Another one from the Masculine Principle.
Donald Trump is quite right we need to throw out anti-American foreigners. But will he ever say anything about women in the workforce and how they have destroyed wages? I'll bet he'll never say a word.
The article starts here.
“Remember this: The strongest sign of the decay of a nation is the feminization of men and the masculinization of women. It is notable that in Communist nations women are exhorted, and compelled, to do what has traditionally been men’s work. American women, some of them, feel triumphant that they have broken down the ‘barricades’ between the work of the sexes. I hope they will still feel triumphant when some commissar forces a shovel or an axe into their soft hands and compels them to pound and cut forests and dig ditches. I hope they will be ‘happy’ when a husband deserts them and they must support their children and themselves alone. (After all, if a woman must be ‘free’ she shouldn’t object to men being free too, should she?) I hope they will feel ‘fulfilled’ when they are given no more courtesies due to their sex and no kindnesses, but are kicked aside on the subway buses by men, and jostled out of the way by men on busy sidewalks and elevators…. I hope, when they look in their mirrors, that they will be pleased to see exhausted, embittered faces, and that they will be consoled by their paychecks.” ~ Taylor Caldwell, 1970
Quote from Sovereign Man (Regarding how various governments are encouraging people to have more sex because of the looming birthrate crisis):
"Last year, the Danish government promoted an initiative called "Do it for Denmark", encouraging Danes to travel abroad and have sex while on holidays. They even have a pretty racy YouTube video featuring a scantily clad gorgeous blond waiting to do her duty for her country and procreate.
Singapore as well has a catchy jingle about going out and making babies, brought to you by the same guys who did the Mentos theme song.
The Swedish government actually spent taxpayer money on its new genitals song, so it can start indoctrinating children early on how to make babies.
Here in Japan, which has one of the lowest birthrates in the world, the government is desperate to find solutions to what it calls its libido crisis. According to their data, Japanese men aren’t terribly interested in sex and the women find sex to be bothersome.
[...] Easily the most ridiculous solution they came up with is to impose a ‘handsome tax’ on attractive men. [...] The idea being that if you tax handsome men, then less attractive men would have more money and hence be able to attract women."
I think the problems aren't quite as simple as made out to be... and they are deeply hidden behind political correctness and the out-of-control feminist movement. It will take me a little while to bring this back around to low birth-rates, but please bear with me as I present my case.
Didn't Britain just declare 30% of executives are to be women, since gender equality is supposed to be economically beneficial and has been "proven" by reams of (activist sponsored) academic research? Norway did the same a few years ago - affirmative actioning in a 40% female quota for all of its major corporations' executive boards and positions.
One wonders then why the garbage collection system wouldn't also benefit from a change to 50/50 men and women instead of it being nearly 100% male. Ditto for the almost completely female nursing and education industries... oh... and the 70% of government workers that are female - all receiving about 30% higher wages than the private sector would be able to afford. Not only would these changes supposedly bring greater profits - as women's studies "professors" claim (without ever stating a specific study we can analyze) - but it ought to lower other expenses as well, such as worker's compensation for injuries, which are 94% attributed to careless, clumsy males. Therefore, making all the dangerous jobs like logger, fisherman, bush pilot, construction labourer, farmer etc. etc. 50% female ought to drop the worker's compensation rate by 50% as well! (See how this feminism inspired logic works?)
And since everyone points out that the average worker isn't any better off than he was back in the 1970's, why doesn't anyone dare to ask why that is? Could it be that doubling the supply of workers available (by pushing women into the workforce to compete with men) without a subsequent increase in demand for goods & services, would halve the income of the general worker, and therefore mean it would take two full-time incomes to accomplish that which was previously paid for by one income? It's the freakin' Law of Supply and Demand, yet political correctness prevents even economists from pointing out the bleedingly obvious: The problem with wages is an over-supply of workers, which we've merely been papering over since the 1970's. Illegal immigrants still can't hold a candle to the effects of women entering the workforce enmasse over the past forty-five years.
Further, and VERY importantly, women are hypergamous - They tend to marry up socially and financially, not down. Snow White married the Prince, not one of the Seven Dwarves. CEO's marry their secretaries; doctors marry nurses; factory workers marry waitresses... but what you'll have a hard time finding are female CEO's marrying an auto-mechanic, or a woman lawyer marrying a struggling poet. You can find evidence of this today in what are known as "Kitchen Bitch Marriages" - where the woman is the primary breadwinner while the male takes on a more domestic role. In such marriages, the divorce rate jumps from 50% all the way up to 90%. That's pretty clear evidence of hypergamy and the need for defined gender roles, if you ask me..
Thus, the more you pay women, the less men there are who exceed them in resources, and the less reason women have to "associate" with them, which I've heard somehow or other tends to lead to babies. This is a very large problem with women in the workplace - not that they shouldn't be there, but rather that the more successful they are, the fewer men they find attractive. Generally speaking, a woman making $60,000 a year does not find a man making $40,000/yr to be attractive. And a woman who makes $250,000 will need to find a man making around $350-400,000/yr to "trade up" to. The problem now for such a woman becomes that while she has shrunk her pool of hypergamously selected mates to only those above her level of income (which is very small in the scope of the population), the man who is making as much or more than her is hypergamously attractive to ALL women below him, right down to welfare queens. Thus, the highly successful career woman has not only limited her prospects enormously by shrinking her pool of mates, but of the prospects she actually does finds attractive, she has to compete with a gajillion other women for his attentions. Truly, the handsome tax mentioned above is not as silly as it sounds. (Although it certainly goes against any principles I adhere to).
There are lots of parallels with the economy and the lack of sound money being the cause of the end of empires, but also to note, in the vast majority of cases throughout history, at their peak the genders turn on eachother and androgynize - men and women don't have separate roles anymore, but now compete with eachother directly in some genderless role neither of us is particularly good at. Who ever would've thunk it that women would find masculinity attractive and men would find feminity attractive? Certainly not feminists and academics, that's for sure. They think men should find women sexy for their earning abilities (men don't) and women ought to find men attractive for their metrosexual fashion sense, housekeeping abilities, and smooth, clear skin (women don't).
When Darius III got his ass handed to him by Alexander the Great, he lamented, "My men have become women and my women have become men." (It's true too - by the end of the great Persian Empire - at the time the most powerful in history - the men were effeminate and the women were leading battalions in the Persian army).
In Rome they used to say that women married intending to divorce and divorced intending to remarry (starter marriages, anyone?). They also eventually had to pass laws forcing men to marry or forfeit their inheritances along with other such bachelor taxes, because marriage was such a complete and utter disaster for most men that they avoided marrying a decadent, sex-positive Roman woman at all costs, which most were. The government claimed they needed to pass laws forcing men to marry because the low birthrate was a jeopardy to the state, which it certainly was.
The Ottoman Empire lost its power and lustre when its birthrates fell into negative territory (below 2.1/couple) - sure it struggled on for quite a while, but with declining birthrates, they never recovered until finally they wheezed their last breath in WWI. No population has ever reversed a birthrate that dropped below 1.9/couple, and once it falls below 1.3/couple it is mathematically impossible to reverse the decline because of the "time gap" that it takes to turn babies into functioning, productive citizens. By the way, Japan, Spain & Germany are all at or below this 1.3/couple threshold. Most of the rest of the West is sitting around 1.5/couple - except for the USA which is still around 2.0/couple, but this is only because of the immigrant population. The "homegrown American" population only has a 1.6/couple birthrate. (Birthrates were 3.9/couple back in 1970).
Abortion Laws are one thing the West has an option of revoking which the civilizations of the past did not. Currently, 21% of all pregnancies end in abortion, while half of women will experience an unintended pregnancy by age 45. If the government simply told feminists to get stuffed and made abortion illegal, the birthrate would jump 21% instantly. That's not a judgement on the morality of abortion - it is simply a fact. (And after all, don't we ask men to die in wars to save society? Having a few babies is the least our women can do - in the name of "equality"). And while making abortion illegal would not be a complete fix, it would certainly go a lot further than encouraging people to go on a vacation to have sex, or writing pee-pee songs to indoctrinate children into sexuality at an early age. (While at the same criminalizing every expression of male heterosexuality that pops up in society - there's that government inefficiency for you)..
We probably coulda used some of the 50 million babies that were aborted in the USA over the past 40 years, couldn't we? Especially since many of those non-existent people would have also reproduced by now - that means that perhaps 75 million (or more) homegrown citizens are simply "missing" from the population. Note that this amount of missing people is about equal to the entire US population of the Baby Boomer generation... all of whom were expecting other people's children to fund their pensions and lifestyles into old age. It woulda worked, you know, if we hadn't genocided the children of tomorrow which we now need to be working and paying taxes to fund the elderly in their old age. This is kind of the story about the grasshopper having fun during the summer versus the squirrel saving a cache of nuts for the winter, isn't it? There's no such thing as a free lunch!
Check out the research of people like JD Unwin's "Sex and Culture" - he documented over 80 cultures that have risen and fallen over the millenia, and found that in almost all of the cases, when a culture was rising it was restricted in its sexuality, it had clearly defined (and by modern terms misogynist) gender roles which best utilized both sexes' skills, and women were directly dependent on their husbands for income, rather than dependent on government or other such means (Aristotle claims unreasonable dowry laws as the cause of men and women repelling from each other in Sparta - and also directly attributed Sparta's demise to a declining birthrate because of women's wealth outside of marriage). Unwin also provides evidence that during the decline of cultures and empires, the sexes tend to androgynize - which actually pushes them apart rather than pulling them together - and thus, in the decline, a culture becomes feminized and therefore birthrates fall until eventually everything collapses... kinda like what's happening to us right now.
QUOTING A YOUNG WOMAN: "As long as mothers and/or wives don’t allow their careers to consume their lives and interfere with their God-given duties, then I don’t see a problem. Women have their own aspirations and dreams as well just like men (and no I don’t believe that the only reason people have careers is to make money)."
I agree with much of what you say. There is nothing inherently wrong with women having jobs, or their own money, or pursuing their own dreams and aspirations.
Now, what those types of dreams and aspirations are, sometimes irks me enormously, when one stands back and has a good long look at what society has transformed itself into.
One of the reasons that women earn less in the workplace is because of the jobs they choose. Women are often reporting that they want to have a job that will have some sort of a social impact, or benefit the community, and so on, and so on, (&, btw, who doesn’t?) and will take lowered pay in order to find a job that meets these criteria.
Now, that is all good and fine – in fact, it might even be noble.
But, look at the friggin’ absurdity of what we have done since those dreaded, awful, horrible 1950′s. (Arguably the zenith of Western Civilization).
A man back then was able to earn enough money from a mere blue collar job, that his wife could stay at home, he could pay for raising 4 kids, they could go on a nice family vacation once a year, he could pay for a decent home, and have a new car in the driveway. On his wage alone!
And often, after the kids were off in school, the house was nice & clean, and the fridge was properly reloaded, what did those oppressed women go off and do with the rest of their time?
Well, some of them gossiped like the dickens, I suppose, but many others did things they found socially rewarding. They raised money for charities, they volunteered time to help the elderly or the needy, they organized groups that enhanced the lives of their communities – from hobbies to sports, and so on and so on. In other words, they sought social rewards of their own volition, and had money in their jeans, er, pleasantly sexy sundress pockets to boot!
And today they have “liberated themselves” into halving the income of men by flooding the job market with laborers, forcing both men and women to work full-time jobs in order to live in a crappy condo with their 1.6 kids, and the two cars they need but can only afford on the never-never plan. (A lease). And what do they want out of their careers? To do something socially rewarding that benefits the community! See the irony here?
And now, if they get to do such a thing called “social rewards” even marginally from their job, they have to do it in march step to their jerk-off boss under far less pleasant circumstances.
Oh well, Ladies. I guess you’ve spent the last 50 years proving that men have been right for the past 5,000 years.
QUOTE #2, A MAN: "Women get paid less because they work fewer hours in less dangerous jobs. It has nothing to do with their noble humanitarian spirit (excuse me while I gag) to help others.
Women are often over-paid for the amount of work they do, leaving men to pick up the slack and subsidize women’s bloated paychecks.
If women were as altruistic as you claim, they’d recognize the atrocious abuses of the current feminist regime in large numbers, but that hasn’t happened because women largely live in their own self-obsessed little worlds. In contrast, men gave women the “women’s liberation movement” because men actually DO have compassion and noble intentions."
No doubt, I agree with much of what you say. Also, women will always put themselves first. And they are plagued with narcissism and are often self-obsessed – either with themselves personally, or with their own sex.
And, I don’t doubt that often times the “charity work” they did in the past was done for other than purely altruistic reasons. For example: Most men can instantly understand what I mean when I say, “It’s not charity if you talk about it.” And I’ll bet that a lot of them ladies clucked very often, trying to one up the other hens with tales of how perfect they were, while they cackled about the hens that weren’t doing enough to be as good as them. They are, after all, social creatures far more than men, and need the approval of the herd, er, flock, to decide what is right and wrong.
But, at least the way it was before, it took features of “woman-ness” and harnessed them for the betterment of both families and society - much like how patriarchy put sex to work. I don’t think the women of old cared so much about “keeping the door stoop swept” out of respect for their husbands, but more so the other women thought well of them and had nothing bad to gossip about when they knocked on the door.
And, as an added bonus, it kept them out of our hair all day, until we came home and got what we men wanted out of them.
As an interesting side-note on this subject, while Plato argued for the emancipation of women from their traditional role, he warned that women should not be encouraged to encroach upon the male role, to prevent what happened in Sparta. Rather, he philosophized, they should create a new role from which they can best serve society.
It's an interesting thought, isn't it?
What kind of new role could they have created? Well, since even today, women in the workplace claim they are willing to take lower pay in order to serve the community - and since women, socialized herd creatures that they are, claim repeatedly that they want their work to have a positive impact on society while also allowing them time to tend to children and the elderly in their families, why are we paying government bureaucrats to do all the social work that women once traditionally did in their free time before all this nonsense started?
Furthermore, if we returned to the mindset of the home being a place of production rather than consumption, what kind of value do you think a woman could create for herself and her family? In many cases, everyone would be better off financially - just do the math!