Blog Archive

Saturday, December 13, 2014

Marriage:

Feminism yet again shown to be unsustainable:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/05/20/heres-why-it-matters-that-americans-are-having-fewer-children-than-ever-before.html

Female empowerment, ie, giving women the right to birth bastards, divorce, commit adultery, work, abort, vote, etc, etc, just doesn't work.  And here's item #9109738 why:

Last year, women in the U.S. had children at the lowest rate ever recorded. There were just 60.2 births for every 1,000 girls and women ages 15 to 44 in our country. As a result, there were fewer births in America last year – 3.85 million babies – than at any time since 1987. This was a 2 percent drop from 2016.
In addition, those having the most children are least able to pay for their upbringing. American women became mothers last year at rates that were inversely proportional to family income. The birth rate was almost 50 percent higher for those with less than $10,000 in family income than for those with family incomes of $200,000 or more. 

Welcome to the dysgenic apocalypse.

In the U.S., parents with more children are embracing a more traditional lifestyle and also are more likely to vote Republican. In the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump won all 10 of the states with the highest fertility rates – as well as 16 of 17 states with the highest fertility rates. And the bottom 10 states in fertility were all carried by Hillary Clinton.
Single women vote Democrat, whose stated agenda is to genocide the founding population of America and uproot the most productive economy on Earth in favor of social justice.

European women of child-bearing age had an average of 1.56 children each over their lifetimes – far fewer than the 2.1 necessary to even keep their population stable. The comparable figure in the U.S. is 1.76 children per woman. And both the numbers in the U.S. and in Europe would be far worse were it not for higher immigrant fertility.
We are being replaced because women won't do their one and only job, the only task nature has suited them for, giving birth to the next generation.

(40 percent of births in the U.S and Europe  occur out of wedlock)
Combine the illegitimacy rate with the divorce rate and it's a miracle any kid has a father.
http://www.divorcesource.com/blog/why-women-file-80-percent-of-divorces/ 
“According to the National Center for Health Statistics, about 50 percent of marriages in the United States end in divorce, and about 80 percent of the divorces are initiated by women. That 50 percent is often quoted and it is probably on the high side, but it is illuminating that 80 percent of the divorces are filed by the wife.” 
Single mothers, whether via bastardy or divorce, do a shit tier job of raising children.  Children from single parent homes are more likely to go on welfare, drop out of school, go to jail, divorce, have illegitimate children of their own, etc, etc.  We are destroying our seed corn as each new generation becomes more dysfunctional than the last due to irresponsible, 'empowered' women.

The more powerful you make women the less competent they become at fulfilling their actual useful and productive roles in life.  Every new power they gain is just the power to avoid doing their duty, doing what is necessary, what is good for life and mankind.  The power to shirk.  The power to loot.  The power to destroy.

Just replace female empowerment with any of these other terms and ask yourself if this is a good idea:  bandit empowerment, parasite empowerment, virus empowerment, cancer empowerment, thug empowerment, weasel empowerment, rapist empowerment, Satan empowerment, 4 horsemen empowerment.

Randomly empowering things is not a good thing.  Power should only be given to those who use it well, to the benefit of the whole.  If you are empowering people who misuse or abuse their power, you're doing something wrong.  Every inch and iota of power women have been given has been used to tear down and destroy their community's future prospects.  These people don't deserve power, as is manifest by what they've already done with it.

Women have produced a country of dysgenic, feral kids without fathers, who can't pay any taxes but are quick to hold out their hands for handouts, whose fertility is so low we've become helpless prey to anyone who wants to waltz across our borders, voting for their own destruction, doomed to die by simple mathematical fading away even if nothing else bad happens before then.

This is the product of females being given choices.  Liberty.  Equality.  All that jazz.  Well now they have it, and this is what they've done with it.  They never should have been freed in the first place, but at least you can forgive the mistakes of the past because how could men have ever known how absolutely black and wicked the hearts of women truly were back then?  What's truly unforgivable is that now that the experiment has been tried and all the data is in, we still sit around helplessly and do nothing to reverse said mistake.

Why are women still allowed to misbehave at such cataclysmic levels such that civilization, life itself is in imminent peril?  How much longer must we watch these wrecking balls undo all the gains of humanity over the past 10,000 years?  When is there enough evidence to convince men that no, women aren't the same as men and no, they can't be trusted with the same rights as men?

Do we really have to all die before we can admit maybe something should be changed before it's too late?  And who exactly will do the changing after we're all dead?

When something is unsustainable it should be changed.  Not just left to fester and rot.  Women have tried and failed.  It's time for the adults in the room to take back the reins and guide the ship of state back to safe harbors.  We were doing just fine before women's empowerment, we can do just fine again after it's gone.  What we cannot do is look at these numbers, shrug, and say it can't be helped, we must all die because the sacred principle of equality is worth it.


It's Official, Marriage is Pointless:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/magazine/does-a-more-equal-marriage-mean-less-sex.html

A study called “Egalitarianism, Housework and Sexual Frequency in Marriage,” which appeared in The American Sociological Review last year, surprised many, precisely because it went against the logical assumption that as marriages improve by becoming more equal, the sex in these marriages will improve, too. Instead, it found that when men did certain kinds of chores around the house, couples had less sex. Specifically, if men did all of what the researchers characterized as feminine chores like folding laundry, cooking or vacuuming — the kinds of things many women say they want their husbands to do — then couples had sex 1.5 fewer times per month than those with husbands who did what were considered masculine chores, like taking out the trash or fixing the car. It wasn’t just the frequency that was affected, either — at least for the wives. The more traditional the division of labor, meaning the greater the husband’s share of masculine chores compared with feminine ones, the greater his wife’s reported sexual satisfaction.
Many of my colleagues have observed the same thing: No matter how much sink-scrubbing and grocery-shopping the husband does, no matter how well husband and wife communicate with each other, no matter how sensitive they are to each other’s emotions and work schedules, the wife does not find her husband more sexually exciting, even if she feels both closer to and happier with him.
Brines believes the quandary many couples find themselves in comes down to this: “The less gender differentiation, the less sexual desire.” In other words, in an attempt to be gender-neutral, we may have become gender-neutered.
“The passionate marriage used to be a contradiction in terms,” Esther Perel, the couples expert, told me. The quality of sex in marriage — and not just the frequency — is a relatively new conversation that has come about with more egalitarian marriages. In today’s marriages, she said, “we don’t just want sex; it has to be intimate sex. It has to be transcendent and self-actualizing.”
In “Marriage: A History,” Coontz writes that one recent marital development “is that husbands have to respond positively to their wives’ requests for change.” Yet no matter how many requests wives make and how hard their husbands try to accommodate them, the women may still end up disappointed. After all, women are now coming into marriage with sexual histories and experiences on par with men’s, leading to expectations that are difficult to replicate in any marriage, especially now that people live longer and will be having sex, presumably with the same person, for decades more.
I shared my friend’s observation with Helen Fisher, a senior research fellow at the Kinsey Institute who studies sexual attraction. She noted that even people who are satisfied with their sex lives often crave more nowadays. She told me about a study she conducted that asked participants who had had affairs why they did so. Fifty-six percent of her male subjects and 34 percent of her female subjects said they were “happy” or “very happy” in their partnerships but cheated anyway.
While past research has shown that men have higher rates of infidelity than women, those rates are becoming increasingly similar, particularly in younger people in developed countries, where recent studies have found no gender differences in extramarital sex among men and women under 40. This may be because younger women are more likely to be in peer marriages — and conditions in peer marriages make female infidelity more probable than in traditional ones. A large national study in the late 1990s found that women who were more educated than their husbands were more likely to engage in sexual infidelity than if they were less educated than their husbands. Studies also find that people who work outside the home and whose partners remain in the home cheat more — and the traditional gender roles in this situation are now frequently reversed. As women increasingly work in professions that are not female-dominated, they have more sexual opportunities with peers than ever.
As Sheryl Sandberg encourages women to “lean in” — by which she means that they should make a determined effort to push forward in their careers — it may seem as if women are truly becoming, as Gloria Steinem put it, “the men we want to marry.” But these professional shifts seem to influence marital stability. A study put out last year by the National Bureau of Economic Research shows that if a wife earns more than her husband, the couple are 15 percent less likely to report that their marriage is very happy; 32 percent more likely to report marital troubles in the past year; and 46 percent more likely to have discussed separating in the past year. Similarly, Lynn Prince Cooke found that though sharing breadwinning and household duties decreases the likelihood of divorce, that’s true only up to a point. If a wife earns more than her husband, the risk of divorce increases. Interestingly, Cooke’s study shows that the predicted risk of divorce is lowest when the husband does 40 percent of the housework and the wife earns 40 percent of the income.
I hear from husbands and wives who say they want progressive marriages, in which women have the option to do anything their husbands do and vice versa, then start to feel uncomfortable when that reality is in place. And that discomfort, more often than not, leads to less sexual desire — on both sides.
Is the trade-off of egalitarian marriage necessarily less sexual heat? It’s possible that the sexual scripts we currently follow will evolve along with our marital arrangements so that sameness becomes sexy. Regardless, more people marrying today are choosing egalitarian setups for the many other benefits they offer. If every sexual era is unhappy in its own way, it may be that we will begin to think of the challenges of egalitarian marriages less as drawbacks and more like, well, life, with its inherent limitations on how exciting any particular aspect can be.
I highlight this last sentence in bold because it holds the key to the absurdity of men's situation.  What 'other benefits' does egalitarian marriage offer men?  Egalitarian marriage has been nothing but a burden on men in every way.  Men are expected to do half of the chores when before they did none.  They are expected to take care of kids when before they needn't.  However, they are still expected to work full time just as hard as before -- if they ever fall short of their partner's earning power they're instantly divorced.  The harder their spouse works, by 'leaning in' to their careers, the harder the man must correspondingly work to stay ahead of her at the magical 60% of household income stat which is the only stat that pleases women out of all possible combinations.  When before a man could work even a little and earn 100% of the household income, now they must bust their butts to stay at 60% by always being slightly harder working than even the most fanatical of hard working women.  If anything, the new system where both men and women work has caused men to have to work harder, not less hard, at their jobs.

Nor does a woman's career income improve a man's life.  The amount of money spent to support the woman working at her career eats up the entire income from her career, in terms of the second car, daycare, wardrobes, fast food instead of home cooked meals, etc.  If the woman somehow miraculously does exceed her expenses, she'll spend them all on herself, as a reward for all her hard work.  Picture trips to Europe, health spa visits, a home redecoration or new shoes.  Not a cent of it will go to a husband's new TV, golf clubs, or skydiving trip.  If you think your wife was working in order to help you out you have another thing coming.  If you think her job is in order to protect you in case you become unemployed, you're hopelessly deluded.  Women consider unemployed husbands losers and will cheat on, then divorce them while calling themselves the put upon victims.  There is no security hammock here, just a pit of spikes at the bottom.

Which brings me to my next point.  Even if you do everything right and women say their marriages are 'very happy,' they'll still cheat on you.  Simply by allowing an egalitarian marriage relationship to exist, the odds of the woman cheating on you skyrockets, despite the fact that they say they love you more for allowing it to happen.  In other words, women have no gratitude for the men who have bent their lives around in order to suit women.  They will take that flexibility and step all over it on their road to self-actualization without a hint of guilt or remorse.  To them, they're just as entitled to a man doing their chores as they are to extra flings on the side.  Whatever makes them happy is their right.  Men, by the way, have no rights to anything.

Which brings me to my next point.  Let's assume you're one of these magically hard working 60% earners, and for some reason your wife hasn't cheated on you yet.  However, in the new, egalitarian marriage if you do happen to be having sex (though less frequently than ever before), the women expect the sex to be all about satisfying them.  If they aren't satisfied, they aren't interested.  And the level of difficulty of satisfying these egalitarian women has reached olympian heights.  You must fulfill their wildest fantasies.  You must be better than any other guy she's had before.  You must be so good that she doesn't even want to cheat on you or break up with you in order to pursue a new passionate novelty elsewhere.  In other words, you must concentrate the entire time on her needs, like an employee to a customer, while putting yourself second throughout the long and involved ritual.  Even as the number of times you have sex goes down, the quality of sex you're having is also dropping dramatically.  In the olden days, women were expected to make sex about satisfying their man.  This was a symbol of gratitude for the man supporting the woman through his work during the day.  It was a give and take.  However, as women can support themselves financially, the only reason they ever want to have sex now is in order to satisfy their own meager, nigh non-existent sexual appetite.  If by some bizarre chance they are in the mood for sex, it's for some ridiculously complicated and perverse sex no man would actually want to do, because that's the only thing arousing enough for women who by their nature have little interest in sex to begin with.

An egalitarian marriage offers men nothing.  So what exactly are the 'other benefits?'  We've been promised less sex, less satisfying sex, more chores, more work, more looking after the kids, more cheating, and higher divorce rates.  These are all made up for by 'other benefits.'  Which as far as I can tell = less nagging by a whiny wife about all the things you aren't currently doing for her at the moment, or in PC speak a 'more harmonious and happy marriage.'  Because you certainly aren't happy, nor do you feel particularly harmonious with her behavior.  In other words, the 'other benefits' are not getting whipped as often because you are a less unruly slave than the men who refuse to adhere to egalitarian norms.  I don't consider a marriage such as the one listed above lasting longer to be a 'benefit,' because a marriage like that lasting even a second longer would more accurately be labeled yet another entry under the 'con' section.  Obviously masters like to keep around their slaves, but it's rare for slaves to desire to stay under the rule of their masters.

If you can't have sex as often as you want with your wife, in a relaxed and casual manner with no hoopla surrounding it, while being assured that no one else is doing so and she and her children are all yours, there is zero benefit to marriage over staying single.  You get no more money than before -- in fact your expenses go up while your revenue at best stays the same.  You have to do more chores than before because single men can prioritize their own home environment to a level they're comfortable with, whereas a married man must keep the home environment to the level the wife is comfortable with.  Unemployment is more stressful than before because now you also lose your wife and kids on top of your job when before, as a single man, at most you would only lose your job.  A single man has sole parental custody over his own children if he simply buys an egg off the market and hires a surrogate mother to gestate it, whereas married men lose custody of their children in the event of a divorce, so it can't be for the sake of wanting children to have or raise.  And a woman's company is in no way more desirable than another man's or just solitude for that matter, since all they will do is nag you for the rest of your life.  When's the last time men have wanted to spend more time with women for the sake of their great conversation skills?

Women used to offer men many benefits.  They would have sex with you and only you in their entire lives.  They would love you and only you for their entire lives.  They would respect you, cherish you, adore you, be grateful to you, listen to you, obey you and support you in your endeavors.  They would have your children -- and not just one but as many as you wanted, and there was no threat of divorce taking those children away.  They would keep the home pleasant and home cook your meals, making life at home a relaxing vacation between each workday.  I can't think of anything more pleasant in life to a man than the wife of the 1700's, 1800's, or early 1900's.  But not a single one of these 'other benefits' remains today.  Egalitarian marriages destroys every single one of the advantages listed.  So what are the 'other benefits'?  From a female perspective, sacrificing their sex lives, which they never cared much about in the first place, is a small price to pay for a man who will do their chores and take care of their kids.  I understand this much.  Women reading this article will of course say, 'well, when you consider the other benefits of a live-in slave who isn't payed in any coin whatsoever, not even sex they might enjoy, not even a word of thanks or even sexual fidelity, I suppose the new marriage system isn't an overall unwelcome change.'  But what are men supposed to feel at the end of this article?

Do our feelings even matter anymore?


Recently an article came out, http://www.interfluidity.com/v2/4938.html#comment-37392, saying single women had a human right to 'experience parenthood,' even if that meant taxpayers (ie, men), had to pay for it.  So single men must give up 30% of their paycheck so that single women can experience parenthood, which is a human right for women but not for men, who for some reason don't get the human right to experience marriage or children themselves.  The only possible explanation for this set of values is that men aren't human so they don't have any right to experience parenthood themselves.

To quote the pertinent line of thinking in this article:

That is to say, should we tell women who have been segregated into the bad marriage market, who on average have lowish incomes and unruly neighbors and live near bad schools, that motherhood is just not for them, probably ever? We could bring back norms of shame surrounding single motherhood, or create other kinds of incentives to reduce the nonadoption birth rate of people statistically likely to raise difficult kids. It is possible. I think it would be monstrous. I believe that, as a society, we should commit ourselves to creating circumstances in which the fundamentally human experience of parenthood is available to all, not barred from those we’ve left behind on our way to good schools and walkable neighborhoods. Women unlikely to marry who wish to have children by all means should. The shame is ours, not theirs.
So, referring to how we should address single mothers, the human experience of parenthood should be available to all.  He then specifies himself even more clearly "Women unlikely to marry who wish to have children by all means should."  Women.  Women!  Women have the 'human right,' that should be 'available to all,' to experience parenthood.  But men are not included in the human category, or the all category.  They are apparently non-existent beings except the line 'ours,' pertaining to how shameful we are for. . .I guess. . .existing?  If anything is wrong in a woman's life, it is 'our shame,' not theirs.  But aside from that men do not exist.  They are not included in the word 'human' or 'all.'  We are non-human, non-existent agents of shame who must pay up tax dollars for the sake of single mothers who have a human right to 'experience parenthood' at our expense.  That is the world modern man finds himself in.  If he's married, he is supposed to think of the 'other benefits' that come alongside a lack of sex, sexual satisfaction, or fidelity in his new improved marriage.  And if he is not married, he is supposed to assume the shame of single mothers who can't support themselves by allowing them to 'experience parenthood.'  Lastly, if you're single but make the mistake of not being celibate, you have to pay child support even for children you never know or meet, because it helps women 'experience parenthood' which is, after all, their human right.  There is no escape.

The only way to not be ground to dust by this majority woman ruled democracy, which has now set up life for men to be the lowest circle of Dante's Inferno, is to purposefully not make over $10,000 a year, not have sex with women, and not marry women.  Only then can you avoid letting them get a single claw into you from one side or another.  Paradoxically, the only way to experience parenthood yourself is to be a millionaire who can afford the bought egg plus surrogate mother route to reproduction.  So if you want your human right to 'experience parenthood,' that comes with a hefty price tag, whereas if women want their human right, the government pays for it upfront.  Marvelous.  And if you earn enough to have children, you have to pay taxes sufficient to pay for all the women who wish to 'experience parenthood' too.  You can be poor and free, but childless.  Or rich and a slave.  Or married and a slave.  Men have no good options left to them, period.  And to think, we ourselves voted to give women the vote and put ourselves in this position.  Remarkable.

Fermi's paradox, saying that given the number of planets in the cosmos, there should be life everywhere, is still waiting for a logical answer.  So here's my conjecture.  All intelligent life eventually makes the mistake of empowering women, who then refuse to have sex with men under any reasonable terms, after which the birth rate falls below replacement and the species eventually plummets into extinction.  Nothing can avoid this nose dive death spiral because empowered women have the vote so the government, with all the force of the military behind it, enforces the insanity all the way to the bitter end, whereupon the last radio message of every stellar civilization is "At least we didn't discriminate!"

Though by the time women are empowered, I'm pretty certain every stellar civilization is wishing for death anyway, so the ending isn't as tragic as it seems. . .

Mandatory Marriage is better than 98% of Women's Jobs:


http://www.dol.gov/wb/factsheets/20lead2010.htm

This factsheet is one of the most telling data points ever printed.  It's the US department of labor, so there's no questioning the authenticity of these facts.  And what does it have to say?  98% of women are employed in meaningless, low-skill jobs that we could do without anyway.

Nurses and Elementary School/Middle School teachers are roles that women used to serve naturally, among their own family, without needing to get paid for it.  They would teach their children and nurse their parents, without needing any fancy degrees prior to doing so.  In a sane world, people would take care of their own families because they enjoy the company of their family more than total strangers.  But in today's world, we avoid our families by going to work to do -- the exact same job that you would have done had you stayed at home, except this time with complete strangers.  There is no intellectual quality needed to do these jobs, just a lot of patience and compassion.  Nor are these jobs any use -- sick people die no matter what you do, smart children learn no matter what you do, and dumb children don't learn no matter what you do.  Nurses and teachers are makework jobs from the start.

(Contrast this with Doctors who actually are doing real jobs, like appendicitis surgeries that save young people's lives.  Nurses are just caregivers, not life savers.)

Secretaries can be replaced with mobile phone apps.

Cashiers, waitresses, maids, childcare workers, receptionists, office clerks, customer service representatives, all these jobs just include the skill of standing around and waiting/watching other people.  There's no skill involved.  There's practically no work involved.  There is quite a lot of hassle, I'll admit, because you have to be social with endless amounts of strangers, many of whom will be rude.  But all of these jobs could be replaced by some sort of automated website or kiosk where you punch in orders and a tray of food is whisked to your table automatically, or you self-serve at the store and go through the process of buying the products on your own, with just an automated security system making sure you aren't cheating.  As for childcare, that's what women should be doing with their own children, not someone else's.  Women could also do their own housework instead of hiring maids so that they can go be hired maids at someone else's house.  Why is all women's work just going out the door to do to strangers what they could have done at home with their own family already?

Managers of fast food stores are no more skilled or intelligent than their front-line workers, they've just been working there longer.  'Accountants and Auditors' may be a real job category but it might also just be a bunch of useless paper pushers, I just don't know.  It certainly isn't as prestigious as actual bankers or finance investors who actually keep track of people's money.

98% of female employment is either unnecessary work, or work they could have done at home without getting the fancy title of 'employed' or 'college graduate.'  You don't have to go through graduate school to be more knowledgeable and intelligent than elementary schoolers.  Therefore, teaching an elementary schooler basic reading and arithmetic is not graduate school level work, even if the teachers of said children are graduate school graduates.  It's just a mockery of how much overeducation we have in the system.

Let's assume that the remaining 2% of women not included in this fact sheet are all employed in valuable jobs, like doctor, mathematician, engineer, computer programmer, CEO, actress, etc.  There is no reason to overturn the entire social fabric of civilization so that 2% of women can reach their full potential as high achieving women.  If we simply must have these women enter the labor force because their work is oh so valuable to mankind, we can give them a special exemption while still insisting that women whose work is less useful give up work and return to building families, which is a much more productive use of their time.

Men are only useful for work.  So long as any men are unemployed, it doesn't make sense to have any of these '98%' group of women working.  You're just taking the jobs from someone who needs it and giving it away to someone who doesn't need it.  If a woman doesn't work outside the home, she can still find plenty of useful work to do inside the home.  She is the only person biologically suited to having, nursing, and then looking after young children.  She can be a teacher and a nurse to her older children and elderly parents/in-laws.  She can be a maid who keeps the house tidy and neat.  She can be a companion to her husband, better than any entertainer on TV.  She can be a cook of cheap and wholesome foods.  A taxi driver getting everyone where they need to go.  There is no end to the useful fields of endeavor a woman can find radiating out from the hearth.  If she runs out of work to do at home, she could volunteer to some sort of charity, like a church club that cooks meals and visits lonely elderly widows who attend that church.  Or she could help her husband's work from behind the scenes.

Men cannot stay at home and be homemakers because A) they don't have ovaries and they can't lactate.  B) their brains aren't wired to get along well with crying infants.  C) Women have such utter contempt for said men that they would never marry a man who proffered himself as a 'homemaker in waiting' and if he became a homemaker after the marriage she would then divorce him.  The statistics bear this out so there's no point arguing about it.  When men have the salaried jobs and women stay at home both sides are fulfilled and both sides can respect each other and cooperate to form a stronger whole.  Any other formula falls apart instantly.  (If they both work, and the woman earns more than the man, the woman divorces the man as not being man enough for her.  If she earns less than the man, then she's working for less than the price of the daycare she's paying in order to be able to go outside and work instead of staying home with the kids, and her work is far less fulfilling than the time spent bonding with young children so what's the point anyway?  Furthermore, women who work then start complaining about men not doing enough chores.  Since they 'both work,' the woman reasons, they should 'both do an equal amount of chores as well,' even if the man's work is far more physically and mentally demanding than the woman's work.  Ironically, if the man does as he's told and starts folding laundry and washing dishes, the girl disrespects him as a pussy and has less sex with him than if the man had refused to take on the womanly work she told him she wanted him to do.  Again, this is borne out by statistics so there's no use arguing about it.  A woman who doesn't work would just do the chores and not nag their husbands, which would lead to more domestic felicity)

The problem with letting the elite 2% of women who want to work in high octane jobs instead of have children is that they are the genetically most gifted women in the country, and for the sake of eugenics they need to be having the most children, not the least.  Admittedly, parents have little effect on their children aside from their initial gene set, so if these women would at least agree to have children, then go back to work, there might still be time for them to join the workforce.  But even this is problematic.  For mathematicians, scientists, and creative thinkers, your 20's is your most intelligent and productive period.  After that your brain just keeps sliding downhill.  The peak productivity of someone at work is when they come up with their most original and innovative ideas, in their 20's, and are willing to take the most risks to achieve them.  Likewise, the peak fertility and health of eggs/sperm is in the teens/twenties, so that's when women should be having their children.  If the most intelligent women have a bunch of children in their 20's, they will have eugenically better children (and more of them) than if they wait until they are in their 30's or god forbid 40's.  This obviously means they can't be diving headfirst into huge 60 hour workweeks as they found new companies or whatever.  If they have kids in their 20's, and then start working in their 30's, they'll already be over the hill and won't have much to contribute.  I suppose it's possible to have these women donate their eggs to someone else and let complete strangers raise their biological children, but this seems so inhumane and cold a system that I really can't agree to it.  Parents should be raising their own damn kids, not delegating that work to someone else, or the very act of reproduction becomes a farce.

The best place for the talented 2% of women to be is at home, having genius children, married to their genius husbands.  They should seek intellectual stimulation not from work, but by talking to the other intelligent members in their family and their circle of friends.  This was done in 1800's France, when women created elaborate parties for eminent men to come together and chat and flirt with the most esteemed women for their wit and charm.  Intelligent women had their fill of intellectual stimulation interacting with the world's most luminous luminaries, Samuel Johnson, Alexander Pope, and so on.

We are telling female children that they can all become microbiologists and rocket scientists, but the facts just aren't so.  If women refuse to be homemakers, they'll end up at some dead-end job that, at best, is just a copy of what they would have been doing at home anyway -- teacher, nurse, maid, childcare worker, cook, etc.  For the few women who are suited to the wearing of lab coats, they'd be even more suited as the wives of the wearers of lab coats, the mothers of sons who wear lab coats, or the mothers of daughters who become the wives of the wearers of lab coats.  It's already been chronicled in numerous studies that dysgenics is dragging down our collective intelligence every decade, steadily and insidiously, dragging us back into the morass of idiocy we just barely escaped a few hundred years ago.  There is nothing more important than reversing this trend and putting it back on the right trajectory again.  There is no work women could do that is more valuable than bearing and raising intelligent children.  And if they aren't intelligent, and can't have intelligent children, there's still no work they could do that's more valuable than bearing and raising mediocre children, because they could only do mediocre work if left alone anyway.  I'd rather have mediocre children than mediocre work in the world, because children equals life equals existence equals a future for mankind, whereas work is just another word for drudgery/tedium/suffering/coercion/slavery/etc.  The entire purpose of belonging to the nobility was to escape work.  Why would women deliberately plunge back into it when they're all natural aristocrats at birth?

If it's respect women want, how do they get it from being clerks, secretaries, or cashiers?  That's laughable.  They aren't doing anything remotely useful.  Not like policemen, firemen, construction workers, auto repair workers, etc, who can point to something they actually built or did that actually had an impact on someone's life.  Women can take plenty of pride in being a positive influence on everyone around her, making everyone's day brighter, and keeping the family humming by doing all the maintenance tasks like grocery shopping and paying the bills that someone has to do.  Men have plenty of respect for the wives who make their lives easy and are the mothers of their lovely children.  If they are worried about other women showering disrespect on them for not working like they are, just avoid those women.  Hang out with other married mothers who are also homemakers, go to church where this sort of life is valued and respected, become a Mormon if that's what it takes.  You won't have to hear the nasty words of any harridans that are trying, like the Devil, to make everyone as bad off as themselves.  Or you could get a spine and just ignore what working women have to say and have some self-respect.  Either way.

Women shouldn't work.  They should marry and have children.  Intelligent women should have lots of children, whereas unintelligent women should restrict themselves to just one or two, so that eugenics can improve future generations.  This should be done immediately, in their teenage years, when they are still innocent and pure and can devote their hearts and bodies fully to just one man.  They should be having children in their teens or early 20's, when their children will be healthiest and they are at their most fertile.  Getting an education and then getting a job interferes with nature's timeline, and morality's timeline, that says that women should not be sluts who have slept around with multiple men.  It's antithetical to a good society.  If women cannot find a good mate in high school from the boys around them in school (high school should be intentionally coed so as to match up all the most promising boys and girls, using tracking to put high IQ kids in the same classes together with a lot of encouragement for them getting into romances and marrying), she should have an arranged marriage upon graduating from high school at 18 and just be paired with who the computers think she'll get along well with, in terms of personality and IQ.  If women want to marry for love instead of necessity, they'll have to choose a man among their acquaintances and stick with him.  Women have eighteen years of their most preeminent beauty surrounded by thousands of eligible bachelors who will make great husband material in the future.  There is no reason why they can't find a reasonable romantic partner before graduating from high school.  If they can't find someone to their liking, it's their own fault that someone is provided for them.  But in any case, women should not just be left alone to their own devices, unmarried, because it's just plain inefficient.  The women are worse off (according to happiness surveys, married women are happier), the men are worse off, and the children are worse off.  It's stupid to stay single.  It's unnatural.  It doesn't help anyone.  Including yourself.

Naturally, alongside mandatory marriage, there will be no toleration of adultery or divorce.  Marriage is mandatory in a real sense, not just in name.  A real marriage is when you marry as a virgin, are faithful to just one guy your entire life, and stay married to that man until death does you part.  Widows and widowers would of course be welcome to marry each other if they're so inclined, just like in the olden days.  If you can't get along with your husband, learn to get along with him.  75% of divorces are filed by women.  This means that men have already figured out how to get along with just about any wife.  There is no reason why women can't be just as mature and learn to get along with their husbands.  It may be a frigid marriage, or a boring marriage, but with the help of the knowledge that what you are doing is good and right and the basis of humanity's continued survival, it's not so bad a fate to be a martyr for the sanctity and sacredness of the marriage bond.  Obviously the husband will not be allowed to cheat or domestically abuse the wife either (the death penalty for any adultery or domestic abuse cases for both sides.), so there will be no legitimate reason why a woman or a man would require a divorce in this system.  If you have a legitimate reason to seek a divorce, don't worry, you'll be an unmarried widow or widower, and you'll be free to find someone else.

The only tweak I might add to this system is that it should be mandatory for all women to marry, but not for loser men.  This would mean that women could all hypergamously aim for the top man in a polygamous marriage.  Eugenically, this is great, because it means only the best men are reproducing.  In other words, if you don't marry by age 18 to someone you found romantically, you'll be arranged to join a guy's harem in a polygamous marriage, or alternatively a single guy, based on your preference for quality or quantity.  If you simply can't abide the thought of being married to a loser, and also couldn't find any romance in any of the boys around you, joining a harem of a high class guy could also be an option.  I'm not sure if this would improve the system or make it worse, but it's an alternative that could at least be attempted -- like for instance, having polygamy in one state and monogamy only in another state, and seeing which state ends up being happier.  I'd also be fine with including gay marriage into this system, where men could pair up with men and women with women, just so long as everybody ends up paired up.  So long as lesbian women are still acting feminine and taking on the role of mothers and wives, it makes no difference if they're married to each other instead of an actual man.  As for gay men creating a disproportion of marriageable men to women, polygamy can easily make up that difference so they're free to sodomize each other, no one will miss them.

A birthrate of 1.0 children per woman is unacceptable, that's half the replacement rate.  Any birthrate that continues on this pace for long will mean the death of your nation, its economy, its culture, and its civilization.  It will most likely, in the end, be invaded and crushed by barbarous hordes from without, who didn't ascribe to women's liberation and therefore didn't have a 1.0 birthrate like you do.  So whether we switch to mandatory marriage or not, women's liberation is doomed.  Women's liberation dooms itself.  Supposing everyone leaves it alone, it would just pitter out and die by continuously halving the population all the way down to zero.  Supposing invaders invade, all the women will be raped and stuck in burqas.  So dropping women's lib now and returning to a sensible European way of life, like the lives of our ancestors, that has a sustainable birth rate of at least 2.1 children per woman, is the best possible alternative for women to choose between.

Never mind even the future, the present of women's lives, the random drinking and drugs and orgies, the drudgery of the bottom 98% jobs they're currently working in, the nihilism of breaking marriage oaths and aborting your own babies, none of this is truly appealing to them and if they were ever allowed to experience the past happiness of women again they would realize how much they miss it.  The liberal woman's life is sad and lost.  Conservatives are happier than liberals, straight out, according to surveys.  This is because conservative women are leading a natural married life and raising children at home, whereas liberal women are leading unnatural, unfeminine lives which their biological nature does not fit well into.  Liberal women thought they wanted freedom but that doesn't mean they're actually better off with it.  It turns out what they really want is not what they say they want, and paring down women's freedom would be the greatest gift we could give to them.   They have been brainwashed and propagandized to seek bad things, unhappy things, sinful things, and are insulted if they don't embrace the liberal way of life.  These victims, who don't know any better, should be gently but forcefully set back on the right path, which is marriage, children, domesticity and femininity.  Once they experience it, they'll embrace it, but they'd never seek it out themselves so it must be foisted upon them.  If our schools, media, and culture had not been feeding them poison since day one and turning them away from the virtuous and correct path, we wouldn't need such a forceful corrective measure in the first place.  Naturally, come the revolution, schools, media, and churches would not be teaching this poison anymore, and no one would be allowed to insult women for being homemakers, so in time the problem would go away.  Women would just voluntarily and happily marry without a second thought and take up their natural roles, like they have for the previous 100,000 years all across the globe.  Because they have been poisoned by lies for a century, however, we are left with no option except to de-program them from the top down.

By taking women back out of the workforce, jobs would become available for all the low paid and unemployed men again.  Men would stream into these opened up niches and pretty soon we would have full male employment again, like we had in the good old days.  As a result, their 'marriage stock' would go up and they would look more attractive to women as marriage prospects.  Giving men back their work and their dignity, and giving them salaries that can afford an entire family's bills, will make 'mandatory marriage' a sugar cube to ingest for women.  Since they're marrying qualified men, they shouldn't have any complaints.  If women hadn't entered the workforce, men would have stayed marriage material, so there wouldn't have been any need for women to enter the workforce and stay single because there 'aren't any good guys out there.'  First they cause the problem, then the very cause of the problem becomes their solution.  Typical.  Unraveling this knot will be a godsend in so many ways.  Simply by abolishing public education, or at least public education in its current form, children will be so infinitely better off it's hard to imagine.  Parents will be directly responsible for looking after and teaching their children, and imparting into them the culture/beliefs/values they wish to impart.  They'll give them a workload they think is suited to the child's proclivities and gifts, and not any other workload.  Every family will work out what educational system is best for them.  Likewise, abolishing higher education because men prefer trade schools and women would no longer be allowed to attend would be another godsend.  No more professors yapping about inane subjects they ultimately know nothing about, lying to and poisoning impressionable kids in obvious nonsense.  A small number of schools could remain open teaching physics, mathematics, chemistry and the like, which really does seem to require intensive book learning.  But for most jobs hands-on experience is much more helpful and the employers should be required to train them on-site as apprentices from the beginning.  A place of higher education where people become 'well-rounded' (ie, liberal brainwashed zombies), would be toppled like the statue of Lenin in Red Square.

Legitimate Work:

Out of the work that is being done in America, who is actually producing something of value that customers actually need and use?

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ocwage.pdf

Let's be generous and include every category that seems even remotely useful.  Each of the percentages is the percentage of people working in this field compared to the entire labor force.  So 5% of workers of all types are working in management, and so on.

Management - 5%
Business and Financial Operations - 5%
Computer and Mathematical - 3%
Architecture and Engineering - 2%
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and media - 1%
Healthcare Practitioners and technical - 6%
Healthcare Support - 3%
Protective Service - 2%
Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance - 3%
Farming, Fishing, and forestry - virtually 0%
Construction and Extraction - 4%
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair - 4%
Production - 6%
Transportation and material moving - 7%

For a grand total of 51% of the workforce is doing actually useful work.  Aside from perhaps healthcare, which is a dubious 'service' anyway because of its sky-high prices for few actual cures, every single one of these legitimate work fields are massively dominated by men.  I would guess that at least 80% of the jobs in all of these fields are held by men.  Normal jobs make sense -- extracting coal or iron, constructing houses, repairing broken pipes or electric lines, producing furniture, or moving the goods to market from their factories.  All of this stuff makes natural sense and is clearly a valid field of endeavor.  You can immediately point to the beneficiaries and why the country relies entirely on you -- everything would break down within days if any one of these guys went on strike.  Without the police and the fire department and prison guards there would be anarchy in the streets and no one's life or property would be safe.  Without architecture and engineering we wouldn't have any roads, bridges, or buildings.  Without computers and mathematics we wouldn't have any communication and most machines would be incapable of doing what they do.  Without businessmen and financial operators no business ideas would get off the ground, which would lead to no miners, truck drivers, engineers, etc having any jobs.  Without management making sure the right people are in the right job doing the right thing, projects would flounder into sub-par performance at higher costs.

Without the arts and entertainment sector there would be no point working because life wouldn't be enjoyable anymore so there would be no point sustaining life any further.  Without farming we'd all starve to death.  These are good jobs.  People can be proud of themselves when they work in jobs like these.  They can point to the good they're doing in the world, and it's unquestionable that what they are doing is good.

Only women working in jobs like these, that in addition no man can do as well, can possibly argue that they are worth more in the workplace than at home.  For instance, voice actors, singers, idols, female manga-ka, authors, actresses, figure skaters, etc, unquestionably I would prefer they continue in the workforce than get out of it.  They're providing something of real worth to the world that no one else can do, their talents are unique and in great demand.

Female police officers, female firefighters, female soldiers, these abominations have no reason to exist.  All of these jobs require a great deal of physical strength and mental aggression/risk taking behavior, which women are biologically unsuited towards.  Even presuming that some select women have all the attributes necessary to succeed at this job, they would only be needed to be hired if there was a shortage of qualified men who could do the job instead.  I do not think there is a shortage of men available for these jobs, therefore there is no reason women, even the minuscule percentage of qualified women, should apply.  However, this isn't what really happens.  Instead, what really happens is that standards are lowered and women are let in via affirmative action.  When push comes to shove and they're actually required to do the job, like that female secret service member who just let the crazy guy pass right by her in his attempt to meet Obama by invading the white house, they reveal themselves to be completely empty suits and placeholders with no business being there.

Likewise, there are plenty of male computer programmers, engineers, truck drivers, construction workers, and so on.  The pay is pretty abysmal and the number of unemployed male engineers/computer programmers/whatever is always higher than the number of open jobs in these fields.  We don't need to hire women to go be coal miners in West Virginia.  This tough, dirty, dangerous work has more than enough men all being paid virtually nothing for it already.  To prove that there is an urgent need to mobilize women into the workforce because men 'aren't getting the job done,' we would have to see some section of the labor force unequal to the task of providing people with their desired goods.  There should be massive labor shortages where companies are willing to hire literally anyone who knocks on their door.  Companies should be willing to train anyone up from scratch just to put a warm body onto the assembly line.  The pay should be rising astronomically as companies lose billions in opportunity costs by not having the necessary labor to match their booming capital.

A world like this doesn't exist.  It probably hasn't existed since the 1800's, but in any case it doesn't exist now.  Wages haven't risen (adjusted for inflation) in forever.  Since 1970.  The minimum wage is actually down from where it was in the 60's/70's.  Companies are becoming more and more choosy about who they hire, not less and less.  They require ever higher certifications before they're willing to let you work, not ever fewer.  Even highly qualified people are being laid off as being not profitable enough for the company's stockholders.  Does this really feel like a time crying out for emergency female labor?

Is this World War I, or World War II, where all the men are gone and in order to survive women must take up the roles of farming and manufacturing for us?  Is there some giant public works project that requires 'all hands on deck' like the interstate highway system or the Apollo project?  No.  There is no giant urgency for more workers to enter the system.  Even if there were, it could be met by male immigrants instead of women.  We've imported some fifty million immigrants into the country presumably for some reason, why on Earth would we need female workers in an environment like this?

Women in the workforce should only be working where their skills are necessary and irreplaceable.  If they were leading edge mathematicians or physicists, I could understand, because there simply aren't enough smart people to unlock all the secrets of the universe by relying solely on men.  There are unsolved problems in math and science.  We desperately need to unlock the mysteries of AI, immortality, space colonization, cheap sustainable energy, etc, and anyone with the brains to work in these fields should definitely be recruited to pursue them.  It would mean a better life for trillions of people in the future, and the sooner it's done the more people we can help.  Recently, the first woman in history won the Field's Medal, the most prestigious honor in mathematics.  Therefore, however small a minority, there's clearly some segment of the women's population that could be used in math and science.  They should be allowed to pursue their dreams.  But this tiny minority of high octane thinkers can be distinguished pretty early in the education system.  They could be put on a 'future scientific leader' track, grouped with other bright and promising students, and taught whatever they need to know in order to work at the LHC or NASA or whatever.  This doesn't imply that all women must be allowed to go to college in order to 'discover their potential.'  IQ tests by age 18 are perfectly indicative of later performance, and unless these high IQ women are already doing science and math related activities, even if they have high IQ it's obvious they'll just end up lawyers or community activists or something equally useless even if they went to college.

I can imagine a world where 2% of women are in the workforce.  Generally speaking, these top 2% of women end up married but without children or very few children, which is a tragedy.  But it would be an even greater tragedy if we didn't have women artists and scientists providing irreplaceable goods for mankind for which every year without them means legions of people will suffer, die, or miss a chance at beauty that changes their entire life philosophy and overall enjoyment of life.  What I can't fathom is why the remaining 98% of women should get a job when their effort is not needed and not useful.  Either they're working in a field of work that's fraudulent and farcical by its very nature -- like fast food when it would be healthier and cheaper to just buy from the supermarket and then cook the food at home -- or it's a field of work that has 100 qualified people for every applicant, including billions of immigrants who would love to come here and work for the job, like computer programmer or construction worker.

If there were a field of work in which wages were sky-high for, say, ten years, and neither new college graduates nor immigrants could fill the demand for this job, then there would be an argument for allowing women to 'fill in the breach.'  In a country where wages have remained stagnant for 50 years, I just don't see the dire need to pour women into the workforce like Russian reinforcements to Stalingrad.  There is no economic argument for women's workforce participation.

The only thing that remains is the social argument.  Paradoxically, liberals must argue that 40% illegitimacy rates, 50% divorce rates, an average age of first marriage of 30, STD's, ten sexual partners per lifetime, lower happiness ratings in all surveys and polls, drugs, alcohol abuse, 'cutting,' tattoos, abortion, and so on are all social goods, brought about by letting single women stay single and support themselves via employment instead of being good little girls who stay at home and stay faithful and obedient to the man of the house.  Strangely enough, for liberals, the current social picture, where virtue is a non-existent term and women behave like monstrous beasts towards absolutely everyone -- their boyfriends, their husbands, their children, even to themselves -- is the end goal and the purpose of all this.  Women's liberation was for the sake of divorce.  It was so they could have ten lifetime sexual partners.  And so on.  Up is down and left is right in this world.  You can point to the skyrocketting rate of single mothers with children in this country, and they'll say that's a good thing.  Single mothers are courageous.  Single mothers can take care of everything themselves.  The dads were all negative influences on the children anyway.  Marriages stultify the human spirit and disallow our pursuit of happiness.  On and on.  To the liberal, our current social chaos, where love is impossible due to zero contract enforcement of people's oaths, where reproduction is impossible because there is zero financial security and zero promise that you'll actually be able to keep the kids that you pay for, is the desired result and the entire purpose of women going to work instead of staying home.

It's like if you're arguing with the Cheshire cat and tell him that if you ate all the geese, you doubt there would be any eggs left for next year, and his smile were to turn upside down as he said, "that's the idea."

If there is a single good thing that emerges out of abandoning traditional morality, I would like to know of it.  Don't tell me it can stop domestic abuse -- it was never traditional morality to allow domestic abuse in the first place.  There is far less domestic abuse, or women victimized by crime, among married women than among single women.  So no, that just doesn't cut it.  Don't tell me it gives women a more fulfilling sex life -- hedonistic goals like that make just as much sense as having a more fulfilling drug life or a more fulfilling alcoholic life.  Don't tell me it's for the children's sake, children are all better off in married homes.  Don't tell me it was because women were unhappy -- unhappiness is a part of life and it happens even more frequently among single people, no one can expect to be happy all the time over everything.  We take what little we can and concentrate on the good, that's all any of us can do.  We aren't clowns in a circus who always have to laugh uproariously over every second of our lives.  That's just insanity.

There is no argument for women upending the social order that has lasted 100,000 years all across the Earth.  There is no economic argument.  There is no social argument.  There is no moral argument.  There's simply no case that can be made, given the facts that we have, that today's prioritization of women is the correct one.  Yes, the enlightened west is better off than some backwards, patriarchal countries like the Muslim Middle East.  Yes, it's good that we aren't practicing female genital mutilation like they do in Egypt and Somalia.  But to say that our only two choices are burqas or women's liberation is absurd.  We have the 1950's, the 1850's, the 1750's, hell, we even have roman and spartan women as examples of a western attitude and treatment of the fairer sex that is far more balanced and free.  In the west, women's education and literacy was taught for centuries before women were expected to stay single and work for a living.  Men enjoy the company of intelligent women they can converse with, and there's no harm in women enjoying books and friendly dialogues and long letter correspondences with friends while the men are away.  The more reflective and refined women become, the more virtuous and beautiful they become, the better off everyone is.

2% of women should work.  100% of women should be educated.  100% of women should be married before age 20, as virgins, and should never divorce or commit adultery.  98% of women should stay home where their gifts are most suited to improving quality of life for everyone.  There is no need to go full purdah and foot binding on women to bring back the good behavior of women during the Victorian age.  They don't need to wear high heels and corsets, just not being abysmally overweight and allowing their hair to grow would already be sufficient to attract any number of fine suitors.  They don't need to take ecstasy or have lurid affairs to have a good time, a formal dance party or a dinner invitation with tea was perfectly sufficient in the past to keep women's spirits up.

How can anyone read the novels of Jane Austen and not feel envious of the lives women used to lead?  In Charles Dickens, women were treated exceptionally well, just as they acted exceptionally well, whether it was Little Dorritt or the sister in Nicholas Nickleby.  In War and Peace, women had an honored and central place in Russian cultural life.  In Little Women, even in the midst of the Civil War, the four sisters led a meaningful and good life that anyone should be able to empathize with.  George Eliot and George Sand give accounts of exciting, interesting women's lives.  Clairissa and Pamela, by Samuel Richardson, are the longest novels in the English tongue and they're about women.  I don't see why working as a secretary or a cashier would add any deeper meaning or value to your existence than these women had in their lives.

By allowing women to work, we set the conditions for women not marrying and divorcing frivolously.  (Charity work would be fine, the important thing is that women aren't able to support themselves or their children)  Once they were no longer financially dependent on men, they could behave badly towards men without repercussion.  All social problems in the modern day stem from the mistake of allowing women into the workplace.  Once women are dependent on men again, they'll start behaving honestly and honorably towards men again, out of necessity.  Men have always behaved honestly and honorably towards women to begin with, because it is in their nature to love women and love uprightness, and furthermore there is a ton of social pressure on men to treat those 'weaker than them' well, it's noblesse oblige all the way down.  If a man were to mistreat his wife, he would be shunned by society and likely fired from his job.  When a wife mistreats her husband, she's championed in the press as a hero.  When women are given the whip hand over men, disaster ensues, because it goes against nature (women have no inclination to pamper men, unlike men who are inclined to pamper women) and societal norms (men are expected to take care of women and children, but women are not expected to take care of their men).  When men are given the whip hand over women, everything goes smoothly, just like it has for centuries in the enlightened west, and everyone's better off.  As another bonus, enough children are actually born into the world that mankind continues to exist into the future, unlike today's topsy turvy world which is dead set on self annihilation.

Change the marriage laws and, in order to support the marriage laws, change the work laws.  Life doesn't have to be a 'tale of heartbreak and betrayal,' as dramas describe themselves to show how realistic they are.  We've already tried out another and better way.  God knows why we ever abandoned it in the first place.

South Korea's new average fertility is .96 per woman:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/03/south-koreas-fertility-rate-set-to-hit-record-low

Welcome to the wonderful world of female empowerment.  The article cites women's preference for careers and promotions over childbirth, which would set their empowered lives back, showing that giving women the option to work instead of stay in the home necessitates extinction.

It's not even about the money.  South Koreans are all filthy rich on any historical scale.  Women in the past, with much less, had no problem raising ten kids where now South Korean women can't even raise one.  South Korean women just want to work, and to get as far as they can in the world of work, to actualize themselves.  They have a single minded devotion to excellence in their field and the high status that goes along with it.  I suspect if they were all paid in camp rations and the right to an egg per week they'd still all be working exactly as diligently.

Women have no evolutionary preference to giving birth.  Since they were required to do so all these millions of years by dominant males, they never had to evolve to actually want to do it.  It was meaningless whether they wanted to do it or not, they would be forced to do it either way.  As such, the moment you give women the option to do something they never wanted to do, they'll cease doing it.  This should have been obvious to anyone.

Nor does this have much to do with birth control or abortion.  If South Korean women couldn't practice safe sex, they'd just abstain entirely.  They aren't like blacks who can't restrain their impulses, so it wouldn't make a lick of difference.

Women just plain want to work.  They find the world of work more exciting and rewarding than domesticity.  This seems unfathomable to me, given how most work, especially work done by women, is utter bullshit and achieves nothing.  But the polls don't lie.  Work is like crack to these women.  They are literally willing to drive mankind to extinction if it means they get to work a little more.

One question that could be asked is whether it's the actual work, or the prestige attached to the work, that women are chasing.  If, for instance, all that prestige were instead given to high breeders, would the numbers change?

I don't think so.  Because women would feel like prestige attached to work is justified, due to it being the fruits of their sentient efforts, while prestige attached to having lots of kids is unjustified, because even a brain dead vegetable with a womb could win such a contest.  They're on to such ploys.  Being honored for their animal-level equipment bodies instead of their angel-tier brains won't satisfy anyone.  It will just be seen as a cynical ploy to re-enslave women's bodies and put them all back in cages.

Women want to thrive with their intellects in an intellectual world.  They don't want their bodies to matter.  They don't want to be praised for their looks or their fertility or their ability to nurse babies.  It's just insulting, like being a prize milk cow or award winning hog.  They want to be recognized as human beings, as rational animals, for their rationality and the fruits of their rationality.

Is it possible to persuade women that their children's accomplishments are due to their own parenting, and thus a proof of intellectual capacity?  Unfortunately the science does not back this up.  The correlation of all child achievement with their adopted parents is 0%.  Anyone could raise anyone and it wouldn't make any difference, so long as you screen out abuse.  It's all determined at birth, in the genes.  You could praise women for having good genes that lead to good children, but that's again on the animal level -- a brain-dead vegetable with good genes could be far preferable to living, breathing, thinking women in that case.

The only praise women want to earn is the praise found in the current workplace.  "You did a good job," is the only love poem they're interested in.

There is a way to convince women to do the right thing, though.  No one 'wants' to pay taxes but they still do it, with the understanding that it is necessary for the continuation of society.  If they feel it is a painful sacrifice that everyone as a collective partakes in equally for the betterment of the whole, they wouldn't have to be convinced to 'want' to do it.  Only that they 'have' to do it.

"It is your moral duty to continue the human race," is a better argument than "Wouldn't kids be so much fun?"

I think if we drummed this into women from birth they would offer little resistance, just like men don't oppose the draft even though they don't want to join the army.  If it is accepted as a bedrock norm that unpleasant things are necessary for the collective's survival then people will go along with it, especially if they see that everyone equally is asked to contribute in the same way.  Which means not only must there be a cultural understanding that childbirth is a public duty, it must actually be a public duty that all women are mandated to engage in.  The law is so simple.  "All women must marry by age 20 and have two children by age 25."

If all women were 'drafted' as a moral necessity into childbirth, we could solve the fertility crisis in one swift stroke.  Since all women equally would have to sacrifice as much as one another, they can't 'get ahead' of each other in the jobs rat race that they really want to perform in by shirking.  This level playing field guarantees that all women will not lose relative prestige or status in the workplace compared to one another, so having children will cease costing them anything in the utilitarian currency they're interested in.

Comparisons with men would no longer make any sense, so it wouldn't be possible to make women feel bad about themselves if their careers were less productive than men's.  They'd just say, "yeah but you weren't required to give birth and tend to children for your first decade out of school," and everyone would agree that it would be unfair and impossible to compare the two.  At that point women would no longer feel 'lesser' to men who do more than them, and thus wouldn't lose any prestige no matter where they stand on the corporate ladder.

If women only have to compete with other women who all made the same sacrifice as them, in essence they lose nothing by being forced to have kids.  If everyone does their public service together then nobody feels unjustly burdened over it.  It's just one of those things that has to be done, like the draft is required for South Korean men and taxes are required of everyone.

Laws are so crucial to setting public moral norms.  If there isn't a law against something, it quickly is viewed to not be immoral as well.  It's just a lifestyle choice at that point, like comparing strawberry flavor to blueberry flavor ice cream.  If there's no law impelling marriage and childbirth, it's only natural for women to view marriage and children as a neutral lifestyle choice as compared to staying single and working.

But if the law reframed it as marriage and children being a moral necessity and staying single and barren a public disgrace, shameful, shirking and derelict, a dishonorable desertion from society's necessary welfare -- things would change quickly.  Women have an instinct to conform, get along, and stay out of trouble.  If it is ironclad, if it is unquestioned, if it is impelled by law, then they'll make whatever intellectual adjustments are necessary to feel that yes, marriage and children are unquestionably part of being a good person.

As for people who are unfairly required to have children when they can't even support them, the citizen's dividend could easily solve any such quandaries.  This is why the citizen's dividend, hand in hand with the mandatory marriage and children law and an immigration moratorium, are the three most important legal reforms needed in the world today.  They would solve virtually every problem on Earth overnight.

The Future of Civilization?:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/20/young-people-japan-stopped-having-sex

The number of single people has reached a record high. A survey in 2011 found that 61% of unmarried men and 49% of women aged 18-34 were not in any kind of romantic relationship, a rise of almost 10% from five years earlier. Another study found that a third of people under 30 had never dated at all.

A survey earlier this year by the Japan Family Planning Association (JFPA) found that 45% of women aged 16-24 "were not interested in or despised sexual contact". More than a quarter of men felt the same way.

Kunio Kitamura, head of the JFPA, claims the demographic crisis is so serious that Japan "might eventually perish into extinction".

There is no going back. "Both men and women say to me they don't see the point of love. They don't believe it can lead anywhere," says Aoyama. "Relationships have become too hard."Marriage has become a minefield of unattractive choices. Japanese men have become less career-driven, and less solvent, as lifetime job security has waned. Japanese women have become more independent and ambitious. Yet conservative attitudes in the home and workplace persist. Japan's punishing corporate world makes it almost impossible for women to combine a career and family, while children are unaffordable unless both parents work.

Aoyama says the sexes, especially in Japan's giant cities, are "spiralling away from each other".

I meet Eri Tomita, 32, over Saturday morning coffee in the smart Tokyo district of Ebisu. Tomita has a job she loves in the human resources department of a French-owned bank. A fluent French speaker with two university degrees, she avoids romantic attachments so she can focus on work. "A boyfriend proposed to me three years ago. I turned him down when I realised I cared more about my job. After that, I lost interest in dating. It became awkward when the question of the future came up."

Tomita says a woman's chances of promotion in Japan stop dead as soon as she marries. "The bosses assume you will get pregnant." Once a woman does have a child, she adds, the long, inflexible hours become unmanageable. "You have to resign. You end up being a housewife with no independent income. It's not an option for women like me."

Tomita says things would have to improve "dramatically" to compel her to become a working wife and mother. "I have a great life. I go out with my girl friends – career women like me – to French and Italian restaurants. I buy stylish clothes and go on nice holidays. I love my independence."

Romantic commitment seems to represent burden and drudgery, from the exorbitant costs of buying property in Japan to the uncertain expectations of a spouse and in-laws. And the centuries-old belief that the purpose of marriage is to produce children endures. Japan's Institute of Population and Social Security reports an astonishing 90% of young women believe that staying single is "preferable to what they imagine marriage to be like".

The sense of crushing obligation affects men just as much. Satoru Kishino, 31, belongs to a large tribe of men under 40 who are engaging in a kind of passive rebellion against traditional Japanese masculinity. Amid the recession and unsteady wages, men like Kishino feel that the pressure on them to be breadwinning economic warriors for a wife and family is unrealistic. They are rejecting the pursuit of both career and romantic success.

"It's too troublesome," says Kishino, when I ask why he's not interested in having a girlfriend. "I don't earn a huge salary to go on dates and I don't want the responsibility of a woman hoping it might lead to marriage."
Japan's 20-somethings are the age group to watch. Most are still too young to have concrete future plans, but projections for them are already laid out. According to the government's population institute, women in their early 20s today have a one-in-four chance of never marrying. Their chances of remaining childless are even higher: almost 40%.

They don't seem concerned. Emi Kuwahata, 23, and her friend, Eri Asada, 22, meet me in the shopping district of Shibuya. The café they choose is beneath an art gallery near the train station, wedged in an alley between pachinko pinball parlours and adult video shops. Kuwahata, a fashion graduate, is in a casual relationship with a man 13 years her senior. "We meet once a week to go clubbing," she says. "I don't have time for a regular boyfriend. I'm trying to become a fashion designer." Asada, who studied economics, has no interest in love. "I gave up dating three years ago. I don't miss boyfriends or sex. I don't even like holding hands."
This article pretty much reflects my thinking on modern living.  We have created a society where 90% of women are completely uninterested in men or children, preferring instead their high status, high income, high consumption, high-octane life with other girls like them.  The remaining 10% of women who find marriage and children appealing are snapped up by the top 10% of men who would do anything for such a wonderful helpmate throughout their lives.  Where does this leave the bottom 90% of men who, though interested in wives and children, find it too difficult to compete with the top 10% of men in order to corner the only 10% of women who are willing to marry in the market?  They drop out, saying it's too troublesome and it's just not worth it.  It used to be that if you worked decent hours and just stayed out of trouble with the law, you could have a nice wife and all the kids you pleased.  You wouldn't have a supermodel, but you could land the girl next door.  Now that sort of system is gone.  It's been obliterated by women entering the workplace and finding self-actualization without any reference to husbands or children.  It turns out that women were not in fact biologically programmed to prefer being homemakers.  If they aren't forced into this role, 90% of them immediately strike out to live independently as single women with other single women friends, never thinking of men or children again.

In fact, it is men who are biologically interested in women.  It was men who would fall passionately in love with women, to the point that they'd sacrifice anything to get them.  Which means family formation only occurs at the behest of men -- ie, if men are in charge.  But men aren't in charge in democracies, for the simple reason that women are the majority of the electorate.  All of human history has people living as married couples with lots of kids, until the modern day.  All of human history men have determined how society should be.  This is not a coincidence.  The ideal world men created for themselves was a world where women stayed at home, faithful to a single guy for life, and raised their children.  When they had the 100% totalitarian dictatorship oppression powers of the past, they created the monogamous family.  And now we know what happens when freedom prevails, and the oppressive male patriarchy ends.  Girls go to delis, drink coffee with their girl friends, and become fashion designers.  And the extinction of the human race.

So long as men could put in some effort and get a reward, effort was worthwhile.  Now, when only becoming some sort of superhuman ubermensch is enough to get one of the rare girls who is even interested in men, much less faithful and supportive of them, the result is that most men don't try at all to be appealing to girls.  It's a simple cost benefit analysis.  Effort without reward is worse than laziness without reward.  If 90% of girls aren't interested in marriage, you can pretty quickly size up your odds of belonging to the 10% of eligible bachelors.  If you aren't going to be rich, handsome, powerful, or famous, you may as well quit while you're ahead.  There's no reason to do anything whatsoever to appeal to females if you're just going to lose out anyway.  That same level of effort could be invested in yourself, in finding ways to be happy without girls ever entering the picture.

In this way, both sexes spiral away from each other equally, even though only one sex ever wished to be apart.  Men desperately wanted to be with women, as shown by history, which proves that whenever men have a choice to be with a woman they immediately seize upon it.  But if that's simply impossible, they're not going to just sit around crying every day about it -- they're going to spiral away with their own, new pursuits to replace the gap in their hearts.

Furthermore, girls who do not actively attempt to be appealing to men are, naturally, far less appealing to men than the girls who do try.  The less interested in men girls become, the less they attempt to be attractive to men.  As a list of attractive traits, here's just a fair sampling -- nice, affectionate, admiring, loyal, devoted, thin, young, modest, graceful, unselfish, undemanding, non-nagging, pure, cute, genuine, wants children and is good with children.  How many of those traits apply to the modern woman?  How many women on the dating market qualify under these standards?  10% would be a miracle -- and like I said, all those women are already claimed by the CEO's, NFL quarterbacks and rock stars.  Rather than a below-specs girl, the illusion or fantasy of a high-specs girl is far superior.  Imaginary girl friends don't demand you make more money so they can spend more of it, they don't divorce you and take away your kids, they don't cheat on you, and they don't call you names whenever you refuse to be or do as they say.  Who would spend one second with a real girl of that caliber when they could instead immerse themselves in a world full of Nagisa's, Lafiel's, Deedlit's, Yume's, Asuna's, etc?

Before, it's easy to imagine that 90% of girls could qualify as good wives, because they spent their whole lives grooming themselves from birth onwards to be good wives.  That was their education, that was their job, to be as appealing to men as they could possibly be.  Now, when they spend all of their time and energy becoming fashion designers, it's only natural that only 10% of girls happen to be attractive spouses for hire.  If no one trained to be an engineer it's unlikely many bosses would find a large pool of talented engineers for hire either.  As women put zero effort into being good wives, the result is hardly any of them are attractive marriage prospects, in an equation as simple as 1+1=2.

This trend has no end.  So long as women remain free to choose, they will continue preferring their own ideal lives over how men would ideally have women behave.  Nor is the casual sex, single-parent hellhole of the retarded races any better a formula than Japan's.  Alcohol, drugs, poverty and violence are not a replacement for 1950's America any more than Japan's 90% of young women desiring to stay single for life.  The article's silly belief that all we need to do is banish 'conservative norms,' like not divorcing or having single children, and everything is solved, is ridiculous.  Men are even less happy divorced with children they can't see than celibate and single.  Women are of course far more burdened this way than if they had remained celibate and single.  And the products of these unions aren't really children, because human reproduction includes the idea that the end product of your union is capable of replacing the previous generation.  A generation of ghetto children who have only learned ghetto values are not a replacement for the civilized, virtuous adults who came before them, it's like substituting pyrite for gold and saying you've performed miracles.

Nor would silly laws like more workplace leave after having a child, more flexible work hours, or guarantees by workplaces that women will not suffer any sort of adverse career outcomes for having children help.  This implies that first, women want to be around men and children in the first place, which they don't.  It isn't that women desperately want to form a family, but are kept back from this by cruel greedy employers who don't offer them enough support.  This is a farce.  Just read the polls in the article -- 45% of young women, aged 16-24, the very women men would be attracted to in the first place, are not interested in or despised sexual contact.  If they go so far as to say they never want to have any level of intimacy with a man whatsoever at 45%, you can just imagine how few are interested in marriage and children out of the remaining 55%.  If there is a continuum from perfect housewife to rabid man hater, and 45% are on the rabid man hater edge of the continuum, then you have to imagine that the remainder are all tilted towards that side of the board as well.  That's just how statistics work, a bell curve centers around a mean and when you have standard deviations away from that mean your numbers grow very, very thin.  How many standard deviations from the mean of 'rabid man hater,' the largest percentage of women in Japan, would it take to reach 'loving housewife?'  God only knows.  If you aren't a rock star or a president, it's probably not worth even finding out.  Suffice to say not enough to go around for you to stand a chance.

Even if you guaranteed all women a separate income from their husbands via a citizen's dividend, and paid them more per child they had, to the point that they were making more as mothers than they ever could as workers, you still couldn't get them to stay at home.  This is because what they really want isn't the money, but the status their jobs provide, the sense of purpose it gives them, and the girl friends they can meet who share their thoughts and feelings.  How can they get these things while staying at home with husbands and children, none of whom are remotely like them biologically or culturally speaking?

It's a dead end.  Evolution never even imagined women being free to choose, as they had never been free to choose who they 'wanted to become' for all of biological history.  Therefore it created no mechanisms to steer women into family formation.  There is no instinct for it.  There is no desire for it.  There isn't even a sex drive like what's found in men for women.  Just like the appendix, the tail, or gills, evolution throws away vestigial organs and stops paying any attention to them the moment they cease to have a necessary role.  When women were forced into pregnancy and homemaking for millions of years, evolution discarded everything that might remotely cause them to desire these things, because they were all vestigial, because women did it whether they wanted to or not, so who cared?  Meanwhile evolution imprinted infinite desire for women on men because men could support themselves and ignore women as much as they wanted for the last million years.  Men, if evolution left them alone, would all go play pool together or ping pong or poker or something, and humanity would die off.  So evolution implanted all sorts of drives and needs to go back to the women and pay them for sex and pay them to maintain the kids until they reached maturity.  This way the people in power all, of their own free will, kept playing by evolution's fiddle.  Their desire for the other sex was not vestigial, but absolutely necessary to keep mankind alive every single generation, because not even once could evolution afford for men to not want to marry women, whereas how women felt never once mattered cuz they were just clubbed over the head to begin with.

There does seem to be one biological instinct evolution preserved in women.  At the moment they give birth to a child, a sudden shock of oxytocin is sent into their system so that they feel motherly towards their own children.  This probably helps them not strangle the child to death after it keeps crying and whining when they're trying to sleep, which evolution found necessary for the next generation to survive.  However, this maternal instinct only kicks in at the moment of delivery.  Women have no problem at all using birth control, abortions, or simply abstinence up until that point to avoid caring about children.  They're netted by instinct once they are mothers, but before then there's no biological backup mechanism available.  Evolution never imagined that the weaker sex would somehow be able to dictate terms in a polity about how and when they would be mated to men.

Liberals regularly talk about how mankind has reached a point where it is more powerful than mother nature's coping mechanisms.  They constantly wring their hands over global warming, saying there are no negative feedback loops left that can save us except our own behavioral choices.  But they fail to see the much bigger 'failure' of mother nature right in front of them.  When 90% of young girls, the very people that men are attracted to and biologically are fit and fertile enough to have your next generation, say they'd rather stay single for life, there is no negative feedback loop left that can change their minds.  Only our own choices can change this result.  'Freedom to choose' is just another way of saying that the trend should continue, because it's inevitable that their choice will always lead to this result.  Just like the 'freedom to emit' doesn't mean that maybe we will emit Co2, and maybe we won't, it just means straight out we will always choose to pollute the air more and more forever.  Freedom is all well and good until it reaches existential disasters when left to individual choices that have negative externals.  Liberals understand this when it comes to global warming.  So my next question is, why doesn't this apply to 'romantic love?'  We are looking at two negative externals here that are simply breathtaking in scope -- a generation of men who have no desire or ability to produce anything, because there's nothing in it for them even if they do -- and a lost generation of children who simply will not exist anymore, each generation smaller than the last, until there's literally no one left to turn out the lights.  These are the negative externals of women's individual choices.  And honestly, I could add a third negative external here as well -- a generation of flippant women who live selfish, shallow, materialistic lives where nothing they do has any spiritual value or meaning whatsoever, drifting through life without ever being human in a philosophical sense whatsoever, because they never displayed any virtues that make us higher than the animals in their whole lives.  In a sense, they are creating a dystopia even for themselves, as when they look back on their lives at 80 wondering what was it all for, are they seriously going to say coffee, Italian food, and rhinestone pink vests due to their wonderful skills in fashion design?  If they could ever float over themselves and realize the opportunities they are missing to make a real difference in someone's life -- by being a spouse and a mother -- if they ever realized how much love, beauty, and truth they could give to the world by sacrificing themselves to others -- would they really prefer to stay single forever?  Never being emotionally moved, never emotionally moving anyone, across their entire lives?  Because it's all just too much of a bother and they don't have the time?

When I watch shows like Aishteruze Baby, that shows just how much better it is to spend time with a child than play kissing games with a girl, because the child needs you at an emotional level and her life really is changed by the things you do for her, I'm utterly convinced that the single, selfish life is not the way humans should live.  Do women just not watch these shows?  Watching them, how can they possibly carry on with their nihilistic version of paradise that prefers mixed fruit drinks and clubbing?  If allowing women the freedom to choose creates such empty lives over the opportunities that truly await them if only they would don the yoke again, I call that just another negative externality.  Maybe women just can't figure it out for themselves, and it has to be shown to them through the smiles and coos of a real baby in their arms, what life is really meant to be about.  If so, as a mercy and a favor to them, providing them with real infant children against their will is the best thing society could ever gift them with.

By all means, give working women every economic support imaginable to marry and have kids.  Make life for women as easy as possible and try to grant them every request they could ever want, from promotions to pay raises to flexible hours.  Give them anything they ask for and just see if it helps.  It won't.  When 50% of women despise the very idea of sex, flexible working hours just don't matter anymore.  But if that's what it takes to advance the debate from the current feminist nonsense about how men just aren't being supportive enough to let women reproduce, it's a small price to pay.  And when that experiment fails, there's only one question left.  Do we want humanity to exist any more?  I suppose if we're fine with making Androids instead of reproducing any more, a long term trend of falling birth rates doesn't much matter.  Humanity can go extinct while emotions and intelligence live on.  In which case, girls can be fashion designers all the way to 2250 or whenever the trend line shows us becoming extinct.  But if we do want to live on, we're going to have to circumscribe female freedom again.  Romantic love needs to go back to being arranged marriage, and the sooner the better for both sexes and all children.  Children of single parents and divorced parents are suffering right now.  Unborn children aren't getting a chance at life right now.  Men who have quit the game of life because there's no reward at the end are quitting right now.  And women are becoming ever less attractive and ever more vapid as we speak -- obesity rates, adultery rates, and consumer debt levels speak for themselves.  If we have any desire to turn this around at all, there's no point waiting until we actually face extinction in a century, there's plenty of suffering from this trend in the world today.  Global warming alarmists say that not only will there be a catastrophe in the future if we allow pollution to go on as trending, but even right now we are losing billions of dollars due to 'climate pollution related causes.'  In other words, just because the world won't end for another century doesn't mean we shouldn't shape up now and save ourselves some money.  The same logic applies here.  If we're going to avert the end of the world anyway, we may as well cash in early and avert all the suffering in the present too.

If we're not going to avert the end of the world, I suggest we invest a lot more into computer research than we currently are, because time is running out.

1 comment:

Unknown said...

Diamed, aren't there also enough lawyers and government-related workers? It's as if everyone's on some government payroll in some way, and every other TV show glamorizes the criminal justice system. Most of the time, outside of television, the government's prosecuting attorney wins the case, and the defense attorney is assigned by the state. It seems they're either working for the government or struggling to find clientele financially sound enough to support their incredible fees outside of divorce. In the case of doctors, it seems they provide a very narrow band of useful services that actually benefit their enduser. When faced with results and overall outlook of patients of physicians or clients of attorneys, it's a wonder why they're paid so much or valued as they are, when they can hardly be of use to most people in most interactions they have! Granted, most legal issues are resolved prior to going to court, but that makes you wonder why an attorney was needed - the threat of court proceedings and actually using the court system is so horrible no one wants to resolve issues that way. Similarly, no one wants to get into a situation where a physician decides their fate, because the outlook isn't good at that stage, for most anything you can see a physician for, as they're only suited to provide resolution for a very small amount of health needs, and that's almost always treating the symptom, not resolving the underlying issue.