“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."
(Read more here).
.
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.
 |
| Click Pic to Read "It's Not Marxism Because..." |
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?)
.
 |
| Click Pic to read "The Liberation of Men" |
 |
| Click Pic to read "Sex Sells" (Hypergamy Explained) |
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 succesful 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)..
 |
| Click Pic to Read "You're Such a Tool! (Briffault's law)" |
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).
 |
| Click Pic to Read "Rites of Passage - Making Boys into Men" |
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).
 |
 |
| Click Pic to Read "A Woman's Right to Choose" |
.
 |
| Click Pic to read "The Fraud of Modern Marriage (Women as Chattel)" |
***
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 labourers, forcing both men and
women to work fulltime 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.
.
***
. |
| Click Pic for "The Suffragettes versus The Marketplace" |
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." ***
 |
| Click Pic for "The Suffragetts versus The Truth" |
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.
 |
| Click Pic for "Any Gal of Mine" (Song/Video) - By Gina Ruberto |
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.
.
 |
| Click Pic for "The Wife of Noble Character" |
.
***
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!
.
.
