[ghostdog]

wondering what this forum's thoughts are.

On one hand there is no going back, at least for the West. All women regardless of IQ are encouraged to go out there and get their careers. Most men will need the second income to build a decent family life.

On the other hand it obviously sterilizes the female and de-motivates the man. Hypergamy and all that too. No one truly benefits except the daycare industry.

[iknowexactly]

(12-23-2012 02:26 PM)ghostdog Wrote:  

No one truly benefits except the daycare industry.

You're way off on this, it's probably why the Islamic world is so pathetically far behind economically than the West.

My doctor is a woman and is significantly better than more than half all the male doctors I've had. On the other hand, I doubt many women could reach the competence of the astronaut- level brilliance surgeons I've met had.

Out of the "Big 5" personality traits that are widely seen as central in human behavior ( intelligence is not listed as one, it's seen as a different dimension) "Conscientiousness" is probably going to correlate the most highly with work performance in most professions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_pe...ity_traits

Women are capable of very high standards in professions that don't require marked brilliance or visuo-spatial ability. And they're probably better at some jobs that require routine and repetitive detail oriented tasks.

Let's say for the the sake of argument women are 80% as smart as men overall, which is probably low if you rule out high-end smarts ( like designing the Internet or Polio vaccine) you'd be reducing your collective societal brainpower by ..uhhhh... 44.44444 %?
(I'm not the smartest in the world either)

An interesting counter-example is the FSU/EE. Women work but aren't as nasty. It might be getting worse there, but that might be due to increasing overall wealth rather than them working.

In some cases you're tragically right though, did you see the very obese, obviously non-warrior type woman that got fired from the State Dept because she had not even responded to requests for more security from the Benghazi Embassy? Incomprehensibly this whale was assigned with allocating security personnel? Of course 3-4 people died because she was fucking incompetent.

"Help, I'm a diplomat in a Muslim country and they keep testing our defenses..."
"I have to go on my coffee break.Mmm, can't wait for that Cinnabun!!"

Nice fucking work.

[Norset]

Our civilization was designed by a few thousand men, and a couple of women. The rest of us are just keeping the wheels going. Islamic world is so far behind since they repress any dissent to past tradition, and strictly enforce the belief that this life is just a way to serve Allah. Not really motivating. Also, money may not be lent at an interest, which makes it horribly difficult to get capital for new business ventures.

IKE is correct that there are lots of jobs women can do, and you cannot prevent them from doing so, if you want a free society. But set the same demands for man and woman in the workforce, remove the make-work jobs, and reduce government entitlement program / administration / make-work spending.

Edit: IKE, the last part of your post you just edited is basically an anecdote of my 2nd paragraph..

[Gaston]

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

[Basil Ransom]

I don't see the point to most women having a 'career.'

This isn't going to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with me. It'd take too long to string this together into a coherent flowing piece, but I'll just write my scattered thoughts: For most people, work is how people put a roof over their heads and put food on the table. If you're very fortunate, it's something that you enjoy doing, forty hours a week. In an orderly, healthy society, most people would get married, stay married, and have children. At least one parent must work to provide for the family, and someone must care for the children. Better that someone is the mother of the children.

Marriages are more stable when a woman has had zero previous partners. And the more someone engages with the outside world, and specifically with the opposite sex, the greater the temptation to stray and cheat. Given that it's better for the woman to remain home and care for the children and the home, the workplace would be mostly, or nearly all, men. The more men there are at work, the fewer opportunities husbands would have to cheat on their wives. With fewer dual income families, people would have less money to 'keep up with the Joneses' and bid up the price of land.

Of course, there are some women who are brilliant, and it would be tragic for everyone else for them to live such a private life. But such brilliance is rare, among women and men. I'd put it at well under 10% of people. Should they work? Leave it up to them. As it is, some 50% of women who complete graduate education, eg business school and law school, end up not working anyway. There are also some women who are just not suited for marriage and family life.

Women could work or volunteer in between, say, high school and marriage, or after their children have reached adulthood; the former was quite common in past decades, though they weren't 'careers' in the traditional sense. That said, living an 'independent lifestyle' for too long can make you a bad candidate for the sacrifices that marriage entails. Given how women divorce more than men, it seems like women are more susceptible to this sort of 'spoilage.'

The problem with what I've said is that each of these things require the others to produce the society I'm imagining - and almost all of them are absent from the modern West. If you try and introduce one while not fixing the rest, you won't get the desired result. If you have a society saturated with sexual imagery, and you're telling women it's not okay to get married until they're 27, preaching no sex with anyone but your husband isn't going to work for anyone but a superhuman few.

Quote:

IKE is correct that there are lots of jobs women can do, and you cannot prevent them from doing so, if you want a free society. But set the same demands for man and woman in the workforce, remove the make-work jobs, and reduce government entitlement program / administration / make-work spending.

Yeah, if the government were smaller and less involved in the economy, I'd bet a lot of these 'pink-collar' jobs would evaporate into thin air. Eg, education and healthcare. If marketing and advertising were not tax deductible (or there was no corporate tax), I'd bet a lot of these worthless PR jobs would disappear. The military - the number of women would decline dramatically if subjected to the same physical standards as men are. Plus, as it is, most workplaces would get sued and harassed for discrimination if they hired too few men. So women might not even be as productive or profitable as men are, even in regular office jobs, but you can't tell because employers aren't allowed to make that choice.

I worked at a store for a few months. A big part of the job was putting stuff on shelves, including twenty or forty pound boxes overhead. Not a problem for most men, but you'd be begging for disaster if you assigned that to most women. Yet half the employees were women, and women didn't seem markedly better at any of the other duties. When half your employees can't do a certain, integral task, that gives you less flexibility, especially if you only have a couple employees on shift at a time anyway.

[Beyond Borders]

I say if a woman wants a career she should be able to have one.

That said, if I ever go the marriage and kids route, it won't be with a woman that has a career. I want the old-school marriage with a wife who stays home and takes care of the kids while I bring in the bread. Just seems to make more sense, given what parent-less homes have done to the last couple generations.

But if she wanted to run a home-based business or start up a family business the kids could someday help run, I'd be all for that. I think giving your kids a way to earn their own money from a young age is a great idea in a lot of ways. Teaches them to appreciate money. Teaches them work ethic and financial skills. Keeps them out of trouble, etc.

[HiFlo]

Is this for real? Women should not have careers?

If a woman wants a career, then great!, she should absolutely have the right to have a career. What do you want? Some totalitarian regime to dictate women's place in society? Individual freedom is absolutely important to anyone who has any concept of basic human rights.

As a corollary you have the freedom to choose between a woman who has a career or one who does not.

Let's not forget that men are not better at everything. There are quite a few things that the average woman excels over the average man. And this doesn't even count for individual outliers (Margaret Thatcher, Marie Curie, and the list goes on and on and on...), damn my mother used to be in construction as an engineer and she could do the job better than nearly all her colleagues and she was always the one called upon when there was a strict deadline to get shit done quickly.

[Vicious]

For western society to be able to compete with Asis women have to have careers.

[Parlay44]

I like House's pretend Russian wife. She beautiful and in great shape and reads theoretical physics while on the crapper

Seriously though ...I have no problem with educating women. It makes for more interesting dates and dare I say ...friendships. But I honestly believe given the choice they would rather be married, taken care of and stay home and raise children.

Having a career is hard, unforgiving and thankless work. Unfortunately as men we are not given any other option at birth. It's work til we die. We know it. That's why there is an unspoken brotherhood between men.

[TheCaptainPower]

my mother worked, and BOTH grandmothers.....

I wouldn't date a non-working women....

[Gaston]

(12-23-2012 06:16 PM)HiFlo Wrote:  

(Margaret Thatcher, Marie Curie, and the list goes on and on and on...)

The list doesn't go on. It just about stops right there (and Thatcher? Really?)

[Tuthmosis]

I'm sure I part company with several of you on this point.

In my view (and experience), quality women (like quality men) are capable of the highest levels of competency at a range of careers. While women--on average--may have a different set of aptitudes than men (the way I firmly reject the mainstream feminist idea), those aptitudes are complimentary and essential to civilization. The problems stem from a firm denial of gender difference, and of celebrating career over the imperatives of motherhood and homemaking. Feminists are the ones responsible for demeaning these noble, essential roles in our society. They drilled into the heads of two or three consecutive generations of women that these were lesser roles, and rendered them the subject of abuse and ridicule. Men treasured and sought out these traits for millennia for a reason. A big chunk of my "game" or "manosphere" or whatever philosophy is grounded in restoring this motherly, feminine, care-giving ideal to its proper place in society--celebrated and safe-guarded as a fragile component of a healthy, civilized society. Many women, especially in developed countries that aren't the traditional "West," are our allies in this lofty goal.

Female traits can translate extraordinarily well into the workforce--and not just in "care-giving" roles (teachers, nurses etc.), but even in more "male-oriented" career paths. Problems start when we tell women (or they tell themselves) that they "can be just like men." Or, worse, that they can be men and women--in other words that they "can have it all." They can't. And, more importantly, they shouldn't be allowed to.

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. I, for all of the shit that I've said here and elsewhere, think that women should have every right to self-improvement (including their "higher faculties"), but they bear the responsibility to not abandon their feminine imperatives. We, as men, bear a set of responsibilities too. Sadly, these bearded, vegan, weak betas that we call men today are in as much dereliction of that duty as the women of today.

Is there one masculine and one feminine ideal to which we should all aspire? Of course, not. There is a range, and there should be. But this genderless denial of difference--peddled by feminists for five decades--went to the extreme, severely (if not irretrievably) damaging the societies it touched in the process.

   

[Basil Ransom]

(12-23-2012 06:16 PM)HiFlo Wrote:  

Is this for real? Women should not have careers?

If a woman wants a career, then great!, she should absolutely have the right to have a career. What do you want? Some totalitarian regime to dictate women's place in society? Individual freedom is absolutely important to anyone who has any concept of basic human rights.

As a corollary you have the freedom to choose between a woman who has a career or one who does not.

If a woman wants to be fat, then great! She should absolutely have the right to be fat. What do...

Freedom is not the be-all end-all. What if complete freedom gives you a less fulfilling life? What if giving women such freedom made them less satisfied? Of course, if you're an ideologue, you would never seriously consider such questions. Careerism corrodes the qualities of women that men hold dear, AND it may make women less satisfied. I'm not really seeing the upside here. Who's coming out ahead? Corporations because they have more potential employees and smaller salaries for them? The government because they get more tax revenue? Ugly women because now they feel less left out?

I'm not even saying that women's rights should be limited per se. Just, as a first step, that we should stop inducing women to work, and allow employers to choose male or female employees as they see fit, without the government's sword of Damocles suspended above them, lest they hire too few women. We should stop valorizing careerism for its own sake, for women and probably men too.

[LooTa]

(12-23-2012 06:16 PM)HiFlo Wrote:  

damn my mother used to be in construction as an engineer and she could do the job better than nearly all her colleagues and she was always the one called upon when there was a strict deadline to get shit done quickly.

What's the bet everyone else on the same site thought they were the ones who got things done? Of course, her being your mother wouldn't influence your perception at all, would it?

[HiFlo]

I'm no feminist, but anyone who thinks one gender is inherently superior to another is freakin' nuts. We're all people and all equal.

As misanthropic as I am, I firmly believe equality and freedom should be granted to all, regardless of gender or race.

As a proponent of game, your duty and responsibility is not to demand and push for change, but to perceive the social constructs present in modern society as they are and consequently use this knowledge to your advantage to get what you want.

[HiFlo]

(12-23-2012 08:13 PM)LooTa Wrote:  

What's the bet everyone else on the same site thought they were the ones who got things done? Of course, her being your mother wouldn't influence your perception at all, would it?

yeah well yo momma's so fat when she walks past the window we lose four days of sun light

[Dr. Howard]

This has been an interesting discussion to read so far...

I think women should be free to choose whatever arena they would like to compete or cooperate in. Lets take Manone Rheaume the first woman in the NHL (goalie). Good looking for a female athlete, was signed as a free agent for tampa bay and they played her in 2 exhibition games. She was probably an excellent goalie in the women's leagues but really just couldn't out compete the other goalies. Thats all fine, I'm glad that she was able to get that far in her career, thats the positive and good luck to any woman that wants to do that.

The negative - the only reason I know who she is, or why she got fame is because she was a woman. If she entered the NHL today, 20 years later I have a feeling like some group would jump on the bandwagon and say some gender discrimination is what kept her out of regular season games and they would sue or something insane. Any man who had the same nhl career would enjoy local fame and access to women in canada but thats about it.

So, thats it, I think women should have the freedom to choose a path they want but they shouldn't be coddled and praised like a 2 year old taking a dump for doing it.

[Therapsid]

There's a difference between a job and a career. Women can work outside the home *until* they're married, but by definition the word career should have masculine connotations.

It wasn't so long ago in the U.S. that employers would shy away from hiring not women in general but married women.

Moreover, women should be restricted by custom to a select number of occupations - these included teaching and secretarial work in the recent past.

Some people have observed that this would require a totalitarian government. No, it would simply be dependent upon a change of cultural mores and customs accompanied by a government that did not intervene to enforce gender equity and affirmative action.

Finally, while women work in East Asia, the top jobs and executive positions are almost entirely held by men. There are millions of Chinese women working in assembly lines, but how many own the factories? Even Japan, which has been industrialized for generations, is marked by Western standards by very severe sexism in the private sector.

[speakeasy]

(12-23-2012 07:40 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

I'm sure I part company with several of you on this point.

In my view (and experience), quality women (like quality men) are capable of the highest levels of competency at a range of careers. While women--on average--may have a different set of aptitudes than men (the way I firmly reject the mainstream feminist idea), those aptitudes are complimentary and essential to civilization. The problems stem from a firm denial of gender difference, and of celebrating career over the imperatives of motherhood and homemaking. Feminists are the ones responsible for demeaning these noble, essential roles in our society. They drilled into the heads of two or three consecutive generations of women that these were lesser roles, and rendered them the subject of abuse and ridicule. Men treasured and sought out these traits for millennia for a reason. A big chunk of my "game" or "manosphere" or whatever philosophy is grounded in restoring this motherly, feminine, care-giving ideal to its proper place in society--celebrated and safe-guarded as a fragile component of a healthy, civilized society. Many women, especially in developed countries that aren't the traditional "West," are our allies in this lofty goal.

Female traits can translate extraordinarily well into the workforce--and not just in "care-giving" roles (teachers, nurses etc.), but even in more "male-oriented" career paths. Problems start when we tell women (or they tell themselves) that they "can be just like men." Or, worse, that they can be men and women--in other words that they "can have it all." They can't. And, more importantly, they shouldn't be allowed to.

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. I, for all of the shit that I've said here and elsewhere, think that women should have every right to self-improvement (including their "higher faculties"), but they bear the responsibility to not abandon their feminine imperatives. We, as men, bear a set of responsibilities too. Sadly, these bearded, vegan, weak betas that we call men today are in as much dereliction of that duty as the women of today.

Is there one masculine and one feminine ideal to which we should all aspire? Of course, not. There is a range, and there should be. But this genderless denial of difference--peddled by feminists for five decades--went to the extreme, severely (if not irretrievably) damaging the societies it touched in the process.

Tuthmosis hit it out of the park here. I feel exactly the same way but don't think I'd be able to put it as articulately.

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.

[Joga Bonito]

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

(12-23-2012 07:40 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

I'm sure I part company with several of you on this point.

In my view (and experience), quality women (like quality men) are capable of the highest levels of competency at a range of careers. While women--on average--may have a different set of aptitudes than men (the way I firmly reject the mainstream feminist idea), those aptitudes are complimentary and essential to civilization. The problems stem from a firm denial of gender difference, and of celebrating career over the imperatives of motherhood and homemaking. Feminists are the ones responsible for demeaning these noble, essential roles in our society. They drilled into the heads of two or three consecutive generations of women that these were lesser roles, and rendered them the subject of abuse and ridicule. Men treasured and sought out these traits for millennia for a reason. A big chunk of my "game" or "manosphere" or whatever philosophy is grounded in restoring this motherly, feminine, care-giving ideal to its proper place in society--celebrated and safe-guarded as a fragile component of a healthy, civilized society. Many women, especially in developed countries that aren't the traditional "West," are our allies in this lofty goal.

Female traits can translate extraordinarily well into the workforce--and not just in "care-giving" roles (teachers, nurses etc.), but even in more "male-oriented" career paths. Problems start when we tell women (or they tell themselves) that they "can be just like men." Or, worse, that they can be men and women--in other words that they "can have it all." They can't. And, more importantly, they shouldn't be allowed to.

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. I, for all of the shit that I've said here and elsewhere, think that women should have every right to self-improvement (including their "higher faculties"), but they bear the responsibility to not abandon their feminine imperatives. We, as men, bear a set of responsibilities too. Sadly, these bearded, vegan, weak betas that we call men today are in as much dereliction of that duty as the women of today.

Is there one masculine and one feminine ideal to which we should all aspire? Of course, not. There is a range, and there should be. But this genderless denial of difference--peddled by feminists for five decades--went to the extreme, severely (if not irretrievably) damaging the societies it touched in the process.

Tuthmosis hit it out of the park here. I feel exactly the same way but don't think I'd be able to put it as articulately.

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.

Spot on. My mother(not American) embodies pretty much everything you wrote above. Growing up, I was pretty shocked that pretty much all of my American friends didn't have mothers like this. Many were lucky if their moms cooked for them once a week or volunteered to do their laundry. I definitely was the only one who carried bagged lunch through high school, while they swallowed fast food everyday. I would happen to be over their house when their moms talked about how tired they were from work(rightfully so), essentially leaving my friends to fend for themselves. Its because of that last notion that guys in the manosphere are apprehensive of women working and it's somewhat understandable. I wouldn't go as far as to say women don't have a place in the workplace for reasons that others have touched on and the competencies that are unique to women, but my experience has been consistent with the more cynical members in this thread.

[Screwston]

It seems like most women's careers are as a secretary or a stupid HR job.

[UrbanNerd]

(12-23-2012 07:40 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

I'm sure I part company with several of you on this point.

In my view (and experience), quality women (like quality men) are capable of the highest levels of competency at a range of careers. While women--on average--may have a different set of aptitudes than men (the way I firmly reject the mainstream feminist idea), those aptitudes are complimentary and essential to civilization.

The quoted is the exact reason why women should have careers.

Even in my industry (software engineering), there are several phases that must be done and you will see more women in certain phases than men. Many women work in the "requirements analysis" phase and the testing phase because those jobs are very detailed and require a little more patience. While men (myself included) will be quicker to say "just tell me what the hell you want?", women can word those questions better and not run out of patience sooner. Same for software testing which can become redundant.

[Samseau]

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.

[ElJefe]

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.

There are too many horror stories of brilliant but dysfunctional children and youths. My children, if they ever exist will have the full-attention of at least one parent, and know beyond any doubt they are safe and protected and can be carefree. This is the best guarantee for successful adulthood.

I am not interested in taking on 50% of the housework because A) I think it sucks a hairy nut and B) I want to use my brains to crawl to the top of my field, which cannot be done without thousands of hours of dedicated effort.

Now, if not for children, why even ask this question? If I don't plan on knocking her up or putting her on standby (LTR) for that honorable and critical role, I'm completely uninterested in how she bides her time when my penis is not causing her to yelp with pain and pleasure.

I also advocate home-keeping because taking care of little children is a fucking full-time job, and I don't want her to spend her free time on a career so she can sit down and get fat. I want her to go to the gym and stay hot so I feel like fucking her silly. Those two functions pretty much guarantees no time for anything else.

In addition, if I do decide on children, I will be moving to Switzerland where society is still somewhat sane, taxes low and stay-at-home moms are still honored (women have only had the vote there since '64 so perhaps this is why). If I don't have children I'm more interested in NYC.

[Joga Bonito]

This thread reminds of a something one of my college Economics professors(a working mother) told me, when she said that working mothers are more respected by their children. I'm not sure what the basis of the statement was, but I found some interesting studies that say that working mothers are not necessarily a bad thing.

Quote:

Do Working Moms Raise Healthier Kids?
Lissa Rankin discusses a study that working moms can raise healthy children.
Published on November 29, 2011 by Lissa Rankin, M.D. in Owning Pink

Here I am, five years later, raising a perfectly healthy, happy, secure, loving, confident daughter. And according to a recent study, I'm not the only working mother raising a well-adjusted child. The study set out to examine often touted theories that children raised by families with two working parents exhibit more bad behavior and that working mothers are more likely to raise overweight children. What they found can let all of us working parents breathe a sigh of relief.

As it turns out, not only do working moms not harm their children. The evidence suggests that they're actually better off when both parents work

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/owni...thier-kids

Quote:

The Effects of the Mother's Employment on the Family and the Child
Lois Wladis Hoffman, PhD
Professor Emerita, Department of Psychology
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor

Twenty years ago, it would have seemed strange to give a talk on maternal employment and not focus on it as a social problem, but there is little in these data to suggest it is. The mother's employment status does have effects on families and children, but few of these effects are negative ones. Indeed, most seem positive -- the higher academic outcomes for children, benefits in their behavioral conduct and social adjustment, and the higher sense of competence and effectiveness in daughters. On the whole, these research results suggest that most families accommodate to the mother's employment and in doing so provide a family environment that works well.

http://parenthood.library.wisc.edu/Hoffman/Hoffman.html