“Indeed, Sputnik recently reported that lawyers across the US are anticipating record divorce rates once the lockdowns end, as the crisis has placed unheard-of levels of stress on millions of marriages.“
Posted automatically (#107918) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here. (@Todd_Tomorrow: Click here to suppress your anonymous crosslink notifications)
Be a virulant man, get married, have kids and raise em right. PARENTS control who they "date" and who they marry and what they do until then. You can't do much more than that
Sign zee papers sir, and you will get a tax reduction from the government.
But if your papers get nullified through a divorce, ve vill confiscate your home, confiscate your car, take your children, and deduct a percentage of your income every paycheck for a duration determined by the courts. Other penalties may also apply depending on circumstances.
Well that makes sense. But I have all these christcucks screeching about muh degeneracy, porn, and video games. Blaming and shaming men for not walking into the slaughterhouse like a good christcuck/tradcuck should. Maybe if we punish men more and pay women more tax gibs it will work out? That's their argument anyway. It isn't doing shit but they keep on bleating that it's the only way...
2nd wave feminism was compatible with a healthy marriage but 3rd wave misandry pathologizes male to female polarity as well as crafts a misandrist cult-like ideology that seeks to erode meritocracy in favor of equality of outcome despite common gender differences that are biologically ingrained due to evolutionary biology.
They're basically just societal eugenicists in a sense, trying to destroy masculinity so every man is a low testosterone virtue signalling good boy who eats bugs instead of beef who one day maybe will be the misandrists "romantic" choice once she is no longer attractive enough to command the attention of the top 10% of the dating market, if she is not an incel pretending to just be choosy and calling men she disagrees with incels.
That's a big chunk of the West ^.
There is also post-feminist Eastern Europe which makes radical feminists seethe because they think Russia is making American men crazed right wing lunatics and they are jelous and racist towards Slavic beauty. There is also South America and Asia that have more normal women and even Europe has more normal women that are not mentally and emotionally skewed by hateful ideology... so if America is too subverted for you due to KGB postmodernism brainwashing done during the 1960's-1990's that fully came to prominence maybe around 2016 in the US psyche and has been just rapidly disentegrating the social fabric ever since, while simultaneously shaming men for pulling away from them, then finding a wife overseas is probably the a good idea if this virus that China obviously lied about to exacerbate the spread ever goes away.
Every single stage of feminism has been bad. Every single idea that it pushes is bad. Every single goal it has is bad.
Thanks mostly to second wave feminism, which covered an enormously broad range of topics, it is beyond the scope of even this post to address all of it. But I can address the two main points of it, and I will.
Women Should Have The Right To Vote! No, they should not. I can give you three very good reasons women should not have the right to vote. First, it allows politicians to drive a wedge between men and women, pitting husband and wife against one another. They can use gender identity politics to attempt to appeal to men or women exclusively, pitting half of the nation against the other half while giving them an out on addressing the real issues. It gives politicians in Washington the power to get between a husband and a wife emotionally and intellectually, which is outrageous and should not be allowed.
Second, it is the most destructive thing to the family. Before feminism, only men had the right to vote and almost all men got married. In practice, this meant that there was, as a trend, one vote per family, not one vote per person. If we assume the lowest possible trust in politicians, then we assume that their political rhetoric will always reflect the bare minimum of what they can get away with. When over 95% of American voters were men casting votes for their families, politicians had no choice but to pitch policies and laws that were conducive to family values. But when all adults have a vote, politicians no longer have to care about family values. The level of discourse can be lowered to simply being individual friendly, instead of being family friendly. We can see the transformation this has on political rhetoric in action by simply looking at how talking points were changed. “Homosexual marriage is bad for the family” stopped working as an issue. Why? Because of the individual-friendly “rebuttal”: What people do with their own bodies–or what they do behind closed doors–is no business of yours. The family gave way as an issue to the individual. This counter to anti-homosexual sentiment did not exist until women were given the right to vote.
Third, related to the second, conservatives and liberals have a very fundamental split on how they view the world. The atom is defined as the smallest possible unit of an element that still retains all of the traits of that element. Same with molecules of a given substance. So a water molecule is the smallest possible amount of water that still behaves chemically and physically like water. If you break it down any further, it stops being water. One of the most fundamental splits between conservative viewpoints and liberal viewpoints is their view on the molecule of society. The liberal views the individual as the smallest possible unit of society. Thus, all of their policies and issues stem from this fountainhead. To the liberal, it makes perfect sense that all rights, freedoms, powers should belong to every single individual. Even their more radical stance–the communist reconfiguration of wealth and social structure–is nothing more than a relatively basic and logical extrapolation on this theory of the primacy of the individual. Communism takes “all Individuals should have the same powers, freedoms, and rights” and extrapolates this into “all individuals being totally equal in all things is the only true form of fairness and justice, because any difference between individuals must be injustice.” Thus, we have the creation of things like social justice and cultural marxism, and we come to understand why communism, in spite of being referred to as a “radical” politic, is in actuality only a single step away from what we consider basic modern talking points for liberals. This is, by the way, how you can tell, rhetorically, that all neoconservatives are just liberals who wear red ties, and it is also how we can accurately identify libertarianism as being inherently and fundamentally left-wing. Both neocons and libertarians accept and agree with the core liberal framing that the Individual is prime.
The conservative, however, disagrees. To the conservative, the molecule of society–the smallest possible unit of civilization that still retains all of the qualities and traits of civilization–is the family, not the individual. A family is a group of people who share blood ties, live in the same space, speak the same language, have the same culture, and share the same experiences. To the conservative, a family is a microcosm of the nation itself, because it shares all the same traits that a nation does (and even the same general definition), but if you were to break the family apart into individuals, they no longer exhibit the traits of a nation, because they are alone. This is the fundamental disagreement between conservatives and liberals over the identity of a nation, and it is why liberals have lost the argument. An individual is a lump of experiences and traits without context or frame. To base a nation off of individuals is to base a nation off of nothing, because individuals have next to nothing in common with one another. This is the reason liberalism, having fully incubated into its final rhetorical form, is agitating for the dissolving of all borders and the inclusion into every nation anyone who wishes to be a part of it. To a non-liberal, this is complete madness, but to a liberal, it is “logic” totally in line with their core assumption that individualism is prime.
Conservatives, by contrast, have an infinitely more authentic depiction of a nation. A nation is blood, soil, and the shared culture and experiences of the people who live in it. A family is also shared blood, shared soil, and the joint culture and experiences of the people who are a part of it. Conservatives define a nation not by the individuals who make it up, but rather by the bonds that hold those individuals together. A group of individuals is a family–the smallest unit of a civilization that still retains all of the traits and qualities of civilizations. A group of families is a neighborhood or locale; a group of neighborhoods or locales is a district; a group of districts is a state; and you can either stop there with the nation-state or take it one step further with a group of states creating a greater superstate.
This is a very long explanation for a very short statement, but it was needed to appropriately justify it: the third reason women should not vote is because, simply, it distributes the vote to individuals over families, which creates a system that will always sacrifice the family and always destroy family values in the name of pushing individual values. In pure cause-and-effect, a system in which only women could vote and all women were married would be better than a system in which men and women can both vote. The vote must go to the family–it is absolutely paramount–and prior to feminism, it did. Women’s voting rights destroys that.
Women Should Have The Right to Work! No, they should not. Fortunately, unlike the previous point, this one requires far less baggage to successfully unpack. I will make six points here, though strictly speaking, the first one alone would be enough to justify saying no. First, giving women the right to work doubles the number of people looking for jobs while retaining the number of available job positions. This means, at a bare minimum, all wages are halved and it will be at least twice as hard for anyone looking for a job to actually secure one. What bringing women into the job market did was functionally the same as going to a foreign nation, picking out a number of foreigners equal to the total number of American citizens, and then bringing all of those foreigners in to America all at once. If somebody today proposed importing 300 million immigrants within one year–which is the modern day equivalent of what feminism did to America in the early 20th century–they would be lynched, and rightfully so. I could leave this point here, and it would be enough. The math is cold, harsh, and brutal, and so simple that even a political pundit could not deny it, which is precisely the reason no one has ever actually formally examined the damage women entering the workplace did to first world nations, economically. Because it was catastrophic, and that doesn’t fit the narrative that giving women rights = goodthink. No one in the mainstream media or mainstream political discourse wants to think about how much damage feminism caused economically. Because we’re not supposed to think about that. But I won’t leave it here, because there are five more good reasons women should not be in the workplace. They are all interrelated, but they are separate reasons on their own.
Second, it destroys the husband’s ability to support his family. Once upon a time, the income of a single man working full time was enough to pay all the bills, put food on the table, own and gas up two cars, pay for the needs of 2.5 children, keep a woman who is a housewife comfortable and well-adorned, keep a house in working order, pay his taxes, and still have enough recreational spending money to splurge on holidays and vacations, as well as having a little bit extra to put away into savings for the kids and for your own retirement. Today, this reality of yesteryear is like a vision of wealth untold from Aladdin’s Cave of Wonders. Why? Because women entering the workplace pushed salaries and wages down to the very rock bottom. Double the number of people seeking jobs means the market dictates that labor is only worth half of what it used to be. Libertarians see no problem with this, but as we have already previously established, they are all delusional leftists.
Third, it enslaved women to the workplace. Cutting the wages of all working men in half meant that women had no choice but to enter the workplace in order to make enough money to fund their family. One of the primary reasons feminists agitated for the right to work any job they desired was they felt they did not have the freedom to decide what they wanted to do with their lives. If that was truly their complaint, then they have failed spectacularly, because they have achieved the exact opposite of that. Instead of gaining the freedom to choose, they now have no choice but to work, whether they like it or not. The housewife of yesteryear may not have had every business world door open to her that a man would have, but she, at least, had more freedom and choice than the woman of today, for she had the luxury of choosing to not work if she so pleased, and could sit pretty in the comfort that her husband’s salary would take care of her and the family of which she was a part. Those days are gone. That freedom is gone. In exchange for 2% of women getting to wear pantsuits and play at being power executives, 80% of women must work as waitresses and grocery baggers against their will. Funny how much this freedom smells like slavery, isn’t it?
Fourth, it emptied out the home. Forcing women to go to work alongside their husbands leaves an empty house with no one to look after the children. It doesn’t take a genius to know that services like daycare and nannies will never be the same as a child being looked after and taken care of by his own mother. Forcing women to work to sustain their family means that they will no longer be able to give their children the care that they need and deserve, which damages children mentally, emotionally, and socially at the time when they are most vulnerable. This is not fair to the children, and will (has) produce(d) a generation that is in some ways emotionally and socially stunted as a result.
Fifth, it undermines homeschooling as a means of educating your child and increases the dependence on state and federal programs to take care of and instruct the same. Once upon a time, a child could be sent off to school, but a woman who wanted to be more hands-on could opt to not do this, and instead teach their child reading, writing, and arithmetic at home herself. With the home emptied out and the labor of women tied up in securing a second income to support the family, the family has little choice but to forego homeschool and rely upon public and private institutions to teach their children. Not only is this always a risk, because you do not control what is taught, but in the case of public schooling in particular it opens your child up to being influenced by whatever politics are at play on a state and local level, dictating what may and may not be taught. The outsourcing of education to strangers is inferior to the more holistic approach of home education, as all testing and aptitude rankings have shown. Head for head, children that are homeschooled systematically outperform publicly educated children in all areas, and match neck and neck with the highest achieving of the private school students. They are also happier and more content on average, and are more emotionally and mentally balanced. But with women in the workplace, this superior method of education is limited to only the already wealthy, the uniquely fortunate, or the tiny few families that contain someone with a high-flying enough job to take up the slack for their spouse not working and bringing home a paycheck.
Sixth, it encourages women to not have families or children at all. Contingent to the previous points, without the strength of the male wage, the family becomes prohibitively expensive. What was once the social norm becomes instead an extravagant luxury only slightly less costly and less unattainable than a high-class yacht. The pressure to not have children becomes immense, and women enter a state of postponement. “I’ll have a family, but later, when I’ve saved up enough money.” “I’ll have kids, but later; right now I need to secure a future for them.” “I want to have a family, but I can always do it later when the situation looks better; right now I can just party and enjoy myself. After all, it’s not like I could have one now anyway, even if I wanted to.” But the cold reality of nature is that, while men continuously produce healthy sperm until the day they die, women have a finite number of eggs. The longer she goes without having children, the greater the likelihood that there will be complications or congenital birth defects. The possibility of a child being born with issues such as autism, general learning disabilities, and Down Syndrome increases markedly the older the mother is, and the age of the mother has also been linked to problems such as birth defects, miscarriages, and even sudden infant death syndrome. Studies have shown that the peak years of fertility for having healthy children begin around the ages of 19 and 20 and persists for the next six or seven years. Beyond the age of 28, a woman’s fertility begins to drop, and the possibility of health issues with her children begins to increase with each passing year. Eventually, she will enter a twilight of fertility in her late thirties, and not long after her supply of eggs will run out, bringing about the onset of menopause and rendering her infertile. The harsh fact of life is that not only do women have a finite number of eggs, but those eggs can and will go bad. The longer a woman puts off having a family, the less likely it is that she will ever have healthy children or a stable long term relationship with a man.
The odds are, in fact, even worse than they seem at first, because women do not live in a vacuum. They must contend with men, and those men who wish to be husbands are compelled by their own instincts to naturally seek out as young a woman as possible with whom to settle down to ensure the health of his children. So as a woman becomes older, even if she maintains her physical beauty, the odds of her landing a true, genuine husband decrease. All this, taken together, creates a cascade effect in which the implementation of feminist policies undermines the economic structure of a nation, helps destroy its moral fiber by replacing family values with individual values, robs women of their freedom and ability to self-determine, greatly incentivizes the responsible men and women whom society depends upon away from having families, and ultimately plunges the birth-over-death ratio below replacement level even as individualist advocation drags political policy into the mud, where it can only be recovered by importing non-natives to the country, completely and utterly destroying what was left thereof.
And this is just from discussing the two key touchstones of feminism: the “right” to vote and the “right” to work. I could sit here for weeks and unpack the problems caused by the advocacy for social justice, the peddling of alternative “gender identity,” and the insistence that all of society and culture be forcibly rearranged so that everyone is equal, all of which are major platforms of third, fourth, and fifth wave feminism. Instead, I choose to focus narrowly and deeply on these two core principles of the first and second wave, primarily because many women (and men) will waffle when confronted with anti-feminist sentiment and state something to the effect of, “Well, I agree that all this new stuff is strange and wrong, but the original feminists–they were all right! What they wanted was completely reasonable, and I agree with them.” You are WRONG. The beginning of feminism is the most important part of feminism because everything that follows depends upon the basic assumptions made therein. Prove those assumptions wrong–refute them–and you pull the bottom out from under the house of cards. Those assumptions are the most reasonable-sounding of the lot, and the most likely for your average citizen to support, even if they are a conservative. Which makes it all the more important that they be thoroughly and utterly debunked.
The harsh truth is this: countless conservative women bemoan the loss of the family and family values and those with the agency to be politically active debate and scheme about how to get it back, about how to stick it to those darn liberals and their shameless hussy advocates. Little do they know that it is the policies that they supported that caused the death of the family, not the ones they opposed. It is the solemn duty of every conservative woman to oppose feminism on every level and to do so vocally, publicly, and intelligently. Anti-feminist women can damage and undermine the philosophy in ways that no male attacker, however articulate and well-versed, ever could, because for liberals “MUH FEELS” trump fact. In this, they have something we do not, a strength we cannot muster. They have a duty to use it, just as they have a duty to create and rear children and to stand by their beloved. This is a war for everything we hold dear. Our future, our husbands, our wives, our lives, and our culture. The children we hold in our arms. You can hold nothing back. Because I promise you: your enemies won’t.
EEMac ago
People starting out life deep in debt, plus no marriage upside for men, has predictable consequences.
he_found_wepon ago
Not surprised considering how browned the US has become. Dindus and Juan don't get married.
ardvarcus ago
The decline in the holy institution of marriage is a clear indication of the perversion and rot of society.
bbqchipz ago
When a contract with the government will grants leverage to people whom shouldn't be allowed to vote it's totally worth doing.
FacelessScreaming ago
Why does the article say this in the end?
“Indeed, Sputnik recently reported that lawyers across the US are anticipating record divorce rates once the lockdowns end, as the crisis has placed unheard-of levels of stress on millions of marriages.“
Why do they assume the worst?
DrHatchetWound ago
what is the sound of 12 million hands rubbing?
Racial_Maddow ago
Ironically it sounds like a very loud gas chamber.
ruck_feddit ago
The rate is effectively zero right now.
I know, not really.
Todd_Tomorrow ago
Government incentives divorce for women. When you reward bad things people are going to do them.
SearchVoatBot ago
This comment was linked from this anonymous v/theredpill comment.
Posted automatically (#107918) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here. (@Todd_Tomorrow: Click here to suppress your anonymous crosslink notifications)
CustardsLastStand ago
Women's empowerment lowers fertility.
Guess what you have to do to raise it?
beefartist ago
Be a virulant man, get married, have kids and raise em right. PARENTS control who they "date" and who they marry and what they do until then. You can't do much more than that
pepeshadilay ago
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/virulent
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/virile
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
VOALTRON ago
Gee, I wonder why?
tourgen ago
Well that makes sense. But I have all these christcucks screeching about muh degeneracy, porn, and video games. Blaming and shaming men for not walking into the slaughterhouse like a good christcuck/tradcuck should. Maybe if we punish men more and pay women more tax gibs it will work out? That's their argument anyway. It isn't doing shit but they keep on bleating that it's the only way...
Revelations2_9 ago
Lies work best when mixed with some truth, not cut whole cloth. If you're gonna be a liar, at least try.
Sheeitpost ago
2nd wave feminism was compatible with a healthy marriage but 3rd wave misandry pathologizes male to female polarity as well as crafts a misandrist cult-like ideology that seeks to erode meritocracy in favor of equality of outcome despite common gender differences that are biologically ingrained due to evolutionary biology.
They're basically just societal eugenicists in a sense, trying to destroy masculinity so every man is a low testosterone virtue signalling good boy who eats bugs instead of beef who one day maybe will be the misandrists "romantic" choice once she is no longer attractive enough to command the attention of the top 10% of the dating market, if she is not an incel pretending to just be choosy and calling men she disagrees with incels.
That's a big chunk of the West ^.
There is also post-feminist Eastern Europe which makes radical feminists seethe because they think Russia is making American men crazed right wing lunatics and they are jelous and racist towards Slavic beauty. There is also South America and Asia that have more normal women and even Europe has more normal women that are not mentally and emotionally skewed by hateful ideology... so if America is too subverted for you due to KGB postmodernism brainwashing done during the 1960's-1990's that fully came to prominence maybe around 2016 in the US psyche and has been just rapidly disentegrating the social fabric ever since, while simultaneously shaming men for pulling away from them, then finding a wife overseas is probably the a good idea if this virus that China obviously lied about to exacerbate the spread ever goes away.
Tallest_Skil ago
Every single stage of feminism has been bad. Every single idea that it pushes is bad. Every single goal it has is bad.
Thanks mostly to second wave feminism, which covered an enormously broad range of topics, it is beyond the scope of even this post to address all of it. But I can address the two main points of it, and I will.
Women Should Have The Right To Vote! No, they should not. I can give you three very good reasons women should not have the right to vote. First, it allows politicians to drive a wedge between men and women, pitting husband and wife against one another. They can use gender identity politics to attempt to appeal to men or women exclusively, pitting half of the nation against the other half while giving them an out on addressing the real issues. It gives politicians in Washington the power to get between a husband and a wife emotionally and intellectually, which is outrageous and should not be allowed.
Second, it is the most destructive thing to the family. Before feminism, only men had the right to vote and almost all men got married. In practice, this meant that there was, as a trend, one vote per family, not one vote per person. If we assume the lowest possible trust in politicians, then we assume that their political rhetoric will always reflect the bare minimum of what they can get away with. When over 95% of American voters were men casting votes for their families, politicians had no choice but to pitch policies and laws that were conducive to family values. But when all adults have a vote, politicians no longer have to care about family values. The level of discourse can be lowered to simply being individual friendly, instead of being family friendly. We can see the transformation this has on political rhetoric in action by simply looking at how talking points were changed. “Homosexual marriage is bad for the family” stopped working as an issue. Why? Because of the individual-friendly “rebuttal”: What people do with their own bodies–or what they do behind closed doors–is no business of yours. The family gave way as an issue to the individual. This counter to anti-homosexual sentiment did not exist until women were given the right to vote.
Third, related to the second, conservatives and liberals have a very fundamental split on how they view the world. The atom is defined as the smallest possible unit of an element that still retains all of the traits of that element. Same with molecules of a given substance. So a water molecule is the smallest possible amount of water that still behaves chemically and physically like water. If you break it down any further, it stops being water. One of the most fundamental splits between conservative viewpoints and liberal viewpoints is their view on the molecule of society. The liberal views the individual as the smallest possible unit of society. Thus, all of their policies and issues stem from this fountainhead. To the liberal, it makes perfect sense that all rights, freedoms, powers should belong to every single individual. Even their more radical stance–the communist reconfiguration of wealth and social structure–is nothing more than a relatively basic and logical extrapolation on this theory of the primacy of the individual. Communism takes “all Individuals should have the same powers, freedoms, and rights” and extrapolates this into “all individuals being totally equal in all things is the only true form of fairness and justice, because any difference between individuals must be injustice.” Thus, we have the creation of things like social justice and cultural marxism, and we come to understand why communism, in spite of being referred to as a “radical” politic, is in actuality only a single step away from what we consider basic modern talking points for liberals. This is, by the way, how you can tell, rhetorically, that all neoconservatives are just liberals who wear red ties, and it is also how we can accurately identify libertarianism as being inherently and fundamentally left-wing. Both neocons and libertarians accept and agree with the core liberal framing that the Individual is prime.
The conservative, however, disagrees. To the conservative, the molecule of society–the smallest possible unit of civilization that still retains all of the qualities and traits of civilization–is the family, not the individual. A family is a group of people who share blood ties, live in the same space, speak the same language, have the same culture, and share the same experiences. To the conservative, a family is a microcosm of the nation itself, because it shares all the same traits that a nation does (and even the same general definition), but if you were to break the family apart into individuals, they no longer exhibit the traits of a nation, because they are alone. This is the fundamental disagreement between conservatives and liberals over the identity of a nation, and it is why liberals have lost the argument. An individual is a lump of experiences and traits without context or frame. To base a nation off of individuals is to base a nation off of nothing, because individuals have next to nothing in common with one another. This is the reason liberalism, having fully incubated into its final rhetorical form, is agitating for the dissolving of all borders and the inclusion into every nation anyone who wishes to be a part of it. To a non-liberal, this is complete madness, but to a liberal, it is “logic” totally in line with their core assumption that individualism is prime.
Conservatives, by contrast, have an infinitely more authentic depiction of a nation. A nation is blood, soil, and the shared culture and experiences of the people who live in it. A family is also shared blood, shared soil, and the joint culture and experiences of the people who are a part of it. Conservatives define a nation not by the individuals who make it up, but rather by the bonds that hold those individuals together. A group of individuals is a family–the smallest unit of a civilization that still retains all of the traits and qualities of civilizations. A group of families is a neighborhood or locale; a group of neighborhoods or locales is a district; a group of districts is a state; and you can either stop there with the nation-state or take it one step further with a group of states creating a greater superstate.
This is a very long explanation for a very short statement, but it was needed to appropriately justify it: the third reason women should not vote is because, simply, it distributes the vote to individuals over families, which creates a system that will always sacrifice the family and always destroy family values in the name of pushing individual values. In pure cause-and-effect, a system in which only women could vote and all women were married would be better than a system in which men and women can both vote. The vote must go to the family–it is absolutely paramount–and prior to feminism, it did. Women’s voting rights destroys that.
CTND
Tallest_Skil ago
CTND
Women Should Have The Right to Work! No, they should not. Fortunately, unlike the previous point, this one requires far less baggage to successfully unpack. I will make six points here, though strictly speaking, the first one alone would be enough to justify saying no. First, giving women the right to work doubles the number of people looking for jobs while retaining the number of available job positions. This means, at a bare minimum, all wages are halved and it will be at least twice as hard for anyone looking for a job to actually secure one. What bringing women into the job market did was functionally the same as going to a foreign nation, picking out a number of foreigners equal to the total number of American citizens, and then bringing all of those foreigners in to America all at once. If somebody today proposed importing 300 million immigrants within one year–which is the modern day equivalent of what feminism did to America in the early 20th century–they would be lynched, and rightfully so. I could leave this point here, and it would be enough. The math is cold, harsh, and brutal, and so simple that even a political pundit could not deny it, which is precisely the reason no one has ever actually formally examined the damage women entering the workplace did to first world nations, economically. Because it was catastrophic, and that doesn’t fit the narrative that giving women rights = goodthink. No one in the mainstream media or mainstream political discourse wants to think about how much damage feminism caused economically. Because we’re not supposed to think about that. But I won’t leave it here, because there are five more good reasons women should not be in the workplace. They are all interrelated, but they are separate reasons on their own.
Second, it destroys the husband’s ability to support his family. Once upon a time, the income of a single man working full time was enough to pay all the bills, put food on the table, own and gas up two cars, pay for the needs of 2.5 children, keep a woman who is a housewife comfortable and well-adorned, keep a house in working order, pay his taxes, and still have enough recreational spending money to splurge on holidays and vacations, as well as having a little bit extra to put away into savings for the kids and for your own retirement. Today, this reality of yesteryear is like a vision of wealth untold from Aladdin’s Cave of Wonders. Why? Because women entering the workplace pushed salaries and wages down to the very rock bottom. Double the number of people seeking jobs means the market dictates that labor is only worth half of what it used to be. Libertarians see no problem with this, but as we have already previously established, they are all delusional leftists.
Third, it enslaved women to the workplace. Cutting the wages of all working men in half meant that women had no choice but to enter the workplace in order to make enough money to fund their family. One of the primary reasons feminists agitated for the right to work any job they desired was they felt they did not have the freedom to decide what they wanted to do with their lives. If that was truly their complaint, then they have failed spectacularly, because they have achieved the exact opposite of that. Instead of gaining the freedom to choose, they now have no choice but to work, whether they like it or not. The housewife of yesteryear may not have had every business world door open to her that a man would have, but she, at least, had more freedom and choice than the woman of today, for she had the luxury of choosing to not work if she so pleased, and could sit pretty in the comfort that her husband’s salary would take care of her and the family of which she was a part. Those days are gone. That freedom is gone. In exchange for 2% of women getting to wear pantsuits and play at being power executives, 80% of women must work as waitresses and grocery baggers against their will. Funny how much this freedom smells like slavery, isn’t it?
Fourth, it emptied out the home. Forcing women to go to work alongside their husbands leaves an empty house with no one to look after the children. It doesn’t take a genius to know that services like daycare and nannies will never be the same as a child being looked after and taken care of by his own mother. Forcing women to work to sustain their family means that they will no longer be able to give their children the care that they need and deserve, which damages children mentally, emotionally, and socially at the time when they are most vulnerable. This is not fair to the children, and will (has) produce(d) a generation that is in some ways emotionally and socially stunted as a result.
Fifth, it undermines homeschooling as a means of educating your child and increases the dependence on state and federal programs to take care of and instruct the same. Once upon a time, a child could be sent off to school, but a woman who wanted to be more hands-on could opt to not do this, and instead teach their child reading, writing, and arithmetic at home herself. With the home emptied out and the labor of women tied up in securing a second income to support the family, the family has little choice but to forego homeschool and rely upon public and private institutions to teach their children. Not only is this always a risk, because you do not control what is taught, but in the case of public schooling in particular it opens your child up to being influenced by whatever politics are at play on a state and local level, dictating what may and may not be taught. The outsourcing of education to strangers is inferior to the more holistic approach of home education, as all testing and aptitude rankings have shown. Head for head, children that are homeschooled systematically outperform publicly educated children in all areas, and match neck and neck with the highest achieving of the private school students. They are also happier and more content on average, and are more emotionally and mentally balanced. But with women in the workplace, this superior method of education is limited to only the already wealthy, the uniquely fortunate, or the tiny few families that contain someone with a high-flying enough job to take up the slack for their spouse not working and bringing home a paycheck.
Sixth, it encourages women to not have families or children at all. Contingent to the previous points, without the strength of the male wage, the family becomes prohibitively expensive. What was once the social norm becomes instead an extravagant luxury only slightly less costly and less unattainable than a high-class yacht. The pressure to not have children becomes immense, and women enter a state of postponement. “I’ll have a family, but later, when I’ve saved up enough money.” “I’ll have kids, but later; right now I need to secure a future for them.” “I want to have a family, but I can always do it later when the situation looks better; right now I can just party and enjoy myself. After all, it’s not like I could have one now anyway, even if I wanted to.” But the cold reality of nature is that, while men continuously produce healthy sperm until the day they die, women have a finite number of eggs. The longer she goes without having children, the greater the likelihood that there will be complications or congenital birth defects. The possibility of a child being born with issues such as autism, general learning disabilities, and Down Syndrome increases markedly the older the mother is, and the age of the mother has also been linked to problems such as birth defects, miscarriages, and even sudden infant death syndrome. Studies have shown that the peak years of fertility for having healthy children begin around the ages of 19 and 20 and persists for the next six or seven years. Beyond the age of 28, a woman’s fertility begins to drop, and the possibility of health issues with her children begins to increase with each passing year. Eventually, she will enter a twilight of fertility in her late thirties, and not long after her supply of eggs will run out, bringing about the onset of menopause and rendering her infertile. The harsh fact of life is that not only do women have a finite number of eggs, but those eggs can and will go bad. The longer a woman puts off having a family, the less likely it is that she will ever have healthy children or a stable long term relationship with a man.
CTND
WickedVocalist ago
As long as women have to repay debt by law your argument is utterly abusive.
Also women own homes and cars.
You're a fucking nutjob, ISIS shill.
Tallest_Skil ago
What the hell are you talking about. You didn’t even read the posts.
Magical. What does that have to do with anything?
Great argument. Thanks for admitting that nothing you said is meaningful and that everything I said is necessary to restore white civilization.
alexasdfgh ago
Very interesting.
Tallest_Skil ago
CTND
The odds are, in fact, even worse than they seem at first, because women do not live in a vacuum. They must contend with men, and those men who wish to be husbands are compelled by their own instincts to naturally seek out as young a woman as possible with whom to settle down to ensure the health of his children. So as a woman becomes older, even if she maintains her physical beauty, the odds of her landing a true, genuine husband decrease. All this, taken together, creates a cascade effect in which the implementation of feminist policies undermines the economic structure of a nation, helps destroy its moral fiber by replacing family values with individual values, robs women of their freedom and ability to self-determine, greatly incentivizes the responsible men and women whom society depends upon away from having families, and ultimately plunges the birth-over-death ratio below replacement level even as individualist advocation drags political policy into the mud, where it can only be recovered by importing non-natives to the country, completely and utterly destroying what was left thereof.
And this is just from discussing the two key touchstones of feminism: the “right” to vote and the “right” to work. I could sit here for weeks and unpack the problems caused by the advocacy for social justice, the peddling of alternative “gender identity,” and the insistence that all of society and culture be forcibly rearranged so that everyone is equal, all of which are major platforms of third, fourth, and fifth wave feminism. Instead, I choose to focus narrowly and deeply on these two core principles of the first and second wave, primarily because many women (and men) will waffle when confronted with anti-feminist sentiment and state something to the effect of, “Well, I agree that all this new stuff is strange and wrong, but the original feminists–they were all right! What they wanted was completely reasonable, and I agree with them.” You are WRONG. The beginning of feminism is the most important part of feminism because everything that follows depends upon the basic assumptions made therein. Prove those assumptions wrong–refute them–and you pull the bottom out from under the house of cards. Those assumptions are the most reasonable-sounding of the lot, and the most likely for your average citizen to support, even if they are a conservative. Which makes it all the more important that they be thoroughly and utterly debunked.
The harsh truth is this: countless conservative women bemoan the loss of the family and family values and those with the agency to be politically active debate and scheme about how to get it back, about how to stick it to those darn liberals and their shameless hussy advocates. Little do they know that it is the policies that they supported that caused the death of the family, not the ones they opposed. It is the solemn duty of every conservative woman to oppose feminism on every level and to do so vocally, publicly, and intelligently. Anti-feminist women can damage and undermine the philosophy in ways that no male attacker, however articulate and well-versed, ever could, because for liberals “MUH FEELS” trump fact. In this, they have something we do not, a strength we cannot muster. They have a duty to use it, just as they have a duty to create and rear children and to stand by their beloved. This is a war for everything we hold dear. Our future, our husbands, our wives, our lives, and our culture. The children we hold in our arms. You can hold nothing back. Because I promise you: your enemies won’t.
Gigglestick ago
... I’d like to read more of your stuff.
LetTheMongoloidsDie ago
Ladies, as the incels say, "it was over before it even started."
RealBiggly ago
When the cancer of feminism takes hold it's just a matter of time before your society is destroyed.
Belrick ago
It's spelt femicuntism
RealBiggly ago
Or the longer form, Cultural Marxism, but the damage is the same.