By Brandon Smith
Some readers might recall a year ago the internet was in an uproar about a commencement speech given by Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker at Benedictine College, a private Catholic liberal arts school in Kansas. The speech went viral due to his denouncement of abortion, Pride Month, COVID-19 lockdowns and the tyranny of diversity, equity and inclusion.
However, it was his comments on women in the workforce that really put a twist in the panties of the leftist media:
“I want to speak directly to you briefly because I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolical lies told to you, how many of you are sitting here now about to cross the stage, and are thinking about all the promotions and titles you’re going to get in your career…
Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world. But I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world.”
“I can tell you that my beautiful wife Isabelle would be the first to say that her life truly started when she began living her vocation as a wife and as a mother…”
Leftists were enraged and attempted to cancel Butker. The problem was that cancel culture was in steep decline and the activist mobs had already lost much of their previous influence. More than DEI, more than ESG, more than CRT or the LGBT movement, leftists are most protective of feminism. It is, in a way, the “mother” of all other progressive propaganda movements in America.
As I have noted in the past, there are many Marxist and globalist ideologies focused on social engineering, but the first and perhaps most dangerous in the US is feminism. It’s not a coincidence that Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels published their Communist Manifesto in February of 1848, and feminism traces its roots directly to the Seneca Falls Convention in New York, held in July of 1848 (many of the women involved in the event would go on to express ties to socialism, including Fabian socialism).
Feminism was originally predicated on the idea that women should have access to the same legal rights as men. This was achieved many decades ago, yet activists continue to demand more privileges as the movement seeks to justify its ongoing existence. This begs the question: What is the real purpose of feminism?
In my research I recently stumbled across an article titled “Global 7 Billion: Half A Solution From Ted Turner” published by Forbes Magazine in 2011. For those who are unaware, Turner has been deeply involved in the globalist population control agenda prescribed by the Club of Rome and the UN since the 1970s. Turner publicly called for population reduction on a number of occasions and admitted that he thinks that an 80% decline in human beings would be ideal.
This agenda was launched in the name of “man-made climate change”, which has been thoroughly debunked as fraudulent (see my articles on the lack of correlation or causation between carbon emissions and temperatures in long term climate history, as an example).
Turner made it clear that population control primarily targeted women through increased access to contraception and abortion (the obvious), but one comment in the article stood out immediately. Forbes notes:
“There’s never a golden bullet to a systemic problem such as this, but the closest thing that does exists is not contraception provision, it is girls’ education.
Educating girls enables them to see and enact opportunities outside of childraising, and once they have other options they become much more likely to reach for the birth control after 2.5 children, just like their Western counterparts (often in direct contravention of patriarchal and religious doctrine — which education empowers them to resist)…”
The article goes on to argue that the educational focus on girls over boys is not unfair, but an act of historical correction for previous injustices (reparations). For any DEI agenda, abandoning meritocracy in order to enforce“fairness” requires that we subsidize one group over another. Feminism is no different.
Women today outnumber men in college admissions because colleges deliberately overlook male applicants (often with superior merits) and give female applicants special preference. Beyond that, women are more likely to be given grants and scholarships. Scholarships specifically designated for women number in the thousands, while male only scholarships number in the dozens.
In the business world, women are once again given special preference due to subsidies. State and federal governments have established numerous grants (Women in Apprenticeship and Nontraditional Occupations (WANTO) Grant Program), programs and tax deductions (like the Work Opportunity Tax Credit) for companies that hire more women. ESG related initiatives (funded by globalists) were the greatest driver of women-centric hiring, with companies getting access to a number of loans and incentives in exchange for a hiring focus on women and minorities. There are no such programs or incentives specifically for hiring men, especially white men.
The disparity is undeniable – Most women can only “succeed” in the working world when they are propped up by governments, NGOs and corporations seeking government payouts.
And, as Ted Turner and Forbes assert, this is by design. The longer women stay within the educational system and the more they are pushed into the workforce, the more likely they are to take contraception and the more likely they are to reject traditional relationships and not start a family. As a bonus, the longer women stay in the current far-left academic environment the more they can be indoctrinated with feminism and the less they will want to have children anyway.
In other words, feminism is primarily about population control and it is proving to be wildly effective. Within the next five years, 45% of women ages 25-44 will be single and childless. Western population growth is in steep decline and by the next generation there will be a societal crisis with the elderly greatly outnumbering the young.
We need to start asking hard questions as a civilization, and this is where we come back to Harrison Butker and his commencement speech in Kansas. In an open minded, liberal and “democratic” society we’re not supposed put limits on personal freedom. For around 70 years America has functioned on an “anything goes” playbook (the liberal playbook). If it feels good, do it. Don’t let “the man” hold you back. But this philosophy is not working, it’s destroying us. It turns out that gender roles are actually important.
What can we do about it? I suggest adopting a principle that weighs costs vs. benefits when it comes to women in the workforce. Not just women as a group, but individual women and their potential. I call this the “Butker Principle”.
The Butker Principle requires that women consider the advantages of the career they are pursuing and ask: “Is my job more valuable to the world than raising a healthy family?”
Is she working in STEM improving important technologies? Is she saving lives as a doctor or nurse? Is she providing a service that most people cannot provide? Does she own and operate a business that is creating jobs? Or, is she working as an HR representative taking mindless complaints from other women who should be at home?
Furthermore, we need to ask: “Can a man do the same job better?”
If so, then a man should be in that position providing greater value and greater productivity. At bottom, there are not many women in many fields of expertise that are offering the world more than if they were simply nurturing children to become better adults in the future.
This might sound like the kind of “greater good” argument the political left is known for, but I would point out that the greater good for leftists is always the worst case scenario for everyone else. We’ve had many years to observe the effects of feminism on our society and it is a clear net negative. The “greater good”, in this case, is to simply correct that mistake.
We must also consider the economic benefits if most women were to leave the labor pool. For example, the larger female workforce has saturated markets and throttled wage growth over the years. You want to know why almost 70% of American families used to be able to live on a single income in 1970 and that number has dropped to 25% today? Inflation is not the only factor.
Wages are about supply and demand, like anything else. Women flooded into white collar and retail environments and gave corporations a massive gift – Not only could these conglomerates keep wages low because of too much competition, they could also get subsidies for hiring females and making them feel independent (relying on big daddy CEO is apparently independent while relying on a husband is not…).
Beyond driving down wages, single women also eat up a large portion of the US housing market (more than illegal immigrants). The extra demand throttles supply and drives up home prices and rent payments. Imagine if just 20% of working women left the labor pool and abandoned single life – The housing supply would skyrocket and prices would drop dramatically. Women could save the economy simply by not taking up space.
This is not to say that there are not women out there doing great work. I’m sure there are many, but again, if we were to examine the situation case by case I think we would find that the majority of women are not working in jobs that are more important than building a family. The Butker Principle must be applied to save our nation, to save the nuclear family and to save the psychological health of the west.
Women have been conned by feminist propaganda into believing that they can have it all – They think they can pursue a stunning career in which they receive endless accolades and applause. They think they can gain masculine power and financial parity and they think they can have a family whenever it suits them. This false assumption has led many women to waste their 20s struggling for “boss babe” status and missing out on their prime years finding a husband and building a home.
To be sure, liberals (and many libertarians) will argue that if a woman wants to waste her life away working in a meaningless office job instead of having kids, then that is her right. I probably would have said the same thing twenty years ago but history is not kind to people who ignore the hard data. The west is decaying at a rapid rate and drastic measures need to be taken.
Does this mean forcing women to stay home? In a way, yes, but not by erasing their freedom to work. Rather, the solution may be as basic as returning to meritocracy in business environments. How? By canceling all government incentives and educational scholarships specifically for women of child bearing age. And, by eliminating affirmative action laws that push companies to maintain a female labor quota, specifically Title VII and the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972.
In other words, level the playing field back to the days before second wave feminism and let women compete. Most will not be capable, which means they will be forced to temper their expectations and fantasies, find a man, have children and, God forbid, become happy housewives. What a tragedy that would be…
To summarize, the Butker Principle is meant to defeat an agenda that was set in motion over a century ago to undermine western civilization, drive down wages and artificially suppress the population. The poisonous fruits of that agenda are now widely visible. Some of the people involved in the early movement might have had good intentions, but this is ultimately irrelevant. The results are the results, and feminism is a disaster for everyone except the globalists and the corporate oligarchy.
The fastest way to end feminism is to end the majority of female participation in the jobs market. It’s the only solution that makes sense.
If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch. Learn more about it HERE.
As central banks continue unprecedented money creation, protecting your purchasing power becomes critical for retirement security. Physical gold IRAs offer a tax-advantaged solution, allowing you to hold tangible precious metals with intrinsic value independent of currency fluctuations. To learn more about how physical gold could help protect your retirement portfolio, click here to get your FREE info kit on Gold IRAs from Birch Gold Group.
You can contact Brandon Smith at:
You can also follow me at –
TwitterX: @AltMarket1
Prior to the social revolution, women were very much in the workforce, outside the home, as nurses, teachers, charity workers. Before suffrage, they could not own property, have a bank account, travel without a male escort, publish, ….. etc. When men went to war, (or work), women were the ‘managers’ holding the home front together. Highly educated females, tho not many, imparted their knowledge to the children they raised.
Modern gender roles are chaotic and confused. Certainly!
However, to equate women in the workforce to our social issues and feminism seems an oversimplification and misses the mark.
The challenge is how to move forward and not backward.
Please NO! to the technocrats who would grow babies with designer
genes in test tubes, made to be programmed by the state.
How do we adjust to modern work, desks, machines, robots, code,
while preserving the uniqueness of gender and individuality?
Most of your info is inaccurate, but lets focus on what suffrage actually accomplished. Why did feminism continue to demand more after equal rights were achieved? Because it was NEVER about equal rights, it was about destabilizing the nuclear family, the home and the west overall. Perhaps if you worked on your reading comprehension you would have seen that I addressed this extensively in the article. Less than half of the current number of women were in the workforce prior to second wave feminism. Women could certainly own property. Yes they could have a bank account. Yes they could travel (and the vast majority of people did not qualify for credit cards in the 1970s, mainly the upper class). As far as home making, yes, that is where their talents are most valuable, so you make my point for me. You also present the typical weak liberal position, suggesting that for some reason we can’t reverse course on bad social policies. Yes, we can, and we will. There is no reason why we should accept the incrementalism of the political left. You have bought into the propaganda hook, line and sinker. Please do your research and educate yourself on this issue so as to not embarrass yourself further.
If a man doesn’t love a woman, marriage ain’t gonna work. Once male and female role models are destroyed, and they have been, people can’t even define what a man and a woman is. God describes Himself in the masculine gender and man is subject to God in every way just as a woman should be subject to her husband. But when you tell and demonstrate to several generations of young men that they are nothing more than an equal with a woman, the whole system breaks down. This typically happens when men ignore God. God simply says, ok guys, I’m gonna show you how this works. Then God removes His hand and feminism takes over causing women to treat men the same way men treated God.
They created conditions where man and woman both must work due to inflation, etc.. A man as sole income provider probably needs to be in the top ten percent economic bracket to have a comfortable home with say 3 children and a stay at home wife.
True, and feminism helped that plan greatly by saturating the labor market, allowing companies to keep wages low for decades.
And tax 2 people instead of one.
Yes, women belong in the kitchen. There are exceptions. They can work in the kitchen of the company prepping food.
Your observation and proposed solutions sound spot on. However, I have said it many times regarding erasing a centuries worth of communist indoctrination. You can’t turn the Titanic on a dime – assuming you want a peaceful and positive transition that is. A little over 100 years ago communism converted people by force. Yes, it worked. And the movement was responsible for the biggest mass murder campaign in world history.
I can already hear gangs of lib women screaming at you for even suggesting your solution! Hey Berkeley, this is for you! Something else I have been saying over and over when it comes to drastically changing an ideology on a social level: “It has to be your idea.” Just as the leftists sold “women in the workforce” on the idea; women as stay at home moms would have to sell. I’m not married or have any kids, but all around me I hear complaining about how expensive day care is. Single incomes are not enough to afford a home in my area. I wonder what is the point of mom working and spending her paycheck on daycare? How about staying home and NOT giving the daycare people ANY money? I bet mom can find much better and more cost effective ways to feed and look after the kids than some entity that only exists because it’s a business model.
No, it doesn’t have to be their idea. Taking away federal incentives for hiring women or ending female-centric scholarships is something they would simply have to accept. The leftists screamed about USAID being shut down, and PBS, and NPR, but it happened anyway. Trying to convince indoctrinated people is a waste of time. You just shut off the money and the problem solves itself.
Look at what happened with the southern border? The illegals simply stopped coming, encounters dropped by 95%. All Trump had to do was remove the incentives. The same will be true for feminism.
That’s a good point. Turning off the spigot would certainly make a huge impact (but not without lots of complaining). By taking away an option I can squint and see how it would be “their idea.” They either adapt to a reality they don’t want or face something far more life changing for the worse. A left handed incentive if you will.
While it is true that you can’t turn the Titanic on a dime, I think it is too late to miss the iceberg. You can’t undo multiple generations of feminist programming of both men and women without painfully dramatic changes. Women will likely show us just how adaptable they really are through many tears and much drama as a destroyed economy brings starvation to men and prostitution to women. But that’s not to say that all women will survive it either. In the Old Testament, references were made to nations falling to harlotry. When women figure out what has happened to the promises of feminism, most will adapt. Some have lived on easy street for so long that they won’t make it through what is coming. But also keep in mind that America fell for the San Francisco mentality decades ago, so when hunger sets in, there will be males who take that route just like the women do. There was one point in ancient Israel where two women were arguing over which son they would eat during a besiegement.
“And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son to morrow.”
2 Kings 6:28 KJV
https://bible.com/bible/1/2ki.6.28.KJV
First let me state that I am a woman, and I am an OLD woman who remembers the 1960’s and 1970’s.
Even as a young girl, I never believed the lie that women weren’t living up to their full potential.
I never believed the lie that our fulfillment and ultimate success in life was dependent upon our rejection of marriage and motherhood.
It made no sense to me that we must embrace promiscuity in order to reclaim our sexuality, and that we must destroy our children through abortion as an act of liberation, choice, and personal freedom.
All of this made no sense to me because I was hearing these revolutionary ideas from the lips of women who were either lesbians, or from straight women who were quite wealthy, connected politically, and well funded by various foundations, corporations, and think tanks!
I couldn’t have told you then that there was an agenda; I couldn’t have told you way back then that these so called grass roots ideas and movements were anything but grass roots movements, but today, over 60 years later, I can see the fruit that these “movements” produced, and that fruit is rotten.
Women’s Liberation did anything but liberate women; it sold women a LIE, and today that lie painfully obvious.
We now have a society that is literally falling apart at the seams.
Society is crumbling all around us because strong societies are and have always been dependent upon STRONG FAMILIES, and we have destroyed the nuclear family by destroying women and motherhood.
My great grandmother was born in 1890, and she had a saying that was oft repeated by my grandmother and mother, “The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.”
Sadly we’ve destroyed those hands with catastrophic results.
CD, You are 100% correct. Like you, I remember the ’60 and ’70’s feminist lies. They intentional broke the families and misled women and feed porn to young men.
Great post CD! Your great grandmother’s wisdom is spot on. If I may suggest the hand that was destroyed was merely replaced by another hand – the hand of feminism and the communist agenda.
The main reason women were allowed into the workforce had nothing to do with equal rights it was all about taxing both working parents for the government
And also to keep them from starting families, as the Turner interview shows.
Women are the heart of the family. They always have been. They always will be – or should be.
.
Should women have all the opportunities of men? Theoretically, yes. If they want those paths. We are all equal in our human freedom, worth, and personal agency.
.
But in the real World… I just don’t care to see a women umpiring a Major League Baseball Game. Sorry. I don’t want to see women fighting and abusing each other for entertainment purposes in the wrestling ring. There are some places that still should be exclusive domains for women and for men alone. And there is nothing wrong with that… and fundamentally quite sound with it.
.
Women are superior to men in many ways. And men are superior to women in many ways. This statement should be self-evident and not the least bit controversial. This kind of thing only became contentious due to the weaponized social attack brought on by phony Feminism from the Dark State whose true goal always was to disrupt and destroy the precious nuclear family. And sadly… that assault of madness has been very successful. We literally billions of broken people and families and broken marriages and broken children to show for that. And this goes on today… every minute of every day. Another family broken. More hearts broken. More of society’s foundational family unit broken into pieces.
.
Yes, men bear their responsibility also for that. But not the massive part that radicalized women have inflected on us all by themselves.
.
And the so-called Transgender Movement? Another weaponized assault on human beings from the Dark Siders… on human minds and bodies… and ultimately upon the family unit and legacy foundational family social bonding and functioning structure that have never been rivaled as the best way for human beings to relate and live with each other.
.
There is no higher calling or better life than being a wife and mother. No CEO job. No political title. No place in the celebrity culture. All of these pale badly in comparison with the sacred life of being a good wife and mother. And nothing will ever be better than being called ‘Mother’.
.
God bless all the women who still have their heads and hearts on straight and who value the family unit enough to dedicate their lives to it. This role is not without great effort and much heartache along the way. But the rewards of being wife and mother far outweigh all the
challenges that come with being such. It isn’t even close.
.
I’ll never love a CEO. I’ll never love an Umpire. I’ll never love a wrestler. I’ll never love a celebrity..
.
But I’ll always love… a Mother. Bless every one of you with all of Life’s Rewards.
.
And there is no ‘thank you’ can ever be enough…
No, women are not equal to men. That is the feminist propaganda that got us where we are. The Bible says that the man was not made for the woman; but the woman for the man. However, if you feminize and homosexualize men enough and if you try to make women masculine through role reversal, drugs and indoctrination, you can create a worthless generation of people who have no idea what is right and what is wrong.
Woah Brandon!!
Bravo bravo bravo!!!
Now you are talking!
I married the most likely to succeed girl at a significant High school.
Full ride at a private U and all that.
Made her quit her job and home school our children. She hadn’t wanted children but she learned that the Creator wasn’t stupid or cruel.
She realized that a woman can be a homemaker and have plenty of options for dignity and achievement and self worth.
Question: did Bill Belichik have to be a football star to be a star of football? Coaching others to excellence is true accomplishment.
One caveat : removing God’s Word from one’s world view changes absolutely everything, kind of like modifying genetic codes results in turbo cancers.
Also, women can always start a career later in life after the children are older. It’s not unheard of. But starting a family after her 20s is going to be difficult.
Fertility of both men and women is in jeopardy right now and has become one of the greatest concerns of all governments worldwide. Male fertility was dropping due to environmental factors, diet, air quality, etc… even Before the vaccines, but men could still men could father children late in life. Women were similarly affected , but after age 35 women were beginning to have serious problems with birth defects and just getting pregnant at all. And that assumes they were not bossbabes, man haters, witches etc…. Since the vaccines, all bets are off as to whether either sex will even live long enough themselves to reproduce.
I agree with so much of your article. But as a woman who did not find her husband until 34 (I spent most of my 20s battling various addictions until I finally achieved sobriety and recovery at 29) I can say that I 100% am a better mom now to my toddler at 39 then I would’ve been at 29. I did not have the emotional intelligence or mental stability to raise a family in my 20s, nor did my husband. But now I feel we are doing a darn good job – and he is the sole breadwinner and I am very happily a stay at home.
It sounds like you lucked out, but the article is about finding a husband more than having a family. Secure a good husband and the rest will probably work itself out. Don’t secure a husband early, and your chances are slim for happiness later in life. As for kids, it’s all well and good if you’re only looking to have one child and you can find a man that wants the same, but many men want at least two kids or more, likely with a couple years in-between. This means getting started early (20s). I’ve seen the writing on the wall and times are changing; women pushing 35 are going to find it VERY difficult in the coming years to secure a stable man. Men are going to dismiss such women immediately and look for someone younger. The writing is on the wall for single mothers as well – Viable men are not going to settle down with them anymore. The married world is going to be nonexistent for them.
Well, there is an upside. Cats are going to be well looked after by all these angry, wrinkly old feminists.
First off, that’s not what “begs the question” means. To beg a question is to AVOID a question, not to beg for a question to be answered. It’s one of the most misused idioms in the English language because somebody 20 years ago thought it sounded cool.
Second, as a woman, I’m all for meritocracy. Let the best human win. I’m not sure if everybody has really grasped that competition in the workforce isn’t about men vs women anymore, it’s about man vs machine.
I do believe that a lot of women would rather be wives and mothers than do some mindless job but there’s a whole long trajectory of social deprogramming to be performed. In the 60’s, women (and society) were told that promiscuous sex=freedom. Instead, women were reduced to the status of free prostitutes and then left wondering why no one wanted to put a ring on it. So there you have a vicious cycle. Women who can’t get a man, men who just want to stay home and surf porn, and marriage which is viewed through Hollywoodian eyes as some romantic fantasy that crumbles at the first sign of reality instead of a contract meant to last a lifetime, where everybody has his or her role and where everybody is going to have to put up with some things for the greater good of the family.
It does seem silly that so many women go to college and accrue crippling student debt when so many truly just want a family, but that’s one of those things nobody is allowed to say.
Uh, no, that’s not quite correct. From Merriam-Webster:
Begging the question means “to elicit a specific question as a reaction or response,” and can often be replaced with “a question that begs to be answered.”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/beg-the-question
–
The usage you are referring to is a lesser utilized and more formal definition, as Webster notes. It’s not the ONLY definition. I’ve been a professional paid writer for 20 years. Trust me, you have nothing to teach me.
–
As for your support of meritocracy, I applaud you. There aren’t many women in the west that share your sentiment. The vast majority in polls say they want to focus on a career and they are perfectly happy with the game being artificially tipped in their favor. Or, they don’t even realize the game is tipped in their favor. We aren’t at the stage where machines offer serious competition yet, but it could very well happen in a decade. As for women in the workplace, as I note in the article this is not about taking that option away, it’s about taking away the government incentives and extra privileges. In other words, the problem will mostly solve itself once the tax breaks, NGO subsidies and gender-biased scholarships are removed.
I think the term “begging the question” was already in play long before 20 years ago. I took a logic class where I first heard the term in college back in the mid 1980’s. The textbook at the time had been in print for many years even then. It is one of the argument types such as the argument of the beard, argumentum ad baculum etc…
My understanding of the meaning was that the person using that form of argument, whether in court or otherwise was trying to change the question at hand by asking it in a different way that distracts attention from the real issue. We often see this form of reasoning with modern news reporters, feminists, race baiters, politicians etc… who have an agenda other than truth and justice, usually to put money and influence in their own pockets.
Old saw about lawyers and dogs in court.
“Your honor, my clients dog couldn’t have bitten the plaintiff because my client doesn’t even have a dog. Not only that, but my clients dog doesn’t bite and besides that your honor even if he did bite, it wouldn’t hurt because my clients dog doesn’t have any teeth.”
Equal rights under the law is one thing. However, this is about power. Feminism should rightly be called, femunism. Its roots are in Marxist and the aim is destroy traditional and cohesive societies in the name of modernism and inclusivity.
Yep. Like all leftist ideologies, it’s all about naked, untrammelled power.
One thing that reveals feminism as nihistic is their opposition to paternal parenting. An obvious liberal step that failed with focus groups.
We can see this in full display in many countries around the world specially Europe where most new heads of state are now women, From Merkel, Ursula to Kaja, Christene Lagard, even Mexico’s new president and her cabinet of mostly women in a macho” country.
Unfortunately, Socialist policies and empowerment” of women will destroy societies more effectively that armies, and that is precisely the point. I admire women and believe they have equal rights as men, but not equal abilities, some do and some don’t.
When I asked my wife about this, she said ” They put women in power now, because people will think, there are things that women won’t do, they’re mistaken”
Remember, that Eve was tempted by the snake, this may be a replay of the old story, just saying…
N.
Sounds like the world will have to learn its lesson about women the hard way.
And what these women have in common is that they are all utterly incompetent and useless. Not that the men are any better.
After paying payroll taxes and paying for day care, the clothing needed for work, gasoline, take-out for supper, etc. etc. etc., all the things she wouldn’t have to pay if she stayed home with the kids, I don’t think many women are making much per hour.
I also don’t think that some women want to be home with the kids. I’ve heard quite a few say that being with their kids all day would drive them crazy.
Next write a story about wanting slaves back. Your head is in the 1850s.
More like my head is in the 1960s, pre-second wave feminism when America was at its peak economically and socially. It’s interesting how hysterics like yourself seem to equate everything to slavery, even though all I suggested was that women be treated equally to men in terms of merit. True equality, to you, is slavery, likely because you are a weak person and can’t compete. And this is why feminism must be destroyed – Because it is based on stealing production from men in order to create privileges for women, while feeding women the delusion that they are “strong and independent”. Your irrational fear of equality is collapsing the west, and this needs to stop. If you see that as “slavery”, then so be it.
Unfortunately, this was just one turn, of many, on the road to destroying the family & gender. Women were used to “end” men but now AI is going to “end” both sexes. When AI takes over, both men & women aren’t going to be of any need in the workforce
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/308135/
News out of Poland made me chuckle the other day. The state will cease to tax your income if you have more than 2 kids and i wondered, why don’t people want to have kids as a way to escape the tax man?
It was the primary turn, the one that started all the others…
Agreed. I think another article that should interest you is Ross Douthat’s piece in the NYT in early 2020 where he admitted this much;
“But alongside that Communist guilt, there is Western guilt as well because the one-child policy was linked to a project hatched by Western technocrats, funded by Western institutions and egged on by Western intellectuals — a classist, sexist, racist, anti-religious program that sought to defuse a “population bomb” that, we know now, would have defused itself without forced sterilization programs in India and signs in Chinese villages saying “You can beat it out! You can make it fall out! You can abort it! But you cannot give birth to it!””
All of this would be forgotten or went unnoticed because of the fake pandemic but it made me realize that the technocrats had two ways to go about enforcing this program: use force in places like China & “soft kill”/propaganda in the West hence things like the infamous TIME cover of the child free life.
The subject matter of your article is a big deal to the elite and reversing course will upend many socio-economic & political structures. It’s not enough to just enforce meritocracy in the employment sector, you would have to reverse decades of propaganda. At the recent TPUSA summit, Tucker Carlson talked about this, correlating home ownership and starting families. This idea of “you’ll own nothing & be happy” is a death knell to the family. Not sure how many people remember the tampon & baby formula shortages during the Covid years but those things made me realize that once the financial reset officially happens, digital money will be used to discourage the family. The bank account will probably let one get an abortion or vasectomy or hysterectomy but you wont be able to buy formula or any baby-related stuff thus forcing people to give up altogether on starting families. Reversing course is a titanic effort indeed!