Should women be kicked out of the workforce?

There are many other things we'd need to do before we'd even get to such a point (e.g. gassing the kikes, deporting all shitskins from our countries, etc.), but if we do get the chance to create ethnostates for white Europeans, whether in Europe or elsewhere, we definitely need to have a discussion on how women's presence in the workforce has affected the family and the economy.

The number one reason women should not have the "right" to work is because of the disastrous effect it has on the economy. Giving women the right to work doubles the number of people looking for jobs while retaining the number of available job positions. This means, at a bare minimum, all wages are halved and it will be at least twice as hard for anyone looking for a job to actually secure one. This ultimately destroys a husband's ability to support his family. Once upon a time, the income of a single man working full-time was enough to pay all the bills, put food on the table, own and gas up to two cars, pay for the needs of 2.5 children, keep a woman who is a housewife full time comfortable and well-adorned, etc.

Ironically, women being "liberated" from the home and going into the workforce has not liberated them at all, it has enslaved them. Women entering the workforce pushes salaries and wages down to rock bottom, and cutting the wages of all working men in half meant that women had no choice but to enter the workplace in order to make enough money to fund their family. One of the primary reasons feminists agitated for the right to work any job they desired was they felt they did not have the freedom to decide what they wanted to do with their lives. If that was truly their complaint, then they have failed spectacularly, because they have achieved the exact opposite of that. Instead of gaining the freedom to choose, they now have no choice but to work, whether they like it or not.

The other main reason why women shouldn't have the "right" to work is the nuclear family. Families are the very basis of what our societies are build upon, and therefore it is very important that we do everything we can to protect and preserve them. Women entering the workforce en masse in the 1960s/70s emptied out the home. Forcing women to go to work alongside their husbands leaves an empty house with no one to look after the children. It doesn’t take a genius to know that services like daycare and nannies will never be the same as a child being looked after and taken care of by his own mother. Forcing women to work to sustain their family means that they will no longer be able to give their children the care that they need and deserve, which damages children mentally, emotionally, and socially at the time when they are most vulnerable. This is not fair to the children, and will (has) produce(d) a generation that is in some ways emotionally and socially stunted as a result.

(1/2)

On top of all that, "liberating" women from the home encourages women to not have families or children at all. Contingent to the previous points, without the strength of the male wage, the family becomes prohibitively expensive. What was once the social norm becomes instead an extravagant luxury only slightly less costly and less unattainable than a high-class yacht. The pressure to not have children becomes immense, and women enter a state of postponement. “I’ll have a family, but later, when I’ve saved up enough money.” “I’ll have kids, but later; right now I need to secure a future for them.” “I want to have a family, but I can always do it later when the situation looks better; right now I can just party and enjoy myself. After all, it’s not like I could have one now anyway, even if I wanted to.” But the cold reality of nature is that, while men continuously produce healthy sperm until the day they die, women have a finite number of eggs. The longer she goes without having children, the greater the likelihood that there will be complications or congenital birth defects. The possibility of a child being born with issues such as autism, general learning disabilities, and Down Syndrome increases markedly the older the mother is, and the age of the mother has also been linked to problems such as birth defects, miscarriages, and even sudden infant death syndrome. Studies have shown that the peak years of fertility for having healthy children begin around the ages of 19 and 20 and persists for the next six or seven years. Beyond the age of 28, a woman’s fertility begins to drop, and the possibility of health issues with her children begins to increase with each passing year. Eventually, she will enter a twilight of fertility in her late thirties, and not long after her supply of eggs will run out, bringing about the onset of menopause and rendering her infertile. The harsh fact of life is that not only do women have a finite number of eggs, but those eggs can and will go bad. The longer a woman puts off having a family, the less likely it is that she will ever have healthy children or a stable long term relationship with a man.

Single mothers like to talks about how they do things on their own, and they "don't need a man". But in fact, flex time and related corporate incentives *are* a form of substitute husband and father. That money for flex time has to come from somewhere, usually in higher prices for the company's products or in lowered salaries for its employees. And we're not even talking about the non-economic effects women have on the workplace. Men's instinct is to preserve, harden, distinguish, temper and purify, while women's instinct is to accept, muddle, soften, blur, incorporate and merge, which is probably why studies have shown that companies with a higher share of female employees are much less productive than companies that mostly employ men.

So what do you guys think? The only downside to this is that women might get bored once their children leave the home, and that the talent of some genuinely intelligent women might go to waste. On the other hand, women can help to do volunteering work in certain fields where there is a genuine shortage of people, like conservationism, caring for the elderly, keeping neighbourhoods clean, etc. Pic related is a graph of the male and female share in different fields and occupations in the United States to give you an idea of where women might be needed to prevent a labour shortage, and where they really aren't needed.

(2/2)

Yes

/thread

You're preaching to the choir, OP.

Well, I mean, women have always been nurses and worked in cottage industries. Kicking them entirely out would be nonsense, but I agree that they shouldn't be as involved as they are now.

You could easily stop that from happening you wouldn't even need to ban women from the work force just stop forcing people to hire a certain amount of them. If there were no gender quotas the best would still rise to the top anyways.

No. But we seriously need to rethink the situation. This includes not giving the selfish, temper tantrum throwing overgrown children called feminists a say in the matter. Feminists should go play while the grown ups fix the mess they made.

OP sure is

So women should just be allowed to continue to to push down male wages, keep birthrates low and occupy men's jobs? If you want to solve those issue, you have to at least kick a majority of working women out of the workplace.

I would rather just force the stupid people out of employment regardless of gender.

Not all of them, that would be retarded. Unmarried single woman would need some form of income, and I see professions such as nursing providing this opportunity. Otherwise, no women in work.

FFS just read again.

Yes, obviously there will be young women who need an income until they get married and have children, women whose husbands died (i.e. widows) and women who left an abusive husband.


Yes, and that involves kicking a lot of women out of the workforce.

Not every worker needs to be brilliant. We'd be in a real mess if such were the case. We need people mixing and pouring concrete… breaking apart lawn mowers and fixing them…. etc…

Not that women do any of those jobs though. Instead they sit in comfy admin assistant / receptionist postions making coffee all day while being separated from their children… who are busily absorbing state funded poz in the "education system."

Then, when the kids get home in the evenings their "career moms" (the few who have children) are "too tired" to cook a decent meal, so they stuff the kids with McRibs until they're obese.

Women have to be controlled and subjugated by force for the good of our civilization and the future of our children. They have the mental capacity and emotional maturity of teenagers forever… if you forget that for a second… god help you. If you don't control and subjugate them then jamal, ahmed, or pedro will.

This a larp thread about traditionalism, so…

Why would a woman exist in such a state. Arranged marriages were a healthy form of eugenic breeding based on family performanxe and reputation. There is reason to believe any "single women" would exist, since it would be arranged for them to not be single women.

There is no reason**

No it's not, it's multipled by the number of children she had.

Ha keep fantasizing about that.

I know where you are coming from but their is no going back on that.

Now if you said stop mass migration to the west from other places than you are on the right track. That mass migration over time will make people poor(er).

Exactly
Jewish propaganda, i.e., modernism, is the only reason women don't regard this as the absolute peak achievement.

(Many of them do anyway, btw)

There shouldn't be a general trend of women taking jobs but they must be allowed, there are some groups that even in an arranged marriage society need work to do because otherwise they would be on government dollars. Those groups off the top of my head would be.

There should be in no way a societal norm for women to work but their simply is a need for some jobs for women.

I just think some woman should have the right to be independent. Some guys are whack jobs out their. I work with people and I think to myself "I feel sorry for his wife". They shouldn't have to be at the whim of some mentally unstable/goof-ball man.

I think this mass migration is the real problem and these free trade agreements (Offshore manufacturing).

You go into these upper class areas and all these idiots are driving Kia, Hyundai you go into a working class area and the majority of the vehicles are domestic.

Maybe we should have jobs that women can do and only those jobs. Secretaries, nurses, maybe desk jobs, i guess home decorators. Jobs that women can take adavntage of while not taking away jobs that men will do.

If Tesla wasn't a googlebot machine that tracks everything you do and is always connected to the internet™. It would be the only car you ever need and it is American.

I wouldn't be surprised if that is the future of all vehicles in the US. It is definitely not a good thing. Technology has progressed too fast and is definitely being exploited.

It is an abuse of technology. Ted Kaczynski would be sending packages out if he was a free man. He was truly the last luddite.

Women should be kicked out of everything that isn't a kitchen

The worse thing is they knew I want one because of that sick 5s 0-100 acceleration. I feel like a fly with a lightbulb.

Yes. Yes they should. They need to get back in the kitchen and shut the fuck up about shit they don't have the capacity to understand. Of course, that would require men to stop being such fucking insufferable pussies and put them in their place first, but one can hope.

Women are for breeding and nurturing children. That is it. They go through three stages:

1) Being attractive and fertile
2) Producing offspring
3) Guiding young females in the pursuit of stages 1) and 2)

Anyone who disputes this is detached from the natural order of the universe.

Women that lose their husbands and are thus widowed are part of the group of the "deserving poor". Other people in this group could include orphans, elderly with no family, those disabled on the job (permanently wounded veterans), or those that have gotten too sick to work. In my opinion, these people that were forced into these unfortunate circumstances are the only people deserving of public assistance, which doesn't necessarily mean welfare but could be care from a close-knit community or charity. These last two only regularly occur in racially homogeneous societies.

Yes, women should be in the home making families first and foremost, they can have a job after the kids are grown up, but those will be such a minority and of such a caliber that it wouldn't be a problem.

Keeping women out of work makes them less degenerate, more community oriented (looking after eachothers kids together), and drives down the cost of everything so that a large white family can easily be supported by the father's wages (with some supplemental pro white government aid ala interest free loans that can be reduced with every child born).

And of course, women are universally happier when they are the mother of a loving family. Women's liberation is just one big shit test egged on by cucks and kikes.

How new are you? Lurk more, of course they should. Who else will raise white children in the future if women are at work? It is not good for the child to be raised by nannies, it has to be the biological parents.

Indeed, this pretty much sums up Holla Forums and "culture war" issues in 2016. We're caught in a redpill circle-jerk.

Nobody outside of the chans and stormfront is going to support your "white ethnostate" if you're for explicitly prohibiting women from working, gaining an education, voting, driving, or anything else for that matter.

The smart move is to use the jew's magic against them by creating within our homes and communities a "containment reality" of sorts for women and weak males that is wholesome and congruous with a virtuous, white society but also highly attuned to female psychology such that their lives at home would be infinitely preferable to reality outside of it. This, in conjunction with economic incentives for intact families (thus removing the economic need for both parents to work) and myriad social incentives as well as a full-on assault on mass media and central banking, and we might have a chance.

The idea is that it should never occur to 99.99% women to want to work, vote, drive, join the marine corp, etc. in the first place. If you're first instinct is to outlaw those things, well, you'll find yourself quite busy with that hammer as there will be no end to the "nails".

That means we need take over the media. More than just podcasts and MDE skits though.

We need to start out-jewing the jews and subvert cultural output. Memes are just the beginning.

It's like that Bill Whittle goy said, "We'll take over Hollywood when we start telling better stories than the other guys."

Criminally unchecked trips of truth!

Checked and yes, but we can't just destroy and degrade. We have to build parallel media environments for different groups that function by attraction.

We can't rely on hostile takeovers alone. People will turn on you pretty quickly.