What do women want? (for the future of humanity)

[Fester Chavez]

@Otterly, do you consider women working an important part of reproductive marriages?
One of the narratives I often heard was that as women obtained labor-saving devices they became bored and needed/decided to work outside the home to justify their existence or something like that.
Another narrative Ive heard (one Im more inclined to believe) is that when women entered the work force en-masse, they devalued employees in general (the supply of employees nearly doubled), and made dual-parent-incomes a necessity rather than a luxury.

I believe having both parents outside the home for several hours everyday is one of the factors that contribute to uninvested people.

 

[Otterly]

@Otterly, do you consider women working an essential part of reproductive marriages?

No I don’t. Some women want to and personally I’d rather be a housewife. But we now live in a society where women kind of have to. Nowadays there’s no expectation of being looked after in marriage. Previously many jobs would expect you to leave when you got married. Nowadays, outside of some religious communities or being independently wealthy a girl wouldn’t be wise to NOT get educated and able to work. The parameters of the game have changed.
Successful marriages are characterised by respect, communication and a setup (working/chores) that leaves both parties feeling no resentment. That can be working or not.

One of the narratives I often heard was that as women obtained labor-saving devices they became bored and needed/decided to work outside the home to justify their existence or something like that.

I don’t think this is true. Laundry and stuff without devices is hard, hard work. Imagine carrying laundry to a communal wash pit or river, wringing it out by hand in groups, it’s knackering. Women round our way used to ‘stone their steps.’ That means scrubbing the front step with a rock, and woe betide you if you didn’t have a clean front step! But even with all the washing machines it’s still work. I do a couple of loads of laundry a day. Two runs to the shops minimum a week on foot for one. Cleaning, dog walking, looking after annd maintaining a home and several kids and a garden is not done by pressing a few buttons. It’s still work. I doubt anyone was bored witless just because fridges and washers exist. There still lots to do. The times I’ve been home on maternity leave with small kids my days were very full.

Another narrative Ive heard (one Im more inclined to believe) is that when women entered the work force en-masse, they devalued employees in general (the supply of employees nearly doubled), and made dual-parent-incomes a necessity rather than a luxury.

This is undoubtedly true. It’s can’t not be. During coof lockdowns when the schools were shut a lot of women at my work just left. They couldn’t manage looking after kids at home and long days at work as well and they didn’t want to shove kids in front of the tv. Moat women doing my job are educated and married to educated men who earn Ok. So they quit. They then realised they can manage on one wage and lo! There was a worker shortage and wages went up for those who moved jobs.
Like I said the parameter of the game have changed. If everyone else is a two parent working family, wages lower and house prices rise. House prices become linked to what two working people can pay not actual worth. And anyone who has one parent working is at a disadvantage unless they’re a single parent on benefits. So the game now disadvantages the best family structure which is one parent working one at home.

I believe having both parents outside the home for several hours everyday is one of the factors that contribute to uninvested people.

Yes I’d agree. The damage done by shoving kids in poor daycare at weeks old is colossal too but nobody will admit it.
I dont know what the solution is. A woman who deliberately gets no qualifications is on thin ice isn’t she these days? If she’s very lucky a guy may decide to marry her but what if he leaves or dies? Now she’s on her own and has no earning power. If he’s treating her poorly she’s got no way out. Women can’t win the game now the way they could before (those rich, connected or stunning enough to land the knight in shining armour are rare, most girls are just average.)
I wish we could look at the issue through the lens of those changed parameters, does that make sense? It’s not ‘shitty women’ or ‘bad men.’ It’s that the rules have changed to favour behaviours that don’t particularly benefit society, but unless you play by those rules you expose yourself to significant disadvantages
I’ll just add that I asked for a raise at work and I got one. I was called ‘bossy and demanding’ for doing so. A male colleague was called assertive. I found that quite interesting. I was also enough of an asshole to point it out

 

[Rich Evans Simp]

@Fester Chavez, I’ve been both a SAHM and a working mom. The answer is, it’s complicated, and some of it depends on the individual personalities involved. I could sperg about societal trends all day. But I’ll just say - the overwhelming majority of moms and dads don’t feel that homeschool is right for their family. My kids were all in school from 8:30-3:30 by first grade, so aged six going on seven. I had very little to do during those hours until I had the incredible good fortune to be re-hired in my industry in a “mom hours” role. I’m an excellent homemaker, and my husband makes a lot of money. We don’t technically need two incomes to house, feed, and clothe our family. No one has to agree with our values, but even with such a privileged place in society, we want a bit more. I work so that our kids can start life with paid-for college and grad school, and so we can retire comfortably to, if needed, provide child care for grandkids. If our kids choose a trade, then our money can buy them a house. My kids are not missing out by me working 9-4.

I’ve said this on the Farms before, but I don’t know anyone who stayed out of the workforce once their children were big kids. The idea of the stay-at-home wife and mother doesn’t really match up with historical norms. Nowadays, you can’t just walk into a decent job. Women feel like they have to work through the baby years so that they can earn something, anything, when those kids need braces and decent clothes and electronics and college and trade school. If you don’t think your kids need you to pay for any of those things, then sure, you do you.

I don’t like this idea that working moms are all out there girlbossing for their ego and for their personal fulfillment. Most of us just want to give our kids opportunities and experiences that only money can buy. If we’re the luckiest of the lucky, we can step away from work during the crucial 0-3 years.

 

[DumbDude43]

I dont know what the solution is. A woman who deliberately gets no qualifications is on thin ice isn’t she these days? If she’s very lucky a guy may decide to marry her but what if he leaves or dies?

especially because leaving now comes with almost no consequences except some financial obligations.
back in the day adultery was criminal and a divorce was only granted if you had a good reason for it, plus you would get shunned and shamed for it.
today adultery is legal, a divorce is easy to get, and most people don't give a fuck at all if you tell them that you're divorced.
this all makes it so much easier to just jump ship the second someone younger or hotter catches your eye, so the risk of divorce is now a huge problem when it used to be a rarity. this greatly increases uncertainty and insecurity about the future.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

Women crying for views and attention YOU CAN'T BE HAPPY WITHOUT A MEN. ever

Meanwhile statistics

. The study found that unmarried, childless women were the happiest population of all.

Aren't everyone sadder on average right now?

Kinda kills the argument when married women 30 years ago were happier than modern cat ladies.

It also doesn't take into consideration that there are entire industries based today on catering to childless women, including nearly every media company in the west. So the argument becomes very biased because it is more of a result of institutional gaslighting than actual life choices.

 

[Otterly]

this greatly increases uncertainty and insecurity about the future.

Yup. Exactly. So now we are in a scenario where a girl would be insane to NOT go to college and get some qualifications and a job. Stay at home parents are basically a trophy now, they’re a status symbol of wealth. Everyone else needs to pay the mortgage.
If we could maybe move towards a system that encourages one parent to be at home for the early years, I think that alone would be a massive improvement. I’m just not sure it’s even possible with the competing pressures. We’ve created a world where to survive you need to take actions that harm you. That’s not going to end well.

 

[Ravier Xavenblood]

That sounds horrendous. Removing men weakens the society. Women arent safe when all the men have had their balls chopped off, ffs. The society just gets invaded by men with balls who enslave the women.
The solution is long term thinking being prioritised over short term pleasure and hedonistic gain.
Realistically the only positive way out is a new frontier to explore, like space or something. Otherwise it’s the usual cycle of decline, and oopppsy daisy here’s the invading hordes

Removing excess males seems good for society and as a bonus, it punishes toxic women by taking away their enablers.

 

[JamusActimus]

Personally I just want basic necessities and human rights and for people to leave me the fuck alone

Are Gundam figurines, cross dressing star wars figurines and basic necessities?

 

[Otterly]

Removing excess males seems good for society

Rather depends which males you remove. Removing excess young and fit males is good for the people at the top who want to profit from the rest of us without getting murdered. Removing violent criminals is good for everyone.
Removing excess has always been done though. I think I read once that something like 3% of the population was culled each year or generation or something by execution and transportation for violent crime. If you’re consistently removing the worst of society, that’s going to benefit you. Take out the child molestors and the ones who cannot be around others without severe harm and get rid. The problem now though is that we do t do that, and we instead encourage those to remain and breed.
Our rulers seem to have realised that there’s a buildup, not of genuinely harmful elements but of disaffected normal ish young men. That’s a direct threat to them and their spot at the top of the tree. And so we will go to war. And what happens with war is that the better young men get killed off.

 

[Ravier Xavenblood]

Rather depends which males you remove. Removing excess young and fit males is good for the people at the top who want to profit from the rest of us without getting murdered. Removing violent criminals is good for everyone.
Removing excess has always been done though. I think I read once that something like 3% of the population was culled each year or generation or something by execution and transportation for violent crime. If you’re consistently removing the worst of society, that’s going to benefit you. Take out the child molestors and the ones who cannot be around others without severe harm and get rid. The problem now though is that we do t do that, and we instead encourage those to remain and breed.
Our rulers seem to have realised that there’s a buildup, not of genuinely harmful elements but of disaffected normal ish young men. That’s a direct threat to them and their spot at the top of the tree. And so we will go to war. And what happens with war is that the better young men get killed off.

Except a lot of these men are waking up and don't want to go to war. These are the draft dodgers of the near future. Some, not all of them though.

 

[Justa Grata Honoria]

Aren't everyone sadder on average right now?
View attachment 6117207
Kinda kills the argument when married women 30 years ago were happier than modern cat ladies.

It also doesn't take into consideration that there are entire industries based today on catering to childless women, including nearly every media company in the west. So the argument becomes very biased because it is more of a result of institutional gaslighting than actual life choices.

You do undestand the happiest cathegories are married men with kids and cat ladies right, remove marriage from the equation there is a lot of men on suicide watch, there is a damn reason why articles screech about male loneliness epidemic .

Except a lot of these men are waking up and don't want to go to war. These are the draft dodgers of the near future. Some, not all of them though.

They will not instate the draft they will just send convicted men into the grinder nobody gives a shit about convincts eating shit and once they are through millions of incarcerated apes then they will use the justice system to harvest some more without alerting the intended demographic to flee. Btw to move somewhere else you need either mad skill or at least 100k unless you wanna be bum and future murder victim or slave.

 

[Android raptor]

Are Gundam figurines, cross dressing star wars figurines and basic necessities?

Yes

 

[YHWH's Strongest Soldier]

Radical opinion here, but women are human and individuals. Like men, they want security, intimacy, recognition and self-actualization but traditionally achieved this in a different way. Becoming a stay-at-home mother no longer provides sufficient security and recognition compared to being career oriented. Similarly, intimacy and self-actualization are more difficult to achieve due to various cultural trends. This leads towards both men and women focusing on their careers while occasionally indulging in hedonistic pursuits to obtain a fraction of what they're missing. It's sad but until the family unit becomes a reliable source of security, intimacy, recognition and self-actualization again, this trend will continue.

 

[isalaide]

do you consider women working an important part of reproductive marriages?

It wasn't what I wanted, so we planned for many years ahead in terms of what careers we chose and how we managed them, so that it wouldn't be a financial necessity. But you need both of you to be very much on the same page for that, and you need to trust that the man can and will provide.
@Otterly is completely right, though. In Western nations now, a SAHM is the ultimate luxury belief. You, the average prole, simply cannot afford that. Those who are of a more elite caste don't care about that. In fact it's pretty good for them, because what data we have suggests that lifetime attainment is higher for kids who spent most of their time with their principal caregiver than in a childcare setting. It's difficult to untangle that from the data around SAHMs being more likely to be from a higher socioeconomic level than working mothers: this is not a diss in any way but a statement of the obvious, since most working mothers are working because they need the money. The shift to dual-income households was the primary motivator behind New Labour's policies around free childcare hours and Working Tax Credits. Their economic modelling was that the economy would be stimulated, and house prices kept up, if the economically inactive lower middle class women went back to the workplace as a rule rather than an exception. They were correct, but the social knockon effects haven't be great if we look at the attainment and achievement levels of Britain's kids since 1997.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

perhaps remove some of the more societally-uninvested races from our country

If the goal is to have a safer, cleaner, more prosperous country then that's got to be the main goal, not secondary.

Also, the hyperfocusing on feminism is short-sighted, as cancerous as it is it's just one of the tumors of liberalism as a whole.

Are Gundam figurines, cross dressing star wars figurines and basic necessities?

Infinity 3rd world subhuman importation and unlimited tax-payer funded infanticide are basic necessities, chud.

 

[Maurice Maine]

Same as everyone else. Women use the fact they're the 'weaker sex' to exploit the system in their favor. Like we wouldn't do the same... it's a cruel world.

 

[Bugman's Burden]

The study found that unmarried, childless women were the happiest population of all.

Brain scans show that a person is happier than they've ever been in their life when they smoke crystal meth. The only possible conclusion of this is that meth should be legalized and widely distributed because the only thing that matters is pleasuremaxxing.

 

[Executive Petrel]

Not being shittalked about like every woman is the same.

 

[Fester Chavez]

Not being shittalked about like every woman is the same.

Fair, if you ignore the parenthetical.
I'm still unsure on what women actually want for the future, or what ideas they have on how to change our fuck-ed present into a decent future.
I understand how garbage the present is for women, and as an incel-ish, pointless guy myself, my most likely route of life is to continue working to sustain myself until the games I play become boring or when my cat dies, whichever comes second, at which point I'll kill myself.
I doubt I'll ever fully engage with the proper game of life. I fucked myself with college debt, so I have no incentive to make money, since once I do, it'll probably all get hoovered up to pay for that shit. And my father really shit the bed (probably literally) with his own family-planning, collapsing himself into food-addiction and dying of a heart-attack just as his oldest became a teenager. So I have no confidence or knowledge that I'd do any better than that fat retarded bastard.
Since he died before he could teach me anything useful.
And everything I've learned, I've learned way too fucking late for it to be useful to me.

 

[Vecr]

Concerning the male solution to the problem. Was pre-1960 life for women as bad as women often suggest it is?
I can empathise with some of the more visceral problems they dealt with--abusive husbands with (apparently) no legal way of escape and forced pregnancies/back-alley abortions.
But I've got a feeling that modernity is worse than pre-1960, and I found a website that seems to confirm it, though it doesn't seem to be well-sourced: https://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

"On Rising Crime": https://archive.is/Z69C4 (More Right)

https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/07/25/how-the-west-was-won/

1. (10/20/13) In The Anti-Reactionary FAQ, I claimed that there was likely not much difference in crime between the distant past (especially Victorian England) and today, because although the reported burglary rate was up, the reported murder rate stayed the same, and murder is the most accurately recorded crime. Michael Anissimov points out that medical care has improved since that time, so that many things that would have been murders in the past are now only attempted murders, lowering the apparent murder rate by as much as five times. Discovering the mistake caused me to reverse my conclusion that crime has not been increasing since the Victorian age.

So yeah maybe.
Citing Homicide Studies (2002;6:128-66). Eyeballing the graphs shows that murder would have been up dozens of times at least without the medical improvements.