Thursday, July 24, 2014

The Pendulum Swings Back

I've noticed for the past several years women have been hitting on me in the street, at parks and in stores. I've caught ones far too young for me staring at me in coffee shops.

What is going on here? It's not like I'm Brad Pitt. I shave my head and wear a goatee. I look more like Walter White.

Let's apply some economics here. When women are staring at men and approaching them it means there is a shortage of men.

The first feminists in the '60s decided men were the Fish No One Needed. Men had less value, meaning there must have been a surplus of them.

Now it appears there is a shortage of men and a surplus of women. Or at least that's the way some women perceive it.

This is actually very confusing.

Economically the United States is not doing very well. It's better for women than men, since there are now more women in college and more working, than men. But since women are supposedly "hypergamous" they always want someone more successful than they are. So what's going on?

Even woman making a decent salary...aren't. As I and others have pointed out before, if wages had continued to go up as they had during the '50s, the average salary would be $100,000 a year. So most women making a "decent" salary...are not.

And there are certain things women can't do, or don't want to do. For example, I had to replace the wax ring in the upstairs toilet in my house. How many woman can do that, or take down the kitchen cabinets, cut a hole in the drywall, and fix the leaking showerhead (the plumber told me it would be $300, after I took the cabinets down).

Now Sheryl Sandberg, and in the past Betty Friedan (even though she was a monster she somehow ended up married to a very wealthy man) can afford to pay to have this fixed - but the vast majority of women cannot.

Men have always been the protectors and providers. They protect society and they have provided everything for society - meaning they created everything.

Perhaps some women are beginning to realize this. Not only can they not have it all, they can't do it all. They can't protect and provide. And when they can't nurture, they destroy. And now they're working harder than their mothers and getting less and less for it.

The average woman is stuck in a quandary. She's been taught she can "have it all" then has found she can't protect herself unless she calls the police. And good luck with that.

And she can't even provide for herself, either. And as for husband, home and children, she isn't going to get that by abusing men.

Wealth is created by men. Specifically, married men with children. They created excess wealth to support their families, but that excess wealth benefits everyone. Since the marriage rate is hovering right at 50% and soon with fall below (along with the declining number of children) this country isn't as wealthy as it appears to be.

In many ways we're running on the fumes of past accomplishments. And speaking of excess wealth (specifically technological wealth, say washing machines and air-conditioners) that's what created feminism.

No excess wealth, no married men with children, no protection and provision, a shortage of men....and no feminism.

In other words excess wealth created feminism, and when the excess wealth goes away feminism goes away and women return to more traditional sex roles. So feminism is self-limiting - the more women in parasitical make-work jobs, the sooner the economy collapses and the faster things return to normal.

Perhaps many young women are starting to realize their "careers" aren't what they're cracked up to do...and trying to keep your car running and your lawn mowed and your toilet not leaking isn't all that fun. And realizing husband, home and children is better...notwithstanding the lies the media has fed them.

6 comments:

sth_txs said...

I've dated a couple women for sometime over the years that made 2x what I earned. I half jokingly let them know that it would not impugn my male ego to stay at home barefoot and in the kitchen. :LOL:

Ollie said...

Also, keep in mind the other 3 self-limiting factors on feminism:

1. Higher workforce participation/carousel riding etc. means a lower fertility rate amongst those who follow the feminist script. This isn't a profound effect, though, as feminism is primarily passed to women via the media/educational systems, rather than genetically.

2. More positions of power/control/privilege for women make the core feminist argument look increasingly absurd. The whole animus of feminism is hatred of men, based on the idea that men have all the power and are actively and deliberately using that power to oppress women. In a world filled with Hillary Clinton, Beyonce, Sheryl Sandberg and many others like them, the plausibility of this vision evaporates.

3. Men waking up. There has been a huge amount of support for the feminist movement garnered from men over the years, as most men primarily saw the movement as positive or harmless at worst. As the realization of the threat feminism poses to both society and the individual man spreads, the amount of tacit support from men declines.


There are probably other limiting factors in addition to these.

Cranberry said...

You said "shortage of men."

Not shortage of males. Shortage of men.

Big difference, there.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

Isaiah 4:1

The Anti-Gnostic said...

I saw a pithy phrase somewhere but don't recall it exactly. Something like totalitarianism or patriarchy, anarchy or patriarchy. I forget.

Bob Wallace said...

In that day so few men will be left that seven women will fight for each man, saying, "Let us all marry you! We will provide our own food and clothing. Only let us take your name so we won't be mocked as old maids."

I must have missed that one in Isaiah.