This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: Multiple Breadwinners: An American Household Imperative

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Submitted by Ben Tanosborn of Tanosborn.com,

And the beat goes on!  More studies, more surveys, more statistics, more data to feed the ongoing fires in present day American cultural wars.  Apparently, it isn’t enough to have the constant bickering between the three conservative factions in American politics – ultra-right Tea-partiers, old-guard Republicans and Democrats – so we are now witnessing an attempt to bring forth a fight along gender lines; if not a fight, to add confusion to a situation that should be apolitical and crystal clear to everyone in America, but which, whether by art or design, it is not.

Last week, the Pew Research Center released a study stating that women are now the primary breadwinners in 40 percent of households with children in the US.  A figure which more than doubled that of a generation ago, and quadrupled that of nostalgic 50’s and 60’s America of “Leave It to Beaver” and “Father Knows Best”; a figure that would bring dissention even within the conservative cradle of Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News.

Megyn Kelly, a female Fox News anchor, claimed to be truly offended by a male colleague, Erick Erickson, who presumably had said children of working mothers don’t do as well in life as those from families with stay-at-home moms.  Erickson had asserted, it was charged, that in nature males are typically dominant, remark which crossed the ideological gender line and gave Kelly heroine status among many women as she argued on behalf of working mothers who run households with a median incomes less than one-twentieth of what she gets paid at Fox News.  In a capitalist society, the obscenely wealthy, or otherwise privileged – Ms. Kelly in this particular case – often lack credibility when they champion people and ideas which might involve the plight experienced by those in the low rungs of the socio-economic ladder, regardless of gender.  After all is said and done, the quality level of care received by children outside the home should be somewhat proportional to its cost (plus any subsidies provided), which in our multi-tiered system of daycare doesn’t level the field of opportunity for children; if anything, it extends or accentuates the existing socio-economic chasm.    

The reactions I heard or read to this family quarrel were for the most part filtered through personal experiences which colored the outcome accordingly, oftentimes with proclaimed “indisputable facts” which if scientifically studied might render profoundly different results.  A typical example which often makes the rounds in this type of debate is the statement that the overwhelming majority of convicted felons in the US come from a “fatherless” or broken family.  We simply forget that society in this nation has pushed the judicial system to incarcerate an inordinate number of individuals, questionably overrepresented by blacks, for drug-related crimes… creating the urban cotton fields of today’s post-slavery US. Indisputable facts that when scientifically studied, ironically bring us to disputable views of today’s America… an America which photographs differently in the eyes of such divergent opinions of a supposedly same reality.

There have been many scholarly studies made in nations of the first world, some here in the US, which deal with this issue of sociology in our modern economy and the possible advantage that a child might have when being raised by a “stay at home parent.” Yet, regardless of what these studies tell us, we might all be in agreement to one irrefutable fact… that, as a rule, mothers possess and provide the best love a child can have.  Any argument should stop there… for that is not the issue confronting us today.

Economic circumstances usually determine the need for multiple breadwinners in a household, and the household today in no way resembles the nuclear family of yesteryear.  Megyn Kelly, Erick Erickson and the rest of us are detracting from a Pew Center study which basically points to the existing household imperative in America which has made women not just breadwinners, but in 4 out of 10 cases, the primary breadwinner in a household.  Why has it reached that level at such socio-vertiginous speed?  And that is precisely what we should be discussing, and not ex-tempore sociological topics of male dominance and rearing of children.

Decrease in purchasing power, poverty and unemployment are the result of the destruction of local and regional economies brought about by globalization, and that is simply why we must adhere to the American household imperative of having more and more breadwinners in order to maintain economic sustainability in the household.

Americans – well, the bottom 80 percent – have lost control of their economic destiny… starting during the Reagan years, and the adherence of politicians of both ruling political parties to globalization.  By declining to govern ourselves, we have consented to taxation without representation, allowing the Fed – a few men of wealth or representing wealth – to redistribute wealth as it sees fit; not surprisingly taking money from the poor and middle class and passing it on to the rich.  It should not come as a surprise 1 in 20 households in the US (5.9 million households or 4.9 percent) is a millionaire household. And by that same reason, forfeiture of the right to govern ourselves, we have consented to a program of foreign aid, via globalization, which is paid in full by a job-disposed middle class… a middle class which has been disappearing in a sinkhole which extends from ex-industrial America, across the earth, and it’s now appearing in China.

Perhaps we would not be in these dire economic straits if instead of Erickson’s dominant males governing the US during the past 32 years… we had been ruled by brainy dominant females – not the Amazon-cliché type.  They couldn’t have fared any worse.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Tue, 06/04/2013 - 19:12 | 3624843 SMG
SMG's picture

All by design.  Revolt now or it's going to get much much worse.

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 19:33 | 3624882 UP Forester
UP Forester's picture

No matter who the breadwinner is, the flour in the bread will turn to mostly sugar, and the protein content has fallen by half since the 1930s....

And that's not even including the GMO wheat this economy is built upon....

Wed, 06/05/2013 - 05:50 | 3625599 IBelieveInMagic
IBelieveInMagic's picture

"we have consented to a program of foreign aid, via globalization"

 

Haha! This is rich! We really are in state of denial. Globalization is by product of US reserve currency status. The rest of the world has to earn USD to procure commodities since we have a lock on the supplies. So, it can hardly be deemed 'foreign aid' -- more like opportunity to earn slave wages for the ROW.

People make the wrong assumption without globalization, we would have all retained wonderful jobs here. Sadly the economic system has many interacting parts. Jobs would have depleted any which way due to technology productivity and with presence of excess human labor world wide. Period. We still got the better deal -- with reserve currency, we are at least able to hand out endless entitlements and make work jobs (gov jobs) and Americans have been/are able to consume excessively.

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 21:18 | 3625110 Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

Kill 'em all and let the election board sort it out.

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 19:18 | 3624853 blindman
blindman's picture

bread winners? john barleycorn must die !

Steve Winwood // Traffic - John Barleycorn (Must Die)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8878chOvfI
.
Watch "John Barleycorn (Must Die)" video
http://www.lyricsmania.com/john_barleycorn_must_die_lyrics_traffic.html
Lyrics to John Barleycorn (Must Die) :

There were three men came out of the west, their fortunes for to try
And these three men made a solemn oath
John Barleycorn must die
They've plowed, they've sown, they've harrowed him in
Threw clods upon his head
And these three men made a solemn oath
John Barleycorn was dead

They've let him lie for a very long time, 'til the rains from heaven did fall
And little Sir John sprung up his head and so amazed them all
They've let him stand 'til Midsummer's Day 'til he looked both pale and wan
And these three men made a solemn oath on poor John Barleycorn

They've hired men with their scythes so sharp to cut him off at the knee
They've rolled him and tied him by the waist, serving him most barbarously
They've hired men with their sharp pitchforks who've pricked him to the heart
And the loader he has served him worse than that
For he's bound him to the cart

They've wheeled him around and around a field 'til they came onto a barn
And there they made a solemn oath on poor John Barleycorn
They've hired men with their crabtree sticks to cut him skin from bone
And the miller he has served him worse than that
For he's ground him between two stones

And little Sir John and the nut brown bowl and his brandy in the glass
And little Sir John and the nut brown bowl proved the strongest man at last
The huntsman he can't hunt the fox nor so loudly to blow his horn
And the tinker he can't mend kettle or pots, without a little barleycorn

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 19:18 | 3624854 seek
seek's picture

For the government to take the role of a parent to the soon-to-be slaves, it has to get rid of at least one of the existing parents, preferably the one most dominant and likely to resist.

Follow that path to its logical conclusion and you are here.

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 19:52 | 3624914 Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

let the bodies hit the floor

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 19:23 | 3624863 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Well, I got a buddy of mine who checked out/lucked out.

His wife is the breadwinner (she makes major buckage), he stays home with the kids, he says he loves it...we tease him relentlessly of course...not sure if its not tinged with envy on everyones part though ;-)

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 21:29 | 3625140 Will To Live
Will To Live's picture

Bottom line. Woman and spouse work. One for the taxes the other for everything else. No one home to watch the hoodlums. Were fuct.

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 19:35 | 3624869 ebworthen
ebworthen's picture

This is what the consumption mania and debt spending has brought about.

Post WWII corporations said; "Hmm...how can we increase profits?".

Why, keep "Rosie the Riveter" in the workforce of course!  Get her out of the home raising children.  She'll want to buy her own car to get to work, work clothes, gas, tires, and quick fix meals!

Then, with two incomes, we can sell more houses in suburbs, which will mean more lumber, more appliances, more STUFF!!!!

Government was happy to go along with this as destroying the role of a Man as Husband and Father meant Big Government took his place.

How has this worked out for the society?  Horribly, but seems it seems to be funneling to the kleptoligarchy a lot of money and power.

Brilliant.

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 20:57 | 3625062 cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

This is an entirely accurate picture of how we got where we are.

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 21:15 | 3625101 PKF
PKF's picture

As WWII ended, there was a massive campaign to get women OUT of the work force!  Please don't revise history.  Women were to give the GIs their jobs and they were to go home and give birth to the Baby Boomers....which they did.

Women entering the work force en masse did not occur until The Womens Movement gained ground. 

And all of this Divide & Conquer by Gender is not doing The Former Middle Class any good whatsoever.  The Rich Dudes sent their Blue Collar brothers' (and later the White Collar) jobs overseas and with that went The Unions which provided enough money for a One-Breadwinner family.  Unions are gone and the Former Middle Class dudes seem to blame the women for this....No, it's the Rich Dudes who deserve the blame. 

If we're gonna have a war, it should be a Class one, not a Gender one. 

Pitchforks and torches for the Banksters!

Wed, 06/05/2013 - 01:33 | 3625499 AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

poor women, men, and children always worked whether paid or not.

 

men working dirty strenuous jobs

women working interior homemaking jobs

older children raising young ones

younger ones entertaining older ones

 

no smart women wants to move up the career ladder by becoming men. they want to marry rich. That is the retirement plan.

Wed, 06/05/2013 - 08:25 | 3625764 kareninca
kareninca's picture

I guess there aren't a lot of smart women, since all the young women I know are really keen on getting a high-powered career.  With stock options as the retirement plan.

None of them want to marry rich:  who wants to stay home and be bossed around by a moron?  They all want to marry guys who are smart and also have high powered careers.  Failing that, they want to marry a guy who will take care of the kids.

Just being in the presence of their ambition makes me want to take a nap.

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 19:27 | 3624871 WallowaMountainMan
WallowaMountainMan's picture

'women are now the primary breadwinners in 40 percent of households with children in the US. ;

speaks well for the fathers.

not.

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 20:07 | 3624947 IridiumRebel
IridiumRebel's picture

'women are now the primary breadwinners in 40 percent of households with children in the US. ;

speaks well for the system.

not.

 

fixed it for ya

Wed, 06/05/2013 - 01:36 | 3625500 AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

when husband gets laid off $60k/year job and family depends on wife's $30k year retail service job she took for extra spending cash, she is now the breadwinner but that  family isn't getting much bread.

 

by making men poor, women won the battle, but the family lost the war against capital.

Wed, 06/05/2013 - 03:40 | 3625567 stacking12321
stacking12321's picture

AH, dont post this drivel regarding your made-up fantasy scenarios.

and there is no war between family and capital, except in your own mind.

it's clear to me that your nuclear family is made up primarily of radioactive isotopes.

 

Wed, 06/05/2013 - 18:50 | 3627914 WallowaMountainMan
WallowaMountainMan's picture

agreed with the 'made-up fantasy scenarios' part.

Wed, 06/05/2013 - 08:17 | 3625745 PT
PT's picture

AH:  "by making men poor, women won the battle, but the family lost the war against capital." = + 1000 000

Equal rights didn't make women's wages as great as men's.  It made men's wages as small as women's.  Go back 30 years, a working husband could afford a house, a car, a few kids and a dog.  If both hubby and wife were working then the family home got paid off in seven years, not 25 or 30.  But now the family unit has lost its full time house-keeper home-maker and for what?  And extra 18 years of debt slavery.  An extra 30 years of making someone else rich.

And let's knock this "career woman chooses to work" BS on its head straight away.  You're a career woman?  Great!  Have fun!  But I'd argue most women, (and men) work because they have to, not because they want to.  Working your guts out as a factory slave to help pay off the mortgage while someone else brings up your kids is not a career.  When you're 70 years old, are you going to wish you spent more time sewing buttons on shirts, asking "If you want fries with that" organizing corporate mergers, or whatever else your job entails, or would you wish you spent more time watching your babies grow up?????  You earn more than hubby?  Great again.  You go to work while he stays home and looks after the kids, I don't care.  But people need to recognize the truth.  The double income family was a good idea when only one or two people were doing it.  You got to get ahead.  But now you've lost your house, lost your family and for what?  To take on more debt and to allow some banker to update his BMW every 6 months instead of every year.

And don't expect us single people to pay for your kid's child care (through taxes).  What an insult.  We can't afford kids of our own and yet have to pay for someone else's kids.

Whoops, started to drift away there.  Let me say it again:  Reclaim your spouse.  Reclaim your kids.  You may end up homeless but that might happen anyway.  Recognize the home-maker as a valuable asset to your household.  While they're at home, they are making you rich (okay, you might need to throw the TV away first).  While they are at work, they are keeping your household poor, and someone else's family rich.

The spouse who stays home isn't tired from trying to juggle housework and career.  They have time to tend any home problems that need sorting out.  They have time to source the best bargains, to return crap to the shops it came from, and to sort out a multitude of other little problems that are the difference between a house and a home.  They don't bring more money to the house but money buys SFA these days anyway.  They make you rich in every other way.

And reclaim your kids.  "Every son is an extra arrow for his father's bow."  Is that how you feel about your children?  If not, then why not?  What would it take to change?  They're your kids, your wife / hubby.  If they aren't on your side, then sure as hell, no-one else is.  Are they making you "Rich" or are they making someone else rich?  ("Rich" doesn't mean money, it means bringing joy to the family in whatever way.  But when they make someone else rich, chances are they are just letting the other person gain more money.)

Disclaimer:  Yes, I am single and was never interested in having a family.  I just notice things as I get older.  Use your brain, as required.

 

Wed, 06/05/2013 - 08:48 | 3625820 Widowmaker
Widowmaker's picture

This is well said.   Children have been monetized.

Sadly in the Fascist States of America we don't give a fuck abut "family" or sustainability.  But hey, faggots get what they want!

The USA is damned.   Buckle-up buttercup.

Wed, 06/05/2013 - 19:15 | 3627933 WallowaMountainMan
WallowaMountainMan's picture

PT:

"And don't expect us single people to pay for your kid's child care (through taxes).  What an insult.  We can't afford kids of our own and yet have to pay for someone else's kids."

me be single, child-less too.

i don't mind helpin out kids.

its the deadbeat dads-ex-husband types that i'd tie to 60 hour work weeks so their kids would have a chance. to be educated. to know hapiness, etc.

help all kids say i.

their only crime was being borne.

insult to you, honor to me.

Wed, 06/05/2013 - 18:33 | 3627860 WallowaMountainMan
WallowaMountainMan's picture

AH:

small statistical sample of the 40%.

strawman i say.

but i do agree women because of gender get retail service jobs...not the 60k job.

Wed, 06/05/2013 - 19:01 | 3627852 WallowaMountainMan
WallowaMountainMan's picture

IR:

mezza sticks with my original comment, but thanks for the alternative.

let me ask youzza question.

what % of households in the survey were single parent?

therein lies my comment.

cut and run fathers are the far and away #1 reason more women are 'head of household'.

 

 

 

Fri, 06/07/2013 - 14:27 | 3634684 PT
PT's picture

WMH:

Common problem on this side of the world:  Man marries, has kids, has mining job earn the "big" money to pay the bills.  Man works away for 4,6 or more weeks at a time.  (4 weeks on 1 week off means only see family 20% of the time).  Wife complains man is never home.  Man tries to make up for it by providing more "material support" i.e works his guts out - nice home, kids want for nothing but he is never there, wife divorces husband (because he is never there anyway), hubby goes back to the mines to try and earn enough money to pay a lawyer so he can get access to see his own kids that he pays for but never sees ... dumb spiral.

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 19:30 | 3624877 AurorusBorealus
AurorusBorealus's picture

Let us get several facts, facts, in order.  1)  The overwhelming majority of divorces and familial separations are initiated by women.  There are many studies that substantiate this Fact, and I will not list them all here.  Any google search should reveal this.  2)  As a result, in many cases, that women are the "dominant breadwinners" in many families is not an "economic imperative;" it is a decision made by a woman.  3)  The rise of the wellfare state and the feminist imperative (yes!  it is an imperative in all the teachings of feminism) for women to live independently of men is an interconnected phenomena.  Without one, the other could not exist (feminism and welfare are 2 sides of the same coin.)  4)  The fact that 2 entire generations of young people have grown up without fathers and without much of a work ethic (because of welfare subsidies) is a direct result of the feminist revolution.  5)  No one, NO ONE, is allowed to question this revolution, and everyone must insist that it is all for the best.  It is truly the most startling event of modern times: the destruction of a 6,000 year old social order in 20 or so years.  And no one questions it!

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 20:31 | 3625002 newworldorder
newworldorder's picture

"5)  No one, NO ONE, is allowed to question this revolution, and everyone must insist that it is all for the best. "

It cannot be questioned because it is an integral part  the womens liberation movement. Rather than acknowledging that children need a mother and father - or at least one parent in the home providing guidance - the womens liberation movement has declared that single mothers can shoulder the entire burden. Turn child rearing over to the government sponsored "village" and all will be well.

Women should have every opportunity  equal to men. Few would dispute this. The reality however is that a child needs a parent who can give that child her/his undevided attention. For many reasons, including the womens liberation movement we have destroyed the concept of family in this country. The womens movement will never accept any criticim for the part they are playing in this.


Tue, 06/04/2013 - 21:25 | 3625131 PKF
PKF's picture

Instead of blaming women for not staying home to care for kids, why not have decent day care at the office?  This was a big demand back in the '70's. 

Everyone says they love kids but it's only the women who are supposed to care for them.  Or to even provide a space for the kids to have a bit of fun, learn a bit, paint, have lunch, take a nap....it's not Rocket Science. 

But here we are and still no Day Care at the Corporation.  I don't think CEOs like kids...or is mothers? 

It just seems to be such an easy solution to what everyone seems to be all upset about. 

Maybe we should copy the French system where the mother gets PAID LEAVE PLUS HELP!!!  Their System actually does want well-adjusted children who grow into decent adults. 

Our system punishes mothers, kids, and fathers. Our system hates people who are NOT wealthy....very wealthy.  Wages have been flat since 1972...we are and have been screwed. 

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 22:15 | 3625248 newworldorder
newworldorder's picture

You have asked a sincere question and I will try to give you a sincere answer.

From my observations inside a number of mid to large corporations, over the course of a career, I can say that women (and men) as individuals have little to no leverageto extract what they need from corporations. Other than inability to fill critical skills, corporations do not care for the welfare of their employees or the well being of society in general. A lot of lip service is given to women and along with the glass ceiling and equal pay these problems are not solved. Why? Because women do not do anything other than complain in the media. Like men they have no economic leverage to bring about change. 

HR Directors offer women a lot of platitudes, but at the end of the day, very little gets done. The system has been set up to function this way.

Wed, 06/05/2013 - 07:58 | 3625707 fajensen
fajensen's picture

Many of the HR-directors are women - which in many cases conflates the female interest in "motivation analysis" with the maximisation of the extraction of value from the ressources to make the workplace even more toxic!

Wed, 06/05/2013 - 18:45 | 3627894 WallowaMountainMan
WallowaMountainMan's picture

agreed.

its a profits centered world with total disregard to family values.

among other things.

like the planet.

 

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 22:15 | 3625250 Jena
Jena's picture

Why, really, would kids belong in an office or any other work setting?  This may not be a popular question but it seems like the last place any business would want them.  Imagine the liability involved.  If you were running a business, would you want to be responsible for workers and their children? 

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 22:24 | 3625276 newworldorder
newworldorder's picture

Your comments have proved my point. Corporations only protect and take care of what they value. Labor, whether provided by men or women is not valued beyond its ability to be replaced.

As to the issues of liability, there are many examples where major accomodations were made, ie; Defense Manufacturing during WW 2 and current family planning policies within the EU. Look at many of our EU allies. Their policiies to women in the workplace, family planning and social values toward families speak volumes, while we here in the US remain silent.

Wed, 06/05/2013 - 10:49 | 3626249 Jena
Jena's picture

WW2, yes.  Major accomodations wee made due to extraordinary labor needs.  When real unemployment is somewhere between 10 - 15% that is not going to happen.  Should labour more valuable?  Perhaps.

My own experience is in healthcare.  I can't think of a worse place to group children for daycare than in a place where sick and dying people are being housed.  If the daycare were to be offsite, it still would be a lousy idea since so many of my former co-workers came to work sick themselves on a regular basis and talked about sending their kids to daycare/school sick.  They picked up extra 12 hour shifts on their days off to fuel their lifestyle, which helped ensure they were chronically rundown.

You talk about corporations.  We run a (very) small business with a few employees so I defend the employer.  How large a concern does it have to be before it becomes a "corporation"?  It's easy to suggest policy but anyone who has had to meet a payroll or cover continued work while empolyees take (paid) time off will understand that running a business is a difficult proposition.  Things that look simple from the employee side often are not.

I don't see that pointing to our EU allies as a better way of doing business.  Most of their policies are possible only because of the far higher taxes within the zone.  Is it better that it's nearly impossible to fire someone in some of the member countries, even for cause?

 

Wed, 06/05/2013 - 08:55 | 3625849 PT
PT's picture

Meanwhile in third world countries, women work alongside their children in fields, they dream of having a hubby who would do the work while they kept house with the kids.  The "woman chooses to be career woman" BS blinds us to all the women who would rather not be in the "workforce".

You may get your wish, you may get "child care" at work.  But then, the child may want to make a few extra bucks, and why not?  If he's at work, he may as well ... and then the price of houses will go up again and before you know it, the kid will be making mortgage payments, not buying Lego sets, and you'll be popping out more babies to help pay the f%$#@!ing mortgage off!  Sound daft?  Well its the same logic that suckered you into the workforce, isn't it?

20 years ago when I was a factory slave, I noticed a couple of mothers and daughters working together in the same factory.  These were not "careers"!  They were minimum wage jobs!  And I was distressed.  All I could think of was this woman and her daughter are making the factory owner rich, and next generation the daughter and grand-daughter will be making the boss's son rich.  I thought we'd progressed from there.  Okay, I don't know.  Maybe the hubby worked and they all lived a quality life together outside the factory floor.  But back then, a good house cost half the minimum wage.  These days, minimum wage pays 80% of the mortgage on the cheapest house in the cheapest suburb, and a decent house costs 100% of a tradesman's wage.  Slavery creeps up on you over time.

You think you chose a career?  You may be right.  But I'd argue that a lot of people were tricked into calling slavery a "career".

Wed, 06/05/2013 - 19:14 | 3627975 WallowaMountainMan
WallowaMountainMan's picture

PT

'The "woman chooses to be career woman" BS blinds us to all the women who would rather not be in the "workforce".

no blindness, just less opportunity due to globalization and the resultant price of goods set to the lowset sum of $/hour plus shipping costs.

used to be called 'made in japan' after the war.

Wed, 06/05/2013 - 18:42 | 3627886 WallowaMountainMan
WallowaMountainMan's picture

AB,

"the overwhelming majority of divorces and familial separations are initiated by women.'

a, yup. and the vast majority of people who opposed slavery were black.

also applies to rest of your crap. sooo much crap that you must be a woman in disquise, trying to prove my point that, among most who read here, based on your 'up' arrows, are small minded males with many issues that they hide behind so as to cloud simple and real facts.

'head of household' women had to take drastic action (divorce, seperation of family, etc ) to get away from weenie based males who could not keep it in their pants, and then blamed their mistakes on others.

this has to do with abuse, not equality.

strawman weenie are u.

methinkest so.

:)

Wed, 06/05/2013 - 19:09 | 3627966 WallowaMountainMan
WallowaMountainMan's picture

AB:

'It is truly the most startling event of modern times: the destruction of a 6,000 year old social order in 20 or so years.'

mezza just could not resist one more arrow into the sky.

6000 year old social order...

otta be able to justify lots of injustice with that one.

:)

 

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 19:34 | 3624884 CheapBastard
CheapBastard's picture
Former Navy Seal Reveals Transgender Identity

 

For 20 years, Beck served as an enlisted petty officer in the elite Navy Seals, amassing seven warzone deployments, a Bronze Star, and a Purple Heart -- as well as a tour in Seal Team Six, the secretive unit that went on to kill Osama bin Laden. Born and raised as Chris Beck, she was a man's man -- a football player, avid motorcyclist, and war hero.

But Beck never felt entirely comfortable as a man. Shortly after retiring from the service in early 2011, she began to transition -- "working toward my own peace as a woman," as she recently put it on Twitter.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/meet-transgender-navy-seal/story?id=...

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 19:39 | 3624891 Bendromeda Strain
Bendromeda Strain's picture

Demi Moore did it first...

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 19:59 | 3624928 Uncle Remus
Tue, 06/04/2013 - 20:18 | 3624978 DaddyO
Tue, 06/04/2013 - 21:13 | 3625095 Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

 No beating around the "Bush" there.

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 20:06 | 3624945 Pure Evil
Pure Evil's picture

Had three of those at my last workplace. One could never lose the man look, broad shoulders, large muscle mass, height greater than 6 feet and you could still hear the bass tones in its voice.

The question always asked was why do you become a woman only to keep your lesbian girlfriend.

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 19:35 | 3624886 kaiserhoff
kaiserhoff's picture

So now the Democrats are one of "three CONSERVATIVE factions in American politics????

Looks like ZH really has gone Stalinist retard.

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 20:18 | 3624973 Pure Evil
Pure Evil's picture

I think Ben Tanosborn, the writer of this trifling little POS, is the one that has gone Stalinist Retard.

Anyone that thinks Faux News is a conservative outpost has truly gone the FULL RETARD.

Oh, by the way, you've been click baited.

Wed, 06/05/2013 - 05:54 | 3625601 Room 101
Room 101's picture

If you define "conservative" in the classic sense of not wanting change and preservation of the status quo, then the 'rats are just as conservative as the the repugnicans.

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 19:38 | 3624889 Bendromeda Strain
Bendromeda Strain's picture

You (OP) are full of it pal - being "led by women" has accelerated the decline immensely - and even today, after Fast & Furious, Benghazi, the IRS and Media snooping scandals, a majority of women still like the cut of Obama's jib. Must be the mom jeans...

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 19:44 | 3624899 They trynna cat...
They trynna catch me ridin dirty's picture

The liberal brainwashed set sees "female breadwinners" as a triumph, whereas anyone with any common sense sees that it now takes two spouses working full time and drowning in debt to provide the same middle class lifestyle that was attainable on one man's income a couple of generations ago.

One country where a middle class lifestyle is still attainable on one man's income is Japan, but as we all know, the internationalists insist that Japan must force its women into the work force, send all its manufacturing overseas via free trade agreements, and let in hordes of third world immigrants in order to 'improve its quality of life.'

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 19:53 | 3624915 Hulk
Hulk's picture

Being a mother is one of the most important jobs in the World.

Its a damn shame most kids will never get to spend much time with their mother...

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 20:21 | 3624982 Pure Evil
Pure Evil's picture

Why not force women into the workplace. It's one more revenue stream to the IRS/Treasury.

And, another wage/debt slave is added to the books.

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 20:36 | 3625013 They trynna cat...
They trynna catch me ridin dirty's picture

Yup.  Also a great way to get the kids into the public brainwashing institutions at an early age, and to undermine the traditional family by forcing men and women into competition with each other instead of complementing each other as God and nature intended.

Wed, 06/05/2013 - 08:55 | 3625847 Widowmaker
Widowmaker's picture

Traditional family is dead.  You are speaking in past tense.

Any likes of a traditional family will be taken on behalf of more important matters like record bonuses for bankers.

You probably think Widowmaker is joking..

The American family has been gutted.  One cant clooge the guts back in and have a working corpse.

Say it with Widowmaker, "No one saw it coming."

Wed, 06/05/2013 - 09:00 | 3625862 PT
PT's picture

They trynnacat...

+1000000

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 19:46 | 3624903 noless
noless's picture

Last paragraph killed it for me, how in the fuck did the author arrive at that conclusion?

Here we go, Hillary 2016

Total bullshit.

And did the author really mean "job disposed" and not "job dispossessed"?

Feminists write laws, gender issues are widely politicized.

I'm not going to bother getting into a gender debate on zh over this article, as this is the same second wave bullshit that's been spewed as nauseum for the past 40-50 years.

You want a reasoned take then go hit up girlwriteswhat. Just google her and watch the
address to the libertarian party of new York.

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 19:49 | 3624906 cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

Getting women into the workplace was a corporate wet dream:

Women are easier for managers to dominate than men. They tend not to create problems. They have a very advanced sense of "fairness" which while it encourages even-handedness also makes them vulnerable to emotional manipulation.

Women can do any of the white-collar work that men can do, a good part of the blue-collar work, and sometimes better than men.

I'm a man, and for 40 years that's how I've seen it.

However (and this is huge):

The entry of women into the workplace has given corporations a big advantage over labor, and opened up our entire culture to their evil manipulations. There are now a lot more applicants for jobs than might have been the case if women "stayed home with the kids". Also women-at-work has largely led to the corporate take-over of child rearing. Day care (often shoddy) has exploded, and schools are run more like corporations than they were when moms were regularly engaged. Since kids have less access to parents with no one at home Big Pharma has stepped in with a massive campaign to drug children to make them more "cooperative" in and out of school. The ads you see now in ladies' magazines are dominated by (it's really sickening) offerings of hard drugs for behavioral "ailments" that in yesteryear would have been thought perfectly healthy childhood phases.

None of this has anything to do with getting ahead economically. Any economic gains women made in the 70's and 80's were quickly devoured by Federal Reserve engineered inflation and financial fraud. Now it really does take two incomes just to make ends meet, and yet we are more dependent on safety nets today than we ever were in the past.

This situation cannot endure. Americans will go back to one-income families when real unemployment (lead by net de-industrialization) hits 40%. By that point half the time the wage earner will be the wife, half the time the husband. But then slowly women will notice that they miss being in their homes with their children along side other women and will work on getting their husbands back into the work force. In a generation we will have finally reverse this very ill-considered, corrosive course of breaking up families for quick financial gain. Our children will be happier and healthier, our wives will be doing what they naturally desire to do, and men will be in a better position to go hammer-and-tongs against the filthy corporate takeover of our cultural and natural existence.

But for now, we must suffer.

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 19:58 | 3624926 nmewn
nmewn's picture

I'm in general agreement with all that...especially the pumping of drugs into young males to "calm them down"...they're males for crying out loud, its what they are, they're not "docile".

Having said that, I'm white collar and everyone in my office knows when the lone female there decides to retire, we're all screwed.

Seriously, she's that good at what she does.

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 20:02 | 3624936 IridiumRebel
IridiumRebel's picture

What will you and the other boys have to masturbate to on break when she goes? I bet you're into the grey pantsuit she wears...yeah....with her hair up.

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 20:20 | 3624958 nmewn
nmewn's picture

She just celebrated her 40th year with the company.

You do the math ;-)

/////////////

As an FYI...my little troll gave you the first down vote. He likes to do that.

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 20:28 | 3624999 Pure Evil
Pure Evil's picture

If anyone has read Brave New World, we'd realize the ultimate goal is to separate child rearing from the parental units. This is done via feminism and corporate/public schools. First peel off the father, then isolate the mother from her children through day care and then public school.

Once the technology of babies in a bottle is perfected all childrearing will be done by the state.

Of course, they'll all be Ritaline addicted zombie robots.

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 20:30 | 3625006 cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

my little troll

So is that what your wife calls it?

j/k

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 20:58 | 3625064 nmewn
nmewn's picture

lol...we've always called him Kyle Basa ;-)

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 20:11 | 3624946 cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

Everyone will just figure it out. And seriously, who says the way things are getting done is even close to sane? Corporations cannot get enough extracted labor, ever.  Lots of women work themselves into early heart disease just because they can and everyone thanks them for it, and nobody ever tells them to just go home early and enjoy some time with their families.

It's heart breaking. I wish women would figure out how badly they have been exploited, put a foot down and say fuck all of this useless crap I'm going home.

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 20:17 | 3624975 nmewn
nmewn's picture

"Lots of women work themselves into early heart disease just because they can and everyone thanks them for it, and nobody ever tells them to just go home early and enjoy some time with their families.

It's heart breaking."

Yes.

But around this office everyone recognizes HER as the boss, even the boss.

And yes, even she's getting sick of the corporate bullshit, which has grown tenfold over the last five years. If she (we) see "Team" one more time on the corporate web page we're all gonna meltdown...lol.

Just show us the money & benis honey, we'll take care of the rest.

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 21:16 | 3625103 Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

Gawd I hate that "team" bullshit. Hard to pin a tail on a multi-assed donkey.

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 22:38 | 3625300 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Its the latest thing Unc...they all go to the same seminars, same conventions, the same "speaking engagements"...shrimp & cocktails and whatnot.

The term is one of the most drop-dead pieces of bullshit corporate propaganda there is these days...they got over yesteryears 2009-2011 "synergy" trope when the workers figured out it meant...layoffs.

No word yet on if the inventor of the term synergy was laid off...I kinda doubt it...he moved on to the tired old "Team" concept, again ;-)

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 23:40 | 3625366 newworldorder
newworldorder's picture

RE: the "team" concept.

Have you ever noticed how important the "team" concept is in whatever way management defines "team?" 

Have you also noticed that when it comes time for your PERFORMANCE REVIEW,  the "team" concept is not present. Suddenly it reversts back to YOU or I and you are asked to defend your individual performance. With the exception of union positions, very few workers in this country are paid on a "team" basis. Almost all are paid on the the quality/quatinty work that one performs on an individual basis.

Got to admit however,  - this is one sublime tactic invented by the "feel good management squad" to keep everyone in line. It gets even better for managers, if other "team members" are able to provide input into your individual performance and how well you do your job. And you know, - most "team" members will willingly swallow all this and feel great in the process.

Wed, 06/05/2013 - 06:49 | 3625625 nmewn
nmewn's picture

"Have you also noticed that when it comes time for your PERFORMANCE REVIEW,  the "team" concept is not present."

Yes I have.

I was told a few years back that I can longer be graded excellent (after several excellent reviews) in job performance because their matrix says I would have to move up and replace them. So now it's just acceptable, very good, above average.

Go team matrix! ;-)

Wed, 06/05/2013 - 07:02 | 3625640 Go Tribe
Go Tribe's picture

Team = no one responsible for anything.

Limp-dick men in the workplace are no longer allowed to lose their tempers and say WHO IN THE FUCK CAME UP WITH THAT BRAINSTORM?

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 20:23 | 3624989 Five8Charlie
Five8Charlie's picture

.

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 20:06 | 3624942 Fake_nation
Fake_nation's picture

Not to mention that daycare, etc. is taxable, whereas the free labor of a mother isn't. Commidify and collect on everything.

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 20:47 | 3625043 newworldorder
newworldorder's picture

RE: cougar_w

Very profound and to the point observations. Corporations have since 1980 or so been given "lisences to print labor." Think about it - In addition to the womens movement, we have had almost unrestricted movement of legal and illigal labor entering the US. Couple this with NAFTA and loss of jobs through globalization and you have a perfect recipe for killing any labor competetion.

This has already happened to us on a grand and ireversable scale. Beyond economics, what it has done to our country is irepairable. And yet, most Americans can not see this. It astounds me that educated people are not able to see the colusion between corporations and government for the detriment of labor.

Wed, 06/05/2013 - 04:09 | 3625578 stacking12321
stacking12321's picture

"lisences to print labor."?

sounds like a weird protectionist thing to say, said by someone scared of being replaced by mexicans or robots, etc.

a comparison can't be made between printing money and "printing labor" as per the examples you gave - the labor is real labor, done by real people, it is like real money (gold).

you may cry for big brother to come protect you by "guarding the border" (an imaginary line in the dirt) and other assorted statist nonsense, but you should be careful what you wish for. what truly empowers people is the absence of tyranny, the absence of a uniformed thug holding a gun to everyone's head, taking a huge portion of their earnings, and telling them what to do, where they can go, with whom they can engage in economic transactions, etc.

let's put an end to government, and there will be an end to the collusion between corporations and government that you speak of.

 

 

 

Wed, 06/05/2013 - 08:54 | 3625844 fedupwhiteguy
fedupwhiteguy's picture

I'll take a secure border and national SOVEREIGNTY any day, all day!!

Wed, 06/05/2013 - 13:00 | 3626710 stacking12321
stacking12321's picture

i'll take my personal sovereignty over your nationalistic sovereignty any day.

 

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 22:25 | 3625279 Yes_Questions
Yes_Questions's picture

 

 

and men will be in a better position to go hammer-and-tongs against the filthy corporate takeover of our cultural and natural existence.

 

Thank you.  Very well said.

 

My divorce from wife I is easily blamed (on the surface) on economic, career pressures.  She was never a stay at home mom, I woke up in 2001 and just couldn't do the hamster wheel well enough.  

 

Anyway: you hit a nerve with the better position to go hammer-and-tongs aspect, but I want the ladies to know you're free to take the front.  Probably a better chance of success.

 

 

 

 

 


Tue, 06/04/2013 - 19:56 | 3624913 Diogenes
Diogenes's picture

It would be quite possible to live on one salary if we accepted the same standard of living ordinary people enjoyed in the fifties.

Father, mother and 2 or 3 children in a 1200 to 1500 square foot, 3 bed, one bath bungalow, or 1000 square foot 3 bedroom apartment. One 14" black and white TV with no remote. Six cylinder Plymouth or Chev sedan, bought used. Clothes hand me downs. Pop, candy, and takeout food a rare treat not everyday fare.Fridge, stove, AM tube radio, Mixmaster, a toaster, all expected to last for at least ten years. No other appliances.

Vacation, a week at a cabin on a nearby lake. Air travel an exotic luxury for the jet set.

I think today welfare recipients would complain if forced to live the way well off working class and lower middle class families lived in the fifties and earlier.

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 19:59 | 3624932 IridiumRebel
IridiumRebel's picture

They will be experiencing this way of life quite shortly. I hope it becomes as tough as Hell for them, the lazy fucks. 

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 20:02 | 3624935 cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

American's are absolutely 100% going back to exactly that.

We will be sooooo much happier once we learn to slow down and enjoy an uncomplicated life, I don't see how we could not be.

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 22:59 | 3625322 Yes_Questions
Yes_Questions's picture

 

 

Hope is alive.  But, house prices will have to fall in line with a single wage eaner's, middle income that can 1) allow one to save the out of pocket needed to close escrow in time to enjoy the family  2.) have payments on a 30 year note not to exceed 20% NET monthly pay on that wage so there is enough left for maintenance, etc. and 3.) be insulated somehow from price fluctuations outside of the range his/her counterparts can reasonably afford.

 

That bungalow will have to cost about $75k with a $60k loan, based on current median income.

 

This will require a BIG Shift in the current paradigm.  A really, BIG Shift.  Oh, and some principal writedowns.   Cause wages are not going up, I don't care how many boomers retire.

 

 

 

 

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 19:53 | 3624918 blindman
blindman's picture

@"Economic circumstances usually determine the need ..."
who defines the basic unit of money? there the criminal
orchestrating the wars, tragedy and strategy for skimming and
usury, same as it ever was but now we know?
of profits and prophets .....

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 19:57 | 3624924 IridiumRebel
IridiumRebel's picture

My wife makes more than me. So what. We tag team the childcare and are about to deploy the grandparents. Whatever gets it done. 

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 19:58 | 3624927 blindman
blindman's picture

one might have noticed the physically visible, work worn
and beaten are the poor and impoverished. so they came up
with the phrase "work smart, not hard" but , please, enjoy the
benefit of the hardworking and monetarily ignorant class,
ongoing, aka steal their labor and other available goodies.
john barleycorn must die.

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 20:02 | 3624934 Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

Welcome to the clusterfuck.

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 20:03 | 3624937 IridiumRebel
IridiumRebel's picture

Shit, I'm used to it by now so no welcome needed.

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 22:29 | 3625288 yogibear
yogibear's picture

Well, then,  Welcome to the clusterfuck #N.

Each bigger than the previous.

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 20:03 | 3624939 NihilistZero
NihilistZero's picture

He lost me at "...the three conservative factions in American politics – ultra-right Tea-partiers, old-guard Republicans and Democrats"

Trashing the idea of conservatisim (which none of these groups really are) or true liberalisim (Which hasn't been seen since Jefferson) and feeding in to the false Left/Right paradigm ain't what I come to ZeroHedge for...

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 20:25 | 3624994 NoDebt
NoDebt's picture

I hung in there until:  "the bottom 80 percent – have lost control of their economic destiny… starting during the Reagan years..."

Got it.  Reagan's fault.  I'm a little slow on the uptake, aparently.  I want the last 3 minutes of my life back.

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 20:44 | 3625010 Pure Evil
Pure Evil's picture

Just take it as an example of how the statist mindset works. I was just amazed it wasn't all blamed on Ike instead of Reagan. I guess they figure today's American Idol generation knows anything about Ole Bubblehead.

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 20:06 | 3624944 Bear
Bear's picture

Both men and women have had to work for thousands of years. It was only with the advance of technology, 1870 to 2000, that woman were accorded the luxury to simply attend to home chores. They got bored, created a movement (feminism), they succeeded with gaining independence and now reap the fruit of they victory ... they now have to work outside the home.

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 20:07 | 3624948 nmewn
nmewn's picture

And a lot of them ain't real crazy about it.

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 20:26 | 3624995 cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

On the whole, I think we are all worse off for having to work for corporations. Removed from primary production, many of us go along for years doing the same things endlessly repeated wondering if anything we do matters at all for anything of lasting importance. Most of us (the very vast majority) don't provide food, shelter, wellness or leadership. We spend hardly any time with children, don't pass on our skills or share our dreams, and we don't equip the next generation in any direct way apart from sending them to school for indoctrination. In our daily life we just move bits around on screens, or claw through endless paperwork, or fill orders for materials and goods we never see and have no idea what they do.

It is all corrosive, destructive to the soul, and mind-numbingly tedious.

It needs to end. It must end. It will end.

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 21:04 | 3625075 lotsoffun
lotsoffun's picture

if you are poor - keep shopping at walmart, and if you are rich, keep shopping at starbucks.  in between, bring your wifi there, power up, and hope to have a conversation with somebody.  (sarcasm).

my rich friends like whole foods and fresh direct.  NO.  go into a shop, with limited variety, and an owner and one cashregister, at which you pay CASH, and the owners hope that some of their children will want to take over the business, in 30?  + years and make a decent living, and provide you with decent food, for your family and we will all live with some respect.   they put themselves out of work and quality and affection.

my poor friends love walmart.  they really don't understand how they also, put themselves out of work and affection.

 

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 21:40 | 3625159 moonstears
moonstears's picture

"They got bored, created a movement (feminism)..." According to Aaron Russo, now deceased, his Rockingfellow buddy said it was "their" (elitists) idea, this feminism, to capture more taxes. Meh! (maybe to make more MILF poon available, too?)

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 20:09 | 3624953 q99x2
q99x2's picture

Gives the men time to prepare to fight in the revolution. They are out on the jogging tracks at the shooting ranges and in the weight rooms. Getting bankster ready.

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 20:11 | 3624954 Bear
Bear's picture

" Ms. Kelly in this particular case – often lack credibility when they champion people and ideas which might involve the plight experienced by those in the low rungs of the socio-economic ladder"

Maybe we should listen to more champions ... like Maxine Waters, Nacy Pelosi, and Hillary Clinton

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 20:19 | 3624979 Bear
Bear's picture

"creating the urban cotton fields of today’s post-slavery US" ... now I can see which champions he listens to. When will we ever get beyond this 'societal angst'. In 1969, I was raised in a vibrant multiracial community and we were striving mightily to arrive at 'color blindness'. Today we seem to be going the other way with everyone being 'defined' (by the media) by the color of their skin, national origin of sexual orientation.

In the words of my hero, Rodney King .... "Can we all get along?"

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 20:46 | 3625039 booboo
booboo's picture

Minorities are the new cash cow for the globalist to brow beat money out of the rest but as the soccer moms continue to watch their mini van slowly deteriorate and means get crushed they will soon be labeled "Angry White Women" and be shoved off the shelf to make room for the next victim class. I hope dem women don't get too uppity lest they git da masta's whip.

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 22:13 | 3625246 yogibear
yogibear's picture

Welcome to Affirmative Action.  Now called diversity. Companies are fearful of lawsuits so they buckle at any mention of an AA lawsuit.

They will quickly settle out of court for a nice sum of money.

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 22:42 | 3625307 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

"...that, as a rule, mothers possess and provide the best love a child can have."

The author has mommy issues. This statement is from a little boy most likely trapped in a grown man's body. Totally false.

A household runs better when someone stays home for kids/chores. Women tend to be better at that. The idea that men provide inferior love to children as an unquestionable rule is just about the dumbest thing I've heard today and my ex-wife told me today that the visitation plan that her lawyer wrote is unfair to her so that is saying something about just how fucking retarded this author is.

Tue, 06/04/2013 - 23:07 | 3625330 Northern Lights
Northern Lights's picture

'women are now the primary breadwinners in 40 percent of households with children in the US. ;

A misleading statistic since the majority of that 40% makeup are women who either;

a) Are single mothers because they chose to be single mothers. Note, 70% of all divorces are initiated by women and hence, are working.  Interesting that no note was brought up on child support and alimony.

b) Is a ghetto skank who's decided to jump on some thug-cock and now has 10 kids for which she receives all sorts of ancillary benefits from the taxes this male and all the other male taxpayers pay into.

 

Single motherhood should NOT be celebrated, and it should NOT be funded out of my pockets.  I shouldn't have to endure paying an extra $20 off my paycheque so that the kids of these single-mothers can get a "free" breakfast program at school.

I've made a corrolation between the extra taxes I pay from year to year to support the poor choices made by women.

I've been out there working since graduating in 1999 and sufficite to say, women are the WORST to work with or for.  Female bosses are always trying to prove a point to management.  Hence they take on too many projects and then expect others to pick up the slack.  Don't forget, when they have a kid, here in Canada they get a 12 month maternity leave.  On top of that, forget about depending on them for overtime when they get back since having that kid the word overtime doesn't exist in their vocabulary. Male managers won't challenge them because they don't want to have a conflict with her or worse, Human resources, so they just take it. That work ends up falling on single men like myself.  Sick days come on more often for these new moms, not to mention, I've had the pleasure of watching a few of them actually bring the kids in to work with them, pull up a chair and have the kid sit in the office all day.  One time, a mother was sending her 6 year old over to the printer to get her printouts!!!!

 

Government is growing.  Wanna know why?  Because they're creating all sorts of "make work" positions and hiring women to fill them.  In Canada, the statistic is that out of every 10 government workers, 7.5 of them are female. If you're a male applying for a position, make sure you put yourself down as gay as that's the only male special interest group that would qualify you a job. 

 

Wed, 06/05/2013 - 06:52 | 3625629 Ace Ventura
Ace Ventura's picture

This has largely been my experience as well. I don't get where people arrive at the notion that women running the workforce would somehow result in a 'happy fairies riding skittle-pooping unicorns with free candy for all' sort of utopia. It is extremely rare to find a woman who is a true leader in a managerial setting. Most just take the title of the position to mean their only function is to delegate everything, and to berate everyone when there is a perceived risk to their position due to sub-standard perfomance of the division/department they're supposedly 'managing'. They're particularly worse towards other women....which always makes me chuckle when I hear women drone on and on about how any sorry state of political/global affairs is due to men's 'base need for conflict and innate competitive nature/egos'.

'If women ran the world there would be no wars!'

ROTFLMAO! Are you freakin' kidding me?!

Feminism (NW0 engineered movement) has done more to destroy the family unit, wages, and the standard of living in the US than just about anything else. In a sense, the domestic workforce roughly doubled in a short period of time. It would not surprise me in the least to see a graphic representation of wage stagnation/decline match up fairly well with the entry of women into the workforce en masse. Throw the fed's infernal counterfeiting schemes into the mix and voila....wage/debt slavery for all.

P.S. Megyn Kelly got personally offended? Gimme a break lady....please regale us on your experiences with 'doing it all' as a mother. Unless by 'doing it all', you're referring to paying private nannies to change your kids diapers and shuttle them to private school etc.....essentially paying someone to do the real work of raising your kids.

P.S.S. Cue the 'Ace hates womenz' molotovs in 3...2...1....

 

Wed, 06/05/2013 - 09:22 | 3625959 PT
PT's picture

Northern Lights +1000000.  Also, re:

"One time, a mother was sending her 6 year old over to the printer to get her printouts!!!!"

Just a bit further up, I posted a rant that included a prediction that if women took their kids to work then the kids would end up being more slaves to the corporation (Slightly different wording, take a look, but I've made a couple of comments in this thread).  I even acknowledged that my description might sound a bit daft.  But now you've already confirmed that which I just speculated on.  I wasn't expecting to see confirmation so quickly!  The kid you mentioned doesn't even get paid.  Just a slight boost in mummy's productivity (which will perhaps promote her to leading hand ...)  OLIVER TWIST HERE WE COME!!!

You've confirmed it's already here.  See:

http://search.dilbert.com/comic/178%20Hours

Wed, 06/05/2013 - 02:19 | 3625529 GoatHerder
GoatHerder's picture

I am glad they have come so far. Maybe now women can fill 40% of the body bags coming from the battelfield instead of males.  

Wed, 06/05/2013 - 02:23 | 3625532 GoatHerder
GoatHerder's picture

We don't need men in the work force anymore it's not like we have many steel mills or coal mines that need staffing. We do have openings for investement bankers and retail clerks. 

Wed, 06/05/2013 - 09:36 | 3626013 PT
PT's picture

But I am amazed that I can be in an industry that has 10 000 men to each 10 women, yet MSM complains that the ratio of executives and CEOs isn't split 50-50 male to female.  If its 1000:1 at the low end, you can't expect more than 1000:1 at the high end.  No-one likes to talk about that.

Wed, 06/05/2013 - 03:35 | 3625563 MiniCooper
MiniCooper's picture

Great that we have more equality in job opportunities for women - but it is not a good thing in this case. It has not happened because women have become more equal all of a sudden. It is pure necessity. This is happening here in the UK as well as the USA.

I am in the lucky position of having a high earning wife and I stay home, work part time and generally hold things together when she is not able to be around. We have been careful with money, no debt and only just bought a house after 30 years of marriage. It works well but a lot of our middle class friends are really financially struggling even though both parents work.

There is a serious point in the Pew Centre research and that is ecponomic necessity has forced middle class families into a position where both parents have to work to be able to afford to live. That is a fairly new economic situation for the middle class to find itself in. Many midlde class people in the UK now find themselves in  worse economic situation than they grew up in and their parents grew up in. That is why so many are turning to voting for a fringe party like UKIP (Nigel Farage's party) where tehy once voted Conservative teh traditional party of the comfortablely well off middle class.

In times of economic hardship it has always been the case that the stay at home mother in a poorer working class family could go and find a part time job to cover periods when the husband became unemployed - that gave families a certain amount of economic resilance. Now there is no resiliance left, even middle class families have two parents working full time. In fact, both parents are already out working and were before the economic downturn happened. That is why consumer spending refuses to recover. People are already working as hard as they can in the face of falling wages. They have borrowed as much as they can and there is nothing left to give. There is no resiliance left.

Even outwardly quite well off middle class families with $2 million homes here in the wealthy South East and London area of the UK are actually one pay check away from not being able to pay the credit card bill and two pay checks away from not paying the mortgage. In old industrial areas of the North and Midlands of the UK house prices have never recored and gave kept on falling for the last 5 years. Real incomes have kept on falling and static in nominal terms. There is no recovery in the UK at all - just bubble money in the South East and London around fianncial services and the midle class are completely maxed out and on the edge.

Wed, 06/05/2013 - 06:37 | 3625619 GCT
GCT's picture

Fuck it honestly.  Men are protrayed in the media these days as dumb, irreponsible, halfwits and could care less about taking care of children.  Do you actually see happily married couples in prime time TV?  Hell your lucky if you see a spouse even when some lone hero is happily married on TV!  All of this is designed to destroy a family.  Take a look at relationships on TV and you will find most are co-habitating and always find reasons to not marry.  Yes I am a romantic and love my wife dearly.  I am sick to see how relationships are protrayed these days. 

Social safety net programs are set up for single women.  People do not like the truth, but many women regardless of color or origin will actually tell you they will not marry as the government handouts will either end or they will receive less handouts for their children.  Go hit a Section 8 program or the projects and you will find over 90% of the homes or apartments are occupied by single mothers.  Men need not apply.

The governments war on poverty is killing the family.  The writer does not provide any statistics on married vs single head of household information.  The only people getting screwed are the children in all of this.  Call it whatever you like, your values, morals or beliefs, we have left them at the back door to indulge in whatever we like.  We must satisfy ourselves be number one and the kids come second.  Turn them over to the state or a child care facility and then bitch when the children are not raised according to our standards.  Well you left them at the door.

This was and is all about debt and growth and inflation.  Most of my friend's wives are indeed better educated then their husbands.  Who cares eally some have been married over 30 years.  We have created a society where no one is responsible for their stupid choices they make and now hold the taxpayer liable for them.  Then we wonder why corruption is rampant. 

Sorry for the long post but this hits a nerve with me as I see these children that are seen as nothing more then a dollar sign to their mothers on a fucking daily basis and they are basically raising themselves.  The mothers and their current boyfriend eat steak while the children eat macroni and cheese. 

Wed, 06/05/2013 - 07:02 | 3625638 Ace Ventura
Ace Ventura's picture

"Men are protrayed in the media these days as dumb, irreponsible, halfwits and could care less about taking care of children."

Bingo. Every sitcom, drama, and commercial involving a 'family' inevitably has the dad as a drooling moron, and the mom as the heroic figure saddled with having to deal with such an incompetent boob for a husband. Now if the main male character is gay, then he is utterly awesome.

 

Wed, 06/05/2013 - 08:19 | 3625753 madcows
madcows's picture

Right, don't forget the required gay character.  If it's a male actor, it's a 33% chance he's gay, a 33% chance he's a moron, and a 33% chance he's unhappily married.

Wed, 06/05/2013 - 09:31 | 3625991 PT
PT's picture

"Men are protrayed in the media these days as dumb, irreponsible, halfwits and could care less about taking care of children."

I enjoy watching "The Simpsons" now, but for at least the first ten years I never watched it because I was totally sick to death of the "dumb dad" stereotype.  I guess it makes script-writing easy when you don't have intelligent characters.  (I was also over-whelmed by the "brat son, smart females" stereo-type too.

Wed, 06/05/2013 - 08:49 | 3625819 kareninca
kareninca's picture

All of the young women I know are extremely eager to get high-powered jobs that require them to work long hours.

I don't know any that want to live an old-fashioned life.  I think this is in part because they didn't grow up in an old fashioned household.  There mothers worked when they were growing up, so it seems bizarre to them to imagine that they wouldn't work outside the home.

One factor that no-one has mentioned is that women do not want to be dependent on men for their economic security.  I am sure that all you ZH posters would be model husbands in this respect, but I have seen some terrible cases in which rotten men left their wives destitute; wives who had played by the old fashioned rules. You have to be pretty brave or foolhardy, male or female, to have your future financial security depend solely on another person.

 

Wed, 06/05/2013 - 09:37 | 3626017 shovelhead
shovelhead's picture

Lol,

Only the very few women too dumb to get a pinstriped barracuda for a lawyer.

Wed, 06/05/2013 - 21:05 | 3628254 kareninca
kareninca's picture

I know an Italian American lady in her late 80s.  Her husband (who was truly vile) died about ten years ago; she had raised their 4 kids and tended him with great care in his last days.  She found out after he died that he had gambled away all of their money, and didn't tell her.  He had made sure, over hte years, that she never got to go anywhere or have any fun, while he did.  No lawyers involved.  In a regular family, it is easy to lose/spend it all and screw the other person.

Her one son is an evil a**hole and her daughters are all broke.  My mom buys her goodies.  It shouldn't have to be this way.

Wed, 06/05/2013 - 10:36 | 3626206 GCT
GCT's picture

Karen does indeed have a valid point.  Thats ok with me.  I can remeber when the number one killer of women was breast cancer and heart disease was not even on the list.  Nowheart disease is the number one killer as they moved into the high stress related employment.

Love is frigging tough and the governemnt and state government make divorce so easy these days.  Again another media scandal with who is screwing who while the men worked.  This did not happen to the degree it happens now.  Actually 70% of the divorces are iniatiated by females across the USA because they get over to be honest while the male gets screwed.  Yes I know some men getting alimony but know alot of women getting it.  Money and the disparity of wages is the number one deal breaker and for the life of me I do not see why.  Hell I know alot of nice young and old women that want a frigging resume before dating and then bitch all the time because they cannot find a man LOL  True stories.

 

Wed, 06/05/2013 - 11:27 | 3626385 Debt Slave
Debt Slave's picture

As a single male I see all of my friends broke and unhappy in their relationships. I ask myself- Why would any self respecting man even THINK about marrying an American woman? After all, what's really in it for him, and is it really worth it? I don't think so. Young men out there, if you want to be comfortable (wealth) and happy by the time you reach your 50's, DON'T GET MARRIED.

Wed, 06/05/2013 - 21:32 | 3628315 kareninca
kareninca's picture

Well, the statistics don't bear you out.  Married men in America are a lot healhier and better-off than single men.  On average.  Your own results may differ.

And, I'm not sure what other country's females are so much better.  The saying among Chinese women is "marry for money and the love will follow."

However, I do agree with you that marriage is to be considered with trepidation, especially if you are male.  Divorce is common, and divorce is much harder on men than on women.

Wed, 06/05/2013 - 12:14 | 3626521 proLiberty
proLiberty's picture

The author laments that the bottom 80% of Americans have "lost control" of their economic destiny. The truth is more complicated that that because it involves a socialist mirage made possible by collusion between big government, collectivism, unions, unlimited money via fiat money and perpetual debt.

In truth there is an economic percentile below which a household consumes more than it produces. This is apart from people who cannot earn income at all because of disability, age, infirmity, etc.

Government programs and entitlements promised to pay the average person more than they paid in taxes, but the money must come from somewhere. Up until now, it came by borrowing. Now it comes also via money-printing. Both are unsustainable and when government gets exhausted at this over-clocking of present social spending, something must give. And one of those things is that more and more people will be faced with the hard economic reality of their circumstance.

It is not the matter that they lost control. It is a matter that politicians made promises they had no Constitutional authority to make and cannot fulfill. In a sense, this 80% are going to be forced to assume more control, but have foolishly made themselves dependent upon a system and programs that are going to let them down.

Wed, 06/05/2013 - 14:59 | 3627202 nonplused
nonplused's picture

Who has kids anymore?

Besides anyway this conversation is stupid, women have always worked just as hard as men except for a brief period from the great depression to WWII.  This was a period where electric washers and dryers, fridges, electric ranges, etc. were basically automating the household freeing up a lot more time.  Once we got to the 60’s and 70’s, everybody had them and it was clear the house could be maintained in a few days rather than the whole week.

Anyone 40-50 years old here can remember what your stay at home mom was busy with all day?  I can.  She watched “Days Of Our Lives” or some such crap.  And as a result of the reduced household income, we went without a lot of stuff such as dentist visits and clothes.  But the fact is momsie was exploiting a loophole by maintaining the premise that she had to work in the house all day when in fact her job had been largely automated and only took a couple hours a day.  My dad was such a sucker.

There are a number of reasons why it is illogical to talk about the need for mom to stay home anymore.

-       Most can’t afford to

-       $350 every 2 weeks takes care of the cleaning with a service

-       Laundry machines do everything but folding

-       Dishwashers

-       Food comes mostly in a can these days, or frozen but already prepared

-       Women are just as educated

-       In the knowledge economy, physical strength is no longer an advantage

-       A 2 income family is more resilient to economic hardship

-       You can buy more cool stuff.  Some of it even for the kids.

-       Save for retirement

-       Kids can play soccer and stuff (that stuff is expensive!)

-       Kids also want an iPhone these days.  Who is going to pay for that?

My wife stayed home until our son was in grade 1 but as soon as it was “before and after care” (rather than daycare) that was the end of that.  Why do I have to work until I am 75 so she can watch TV all day?  I don’t think so.  And anyway he seems to really like it because he’s with kids he can play with rather than sitting by himself in front of a tv.  And when he was in kindergarten it was even worse because we live right beside the before and after care and he couldn’t go play with all those kids right next door because of insurance reasons.

To me, there is no moral argument here, it’s all about the cash.  Part of “loving and caring” for your children is to come up with the cash to keep them in shoes.  So to me it is simple.  If the spouse with the lower income makes enough to substantially improve the lives of the family (after paying for daycare and a cleaning service), they should go to work.  There is no moral argument for that lazy bum to sit around the house wasting money all day once the kids are old enough for a care environment.

The Offspring put it best:

“I won’t pay, I won’t pay, I always pay.  Na, na why don’t you get a job!”

 

 

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!