Being a Mom means not dumping your kid(s) off at daycare/preschool because you have a "job" and need to be "whatever". Being a Mom is the highest calling a woman could ever have. That does NOT mean dumping your kid(s) off for someone else to raise during their formative years. It means being there with them for their first 5-6 years minimum all day, every day. If being around your kid is tiresome, or loathesome then you should have had your tubes tied and gone on pretending to be a man or working a room at a cathouse.
This is a truth that has been buried by the "women's movement."
I've always said that WWII brought this on. Women built the planes and the guns for the war effort, and it seems many got the idea that they should stay in the workforce so they could accumulate
more stuff. From there everything cascaded. Divorce became the norm rather than the exception, then cohabitation, then came the sugar daddy and casual hookups. We see where it leads us:
right here where we are now.Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
What has brought America to its knees is a moral and spiritual crisis.
RiverRider,
You and
There_Ya_Go hit on some important points regarding the genesis and evolution of our current situation, and impacts of the innovations of the times both of you mentioned around WWII, post war, and the 1960's.
There's this myth that throughout history women have never worked. It's not true, woman have always worked. That work was in the home and looked like the work performed by my Grandmother. Back then, cooking and cleaning looked much different. Cooking over a wood stove takes a lot more effort than using a microwave oven, so does using a tub an washboard and clothes line vs. using a modern washer and dryer.
As you mentioned, during WWII, many wives brought in a second income while the men were busy fighting the war. What's interesting is how women spent their extra money. It was largely on washers, dryers, refrigerators, on the modern convinces that reduced the amount of labor associated with house keeping. After the war, the war industry went idle, and the huge American industrial juggernaut turned to the production of household good, and largely to the manufacturer of durable household items.
The war resulted in the near destruction of the industrial production of every country except the U.S. in 1945, 80% we owned 80% of the worlds industrial capacity. They laws of supply and demand ruled, and America entered a Golden Age where the hard working man could support his family with relative ease, and continue the trend of home automation, with vacuum cleaners and dishwashers becoming more common, and continuing the trend of the stay at home mom with more time on her hands than ages past. This presents it's own problems, it's been said, "Idle hands are the devil’s workshop", an idle people feel less fulfilled with their lives. We need to struggle and feel that we are making progress to feel fulfilled. Husbands and industry did such a good job of eliminating the daily struggles of their wives, the wives were no longer fulfilled, and needed something more.
As these trends played out, along comes the pill, effectively divorcing sex from procreation. This occurred during an economic boom, and the party was on. Disposable incomes continued to rise. The pill allowed women to delay motherhood and still party at a time when they were seeking new avenues of personal fulfillment, and thus, the modern post secondary Educational Industrial Complex was born. Women wanted to go to school, but there was a problem. Historically people paid for their education up from. Loans were available, but there were private loans, and if the student didn't repay the loan, the loan company took the loss. Consequently loans were available for top students in areas like law, engineering and other high paying fields that provided a good ROI (return on investment), for the student and a high likely hood they would pay it back. These high paying career fields were then, and still are today dominated by men due to the difference in tastes and preference between men and women, so enter the U.S. Government.
Enter Government grants, and student loans. Women go off to university and get educated. We get new degree fields containing the word "studies". By and large, from an economic stand point, any degree containing the word "studies" is worthless. The only exceptions I see are what I categorize as "enemy studies", i.e. Russian Studies, Chinese Studies, Persian studies, Korean Studies, in other words, those that help us better understand our adversaries so we can more efficiently kill them. The "studies" degree's are female dominated, and of minimal economic value. As an example, at my former university the average salaries for a professor with an PHD in Economics was $125,000 per year. For Women's Studies it was $30,000. that's right, in the market place it's holds the same economic that progressives place on the bare minimum of skill, their proposed national minimum wage.
Here's why this is a problem. Back in the day, we had well established sorting process for the dating and marriage process. The human mind can effectively sort about 250 individuals into a social hierarchy. This works well for small farming communities in places such as South Dakota and Nebraska. In small, static communities, everyone know all their option. They boys know which girls are hot, which are not, and the girls know which families have resources, and which do not. Everyone knows where they fit into this hierarchy, and who are their dating prospects. On a scale of 1-10, if you are average, you know you are average, and that you have no shot at the 9's and 10's. The population is small enough you can see the full distribution, and if you step out of your lane, you'll be quickly put back into it. Additionally, these communities tend to have a very flat income distribution, (or in economic terms a low
GINI coefficient). As a result there's little opportunity for women to dump their current husband in search of someone better. However with the introduction of mass post secondary education and increased urbanization, and the false perceptions created by social media and dating apps, these signaling systems have broken down and way too many women are now delusional about where they rank in the dating hierarchy.
As I mentioned in previous posts, women are hypergamous. The vast majority will only marry men of equal or higher social status and income. Generally, they tie their perceived social status to both their level of educational attainment and income. As a result we a population of women with PHD's in fields of minimal value, thinking they deserve a PHD husband. Of course men tend to get their education in area's the lead to greater income, which provides them with more options in the market off resource seeking women.
So what happens when Miss PHD is "average at best", or right down butt ugly? In general, men who make real job PHD money are not interested in unattractive women regardless of their educational attainment.
The two things men tend to value in women the most are beauty, and ability to cooperate with a man. As a result, Miss Average at best PHD won't date any of the men who would have her, and the men she wants all have better options. Additionally, the Industrial Educations Complex pushes this narrative that all problems are the fault of men, especially those with jobs who built our society. It's typical for this to result in a woman who see's herself as high social status, but with no real history of cooperating with men. She ends up as a average looking woman, with a worthless degree, indoctrinated to think men are the problem, with little of no history of long term relationships, because she's too focused on school and work, and so she has no idea how to properly cooperate with men. This all comes to a crescendo as she hit's 30, aka "the wall" when the pool of suitor greatly diminishes and she's looking for Mr. 100K PHD who's going to give her babies in the next two years.
The end result is that any man she's hunting will take one look at this mess, compare it to his options, and opt for the younger, hotter, less educated, less debt ridden, less indoctrinated, lower mileage girl who hasn't lost her ability to pair bond due to an excessive body count, and demonstrates now narcistic tendencies.
Time dictates I need this post here, but one subject I didn't cover is the impacts in the increase of Narcisistic Personality Disorder and deteriorating female mental health in general impacts the marriageability of the single women. Today, around 25% of women have been diagnosed with a significant mental disorder, schizophrenia, anxiety, depression, bi-polar etc. Keep in mind, this is just the number that 's been diagnosed. The real numbers probably much higher...
So yea, it's a minefield out there. Probe carefully.
