Fantastic article: Why women shouldn't work

Nukie

Sparrow
Hey gang

Here's some excerpts from a great article titled "Why women shouldn't work" authored by a woman:

Women can work but shouldn't be breadwinners:
What I mean by the statement “women shouldn’t work” is that women shouldn’t work in the same capacity as men, or to be more specific, women shouldn’t be breadwinners. In extraordinary circumstances such as poverty or war women may be called upon to work in the same capacity as men, but in the normal course of life women should not work as men do.

It is usually not true economic need but feminist ideology—that to be fulfilled a woman must have a career—that drives women to the work world.

Women working displaces men:
[...]because women working displaces men from their traditional role of provider, protector and cherisher of women. This displacement of men from their traditional role diminishes their place in society and tramples on their manhood. For individual men this is painful, but for western civilization it is catastrophic.

This turns men into "softies":
When men are displaced from their traditional role as head of the family, the right ordering of marriage and family life is abolished. Instead of husbands and fathers being authority figures that demand respect—and are even feared on occasion—they are reduced to one part bumbling idiots ruled over by their wives and children, and one part big “softies” that give in to the whims of the women and children in their lives.

Nature fixed our roles:
Women have a fixed feminine nature and men have a fixed masculine nature each of which correspond to particular roles and duties[...]

The history of how feminists changed things without caring about reality:
Before the 1960s and second wave feminism, women worked outside of the home earning their own pay cheques in greater numbers than some may realize. What irked the feminists of the second wave is that working women were typically in positions of little power and remuneration, under the direction of men, employed in what are considered the traditional jobs for women such as secretary, nurse and teacher. Feminists didn’t care if women suited these roles and were contented in them; they wanted “equality,” which for feminists means power (over men) and economic independence (from men). Feminists couldn’t tolerate that women were nurses, serving male doctors, or secretaries, serving male bosses. Feminists were and are thoroughly ideological people, and so, they don’t care about reality.

Women flourish when they take care:
The reality is that women, because of their nature, do better in “serving” roles than in leadership roles. Women, when they allow themselves to be themselves, flourish in roles such as nurse or secretary because they are most fulfilled when they are taking care of people.

Feminism made it taboo to be just a wife:
However, what is absolutely forbidden by feminism is for a woman’s primary or sole role to be that of “wife.” It is okay to sacrifice one’s career or outside interests for a while for one’s children, but it is not okay to make any sacrifices to be “just” some man’s wife.

The home was destroyed:
While both quest after breadwinner status, the role of homemaker is neglected, and looking after a home becomes a list of chores to be divided up. When there is no one making the home, what becomes of it? It is destroyed. It becomes a place to rest or consume in between running around to one’s job, school and extra-curricular activities, the latter of which the modern family seems obsessed with. The home is a comfortable, well-decorated rest-stop on the highway of achievement and fulfillment (with the emphasis on the achievement and fulfillment of the females of the family).

Source: https://theweakervessel.com/2016/05/03/why-women-shouldnt-work/
 

Durden347

Robin
There are many jobs suitable for women these days especially when it comes to the internet and working at home (and even gig work through apps). Of course there are professions that are traditionally feminine such as teaching, nursing, and other service oriented jobs. The primary focus of the married woman, especially with children, should be her home. Women are happier at home. That doesn't mean she shouldn't get a part time job and/or slack off with the chores. She should make herself busy at home while her husband spends more time outside the home providing for the family.
 
Last edited:
Make em work I say. Make them work in the hard, dirty jobs they are too "good" for. What women need is to have their noses put to the grindstone of bitter reality (hell the same can be said of the soyboys). Why do you think that those rural filipinas leap at the chance to be a "bored" 1950s housewife?

Spareth the pain and spoileth the woman (and for that matter the man).
 
Single, childless women should work. This has always been the way of things throughout our history; a spinster would work alongside others. If there are no kids, but married, the wife might still work. In a modern home there isn't enough to keep a woman busy for 8-10 hours per day while the husband works, unlike is days past where laundry was done by hand and meals all cooked from scratch. And idle mind is the devils playground!

Once children come along, if the wife goes off and does the career game, the kids end up raised by others; grandparents at best or strangers at daycare at worst. The effects of early daycare are notable, some positive and some negative.

If children come along or a couple lives out in the country; the wife staying home makes all the sense. Tending the garden, feeding chickens, hanging laundry outside, baking bread and pies, canning and preserving food, taking care of 4-6 kids is work enough on it's own and not a job a sane man should have any interest in.
 
Last edited:

Zanardi

Woodpecker
I think women should work, but in professions suited to their gender, a few of them being said here. What I don't think is OK is women thinking they can compete with men, knowing the fact that they are not built for this.
 
Women certainly can work.

There are certain areas and professions which are more suited to women and certain other professions which are suited for men.

Women don't belong in the kitchen, the nursery school teacher, secretary's seat or any other feminine position; but they do a better job of running those jobs than men do.

Men don't belong in the construction sites, big oil rigs or any other similar job; but they do a better job of running those jobs than women do.

The fact of the matter is, women are being brainwashed and pushed into certain professions which are clearly not suited for them and this in turn is resulting in women getting more and more unhappier.

These are also incidentally the same women who proudly boast about being "strong and independent".

It's a different matter that in divorce courts, these same women claim that "we are helpless and cannot support ourselves".
 

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
Excellent paragraph from the same blog :

The working mother is the genius idea of feminism—that is, it is the means to keep women from the home to destroy it: let them have babies, but not very many, and offer them easy means, daycares and imported cheap labour, of not having to be tied down to their children day in and day out. Suggesting women not have babies wouldn’t have worked—the childless Gloria Steinem figure does not resonate with the average woman, while the Sheryl Sandberg figure does. Feminism cannot rid women of their maternal instinct, but it can and does mess with it.
 

wannable alpha

Woodpecker
The fact is that men want women to work. Double income = double fun. More money for a bigger house, more gadgets, more vacations, less economic stress on the man. How many men today will want a stay at home wife? Such a woman will be considered lazy by most men.
 
Feminism made it taboo to be just a wife:
However, what is absolutely forbidden by feminism is for a woman’s primary or sole role to be that of “wife.” It is okay to sacrifice one’s career or outside interests for a while for one’s children, but it is not okay to make any sacrifices to be “just” some man’s wife.

My wife has been a homemaker for over 20 years and you guys have no idea the ridicule and outright beaurocratic difficulties she has encountered. At parties other women were incredulous that she would not have a day job. And now here in Spain just opening a bank account was almost impossible without having a day job. Which explains why well over 80% of desk jobs (to my own estimation based on a decade of having lived here) are occupied by women. It's a sad state of affairs and explains the low birthrates among Western populations.
 

Towgunner

Kingfisher
Good article, glad to see it being published. A woman no less was the author. But, many things were not discussed. Thanks to feminism we have an authoritarian state. This condition is necessary and therefore inherent because feminism denies reality. Therefore, it requires large amounts of propaganda and regulations and guidelines and control. Centralized control is an imperative because everyone must be on script and no dissension can be allowed. The latter point is critical because if you're against reality its very easy to dismiss your claims as nonsense.

Also, it destroyed merit. The so called "success" of women in the workforce was due to women crying, whining and complaining. They literally closed their eyes, plugged their ears and stomped up and down until they got their...managing director of mergers and acquisitions title at Citi Bank. Everywhere, from the head of astrophysics at a major university to air traffic controllers, women cry and whine when they don't feel "represented". This means people are no longer selected for merit or talent or experience and, for that matter, not even for innate attributes, but rather, if and only if they're a member of a pre-selected in-group.

This has destroyed merit. I've long said that if you remove all these controlling factors in our society and let the former meritocratic capitalistic system to once again flourish, men will easy regain whatever ground they've lost. Its because under a purer merit based system men outperform women. The absolute proof of this is provided none other than by the feminists. For if women are superior to men or even equal, per the feminists, than there would be no need for state-based or institutional-based systemic favoritism for only women. In competitive environments and under survival conditions frivolities such as "the old boys club" or sexism are quickly routed out. That's why the contention of feminists that in the past when these conditions were more acute that it was a phal-logo-centric model is utterly incorrect. When people are starving no one cares about the sex of the person that gets them food. And as we seen, the men got the food. And did everything else.

And so feminism has destroyed merit and the jokes on them. It takes a very special kind of selfishness to petition the government or to publicly whine and cry in corporate boardrooms (as the "guerilla girls" used to do in the 1980s) not for anything altruistic, but, for the simply personal satisfaction of having some kind of "title" or degree next to their name. Pride. And as we all know this is a folly. For today, because they had to pervert the system to such a degree that merit itself has been compromised, no one really takes a female "go-getter" seriously no matter what here title may be to include CEO. There's too many other women that got that distinction not from merit but from a quota. And that makes all the difference.

So, said go-getter, has gotten what she wanted or "set out to be" and has found he "true self", which is a lonely sterile life in some decaying urban megalopolis accompanied by her cat, cat litter, amazon boxes, unkept space, half eaten takeout...no husband, no kids, no family. And above all a degree and job title that might say a lot but are in fact empty and worthless.
 

Gremlin

Robin
Single, childless women should work. This has always been the way of things throughout our history; a spinster would work alongside others. If there are no kids, but married, the wife might still work. In a modern home there isn't enough to keep a woman busy for 8-10 hours per day while the husband works, unlike is days past where laundry was done by hand and meals all cooked from scratch. And idle mind is the devils playground!

Once children come along, if the wife goes off and does the career game, the kids end up raised by others; grandparents at best or strangers at daycare at worst. The effects of early daycare are notable, some positive and some negative.

If children come along or a couple lives out in the country; the wife staying home makes all the sense. Tending the garden, feeding chickens, hanging laundry outside, baking bread and pies, canning and preserving food, taking care of 4-6 kids is work enough on it's own and not a job a sane man should have any interest in.

Cat ladies should work in convents with other cat ladies in service to male religious authorities, so that they don't affect other work environments with their drama and back-stabbing. In no way should they be allowed to hold authority over a man, and that goes for 99.8% of women in any work environment.
 

typtre

Robin
Displacing men in the workforce also has the secondary effect of reducing per-capita wages. Basic supply and demand, what happens when you double the labor supply but not the demand?

Incidentally, this is probably also part of why STEM pays so well.

The fact is that men want women to work. Double income = double fun. More money for a bigger house, more gadgets, more vacations, less economic stress on the man. How many men today will want a stay at home wife? Such a woman will be considered lazy by most men.

The fact is that you missed the fact, and you should get off that blue pill you are on as soon as possible.
 
Good article, glad to see it being published. A woman no less was the author. But, many things were not discussed. Thanks to feminism we have an authoritarian state. This condition is necessary and therefore inherent because feminism denies reality. Therefore, it requires large amounts of propaganda and regulations and guidelines and control. Centralized control is an imperative because everyone must be on script and no dissension can be allowed. The latter point is critical because if you're against reality its very easy to dismiss your claims as nonsense.

Also, it destroyed merit. The so called "success" of women in the workforce was due to women crying, whining and complaining. They literally closed their eyes, plugged their ears and stomped up and down until they got their...managing director of mergers and acquisitions title at Citi Bank. Everywhere, from the head of astrophysics at a major university to air traffic controllers, women cry and whine when they don't feel "represented". This means people are no longer selected for merit or talent or experience and, for that matter, not even for innate attributes, but rather, if and only if they're a member of a pre-selected in-group.

This has destroyed merit. I've long said that if you remove all these controlling factors in our society and let the former meritocratic capitalistic system to once again flourish, men will easy regain whatever ground they've lost. Its because under a purer merit based system men outperform women. The absolute proof of this is provided none other than by the feminists. For if women are superior to men or even equal, per the feminists, than there would be no need for state-based or institutional-based systemic favoritism for only women. In competitive environments and under survival conditions frivolities such as "the old boys club" or sexism are quickly routed out. That's why the contention of feminists that in the past when these conditions were more acute that it was a phal-logo-centric model is utterly incorrect. When people are starving no one cares about the sex of the person that gets them food. And as we seen, the men got the food. And did everything else.

And so feminism has destroyed merit and the jokes on them. It takes a very special kind of selfishness to petition the government or to publicly whine and cry in corporate boardrooms (as the "guerilla girls" used to do in the 1980s) not for anything altruistic, but, for the simply personal satisfaction of having some kind of "title" or degree next to their name. Pride. And as we all know this is a folly. For today, because they had to pervert the system to such a degree that merit itself has been compromised, no one really takes a female "go-getter" seriously no matter what here title may be to include CEO. There's too many other women that got that distinction not from merit but from a quota. And that makes all the difference.

So, said go-getter, has gotten what she wanted or "set out to be" and has found he "true self", which is a lonely sterile life in some decaying urban megalopolis accompanied by her cat, cat litter, amazon boxes, unkept space, half eaten takeout...no husband, no kids, no family. And above all a degree and job title that might say a lot but are in fact empty and worthless.

Super insightful perspective and it reminds me of an older episode of the Dragon's Den that I watched the other day. This was recorded at least 10 years back mind you but the rot had already run deep at this point. So this woman with an Indian ethnic background walks in and pitches some hare-brained idea which she had come up with during her travel to India (some Bollywood based board game). She mentioned that she also had an MBA and that she had passed with honors from Stanford University, in addition to several other credentials she listed with gleaming pride. Also turns out she had actually been sponsored to go to Stanford by some large consulting firm, so clearly she had not been the one paying those astronomical tuitions on her own.

When Peter Jones took her to task on the numbers it quickly became clear that she had no clue whatsoever and wasn't even capable of doing simple algebra. Which of course boggled Peter's mind and that of the remaining dragons. Rachel (one of the two female dragons) even spelled it out, being utterly surprised how someone with such credentials could be so useless when it came to simple revenue projections.

This is exactly what I keep seeing in my own professional life as well. Women and minorities are literally being fast tracked into leading and managerial positions while White men in particular are left behind. It's them in fact who are now facing a very hard glass ceiling and this new paradigm is spreading exponentially.

The long term impact of transforming what was once a merit based capitalistic system into an authoritarian form of identity policy based socialism will be catastrophic and it will destroy the West. By the end of this century the West will be an economic backwater while Asia and perhaps Russia to some extent will be in full control. Many European countries won't exist anymore as they will then have become part of an Islamic caliphate. Fortunately I will most likely be long dead by then and by the grace of God will be watching the hubris and final downfall with bemusement from a better place.
 

Towgunner

Kingfisher
Super insightful perspective and it reminds me of an older episode of the Dragon's Den that I watched the other day. This was recorded at least 10 years back mind you but the rot had already run deep at this point. So this woman with an Indian ethnic background walks in and pitches some hare-brained idea which she had come up with during her travel to India (some Bollywood based board game). She mentioned that she also had an MBA and that she had passed with honors from Stanford University, in addition to several other credentials she listed with gleaming pride. Also turns out she had actually been sponsored to go to Stanford by some large consulting firm, so clearly she had not been the one paying those astronomical tuitions on her own.

When Peter Jones took her to task on the numbers it quickly became clear that she had no clue whatsoever and wasn't even capable of doing simple algebra. Which of course boggled Peter's mind and that of the remaining dragons. Rachel (one of the two female dragons) even spelled it out, being utterly surprised how someone with such credentials could be so useless when it came to simple revenue projections.

This is exactly what I keep seeing in my own professional life as well. Women and minorities are literally being fast tracked into leading and managerial positions while White men in particular are left behind. It's them in fact who are now facing a very hard glass ceiling and this new paradigm is spreading exponentially.

The long term impact of transforming what was once a merit based capitalistic system into an authoritarian form of identity policy based socialism will be catastrophic and it will destroy the West. By the end of this century the West will be an economic backwater while Asia and perhaps Russia to some extent will be in full control. Many European countries won't exist anymore as they will then have become part of an Islamic caliphate. Fortunately I will most likely be long dead by then and by the grace of God will be watching the hubris and final downfall with bemusement from a better place.

Likewise with your insightful comments. I think it will happen sooner than you think. The New Belt Road initiative is the future of the world and when completed it will guarantee Chinese hegemony. I liken this project and its far reaching economic potential to the interstate highway system developed in the US. Look at North Carolina, for example, usually economic development occurs from the coastline outwards. With North Carolina the inner parts of the state, Raleigh and Charlotte, are most developed whereas the coasts are not. Look at a map and you'll see why. Route 95 goes through the western part of the state. This is called the multiplier effect. The highway goes through, people stop off to buy a hot dog, the hot dog guy buys some shoes the shoe guy buys some toothpaste the pharmacy owner buys a house. Massive infrastructure projects engender this effect. The New Belt road will engender this effect to majority of the Earth's population. Civilizations that hitherto have been backwards and violent will see incredible improvements in standard of living. China will build it, own it and keep it filled with goods. Therefore, China will benefit from this the most. It will eventually stretch from the top of Scotland to the horn of Africa. And its all about numbers. A modest improvement of per capita GDP for billions of people results in a staggering amount of wealth creation. The United States will be left out of this.

I do believe that when this becomes undeniable there will be a reckoning here in the US. There will be an accounting, which will ask "how did this happen". Identity based promotions and all the rest will be blamed because its the truth. Unfortunately, I think it will be too late. But, that's because I think its already too late for us. With our debt skyrocketing and a multipolar world we're already finished. I do think war with China is very likely, but, how are we going to finance it? Before WWII we had very little debt both as a government and individually. As such, that meant we had whitespace to borrow more than any other country and, therefore, out spend them and, due to our massive industrial base, out build them. Today we're already peaked with debt both government and individually and we have no industrial base even if we could finance a war boom.
 

Elipe

Kingfisher
How Did Lincoln win the Civil War which was as much of an existential threat to the US as is the CCP today?
A multitude of factors, but some of the bigger ones being that the North was willing to commit atrocities on the South, whereas the South took a more measured, "noble" and "gentlemanly" approach to fighting the war. Also, the Emancipation Proclamation gave the North a huge advantage in the war: it was basically a kind of scorched earth policy without actually scorching the earth, because it meant that they could permanently migrate out the labor force in captured territory rendering it basically useless to the South to recapture unless it simply happened to be a strategic location, but that still had the issue of being crippled territory. Also, industrialization helps a lot.

It didn't exactly help either that England was helping the North shut down the South's coastlines.

So basically, not much really has changed since then. Somehow, I get the impression that the SJWs aren't going to be as concerned about human rights when it comes to anti-vaxxers, anti-trannies, etc. (read: Christians). A lot of them actually do wish death on us, so I wouldn't put it past them to think that committing war crimes against us is a-ok.

Speaking of war crimes, they want experimental genetic therapy to be made mandatory, which is a huge violation of the Nuremberg code.
 

Gimlet

Kingfisher
Excellent paragraph from the same blog:

The working mother is the genius idea of feminism—that is, it is the means to keep women from the home to destroy it: let them have babies, but not very many, and offer them easy means, daycares and imported cheap labour, of not having to be tied down to their children day in and day out. Suggesting women not have babies wouldn’t have worked—the childless Gloria Steinem figure does not resonate with the average woman, while the Sheryl Sandberg figure does. Feminism cannot rid women of their maternal instinct, but it can and does mess with it.

This reminded me of Sheryl Sandberg on the cover of Time Magazine, posing with her wedding ring covered.

sandberg.JPG

A few years later Time did another cover story on her, about the suicide of her husband. Hard to find a good picture of that other Sandberg cover online, oddly enough.
 
Top