This post is also available in: Deutsch
Reader John Whorfin writes about the costs, conspicuous and hidden, that women in the workforce impose on families.
A bit OT, but women in the workforce has obviously been a disaster for a number of reasons, well catalogued, but briefly:
1. Lowered wages across the board; Supply and Demand 101
2. Stressed families as no one is home to take care of the place, meals are fast food or processed crap.
3. Increased family taxes.
4. Inflation (more $ chasing goods).
All of which leaves the family running in place in terms of cost of living.
There are also less visible damages and one of them is kids overall getting less sleep. Think about it. Mumsy and Dadsy both work, so state-sponsored babysitting (aka “school”) is now a must, which means that the tots must be rousted out of bed at 5:30-6:00AM so mom can get to her cubicle job at Globohomo, Inc. This lack of sleep stresses the hell out of kids, whose brain development depends on 8-10 hours of sleep a night. I submit the hellish schedule most modern families adhere to is in part responsible for declining IQs and mental aberrations among kids.
Any family men out there should seriously consider if a two-income family is worth it. We homeschool, my car is approaching 10 years old, waifu’s is 14. We do state park trips instead of jet-setting or theme parks, don’t have the latest must have iPhag accessory and don’t have cable (a twofer as that sh*t is poison, spent that $ on a gym) and yet, we couldn’t be happier.
In the coming days of privation, prioritizing will become a…priority.
Leftoids have a real aversion to discussing or even lightly speculating about the economic, social, and biological costs of dual income families. When the Left’s argument is to shout down any opposing viewpoints and threaten ostracism via slander and libel, you have a good clue that the Left knows the opposition is onto something. No matter how much data and real world observations you amass to buttress your case that women in the workforce is far from an unalloyed social good, the mere utterance of this view will get you tossed out of uptight society, and probably from your job.
But those heady days of unaccountable power are ending for the Equalist Left. Each day their power drains, and they respond with increasingly unhinged displays of insanity. It won’t be long now before the leftoid system that’s been in place for the past 70 years breaks apart in a cacophony of rhetorical and possibly real shrapnel.
Related: Academia is becoming more left-wing because it’s becoming more feminized. The share of women who describe themselves as liberal or far left rose to an all-time high of 41.1%, while the share of men describing themselves this way was only 28.9%, for a 12.2-point political sex gap. THE WRITING IS ON THE WALL.
Also related: Women are sexually attracted to war heroes.
Tangentially related: Lord of the Gulf Stream jokes relevantly,
Little Johnny asked the teacher, “Say, there’s three women sitting on a bench eating ice cream cones. One is licking it, one is sucking it, and one is biting it. Which one is married?”
Teacher blushed to the roots of her hair, and stammered, “Why Johnny, how dare you even ask such a thing? I never! But, well, I’d have to say, the one who’s sucking it.”
“Nah, the one with the wedding ring, but I like the way you’re thinking…”
Passer By has a great comment about the dead weight of working women in ARE ECONOMY.
It is not clear at all if female presence in the economy benefits the economy. Feminisation is at all time high, yet growth levels are at all time low (and debt levels at all time high).
South Korea for example uses few women but economically is in pretty good shape.
For example male scientists publish twice as many papers per capita as women, receive more citations than women, invent twice as many new things and start twice as many new businesses as women (per capita). Currently 91 percent of new things in Sweden and 92 percent of new things in the US are invented by men (this is in modern times). A female STEM worker is 45 percent more likely to quit than a male STEM worker. In other words it makes no sense to have female scientists as they are actually a drag and burden on the economy and society, since they are far less productive than men.
Same with doctors – a male doctor is 25 percent more productive than a female doctor, several times less likely to quit his job, and although there are lots of females in the medical field, most medical discoveries are made by men. Female doctors are causing large debts and inefficiencies in western medical systems – again a drag on society. Even today, in modern western societies, men pay 70 percent of taxes while women are net liability for the government – take more from the government than they pay in taxes.
So currently we have both women who have negative birth rates (not replacing the population), and women who are less productive than men. I would say that society wants women as second rate men, instead of first rate women, and the result has been a failure – both economic and demographic.
That last paragraph is iconic truth for what it reveals about the nexus of female privilege and fertility. Coddling and privileging women should come with the expectation of robust female fertility. As women, especially White women who agitate most loudly for the feminist dystopia, have abandoned their prime directive — birthing the next generation — they have continued to receive largesse from the State. This is unsustainable on both genetic and economic levels. If women turn away from their natural function but continue to receive the State privileges that come attached to an assumption of fertility and child-raising, what we’ll have is an institutionalized system that privatizes profits (female coddling) and socializes costs (mass immigration to provide an ever-exapanding base of consumers for the technoborg).
If women want the State-enforced privileges that membership in their sex provides, then women must accept the rules of membership that their sex demands of them: procreation, not careerism.