The Setting:  

Two girls, one liberated (jane) and the other traditional (mary), debate what their priorities should be in, "The Foolish Virgin," by Thomas Dixon, 1915 pg. 6, chapter one

"But can't you see, Jane dear, that we look at life from such utterly different angels.  You glory in your work.  It's your inspiration -- the breath you breathe.  I don't believe in women working for money.  I don't believe God ever meant us to work when He made us women.  He made us women for something more wonderful.  I don't see anything good or glorious in the fact that half the torrent of humanity you see down there pouring through the street from those factories and offices is made up of women.  They are wage-earners -- so much the worse.  They are forcing the scale of wages for men lower and lower.  They are paying for it in weakened bodies and sickly, hopeless children.  We should not shout for joy;  we should cry.  God never meant of woman to be a wage-earner!"  

I agree with this 100%, I was having a relevant discussion with my boss a week or so ago about this. In my office, literally women out-number men 4 to 1, and it's disturbing. I don't like having to work around so many women, it makes the atmosphere uncomfortable. And it makes me wonder, how many unemployed men there are sitting at home who could easily do the job that these women are doing, but these employers, woe to them, they are the ones who employ so many women.

My boss tried to make the justification that "women make better sales people, and especially if they're beautiful." That's only because women are allowed to dress immodestly these days in the work place and will try to pull a guilt trip on you if you don't buy their product or service. I as an awake male can see through this facade, but most men who are driven by their lusts would probably buy whatever service or product she is selling based merely on her flattery and charms, that is a huge problem, and another reason women should not be in the workplace, because business goals are no longer based on reason and logic, but on fleshly appetites and charm.

Men need to be renewed in the work-place, I know so many young guys who need jobs only to have them taken by women of the same age with far-less experience only because they look good.

I work in I.T. and I go to a lot of different businesses to do in-house support for clients, and almost ALL, I'd say 90% of the companies I go to, more than 70% of employees are women. It's disturbing.

I agree with this 100%, I was having a relevant discussion with my boss a week or so ago about this. In my office, literally women out-number men 4 to 1, and it's disturbing. I don't like having to work around so many women, it makes the atmosphere uncomfortable. And it makes me wonder, how many unemployed men there are sitting at home who could easily do the job that these women are doing, but these employers, woe to them, they are the ones who employ so many women.

My boss tried to make the justification that "women make better sales people, and especially if they're beautiful." That's only because women are allowed to dress immodestly these days in the work place and will try to pull a guilt trip on you if you don't buy their product or service. I as an awake male can see through this facade, but most men who are driven by their lusts would probably buy whatever service or product she is selling based merely on her flattery and charms, that is a huge problem, and another reason women should not be in the workplace, because business goals are no longer based on reason and logic, but on fleshly appetites and charm.

Men need to be renewed in the work-place, I know so many young guys who need jobs only to have them taken by women of the same age with far-less experience only because they look good.

I work in I.T. and I go to a lot of different businesses to do in-house support for clients, and almost ALL, I'd say 90% of the companies I go to, more than 70% of employees are women. It's disturbing.

Yeah, good observations.  They say the same thing is going on with accounting:  turning into majority female occupation.  Medical school enrollment is probably similar to accounting.  Majority female.  

It is discouraging.  

Yeah, good observations.  They say the same thing is going on with accounting:  turning into majority female occupation.  Medical school enrollment is probably similar to accounting.  Majority female.  

It is discouraging.  

Discouraging that men nowadays are more willing to play video games and view porn and not get real jobs and educations or that women are working harder than men?

Quote from: Marcelino

Yeah, good observations.  They say the same thing is going on with accounting:  turning into majority female occupation.  Medical school enrollment is probably similar to accounting.  Majority female.  

It is discouraging.  

Discouraging that men nowadays are more willing to play video games and view porn and not get real jobs and educations or that women are working harder than men?

It isn't about that.  You're missing the forest through the trees.  You don't get the big picture.   You're too focused on some little details you've noticed in your daily life and no doubt, saturated with propaganda (we "all" are bombarded with it, on a daily basis).  

This isn't a battle of the sexes;  it's a declarartion of war on the natural order.  

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000YFEDKO/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B000YFEDKO&linkCode=as2&tag=httpwwwchanco-20



THE FEMININE MISTAKE begins from the premise that feminism has failed the current generation of women. The baby-boomers who succeeded at rewarding careers while raising their families know how satisfying their lives have been, but today's young women often only see the downside of balancing work and family. They think the struggle is too difficult, and they don't foresee the consequences of retiring from the fray. As a result, too many of today's younger women are making choices that will jeopardize their futures. Bennetts stresses that it is a challenge to do both, but a welcome one. In riveting interviews with a broad range of women across both red and blue states, The Feminine Mistake will explore both the long-term risks of economic dependency and the intellectual, emotional and financial benefits of self-sufficiency. Their stories will inspire younger women to embrace the challenge of figuring out who they are and what they want to do with their lives, instead of giving up and going home.


With books like this lining the playground benches, should we be surprised?  There is a lot of fear mongering that pushes women away from staying home with their children.  Dependency on a man is considered dangerous and wrong.


In today’s society, women are more likely to have their own career. Even stay at home moms have college degrees and marketable skills to fall back on should they divorce. Because of financial independence divorce, for women is an easy decision to make.

A career minded woman doesn’t have to worry about how she will support herself after divorce. Due to this, the prospect of divorce causes less anxiety and stress. She is confident in her ability to divorce and move on because she has the power that comes with being financially secure. With money comes security and an unwillingness to stay in an abusive or unhappy marriage.

From: The Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State

"Full freedom of marriage can therefore only be generally established when the abolition of capitalist production and of the property relations created by it has removed all the accompanying economic considerations which still exert such a powerful influence on the choice of a marriage partner. For then there is no other motive left except mutual inclination.

And as sɛҳuąƖ love is by its nature exclusive – although at present this exclusiveness is fully realized only in the woman – the marriage based on sɛҳuąƖ love is by its nature individual marriage. We have seen how right Bachofen was in regarding the advance from group marriage to individual marriage as primarily due to the women. Only the step from pairing marriage to monogamy can be put down to the credit of the men, and historically the essence of this was to make the position of the women worse and the infidelities of the men easier. If now the economic considerations also disappear which made women put up with the habitual infidelity of their husbands – concern for their own means of existence and still more for their children’s future – then, according to all previous experience, the equality of woman thereby achieved will tend infinitely more to make men really monogamous than to make women polyandrous.

But what will quite certainly disappear from monogamy are all the features stamped upon it through its origin in property relations; these are, in the first place, supremacy of the man, and, secondly, indissolubility. The supremacy of the man in marriage is the simple consequence of his economic supremacy, and with the abolition of the latter will disappear of itself. The indissolubility of marriage is partly a consequence of the economic situation in which monogamy arose, partly tradition from the period when the connection between this economic situation and monogamy was not yet fully understood and was carried to extremes under a religious form. Today it is already broken through at a thousand points. If only the marriage based on love is moral, then also only the marriage in which love continues. But the intense emotion of individual sex-love varies very much in duration from one individual to another, especially among men, and if affection definitely comes to an end or is supplanted by a new passionate love, separation is a benefit for both partners as well as for society – only people will then be spared having to wade through the useless mire of a divorce case.

What we can now conjecture about the way in which sɛҳuąƖ relations will be ordered after the impending overthrow of capitalist production is mainly of a negative character, limited for the most part to what will disappear. But what will there be new? That will be answered when a new generation has grown up: a generation of men who never in their lives have known what it is to buy a woman’s surrender with money or any other social instrument of power; a generation of women who have never known what it is to give themselves to a man from any other considerations than real love, or to refuse to give themselves to their lover from fear of the economic consequences. When these people are in the world, they will care precious little what anybody today thinks they ought to do; they will make their own practice and their corresponding public opinion about the practice of each individual – and that will be the end of it.

Let us, however, return to Morgan, from whom we have moved a considerable distance. The historical investigation of the social institutions developed during the period of civilization goes beyond the limits of his book. How monogamy fares during this epoch, therefore, only occupies him very briefly. He, too, sees in the further development of the monogamous family a step forward, an approach to complete equality of the sexes, though he does not regard this goal as attained. But, he says:

When the fact is accepted that the family has passed through four successive forms, and is now in a fifth, the question at once arises whether this form can be permanent in the future. The only answer that can be given is that it must advance as society advances, and change as society changes, even as it has done in the past. It is the creature of the social system, and will reflect its culture. As the monogamian family has improved greatly since the commencement of civilization, and very sensibly in modern times, it is at least supposable that it is capable of still further improvement until the equality of the sexes is attained. Should the monogamian family in the distant future fail to answer the requirements of society ... it is impossible to predict the nature of its successor."

Why a woman would want to toil and strive in the secular world is a mystery to me. Having a husband that wishes you to tend the home and kids instead of working should be seen as relief, not oppression.