I RECENTLY talked to a female corporate executive who was unemployed. She had earned a handsome six-figure salary at her former job. She still had an annual six-figure income from her ex-husband and a six-figure income (or slightly less) from her current husband. Within a few months, after panic over her unexpected job loss, this mother of three young children found a new position in a dismal economy. Yes, it was a six-figure job too.

What is wrong with this picture? Here is what is wrong with it. One family. Three salaries.

Let’s speak the truth about feminists. They are taking jobs from others who need them. They are selfish and greedy. Feminism is founded on the gnostic belief in endless progress and the innate goodness of women. It is based on the lie that there are enough jobs for everyone, that taking a job without really needing it is a morally neutral act and that a woman is entitled to employment no matter how many men are unemployed. Here is a wonderful blogger named Laura at Full of Grace, Seasoned with Salt who is saying essentially the same thing. She writes:

Nothing disgusts me more than the woman who continues to work while her husband makes six figures. She is taking up good jobs for the men who really need them to support their family. All because she would be just too ‘bored’ at home and is thus entitled to a career.

Hip Hip Hooray! Here is another woman, another Laura, saying what I have said since I started this blog. Here is another “loser” like me. Hey, wait a minute. She doesn’t seem like a loser. Maybe she believes men should get preference in hiring for the following obvious reasons:

1. Men are talented.

2. Men are smart.

3. Men handle stress better.

4. Men are meant to be the head of families.

5. Women are needed at home.

6. The fallen birthrate will cause economic decline.

7. Absentee parenting has led to cultural decline.

8. Women are unhappy being men.

9. Women are suited to the holistic work of home, family and community.

10. The existence of a dual-income aristocracy raises prices for everyone.

11. The more workers, the lower the salaries.

12. The dual-income family is prone to divorce.

13. Divorce is not good for children.

14. Workplaces become surrogate homes when people do not have real homes. This suits business not people.

15. There are not enough jobs for everyone.

                                      — Comments —

Lisa writes:

Seeing impossible economic things work out for me and my family so many times in the nearly twenty-five years I have been home makes me truly skeptical when a mother tells me she just can not stay home because her husband doesn’t make enough, etc. Perhaps it is ignorance as to what a take-home income actually is after figuring in all additional expenses and taxes. Every “hired out” job I can learn to do (cutting hair, etc.) saves a certain amount of after-tax dollars, which, in before-deduction/tax/fee dollars, is nearly double. The time saved by my husband not having to earn those “double dollars” is quite a tax-free salary, I might add.

It is so sad that the “living wage” is so misunderstood in this egalitarian age. When my single brother living at home was paid less than the man he supervised because the man had a wife and children, my mother and grandmother were more upset than my brother. “It’s not fair!” I heard. Well, all this fairness is killing our families and our culture.

Tellie writes:

Thanks for posting this. The flight from the home by women who are convinced they should leave, has created an outsource industry:

The nanny industry
The fast food industry
The housekeeping industry
The education industry
The garden industry
The decorating industry

Just keep listing them. We are outsourcing our lives to other industries. Things formerly done at home by women that gave our nation strong families are now done by other people, many of them foreigners who do not share our values.And people criticise the antebellum way of life, when the mammies taught the white folks their songs and Bible verses. At least they were all on the same side; all Americans, and all in the same home.

Laura writes:

Hear! Hear! The outsourced life is slavery. It costs more and more and more. But you forgot a couple of industries:

The psychotherapy industry
The divorce industry
The entertainment industry
The day care industry
The higher education industrial complex

Karen I. writes:

The elder care industry is another industry that was affected by women leaving the home to work. I know of some old ladies who were among the first to get out of the home and into a job. They are growing old and lonely now as their daughters are too busy with their own jobs to help out or even pay a visit. Those of us born in the late 60s and early 70s were often the first generation of children in our families to have working mothers. Now that our parents are growing older, many of us do not feel an obligation to care for them as previous generations cared for their elderly parents. They’ve got retirement funds, insurance of all kinds, good (paid for) homes and all the nice things they traded our childhoods for. Those assets are now being used up to pay for their care and in the end, many wind up destitute in nursing homes. Nursing homes are very costly and assets must be almost entirely used up paying for care before the government will start assisting. Even if it does not come to a nursing home, in-home care, medical bills and so on also lead to financial problems in old age. What comes around, goes around, and our (now elderly) parents have no right to look to us for more care than they gave us. We may choose to provide it, but we may also choose to return the treatment we received when we were helpless children. It is a very sad cycle playing out with my generation as the daycare experiment comes full circle and daycares now exist for children and the elderly.

Laura writes:

Thank you for pointing this out. It should have been near the top of the list. Let me say one thing about this very important subject. All the money in the world and the fanciest “continuing care” or “assisted living” facility cannot replace the care of one’s own. Many working women do devote much time and tenderness to their aging parents. Many are still there in the periods of crisis, but they are not as involved on a regular basis. Also, women who might visit the old in their beighborhoods during the day are no longer around. I have seen what a vacuum this creates in the lives of the old and it is a tragedy.

I would also like to add, as I mentioned in my piece The Luminosity of Age, that caring for the old, simply being in their presence, is one of life’s greatest gifts.

Fitzgerald writes:

I find the other Laura’s comments on how women refer to their jobs as careers not just work thought provoking. It does seem some linguistic engineering is going on, or at the very least that women are building up what is just work to make it sound more important and justify their selfish actions. Guys certainly refer to their work as careers at times, but more often than not it’s work. Women do seem to refer to their “careers” even if they are working as a clerk at a bank, a bookkeeper at a small business, etc.. Nothing wrong with those important positions, but certainly much less impressive than more senior other professional careers than many, but not all men, pursue.

Fitzgerald continues:

Women have allowed themselves to be quantified and degraded to transactional, economic value. They were once held in much higher esteem and not reduced to cold, dehumanizing economics. Male worth societally has long been quantified in purely economic terms which are manifestly dehumanizing and degrading to the human person, this has been traditional the cross men have had to bear. As a man, your worth to some degree is based on whether are able to be productive and successful economically. In doing so men are trading away a huge chunk of their lives in exchange for money. 

Women traditionally have not pursued economic gain directly and thus were not subject to a cold economic quantification of their worth. They today commonly refer to their career and the need for this pursuit to be validated as a person and how by traditional rols “forcing” them to stay at home and raise a family devalued their worth. Women who stay at home on the surface seem to have lower economic value and to feminists have less worth… anyone with half a brain knows this is completely false. 

The cruel calculus of the real world takes a heavy toll on the human person. Real worth and value is transcendent, not temporal:  Where are you keeping your treasure? Men have always been forced to bring home the bacon subjecting them to the dehumanizing force of raw economics. Providing for a wife and family enobled this work into something greater than just a simple transaction. Without a wife and family to provide for, most men will not work as hard or as long as they would otherwise, doubling the negative effect of women entering the workforce in droves and taking jobs away from men. 

On another related thread, a large minority of jobs women pursue, err, I mean careers, are actually jobs that were once filled by younger men as starter or early career jobs, which are stepping stones to greater levels of success. These women are difficult to displace as the estrogen mafia controls them and let’s be honest ladies, women are more likely to be biased toward hiring other women than men are in hiring men or women.

Laura writes:

Yes to all of the above.

Excellent point about entry level jobs. I remember a lawyer saying to me once that we can’t afford to let more women go home because men don’t want the jobs they have. But they are entry-level jobs and many men would be happy to have them at the beginning.

Fitzgerald writes:

  Taking his assertion at face value, what does it say about women who pursue these “career” positions. Must be very validating!

Laura writes:

Yes, essentially what he is saying is this. We should continue to foster the lie that women find careers more satisfying than family because our economy depends on their mindless labor. To which, I reply: If it is indeed true that economic necessity commands that women in large numbers choose careers (not jobs), then let’s be honest about it. If we can agree that this is necessary and not desirable, we can begin to do something about it and work to restore men to a role of economic primacy.

The whole argument of economic determinism here is weak. How can we determine what we cannot change until we attempt change?

Mabel LeBeau writes:

I embarked on the long years of study for my intended career at an early age with no plans nor anticipation of marrying; no intention of falling in love and starting a family. When I married with three years left until licensure and there was no job opportunity available for my foreign-born husband, we decided he would support finishing my career working at a very low-paying job. When the children were born, he felt it was his duty to care for them.

The job market is getting tighter. It is a temporary situation in this recession. I feel no obligation to feel bad that I work hard, or that there might be a male out there similarly qualified that might want my particular job to support his family. I don’t feel bad that I should have known in advance not to engage in the competitiveness at a young age to enhance chances in pursuit of a prestigious career. And, I have never felt badly that I allowed myself to fall in love with a foreign citizen, nor that we helped raise a family of brightly inquisitive productive adults.

I feel no empathy for those that wish to feel sorry for themselves at whatever chances they might have missed by being negative about their opportunities. I cannot feel badly about a female manager who bemoans not spending time with family or lack of offspring when there was a choice to have children, if the spouse earns more than enough to support a family and hobbies. But, neither do I feel socially compelled to castigate the ‘greediness’ of a woman to maintain a highly-paid career at the cost of her children when there is more than adequate support-system for her to not have to work (and, it’s not a family-owned company or some other arrangement in which the woman must be separate from the kids without adequate contact from mother). It’s the English system of wet-nurses, governesses, tutors, and other personal slavery/assistants. And, we have a whole culture of entitled, disconnected disenfranchised humans to show for it, if the independent wealth allows purchase through life past outcomes of unhappy and neglected souls.  

Lydia Sherman writes:

My husband worked in an airport for many years. He observed that jobs, such as pilot, co-pilot, ramp and outdoor work, that once gave a man his pride because it was a man’s job were now being held by women. One thing that helps a man feel different from a woman is his work. It gives a man status and pride as a provider, to have a job to care for women and children; a job that women and children cannot do. With women working in men’s jobs, there is nothing different for a man to do that makes him feel uniquely a man. 

When a severe storm comes, it is not women who lift fallen trees off crushed cars. That’s one example of some jobs being uniquely manned by men. Work is more often than not unpleasant, so if a man can have the pride of knowing its a man’s job,and that he is doing it to provide for his wife and children, it gives him a little more motivation and some self dignity. When he sees women in the same workplace, competing with men, his thinking has to change. He then justifies working because of the worth in money. When women take over those jobs, it reduces work to just a trade off for money. 

The Bible teaches that a man should provide for his own family. When the wife decides to do the providing it takes away that special relationship with his Creator; that pact, so to speak with God. 

Please follow and like us: