Nearly all work, if we mean the work that most people in the West do day after day in exchange for money, is a life sentence in prison. It is dull, repetitive, and soul-destroying. It does not liberate.The weakness in this passage is the notion that native male unemployment would plummet if all women stopped working outside the home, or that salaries would skyrocket. In a world with the free flow of capital and labor, and bipartisan refusal to secure the borders, that is simply an unreasonable expectation.
The fact that women work means that fewer children are born. It also means that those children are raised by women other than their mothers. It also cranks up the stress still more on the already very fragile equilibrium in the male-female dialectic.
Women, unlike men, once had a way to avoid work. They still do, if they chose to compel governments to organize things differently. The choice is theirs and theirs alone.
If women stopped work tomorrow it would solve the West’s chronic unemployment crisis overnight. Due to the dire shortage of workers left, salaries would rocket.
The state could even chip in, if women made enough noise. The state could even pay married women to stay at home and have children. It already does in the case of single, non-working mothers. So what’s the big deal?
But more important than the cash side of it, surely women would be so much happier.
Otherwise, not much to argue with here. How anyone could think that something God forced upon Adam and his seed as just desserts for sharing that apple with Eve is fun or liberating is just daft. Quasi-independent, sure. But free? Nope. And certainly not any happier. I suppose this is what one gets for letting their apex fallacy envy get the best of them.
14 comments:
Great post; and the dialectic they speak of is most heinous.
However, as women are 55% of the voting blocs it is only a matter of time before they do demand such things as right to work, if and when they want to; and succeed as societal disharmony is the condor's call the living corpse of bigger government. Now graciously thank your feminine masters for allowing you a job; just remember to say "thank you master" when she hops back on and sends your arse to the back of the bus to claim what you have been with holding from her all this time.
Didn't you know? Rosa Parks was a woman. Silly man, tricks are for kids. Tehe.
As yesterday was MLK day, it is imperative we keep in mind htat feminism is unimportant; and has never lived up to its creed of oppression of women as truth. Dr. King is old news their eyes; it has always been about the wymmins. Snowflakes were sad to see the great man go (I'm sure as many were white supremacists); but until he did they could not co-opt the movement. I wonder if they thought that was female oppression too?
Even if I am walking a fine line; their co-opting of everything to the worship of their vajayjay is so wonderfull solipsistic and narcissistic that anything and everything, no matter how noble; must bend to the feminine mystique. Or else.
Today, the great man who died all those years ago via a racist sniper's bullet would merely be allowed a side note to his secretary. Or they would bring a title-IX class action against him for not being inclusive enough.
With all the important things going on; we all must stop and clap while a woman stops and smells the roses; however long it takes!
Women have been deceived into yoking up as cogs in the system that men have always known to be oppressive.
The weakness in this passage is the notion that native male unemployment would plummet if all women stopped working outside the home, or that salaries would skyrocket.
True. If women stopped working outside the home, one consequence is that we would discover that much of what they did wasn't necessary.
@Ern
Hahahahahahahahaahaha
"The weakness in this passage is the notion that native male unemployment would plummet if all women stopped working outside the home"
that's a pretty astonishing statement of denial
stopping the "jobs" gravy-train for women -- especially those whose hubbies are already employed -- is no panacea, but native male unemployment certainly WOULD plummet
of course, u.s. men somehow would have to be assured that playing by the Sistem's rules would not result in even further betrayals
some of them wont be rushing forward to kick lucy fer's football again!
but given that, guys would be lined up by the thousands to work, particularly in the do-little government sectors
families would again be possible for the average guy . . . not just the elite few males who go along with the current Sistem
both lefties and righties WANT women to work, they LOVE living large with those fat dubble-paychecks, and they WANT their daughters to earn big, too
then they complain on the internet about feminism! lol
the Full Female Employment (for any female wanting it) Sossity destroys fatherhood, sonship, masculinity, and the economy of the nation. . . but who cares, as long as I'm Alright Jack!
"native male unemployment certainly WOULD plummet"
Assumes closed market with no substitutions. Neither case applies to the USoA. Thus an unreasonable expectation.
"Assumes closed market with no substitutions. Neither case applies to the USoA. Thus an unreasonable expectation"
you gotta lot of nerve publishing that doublespeak technobabble, then using the word "unreasonalble"
i notice you refuse to address the ACTUAL (non-complex and non-technical) REAL REASONS why leftie and rightie men collude in ensuring the (lol) "employment" of their wives and daughters, while 40 million men -- better than your wives and daughters -- get tossed under the BitchBus of your nation
. . . because you LIKE all that moolah coming in, you LIKE all those unnecessary goodies you get to buy, you LIKE your iniquity, and goddammit you aren't changing! lol
"closed market" my ass, any government or body with authority to toss western women from their "jobs" wholesale, as we posited above, certainly would be able (and willing) to deal with all the extraneous and endless "but but buts" that you now have to conjure up, to defend your indefensible position
neither "closed markets" nor "mexicans taking all the new jobs" nor outsourcing, obviously, would be allowed by any authority already making a decision to end the Gyno-Gravytrain of female "employment" that's already ruined your economy
youre so dug-in now that you cant reverse your field EW, but the truth and those 40 million are just a leeetle bit more important that your ego, sorry
How pathetic this is.
Tell ya what? Send all the HB-1 visa assholes home, send all the ones on the same visa, only illegally here (yup, they're here); send the E-5 visas home. Send ALL the Mexican illegals, who dominate the construction industry here in California (along with their 'born-here' brethren, but whose parents are wet-backs), and GUESS WHAT?
UNEMPLOYMENT PROBLEM SOLVED!!
YOu blew it on this one.
Your comment is a dead letter.
In my post, I explicitly cited a bipartisan refusal to secure the borders (a sop to the liberalists and big business). I also assume (but did not mention in my post) that H1-Bs and other guest worker visas would likely continue, barring significant changes in Congress (another sop to both liberalists and big business).
All of what you write would be good for the native-born American--and even for the foreign born that are here illegally--and would do much to alleviate their collective unemployment rates. Yet the political will to alienate the commercial and racial/ethnic interest groups that drive this dynamic does not exist.
I do not think this likely to change.
Ergo, we will continue to have an economic environment that features the free flow of capital and labor...and native born American unemployment will continue.
Post a Comment