Thanks, Women's Lib!:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_force

This graph represents the number of people of able working age, 16-64, who are actually working in America. When the graph begins, we are looking at the baby boom, where a generation of American women exceeded the necessary 2.1 fertility rate for a people to maintain their survival as a people. It looks like they aren't working, but in fact they were working very hard at the most important job on Earth, creating and nurturing new human life.

This ended with 'women's lib,' the idea that women should be in the workplace instead of at home, doing men's work instead of their own biologically proscribed, biologically evolved, biologically necessary role. The fertility rate among white women is now at a lethal 1.7 children per couple. If this trend continues, the white race in America will slowly fade into non-existence. American women are actually quite admirable in this sense, however. In Europe and East Asia, the fertility rate is usually much lower, down in the basement of 1.0 or so. However, I would just like to stress that women weren't sitting around sipping tea in 1948, when the graph begins. They were preserving our race, something which white women today are no longer interested in doing. Any reasonable person would count their work of creating and nurturing white children to be far more valuable than anything white women achieve in the workplace of today.

What did women's lib give us? Apparently, nothing much. Even though all women gave up the idea of producing a new generation of children or providing a happy home for men to come back to after their work was done, all they managed to achieve was a tiny bump in America's total workforce participation. It started at 59%, but is now all the way up to 64%. We moved 5% of our population out of the home and into a cubicle. And the price we must pay is the gradual extinction of white America. What a tradeoff! What will we think up next?

Women's liberation, the idea that women should take up productive jobs, was ultimately zero sum. Every job they 'took up' came at the expense of men, whose labor force participation has been plummeting ever since that dreadful day. But men, obviously, cannot create babies nor can they care for them at young ages -- they are not physically or mentally or emotionally equipped to do so by the iron law of Nature -- so men who don't participate in the workforce are simply dead weights. Women who don't participate in the workforce can be doing the most valuable work of all, having and raising children. But men can't do anything useful without a job. All they can do is take and sell drugs. A lot of them end up in jail, others dead, but all of them end up unhappy. Women stole men's reason for being, while simultaneously losing their own. They did not in fact raise employment as a whole, they didn't create a 'rising tide that lifted all boats.' They unemployed men via competition, while simultaneously refusing to create families men could be a part of either.

Another interesting fact that came out this year, according to the census bureau, is that for the first time in American history, the majority of households in America do not consist of married couples. Read that again -- for the first time in American history (let's be serious, for the first time in history, as historically marriage has always been a fixture of life), the majority of households do not consist of married couples. Women's liberation has succeeded in completely atomizing the adult population away from 100,000 years of evolved preference for company of the opposite sex. Love is officially dead.

We have not yet reached another threshold, though it's inevitable that we will at this point:

In 2010, 40.8 % of all births in America were to unmarried mothers, down marginally from 41.0% in 2009. http://isteve.blogspot.com/2011/11/illegitimacy-rate-fell-in-2010.html

"This is in part due to the sharp fall in total births to Hispanics. The Latino illegitimacy rate still grew from 53.2% to 53.3%, but the Hispanic share of total births declined from 24.2% to 23.6%. The non-Hispanic white illegitimacy rate was stable at 29.0%, while the black rate fell from 72.8% to 72.5% and the Asian rate from 17.2% to 17.0%."

As the white population declines and the Hispanic population increases, the illegitimacy rate will normalize to above 50%, the hispanic illegitimacy rate. We're already at 40.8% because hispanics and blacks have far more children than whites and Asians. Already, the majority of children born in America are non-white. Tick, tick, tick.

Women's lib also gave us this bright new world of single motherhood. In the past even blacks, the vast majority of them, had stable, married homes. But all that was swept away by women entering the workforce. Once women could support themselves, they found men to be an unwanted hindrance to their 'self-expression' or whatever and dumped them to the wayside.

Secretly nestled in the heart of womankind was the wish to be free of mankind. The moment they had the opportunity to support themselves and their children with their own labor (or government handouts, as the case may be), they immediately took it. Divorces skyrocketed, and illegitimacy became the norm. Adultery, around this time, also skyrocketed from some tiny number among women to around 40%. Women's liberation gave us all three of these scourges simultaneously.

It should be obvious that adultery makes at least men unhappy, though it probably hurts women too because the more women who are willing to cheat, the more men who have the opportunity to cheat on their wives.

Single motherhood not only obviously, but also statistically hurts children. They have lower life outcomes by every metric, live in poverty, have higher drug abuse rates, crime rates, etc. Perhaps the saddest part of being an illegitimate child is the rate of child abuse, sexual and physical, of their mother's new 'boyfriends.' Hansel and Gretel was the tale of the wicked stepmother, but no one imagined how bad it would be if we created an entire society of wicked stepfathers, men who would prey on the children of previous men, single mother's young daughters especially as an 'upgrade' from their current wasted, aged mother-partners. A new statistic just came out this week http://newsone.com/nation/tjstarr/half-of-black-girls-sexually-assaulted/, reporting that 60% of black female children experienced sexual abuse at the hands of black men at some point. You can bet most of those came at the hands of their mother's new 'boyfriends' or 'husbands,' or from other young black males who are practically feral for lack of discipline, ie, a stronger black male father who can force them to behave, at home.

Or perhaps the saddest part of single motherhood isn't easily found in the numbers. Perhaps its the fact that women are so busy working they can't spend any time as actual mothers with their children. Perhaps it's the fact that babies aren't cuddled enough as babies. Or the fact that children can't show off what they just drew to Mother who will praise them for it, but instead know their daycare providers better than their own family.

Or perhaps the saddest part of single motherhood is that men no longer get to be fathers. That entire field of experience is cut out of their lives. They will never know what it means to be a positive force in a child's life, or ever be thanked for it or loved for it in return.

Or perhaps the saddest part of single motherhood is that children don't get any fathers. Supposing said fathers not only act as a force against poverty (single parent homes are no match for two parent homes in providing a good material lifestyle for their children), or crime, drugs, and underage sex (fathers are better teachers of discipline and obedience than mothers), but are also genuinely useful as advisers, playmates, and examples (sons to be like, daughters to marry someone like,) by excising this entire pillar of support from children's lives, every new generation stands upon a shakier foundation than the last. Twisting and toppling in the wind, children of single mothers try to do better for their own children, but generally end up doing even worse, and the children of those children inevitably slide even deeper into the hole. It's a vicious cycle with no return to the happy days of yesteryear.

Divorce has a host of different ills, besides the harm it does to children. It impoverishes both sides, needlessly doubling the costs of housing, cars, etc. It breaks and embitters hearts, making men hate women in general and women hate men in general, because they've simply hurt each other too much to ever forgive the opposite sex. It isolates people into unhealthily small personal lives, not ever able to share their thoughts or feelings or have a healthy sex life or exchange loving little intimacies. No one is there for them anymore, and no one will help them. Divorce is like space -- if something goes wrong, no one will hear you scream.

Nor do divorced couples somehow recover over time. Divorcees tend to have unstable relationships for the rest of their lives as well. Obviously, once the precedent is set that divorce is acceptable, 2nd marriages end up with 2nd divorces, and 3rd marriages with 3rd divorces. A divorced couple can expect to be, on average, single for life. They can also expect that whatever future bonds they do have with other adults are tenuous and fragile at best, never amounting to anything. Love is not resilient, nor is it strong. It is a hothouse flower that must be protected with all someone's will and all their soul. It requires all the reinforcement it can possibly gather, from religion to virginity to vows of permanency to personal honor to personal pride to communal shame/praise. Blasted once, it never returns. The wounds of the heart do not heal.

It is commonly pointed out that during a hurricane or other natural disaster, policing stops and suddenly crime runs rampant. Looting, sexual assaults, and other crimes start crawling out of the woodwork and taking over the minds of a great many 'ordinary,' 'law-abiding' citizens when the police were still around.

Women's liberation is the same. Women who ordinarily, while the community was still around, did not divorce, now divorce on the drop of a hat. When before divorce meant financial hardship and really wondering where bread would come from, now it doesn't even merit a slap on the wrist from friends and family. This does not mean the very lawbreakers are better off. Looting, arson, and rape demolishing a city from within do not even help the looters, arsonists and rapists. It spirals out of control and quickly engulfs their residences and women as well. Everyone is better off if no one riots, even the rioters. However, each individual rioter sees that it is to his personal advantage to riot, so long as no one else does. It's the same for divorce. Women also suffer from divorce, but their minds are too distorted to see this from an objective, enlightened point of view. They go with their base instincts, just like the feral criminals after a hurricane, and end up destroying themselves along with everyone else. The answer for criminals and women is the same -- keeping the police force around and protecting the peace for everyone's sake, including the rioters and women. The 'police force' that kept women married was their lack of employment opportunities and lack of welfare. We could return to that world, or we could go about it in an entirely different way, if we feel that would be too sad -- for instance simply banning divorce except in carefully designated situations.

At the very least we could protect men via prenuptial contracts by giving them an option of 'super-marriage' where divorce is specifically prohibited and men are allowed to keep living with their wives and children, who are not allowed to cheat on them or deny them their rights as husbands and fathers. Soon all men would demand (as any sane man would), marriage solely on these terms, and the ancient marriage custom of a true union until death does us part would be restored. Women would no longer be able to snag good men or have high-spec children without paying the price of their liberty.

However, is it really such a bad idea to deny women employment and welfare yet again?

Suppose we only gave welfare to married couples with two children or more. A citizen's dividend of $24,000 a year for every married couple with two or more children, but nothing for single people or married couples who don't at least give our race a fighting, breathing chance by perpetuating it into the future.

How many women would stay home and prefer to make babies? They could get a good deal of money without working in this way.

If that isn't enough, we could just change the rules again: Only married couples where only the man works with two or more children can receive the citizen's dividend of $24,000 a year. We can call it the 'homemaker's rightful due check' or the like.

If that were the case, and divorce was banned except in extreme cases, how many women would leave the workforce? Without dragging them out of their cubicles by gunpoint, I suspect we could still engineer a major change in society.

The other benefit to this change, where adultery, divorce, and illegitimacy cease, is that male unemployment would go back down again.

If you recall, men have no reason for being if they can't be a productive member of society. Society expects it of them, and they have no natural role as birth-givers or breast-feeders/care-givers for children. If they can't work, what can they do? If they don't work, what will they be respected for? While for women work is entirely optional, and is in fact a bad option, at least until our fertility rate returns to survivability, for men it's a do-or-die necessity. But due to women's liberation, women didn't join the workforce, they mostly simply TOOK jobs from men. The marginal utility of this action is incredibly negative: Women, who don't need jobs, took jobs from men, who do.

When before 87% of men were employed, now 70% are, and falling every year. What are the remaining 30% supposed to do? How are they supposed to feel? Who will want to marry these ne'er do wells? And yet if a woman isn't employed, so long as she's virtuous and attractive, any number of men would propose to her in a flash. Do you see what a decimating choice it is to take a job from a man and give it to a woman? It's not a zero-sum game. It's negative sum every time!

Men have been forced out of their jobs, out of their families, out of any role in society, and eventually simply out of existence. The lifespan of men is much lower than women, and their suicide rate is much higher. Women's liberation is a war on men. It's a wonder there's any of us left at all. But if this 'liberation' continues, you can expect some sort of new hypergamy, where 1 man services ten to a hundred women, and the other 99 men are simply culled. Maybe, with advanced medicine, we can just sex select 99 women for every 1 man born to start with, so the 99 men with no place in society don't have to die in pain and obscurity. But then, that would go against the whole point of hypergamy. Women want to be with the best 1%, not simply to share high quality men, so that requires 99 loser men who suffer and die for every 1 happy man who lives the dream. Sadly, the place of men in this world is to be upstaged by better men, so that women can achieve their dream of high-status mating with only the *best*. If the remaining 99% weren't around to show how much they sucked, how would women know how wonderful they were to snag the top 1% alpha male? This way, many women's egos are stroked. Farewell, betas, you didn't suffer and die in vain! After all, you increased many women's vanity before the end!

Seriously, though. More than anything or anyone else, more than gays, jews, blacks, hispanics, muslims, tree-huggers or any other imaginably baneful group (the federal reserve? The illuminati?), all the evil in today's world is due to women's lib.

If we devenomed the poison of women's lib, through any variety of means, none of them necessarily 'returning to 1950,' the world would be virtually perfect. I mean, look at the world of today. We've got machines that can do almost all our work for us. We've got bountiful harvests and no famines in forever. We've got vaccines and antibiotics so that we can safely love all our children without losing any of them. We've got an amazing variety of high-grade entertainment, from books to movies to music to TV shows to video games. We have practically ended war as a force in this world. World GDP has been steadily rising for decades. From every possible vantage, the world is better than it was 60 years ago -- except one -- human happiness.

According to happiness surveys, we're pretty much at a nadir. Humorously enough, women's happiness is suffering the most in the modern world. I could say serves them right, but they're dragging men and children down with them, which isn't as acceptable. So for all our advances, it's meaningless, because we allowed women's lib through the back door.

Reverse women's lib. I don't care how. Once we have the will, there will be a way. And we could not only reverse our happiness indexes. We could shoot them up to the highest level recorded in human history. And we could do it without deporting a single immigrant or enacting a single holocaust, too. So, from that point of view, it's a much more viable way to improve the world without ruffling feathers. Any way you look at it, the enemy is 'womyn.'