an induced coma and perform CPR among other things. I don’t do these things sometimes, I do them daily. On Monday I administered a clot busting drug to a guy who was having a stroke and reversed his stroke immediately. He would have either died or at the very least, been a vegetable. That’s a normal day at work for me. (I’d like to stress I gave it. Not a man. Not even a doctor. Me). So, what is it you do for a living again? Sit on your ass at a computer all day blogging?? Please explain how you’re so much more “productive” than me and my colleagues. How you contribute more to society and the economy.
Seriously, sit the fuck down you comically shit individual.
He mentioned nursing as one of the fields that was an exception in that it would suffer harm if females were entirely replaced by males in it. So you’re actually agreeing with him ironically.
This is the best humor blog I’ve read in my entire life! Wow, thanks!
wait but that mean i gotta fkn work my ass off jus so she can buy her jet sized tampons and midol
This is all well and good in theory, but in reality there will always be women who must work. My ex husband didn’t work, so I had to. Now I’m a single mother so I must work for my family. Admittedly, I made a bad choice in a husband, but what’s done is done. There will always be widows and single women, too. (Side note – my father didn’t want me to marry my ex but chose not to say anything. Don’t do that to your daughters.)
A social experiment? That’s odd; cause women have always worked. In times past nurses were always female, teachers often female and nannies and governesses were definitely female. Secretaries also used to be female. Women have had to work; it is not a new invention.
That’s odd, it seems that you have either not read the article, or have some reading comprehension challenges. The author addresses the roles that women used to work in. In fact, the whole article is about how the social justice movement to put more women in what were organically men’s roles have made the general productivity palpably worse.
Your attempt at ridicule wouldn’t look so stupid if you actually understood that. SJWs like you “shoot from the hip” and prove how bigoted you are.
IBS is only slightly more prevalent among women than men, and the symptoms for men tend to actually be more disruptive than they are for women. You should get your assertions correct, otherwise you come across as biased and without any real evidence.
This article is a load of crap. Half of you Men wouldn’t do what I do and sure as hell couldn’t do it better. I am a nurse. And also if any of you men feel the need to exert your power over me, you will be pepper sprayed and or shot. Fare warning. This site is a load of shit. I am all for feminine girls and masculine men but isn’t this taking it to the extreme??
I have a third option. After one year a women finishes college she must choose: career or family. If she chooses career she is sterilized. If she chooses family then she is forbidden by law to hold a full time job. I think most of the problem comes from women being unable to understand they cannot have both.