[UrbanNerd]

I also feel that....

If the alimony and child-support laws were more fair then more men would be fine with a stay-at-home wife/mom. Right now with the current laws in the USA, a man is at a HUGE risk having a housewife who brings no income. It's better to have a chick who offsets the income gap so that you won't be taken to the cleaners too bad. The more she makes (or closer to your income), the less your alimony/child-support will be.

[Aliblahba]

Top career choices for women:

1. Cook
2. Cocksucking
3. Cleaning house
4. Ass fucking
5. Shutting the fuck up
6. Fetching beer

[HiFlo]

(12-24-2012 12:44 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

It doesn't matter what anyone thinks about equality and woman's competency. Sending women into college and careers causes them to have less children, which in turn destroys the culture.

A dead culture won't be able to keep woman's equality, so it follows that the only cultures that will be here in 400+ years from now will be ones where women are not allowed to have careers.

In Sparta, men were trained to be warriors while women were trained to be managers of the state while men were away fighting.

Sparta died out because women put off having children in order to tend to their careers. Sparta was eventually invaded by the superior numbers of the Thebians, whose women stayed at home and had children.

Similar things occurred in Ancient Rome as well.

So it doesn't matter what anyone thinks on this issue, nature will correct itself one way or the other.

Samseau, every single empire throughout history has always imploded, and it's not because of women, it's because of the hubris of a series of leaders (who have traditionally always been male). History repeats itself.

As for America's decline, it's not because suffrage, it's because our own capitalism & associated advertising/marketing industrial complex has gone off the chain and is causing our own demise. Capitalism is without a doubt the most effective societal system human's have created, but American megacorporations' egregious "nonrestraint" in all sectors is pretty much the root of most of our plagues.

[HiFlo]

(12-24-2012 01:03 PM)ElJefe Wrote:  

A more interesting question is:

Should the woman you're interested in for an LTR have a career? Which becomes somewhat moot unless the question is: should the future mother of your children have a career?

My answer is unequivocally: once the child is born, motherhood over career.

Exactly, as men who practice game, we ideally have the freedom to choose our mates should we choose to have children. In that case, the future roles of husband/wife or father/mother is an important discussion topic prior to conception.

[tomtud]

I think they should have the same opportunity. However, take the example of women cops and fire fighters in Ontario Canada. On the job they have to perform the same duties as men do, but get to complete an easier test/exm because they said it is biased against women. If the job requires you to lift a 200lb man, you better be able to do it, not have some special test. This is one reason why this society is not functioning properly.many other examples ie. less flight hours to become a Pilot or get bumped up in rank in the military just because they are a woman.

In certain jobs and careers, women thrive. But, they are put on this earth to make babies! To procreate. Both are full time jobs (raising kids and a job) they must pick one.

[ghostdog]

why doesn't society encourage women to have babies FIRST and then when the kids get enrolled in school they can pursue whatever they want.

Think of all the retarded kids who wouldn't have come into existence if it wans't for a woman's ambition being placed ahead of her healthy ovaries

[Lemmo]

Allowing women to have "careers" is the largest subsidy ever given to a group in human history and, so far, no culture has shown that allowing women to work is compatible with a culture's survival (all Western societies have been in economic, cultural, demographic and political decline since the integration of women into the work force). Women should be allowed into the traditional helper roles (nurse, teacher, maid, secretary) even though men can fulfill these roles better since it provides an outlet for the higher functioning women and, more importantly, frees men for higher value added work. I would think this was obvious to anyone who (a) has worked in a mixed sex work environment and (b) has a basic knowledge of the history of human achievement.

[iknowexactly]

My impression that belief that the 10th percentile man is superior in most professions to a 60th percentile woman is really simply wrong. He'll be stronger and more emotionally stable, but the 60 woman will be able to learn more complex skills and show better creative problem solving.

I think it's tragic that women are giving up having children for money, but the idea that the great majority of men are better workers than great majority of women is just factually wrong.

[Samseau]

(12-24-2012 07:52 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

He'll be stronger and more emotionally stable, but the 60 woman will be able to learn more complex skills and show better creative problem solving.

Having worked in non-profits and being surrounded by women all the time, I can tell you unequivocally this is false.

Women are herd animals who hate anything resembling creativity, and push down intellectual dissent with peer-pressure tactics. They hate anything that tries to rise above mediocrity and will actively try to pull others down to their level.

There is a reason that, as a company takes on more and more females, it becomes less and less profitable. Females are shitty producers.

Quote:

Samseau, every single empire throughout history has always imploded, and it's not because of women, it's because of the hubris of a series of leaders (who have traditionally always been male). History repeats itself.

And in the case of the American empire, it was because our leaders had enough hubris to believe that if we left women to their own devices they would take care of themselves.

Kind of like an absent parent who believes that if they leave their children alone, they will grow up to be OK.

[Roosh]

Quote:

Should women have careers? Sure, but not at the expense of their important roles as mothers, keepers of the home, and counterweights to a truly masculine ideal.

So you believe women can have it all, both career and family, and neither will be neglected for the other? I'm sure it's possible in theory...

[xsplat]

Some people are saying that women are inferior workers. That might be true, but try to look at things from an employers perspective. Not all hires and wages are due to legal pressures. There is a supply and demand for female labor, and they can fetch a decent wage on their merits.

I'd be curious to know just how much government intervention overpays women, as compared to the pure invisible hand of the free market. I doubt it's a terribly dramatic difference.

The free market is what is driving women to be employed, not some grand social engineering project.

It's always fun to argue about which utopia we would vote for.

But that's a similar error to not believing when your spouse has died. It's denial about the reality that we live in. I've had a mate die and had that denial stage, by the way. It's kind of freaky to see the brain play tricks on you like that. Utopian visions are very similar. They are just a sidetrack from accepting the painful reality and working out a viable next step.

[Excelsior]

(12-23-2012 10:58 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

I was kinda lucky in that I had one of those supermoms. She had a career(nurse) and was still a homemaker. I don't know how she did it. Worked 8 hours a day and still managed to cook and clean, wash and iron our clothes and pack our school lunches for the next morning. Never leaving us for want of a hot meal at night(she's a good cook too). Now that I'm older and understand what kind of demand that put on her time, I feel almost guilty that she had to do all this for me. She always told me that it would be great if she didn't have to work, but growing up with were a blue collar family so we had to have two incomes. Her entering the workforce was a necessity. However she never neglected her motherly duties. She's a class of woman that will never be replaced. A woman that came of age in the 70s when women were heading into the workforce yet hadn't loss their femininity.

My mother is like this. Women with these qualities embody the great compromise that nearly all men would be happy to have: women who are able to be strong, independent and educated without compromising traditionally feminine roles or ideas. They can adopt a more masculine role in the workplace if they have to, but they leave no doubt of their femininity.

This middle ground is hard to find in the USA today. Too many feel that it is necessary to compromise traditionally feminine roles/views/ideas in order to be strong, independent and educated. It turns into a zero sum game-she's either a hard charging career girl who "don't need no man" or she's precisely the opposite, no in between.

It is still possible to find the middle ground in other parts of the world, but good luck to any guy seeking to do so here.

[speakeasy]

(12-25-2012 03:03 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(12-23-2012 10:58 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

I was kinda lucky in that I had one of those supermoms. She had a career(nurse) and was still a homemaker. I don't know how she did it. Worked 8 hours a day and still managed to cook and clean, wash and iron our clothes and pack our school lunches for the next morning. Never leaving us for want of a hot meal at night(she's a good cook too). Now that I'm older and understand what kind of demand that put on her time, I feel almost guilty that she had to do all this for me. She always told me that it would be great if she didn't have to work, but growing up with were a blue collar family so we had to have two incomes. Her entering the workforce was a necessity. However she never neglected her motherly duties. She's a class of woman that will never be replaced. A woman that came of age in the 70s when women were heading into the workforce yet hadn't loss their femininity.

My mother is like this. Women with these qualities embody the great compromise that nearly all men would be happy to have: women who are able to be strong, independent and educated without compromising traditionally feminine roles or ideas. They can adopt a more masculine role in the workplace if they have to, but they leave no doubt of their femininity.

This middle ground is hard to find in the USA today. Too many feel that it is necessary to compromise traditionally feminine roles/views/ideas in order to be strong, independent and educated. It turns into a zero sum game-she's either a hard charging career girl who "don't need no man" or she's precisely the opposite, no in between.

It is still possible to find the middle ground in other parts of the world, but good luck to any guy seeking to do so here.

Yeah man. Thing is, I actually would like to settle down and have a family at some point with a great woman. But when I look around at the options out there, it's utterly depressing. When I talk to females in their 30s about these things, they seem to express absolutely no interest in the idea of motherhood, like it's some anachronism. Sure, they all want to meet their prince charming one day and will say "it might be nice to have a family if I happen to meet the right guy". But it's not an imperative for them. And the bar they set for "the right guy" is very high relateve to what they have to offer in return. Knowing how to become that woman that would attract a prince charming is lost on them. "Taking care of a man and the house" is an alien concept for many of these independent women. Not to mention most women can't even cook anymore and when you go in most women's apartments they are messy. Some say they absolutely do not care about marriage or kids. And these are women in their 30s with biological clocks ticking. For women in their 20s, they are even less concerned. I realize that living in a major city full of liberals may skewer my view. The scene may be entirely the opposite in Provo, Utah. So maybe things aren't as bad as they seem, but since most of us in the forum live in places like LA, SF, DC, NYC, Miami, we just don't meet women with traditional values because these places don't attract them.

[Screwston]

(12-24-2012 03:42 PM)UrbanNerd Wrote:  

I also feel that....

If the alimony and child-support laws were more fair then more men would be fine with a stay-at-home wife/mom. Right now with the current laws in the USA, a man is at a HUGE risk having a housewife who brings no income. It's better to have a chick who offsets the income gap so that you won't be taken the cleaners too bad. The more she makes (or closer to your income), the less your alimony/child-support will be.

Have you tied the knot yet? 90% of your posts are about getting married.

[Excelsior]

(12-24-2012 06:44 PM)ghostdog Wrote:  

why doesn't society encourage women to have babies FIRST and then when the kids get enrolled in school they can pursue whatever they want.

Because this isn't the most profitable route. As I've said many times before, when it comes to matters like these it is often best to simply follow the money.

Women are generally greater consumers than men. They respond more readily to advertising, view shopping as a more pleasurable task, save less of their income and spend a larger portion of their discretionary income on consumer goods than men do.

We live in a society driven by consumers. It is to the advantage of those driving this society to encourage the best consumers (women) to move into the best position possible to consume.

Women raising families are not in this position, especially if they are encouraged to do so at a young age. By pushing women into the workplace early and diverting as large a portion of this nation's GDP into their hands as possible (not just via employment, but also via alimony/family laws, welfare, and a host of other measures), it can better be ensured that more money is spent and more consumer goods are consumed.

When that cash is more directly in male control as it is in the more "traditional", patriarchal family model, less of it goes to consumption. The goal of the system, therefore, is to get as much of the nation's cashflow into female hands as possible, and to discourage the traditional family model.

The timing of reproduction plays a key role in this. When you push women into the workplace early and push family formation into the background (encouraging later childbirth), you decrease the average amount of time women as a whole will likely spend reproducing and raising children as opposed to working, earning money, and spending it on consumer goods.

They'll start their families later and reach the end of their reproductive lives sooner, whereas an earlier start could encourage many to extend their child-rearing years. For example, a woman who starts earlier and has had 2 kids by age 27 can consider a 3rd or 4th and might go forward with that. On the other hand, a woman who starts later and has 2 kids by 38 has much less time to add to that number.

In addition to this, many women who wait until the end of their prime (18-29) to begin family formation will find themselves unable to conceive at all. Encourage women to wait until they are close to 30 to begin families and you'll get more infertile women than you would if you set that bar down closer to 22-25. This is good for the consumer model, since it adds to the number of women who will devote their lives entirely to a career oriented focus.

On the whole, the encouragement of later family formation for women means more time spent in the workplace, more income in female hands, and (given female spending habits) more money spent on consumption.

Age gap shaming closes a loophole that could undermine this whole dynamic, since older male-younger female relationships are more conducive to the less profitable patriarchal model. When older, established men (say, 35-45) are encouraged to en masse swoop in on much younger women in their prime (say 18-25), it becomes much easier for that woman to slip into a less career-oriented frame (the man is more likely to have the financial means to make this possible).

When she's with men closer to her age with lower earning potential, there is less compulsion to believe that she can throttle back on her career and be taken care of by someone who has more experience and means. She's largely selecting from a pool of guys who, at best, earn figures much closer to what she can earn, and many guys who don't earn much at all.

It is therefore to the advantage of the system to keep as many older men away from younger women as is possible. Too many of those relationships = fewer younger women living the career-oriented, Sex and the City lifestyle and, by extension, fewer women spending.

Finally, there is also the risk that women who see starting a family early as a viable option may become more distant from the consumer-culture as a whole.

Whereas the early/mid-20's career woman who has put family far aside is focused on rising up the ladder and competing with her career-oriented peers (lots of spending goes into this-think "Sex and the City"), the early family starter may end up putting her clan ahead of her credit card. She'll spend more on her babies and the family essentials than she will on more frivolous things like shoes and clothes. She might also end up saving more.

That means a lower contribution to the consumer economy-those who can profit from such an economy do not want to encourage those kind of spending habits.

TL;DR: It is all about the dollar.

[speakeasy]

^^^ Brilliant analysis Athlone. You should probably condense this down for your Return of Kings column. I think more people need to read what you just wrote here.

[Basil Ransom]

(12-25-2012 09:15 AM)xsplat Wrote:  

The free market is what is driving women to be employed, not some grand social engineering project.

That's like saying Stalinist Russia was a free country. You can do anything you want! Oh, it might be illegal and then you'll get sued or jailed for it. There's no freedom if the law forbids you from making elementary choices.

[Excelsior]

(12-25-2012 03:55 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

^^^ Brilliant analysis Athlone. You should probably condense this down for your Return of Kings column. I think more people need to read what you just wrote here.

Don't worry bro, I'm already on it.

[xsplat]

(12-25-2012 03:55 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 09:15 AM)xsplat Wrote:  

The free market is what is driving women to be employed, not some grand social engineering project.

That's like saying Stalinist Russia was a free country. You can do anything you want! Oh, it might be illegal and then you'll get sued or jailed for it. There's no freedom if the law forbids you from making elementary choices.

Well, sure, the equal opportunity laws have an effect. My question is how much of one?

I'm an employer, and I hire women on purpose. I'm sure that if there were no equal opportunity laws at all that other employers would still do the same..

Would there be differences without those laws? Sure. But would those differences be radical enough to cause sweeping economic and social changes? I doubt it.

Womens work has a market value.

I prefer to hire women for some tasks. Not only can they handle the drudgery of repetition, day in day out, without going out of their skulls bored, but they are much less likely to try to steal my business ideas to start their own competitive business. I've even had a rare few smart ones who could work unsupervised and were creative problem solvers.

It's a very extreme view that can not see things from the employers perspective and notice the value to a business of hiring women.

[UrbanNerd]

Personally....society has DUPED men and even most men on this board.

Society says have children young and start a family young. Now after years in the software engineering field (and a Top-5% income for the past 10 years), WHY start a family when one is at their LOWEST rank in their career? You have the lowest amount of money, at the bottom of the totem-pole in your career field and OH BY THE WAY, you are supposed to raise kids during the time where you are supposed to have the most fun in life?

Then society DUPES men even more by OVERESTIMATING and OVERSTATING this theory of "running the house" and how that is so hard to do.

I should give each of you lollipop.

#1) Save that family or having a kid until your 30's...preferably mid-30's. Then you will have money for a child's upkeep and any damn extracurricular activity they want to do. It's much easier to come up with that money when your position is "senior whatever" than "entry-level whatever".

#2) Damn all that having 4 and 5 kids sh*t. Four or Five kids = 4 or 5 college savings plans. Shhhiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii.....One or two still qualifies you as a parent AND you will still have money in your pocket for YOURSELF and YOUR activities.

#3) Once that kid is in all-day Kindergarten, tell that mother-of-your-kid to start earning some income. You western men (not me, because I don't think like ya'll) think you are wearing a DAMN badge because you earn all the income and the woman should not work. Lollipop for you.

#4) Don't give me this junk about all the running around that it takes with a kid. If you have a friggin' decent job and have ascended properly, you can basically leave work anytime you want to take care of all of those doctors/dentist appointments, etc.

#5) Don't give me this junk about "running/cleaning the house". If that kid is gone all day, who is going to mess up the house??

Where are my damn lollipops?

And by the way......you are welcome.

****and they supposed to alphas****

[Hooligan Harry]

1) Western income disparity began to spiral just as woman entered the workforce en masse
2) Women do not start many businesses that employ highly skilled workers, they leech and produce fuck all.
3) Wage deflation has been a problem for over 40 years, leading to massive cost of living pressures and the erosion of purchasing power.
4) Skills training is crucial in the first 10 years of a persons career. This has died as companies have a huge selection of graduates and younger people to choose from.
5) Inflation has been rampant, but not driven by wages. This double whammy now means that a single income home is now a luxury. People are poorer

So basically women have doubled the size of the workforce but have contributed fuck all by way of jobs other than their increased spending. They dont start or build businesses of real value. Because many start throwing the towel in when they have kids (typically their 30's now) you basically have this massive undercurrent of workers who never got major skills training on the job and never really worked their way up the ladder. We now live in a society where people need to often change jobs to advance or see major salary increases, as cost of living pressures and purchasing power have been decimated.

Economically speaking, it has been a disaster.

[ghostdog]

[Walderschmidt]

(12-24-2012 05:09 PM)HiFlo Wrote:  

(12-24-2012 12:44 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

It doesn't matter what anyone thinks about equality....

Samseau, every single empire throughout history has always imploded, and it's not because of women, it's because of the hubris of a series of leaders (who have traditionally always been male). History repeats itself.

History is not so black and white. I would argue that neither you nor Samseau are wrong, rather you both are right. I would not say that empires decline for one reason and either of you know it.

On the contrary, empires implode for a variety of reasons and your and Samseau's points are parts of that variety.

~Wald

[Lime]

(12-23-2012 03:22 PM)Gaston Wrote:  

In EE/FSU women do jobs, not careers. And only if they are lucky, or connected.

Yes and their economies are SO good .

[The Father]

(12-23-2012 03:22 PM)Gaston Wrote:  

In EE/FSU women do jobs, not careers. And only if they are lucky, or connected.

Interesting