Successful Women Use Poor Women To Advance

Much has been written about the liberation Feminism has brought about for women by fighting for their right to work and earn a salary like men have been doing since time immemorial or at least since the Industrial Revolution started in the late eighteenth century. However, little do we know that behind every successful woman living the Fourth-Wave dream, there are… a lot of very unsuccessful women.

Entrepreneur Mother Of Two


Sometimes it’s only Sarah and her breast pump

I recently came across this account of the travails of an entrepreneur mom (about to touch 40) of two:

In the 10 weeks since we’ve become a family of four, the four of us have been in the same city for about three weeks. My husband is finishing an MFA in photography and working on an ambitious two-year photography project in downtown Las Vegas.

Add in a PandoMonthly in LA, two in New York, and two conferences since Evie’s birth, and we’ve been criss-crossing much of the United States in endless combinations. Me and Evie and the night nurse. Eli and our nanny and my husband. Me and Evie and Eli and the Nanny. Me, Eli, Evie, my husband, and the nanny. And my least favorite combo: Just me and the breast pump

So just to make things clear:

  • She lives and works somewhere around San Francisco/San Jose/Silicon Valley.
  • Her husband is doing a very important photography project in downtown Las Vegas.
  • She regularly travels to Los Angeles, New York and to other random cities several times a month for work.
  • They have two kids—21 months and 3 months old.

Juanita She Is The Restless River

I was reading this and thinking “How can you do all this without having two full-time nannies? Ok, at least one full-time and one part-time.” And full-time really means that the nanny travels, eats and lodges with you. All of which translates into lots of moolah changing hands. (To be fair, she talks about it at the end of her post).

The fundamental question then becomes: Who is raising this nanny’s kids while she is working for her 24 hours a day?

Perhaps Juanita has her kids back home in Tijuana being raised by her mother which makes it possible for her to be a 24/7 nanny. But more about the Juanitas, Paulitas and Carlitas of this world in another post.

The Barista Conundrum

If the ideal of feminism is that women can find fulfillment through work (as opposed to by raising their own kids), then the nannies, Subway sandwich artists, fast-food employees and coffee artists of this world are fucked, but not the Mayers, Sandbergs and Bradshaws.


I have daycare at my work.

Let’s talk about the paradox inherent in Feminism’s struggle for women’s right to work.

Behind every “successful” woman there’s a host of other women (nannies and housekeepers) working on minimum wages to raise her kids which brings us to the fact that, fundamentally. feminism is a bourgeois concept which was initiated by bored upper-class women/housewives who longed to get away from the boredom of their mansions. (You might want to read Flaubert’s Madame Bovary in order to have an idea of the effects boredom can have on idle upper-class housewives)

They wanted to break the so-called glass-ceiling by working as politicians, attorneys, journalists, managers, CEOs and fund-raisers in non-profits but never as nannies, burger-flippers and baristas meaning that it’s the nature of the work and the salary which is important and not the right to work per se.

Vertical vs. Horizontal

And this is where feminism fails completely as a viable tool to achieve social equality because the class struggle, if any such thing can exist in the 21st century, has to be vertically oriented. It has to be the poor against the rich (which are social categories) rather than women against men (which are genders within a social category).

It makes no sense to talk about the “condition of women” in a society because the said “condition” depends on the social class. There is no economic or social overlap between the condition of a girl being exploited at a Whole Foods cash register and that of a female CEO at a Fortune 500 company.


The system is winning

The system wins by supporting any movement that replaces this vertical struggle (between social classes) by a horizontal one (within a social class), hence its unconditional support for feminism since its inception. It can therefore be said that feminism, by definition, is a destroyer of class solidarity.

Feminist Burger-Flippers Do Not Exist

Surely a protest for increase in minimum wage (I’m just giving an example, don’t burn me on the comments’ stake for heresy) would bring out all the men and women working on minimum wages on the street regardless of their gender because they belong to the same social class.

However there is nothing in common between a female CEO and a female Starbucks barista because gender does not transcend social class. An exploitative female middle manager at a McDonald’s would abuse her subordinates regardless of their gender.

For example Melissa Mayer and Sheryl Sandburg would never quit their jobs to raise their children. These jobs are so well-paid and high social status that they automatically become fulfilling.

However, give their nannies (or a random sample of “N” nannies) this offer and a majority of them will accept it readily because why raise someone else’s kids on a low wage (and leave your own kids to someone else’s care) when you can give your time of the day to your own kids with the support of a loving/caring husband who is providing for the family.

Simply speaking, Mayer’s and Sandburg’s jobs are too good to relinquish, those of the nannies are too shitty to keep. It’s not like nannies and baby-sitters have a pension plan, a BYOD policy and health-care benefits which come with their job.

The beauty of this swindle lies in the fact that a huge percentage of women end up as low wage workers while very few achieve the “I’m having it all” dream.

Male Nannies Do Not Exist Either


Male Nannies: You can find them only in Hollywood movies

Feminism shafts working class women in another very subtle way as well. Despite all the brouhaha about gender equality, a male nanny doesn’t exist because the evil patriarchy forbids people to hire male nannies.

So it’s not like working at the KFC, where the gender ratio of minimum wage earning employees is roughly 50-50 which means that the system is dishing out misery to both men and women on a fairly equitable basis.

On the other hand, a nanny has to be a woman, because even the feminists (let alone your average Volvo driving soccer mom), no matter how much gender-neutral they might be, won’t hire a male nanny.

Now what happens in real life is that poor working class and lower middle-class women end up raising rich women’s kids. Escape from this kind of exploitative wage-system was an opportunity offered to them in the pre-feminism era when having a job was not an obligation imposed by the system as it is now.

Prozac Nation

Don't worry: Juanita will take it from here.

Don’t worry. Juanita will take it from here.

We all know that the definition of “raising the kids” has changed a lot over time and now it essentially means leaving your kids at daycare to go to work, picking them up, making (re-heating?) them some dinner, and putting them to bed.

Our entrepreneur/photographer couple, however, has taken it to a whole new level. Very rarely both of them are present to spend time with the kids. They have essentially outsourced the raising of their kids to nannies while pursuing their respective passions (don’t forget that this is, for all intents and purposes, a middle-class couple).

And this is where we find the ultimate flaw in the feminist social proposition.

It has made women believe that all the women can have it all. In practice however a lot of them end up having nothing at all: Neither a fulfilling job nor well brought up children nor a healthy marriage/relationship.

I won’t fall off my chair if the kids and the parents in this family end up hating each other a few years from now. The kids thinking of their parents as selfish proles who prioritize their work over their family and the parents thinking of their children as ungrateful little bastards who can not even appreciate the sacrifices their parents are making in order to give them a better life.

We keep on wondering why kids as young as 13-14 years old are doing drugs in well-off suburban communities and nobody tries to connect the dots between daycare/nanny-induced alienation and parental absenteeism in the suburbia, which by definition has a nonexistent cultural life and no outlet for venting adolescent angst.

My suggestion to the parents dabbling in this sort of extreme parenting-by-proxy experiments is to start putting aside a little bit of money from now on for their kids. Not for their college education though, but in order to pay for their therapy sessions when they hit their teenage years.

Read More: Women Fighting Against Feminism

130 thoughts on “Successful Women Use Poor Women To Advance”

  1. Great analysis. What’s funny is that most feminists are marxist, yet they do not realize how their goals stand in contradiction to each other.
    “The system wins by supporting any movement that replaces this vertical struggle (between social classes) by a horizontal one (within a social class), hence its unconditional support for feminism since its inception. It can therefore be said that feminism, by definition, is a destroyer of class solidarity.”
    Nice job.

    1. Marxism’s always led by shady men with questionable motives; Stalin, for instance, robbed banks as a youth. One can argue that the class/race/sex conflict the Marxists espouse is designed not to *help* the proletariat, but ultimately to bring down everything and make way for the new communist man.
      Maybe that’s true (there does seem to be some black hatred in the heart of socialists); or maybe some Marxist leaders really believe they’re helping the proletariat, and they’re just vulnerable to being duped by parasites.
      Either way, there’s no surprise here that a Marxist movement is ultimately destroying the group it claims to help.

      1. Not defending Marxism, but mass movements in general tend to be led by shady people.

      2. I personally am a leftist, but what they call leftism today is your stereotypical liberal feminist college bullshit. I hate leftists today because they make me feel bad for calling myself so.
        Generally, read early Marxists, the one who actually “did” something (no matter how bad or wrong it was). Most of them hated liberals and social democrats (most ultra-feminist countries today like nordic ones have been soc-democratic for decades). Che was a well known radical, hated by Soviet Union, who opposed liberal bullshit, as was Lenin, who declared social democracy the biggest fifth-column threat to working class etc.
        Most proper leftists and ex-Marxists have actually move on and do sth else, then be identified with these hilarious “we are 99%” idiots who think world Begins in LA and ends in middle-class neighborhoods somewhere in central Europe.

        1. Whatever ideological reasoning leftism began with has now decayed into a cesspool of feelings-based rationalizations and victimhood contests designed to appeal to those feelings.

        2. The real and honest left proposes non-hierarchical models of political organization.
          Hierarchical models such as Communism and Representative Democracy/Monarchy facilitate the concentration of political power.

        3. And we all know what happens when people get high on Power too often.
          Power is a bad drug, just like tobbaco and cocaine.

        4. The biggest irony is that there is no difference between left and right in all the western democracies.

        5. on the left, they champion the working man and openly offer huge benefits etc…banging the middle class with taxes to pay for it all… but promising them safety in return for their obedience….. and all while secretly keeping their hand in with the wealthy power brokers… just look at the crock of shit Obama is….
          on the right, they champion the wealthy, while maintaining the benefits for working class to make sure they don’t rebel…. and this is paid by taxing the shit out of the middle classes just the same… but instead dangling the carrot that any middle classer can join the uber wealthy if they try hard enough….
          so the only difference between left and right is the lie that is fed to the middle class… left = we’ll take care of you… right = come join us…..

        6. Yes but what if someone told you that 80% of the world does not have any middle class.

        7. read an article recently that puts the arrival of the middle class down to the cold war, that took millions of motivated intelligent ‘whites’ off the market….. now, especially in Western Europe if you want a job you are up against a million polaks with MBAs… oppps…. (nothing wrong with polaks, but all those eastern blok countries tipped the scales…)… you also have india and china and latin america getting way more savvy than they were before…..
          so basically we’re heading back to a more feudal, medieval style setup, with haves and have nots…..
          right now what is left of the middle class is flaking by supporting a stupid Govt. that is lying to them and stealing what’s left of their wealth…. meanwhile the have nots are making a terrible error in thinking the Govt. can endlessly support them, which will become impossible as the middle class ages and shrinks….
          and the guys in power… the haves… well they don’t care, they will do and say almost anything to keep the music playing…..
          when the music does stop…. ie. faith in the credit based ponzi scheme finally dries up…. federal Govts. around the world will collapse and we’ll sink back into a city state type model, where large rich cities, wall themselves off and tell the rest to wait outside the gates….or come with something useful…..
          it will be much like renaissance italy… government will be run locally, more like a business to support the local city and trade with other cities.

    2. Indeed it might be a nice to have an explicit treatment of the feminism situation using some actual perspectives of Marx. I tend more lib-con so I know how many of you might react allergically to examining marxist philosophy. But I as a non-Churched-Christian I also argue that I don’t need to believe in all the magic to find value in reading and reflecting on contents of the Bible. Either way you cut it, both of these thinkers made enormous contributions to our civilization and we are fools if we try to sweep these chapters out of sight simply because we find certain episodes and mistakes shameful. Indeed we seem to neglect these two influential thinkers out of some secular anti-communist dogma that blinds so many to considering more worthwhile aspects.
      Not an expert on either marxism or feminism, but more attention needs to be paid how class division is the real challenge. Feminism demands justice for women when in fact they mistake the class privilege they covet for male privilege. Within most classes of America, women are at least equal if not treated better – even if reaching the summit of society expects such sacrifices that only few men seem to have the fortitude and stamina to reach there.
      I’ve worked some pretty humble jobs and I had more in common cause with my fellow low paid lady colleagues than any brotherhood who never invited me to join up in the old boys club at the peak of society. To say the least, from where we were the upper echelons were so high, we couldn’t even see the glass ceiling.

  2. Yeah but I always wished I’d had a hot latina nanny who’d have shown me the ropes sexually when I turned 14 or 15. I don’t care what people say, I’d be pretty well-adjusted after an experience like that.

    1. Spade, I’ve yet to see a hot Latina nanny :-). Let alone one that’d be willing to show you the ropes. Look at the actress who plays baby-sitter/nanny in first season of Girls. She is hot but not Latina. She is actually an upper middle-class white hippy. I have yet to see a hot Latina nanny even in Hollywood movies.

  3. The feminists have some nonsense belief called “intersectionality,” or something like that. There was a n article here a week or two ago debunking it, as does this article. I think that notion of theirs is what your getting at.

  4. Zuckerberg is a genius for fronting that imbecile Sandberg to exhort women to work harder and put in more hours for lower wages so they can prove that they can lead like a man. I’ll bet I have exactly zero chance of getting a job at “Facebook”. They oughta call it “Muffbook”.
    I got laid off from Emcorpera shortly after they finished renovating the ladie’s restroom to add a “breast pumping station”. Not making that up.
    Emcorpera is Empowering America!

      1. How many accounts do you need?
        Nobody says “boobtube” anymore. Don’t forget the space after a period.
        You’re not satirical, you’re retarded.
        Grow up, old man.

        1. Why don’t you get a real life and stop stalking your betters.You sound like some obsessed little boy from Podunk.

  5. My mother grew up in a dirt poor blue collar neighborhood in Suffolk County, Long Island. Her dad barely made enough as a car mechanic, so her mother took on work as a dressmaker to help raise their family of eight. “Back where I come from” she says, “women didn’t have careers. They had jobs.”
    This line forever cemented in my mind that feminism is for bored, rich, white women

    1. A very good movie that illustrates this point (and the one made in the article as well) is the “The Bostonians”.
      It’s based on a Henry James novel, is profoundly and overtly anti-feminist (Remember that Henry James’s era coincides with the 1st Wave Feminism) and portrays Christopher Reeves as ultra alpha male.
      No wonder Reeves went on to play Superman. In my opinion it’s the best Christopher Reeves movie. It helps that it was directed by James Ivory and the screenplay was written by a female (Ruth P. Jhabvala). Highly recommended to RoK audience.

      1. I’ve had James’ novel recommended to me before. I think it’s high time I followed up on that. Great stroke with that Madame Bovary reference as well, friend. “Rich girl problems” doesn’t really seem to cut it, does it?
        And as for how things will be 10 years from now, I wouldn’t be too sure. That history has yet to be written, and we’d do well to recognize who’s really holding the pen.

        1. Henry James was a great writer who said much about the social condition but he is quite an acquired taste. Another great and highly relevant work of his–The Beast In the Jungle–is a short story and quick read which will give a new reader a taste of his style before delving into some of his master works. Beast is available free online from a number of sources.

        2. You sold me on the title. I’ll have to look into that one. Thanks for the recommendation, friend.

    2. Funny you say that. I grew up in Suffolk County, Long Island too (though, I’m much younger than your mother). This is true. While I ended up successful in life (due, in no small part, to my mother not working or working part-time through my first 14 years of life), many of my friends have developed drug addictions, including one that died of a heroin overdose.
      Unsurprisingly, their mothers were neglectful working mothers.

      1. Not too much younger, I trust. And you’re absolutely right. No one here is praising the benefits of working mother over the ones of those who stay at home. What I’m driving at is more of a mindset where mothers and fathers had to do what they could do get by, because they had people that they were responsible for. Sometimes that meant for the woman to go part-time to help put food on the table. In this light, feminist whining and pining seems less like a serious social issue and more like a pastime of the bourgeoisie. Which it is.

  6. You forgot to point out that many boys raised by their nannies lose their virginity to them.

    1. Ah back in the old days we had young Swedish nannies, not Aztecs.I remember Inger well :o)

    2. Ah back in the old days we had young Swedish nannies, not Aztecs.I remember Inger well :o)

    3. Haha, I have a friend who lost his virginity to his super hot nanny. I though it was an isolated incident, not the norm. Haha.

    4. I don’t know man. Back in the day when nanny-cams didn’t exist, there might have been an incident or two of boys losing their virginity to nannies. Not anymore. Also if you are upper middle class enough to afford a nanny, then you’d immediately become a social outcast among your 15 year old friends if you told them about your escapades with the nanny. Not to mention that 15 year old suburban boys or girls are not capable of keeping a secret and then there’s also that little matter of statutory rape.

      1. Why would you become an outcast? They’re doing the same thing if they’re upper class. And besides, the age of consent is 16 so it’s no crime.Even if you’re younger no one’s going to admit to anything and gossip means nothing.Your parents don’t care and in fact think it’s good that you get sex and experience so that you don’t get taken in by some gold-digger.

        1. “Your parents don’t care…”Do you even read what you write?

        2. Why would your parents care? Most upper class parents think it’s a good thing because they don’t have to worry about some horny son and know he can concentrate on studies rather than chasing pussy or god forbid knocking up some lower class Ho who won’t have an abortion because she knows she hit the jackpot. The nanny would just have an abortion or would be smart enough to use birth control.

  7. Its a bit sad this, really. Ive met several poor women who either directly or indirectly been [email protected] upon by the narcissistic and manipulative successful women. These poor women were at least good people and deserved better. In fact, most of these ‘successful’ women held jobs of high social value but poor productivity; not to mention that affirmative action and other reasons had pushed men out of such jobs in favour of women. In fact, many men could just not be bothered as they saw the landscape laid out in front of them.
    Unfortunately, with regard to both sexes, being a highly compliant corporate drone is more likely to get you well paid than showing any real initiative. And equality is corporate cultural Marx-speak for men and the few good women left to lie on their proverbial swords whilst the [email protected] trash and few manipulative top men are supposed to have their way. Get stuffed.

  8. Favoritemartian touches on it with some light sarcasm, but it is interesting how silly and useless the two parent’s “careers” are. People like this contribute nothing to society.

  9. Now that the corporatocracy is ramming through immigration, men should make it known they will not consider dating American women, period, and make a show of pursing foreign women.
    I’m not saying foreign women are so much better, but we might as well turn lemons into lemonade.

  10. Now that the corporatocracy is ramming through immigration, men should make it known they will not consider dating American women, period, and make a show of pursing foreign women.
    I’m not saying foreign women are so much better, but we might as well turn lemons into lemonade.

    1. Foreign women are better in my experience. After I had a few, I started seeing Anglo-American women for what they are: sexless, androgynous drones.
      They really are pathetic little creatures, especially when compared and contrasted alongside an Asian or Latina.

      1. I was born in Canada, grew up in the United States, and I’ve been on the road for a while. I’m currently located in eastern Ukraine, and the other day, I realized, I can never date another North American woman ever again. Very likely, I won’t be able to bring myself to even live there ever again. American women cannot compete. They really truly cannot do so.

        1. Absolutely. North American women are repulsive once you’ve had a few real women. Hell, Asian, Latin, African, Eastern European…just about anything beats what we have here at home.

      2. BS… latin women are aggressively matriarchal and take over your home like Hitler took over Poland…..

        1. Hahaha. I dated a Mexican woman for 6 years and she was nothing like what you said. In fact, she expected me to be the “man of the house” and did pretty much whatever I wanted her to do. Not only that, she was awesome in bed and loyal to a fault. She took pride in cooking, cleaning, and being a good woman. Her actions were considered completely normal and even expected of her by her family. I have yet to meet a better woman anywhere in any of my travels. Some have come close, but none have yet matched la Mexicana.

  11. Well it’s certainly not the first time this has been pointed out, but as you can see feminists have yet to solve this “we want it all” problem. Try as they might, no amount of self righteousness and “empowerment” will bend the rules of time.

  12. Basically, in order to lift women up, we have to bring a bunch of people down. No surprise that women themselves being half the population are caught up in the rich white woman’s narcissistic pursuits as well.

  13. A decent article but it make me wonder about the demographics of the writers here. Between rising cost of living and college tuition raising kids it’s near impossible to have a family on a single income. If you don’t plan on having kids then I suppose it isn’t really your problem. Both of my parents worked, allowing me to live a pretty privileged life, travel extensively, and graduate from a top tier university debt free. If only my father had worked my mother would have been a miserable wreck. Modern school is built to occupy children for most of the time parents are at work so a working mom coming home at 7pm really doesn’t lose that much time with her kids. By employing nannies and working some women are able to provide a better life for her kids.

    1. Did your mother work at a fast-food chain or as a nanny?
      I am not trying to insult you. Just curious.

      1. No my mother was/is a corporate executive. What I am trying to say Is that for some woman depending on their personality/credentials/economic status working is actually a good thing. The Manoshpere as a whole is so concerned with breaking up misconceptions and false realities that it occasionally overlooks things itself. There are plenty of women out there that want to be independently strong by putting themselves in positions to compete for high paying jobs. I would argue that they aren’t the problem. The real problem are the women who try to put men down in order to seem strong instead of putting in the work to be strong by themselves. What some writers have been calling new wave feminism. Old school girls who just want a fair shake aren’t half bad, its to ones who want a shake and then some that are causing problems.

        1. Women are competing for jobs but are not creating them. Other than providing a mass market for their vanity products, they are not forging new industries or technologies. They are marginalizing that small percentage of men who passionately innovate, destroy, and create ideas and take the risks to drive them to actualization
          Though men shank me and insult me, only men provide me with opportunity. Women can only insult me and deprive me of opportunity. Only men, and only a small fraction of them, take the risks that create industry and opportunity. Women can only serve as mere functionaries in man-created structures. When an organization becomes feminized, priority shifts from efficient and profitable production of goods and services to development of labyrinthine rules for the comfort and security of women. Ossification and organizational death are inevitable.

        2. This is the whole point of the article. Everybody is okay with women working as corporate executives but what about the nannies working for the corporate executives?
          And what about all the fluff degree holders (journalism, literature, English, philosophy, sociology, women studies etc.) not being able to marry and/or have kids because who’d marry a 27 year old unemployed girl with a huge student loan, a bigger sense of entitlement and an abhorrence for raising children and being a stay at home mom (because that is what the women’s rights activists fought against back in the day).

        3. The tiny % of men who actually do anything in life are not affected by what females do.

        4. Those aren’t “fluff” degrees anymore than a man who studies computer programming. We have a gazillion useless nerd programmers around who can’t even hold an intelligent conversation about anything that doesn’t bore you to death.Females can do any job a male does and it’s really just that insignificant tiny group of a handful of people at the top where the men outnumber the females 50-1.
          Sure, men do the dangerous jobs but you’d have to be a moron to take one one of them.

    2. Also, just to chime in with Martian’s response,
      Now, I don’t claim to know any of the answers. I don’t know, and I don’t pretend to know, but I wonder as to the relationship between “Feminism” and economic inflation. With all these women getting into the workforce, now there are that many more humans with spending power, so, would this have possibly had an influence upon the rising costs of just about everything?
      Not saying it is, just, material for contemplation

      1. I only took a year of economics so I am coming at it from a pretty elementary point of view, but yes more buyers in the economy will increase demand and therefore prices. However these buyers are also workers and presumable create some sort of good or service, increasing the supply of good and services as well. If the make as much as they buy then the price for goods remains in equilibrium or “the fair price.” However it is also worth noting that high tech economies like the one in the US tend to increase societal stratification as well, assuming there is no redistribution system like serious taxation. Long story short women going to work has increased the size of our national pie, but not everyone is going to get a slice.
        People with more of a background in economics feel free to correct me.

        1. Argh. Inflation is due to printing of money. The major factor in US’s inflation is over-spending, primarily on defense. This is done on purpose by the Federal Reserve as it’s a win-win for them (more people owing them money -> can’t pay -> repossess homes -> free homes for them as they print the money themselves).
          The major economic factor of feminism is an over-saturation of the market, leading to a lower overall income. On the demand and supply graph this is shown as “Excess demand” econ 101 (dunno how to attach pics, but it’s VERY basic stuff). Nothing to do with “fair price,” that’s an imaginary concept now since companies aren’t concerned with “fair” they’re concerned with “profit maximisation.”

        2. “Printing money” does not cause inflation, it is the result of it. Monetarism (the theory that you are talking about) has been already dead for some years. Inflation is mostly caused by insufficient competition, especially in an economy that is growing with low unemployment. There can be stagnation also (USA in the 1970s).

  14. Yahoo! for the Yummy Mummy!
    What a great headline shot for this story to draw me in.
    I’m a sucker for that clean scrubbed face, the blue eyes (and natural blondes)
    I don’t even feel the guilt that the right thinking media has beaten into me for listening to my evolutionarily programmed preferences for youthful fair maidens resembling some ridiculous Nazi Aryan archetype that are so unfair to those who through no fault of their own don’t conform to that ideal. I understand she’s Jewish too, so I feel even less guilty for being slave to my instincts.
    Marissa is exactly my kind of lady…
    Naturally gorgeous, she still exudes youth, health and an innocence that usually transforms to a visible hardened bitterness in women who manage to have the stamina to reach her level of success. To be sure she’s intense and tough, but somehow her appearance projects a sweetness that is perhaps undeserved. A wolf in sheep’s clothing perhaps?
    When Ms. Mayer was picked to head the limping internet media company, did anyone else get the feeling she was getting a lot more attention than the less youthful and attractive Meg Whitman – or any man for that matter?
    Beauty has its privileges – it’s a knapsack that’s not so invisible…

  15. The way I see it, rearing children is a job/career. People should do what adds the most economic value they are capable of. Very smart, ambitious women should probably not be spending their time rearing children. There are only so many people on the right tail; we can’t really afford to take a big fraction of them and make them stay at home to change diapers. I’m not saying rearing children is a no-skill thing, but, unless you are homeschooling/educating them at an advanced level, it probably doesn’t require a college degree. It’s perfectly reasonable to outsource it to less well educated and less ambitious women who actually _like_ being home with kids (not everyone does — if we didn’t have child-rearing assistance the fraction of right-tailers having kids would be sadly even lower). So I’m not really sure what’s wrong with the current system per se except it should be more professionalized. Let’s just outright train nannies and governesses via community college and technical schools. Or be like East Asia, where it’s just understood both parents work their asses off and have nannies, maids, and grandparents help with kids.
    The extreme alternative is ending up with, say, modern Indian upper-middle class women who go and get a hard science Ph.D. Then marry and stay home with the kids. Seriously, why waste 7-10 years of the advanced educational system just to play with blocks and sing silly songs? [yes, yes, I know, signalling and spouse selection, but it’s still inefficient]
    The “have it all” mentality is stupid. Please show me all the power executive and C-suite Dads who are hands-on parents who even took a few years away from work when their kid was 8 to teach them how to play sports, go fishing, and go shooting and hunting. And who never misses a sports game, concert, or school play. Women can have that, too. Just marry a younger, hotter, less-well educated guy who mostly wants to home with the kids, cook, and clean. There are tons of men who would do that. [insert your own red pill gender psychology explanation of why this doesn’t happen often]

    1. Check this quote from the article:
      “Escape from this kind of exploitative wage-system was an opportunity offered to them in the pre-feminism era when having a job was not an obligation imposed by the system as it is now.”
      Having a two-income family is no longer an option, it’s an obligation. Less qualified women (the majority, because be it men or women, highly-qualified people would always be a minority) are OBLIGATED to take-up low salary jobs without having the means to get their children raised by other women. And herein, as the bard says, lies the rub.
      The major issue raised in the article is that all of the women (or even men) can not have it all. Nobody is stopping women from going out and working. I’m only trying to point out that is what most women do as work really more valuable/fulfilling than raising their own kids?

      1. But in the 1st world, yes, probably what even middle or even lower-middle income women are doing is more valuable (economically speaking, as for fulfillment, yeah, good luck with that) than rearing kids.
        The real question is: are what 3rd world peasants doing back home more valuable than rearing 1st world children? It’s a cold, harsh world that calls for cold, harsh rational optimizations, like not getting to be a hands-on parent even if you want to. Where I live in East Asia, they import indentured servants by the jet load to rear kids. Still not enough to keep the birth rates up, though. Low birth rates in developing/ed East Asia might be an interesting future article topic, though.

        1. What middle or lower-middle income women are doing is “not” economically valuable either and as a result the chances of a divorce increase manifold in a middle/lower-middle income family after a childbirth.
          Of course in case of divorce it’s the husband who gets shafted because he has to pay the child-support as well as alimony while losing the custody at the same time.
          The biggest cause of post childbirth divorce is that due to not being able to afford a nanny (daycare =/= nanny) even on two salaries, the relationship comes under extreme stress and results in a divorce.

        2. I agree with you, and you’re absolutely right if you look at a 1st world nation in isolation. But what a crummy lower-middle class admin woman does in the USA is still globally more valuable than what a 3rd world peasant woman does in her corrugated tin shack. Also, if we aren’t going to send women to work, it’s very inefficient to educate them so much. Middle school + finishing school was fine in the 1800s.
          I still like the East Asian solution of importing nannies wholesale, not paying them, not letting them bring relatives, and certainly not granting them residency or “a path to citizenship.” Whether that is more politically impossible in the USA than figuring out how to go back socioeconomically to the 19th century and single-income households is an open question (both are probably impossible). That being said, I’m not having kids myself so clearly I’m not _too_ enamored of the East Asian system). And neither are they, since they’re also not having kids.
          I’m not trying to be confrontational because family economics are an important topic and this is a good discussion. I’m just pointing out there’s another solution elsewhere world for this that promotes dual income households, but whether it’s working is another issue. Although I’d say too few kids is still better than too many badly reared and educated ones bereft of a family structure, which seems to be the US “solution.”

        3. It might be a little bit difficult to implement the East Asian nanny model in the US because it is very close to indentured labor and the US has a very shady history with slavery. Also, the US is much more heterogeneous than East Asian countries, so let’s say you start importing Filipino nannies to the US, don’t pay them and don’t give them certain rights, the Filipino community in the US would sue Uncle Sam’s ass. In Hong Kong the supreme court would laugh at the notion of basic human rights and brush aside the case.
          Another point, liberal arts studies was supposed to be the finishing school but it only produces baristas and freelance journalists now. Oh, and spinsters too…

        4. Nannies are cheap. You hire a live in nanny, she gets her suite and free room and board and you give her one of your cars to use to keep her happy. Pay her some nominal salary like $20k. No problem.

        5. You might be considered “clinically delusional” with this kind of comments.

      2. Part of the problem is we tell young girls to go get an education first, then stop for 10 years to have kids. It would be much more sensible for those right tail women to get married at 18, pop out 2.3 kids, then start their university education part time at say 27, 28 when the last kid is starting kindergarten, then finish their PHD at 38, and be able to transition smoothly into Academia or Industry without having to stop. Problem is only the top 1 or 2% of men can afford to do this for their wife. That and most 18yr old girls in the west are not ready to manage a household and be a mom.

    2. “People should do what adds the most economic value they are capable of…”
      In Australia and the socialist republics of Scandinavia it is little bit hard for women to make this choice when governments tax their husbands 40% or more and then use it to fund massive incentives for child care, driving the cost well below the market value and simultaneously making a one income family a losing proposition.

  16. “My suggestion to the parents dabbling in this sort of extreme parenting-by-proxy experiments is to start putting aside a little bit of money from now on for their kids. Not for their college education though, but in order to pay for their therapy sessions when they hit their teenage years.”
    LOL. Great ending.

  17. Cry me a river, Argentina. I’ll tell you who gets the shaft in this, those husbands. It’s just one more way that men get fucked.
    I was one. I had nannies for years. They came from au pair companies, which is a lot more popular because our enlightened non-racist women are most racist when it comes to their kids. “I worry some latina woman would take the kid and run off with it back to Mexico” or some “minority woman just might ‘fit’ in my house”. So our enlightened feminist pays the man’s yang money to get one from Europe, some 19 year old Swedish, German, Norwegian, Irish, or English girl to come over for 12 months. And when I was doing it the cost was around, oh, 15-20 grand a year, given a bigger house to have room for her, a car, insurance, her gas, the $6000 up front fee to the agency, her salary every week, her food, and taking her with you on vacation. And who pays? He pays.
    Then that husband has one more woman in his house, one more thing that is more important than he is. One more stress point, one more schedule with requirements to be accommodated, one more cost point, one more thing that steals from his savings, adds to his stress load, adds to the shit of being a husband. Trust me, that nanny is not there to make his life easier. And trust me, she doesn’t. She complicates his life.
    So this guy, this photographer is riding a personal time of success, and in reality he is taking a great backseat to this grand production, this entourage of other women, all to take a supporting role to the grand grand starring role of heroic mother played by the bitch he is married to.
    Don;t worry about the kids, they could really give a fuck when the mom isn’t home. They really don’t mind the nannies, and many quite like them. They get just about all they want of that bitch mother whenever they see her. And damn few of the kids I knew, and for a while, all the kids I knew where nanny kids, had any problem with the nanny. The nanny is cool, the nanny has to compromise, balance, negotiate with those kids. The bitch does not. The bitch by virtue of having a vagina is naturally the expert as nutritionist, physical trainer, educator, psychologist, and stomps all over all opinions. I’ve seen it. I’ve kids relaxed, bullshit channels get changed to what everyone else wants, feet go up on coffee tables, and this general sense of ease and peace take over once that door shuts as the bitch goes about some “urgent” mission.
    It is that husband you should care about. It is just one more way women impose on the men in their lives, one more way to suck him dry, one more way that women feel entitled to labor of men. And you can bet your ass that the time and labor saved by the woman isn’t being spent satisfying the man that is paying for all of it.
    That poor motherfucker is lower than the dogs, certainly lower than the nannies, the kids, and you can bet your ass, way lower than the queen bee, her royal highness, the bitch that is making everyone’s life a living hell.

    1. Take it easy Minter, some guys here still haven’t given up on marriage. At least think about them 🙂
      On the other hand, I agree with you that this photographer guy indeed is one slippery fellow. In fact he has become my personal hero. Remember he is doing a very very very important project in downtown Vegas which is going to last for two years, while the entrepreneur mom and the nannies raise the kids. Who knows, he might be getting some action on the side as well.

      1. HAha. Good point. But, to balance the praise take another look at the pic of his wife.

      2. Hope he saves enough for a decent lawyer and gets a few quality hours in with the kids…he won’t be allowed to see them before long.

        1. Doubtful. The wife is already 40 something. If she hasnt divorced him yet, now she never will. Women unconsciously know when they officially cant do better. While theyre in their 30’s, their divorced friends might convince her she still has something left in the tank and push her to join the herd. But by now, shes seen confirmation of how dreary the single market is at that age and now shes just thankful she has a husband. Theres nothing but degrading pity for women who divorced and never get remarried.

        2. It’s the attitude and mindset of over-40 women, even with kids, who think that they still are desirable and can easily destroy their family and leave a decent husband that really concerns me.
          Look on dating websites and you’ll see what I mean. Even more funny (and sad, honestly) when they have high standards they virtually demand you meet.
          Meanwhile, in latin america girls around 24-25 are just dying to meet a nice guy who’ll be a decent husband they’d love to have, but can’t find any.
          The world is messed up. 🙁

        3. It’s the attitude and mindset of over-40 women, even with kids, who think that they still are desirable and can easily destroy their family and leave a decent husband that really concerns me.
          Look on dating websites and you’ll see what I mean. Even more funny (and sad, honestly) when they have high standards they virtually demand you meet.
          Meanwhile, in latin america girls around 24-25 are just dying to meet a nice guy who’ll be a decent husband they’d love to have, but can’t find any.
          The world is messed up. 🙁

    2. right. fuck that dude, if i get married and have a family i DAMN SURE am not about to pay salary to a separate mother and housewife. why even marry the wife in the first place? if she doesnt want the family life she has no business getting married. i might as well marry the nanny and fuck the “wife” on the side.

      1. It’s very easy to say that but basically once you get married, the power of veto is transferred to the lady of the house. She’ll leave you, take the kids and the house while you’ll be left with alimony and child-support payments for at least 18 years.

        1. when i say married i mean that figuratively. i definitely aint splitting my shit on paper with a female. fuck that.
          cs is a risk if you want kids. just because you are willing to do that doesnt mean you have to split everything else. in this modern world fuck that. you cant hold frame when you are legally married.

        2. Child support is not always a risk when having kids!
          See this comment from a previous post:

          Who Is Mark Minter?

          Basically, don’t get married. Have kids through in vitro fertilization, with an egg donor and a separate surrogate mother.

    3. …ladies and gents, the voice of experience and reason. Do an article man, sounds like you have some stories that don’t start with ” last week in class.”

    4. Au pairs have been very, very good to my sons.
      I raised them in Southern Marin County, California, just over the Golden Gate Bridge from San Francisco. We didn’t have au pairs or other help in our household but when my sons got to the age of being interested in females, there were lots and lots of other families’ au pairs about who were eager to spread their lonely legs for my handsome American sons.
      Free sex education – with practicums!

    5. you said it exactly how it is… i canned the nanny and sucked it to the bitch….. and it actually got better not worse…..
      but over all, if you want to have a child… build a bank role…. fly to some impoverished country… get some peasant girl to fall in love with you… make sure her extended family are reasonable….. knock her up…. promise her a visa, but never get one, and park her in an apartment with the kid…just better than her lifestyle with out you…… visit her soon and knock her up again… and repeat until she’s 40+ and can’t have any more…..
      bring the kids to your country to private boarding school when they are 12-13…. finish off their education properly and get to know them as adults.. children are fun, but barely worth knowing….. the concept of monogamy might have worked on the homestead with huge extended families, and community, but it’s dead and buried in the urban lifestyle… not just by feminism, but by loss of extended family and community…..

      1. Um, how the hell can you be certain that you’ll have father’s rights?
        A number of countries don’t give biological fathers absolute custody rights in the absence of marriage — especially the right to ship a child to a different country.

    6. You are a whiner. A sore excuse of a man.
      First you complain about having a young swedish nanny in your house?
      Are you fucking insane man? This is first quality pussy in her prime.
      Fuck her. Hard and often. Let your wife listen. Invite her over.
      She does not like that? Who cares!
      You do, because you are afraid of your woman. You are no master in your own home, you are a servant, a slave. You show no respect for your natural born right as a man. Why should any woman?
      Women are like a mirror. They reflect what they see. And you are not a man. You are a slave. You dont like that?
      Stop beeing on. NOW!
      1) For starters go out and fuck other women. Get some self respect and self confidence back.
      2) Then get your financial situation sorted. You do not have to be a financial slave. Not to your goverment and certainly not to your wife. Takes balls to get this straight though.
      3) Be a man.

  18. I’ll prove that the people getting screwed are the kids.
    One mom usually cares for one infant or toddler at a time. Instead of staying at home and being a mother to her husband’s child, she works and puts the kid in a day care center with a worker to kid ratio of 1 worker to 10 kids. Instead of one momma, the kid how has one tenth of a momma during the day.
    Meanwhile, the government takes 35% or more of the mom’s income for taxes. The business community gets a larger supply of workers, lowering labor costs in wages and salaries.
    Little wonder this rising generation is largely air heads.
    When my first batch of kids were young, we had a mammy, a young black woman with no kids of her own to help out with the kids and the house. The mammy got some ready cash for her temporary job, Of course, she spent it buying booze for her boyfriend – but that’s her business. The kids did learn to dance!

      1. Gangman Style….yeah… so that;s why all the popular entertainment has morphed from artistic philosophical thought provoking – even mind blowing artforms… into something that only drunk chimpanzees could fully enjoy…..

  19. As Peter Nolan so eloquently said, once women achieve equality with men, at least 50 percent, in the following six categories, THEN they can talk about equality:
    War dead – 98% men
    Workplace dead – 93% men
    Incarcerated – 90% men
    Homeless – 90% men
    Alimony payers – 99% men
    Child support payers – 99% men

  20. The definition of “Poor Women” could be expanded to include corporate and government clerks.
    The apparent empowerment of female clerks/receptionists in the workplace is subject to dehumanizing conditions that lead them to the desperate conclusion that self-respect must be exchanged for any leftovers of social status that their female superiors are willing to feed them off the tablecloth of undeserved privilege.
    This is how the remain mentally sane and self-confident in appearance, until they get home and begin crying for no reason, getting drunk and eating junk food.

    1. …and watching soap operas and going on shopping sprees and subconsciously looking down on their husbands/boyfriends for not being able to protect them from the misery of office life.

      1. Women like these will not be able to keep their femininity, sensuality and beauty for too long. They will not make good mothers, wives, girlfriends or sex partners.

        1. unfortunately the process isn’t fast enough… even the serial killer gets away with it for longer than expected…..

  21. Imagining that female burger flippers view themselves as being in the same social class tells us that you aren’t seeing how far feminism has gone or how fucked we truly are. Only a male can ever truly be a minimum wage slave. A Woman is only stuck there temporarily; in a few hours she’ll be out peddling her wares and spending some man’s money; she’ll be plotting her next move and applying to female-only college programs paid for by girl-empowering grants so she can start a diversity-mandated career. She’ll benefit from quota-driven promotions and select a quality ATM/husband and take paid time off to shit out 2.3 kids that will promptly be indoctrinated to worship women (especially mommy) as the paragon of animals …that guy next to her at the McJob, the one who thought she was his fellow member of some struggling social class, he’ll still be right where she left him, offering to super-size for a dollar more. Assuming he hasn’t walked into oncoming traffic by then…

  22. This nanny family system has been around in India for almost 150 years, as indian society is more closed , mostly father in law or mother in law becomes a house slave nanny for kids and they raise their kids while Husband and wife earn their living through farming
    this kind of society breeds worse kind of men and worse kind of women,
    If you want to notice the model of the society which i am talking here , look no where else than india and middle east
    This nannyhood family creates lousy kids and next generation of Drug addicts, Add Religion to this problem, your kid mostly will end up in terrorism
    Great way that west is slowly dying

  23. I actually have a bit of experience with Marissa Meyer. Without disclosing too much, let me say this…she’s as narcissistic a person as exists on the planet. No surprise I’m sure.
    Just look at that picture of her. Those tiny little pupils…she barely even sees that you or anybody exists. Yes she popped out a kid, but even that baby barely matters to her.
    There is only 1 person in Marissa’s universe, and that is Marissa. She’ll end up with totally ruined, fucked-up kids, and she will have 10,000 interlocking, unbreakable reasons why it’s not her fault. Her kids will hate her guts and write tell-all books about what a lousy mom she was, that is, assuming they can do so without losing their inheritance.
    Lower-class women? I guarantee you that Marissa hates them more than anybody. A rich white feminist chick hates working-class women worse than dirt. Still to this day I marvel at the poor black women who suck up to rich white feminists, their worst enemies on the planet.

  24. back in the day, the grand parents (all four of them), plus aunts, uncles, cousins, extended family and community, played an important role – so that the parents of working age weren’t burdened with child care. Even a full time mother on her own is working flat out to take care of two small children…… and god help them and their mother if there is any illness or the mother is pregnant again etc….
    no one can do a 24.7 job… and that is what bringing up children is like…..
    this is what has been forgotten…. lost not only under feminism, but in selfish, self serving, baby boomer ideals, that you can have it all…..
    honestly if the world gets any more selfish and self serving, people will wear white plastic trays and come shrink wrapped with microwave instructions attached…..
    everyone is so ‘busy’ typing crap into their smart phone and trying to become the next Lady Gaga that they don’t have time for real family and community… and kids…. we’ll they are just a necessary trapping… something to augment the facebook photos of the manicured lunch platter and the show home ikea furniture….

    1. Richard – you beat me to it!
      I was writing similar sentiment about grandparents at the same time.
      It does seem to be dying, even though grandparents *should* be living longer.
      Are the grandparents alwo working?
      (I still see *some* grandparents fulfilling this role, but not like 20 or 30 years ago, to be sure)

  25. hmmm.
    I know a great many of working women, and none of them use “oppressed” women to do their daycare.
    Many partner up with moms who want to stay at home, and these moms take in another child or two into their homes. It is a synergistic relationship for them.
    Some women have nannies who have already-grown children. These mothers have already raised their children, love to raise children, teach young ones, don’t have much marketable skill otherwise, and treat the kids wonderfully. The women who work outside their home treat their nannies like part of their family. The nannies treat the kids like their own grandkids.
    Yet another subset that I know have mothers or Mothers-in-law that stay with the children.
    Granted, my data set is not “a significant study sample,” but it is made up of many many women. I am not sure what where the data set in the original article come from…
    I am also lucky enough to know most of these women “contribute greatly” to society in their careers. While I do know a few men and some women that sit in jobs with no value whatsoever, thankfully I also know plenty of both men and women that contribute greatly.

    1. Hold yer horses there, sweet-tits. When you say, some other stay at home mom or mother-in-law takes working mom’s kids into her home for the day, don’t you mean into some other MAN’s home for the day?
      How is stunt-double mommy paying for where she’s entertaining these kids? Obviously not with her own income. Who’s feeding these monsters? Who’s footing the bill for the furniture they’ll be jumping on 8 hours a day?
      Its this kind of oversimplifying bullshit that makes this “empowered and employed mommy” bullshit not seem like like quite the farce that it so obviously is.

      1. I am sorry that I oversimplified this for the purposes of answering this blog.
        As I mentioned, in some of these cases, moms add children to their own homes. I don’t know how these moms detemine the incremental damage the additional headcount would do to their furniture.
        In the other cases I mentioned, the women come to the actual homes and provide in-home care. They make the food out of the family’s fridge for the kids. I don’t know if they get a discounted rate for eating while they are in the home themselves, but I doubt it. As I mentined, they are treated like they are part of the family. So they make lunch for the kids, and they eat lunch themselves.
        Regarding your first sentence, I am not sure how well this would read:
        “A stay-at-home mom takes kids into some other man’s home for the day.”
        –See how that sentence just won’t work?
        I know that you are trying to provoke me, but it just doesn’t make sense. I am assuming that stay-at-home mom is a happily-married mom, who has worked with her husband to make the joint decision to stay at home.
        -And that they also made the joint decision that she take care of extra kids.
        So when I say, “she taked in other children into her home during the day,” it is not to exlude the husband, it is to be true to the sentence structure and the “actor” in the sentence – The caretaker.
        I wanted to offer a few examples. I can continue with examples and detail to ensure that there is enough data to your liking.

        1. …so stay at home mommy, who is having her way paid by some husband to whom she is, according to you, happily married, is going over to a house some other man is paying for while orginial-version mommy goes out to feign productivity? This entire feminist pitch is bullshit because it always comes down to some man somewhere taking up additional slack to make some womans corporate dreams become a reality.

        2. So, in your opinion, no woman in the workplace is “productive?”
          Not sure why a man has to take up slack for her dream to become reality. The women colleagues I know are all highly productive, in a fairly merit-based workplace (where things like patents and engineering designs that can be assigne quality-based post-market return rating)
          I can’t see how men or women can “feign” productivity in these roles. that is why I chose the technical field myself, in fact…
          As I mentioned in my very first comment: I DO know some MEN and some WOMEN who are unproductive members of the workforce, who get paid but shouldn’t. But to bucket all of one gender into that overall category is just as bad as what a feminist does when she buckets all of the male gender as “needing to make amends” to her for some past life…
          Not a fan of the generalizations…

  26. A very intelligent article. Refreshing to see someone accurately describe the relentless hypocrisy, double standards and self serving nature of the SWPL middle and upper classes in Western, Capitalist, consumerist societies. These are the very people who hector everyone else about social and “equality” issues at every available opportunity.

  27. @Richard W1
    Hey man. The left and right in the representative democracies are no different from each other and never will because they both advocate models of organization in which the orientation of power is top-down.
    A real and honest left encourages horizontal distribution of power and successfully attempts to destroy pyramidal social structures. How can we be friends and trust each other if we only relate to each other vertically, with the pink people at the bottom, staring into the abyss, and the purple people at the top, stomping on ther heads with their designer boots?

    1. The Zapatistas of Chiapas Mexico are a very good example of a real left.
      “We were born between blood and gunpowder; and between blood and gunpowder we were raised. Every so often the powerful from other lands came to rob us of tomorrow. For this reason it was written in a war song that unites us: “If a foreigner with his step ever dares to profane your land, think, Oh beloved motherland, that heaven gave you a soldier in each son.” For this reason we fought. With flags and different languages the foreigner came to conquer us. He came and he went.”
      ― Subcomandante Marcos, Zapatistas

  28. This article could basically be written about humanity in general without the focus on gender. The rich and middle-class people (male and female) are hiring poor women to raise their kids and poor men (the male equivalents of the “Juanitas,” generally) to build their offices, repair their houses, and do their yard work.

  29. You know after looking at those pics it’s easy to see that the top women are just better looking than the lower classes but we all know that. It seems that looks and brains seem to go together. It seems to apply to men too which is why these pua dweebs are all lower class and clueless about females.

    1. Really? I didn’t know that top looking women are actually the most beautiful. Does the name Dilma Roussef ring a bell?

      1. You want me to prove it to you dweeb.All I’d have to do is take you on a tour of various areas ranging from the lower class trash at the bottom then moving up by degrees through the middle classes and then up to the top. Just keep your eyes open and it will be obvious. And to show that they are smarter just talk to some of them.

        1. Perhaps you should talk to them. Their smartness might rub off on to you. You seem to need it.

        2. That’s the sort of reply a little dweeb would make rather than addressing what I wrote.

      2. Hey, Cristina is (was) pretty. I wonder about this myself, I don´t know if it is the result of rich guys getting the prettiest girls, or “pretty” begin defined by the media owned by the same class.

        1. I think it’s because since the beginning of time the richer more competent men got the top females just as the richer men have better homes and drive Mercedes rather than Mazdas. Over numerous generations people bred themselves into classes. They really only know other people like themselves and mate with them. Occasionally some good looking intelligent lower class girl will get a rich man but this is an exception.A few exceptions mean nothing and over many generations and large numbers of people you will really see the difference in breeding. Since the 1970’s there’s been even more of a trend to breed within class and you can generally tell a female’s class by her body these days with the lower class fuglies on one side and the good looking higher class slim girls on the other.It’s all genetic and all the dieting and gym nonsense mean nothing. Even if one of these fuglies does lose weight she will quickly regain it , and more, at the slightest provocation.Take a look at her mother and you’ll pretty much see what you’ll end up with.

        2. Not sure about the “genetics of slim” for all rich people. If this is true, we are really and truly fucked (since 99% of us is not rich).

  30. “They wanted to break the so-called glass-ceiling by working as politicians, attorneys, journalists, managers, CEOs and fund-raisers in non-profits but never as nannies, burger-flippers and baristas meaning that it’s thenature of the work and the salary which is important and not the right to work per se.”
    This is reflected in the mates they chase (politicians, attorneys, journalists, managers, CEOs and fund-raisers in non-profits). I’m finding career women intolerable and anyway Roosh already did a post on education to feminity (

  31. You know what is sad, I would love to share this article .. but the world is so politically correct and as a mother of 2 I am connected to too many working mothers so I cannot. Brilliant article though. I always thought this. If you would not date someone who wants to be a stay at home mother, then you should not date a nanny or minimum wage earner either. The idea should be that males and females both contribute in ways that make the most sense. And with kids that means one has to earn less or fit their career around the children. It usually makes more sense for women to do this because we are the natural carers of children. With breastfeeding and pregnancy it just makes sense.

  32. wow- I am a woman and this is right on. I am also one of those women who has the opportunity to do more and has to make a decision between my own intellectual ambitions and community applause or doing what the fuck I am suppose to as a wife and a mom. I am constantly battling my own ego, because I was also raised (by my mom and other women libies) that I could do everything (and do it well) and that certain things were beneath me. I remember my mom (who was always working) insisting on a maid and my dad constantly saying he did not want strangers in his house. I never understood that until I had kids, but I understand that now. I am older (32) and now I know it is all BS. You can’t do everything at 100%. You have to pick and choose what is important to you. There are no guarantees your kids and your husband will appreciate your effort or sacrifice (people are rarely satisfied), but at least I will know I did what I was suppose to do. Yes, my career is in the process of being destroyed and maybe once the kids are older, in school, and on track -I will be able to pick up the pieces again. It is painful- I am trying to reprogram myself into not thinking that I am a failure, but doing what I am suppose to do. I wish society would back that up, but there is little of that to be found… except on this crazy Return of Kings page LOL!!! Great article- lots of truth here.

  33. There’s something about this that actually undermines the dignity of work for nannies and cleaning ladies. Working as a nanny, maid or cook is not a bad thing if the person is paid well. Most societies throughout history has had both socioeconomic classes and people in positions of service. And hiring household help is still very common in developing countries, even where women might be in the home. It’s actually the Western mindset that has made such politically incorrect because the presumption is that everyone is supposed to have this career of social status. In an attempt to take feminists or career successful women down a peg, you actually undermine the significance of those who do work that should be deemed honorable. The woman working in another woman’s household presumably still has the opportunity to better the lives of her children through her work so that they can do better than she did. As a woman who is only two generations from women who were domestics, this does happen.
    If this were at all about fair pay or working conditions it might be more on point.

  34. “However, little do we know that behind every successful woman living the Fourth-Wave dream, there are… a lot of very unsuccessful women.”
    Pfff, it’s basic knowledge for red pillers. Pareto law works every time. Women think they can have it all, only to burn out themselves in the end. Patriarchy of the 19th century was a much better deal for women. You hit it right in the centre, when you said that feminism was invented by upper class bored housewives. In a way it was a shit test too, which our white knight great grandfathers have failed.

  35. The problem of modern motherhood seen through a young male, probably with no experience on the subject of parenthood, family dynamics and raising a child.
    Just few basic remainders:
    – It really takes a village to raise a child. Recognize it or not, it was always like that and will always be. Mother alone, even if she was stay at home mum, can not raise her children without solid support from the community and the family. And in the modern age this support is wanting – that is why village is reduced to nannies.
    – Mothers are usually forced into labor market to cover up for their husband’s lack of job or sustainable job. Most of the time it is not about stellar careers, it is mere surviving issue.
    – Parenthood is hard, if we’re talking responsible parenthood. But in the light of mothers being the sole breadwinner it is damn hard. Why don’t you have a child and try to raise it while being primary caregiver and breadwinner. Than we’ll talk about the amount of effort it takes.

Comments are closed.