A woman's place is in the home, taking care of the kids. And not pursuing a career. She should focus on the family and raising children. Today, woman are less happy than in the 50s. Women can get to the top of any single job that they want to. In the past, the norm was that men would work and women would stay at home and raise the kids, do the household chores, etc. Women did not have access to education and were happier. More women are staying single or marrying later in life cause those changes. Women are now more likely than ever to hold degrees and work outside the home, which make marriage less of a priority for them.
>'But what we hear from many mums is: I have no choice, I have to work, I don't love my career, my childminder is taking half my salary and I'd rather bring up my children myself but I can't afford to.
"Women are disproportionately active in doing damage to our society, pushing Bad Ideas. e.g. Education system, now american schools teach less and indoctrinate more than ever before. Young children are being prematurely sexualized."
web.archive.org/web/20170602174940/http://www.thedailybeast.com/the-truth-about-women-in-combat >The army's standard fragmentation grenade has a blast radius of 15 meters. Infantrymen are required to demonstrate the ability to throw a grenade 35 meters; military women, only 25 meters. In practice, many military women cannot throw even that far. >Women react to threat very differently from men. It seems painfully obvious to say this, but the sex hormones testerone and estrogen push the sexes to behave radically differently. Many young men will risk death rather than be seen by their peers to flinch from a fight. Women's courage takes very different forms. Browne amasses a battery of stories of military women behaving in ways that, had they been men, would have brought accusations of dereliction of duty - or worse. >The most dangerous consequence of sexual attraction, however, is the corrosion of unit cohesion. A "band of brothers" pretty quickly degenerates into a snarling pack of primates when the brothers begin to compete amongst themselves for the sexual attention of a much smaller number of women.
Lincoln Jones
web.archive.org/web/20211124201956/https://noahcarl.substack.com/p/did-women-in-academia-cause-wokeness >Compared to men, women are less pro-free speech and more pro-censorship. Within academia itself, they are more left-wing, more inclined toward activism, and less inclined toward dispassionate inquiry. And they’re disproportionately represented in disciplines like Race and Gender Studies. >It’s therefore plausible that the influx of women into academia over the last thirty years contributed to academia’s leftward shift, and to the rise of woke activism in particular.
>This paper examines the growth of government during this century as a result of giving women the right to vote. Using cross‐sectional time‐series data for 1870–1940, we examine state government expenditures and revenue as well as voting by U.S. House and Senate state delegations and the passage of a wide range of different state laws. Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditures and revenue and more liberal voting patterns for federal representatives, and these effects continued growing over time as more women took advantage of the franchise. Contrary to many recent suggestions, the gender gap is not something that has arisen since the 1970s, and it helps explain why American government started growing when it did. Leamer, E.E. (1999) “Effort, Wages, and the International Division of Labor,” Journal of Political Economy, 107(6), p. 1127. doi:10.1086/250092. web.archive.org/web/20210812055441/https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w5803/w5803.pdf
Charles Nguyen
>In this paper we test the hypothesis that extensions of the voting franchise to include lower income people lead to growth in government, especially growth in redistribution expenditures. The empirical analysis takes advantage of the natural experiment provided by Switzerland’s extension of the franchise to women in 1971. Women’s suffrage represents an institutional change with potentially significant implications for the positioning of the decisive voter. For various reasons, the decisive voter is more likely to favor increases in governmental social welfare spending following the enfranchisement of women. Evidence indicates that this extension of voting rights increased Swiss social welfare spending by 28% and increased the overall size of the Swiss government. (((Abrams))), B.A. and Settle, R.F. (1999) “Women’s suffrage and the growth of the welfare state,” Public Choice, 100(3), p. 289. doi:10.1023/a:1018312829025.
Jace Martinez
>which make marriage less of a priority for them More like only cucks would marry a woman that subordinates herself to another man in her office and has zero time for her husband And there just aren't enough to go around and marry all of them
You do realize men are responsible for propaganda and strictness in the education system, right?
Dylan Brown
Their employer wasn't allowed to legally rape them, get drunk and beat her children, and didn't cheat on her and get another woman pregnant.
Andrew Butler
All I'm hearing is women are based. The government should spend money on useful things. Free speech is cringe. Ban blasphemy ban porn. Ban support of pedophilia, etc.
Jackson Hill
this is antisemitic goy are beasts for the use, abuse and amusement of Mr Shekelberg, stupid shiksa
