AWN Review: The New Breadwinners

by Elusive Wapiti on December 7, 2009

A few weeks ago, the left wing think tank Center for American Progress published a policy paper entitled “A Woman’s Nation: The Shriver Report” (hereafter abbreviated AWN). While fellow Spearhead authors have analyzed the executive summary and Oprah Winfrey’s epilogue (Hawaiian Libertarian and Jack Donovan, respectively), in this post, I will summarize, rebut, and analyze the first chapter within AWN titled “The New Breadwinners” (html, pdf) penned by social economist Heather Boushey (bio, wiki).

By way of background, and as a way of framing this post, I take the time now to note that Boushey’s contribution to AWN is completely congruent with the left-wing college from which she obtained her PhD, The New School in New York City. A few minutes of googling reveals that this institution of higher learning is itself a product of an interesting intersection of various left-wing socialist benefactors, such as the Rockefeller Foundation–which we know is a major benefactor of American feminism and other leftish causes–and the Frankfurt School, a school of Marxist thought that Jonah Goldberg skewers for its Marxist influences upon American culture. This also happens to be the very same School that fled Germany in the 30s under pressure from Hitler. Personally, I find it interesting that the Frankfurt School was so radically socialist, so far to the left that even the leader of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei didn’t have use for them. And thus we today are reaping the harvest that resulted from allowing the cancer of European Marxism to take root in our society.

With that framing in mind, let me move on with my analysis:

Chapter Summary
Boushey’s contribution to AWN centers around four main points, more or less coinciding with her chapter headings, that support her main thesis that the wide-scale movement of women from hearth and home into remunerated economic activity is “the greatest social transformation of our time”. In support of this thesis, Boushey first cites statistics that a woman’s earnings now make the critical difference to the lifestyle of her family. No longer is a woman’s earnings ancillary to a man’s wages, not when the effective purchasing power of industrial-age “traditional” families, where one spouse (usually the mother) stayed at home with the children, remained static over the last 30 years when the standard of living of two-earner couples rose. Indeed, in citing that women contribute 42% of the average household’s income, that 40% of women are in paid employment, and that the mancession is permanently outsourcing male jobs, Boushey suggests that a woman’s income is necessary just to cover the basics. As further evidence that female employment is transforming society, Boushey cites statistical evidence that shows a doubling of single-mother families in the last 30 years (no direct causal link between employment and single-motherhood or divorce is made, however), and that such families depend on a woman’s wages to survive. Boushey discounts male financial contribution to such families, namely by citing statistics such as “only 41.7% of custodial mothers receive any child support” and of those only “47.3% receive all the child support” awarded. Indeed, Boushey quite effectively paints the picture that single mothers are truly doing it alone, and their wages enable them to provide for their families in the absence of a male earner in the home.


Source: AWN, Page 45

As her second point in support of her transformation thesis, Boushey explores the nature of the job market in which women labor. Here the reader is treated to a list of service-oriented occupations, nearly all traditionally female and consequently female-heavy, that require little to no post-secondary education, and–here’s the transformative part–that these jobs are largely an outsourcing of what the industrial-age SAHM used to perform within the walls of the home. Furthermore, of the top 15 occupations with the largest projected growth over the next generation, nearly all are in industries/sectors that are historically female-dominated. Assuming that the sexual segregation of work continues in the same pattern as today, this projected job growth in female-dominated occupations (and the lack of growth in male-dominated occupations) will only serve to increase women’s earning power, further displacing that of men. This in spite of Boushey’s cataloging of the disadvantages of working while female.


Source: AWN, Page 44

In addition, as a reinforcement of the “working while female” argument, Boushey discusses at length the so-called wage gap, parroting the long-since-debunked 77c per man’s dollar canard, claiming that 41% of the wage gap is unexplained by a woman’s demographics or her particular job. The implication being of course that, having the particulars of the woman’s background (education, motherhood, etc) and her job (e.g. full-time, part-time, occupational category, etc) eliminated, all that remains is simple bigotry and “systemic undervaluing” of women and women’s work. Moreover, Boushey decries the what she terms as the “motherhood pay penalty” that encompasses discrimination against mothers in the workplace* and lifetime earnings penalties suffered by women who stop out to bear children–$434,000 cited by one study–or are not hired in the first place because they are mothers.

Next, Boushey explores a third transfomative trend: the reasons why women are increasingly in paid employment. One reason she gives is, well, because they can. Barriers to female entry into the workplace fell as women’s liberation from the confines of the home spread. Moreover, the advent of the Pill and other contraceptives have permitted women, particularly single women, to plan when they bear children and therefore permit them to deconflict work, education, and child-bearing. But Boushey also claims that women increasingly have to work for their families to survive. In support of this line of argument, she cites the lowering standard of living relative to two-earner couples for families where only the husband works, and how a wife’s income goes to pay the rent and put food on the table, as well as the welfare reforms of the mid-1990s that sent low-income single mothers to work. To mitigate the harsh expectation that women should work to support themselves, the welfare reform legislation also included some carrots with the sticks…carrots such as taxpayer subsidies for female-headed households like WIC, EITC, and increased child support collection. Yet it is true that a mother, while working, cannot be home to care for her children. She cannot be two places at once. Boushey suggests a solution for this apparent dilemma…that the availability of employer- or taxpayer-subsidized child care be increased as a means to enable women to fully realize their earning potential, to labor in the job market at full capacity, to become more self-supporting, and to free them from the burdens of caring for children and for elderly family members that so effectively depresses their lifetime earning power.

Fourth and last, Boushey surveys which women seek paid employment. Boushey highlights the facts that the single and the childless and the highly educated (often these three populations are one and the same) are most likely to be in paid employment, and women that are less educated, that are married, and/or are mothers are the least likely to work outside the home. The data splits largely along socio-economic and racial/ethnic lines as well: Latinas are most likely to work outside the home, blacks next, and whites least. Older women are also being pulled into the labor market by the mancession and real-estate bubble burst to join their younger sisters. The net effect of the increasing numbers of unmarried and older women joining the labor force is to further increase the demand for domestic labor, again creating a demand for more service-sector jobs to replace the unremunerated labor that industrial age SAHMs and older female family members used to perform in the home “for free”.

In sum, in this article, Boushey surveys the net effect of women’s entry into the workforce, notes its significant and enlarging effect on the finances of their families, the increasing tendency for women to be sole and/or the primary wage earner in the home, and details the obstacles to increasing the earnings of those women and balancing work and family. She ends her chapter with a call to re-evaluate assumptions about family structure and women’s employment in the labor market, and a consequent change in social policy to reflect this new reality.

Fact Check #1: The Pay Gap
One of the most obvious technical flaws in Boushey’s article is her regurgitation of the pay gap myth. This feminist hobby horse is as pervasive and enduring as it is false and disingenuous. For instance Boushey cites “facts” like “women…[are] paid 23 cents less than men” (page 32), that 49% of the pay gap is explained by the segregation of men and women into different sorts of jobs, that “41% [of the wage gap] cannot be explained by the characteristics of women or their jobs” (58), that a woman makes five percent less than her identically educated male colleagues the first year out of school, and that ten years later those women make 12% less than their male peers (59).

Yet we know that all of this is horse hockey. The pay gap myth, while being red meat for feminists for whom simple proximate cause and effect is hard, has been repeatedly shown to be a function of women’s choices, not on economically illiterate*** allegations of discrimination. For instance, after controlling for marital status and motherhood, both of which happen to be women’s choices, the wage gap narrows to 5c, not the 23c gap that the fembots rail on and on about. Yet five percent is still a significant number, representing quite a bit of money when compounded over the span of decades of employment. But, as one would expect when analyzing a feminist’s publication, there is more to this story than first meets the eye. And we are not disappointed…digging deeper, we find that, while women are paid five percent less than their male counterparts, they put in 12 – 20% few hours. Which means that women, rather than being discriminated against, women are being discriminated for to the tune of 5 – 15%. In other words, when women’s lower productivity is taken into account, women enjoy a wage premium over their male counterparts. Your guess is as good as mine why this is, but I suspect strongly that having activist and litigious vaginas has something to do with it.

But the apples-to-oranges comparisons continue in the defense of the indefensible. In addition to comparing unlike men and women together, Boushey also compared unlike occupations together when she compares the job of zookeeper (a typically male job) to child caregiver (a typically female job). While a zookeeper is indeed paid more (average $14/hr) than a child care worker (average $10/hr), the qualifications and duties of a zookeeper are far more demanding than the OJT and sedentary duties common for a child care worker. I also suspect that there are many many more women clamoring to be child care workers than there are men seeking jobs in zoos; simple middle-school supply-and-demand economics suggests that the overabundance of labor competing for each day care worker job also serves to depress wages in what is already a low-wage entry-level McJob with no special skills required. Furthermore, if Boushey’s erroneous comparison of zookeeper and child care provider is indicative of the job comparisons common in the rest of the body of feminist/leftist research in support of the pay gap, then one is forced to cast a skeptical eye on any claim that compares “comparable” male and female jobs together and pronounces them alike.


Source: AWN, Page 41

Boushey also underplays the impact of occupational self-segregation and the impact this phenomenon has on women’s earnings. At the entry level, men gravitate toward jobs that capitalize on their strength, ability to labor, and willingness to do crappy jobs for money…construction, carpentry, driving, maintenance, janitor. Women tend to select themselves into the caring, administrative, and social occupations, activities that feature schedule flexibility and human interaction…waitressing, secretary, teacher, child care, clerk. As a rule, men’s jobs at the bottom (as well as the top of the income ladder) are more economically value-added than women’s; they also generally require more skill and education and are also much more dangerous (I note that nowhere in Boushey’s analysis does she vie for parity for women in the workplace fatality statistics. Fancy that). These four factors alone translate into higher pay for men when compared with women when looking at low-paying jobs.


Source: “Behind The Pay Gap“, AAUW, Page 12

This pattern repeats at the top of the income ladder as well. Here, we readily observe that women tend to choose college majors that, while interesting and intellectually fulfilling as they may be, funnel women into lower wage jobs in the public or service sectors after graduation (jobs that, incidentally, offer the sort of stability that protects them during economic downturns like the current mancession), whereas men tend to choose academic majors that result in higher pay after graduation in the private sector. Once again, we see that fundamental concepts of supply and demand better explain the differences between male and female pay than farcical notions that women’s work is devalued by a misogynist culture or that women are discriminated against because they have vaginas by cigar-chomping businessmen in smoke-filled rooms.

Boushey also falters when she does make apples-to-apples comparisons, this time by highlighting research sponsored by the feminist special interest group American Association of University Women that tracked and compared male and female college graduates from the same school and same academic major. The AAUW study found that a woman will make 5% less than her male counterpart the first year out of school; that same woman will make 12% less 10 years later. Yet Boushey somehow fails to mention that the same AAUW study, on page 15, documents that full-time men work three more hours per week (45 vs 42) than do full-time women. Could this be the reason for male graduates earning more than their female counterparts? Possibly, but Boushey doesn’t address this possibility.

Fact Check #2: Women Are Better Managers
On page 32 of AWN, Boushey claims that women’s inherently more collaborative management styles improve a corporation’s bottom line. Putting aside the obvious sexism and negative stereotyping inherent in such a claim–didn’t certain women threaten to get the vapors when a certain Larry Summers suggested that men may have superior math aptitude and that may explain their predominance in STEM? How is this claim any different from that?–and the sexism of those in the press, in academia, and in industry, the best I can tell is that, while the extant body of research seems to suggest that women are inherently better managers than men, the samples that form the basis for the research’s conclusions suffer badly from selection effects…the executive women sampled by these studies are not necessarily representative of the pool of female managers or of the female population in general, particularly in majority-male occupations or sectors…thus the reliability of the data is questionable. Why then are female managers able to obtain such good results? One possibility forwarded in the literature is that female managers who are mediocre or who are unable to thrive in a climate that places a premium on the “masculine” traits necessary to succeed in business quit early on. Or are pushed out. Either way, they don’t stick around. Moreover, men do not stick out as much as a woman in such an environment and are usually not subjected to the same “fishbowl” microscope…thus they do not develop the same sort of hyper-competence that a similarly situated female would need to have in order to survive. The end result is that the female managers that do manage to bubble to the top in an organization are more likely to be of an exceptionally high quality compared to a similarly situated male counterpart.

But what about another metric to compare the effectiveness of female and male executives, say, the corporate bottom line? Wouldn’t that be a good, unbiased measure? Possibly. However, I contend this isn’t sufficient in this day and age, either. Why? Well, companies and sectors dominated by women (health care, government, law), by accident of being part of the service and government sectors, haven’t suffered as much economically in the current economic downturn as companies and sectors that produce widgets or other value-added products. In particular, the dot-com and housing bubble bursts have affected the capital goods and associated industries tremendously, and these industries are dominated and led by men, thus skewing the corporate bottom-line data in favor of women.

Furthermore, most analyses of women vs male managers tend not to ask the workers themselves of their opinions of the effectiveness of female and male managers. Perhaps it is because these trench-level reports tend to strongly contradict all the PC happy talk about how great female managers are. Instead, we see clearly what the hands-down choice of female workers, and the more moderate opinion of male workers are: male bosses. Anyone else find it telling that 2/3 of women would prefer to work for a man? Could the cyclical emotionalism and drama that a woman brings to the workplace hinder cohesion and team effectiveness rather than bolster it?

Fact Check #3: Chilimony
Boushey expends quite a bit of ink in AWN demonstrating the importance of women’s wages, and particularly how important those wages are to the well-being of her “family”.*** Thus, on page 35 of AWN, she relates that only four in ten custodial mothers receive chilimony and, of those, only half receive the full amount awarded to them by a judge. On these narrow points, Boushey is largely correct. Her data somewhat agrees with the BLS data, which relates that only 57% of custodial mothers were awarded any chilimony at all in 2007. Of those, 77% of custodial mothers reported receiving some or all of the chilimony awarded and 47.1% receive the full amount of chilimony awarded.

Digging deeper, a more nuanced picture arises. First, I note that the data is based on surveys of custodial mothers–the ones who are owed the money–and therefore the data itself is probably biased to an unquantifiable extent. Second, the 57% figure is eye-catching. Only half of single mothers are awarded chilimony? Wondering why, I dug into the data (see the chart above) and found that, of the 43% of custodial mothers who were not awarded chilimony by a court, more than one third did not bother to attempt to obtain a legal order, another third indicated that the NCP pays what he can without an order, another third reported that the NCP could not afford it, another quarter said that they felt the NCP didn’t need to pay, and another fifth reported that she didn’t want conflict with the NCP, couldn’t locate him, the child stayed with him part of the time, or could not establish paternity, each. (Totals more than 100% because respondents gave more than one reason.) Thus, the data isn’t as working-mother-positive and deadbeat-dad-negative as it seems, and by this omission, Boushey’s text gives the reader the false impression that these single mothers are doing more on their own without the support of the their children’s fathers than what the ground facts suggest. In other words, Boushey’s manuscript inappropriately inflates the importance of a single mother’s income while similarly and inaccurately denigrating a man’s contribution to the well-being of his children.

I do acknowledge that there is a sizable fraction of men who, for whatever reason, do not pay the full amount that some judge says the hapless NCP must pay under penalty of imprisonment. Yet I am not quick to label these fellows deadbeats, as we know that chilimony bears no resemblance to the costs of raising a child and in some cases can take more than half of his gross income, interfering with his ability to find a place to live or to eat, much less visit his kids. Another fraction–two-thirds according to the GAO, if Glenn Sacks is to be believed–are not deadbeats in any sense of the word but are “deadbroke” dads who cannot pay because they had no job.

Fact Check #4: The Second Shift and Shiftless Men
Of course, any discussion by a woman regarding how much men and women contribute to the well-being of their families would not be complete without a reference, obliquely or otherwise, to Hothschild’s Second Shift in which women are painted as selfless Boxers who toil thanklessly all day long while their Peter Pan husbands come home and play after an easy, leisurely day in the office:

Inside the home, men continue to do less (usually much less) of the housework and care work than their wives–even though the number of hours they [men] devote to work around the house has risen

Oh dear. Once again we see how a feminist takes a nugget of truth–a smaller man’s contribution to the household inside the four walls of the home–strips it of the larger context–a man’s household contribution performed outside the four walls of the home, and uses it to paint a false picture. The reality however is much different, and a touch less friendly to the feminist fem-positive discourse.


Source: Personal analysis of 2008 BLS Time Use Survey data, Table 3. I compared and contrasted data from each sex in the age cohorts 20 – 64.

As one can see from the above graph, the reality of household life for men and women is different from what feminists like Boushey would like us to believe. Far from being weighted in favor of women, when one adds up the hours invested by married men and women in whole of household support (the “household activities”, “purchasing goods and services”, “caring and helping household and non-household members”, and “working and related activities” categories–those that make up the effort required to support a household), lo and behold, one finds that married men invest an average of 7.82 hours per day and women invest an average of 7.94 hours per day, a difference of 7 whole minutes.**** Widening the aperture to include between men and women not legally married to each other or single/divorced Americans yields a shocking 9 minutes in favor of women. Clearly, the data suggests that the feminist “second shift” narrative is a lie.

But the dissonance between the reality and the propaganda doesn’t stop there. Drilling down into the notes that accompanied the BLS data, one acquires even more nuance. Specifically, one discovers interesting nuggets like this:

Primary childcare activities include time spent providing physical care; playing with children; reading to children; assistance with home-work; attending children’s events; taking care of children’s health needs; and dropping off, picking up, and waiting for children. Passive childcare done as a primary activity (such as “keeping an eye on my son while he swam in the pool”) also is included [emphasis mine]. A child’s presence during the activity is not enough in itself to classify the activity as child-care. For example, “watching television with my child” is coded as a leisure activity, not as childcare.

So here we see that activities that involve significant amount of leisure for women have the potential to be coded as “work” by statisticians, a bastardization of the concept of work. Indeed, Glenn Sacks points out that

both men and women list housework as one of their least enjoyable tasks and, since women do more housework than men, this shifts the advantage to men. However, while people may not enjoy cooking or folding the laundry in and of themselves, they are usually much happier at home and in casual dress (and perhaps talking on the phone or watching TV while they work), than they are in a supervised and regimented work environment. Also, while housework may seem like drudgery compared to middle-class white collar jobs, it doesn’t when compared to blue collar or “pink collar” work.

In addition, both the ISR [University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research] survey and The Second Shift count only hours worked, without noting the special contributions of men who do dangerous and physically demanding work. Of the 25 most dangerous jobs listed by the US Department of Labor, men comprise at least 90% of the labor force in all of them. According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, nearly 50 American workers are injured every minute of the 40-hour work week, and every day 17 die–16 of them male.

In other words, what housewives consider to be “work” and what the reality of “work” is for blue-collar men and pink-collar women are very different things indeed. Given that folding underwear is obviously not equivalent to physical work like, say, sulphur mining, one must be careful about conflating them all together under the same rubric of “work”. There is a world of difference between women’s work…the work that women are willing and able to do…and men’s work, the hard, dirty, dangerous work that men must do to support their families. This is the very same work that enables women to choose to stay home and engage in the half-work/half-leisure of childcare and home-making, or choose to work in cushy little white collar offices.

There was also this snippet from the BLS technical notes attached to the time-use survey:

Secondary childcare. Secondary childcare is care for children under age 13 that is done while doing an activity other than primary childcare, such as cooking dinner. Secondary childcare estimates are derived by summing the durations of activities during which respondents had a household child or their own nonhousehold child under age 13 in their care while doing activities other than primary childcare. It is restricted to times the respondent was awake. Secondary childcare time for household children is further restricted to the time between when the first household child under age 13 woke up and the last household child under age 13 went to bed.

It does not take much imagination to see how this provision can be used to artificially inflate the time a housewife spends performing “secondary child care” while she is executing–and receiving full credit for–time spent on a different primary task. Thus we see quite well how essential it is to read the fine print in such statistical reporting, and how in this case the fine print reveals how a housewife’s contribution to the home is double-counted to a certain unquantified degree.

While we are on the subject of men and women’s contribution to the home, I’ll digress for a moment and discuss a topic not addressed in Boushey’s essay but one that bears mentioning here…the notion that a woman’s household contributions are worth six figures. I’m sorry, 38,000 is more accurate a figure. If God were to call Mrs Wapiti home tomorrow, while I and my children would miss her terribly, and while the economic value of her contribution to my home and to my children is much lower than the intangible and priceless contribution she makes, I wouldn’t have to pay six figures for child care or meal preparation or home cleaning. Moreover, given the loss of my wife and the fact that I would once again be a single dad, I would no longer be able nor be inclined to work as hard or as long (housewives being the enabler that permits married men to be the highest-earning, most productive, longest-working population subset), thus my need for long hours of child care or meal preparation or home cleaning would be less than what Mrs Wapiti currently provides.

Analysis
One trend that becomes clear in reading AWN is how the femosphere, in their drive to achieve complete independence***** from men, completely ignores the not insignificant social costs that come from the transition of both husbands and wives to the world of paid employment. Boushey dutifully reports that, as result of education and work, women delay marriage, that is if they marry at all (33). Child-bearing and -rearing are similarly delayed, oftimes to the point that technological intervention is needed to coax a conception and gestation for older women who have passed their prime childbearing years, or who have missed the fertility boat entirely. She also reports that fully two-fifths of women over age 25 are unmarried, and that two-fifths of children born in 2007 are born to unmarried mothers, to which I add that there is a growing industry to fill the needs of choice moms who pursue man-not-included reproduction or single-woman adoption. And it should go without saying–for the Spearhead audience, anyway–of the corrosive effect of divorce on the family and society in general. Each year in the United States approximately 500,000 (~1.0M divorces/yr * approximately 50% to 60% divorces that involve children) new choice moms are made, mothers who value their happiness more than their commitment to a man and, like a rock thrown into pond, inflict great instability and lasting and perpetuating harm on their children and on the society around them.

We know where this self-reinforcing socio-cultural death spiral ends. We know that marriage is an institution that protects women and children first and foremost, and by extension, men and society in general. It is the fundamental building block upon which a technologically advanced society is built. It literally ensures the next generation is born in replacement rates or better. Marriage does these things–fosters/reinforces society and encourages natalism–by harnessing the generative energies of men and fathers in a socially productive manner, by constraining women’s sexuality in a socially productive manner, and by ensuring that children grow up in the image of God, that is, with both a father and a mother. Without marriage, as imperfect as that institution is, society wastes away as men suffer, children suffer, and–something that one would think that feminists care greatly about–women suffer. Yet instead of promoting marriage and work-family balance, AWN highlights motherhood and child care as obstacles to be cleared from the path of female self-actualization through labor, instead of honorable and necessary functions and occupations in their own right.

Another point that Boushey seems to miss is how women’s entry into the workforce has all but guaranteed that a man’s wages could not support a family on their own. Like a cynical and opportunistic politician who creates instability so as to profit from it, women’s entry into the economic workforce created the economic conditions that guarantee that a woman must then seek outside employment as well if the family’s relative standard of living is to be maintained. Yet there is evidence that this is no mistake; that the movement of women from the home into paid employment is but one part of an intent (I won’t go as far to say conspiracy) to replace Western patriarchal civilization with a different hegemony.

Another interesting feature of Boushey’s manuscript is where the phenomenon she describes fits into the historical narrative that chronicles the changing nature of the family and what activities are accomplished there. Viewed at a macro level, the patriarchal family has been under severe stress since the West industrialized in the 1800s and the father was pulled from the home to go labor in the factories. Suddenly the family itself was subjected to even more of Adam Smith’s specialization–both father and mother became more specialized–with the father more specialized in breadwinning and the mother more focused in homemaking and child-rearing. While arguably an economically more efficient model of family organization, this shift also eventually broke the social tie that bound the father into the nuclear family, the key enabling technology of a complex civilization. With the father’s role of provider–spiritual, moral, leadership, as well as material–reduced to that of material alone, the family was instantly reverted to a matriarchal family model that featured a mother and her children, the mother’s friends, and men/fathers who come and go and can be dispensed with just as easily.

With the bond that tied men to their families broken by dint of his physical absence from the family home, there was scant need to retain the other part of the patriarchal compact that applied to women…their fidelity to their oath to marry one man and remain monogamous. While I won’t discuss the steeply negative effects of female promiscuity and serial polyandry as it is outside the scope of this post, I will note that Boushey’s contribution to AWN seems imply that her conceptualization of the family is one of women and “their families”…in other words, their children, and single mothers. In both models, men are an afterthought except as they relate to income generation or are themselves a hindrance to “progress” as hinted at by the “second shift…shiftless men” or “deadbeat dad” discussion above.

This leads me to my next point, that A Women’s Nation is one where government is large and gets larger, as women co-opt the state for their own ends. The choice mother family–the Women’s Nation family–must be propped up by the society at large, as it is economically and socially less efficient than the (patriarchal) nuclear family. This is because the choice mother family requires more resources, more housing, more energy, more child care, more outsourcing of what the “traditional” housewife used to accomplish in the home, just to get by. Yet without the resources that a man produces through his labor, the average choice mother will find her choice-mom lifestyle choice difficult to maintain independently. This is where government comes in, and why government intervention is absolutely essential to the generation and maintenance of Women’s Nation families. For without government intervention (read: alpha males parceling out benefits from the public trust to women in exchange for their votes) to provide resources confiscated from lesser beta males, to mandate businesses hire economically less productive women at a wage premium, to pressure businesses to provide on-site child care and to provide flexible working hours, to provide social welfare programs that keep the choice mother from falling through the glass floor (WIC, EITC, child health insurance, subsidized day care, head-of-household tax deductions and the like), an AWN family literally cannot survive. In AWN, the government is the ultimate daddy rabbit, the ultimate husband and provider; why should a woman/mother commit to and stay married to a man with all of his flaws and imperfections when the most alpha of alphas is standing by to lavish his resources upon her. Especially when Big Daddy subsidizes the transition of feminine dependence on a lesser provider to dependence upon himself through VAWA and OSCE?

And even with government patronage, the post-AWN family is still inferior to the pre-AWN family, for if Boushey et al succeed, and both the husband and the wife are gainfully employed full-time in the marketplace, there will still be a need to outsource all of those domestic labor functions, including the rearing of children, that the housewife used to perform. While the debate about day care’s dangers to a child’s development rages on as part of the Mommy Wars, there is substantial evidence to suggest that day care produces suboptimal outcomes in children when compared to children not placed in day care, much in the same fashion that homeschooled children outperform their public school peers. Institutionalization, be it in a day care, an industrialized school setting, or a prison, has adverse effects on the development and mental health of those placed within them. Moreover, I contend that a society in which the basic human interactions have been made economic transactions is less human, less efficient, and less sustainable than one where this has not occurred, in that there are functions of a civic society that simply cannot be outsourced to the paid labor of others or entrusted to government agents. Boushey herself reinforces this point by admitting that the movement of more and more women into the paid labor force concomitantly reduces their involvement in volunteer work and in care tasks, namely that of elder care. I do not think we as a society are prepared for the fraying of the fabric of civic society that could result from the second- or subsequent-order effects of the widespread replacement of willing volunteers with paid workers. There is something to be said for labors done gratis, out of the goodness of the heart or duty to one’s fellow man, that cannot be achieved through appeals to rational self-interest and/or remuneration through the marketplace.

Thus far, in my critique of this chapter of AWN, I have not attempted to refute Boushey’s primary thesis, that the wide-spread entry of women into paid employment is a fundamental and society-shifting phenomenon of seismic proportions. And this is because I cannot, that this phenomenon that Boushey describes as revolutionary as it is self-evident:

At the most profound level, it changes the rules of what it means to be a woman–and what it means to be a man. Women are now increasingly sharing the role of breadwinner, as well as the role of caregiver, with the men in their lives. Even so, we have yet to come to terms with what it means to live in a nation where both men and women typically work outside the home and what we need to do to make this new reality workable for families who have child care and elder care responsibilities through most of their working lives.

Here Boushey is correct: we have yet to fully come to terms with what it means to live in a nation where most or all women work outside the home and where the size and scope and role of government is expanded as necessary to effect this vision. Not that I have any issue with women in paid employment; on the contrary, it was in keeping women from remunerative work that permitted spoiled upper middle class white women like Freidan to complain about how comfortable her pedestal was. No, I think women should work, and in fact I think that a reasonable read of Scripture, particularly Proverbs 31, indicates that, contra some of my fundie bretheren, a woman should work and it is a sin for her to not be productive for her family.

Instead, it is the transition to a matriarchal family model and a matriarchal society that promises to sideline or even enslave the vast majority of men that must be opposed bitterly. And I am convinced that A Woman’s Nation is one that is not at all sympathetic to men and men’s issues at all in the way that the man’s world was concerned with the well-being of men, children, and women alike. In fact, I contend the reverse…feminists like Boushey are not in any way concerned with equality. Rather, as Novaseeker recently put it, their goal is the domination, if not outright subjugation, of men. We have hints at what is in store for men as a sex should this trend continue, in the Napoleonic treatment of men accused of sex crimes, falsely or otherwise, in the facile enslavement of non-custodial fathers run through the divorce mills, or in the preferential treatment given to women in government-run schools or in women-only payouts from the public trust. This is not a condition that I think the majority of men will appreciate.

That we as a society haven’t quite yet come to terms with this phenomenon also tells me that this issue is still contested ground, and I do not think we men, alpha or otherwise, should continue to sleep as our adversaries gain more ground on this issue. How may we resist? One way to do so would be to ape the manner employed by the victors of this Gramscian Long March through the society. Boushey herself is a prime example of how our adversaries operate. Likely raised in a liberal family, she was schooled in a Femarxist institution and now consults for think tanks that provide influence government policy. She has even testified for Congress. We men need to start growing and grooming men to become the Bousheys of the future, to populate think tanks and educational institutions****** and push legislation in a symmetrical manner. In this way, we men would be able to advance the male and patriarchal perspective to government and to the media in a manner that the Bousheys of the world have done. Our row will be comparatively tougher to hoe; unlike the feminists one hundred years ago (who enjoyed the support of moneyed interests), we will have strenuous opposition from the vast majority of women and apex-dwelling men. But I see little alternative–other than expatting, and I don’t think that is a feasible solution for most men–if our sons are to be saved.

* an unlawful taking of business property by the government that punishes the most productive in favor of the least. In fact, in reading this chapter of AWN, it was clear to me that the author sees the responsibility of businesses is to provide jobs and as a vehicle through which to implement social policy, rather than create/add value for profit. Thus is exposed a fundamental philosophical difference between capitalists and Marxists.

** how much sense does it make, in a globalized world, for an employer to hire and retain more expensive labor when equivalent labor is readily available for cheaper rates? Thus the pay gap myth apologists display their economic illiteracy.

*** unfortunately the definition of family is so wide and so broad now that the same word is used to refer to households headed by single mums as well as two-parent families. The data strongly suggests that one form of domestic organization is superior to the other, yet referring to both of them as different variants of a “family” is an attempt to obscure this fact.

**** the BLS time use survey averaged time expended across a seven-day week; thus the average married man works 4.94 hours per day in a seven-day week, while the average married woman works 3.16.

***** the irony is that the fully feminist woman is far from independent, dependent as she is on a social infrastructure constructed by men, funded by taxes expropriated by men, and often on chilimony confiscated from men under penalty of imprisonment.

****** programs such as this one don’t sound terribly promising…replacing one variant of Marxism with another is not what we should be working toward.

{ 51 comments… read them below or add one }

Welmer December 7, 2009 at 07:50

Wow, quite a rundown. This one’s a keeper.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
dagezhu December 7, 2009 at 07:53

I liked the article, but I question the conclusion:
‘ We men need to start growing and grooming men to become the Bousheys of the future, to populate think tanks and educational institutions****** and push legislation in a symmetrical manner. In this way, we men would be able to advance the male and patriarchal perspective to government and to the media in a manner that the Bousheys of the world have done. ‘

If the West collapses down to Mad Max levels, there won’t be any formal institutions to march through.

It is perhaps more likely (although it’s nigh impossible to assign likelihoods to such nebulous contingencies) that the USA will collapse partially, much like Argentina did. Then EW’s approach would still be viable.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Paul December 7, 2009 at 08:26

dagezhu if collapse is what is coming then we should do all we can to give it an almighty shove so that it smashes to pieces. May be all that is possible is passive resistance. But may be for some of us there might just be a fleeting opportunity to put the boot in. Be ready for that moment. Don’t let any better instinct make you hesitate – the chance might only be there for a few seconds.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Rebel December 7, 2009 at 08:27

I think that the very best course of action is to… do nothing.

I agree with Dagezhu: this situation can’t last. Eventually, all will be coming down as the story of the West will unfold.

As the castle built in sand will slowly disintegrate, so is our society.
I believe that fighting feminism is futile: it wastes energy and resources. Our best bet is to walk away from the madness this feminized society has become. There is no cure. Let’s forget about the way things were in the past: those days are gone. We must, as men, build our own future, just like women did and forget about family, like women did.

It is so clear to me that women nowadays don’t want to have anything to do with men. Women are rejecting men wholesale. Now, why can’t men reciprocate? Whe can’t men reject women just like women rejected men?

How much more beating and humiliation must men suffer in the hands of women before they understand the deep hatred women have for all men?

Tell me… why do men still love women? WHY?
When will that stop?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
David Brandt December 7, 2009 at 08:45

@Rebel
“It is so clear to me that women nowadays don’t want to have anything to do with men. Women are rejecting men wholesale. Now, why can’t men reciprocate? Whe can’t men reject women just like women rejected men?
How much more beating and humiliation must men suffer in the hands of women before they understand the deep hatred women have for all men?
Tell me… why do men still love women? WHY?
When will that stop?’
I guess you haven’t been active out there lately. I’ve never seen such desperation, primarily among the 32 + set. While some of them still have ridiculous lists, the vast majority have dropped them. I don’t know what’s causing this level of desperation, but I’ve never seen it before. I suspect they are getting rejected considerably more than you may think. I’m 55, attractive for my age and a bodybuilder, and I’m not interested since I’m GTFO. Here’s the interesting thing, and this may be partly demographics, but they’re coming on like gangbusters. I’m pretty much like WTF?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Deborah December 7, 2009 at 09:21

There is another factor we should look at when it comes to employment. The polarization of male abilities on the bell curve, and how this polarization either takes men to the top levels of corporate power – or renders many of them unemployed and imprisoned.

In the Mansphere it is generally agreed that men make up the outliers on the bell-curve while women’s abillities lie somewhere in the middle – the second and third quartiles. In terms of IQ, there are more male geniuses on one end, and more male’s with mental retardation on the other end. Men are the sex that nature takes chances with, while nature plays it safe with women. In addition to intellect, this placement on the bell-curve tends to manifest itself in many other aspects of personality and human traits. There are more male CEOS than female CEOs, but there are also many, many more men in prison than women.

With the bell curve rubric in place, one can say that men tend to be either A grade or F grade employees, while women tend to be B, C, or D level employees. With men, they will either take initiative in the workplace – going above and beyond – or they will be the renegades who have the audacity to show up drunk and tell off the boss. Either way, the ‘F’ level male employees weed themselves out of the work environment quickly, while the ‘A’ level males rise to the top levels of the corporation.

This polarization of male aptitudes explains why at one hand, there are more unemployed and imprisoned males than women; but on the other hand, more high paying males with powerful job titles – than women.

Women, less represented amongst the social deviants and less represented amidst entrepreneurs, are the mediocre B, C, and D level employees.

C and D level female employees rebel against the company in smaller ways, that don’t get noticed, and don’t result in immediate termination – like their ‘F’ level male counterparts. If a C and D level female starts to cause trouble, she can kiss up to the boss to smooth over these minor transgressions – before she commits them again some time in the future. From time to time the C and D level female will show up 15 minutes late and cause drama on the job; Ultimately she will cause more productivity loss for the company, than an ‘F’ level male who weeds himself out of the workplace quickly by showing an all out display of rebellion that can’t be redeemed: cussing out the boss, grabbing a co-workers ass, not showing up, etc.

The B level female worker may be pleasant to be around. She does her job with few complaints, shows up on time, and brings customers back to the business with her charm. But ultimately, she will not pioneer new territory, take the company to new heights, or have the bold initiative to battle a competitor in a firey blitzkrieg that will melt them off the face of the corporate map.

Even as a straight woman, I will claim that the work place NEEDS men more than women. The men at my job work overtime, they don’t fall apart under pressure, and help without complaint. There was one man who did cause a lot of drama and even sexual assault, but he quickly got himself fired. There are a few good (B level) female workers at my job, (older women and gay women mostly), but most of my female co-workers have little since of professionalism, do not go out of their way to help their fellow employee, have CRIED on the job in front of customers no less, go home early because of head aches, colds, aching limbs, and ruin employee cohesion with their drama.

Men without jobs become crime statistics. Women without jobs become bored.

I say this to my own detriment, as a woman with no immediate financial provider, but should some more competent male outsource me – it would probably be an improvement to society.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Firepower December 7, 2009 at 09:22

Shriver & Winfrey et al

If you think the little ladies will relinquish control of POWER just bc some mean old mens threaten them

you’ve never seen a drunk bitch standing behind a table full of goons saying “my boyfriend will kick your assssh!”

These little ladies are gonna fight to keep that socially sanctioned POWER – like any reasonable group will. Except for white men, who coughed it up like trick bitches.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gx1080 December 7, 2009 at 09:23

Colapse? Likely. But it will be a long, bitter war because enough whipping will make males go though anything to not be trapped and still get something besides masturbation. Answer: Game.

A part, an small part of the male population (read: PUAs) will fight a sexual arms race against women and the Goverment that will want to tie them to a woman so they can seize their resources, but with the mancession, what resources?

The majority will either expat or go in a videogame related isolation.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Mr. N December 7, 2009 at 09:29

Given today’s date I think it is appropriate to remember the noble men who gave their lives at Pearl Harbor.

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

Brave men and women stationed in Hawaii paid the ultimate price.

Almost 50 years later north of the border in 1989 the opposite played out.

A man murdered innocents to make a political statement about feminism. The cowards of Canadian society, the men, meekly shuffled out, refusing to protect the women most in need of their masculine strength and defense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechnique_massacre

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
j r December 7, 2009 at 09:38

there’s a problem with contemporary feminisn that will likely never be addresed by contemporary feminists: many women have a very difficult time just being happy. women are constantly dieting, because they think they’re too fat; or constanly shopping, because they think their clothes aren’t good enough; or constantly buying pop psychology books, because their relationships aren’t ‘perfect’; or… etc etc

these personal traits reassert themselves at the societal level. so, when many women found themselves comfortably ensconced in the role of suburban housewife, they responded that they feld trapped in the “feminine mystique.” and now that women have been liberated from domesticity to chase careers, many respond that they’re being robbed of motherhood and that competing against men is just unfair. women’s problems won’t be solved by more government intervention and wholesale conversion of men to feminism, but that will not stop them from trying.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman December 7, 2009 at 09:49

Regarding the absurd ‘pay gap’, taken as fact only by someone who has never seen a real business run….

Feminists leave off the second half of the sentence.

The full, factually correct sentence is :

Women make 75% of what men do, for doing 70% of the work.

Note that they leave off the second half of the sentence (and thus expect to make 100% of what men do for doing 70% of the work, a demand under which no business could function, and which would merely lead to outsourcing of the job overseas (and rightfully so)).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman December 7, 2009 at 09:56

Tell me… why do men still love women? WHY?

For much the same reason that people play the lottery – they greatly overestimate the probability of a highly positive outcome.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Rebel December 7, 2009 at 10:02

@Mr.N
“A man murdered innocents to make a political statement about feminism. The cowards of Canadian society, the men, meekly shuffled out, refusing to protect the women most in need of their masculine strength and defense.”

You seem to forget so easily that these men had been programmed since they were infants that women are mighty powerful and that a mere man has no business dealing or even helping those divine creatures.

Those young men simply did what they had been conditioned to do: being cowards. That’s what women want. THAT’S WHAT WOMEN WANT!

Women would rather be burnt alive than being rescued by…. a mere man…yurk!

Why don’t you understand that?

This is the depth of their hatred for YOU, Mr.N.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
dragnet December 7, 2009 at 10:07

“A man murdered innocents to make a political statement about feminism. The cowards of Canadian society, the men, meekly shuffled out, refusing to protect the women most in need of their masculine strength and defense.”

Um, what? Those men owed absolutely nothing to those women. Nothing at all.

Look, we’re all equals now, right?? Every (wo)man for himself.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Paul December 7, 2009 at 10:17

@Rebel , Mr N

So men stood by while women where murdered. I don’t see any problem with that. I suppose they could have cheered.

As for Pearl Harbor. What was so Noble about about these people. They where just slaves of the state occupying some else land thousands of miles away for their own.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Cloud December 7, 2009 at 10:58

Has anyone else noticed the outcry over that SNL Tiger Woods skit?

For a second I thought the outcry was because people were acknowledging that it’s not okay to abuse men. How silly of me.

The problem everyone had….was that Rihanna was there to be a musical guest.

So lets recap…

1.) A skit about violence against men is hilarious, UNLESS a woman is there to see the skit and be reminded that she was abused by a man.

Can you imagine how crazy everyone would have gotten if SNL did a skit about Rihanna getting beat by Chris Brown?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker December 7, 2009 at 11:18

Excellent article, EW. Very well thought-out, comprehensive and well-written. This one needs to be reserved for future reference, I think.

My own take on the whole AWN document is that it is clearly an advocacy piece for the next “push” that feminists (male and female alike) want — and that push will be to legislatively mandate a different workplace and different working conditions.

In essence, many feminists have realized that the only way that high-powered women (who tend to be the kinds of women the heads of the feminist movement focus on) can “have it all” is if someone else is raising the kids at the public’s expense. The reason for this is simple and obvious. There really aren’t very many alternatives, and it isn’t rocket science. The options open to couples now are basically three:

1. One spouse works outside the home, the other stays with the kids, at least while the kids are young-ish. In theory, this could be either the H or W, but is almost always the W for a variety of reasons, including (a) women do not want to be with house-husbands, (2) women tend to mate at least slightly hypergamously, with a man who is older and more established and hence earning more money, making it economically sensible for his higher-paying job to be retained and (3) women preferring to be the primary caregiver at least during the younger years.

2. Both spouses work outside the home and juggle work life and family life. This is the “equality marriage”. The issues here are that at least some of these people suffer both at home and in the office due to the juggling, and the fact that they are competing with the “breadwinner” spouses who have made choice 1, and who do not need to juggle. So the issue feminists take with this is generally that they are being “fucked” by the couples who make choice 1, even though they themselves are living choice 2.

3. Both spouses work outside the house, and outsource much the child care to a relative or a paid caregiver. The issue here is that (1) relatively few people have relatives in close enough proximity who are willing and able to do this for them without compensation, meaning that (2) this option is realistically only open to the highest earning couples — the true elites who, in a sense, *always* outsourced much of the child rearing to nannies and governesses.

So basically those are the three options. And feminists like none of them. Option 1 is patriarchy, and by definition bad. Option 2 is considered “unfair” because it competes with the patriarchal Option 1, which is viewed as having an “unfair advantage” because the hard-working patriarch doesn’t have to juggle, and can instead plow forward at work past the equalist spouses who are taking Option 2. And Option 3 isn’t available to most people.

So, what we are going to see from feminism in the years ahead is a move to bolster the position of Option 2 at the expense of Option 1, and to a lesser extent, Option 3. This will be done by mandating flexible working hours for parents, mandating corporate and state-subsidized child care on a universal basis, mandating paternity leave (as is the case in Sweden), and so on. The whole idea here is to take away the “advantage” that Option 1 couples have over Option 2 couples, in that the breadwinner in Option 1 is not juggling responsibilities but the couple has instead divided them. The thrust of this legislation will be to undermine those advantages by requiring companies to make the juggling easier by, in effect, compensating and promoting people systematically who are working less than others — or, rather, disallowing companies from favoring in compensation and promotion decisions those workers who are actually the most productive, and instead forcing them to compensate less productive workers because they are “juggling” and choosing Option 2. In the short-term, this appeases the pissed off Option 2 feminists. In the longer term it is hoped that by making Option 1 even less attractive than it is today (it is also an option that is increasingly unrealistic, and becoming more reserved for high earners as well), even fewer couples with choose Option 1 — which serves the overarching goals of feminism, because for feminists Option 1 is the source of every evil that the world has ever known.

AWN is a stalking horse for this, because in effect the entire document is saying: “women are now out there in the workforce to a greater degree than men are, and so we need to change the rules of the workplace to reflect the needs and interests of women” — which generally means, in brass tacks, the right to be paid and promoted for working less than others, because one is “juggling”.

The catch here is that there is a pretty large group of single women who are similarly skeptical of changing the workplace rules in a way that blatantly discriminates against workers who are not juggling parents. It isn’t only Option 1 couples who would suffer from these changes — it’s also people who have no children. These people will, together with Option 1 couples, be subsidizing the Option 2 couples’ chosen lifestyle. In effect AWN is saying “there are so many people who are Option 2 now, whether by choice or need, that the rules need to be changed so that they reflect predominantly the needs of Option 2 couples and single mothers”. People who are not parents — men and women alike — are the ones who will be providing the subsidies. And, as we can see from birth rates, there are a not small number of people who fall into that category. So while I fully expect feminism to push for these changes aggressively in the years ahead (AWN is a shot across the bow), they will get some resistance to this from many women themselves, who won’t be advantaged by the proposed changes. On balance, there are more women who would benefit from these changes than not, but I’d expect a significant minority of women will dissent to some degree from the idea that non-parents in the workplace will come to be disfavored, or come to be seen as the subsidy-providing class.

But, in any case, I’m fairly certain that this, together with the drive to create equality of outcome in STEM fields, will be the next big push from feminism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Zeta December 7, 2009 at 11:36

A nice summary, Nova (and a great analysis, Wapiti). Basically, in one line: the feminists are simply trying to make the government even more of a provider, this time for everyone’s children – hence subsidizing the choices of women and allowing them to “have it all”. That will be accomplished by direct payments (even more government transfer payments for the “poor” or “disadvantaged”) or, for the masses at large and the types feminists really give a hoot about, more indirectly (the “flexi” hours, paid leave + retained positions, perhaps mandating inhouse child care in institutions over a certain size, etc.).

Don’t pretend they won’t get it either. It’s a very safe bet. Who but The Spearhead and like, Glenn Sacks, are out there challenging this Shriver report propaganda push? Who in government/Congress will resist the pull of the “Woman’s Nation”? Meanwhile it gets misleading and celebratory headlines on every major news source. I’ve seen it on C-Span just flicking through the channels. This and much worse are coming down the pike, so brace yourselves, men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
InternetWood December 7, 2009 at 12:00

Just entertainment:
http://glumbert.com/media/womenfilm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
InternetWood December 7, 2009 at 12:03

Monkeying around:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IALJXP8LaS4

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman December 7, 2009 at 12:10

which generally means, in brass tacks, the right to be paid and promoted for working less than others, because one is “juggling”.

The same economic illiteracy that causes them to believe that women are paid less than men for the same work, will also cause these idiots to make the job so costly for the employer that silent outsourcing to a country where a MAN is willing to work for one-fourth the cost is the immediate reaction. If there is one thing that feminists have zero awareness of, is that there is a word outside the West.

This is what I said earlier about feminists getting too greedy and making a fatal overreach.

The great thing about extremists is that they always go too far.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman December 7, 2009 at 12:14

The catch here is that there is a pretty large group of single women who are similarly skeptical of changing the workplace rules in a way that blatantly discriminates against workers who are not juggling parents.

Bingo. Remember that a lot of these high-powered career women thought that they could work hard and make partner by 37, and THEN marry, only to find that the life timeline that works perfectly for their male peers marrying women 8 years younger, leaves them out in the cold, after their Wile E. Coyote moment.

Such women will be bitter, and QUITE jealous of the woman who married at 25, had 2 kids, and now is returning to the workforce and is ‘juggling’. The unmarried old maids will be VERY resentful of these other women, and will fight hard to not give them special concessions.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker December 7, 2009 at 12:19

Yes, TFH.

There are many fractures among women — generation is one of them. In the workplace there have been quite a few tensions between older and younger women because of very different lifestyle choices. Sometimes that’s because the younger is juggling while the older was more focused on getting ahead — that’s not that uncommon a scenario. But sometimes it’s also between women of the same generation, too — for every 25 year old who is a married juggling parent, there are a few who are party girls still hitting up the bars and clubs and who would resent having to subsidize their colleague just because she is a juggler.

Feminism has been at its weakest when dealing with issues on which there is no real female consensus. Sex was one of those issues (sex-positive vs. new puritan types in second wave feminism). I think that, to a lesser degree, the drive to change workplace rules will also be like that — not all women will be winners in that scenario, and the ones who will not be winners, many of them at least, will not welcome the changes.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
InternetWood December 7, 2009 at 12:25

David Brandt

I guess you haven’t been active out there lately. I’ve never seen such desperation, primarily among the 32 + set. While some of them still have ridiculous lists, the vast majority have dropped them. I don’t know what’s causing this level of desperation, but I’ve never seen it before. I suspect they are getting rejected considerably more than you may think. I’m 55, attractive for my age and a bodybuilder, and I’m not interested since I’m GTFO. Here’s the interesting thing, and this may be partly demographics, but they’re coming on like gangbusters. I’m pretty much like WTF?

A part is that the depression is triggering the ‘want safety’ response in large numbers of women. Also, when there is stress, a lot of women think it’s ‘clever’ to dump their husbands immediately. This old response, from when they could get away with it, it flooding the market with women who want another, better ‘provider’.

At the same time, a lot of men are out of work, and thus ‘untouchable’ by Princess. So there are more Princess’s, more desire for safety, and less losers meeting their minimum requirements.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman December 7, 2009 at 12:29

Nova,

MRM should focus on magnifying the fractures between women (single vs. with kids, young and hot vs. old and washed up, love Sarah Palin vs. hate Sarah Palin, etc.) That is how we make progress. Society will never accept the MRM as valid on its own, but engineering fractures is the way to go.

That is how we defeated Al-Qaeda in Iraq, by the way. Get the moderates to realize that the extremists were hurting their daily lives more than helping it. Then their unified front splinters into intra-group warfare.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker December 7, 2009 at 12:31

Yep, divide and conquer is a very important strategy to deploy in this effort. While there are a lot of issues that most women do agree on, there are quite a few that can be flipped into wedge issues, which serve to undermine and weaken female support for feminist causes.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Mr. N December 7, 2009 at 13:44

Paul, Dragnet,

Um, what? Those men owed absolutely nothing to those women. Nothing at all.

Look, we’re all equals now, right?? Every (wo)man for himself.

- Dragnet

So men stood by while women where murdered. I don’t see any problem with that. I suppose they could have cheered.
As for Pearl Harbor. What was so Noble about about these people. They where just slaves of the state occupying some else land thousands of miles away for their own.

- Paul

I mean this in the metaphysical, Platonic sense. Above the alphas is the unreachable ideal of MAN. The form is idea of man we keep creating over and over again in every culture and civilization. The ideal varies from culture to culture, but even across boundaries of time and race and religion the key qualities of the masculine ideal overlap. The Form of man is not any one man, but an amalgam of those key qualities that the best example of a man would ideally have.

- Jack Donovan (yesterday’s the-spearhead article Alphas, Male Hierarchy and the Form)

Which group better represented the ideal man?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Mrs. Pilgrim December 7, 2009 at 14:09

Silly men. You’re not dealing with men in politics; you’re dealing with what’s tantamount to a religious belief among women. Divide-and-conquer tactics don’t work too well if most of the women hold dear the bizarre notions of feminism, because they’ll dig in on you.

Similarly, the “I give up on finding a wife, so I’ll just catch-and-release until I’m too gross to get a girl” attitude only justifies them further, because indeed, you’re acting precisely like the “pigs” they swear all men are. Nothing is more intractable than a woman who feels justified.

Divide and conquer indeed; it’s what they’re doing to us! If people in general don’t stop mulling over their wounded senses of entitlement and start actively seeking a real solution, the left in general will win. Ladies need to quit wanting to “have it all”, and men need to quit wanting revenge. REAL SOLUTIONS, people; those are what adults seek!

Thought and morality are the enemies of tyranny; both are discouraged as freedom diminishes. Think on that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed December 7, 2009 at 14:19

If people in general don’t stop mulling over their wounded senses of entitlement and start actively seeking a real solution, the left in general will win.

That is true. Do you have any suggestions?

The left made tremendous strides before the cultural decay became as advanced as it has. People with more resources and less legitimate reason to hold animosity toward the opposite sex were unable to hold onto positive relationships. If they weren’t able to do it then, recovering some of what they had will be more difficult now.

Where do you think a good place to start would be?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Mrs. Pilgrim December 7, 2009 at 15:00

Well, Zed, I think that what’s gotten feminism so much traction is that we’ve lost an understanding of the point of boy-girl interactions. In short, we no longer know why people get married.

I think a lot of people go into a marriage with vague notions of the traditional approach–one spouse for life, working together toward the betterment of the social unit known as “family”–but seem to expect that they have separate benefits and separate “goods”, if you will. Thus, instead of seeking (and cultivating) qualities that lend themselves naturally to a stable unity, they shop for a partner as if shopping for a television: all the fanciest features and options, with as few reciprocal requirements as possible. From what I’ve seen, this is true on both sides, in ways it’d take a lot of space to explain.

Because I think marital instability began to arise when the family ceased to be considered the basic social unit, I tend to blame women’s suffrage for its inception. But that’s another story.

Unfortunately, the only solution I can see at the moment is to spread the word about Reality: that relationships don’t have “great sex” as their primary driving force, that marriages take bilateral work and sacrifice, and that it’s more of an investment than a purchase (so choose carefully!).

On a more practical level, I would like to see no-fault divorce removed as an option, to hammer that home. I would like to see a return to respect for the Form of Marriage in our laws and culture, and an Ideal that we embrace. But these things take time, awareness, and the will of the people to restore order. Self is very strong today, and once the beast is out of the harness, it can take a literal Act of God to get it back in. (I’m very much an advocate of that particular Act of God, but I’m realistic and understand that most people will never welcome that, either.)

…So much to say. I really need to start blogging again.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed December 7, 2009 at 15:26

I think that what’s gotten feminism so much traction is that we’ve lost an understanding of the point of boy-girl interactions. In short, we no longer know why people get married.

instead of seeking (and cultivating) qualities that lend themselves naturally to a stable unity, they shop for a partner as if shopping for a television: all the fanciest features and options, with as few reciprocal requirements as possible. From what I’ve seen, this is true on both sides, in ways it’d take a lot of space to explain.

Unfortunately, the only solution I can see at the moment is to spread the word about Reality: that relationships don’t have “great sex” as their primary driving force, that marriages take bilateral work and sacrifice, and that it’s more of an investment than a purchase (so choose carefully!).

Unfortunately, that is a bit like the recipe for elephant stew which begins –
“First, get one elephant.” ;)

The young – those in the prime marriage years – are notoriously self-centered and gratification seeking. Selling the notion of short-term sacrifice of instant gratification for long-term payoff is a notoriously hard sell even among so-called “mature” adults. In fact, there seems to be a lot of dumping of servicable marriages which don’t quite live up to expectations.

It’s interesting that you use the term “shopping” because that is exactly the word that a woman I met many years ago used repeatedly – she was just “shopping for the best man she could find. (“Attention Man-Mart shoppers!! For the next 10 minutes we have a Blue Light Special on the successful corporate executive type in aisle 6.”)

We no longer have the social unity to make marriage and having children be a social obligation, and unless there is something in it for the pariticipants it is unlikely that the government will ever come up with enough coercive power to force people to do it.

I wonder if the only approach which will end up working is a sort of reactive rejection of parental values by younger folks – similar to the way that children of alcoholics often choose not to drink at all. After watching the choices their parents made screw up a lot of lives, perhaps the children will view the opposite choice as an attractive option.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Mrs. Pilgrim December 7, 2009 at 15:51

Zed, that’s the problem I keep running into. I mean, the ensuing collapse of Social Security and other governmental retirement-support systems might highlight to people the importance of the supportive descendants–witness, for instance, the raging success of the Amish–but most people usually change the channel to women’s topless boxing or whatever before you get that far in reasoning.

Ultimately, though, it’s all attitude and wisdom–neither of which can be forced. Still, if a “smart” semi-feminist like I was can come all the way over to traditional wifery (it’s the “good” people who are hardest to convert!), there’s hope for anyone.

All we can finally do is keep plugging, keep shouting the truth from whatever rooftop will support our weight, and best still: SHOW the way, instead of succumbing to despair! Surrender is worse than defeat!

…And with that, I click the “submit” button, then depart to do so indeed. Reading sites like this make me appreciate Mr. P. all the more, for many reasons.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed December 7, 2009 at 16:13

Still, if a “smart” semi-feminist like I was can come all the way over to traditional wifery (it’s the “good” people who are hardest to convert!), there’s hope for anyone.

…And with that, I click the “submit” button, then depart to do so indeed. Reading sites like this make me appreciate Mr. P. all the more, for many reasons.

As well you should, because it seems to me that there are fewer men all the time willing to stick their necks into the noose which traditional husbandry has become. There do seem to be lot of tradional leaning people on MRM sites, but it does seem that once someone has seen enough of the carnage which goes with modern relationships that there simply is no way to restore their faith in them.

I was born not too long after WW II and remember very well growing up an animosity on the part of adults toward German and Asian people which I simply did not understand from the naive and innocent viewpoint. Eventually I learned that once someone begins to think of a group of people as enemies that it is virtually impossible to change that mental orientation. Add in the effects of middle age on decreasing the biological urge to find a mate, and there are a large number of people age 35 or so and up who will find it difficult to see the other sex as anything but enemies.

When you spread the word, concentrate the young who have not been through so many bloody battles and don’t engage in the counterproductive waste of time of trying to tell someone that their experience has not been either real or significant.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
whiskey December 7, 2009 at 16:22

Outstanding article. I would add that the Mancession is going to create what I like to call the “Tiger Woods society.” A few guys with tons of women (Woods had 10 and counting) and most guys with none.

Women WILL share a dominant man (see Tiger Woods) and THAT has been very illustrative of how women who are breadwinners behave. By embracing their inner bimbo.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Elusive Wapiti December 7, 2009 at 16:57

@ Welmer, Whiskey,

Thanks for the positive waves.

@5H,

“Women make 75% of what men do, for doing 70% of the work.”

It’s actually steeper than that…more like 75% for 65% depending on the numbers one cites.

@ Nova,

I like your stalking horse analogy. And I agree that the next move for the fembots was telegraphed in this piece…they’ll continue to push to further legitimize women’s wage premimum–rewarding lower productivity for with higher pay–and increased subsidization for anti-patriarchal and pro-matriarchal behaviors.

@ Mrs Pilgrim,

” In short, we no longer know why people get married.”

Indeed. The entire raison d’etre of marriage was obliterated the moment the reason for most to marry shifted from an economic partnership and/or spiritual partnership to an erotic one. When the chemicals that make up eros love subside, the feelings die and ergo something is wrong with the relationship. Thus the relationship must go because it doesn’t add to happiness.

And I look forward to seeing you blog again, too.

Zeta December 7, 2009 at 17:19

Whiskey says:

Women WILL share a dominant man (see Tiger Woods) and THAT has been very illustrative of how women who are breadwinners behave. By embracing their inner bimbo.

Yep. Of course women will share a dominant guy. What do you think those shows like “Chance of Love”, “For the Love of Ray J”, and of course “Rock of Love” are all about? Think the same hot chicas would show up in their masses to compete for the captain of the college chess team? The question answers itself.

The funny part is women lack self-reflection to such a degree that they don’t realize what kind of behavior they incent via this harem-style mating situation. The more you unleash female sexuality from traditional constraints and mores, the more men are pushed to extremes; they either thug it up to succeed in the new mating environment, or they become insular, damaged goods like Mr. Sodini. What’s even funnier: if they did understand this, they wouldn’t give a hoot! Give them the top alpha they can get, everyone else be damned.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed December 7, 2009 at 18:46

I would add that the Mancession is going to create what I like to call the “Tiger Woods society.” A few guys with tons of women (Woods had 10 and counting) and most guys with none.

“Tiger Woods offers wife Elin Nordegren $80M to stay for 7 years in revised prenup: report”

http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/12/03/2009-12-03_tiger_woods_offers_wife_80m.html

Well, if all of them are going to demand and get $11 million/year, even super-rich guys like Tiger are going to run out of money to afford them fairly quickly.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Niko December 7, 2009 at 19:42

Wapiti brilliant 7000 words! Nova spot on as usual.

The state is the Ultimate Alpha, it won’t tolerate competition and women won’t tolerate it being undermined. Any legislative change simply underscores that power vests ultimately in this Super Alpha.

Competition is futile, natural law and universal justice are being trumped by self serving positive law.

Let the beast fall.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman December 7, 2009 at 23:04

Well, if all of them are going to demand and get $11 million/year, even super-rich guys like Tiger are going to run out of money to afford them fairly quickly.

These are all signs that the vast majority of women are pricing themselves out of the market quickly.

Another problem with women is that they are incapable of calculating supply and demand. The false rape practice which is used to threaten alphas to commit to a particular woman, just does not hold up, since there are far too few alphas to be ensnared this way, and too many women competing for them. So this effectively makes the competition between women fiercer.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Monad December 8, 2009 at 02:57

“Tiger Woods offers wife Elin Nordegren $80M to stay for 7 years in revised prenup: report”

Gees, and there’s me thinking that one paid hookers…to leave

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Monad December 8, 2009 at 03:41

That’s a hugely impressive and comprehensive discourse/rebuttal.

I hope Dr Heather Boushey reads it and weeps.

I here by grant Mr Elusive Wapiti the honorary Doctorate of Anti-Feminism from the prestigious Spearhead University.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Deborah December 8, 2009 at 04:45

3. Both spouses work outside the house, and outsource much the child care to a relative or a paid caregiver.

Novaseeker, Option 3 is more affordable than you think. Many day cares have sliding scales based on income level. At the one I worked at, the lowest income parent could pay 7 dollars a week to keep their kid there.

The question is not the cost of daycare, the question is if it good for a child’s mental health to throw them into daycare all day long like a dog in a kennel.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman December 8, 2009 at 05:27

Doctorate of Anti-Feminism from the prestigious Spearhead University.

Call it a better name.

Like Doctorate in Civilization Maintainence.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Mrs. Pilgrim December 8, 2009 at 12:31

Whiskey says: “Women WILL share a dominant man (see Tiger Woods) and THAT has been very illustrative of how women who are breadwinners behave.”

I say: It’s probably more on the order of “trophies.” You think men are the only ones who prowl? Girls are as apt to dream of snaring a movie star or singer for a one-night stand as boys are. Even though we hate sluts, the competitive drive of women also causes us to envy when they succeed. Takes a lot of work to get over that.

Also: This woman wouldn’t share if the situation arose. No indeed. I’m possessive, and have a gun. *fiendish grin*

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German December 8, 2009 at 13:57

Here the reader is treated to a list of service-oriented occupations, nearly all traditionally female and consequently female-heavy, that require little to no post-secondary education, and–here’s the transformative part–that these jobs are largely an outsourcing of what the industrial-age SAHM used to perform within the walls of the home.

This one always makes me laugh. Like when nannies, nurses, bakers, and preschool teachers look down their noses at SAHM. They’re doing the same stuff I am, just getting paid for it. That’s like prostitutes being snotty about wives “servicing” their husbands.

I think it comes down to the idea of “specialization”. Specialization makes sense on an industrial scale (such as when building cell phones) but less so on a personal one. Is a child better served by being raised by his mother or a day care provider? Does a teacher educate someone better than a homeschooling dad? Would an elderly person prefer to be cared for by their children or a nursing home? The specialist is only preferable if the family member does a terrible job. If they do a decent one, then the family member is preferable.

Boushey highlights the facts that the single and the childless and the highly educated (often these three populations are one and the same) are most likely to be in paid employment, and that the highly educated are that married mothers are least likely to work outside the home.

Well, that makes sense. A woman in the bottom 1/3 income-wise will merely displace income by working outside of the home (WOH): she is only working to pay the babysitter, unless she is lucky enough to have free child-care (relatives). WOH is only worth it monetarily if she earns enough to cover the cost of working (including child care, eating out, prepared foods, wardrobe, transportation, etc.) and earn a profit above and beyond that. Obviously.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German December 8, 2009 at 14:14

But shouldn’t that read: the highly educated are the MOST likely to work outside the home? SAHM are overwhelmingly poor and lower-educated.

Viewed at a macro level, the patriarchal family has been under severe stress since the West industrialized in the 1800s and the father was pulled from the home to go labor in the factories.

Thank you for pointing this out! I’ve mentioned this over and over myself.

Regarding the second shift: it’s a lie. There is no second shift. WOH moms aren’t doing their WOH-job and the SAHM-job. The work remains the same and WOH just means that they are shifting more and more of their responsibilities onto substitutes (paid and unpaid and including their husbands), depending on the number of hours worked.

And it’s further disproved by the fact that husbands of SAHM actually help out MORE at home than those of WOHM. I can’t dig up the statistics anywhere but I’m going to look again later tonight.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German December 8, 2009 at 16:12

BTW, thank you for the link to that HSLDA study. I’m a big homeschooling proponent myself. It is especially important for the black community as our children are often stuck in under-performing schools and/or discriminated against.
I wonder if any of you have ever considered a link (or rather, the lack of it) between homeschooling and feminism? Even among the members of my secular homeschooling group (over 200) there is a preponderance of stable, married families and the fathers and mothers seem to have especially healthy relationships.

I couldn’t find the article about chore division but I did find this.

Really like this post, by the way.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Elusive Wapiti December 8, 2009 at 18:16

“Like Doctorate in Civilization Maintainence.”

I’ll take that one… :)

“WOH is only worth it monetarily if she earns enough to cover the cost of working (including child care, eating out, prepared foods, wardrobe, transportation, etc.) and earn a profit above and beyond that.”

Yup. I found an MSNBC economic analysis that demonstrated exactly that, when researching for this article. I didn’t include it though because the article was already way too long and I didn’t want to subject you all to more pain :)

“…the highly educated are the MOST likely to work outside the home?”

Nice catch. I’ll fix.

anonymous December 9, 2009 at 16:57

superb.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
mike December 9, 2009 at 21:58

“It is especially important for the black community as our children are often stuck in under-performing schools and/or discriminated against”

Ugh. Your paranoid delusions of “racism” are just as idiotic as the feminists boogeyman of sexism. Funny, too, how the more white men bend over backward to “combat” these imaginary demons, the more hysterically self-righteous the “victim” groups become. Textbook positive reinforcement. And to think, white men invented psychology. We should know better!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German December 10, 2009 at 10:39

I am not interested in anyone coddling me. I am not satisfied with the schools so I pulled my children out of them and teach them myself and recommend others do the same. If you don’t like what they’re teaching, then leave.

I am not delusional. Racism is real and alive. And the liberal school systems are full of it in the form of reduced expectations.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 2 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: