I recently walked into Whole Foods during my lunch hour. In between checking out the babes in sheer yoga pants, and trying to steal kimchi from the salad bar, I started to notice that the women, notably the white women in their late 20’s or 30’s, came in two types. Some were pleasant, vaguely feminine, and even vibrant with joy. They were strolling about the store with a pleasing energy, content to sample Gruyeres and Malbecs as they walked about.
Others were rushed, tense, even haggard. These women walked around as if they had the weight of the world on their shoulders; they held everyone in slight contempt, as if for not doing their part to keep civilization running. Why the difference?
That first, comely group were all mothers. Mothers of young children. It’s hard to miss the sheer joy these women experience, as mothers who spend their days pushing a stroller around farmers’ markets, driving a Range Rover to the yoga studio. All the while, their childless peers in middle management look on in disgust, as cowards and traitors to the cause.
The world of progressive upper class yuppies is cleaving into two. New York magazine has published a long article, describing how young women are starting to embrace motherhood as surely as their grandmothers did in the fifties. A young mother on a internet message board, as quoted by the article’s author, says it best:
“I was … blessed,” wrote one woman on the UrbanBaby message boards recently, “with the patience to truly enjoy being home with my kids and know that in the end family is what is important in life—not pushing papers at some crap job.”
After several decades, these women are starting to realize en masse what men have always known: work isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. For all but a lucky few, work is a way to make money, not a way to realize one’s self. As these women give birth, they feel the pangs of motherhood and the pull of domestic life. Meanwhile, work is as dreary as ever. These women are taking the work ethic they forged as a diligent student and employee, and applying it to the home. They are going about their domestic duties with an alacrity Martha Stewart couldn’t match.
Feminism owes much of its support to the pariahs and outcasts of society, to women who would shudder at taking on feminine roles. Little surprise then, that feminism is most advanced in America, the society of pariahs. The historical record suggests many feminists were lesbians, like Mary Wollstonecraft, Susan B. Anthony, or the literary character Olive Chancellor. These women have probably always existed, but they traditionally lived on the fringes of society. Like your gay uncle at family reunions, they were met with a mix of tepid acceptance and distance, if not outright ostracism. In the past century or so, they’ve become dominant, and accepted by society, at least in name if not in practice.
While more women than ever espouse feminism, it’s not clear that it’s something that women are actually satisfied with. After all, if women can’t be trusted to tell you what arouses them, why assume they know what they’re talking about when they say a career will make them happy? Absent propaganda and welfare to prop up feminism, women would drift back to a more traditional, feminine role.
Maternal Careerism Is Past Its Peak
Participation of married mothers peaked in 1997, and has since declined, and then plateaued. Admittedly, the statistics are not that strong. But I sense things are slowly shifting, especially among upper class married women. Things like how 28% of female Harvard College graduates with MBAs are housewives. Witness a recent headline from the Daily Beast: “They raise chickens. They grow vegetables. They knit. Now a new generation of parents is even teaching their own kids.” Are they referring to Little House on the Prairie? Actually, it says “urban parents” in the original headline, making it clear this is a yuppie phenomenon. And to make clear, they’re talking about white hipsters, not poor inner city minorities, as the word ‘urban’ is usually meant.
Parenthetically, I love how the author can’t bring herself to call these women ‘housewives,’ and instead uses the abomination ‘SAHM,’ for ‘stay-at-home-mom.’ She only calls the women before the 1960’s housewives. It’s as if she must christen these new ‘SAHMs’ as good, while the housewives of the 1950’s and before were bad. The women of prior generations didn’t get to experience being a worker bee, while today’s women do. So yesterday’s women were ignorant and sheltered, while today’s housewives are valiant and honorable for… making the same exact decision. Except she is less fertile and less beautiful than her grandmother would have been, at the time of marriage and childbirth. I suppose an ex-crackhead is superior to someone who has never touched drugs, because the ex-crackhead broadened her horizons and eventually walked away, while the abstainer avoided drugs entirely… or something. Never mind that the crackhead’s life has come under irreparable damage during that stint of ‘finding herself,’ or that many crackheads never actually quit the drug.
The real implication is that as a woman, you deserve applause for everything you do. You had a long career in middle management, and successfully retired to an empty home? You go girl! You got married at 30 and had several kids? Girl Power! There is no positive, coherent idea as to how people should behave; one can’t even note what makes women happy, and recommend they do that. But, as a woman, the one thing that you definitely shouldn’t do is limit your options. Don’t you dare get married at 23 and throw away that promising career in public relations. You must preserve your choice.
On occasion, I’ve made the mistake of disclosing some of my traditional views at work when asked. My confreres were offended and disturbed when they heard what I said. They said, “It’s okay if you just want this traditional life for yourself, as this private thing for yourself. But you can’t just go around saying your way is better! You’re not allowed to say that!” “But it is better; it would give people more meaningful, satisfying lives.” To the progressive, you can’t recognize that one way of life is generally superior to another, because that would be… imposing. Especially if you’re right, and your observations aren’t progressive.
Homeschooling On The Rise
In the 60’s and 70’s, homeschooling was the province of a few hippies and Christians. Since then, it has become a national phenomenon – from 1999 to 2007, homeschooling increased by over 75%, from 850,000 students to 1.5 million. The website Etsy, the eBay for hipsters and artisanal goods, even has a nice essay on one woman’s story as a merchant and homeschooling mother. The practice has broad appeal, with leftist academics and Evangelical Christians partaking. Elite colleges are increasingly receptive to homeschooled students, who do well in classes and are more likely to graduate on time. And contrary to what you might think, homeschooling is most common among middle income households, earning $25-75,000. Homeschooling is relevant, because it’s usually incompatible with a typical ‘career;’ at least one parent must spend lots of time with the child, and usually it is the mother. Homeschooling is especially pronounced where only one of the two parents is in the labor force.
While it’s inherently difficult to figure out what these homeschooling parents are teaching their children, it’s hard to imagine that it’s any worse than what public schools offer. Government schooling is as much about enforcing conformity and accepting ‘conventional’ wisdom, as it is about inculcating knowledge. Presumably, when it comes to homeschooling, there is no requirement to teach your son that homosexuals are saints, to suspend him for playing with his food, or to silence his heterosexuality. It’s hard to imagine that the rise of homeschooling is anything but a positive development.
The Future
Fertility in rich countries has plunged; yet some, citing evolutionary biology, predict fertility is due to rebound. Declines in fertility may owe to radical changes in our environment, like industrialization and the entrance of women to the workforce. But women still vary in how many kids they have, and that while some women have four kids while others have none is probably heritable, then the genes linked with higher fertility will spread, and fertility will rise. In other words, childless careerist women, and their male peers, are getting bred out of the gene pool.
Fundamentally, feminist women are like house cats—they are bred in such an unnatural environment that if released to the wild, to places like Russia or pre-Industrial Europe, they would fail spectacularly. They could hardly contend for a moment with the local talent. Without the constant sustenance and oversight from their guardians, they would starve. Without sexual anti-discrimination laws and confiscatory marriage policies, without the constant diversion of money and power to support them, they would flounder. They are parasites, who cannot subsist without their ignorant hosts.
Read Next: Decreasing Marriage Rate Is Hurting Feminism
Great piece. Echos my recent blog post A Woman’s Place is in the Home: http://alphaphilosopher.com/a-womans-place-is-in-the-home/
So you´re saying it´s desirable for a woman to give up her career to become a housewife, being totally dependent on the man and with no perspectives in life in case they divorce? If I was a woman I would never accept this. Plus, I think if you love your woman you would want her to be independent as well. I don´t want a lazy woman who wants to be dependent on others on my side. Also, the wish of keeping a woman and a marriage because she needs you financially doesn´t sound attractive to me (not saying this is your case, but it´s the case of many). I believe it´s possible to the woman to have a good job and still be feminine. I agree with 90% of what I read here, about feminism, game, woman attitude now a days etc, but for me it´s crap.
And of course, someone misses the point.
To say “someone misses the point” is not a valid argument. Do you really have something to add to the issue? If not, just shut up.
Also, hiting on “like’ or “dislike” buttons doesn´t make any difference. It´s something for those who care about others approval. Nothing “alpha”.
Does not change the fact that you still missed the point of the article entirely. I can go on further to say that the thought processes of men like you that you present to us in you original comment is part of the reason that feminism still persists today. And if a comment is the ramblings of an idiot, I can dislike it. And it’s within my own discretion to do so. IF this is not to your satisfaction, see MY posted comment on the issue, and you will see why I said you missed the point.
If you think that supporting a woman´s financial independency is to support feminism, I´m sorry, but you´re a complete MORON. I would go further and say that men like you have no contribution for the manosphere to be taken seriously by intelligent and smart people. Shame on you. My only hope is that you´re still a very young dude, what seems to be the case considering your avatar picture.
“If you think that supporting a woman´s financial independency is to support feminism, I´m sorry, but you´re a complete MORON.”
Did I say that? No. What I did say is that your thought process is the reason why it persists. We all make money. A woman claiming financial independence is not the problem. Its implying that the opposite MAKES THEM DEPENDENT. Have you seen the laws lately? The fuck? So not having a set work schedule, dress code, or a boss..is BAD?
From your original comment:
” If I was a woman I would never accept this. Plus, I think if you love your woman you would want her to be independent as well.”
The point that YOU STILL MISS is that it’s not about YOU or what YOU think!! It’s about the woman and the life choices she makes that will ensure her happiness! She still ultimately chooses to have your child or not.
So you are telling me that if a woman in your life wants to stay home and raise a family, you will proactively talk against it not for the families sake, but because YOU are THINKING FOR HER!! Which ironically, makes her “dependent” on your input right?
Shame on you for trying to align yourself as one of the smart and intelligent.
What an avalanche of shit, jesus f… christ.
First of all, how can you say anything about my “thought process”, Einstein? You don´t know shit about the tought process of others.
Second: “It’s about the woman and the life choices she makes that will ensure her happiness!” …Yes? And guess what? Vast majority of them now a days choose…to work and be financially independent. Irony, no?
Third, I would never be with a woman that has this mindset of staying at home. It´s not my type of woman. But if it was the case, yes, I would be against it. I don´t want her to be dependent on me for the rest of her life. I want her to be able to leave when she wants.
This I leave to guys like you and this Emmanuel Goldenstein. Guys who apparently need a woman to be dependent on them in order to make her not to leave. Is there any better word for this than “loser”?
Again, guys like you embarrass this manosphere. I´m losing my precious time.
It’s ok buddy/girly. You missed the point. Your “thought process” is typical of many other men and women who miss the point of articles like this. And you continue to miss. Again, it’s not about you. Women change their minds too you know. You may be completely involved with a woman and they will suddenly change their minds about their life direction. People who miss the point in life will never be able to step outside their own narrative to see that. Also, you depend on each other. Being independent is a false statement. We all depend on something/someone. Ask any financially independent women how far do they live from family. Most never leave their home city/state. Dependence is not regulated to just money. But of course, you don’t get that either.
Shame away. Ultimately, it’s your opinion vs. mines. The fact that you have yet to reply with a comment free of personal attacks means your opinion is hardly ever challenged. And based on your responses, it should be challenged regularly. Until you….get the point.
Supporting people’s “independence” from their immediate family, is both theoretically and historically the road to tragedy.
“Financial independence for women”, newspeak notwithstanding, means making women dependent on scumbag men in government, rather than her husband, father, sons and other family. In that context, it is a pure negative.
Of course, if by financial independence you simply mean making women wealthier in a vacuum, you are probably on to something, but something that is purely tautological.
Hey don’t mess with Brobox’s avatar picture. It is fuckin’ cool n we like it.
@Brobox:
Hey man how do I set Wolverine’s pic as my avatar?
My e-mail address is: stricklandisabrillian[email protected]
Thanks
lmao @ this troll
Calling a “troll” who shares a different opinion of yours shows that you need to grow up. Be a man, not a boy.
Oh look. Shaming language. Trollolollol!
Trolloloololololololzzzz
Women should have marketable job skills but the push to embark on a “career” causes a lot of female unhappiness. My prescription for a young woman would be to get a good educational foundation, marry an established man 10 years her senior, pump out several children, then enter the work-force after the kids have matured.
None of the feminists hectoring young women into career drudgery advocate this
simple, common-sense approach. With online education resources these days
there is no reason a young woman cannot continue her skill development while
staying at home.
Online education for years without working on your area of expertise means nothing. You should know that. Experience, when talking about a career, means almost everything. Your statement “the push to embark on a “career” causes a lot of female unhappiness” is very generalistic and actually reflects only your opinion. With all respect to you, but how can you point what brings unhappiness or happiness to millions and billions of people totally different of each other? Do you really think financial independency brings “unhappiness” to most women?
As I said, the woman who gives up her career to be financially dependent on a man and on his hands is shooting her own head.
And a society where men gives up their independence to a thugband called government (or Cosa Nostra or whatever), is definitely shooting itself in the head. Yet, that is the only form of society where women are independent of their husband, father and sons.
As much as well indoctrinated progtards may wish things were different, husbands, fathers and sons care about their wivs, daughters and mothers. While progressive thugs in government care about themselves, their careers and their power exclusively. Why would sane, non indoctrinated, women choose dependence on the latter over the former again?
If you don´t want to involve the government and the state, if you think it will fuck you up, just don´t marry. It´s that simple. You can have many ways to be with a woman without fucking your future up in case you end up breaking. Just search for it…
It’s not my opinion, it’s my experience. So what if you start at the bottom when you are 40? There is plenty of time to move up and do quite well. I am doing excellent in a technical area I started studying when I was in my late 40s. My dad got a phd when he was 50 and worked in that arena for 25 years after that. The opportunities now available to do this are much greater than anytime in the past.
You only seem to perceive one context for a traditional marriage : patriarchal subjucation of the woman, as if the man makes no sacrifices or provides no benefit to the woman.
I stand by what I said : pushing women into obsessing about careers costs many of them long-term happiness. The childless lesbians seem to do ok with it though.
Yes, it´s your opinion. And if you had success in another area after 40 years old, good for you. Not everybody wants to take that high risk. Secondly, it´s much easier to move from one area to another than to stay years and years totally out of the market and then try to get into the market again. And no intelligent person wants to stay all these years, even decades, being financially dependent on another person. Once again: only stupid rednecks, that fear to be dumped (as the author said), and lazy chicks would wish this kind of marriage. I´m sorry for the woman that married or would marry you.
By saying “pushing women into obsessing about careers costs many of them long-term happiness” you´re saying something obvious. Nobody is telling anybody to be “obsessed” with anything. To be obsessed with something doesn´t bring happiness at all, being a man or a woman. Inserting a word (“obsessing”) that nobody mentioned in the middle of the sentence and then taking a conclusion to your side is called, if you don´t know, intellectual dishonesty.
You ought to hook an induction motor up to that hamster wheel and at least power your house and charge your car with it.
As for my wife, you can read about her in “A Man Wants a Wife, Not a Co-Worker” and “ForeignBride Product Review : Finding a Model That’s Right For You”.
By the way, I am a Redneck. Please keep your anti-white male race-baiting confined to Jezebel or XOJane. The proprieters of this blog frown upon that sort of trolling.
“Anti-white male race-baiting”?
LOL
Your intelligence amazes me.
There is no re-entry into the workforce with a job absence of such a long duration. Even with an education, the best she will get is a lowly McDonalds job. Employers do not want to see gaps in employment.
You know not whereof you speak.. If she manages it well it can easily be done. There are many paths to attaining employment.
Divorce for a housewife = house + kids + child support + alimony + attorney’s fees + share of social security + QDRO division of retirement benefits +…..
Wake up. Smell the coffee.
One wrong aspect does not validate another wrong aspect. You should study some logics. I don´t support privileges to women as well as I don´t support the woman to be financially dependent on men. This is the right and mature way of thinking. Wake you up.
OK.
I want your comment to be listed among the best. This is why I reply to it.
I also wanted to say something but I forgot what it was.
Ok, anyway, thank you for your valuable contribution. I sincerely hope my daughter grows up to be independent, feminine and strong like you.
No, the point is, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.
A woman who is not dependent on a man is more likely to leave a man. Her dependence lowers the risk of divorce, and gives the man more leverage, power. As a strategist, you always want more leverage, especially if there were say kids, and you wanted to shield them from divorce.
Also, if she already likes him, her dependence on him will strengthen her affinity for him.
Let her leave! I want a woman who wants to be with me not because she NEEDS it, but because she WANTS it. You guys…
I declare thee troll.
So you want to make sure she has good prospects in the case of divorce? Good thinking, buddy. However, the ONLY reason to marry a woman is to raise kids. She can not raise your kids and have a full-time career simultaneously. It’s that simple. I hope you enjoy folding the laundry while she’s out being “independent”.
“The only reason to marry a woman is to raise kids” is merely your opinion.
Secondly, there are many ways to raise a child decently with both parents working out of home. To say some, they can pay a person they trust to take care of the child during the day. They can leave the child at a school where they stay the whole day and pick him up later. She or he can run a business from home. Grandparents. Etc etc etc. I know examples and more examples of that and no child ended up problematic. Just be a little smart and see what suits better for your case. Just a little smart.
No problem in raising the child plus the woman does not be dependent on you and broke in case you end the relationship.
If you are so afraid of divorces, simple, just don´t marry.
“They can leave the child at a school where they stay the whole day…”
Yeah, kids just love that. Stop telling people to be a little smart when spout stupid assumptions.
“She or he…”
Barf.
Go back to XOJane.
Kids don´t have to love or hate anything. They will do what their parents think it´s better for them.
Then stick your kids in day care with a bunch of other little nose-pickers for 12 hours a day. At least it will prepare them for a job at Encorpera.
Emmanuel is not saying women should give up making money. It is saying women should give up careers. If you notice, the example Emmanuel uses is a woman who runs a business from her house. She makes her family plenty of money and fulfills her duties as a wife.
Basically, Emmanuel is saying women should put family first, money second… as opposed to what most women do today of money first, family second.
The problem is those who can run a business from their houses are the vast minority. It could be one way, but one way between many others without the need of the woman to give up her career. I know plenty ways. I know even single mothers and fathers that raise their child in a very good way, even being single AND working at the office. And guess what, very well educated kids, good attitude and polite. You just don´t have to be narrow minded. Saying “money first, family second” sounds politically incorrect. But this “money” will also go to the family. Will also give the child an opportunity to go to a higher level school. Will allow better health care, courses (foreign languages, music etc) for the child, better food, better neighbourhood to live, chance of an experience abroad when a teenager and, finally, a better university. And then the “money first” becomes, voila, better conditions to the child. PLUS the fact that the woman, as any human being, shall be capable of taking care of herself in case the couple ends up breaking the relationship. Again, a thousand solutions that work are there, just don´t be narrow minded and choose what better suits you.
Americans have been putting money first for the last 50-60 years… results: divorce rates 50%+, marriage rate plummiting, birth rate plummiting, abortion rate skyrocketing
I wonder if women careers are good for society
Single parents are a bane on society as all evidence dictates. A large portion of mate selection in females is determined by financial success of the male. There is a direct correlation between a depression and a decrease in marriage and an increase in divorce. The basis of mate selection is hypergamy. To reject hypergamy is a total rejection of the red pill.
To assume that a woman becomes dependent on a man because she doesn’t have a career is to denigrate the role of mother and elevate the role of provider. Instead it’s best to view traditional family roles as interdependent where each provides to the best of their ability for the other. The wife rears and fosters children and the husband provides and protects those children.
There is no need for forced gender roles. They occur naturally. Propaganda is used only to enforce the unnatural. There is no need to try and convince teenagers to have sex, for example. They do it naturally. Feminism is the propaganda which has elevated the role of provider to the stratosphere and relegated the role of nurturer to a derogatory term.
“So you’re saying…” is almost inevitably the lead-in to a strawman or outright misrepresentation.
Let me tell you something, only a small amount of women find complete satisfaction in a “career,” which is simply a surrogate activity. If you ask the majority of women, most want to get married and have children at some point in their lives, the problem is that feminism makes them feel guilty of this and tells them that they are “betraying themselves and the sisterhood” for feeling this way. So they get a career and delay marriage so that they don’t betray the sisterhood. The problem is that, by the age they finally decide to get married, it’s too late; men don’t want to marry her because she is either too old, not very feminine (because of the feminism), or had quite a few partners in the past.
Don’t you think you have some of what used to be a “Mccarthyism”, but instead of seeing communism everywhere, you’re seeing feminism everywhere? Most people are just worried about their own issues instead of caring about a sisterhood (that, in fact, exists, as many other types of groups). This is becoming a paranoia.
The majority of women want to get married and have children, but without losing their career. The question is not to have or have not, but It’s how you raise them. And I know many that want both, children and a career. And they have it, and they’re right.
yes, Strickland it is possible but the population of women who are able to be independent, are career girls and willing to be submissive to their man are very few and far between. Remember: much of what you read in the manosphere is a generalization meant to apply to the majority. there are always outliers. the problem is finding them.
“Like your gay uncle at family reunions, they were met with a mix of tepid acceptance and distance, if not outright ostracism.”
Actually, not quite true. People found the gay uncle and his crazy stories amusing. No one finds anything a strident feminist has to say amusing. Plus, the gay uncles were better dressers. Nice piece, though.
haha, point taken, nice rejoinder.
My wife and I agreed that if we can do it, she should stay home with the girls and I work full time. It’s better that way, every gets appreciated for their respective jobs, and our girls don’t spend their childhood in fricken daycare. So far, it’s worked out great. I do support my wife and girls though if they do want jobs. Maybe when you have daughters is when you think, “Oh hey, it would be nice for them to have options.” I’m not saying that they HAVE to have a career or that it would be bad for them to grow up and be housewives (heck my mom stayed home with my sister and me, and it was great!), but if they don’t have that mommy knack or whatever, then they should have the opportunity to get a job if they want. But I really do like when there’s a split in a family’s labor (house stuff and job stuff) and everyone respects each others roles.
No matter how you slice it, feminists are obsessed with “The 50s”.
And of course that fascination has nothing to do with people being better dressed, behaved, or just generally more ‘sophisticated’….nope. The fashions? Not a draw. It’s all a horrid Don Draper sexual fantasy…yup, can’t be any of that other stuff, since it’s so not-progressive…
I remember when I saw a photo of the pioneers of feminism in the UK, the first thing that came to mind was..
“Misery loves company”
And those women were indeed on the fringe of society. And to justify a previous comment, it’s not about women being dependent. As a mother, she is existing in a role that is not only natural to her, but it makes her happy! There are so many “independent” women who NATURALLY gravitate to jobs that substitute their desire to be a mom and have a family. Nannies. 1/4 of the women without kids that I know are nannies for someones kids. My closest female friend is a nanny. Lo and behold her goal after she marries here in July is to be a SAHM if possible. Teachers, Nurses (pediatric), social workers, all subconscious signs that they would throw that shit away if they could be a mom. Even dated a lawyer chick who didn’t want kids, and had her thinking about kids. Why? Possibility of love and the fact that she is close to hitting the wall.
Women simply want “applause for everything they do”. I don’t think as men that we marginalized the role of housewife in the past. But I believe it was never praised universally by men either. And it still gets no praise from men as a group. So it was easy for women who never knew the early industrial/corporate mans struggle, to step in and say they are getting the crap end of the deal. Female imperative takes over, men give in because naturally, we were not oppressing them then or now.
It’s nice to see things start to return to as they should. But we are too far gone at this point. I can open almost any college textbook and find some sort of propaganda that hints at oppressed women. It’s pouring into our curriculum. But it’s nice to see some hope arise on it’s own from women out there.
It’s natural for women to be caregivers, have children and support a man they look up to and respect. Sure, they can ignore natural law and go for their career. It might give them more stability and safety by having their own income. But what is the point if it makes them miserable? You can’t think in terms of fairness here. Your genes don’t care about that.
PS: Women sleeping around so much these days does not defy that. Ask anyone who picks up a lot of women how hard it is to get a girl who really loves and respects her partner to cheat.
ROK has been on fire lately with insightful social commentary.
Really, no shit. The articles here are 10 times more accurate and more honest than anything in the New Yorker, Atlantic, yada yada.
Every other part of the modern press has been completely locked down by the Feminist lie propaganda machine.
No surprise at all that only here, in this hotbed of revolutionary, take-no-prisoners masculinity, are we getting honest reporting.
Bravo to all of the authors here.
The consistency of the cliches leads one to suspect that all of the gender essays coming from the outlets you mention are in fact, computer-generated solely to produce click-traffic.
I also thing the mains stream media is borrowing and stealing from this blog, Heartise, Roissy and others manosphere website. And quite a few GIRLS episodes this season had dialogue lifted directly out of this blog.
Let them steal. Spreading our message is more important than having individual egos stroked.
Careful Roosh, you’re starting to sound like an activist…
Got some youtube clips to share?
I concur! This site is like a breath of fresh air.
Álso the jobs are becoming fewer and time to find new ones are increasing.
Like a blacksmith making a sword and a shield, keep hammering the point that having children first and career a decade or two later is what is really preserving options and that a full-time career at 23 and children a decade or two is later is what is really limiting options.
Interesting article and it is always nice to read about peak feminism. I would like to add however that womens attitudes may still remain the same. The fat tattooed loudmouth pigs one sees at protests may become extinct, but there are still the misandric laws and social behaviors could still remain gor some time.
My brothers wife left him when she turned 40. After being the dutiful stay at home wife. She said she had wasted her youth and got tired of the being the stay at home mother. I work at business with lots of clients and patrons. This happens all the time. Women leaving husbands after they have had 5 or even 8 kids. Just because they commit to the lifestyle doesn’t mean they will stick with it.
“Housewife” does have a slightly dismissive tone. “Homemaker” is a much better term.
An under-emphasized point about full time homemaker women is they rapidly network and form the backbone of a strong and safe neighborhood in a way that men simply do not. They know who everybody is and what they’re up to. They know the problem kids in the neighborhood and keep an eye on them. They know about a job opening at so-and-so’s firm that your son might be a fit for.
Absolutely wrong. Housewife is much better. “Homemaker” dismisses the man, which is a fatal mistake. “Housewife” makes it clear that she is a WIFE which means she is acknowledging that she needs, wants, and respects her husband, i.e., the guy who works his butt off every day to build a bubble of protection for her and the kids.
When my wife introduces me at a party, she says “This is my HUSBAND”. She says with a take-no-prisoners tone. The other women in the audience instantly respect her more. The ugly feminists scowl and skulk away.
lol what? Everyone wife, feminist or not, introduces their husband as their husband. Why would that make anyone scowl and walk away?
“full time homemaker women is they rapidly network and form the backbone of a strong and safe neighborhood in a way that men simply do not.”
Absolute bullshit. Christ, where are you getting this? Men in my neighborhood fight like hell to serve and protect. It’s usually the women who fuck things up by going crazy and divorcing their families, leaving the kids these hollow-eyed little wraiths. It’s heartbreaking. Has happened several times to my neighbors. Always, always the woman’s doing.
As a side note, I’ve noticed a MASSIVE spike in 20-something girls who declare their desire to live a 50s lifestyle. It starts as a sexual submission thing, with the whole “I want a master to serve” BDSM slant. Women’s core emotions always manifest as sexuality first.
But eventually these girls realize that what they really want is a hubby, kids and a cute little house in the country. Sure, they are still American female idiots with no clue how to maintain a stable family…BUT they can be taught at this point.
This is how I found my wife, who is a great old fashioned non feminist.
For you guys who decide eventually that you want to take on the challenge of building a family in this very family-hostile world, and you don’t want to marry foreign (which as many have pointed out, has it’s own hazards) then I highly recommend you start your wife search with submissive gals. Give them a spanking then treat like like a traditional wife, encourage them to drop feminism like a stinking pile of crap it is, and you might end up with a decent partner. Still very difficult but doable.
Like “Flo”, the Progressive Car Insurance girl. Definitely a 1950s, BDSM submissive subtext to her character.
All I can do is laugh and say, “I told you so! Haha, you thought working was fun?”
“It’s hard to imagine that the rise of homeschooling is anything but a positive development.”
What about bigots raising bigots? But I guess with government education, it’s one bigot vs the other. Woohoo!
Government education is far more massive. Divvying up bigots into a thousand different types is a lot safer than a huge monolithic group of bigots.
And that’s a worst case scenario. I’ve yet to see that this ‘bigotry’ is an issue in homeschooling on any mass scale.
Bigots are good, as long as they don’t teach government sanctioned bigotry. Which they are less likely to do if they homeschool. Rule number one in progressive dystopias, is that all those things that government values, are bad. All those things that cause government problems or hissyfits, are good. There are no good or evil other than resistance to, and submission to, government. All else is simply pointless little details.
Hmm, good points, both of you.
what is a bigot? oh that’s right, someone who doesn’t agree with you
I don’t see how what you said adds to the conversation..
Most people don’t release they are bigots. when you actually look at the deffenition of a bigot, you find everyone is a bigot of something. at lest I hope you don’t tolerate child abuse?
big·ot·ry
/ˈbɪgətri/ Show Spelled [big-uh-tree] Show IPA
noun, plural big·ot·ries.
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.
Modern women think that getting a job is the only way of making her “independent” while most men are trying to exit the rat race. I think we know who’s getting left behind here.
That gals will catch up eventually. They’re always the pioneers.
Excellent piece, and I’ll drink to this cultural trend growing in leaps & bounds.
One note, I think you may have missed a key piece of context which was stated in the first paragraph: This was at Whole Foods. I’ve seen what I consider to be a shocking reversal in the yoga & health foods community. They seem to be ditching the feminist line of claptrap faster than any other demographic group. It kind of makes sense, this group of people are the early adopters in many cultural trends.
Two other pieces of anecdotal evidence: I was also blown away by the fact that one of the most prominent young male yoga teachers in my area is very, very Red Pill in his views on marriage, family, and intersexual relations. Dude is a classic alpha.
Secondly, I follow a yoga journal online, and without fail, every single article on sex & gender garners a ton of red-pill comments, despite the site moderator’s best efforts to screen them out. The blue pill articles get shouted down in with red pill comments, and the growing number of red pill articles get lots of positive comments, with a few shrill feminist arguments in between.
Bottom line, the movement is growing.
Yoga rocks. Article!
ha I was recently experimenting with yoga. The valuable thing about yoga is that for these girls doing it, it’s probably their first encounter with an authentically non-liberal, non-feminist philosophy and way of life. Yoga also receives social approval from the hip and trendy set, when Western traditionalism never would. In a society trained to see its own heritage as evil, but those of others, namely non-Whites as good, traditionalism in the form of yoga profits.
I may look into yoga and its effectiveness as a gateway drug to eroding feminism in individual women.
You should see how they act in Ballroom Dance 101, where men are called “leaders” and women are called “followers”.
I’m all for traditional roles, home schooling, etc. But in the current misandrist legal environment, if your traditional housewife exercises her feminine imperative and changes her mind about being married to you, your goose is cooked. Cooked even worse than if you had married a career broad.
Since a traditional housewife does not earn an income, if she detonates the marriage, the anti-family courts will see her as a helpless Joan of Arc who must be doused with cash and prizes (your income, and retirement assets, and house, and kids) to maintain her in the lifestyle that she has grown accustomed to. You (the misogynistic breadwinner) will lose the lifestyle you have grown accustomed to.
After the cash and prizes transference has begun, your former “housewife” will become a “stay at home mom” who heroically engages in homeschooling, cookie baking, drugging your son, slutting up your daughter, 50 shades of gray parties, and sundry you-go-girlisms; in your house, on your dime; while you exist in galley slave obscurity. It’s for the children(TM).
Don’t get married in the West until the legal minefields have been removed, feminism crushed, and the chicks have been cleansed of their cock-hopping.
May the force be with you.
Everything you said is legit. But there are 2-3 steps that men can take to defuse the divorce theft landmine and have a sexy stay-at-home mom.
First: pick a feminine, submissive woman who thrives on that role, first and foremost.
Second, don’t marry her, and tell her exactly why you’re not into marriage.
Third, maintain hand as if your life depends on it, for it does.
Fourth: Keep her pregnant or with young children. If women are kept busy at feminine tasks, they have less time and energy to devote to being masculine bitches.
Fifth: Gradually convert larger and larger shares of your wealth into hard to find assets. Like (I just have to say this in every other comment 🙂 Bitcoin). It’s hard to get a contingency paid lawyer too excited to rob you, if it looks like you own nothing. Hence, don’t pay down mortgages, but rather stash the cash in Bitcoin (or well hidden gold or something)
Both solid pieces of advice. Noted in my nefarious Patriarchal master plan.
Fourth only works if you’re okay with having a chubby wife…and in America social affluence for men is not promoted by a chunky crazy wife who can’t put down the twinkies (“because I need the baby weight”), it is based off the hot one ….Having babies regularly does not make a woman more commercially hot in this country.
My mommy was a housewife who worked her ass off to keep my father’s office and home running smooth… I love both my parents but man my dad was in a hole when she left. Keep in mind SHE didn’t propose divorce. Bless her heart she tried to suggest rehab, church, etc and he didn’t budge…..His only budge came when he threatened divorce and thank god my mom left and my dad could work his life out. He is a doctor who was dumb enough to be an alcoholic when raising my sister and I…. The court saw that and forced him to pay my tuition. #winning #withnostudentloansat23
So Revo unfortunately only your second solution works, even submissive women will leave if they have no other choice…But considering your views on shallow women, they’ll cock hop without the ring. Guess men are in a lose lose situation. Must suck.
And read MMSL. Honestly if you guys in the manosphere have the game that you say that you have, then you should know that there are resources at your disposal to make you significantly less likely of ever experiencing the divorce theft.
Actually isreal is the only rich country with a growing fertilty both fromm its orthodox n secular followers while the arab fertilty is declinin due to forcced urbanization
fertility can rebound…like uks is growin again
These articles are great …why doesnt the manosphere translate their work so others can read it…like hindi arabic farsi russian french spanish etc
Women have nothing to lose by being housewives. There’s no reason why they wouldn’t embrace it. A man working 40-60 hours a week while a woman sits at home living a leisure lifestyle off someone’s dime? Nothing not to like about that.
Being a housewife today is not the same as it used to be. Most women today work so for the most part, a housewife will be lonely most of the time. Let me tell you staying in a house all goddamn day doing nothing sucks. Before the women’s lib movement, most housewives stayed at home and did a lot of work for the community, they weren’t lonely and bored as they are now.
My thoughts on how to run a society in modernity is to bring a sort of soft segregation where women are encouraged to be wives and mothers but in their free time they could work for charity organizations.
The problem with integration is that men and women compete against each other and then see one another as the enemy instead of how they truly are, complementary pairs who work in unison.
Men need male spaces to compete against each other. They don’t want to compete against women as their is nothing to gain from it. Once an area becomes feminized there is “male flight” from that sphere, see education and psychology.
The problem is that modern technology has decreased the amount of time spent on housework. No one wants to be bored. By giving women their own space, their own goals, and “hunting grounds” in non-profit work they can contribute, be occupied, and know that they’re helping their communities. This also solves problems such as sexual harassment and gender quotas. Diversity doesn’t benefit anyone but those who profit from division.
Wrong, my mother was the perfect housewife (to this day 50 and a size 4) I love my parents equally but he was a stupid alcoholic and she was sober, beautiful and perfect. And thank god they ended it. My dad, who is a doctor and could easily lose his license, got his personal life together and my mother is now much better off with a new man whom I love as well.
He never cheated no, but as a child with a housewife mom who was emotionally abused, I felt bad for her. I graduated college with no debt because of academic scholarships and plan on having a career. However as a true “feminist” I think if a housewife IS happy…she is entitled to that happiness and her lifestyle, same with a man who wants to pursue manly or feminine things…who cares. live and let live.
Listen to what this New York City Teacher of The Year Award recipient has to say about what public school does to children:
1. It confuses the students. It presents an incoherent ensemble of information that the child needs to memorize to stay in school, only to forget it after taking tests.
2. It teaches them to accept their class affiliation.
3. It makes them indifferent.
4. It makes them emotionally dependent.
5. It makes them intellectually dependent.
6. It teaches them a kind of self-confidence that requires constant confirmation by experts (provisional self-esteem).
7. It makes it clear to them that they cannot hide, because they are always supervised.
Do these seven points describe modern rad-feminism, or what?
He elaborates on these “Seven Deadly Lessons” here: http://trylibertee.com/christianity-and-liberty/the-underground-history-of-education/john-taylor-gattos-seven-deadly-lessons/
Highly recommended.
I love the dichotomy of the first two pictures here:
A) Happy mother and daughter, acting like women. I’m all for girls being girls.
B) Nasty, despicable, man-hating feminist. Exactly the kind of woman no man in his right mind wants anything to do with.
Who’s happier in with their lives? Hmm
Oh we stopped judging success in life by happiness a long time ago. It’s all GDP now.
“But you can’t just go around saying your way is better! You’re not allowed to say that!”
IMO, no matter what “your way” is, it wouldn’t be better for EVERYONE.
It might be better for MOST PEOPLE, but there will always be exceptions.
Remember we are all about freedom here –
trying to impose what works for most on all people might make people happier on average,
but it’s also going to make the exceptional people miserable.
Yes, and the current paradigm is telling ‘most people’ to do what is optimal only for a few. So which is worse?
And I’m not even saying to force everyone down this path – but that I think it’s a path that suits more, even most people, and that it should be the default option. Nowadays we have the opposite – the default, expected option is one that makes them less happy. I didn’t actually say anything should be imposed on anyone, but that people should know about is most likely to yield satisfaction and stability.
And who says we’re all about freedom?
Megan McArdle recently wrote gay marriage will lead to more conservative social values b/c gays will be *expected* to marry since so many straight people fought to help them get “marriages.” http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/26/why-gay-marriage-will-win-and-sexual-freedom-will-lose.html
if the gop was smart (jindal is right, they’re stupid) they’d attack unfair, discriminatory divorce and custody laws at the state level. end alimony, respect pre-nups, and adopt 50/50 custody as the norm. this would lead to married men (and men that wish to be married) voting for them more frequently.
this article kicks ass……. plain and simple top notch journalism and not just because i agree with the points it makes…… mainstream publications had better pull their finger out….
I think the main reason why a lot of women are dropping feminisism like a hot potatoe is because they are slowly, but surely finding out it isn’t as fun working like a man like they thought it would be.
Oh sure, it was fun at first because women always knew they had being a S.A.H.M. (Stay At Home Mom) as a plan B if climbing the corporate later ever began to suck.
Now it’s mandatory for a woman to work like a man, because in today’s economy actual men no longer make enough to support a wife, children, and household with just their paycheck. In some households, the wife makes more than the husband. Wives hate that shit.
Long story short, women want all the benefits that comes with being a man (while still keeping the benefits of being a woman.), but they want none of the responsibility.
Economy does good? I am a big strong independent woman! I don’t need a man.
Economy does bad? Ah, it’s the man’s job to earn money, I want to be a traditional housewife again.
In short? American women are a bunch of fucking parasites. They can’t handle real independence, supporting themselves and paying their own bills.
Guys, DO NOT become the next beta male provider to some worthless Born Again Whore. You’ll find hordes of these fat, used up sluts, over 30, infesting the churches like cockroaches, looking for a pathetic beta male provider to trick into marriage. DON’T DO IT, GUYS!
Exactly. Housework and looking after the kids is a full-time job? Don’t make me laugh bitch. Imho every man should at least INSIST that the wife/life partner at least engages in part-time work or some kind of home business (e.g. pottery). What even traditionalists seem to forget is that being a housewife used to be a lot of work in the olden days. Nowadays, what do they really have to do? Using a vacuum cleaner and then mopping the floor is something you finish in 1-2 hours max. Clean the dishes? Pfffft who doesn’t have a dish washer nowadays? Even if you don’t, it takes 30 min. max to clean those. Nah guys, don’t let her be a parasite. She has to contribute something as well, not just her personalitits, but real money. If she wants to buy something for herself she better uses her own fucking money. Don’t let her make you the bitch. And what else is a man really who pays everything?
Shit yea, Kimchi, bro. That is one of the healthiest foods on earth. It gives you good bacteria for your stomach and clears out the bad bacteria. I eat that shit once a day. It’s easy to get in Asia.
Indeed, feminism was doomed to collapse under its own weight from the beginning. You can only have a group of people with special rights for so long before everyone else gets fed up and no longer tolerates it. After 50 years of this nonsense, it’s about time.
Homeschoolers are extremely receptive to redpill and independent thinking. They are not brainwashed with the State’s official party line and thus question things that don’t make sense. I know because I was homeschooled.
I live in a verrry liberal metropolis, and I don’t know one woman under the age of 40 who identifies as a feminist. My wife’s friends all LOVE talking about the domestic arts, and those with jobs (about half) usually despise the 9-to-5 but are rightfully frightened of plunging into the tedious and expensive task of childraising (as am I).
This article is delusional.
More women are “rejecting feminism” only as a label.
They still want all the entitlements and privileges of being able to leave the job yet have the position held open for them.
Or being promoted to manager without delivering anything at the ground level other than “you’re discriminating against women if women aren’t managers”.
The other thing to think about is this:
Maybe these women are “rejecting feminism” only when they find a beta guy to pay for all her previous bad choices.
In other words, men are being told that a reformed cockhopper is a good bet to build a family with.
Sorry, but in the modern world, a man cannot AFFORD to have his wife stay at home, UNLESS she is willing to live on less.
Otherwise to “maintain her in the style in which she is accustomed”, he will HAVE TO WORK HIMSELF TO DEATH.
Plus if he’s the only one working, does the family implode when he loses his job?
Women will eventually enforce the natural order on each other. It is mostly up to men not to blink when presented an opportunity to stand up to women.
The power of male judgment must never, never be discounted. When a man boldly holds his position against a woman long enough, she will eventually bend to his masculine will.
It’s how they’re designed. And it’s what they really want anyway.
At this point, I think they’re just looking for a face saving way to get back in the home. If you produce evidence that children whose mother stayed at home are better off, they could grasp on to this as justification for following their desire without feeling that are doing something low status, the way feminism has portrayed staying at home. Maybe we should call them CDOs or something stupid like that (chief domestic officer) in order to get them to feel good about it.
My mom stayed at home and I felt sorry for her.
with the rise in boards like this one, many women who once thought of themselves as feminists have learned the happiness of having the man lead them in all they do.
Yeah but the damage is done and not reversible I’m afraid. The only way this can work now is if the man has a very good and very stable job. Thats not many. The kind of woman that can do Yoga, drive a Range Rover, and shop at Whole Foods daily requires a man who is in the top 5% of wage earners.
Yeah I was homeschooled and people shouldn’t be advocating it if they have zero experience with it.
I think boys probably fair poorly in homeschool, but girls fair well. Most moms teaching their sons don’t know how to teach calculus (or even algebra!), which is a requirement if the boys want to get into a good college for engineering, math, or physics degrees. It really doesn’t work for boys like it would for girls. And since girls are more likely to bend to society’s standards – at least it seems that way – they are more likely to be harmed by public school.
There have been a lot of innovation in homeschooling. The old idea of mom as teacher is outdated. We have the internet now which means Khan academy which will provide a superior education to any child minus all the indoctrination and soul-crushing aspects of public schooling. If you’re interested look up unschooling by Dayna Martin for a new way to homeschool.
I’m a 20 year old girl who has been reading Roosh and Roissy since I was 17 years old. While all of my friends were riding the cock carousel from age 14 (and continue to do so today), I was the only one who realized that being a whore is not something to be proud of. I’m still a virgin and all of my close friends are also women who realize that being a “feminist,” whatever that means nowadays, is not the way to true happiness, and that every man they sleep with erodes away a part of their soul. I’m still socially awkward, but I’m also aware of what men actually value in a girl, and I make sure to wear high heels every time I go out, even when I go to class most days.
I’ve even showed other female friends who were previously feminists how in reality, it’s the men who are getting the short end of the stick, especially when it comes to education & dating. My dad was a victim of divorce rape, when his wife (and my mother) of 31 years drained us of our funds (including my college fund) to the point that I could barely afford to go to college. I told her as such and MY OWN MOTHER would have rather taken ‘revenge’ on my father than settle on a lower alimony payment and allow me to go to college. Since then I vowed that if/when I get married, I would request a prenupt where neither party splits funds, even if he didn’t want one.
Thank you Roosh for showing me the right path, because I know my mother sure didn’t.
its not really about high heels. its about respecting yourself and your family. maybe you will need to work and he will stay or the opposite. no options should be closed but every option should be true to the person who needs to take it…i relish in the day that people women and men alike can be what they want to be again. no trying to impress husband unless they want to or feminism, or anyone else just let it flow naturally..
its not really about high heels. its about respecting yourself and your family. maybe you will need to work and he will stay or the opposite. no options should be closed but every option should be true to the person who needs to take it…i relish in the day that people women and men alike can be what they want to be again. no trying to impress husband unless they want to or feminism, or anyone else just let it flow naturally..
Thank you! My point above. Clearly every human has difference wants. It is also 100% evident by anyone who has social comprehension skills, that every person is a different persons. Different things make different people happy. A=A and B=B, the world is a wonderfully logical place.
Every person has different wants and interests. Different people require different things to become happy. A=A and B=B.
Good for you. Save yourself until marriage, and look to the “old paths” and the proven traditions. Reject this broken NWO perverted world. There are others like you who are awake.
Whoa, slow down, ubermensch. You misunderstand the point of the New York article. The primary target of the article is the very stay at home moms they write about. This article is not about how women are rejecting feminism. This article is specifically saying that “feminists” are choosing more traditional roles. The point of the article is to reassure self-identifying “feminists” that just because they stay at home with their kids, doesn’t mean they have to give up their feminist cred. They are saying, you can be a “feminist” and a stay at home mom. The article is designed to coddle the people who spend time defining their selves via labels and their subscription to New York Magazine.
Since you also are a person who defines yourself via labels, you assume that this corn-laden turd-icle about Park Slope’s finest is somehow “true”. That’s why you were reading it. You’re the secondary target. The article reinforces your own identity as a “man”. You said so yourself. You wrote half an article with the underlying premise that the New York Magazine says traditional women do “x”, and since you don’t do “x”, and you don’t have a vagina, you implicitly must be a “man”. You let the New York define you. You have corn stuck in your teeth.
You read New York Magazine articles and shop at Whole Foods. (Oh wait, you steal from whole foods. You can’t even afford to shop there…). But you’re a still a traditional man—a traditional man who can’t earn enough money to shop at Whole Foods and reads articles in a New York Magazine.
=============
Meanwhile, your deeper subconscious roars up as it projects itself onto two groups of people in Whole Foods. Women with children were “pleasant…feminine… vibrant ” Childless women were “rushed, tense, even haggard… had the weight of the world on their shoulders…held everyone in slight contempt, as if for not doing their part to keep civilization running.”
I’m going to take a wild guess and assume you don’t have kids.
Look, I’m just some asshole on the internet. I haven’t had sex in over 3 months. And I’m unemployed. But I suggest that maybe you see those child-less women that way because you yourself are childless. Maybe you see yourself as not doing your part to keep civilization running. Maybe the contempt you see is really self-contempt, because you don’t have kids.
=============
Like much of the manosphere, you have a lot of convoluted ideas about what it is “to be a man”. Return of Kings and the manosphere at large, produce post after post of
red-pill claptrap saying the liberal feminist borg is working to define you against your own best interests. At the same time, ROK produces post after post defining manhood. You think you are beating the system. But return of Kings IS the system. The natural next step is to say, “well, fine, I will define manhood for myself”.
FAIL! The point isn’t that you should “define” yourself—that’s even WORSE—the point is that the definition doesn’t matter. The label doesn’t matter. Your kids don’t care if you are a man. Your kids don’t care if you drive a Range Rover, and if they do, that’s YOUR fault. Their your kids. You raised them.
Again, I’m just some unemployed, sexless, asshole…
let me just add that one other trick the article plays on unsuspecting readers.
By framing the issue as ‘feminists are embracing traditional roles’, they continue to define the terms of the debate. New York Magazine gets to define what a “feminist” is and what a “traditional role” is. We just get to argue the particulars of the debate. Mr Goldstein has not only happily added credence to those definitions, he supports the spurious notion that New York Magazine gets to define words and concepts.
“But you can’t just go around saying your way is better! You’re not allowed to say that!” “But it is better; it would give people more meaningful, satisfying lives.” To the progressive, you can’t recognize that one way of life is generally superior to another, because that would be… imposing.”
Uh. Yeah. Obviously.
Just because something works for you, doesn’t mean it’s going to work for everybody. Because not every person is the same.
I’ve been married for almost three years. We don’t have kids. I’m pretty happy about that, because I get to spend time with my husband and because we don’t have to struggle as much as we would if we did have kids. We get to go out with friends. We get to have sex all the time. It’s fantastic.
I’m aware that work isn’t always fun, but being able to contribute to my household through work makes me feel good because it takes some of the financial pressure off of my husband. And because being at home alone all day is really fucking depressing.
You don’t really need clear-cut rules for how to behave as long as you are capable of empathy and common sense. Do what makes sense for you and your family, and don’t be an asshole. Sounds pretty simple to me.
Man, you’ve got this article wrong. The fact that women are more willing to stay at home is because they like to spend more time with their children AND because they like the fact of not having to work for a living.
Being LESS feminist and staying home with kids have NOTHING to do with each other. In fact, women who are staying home and spending more time with their children, are very successful at raising their kids to become feminists.
Just image the shock and horror, when you thought you wife was staying home just to please the husband. She is not. She only wants to please herself and spend more time with her kids. It’s biology. Women are genetically engineered to have children and raise those kids, NOT to please men.
didnt know “manly men” spend their evenings using terms like beta and wringing their hands at invisible feminists
Do you even know what feminism is?
“No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.” — Simone de Beauvoir, “Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma” Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18
It was never about freedom.
Men don’t want women anymore it to late now men are turning gay because of women I have no respect for I hope they go to war and get killed all of them
Speaking as a young male, I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make here.
Let’s assume, for a moment, that women as a demographic group and more “suited” to fulfilling what we consider to be traditional gender roles, and less suited towards owning professions and positions of economic, political or social influence. This is utterly irrelevant when examining women on a case by cases basis, as we do with all people. What if the girl is a genius mathematician, while the guy loves staying around kids? What if a woman graduated college at 16 and has started her own business by 11? When you cast generalizations, even if they are accurate, what inevitably happens is that exceptions to the rule suffer and are denied by society their right to choose, individually, how they can best contribute to their community.
To expand on my point, you seem to be appealing to the classic naturalistic fallacy, that because our primitive ancestors gradually evolved gender roles to survive in hunter-gatherer environments, we somehow have to set aside our rationality and scientific knowledge to adhere to some sort of natural law. We evolved gender roles under the same pretext as we evolved emotion – to act as convenient, efficient shortcuts for behavior where controlled, logical thought simply wasn’t an option. But since Evolution moves only in timeframes of tens of thousands towards millions of years, much of our instincts have become irrelevant in modern society.
So, some women may feel happier as stay at home moms; some may wish to focus on their own careers and education, while most remain somewhere in the middle. We live in a free country.
Enjoy your commentary. My mom went back to work in the late 1950s. There was no feminist flag waving. Dad, a WW2 vet and factory worker, was fine with it. Hell, we needed the money. Mom left school at 15 to find work during the Depression. She became head of customer relations at a Sears-Roebuck store without having a HS diplomma. Both my parents were exploited. Ed
this writer is an idiot…the segments of this piece are not ‘correct’ or ‘just’ merely personal conclusion. The manner of speaking is reductionist at best and the insulting text should give readers a clue as to the ridiculousness of the claims. UGH!
Beg to defer, I know plenty of woman who have chosen to stay at home and do house duty’s and volunteer at church. They saw how their single mothers had to work, clean, and cook, and how miserable it made them. and how their fathers were either castrated or out casted, and just resulted in a degraded society.
Ugh. I mean, it’s a more idyllic life in my opinion, and by that I do mean for my own LIFE, but it isn’t helpful to proclaim that it is irrefutably the way women would achieve greater life satisfaction. And doing so likely only serves to cause offended people to bury them selves deeper in their views.
But this may be inconsequential as I doubt it’s relevant at all for a man to suggest any lifestyle as the greater or more life affirming approach to living in the female experience.
“I doubt it’s relevant at all for a man to suggest any lifestyle as the greater or more life affirming approach to living in the female experience.”
Your feminist sisters try to tell us how to think, how to live and even what we should find beautiful and not beautiful in a woman. When they shut up and mind their own business maybe we won’t care about theirs anymore.
With the economic crisis, there are going to be a lot more housewives!
Much easier for them to have a career at 33 and have Children at 23 than the other way around, option is improved, that is how it should be put.
I’m a 26 year old female and I really appreciate a lot of this article. I’ve been confused about my role in the world and it’s nice to know there are people with family values that still exist.
A little while ago I read “Lean In” by Sheryl Sandberg, and even organized some “circle” meetings. But honestly, as the months went by, I felt like I kind of jumped on a bandwagon and wasn’t sure if it was really what I wanted. I’ve talked about being a SAHM with my boyfriend and feel lucky that he’s supportive no matter what I choose. What’s difficult is that in our culture SAHMs are looked at as dumb and lazy, instead of classy and loving. I regularly notice snarky comments in mainstream media.
Feminism seems to have been an experiment that has lasted about 50 years and the results are in. Families are broken, everyone is obese, and nobody is happy, even career women. I’m grateful for my rights of course, I believe many laws that have been passed are human rights. Maybe this means that my generation can be moms while still being looked at as equal. I believe equality should mean equal respect, not necessarily equal income.
I’m all for women’s rights to choose whatever style of life they want, if they are lucky enough to be in the position to choose. I think my generation (maybe we’re all yogis?) is more akin to living a peaceful life and being respectful to others, rather than forcing a specific view on anyone who will listen.
xo
I feel bad for unhappy, or unhealthy people, I’m happy, not haggard, and very healthy (marathon runner size 0) but I don’t reject ANY belief system. I may or may not agree with every belief system, but I consider all. This is called being wordly. I enjoy it quite fondly. It’s a very peaceful state.
Hahahahah. My peaceful comment was deleted. Peace be with you author!
I guess that those women are doing that so they won’t drive the men away…
The happiest woman in the world will be the homeschooling mom in her 20s or 30s who has a loving husband that leads her and her children. In other words, a traditional “home” and a “family”. The blue and pink-haired feminists hate hate hate seeing such oppression of women, of course. Personally, I looooove it. I love seeing families. I hope to see more of them as men and women alike WAKE UP.
While I agree there is a division of disgruntled and happy women, it has nothing to do w having kids. I shop whole foods and I am friendly happy enjoying myself. Everywhere I go I have this attitude. I ve seen a lot of harried grumpy mothers not that I don’t have compassion for them, 8 do. And yes I wear dresses and skirts and am very slim . And men are friendly with me.