DarthOne
☦️
Yeah, and the reasons for that stem heavily from modernity. And could be reversed.
"TradWives" Triggering Unhappy Feminists
- Thread starter Jormungandr
- Start date
mrttao
Well-known member
It is extremely doable, that is literally the whole point of industrialization.
The "small part of history" that you mentioned? that is when we had actual capitalism instead of being sucked dry by robber barons.
That is literally all it takes. Get rid of the parasites sucking us dry and we can have single breadwinner households.
There are charts comparing productivity vs income. productivity keeps on rising. income used to rise with productivity but then halted entirely. This is because of banking trickery, inflation, and other methods used by the parasite class. Not due to industrialization making single breadwinner households impossible
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
Go ahead and try. Totalitarian regimes have tried and miserably failed.
mrttao
Well-known member
I agree. Although I should mention that vast majority of jobs are torture for everyone. Men are just more resilient, so they can stomach that torture to provide for their family.
Also biologically, men effective reproductive years remain in effect much longer.
If a woman were serious about wanting to be a "girlboss", the non retarded process should be:
step 1: married and kids at 18
step 2: start school at 25ish
step 3: finish school and start working at 35ish
the notion that a woman should throw away her reproductive years to "build a career" by flipping fucking burgers is utterly retarded.
Of course, the people who designed the abomination of "pursue your girlboss career, have kids at age 40" BS are either morons, malicious, or most likely both
Last edited:
mrttao
Well-known member
The problem is that you assume human nature fundamentally changed.
Rather than the environment being non conductive towards people having kids and spouses.
You don't need totalitarianism.
We literally have past models where it worked and worked well to compare to.
Just cut back on how much the govt fucks over men who seek marriage with some common sense reforms to marriage law.
Marriage should not be a certificate of lifetime slavery.
I'd recommend early 20's for this. Allow people to actually mature intellectually as well as physically.
Yet not one developed country in the world does it. Sounds like a bias caused by the blip of extreme US prosperity in light of getting the economic advantage of not getting ruined in world wars. But now there is competition.
These increases in productivity are heavily based on capital intensive automation.
What's left is gonna go into R&D and various political scams, and then you will be lucky if the company has enough beyond that to not be looking greedily at outsourcing.
You have misread what i've said. It's absolutely possible to have a single breadwinner household even in current economy with at least decent middle class income, but most people will not be willing to take the need for lifestyle cuts and limits packaged in that choice.
For that you would pretty much need a culture that raises people, and especially women, to be not interested in conspicuous consumption, and that would be about the opposite of what we have now.
mrttao
Well-known member
By this idiotic argument, trans trending is the norm and unavoidable because every western country does it in 2024.
We literally had the USA do it. And it lasted a while. But then the western world fell to megacorps.
Sounds like an excuse made by a megacorp simp trying to justify corruption
mrttao
Well-known member
18 is already waiting for them to mature mentally.
Biologically, they are designed to start at a much younger age.
we wait until 18 to give them time to mature.
Also, the brain only finishes developing by age 40ish. Not viable to wait that long.
Take your analogy and stick it.
The trans thing is new, but literally every country has an economy of some kind since civilization exists.
Yes, my point exactly. World wars happened but they happened elsewhere and ruined elsewhere's industry, creating worldwide demand for US industrial goods, and that had obvious effect on the market value of what it supplied, and the prosperity of those who made them.
Now you are competing with China, Vietnam, India in all the easy and simple stuff at least, and with the likes of Japan, SK and EU in much of the fancier stuff.
Sounds like an excuse made by an idiot who understands nothing about economies and is proud of it.
mrttao
Well-known member
My analogy is perfect. You are literally simping for megacorps and claiming that it is impossible to avoid the massive monopolistic / govt collusion abuses... even though we LITERALLY had many periods in history in many westernized countries where this was avoided. Under the argument that in 2024 every westernized country is ruled by megacorps.
This is a fucking retarded argument.
Just get a genuine leader who breaks up monopolies using existing laws. kicks out the lobbyists, and purges the corrupt congressment.
That is literally all it takes to allow a middle class where a single breadwinner father can provide for his family which includes a home maker wife.
We know this because it used to be the norm. Megacorp monopolies are not something that always existed without any exception. Corrupt politicians taking bribes are not something that always existed without exception.
Those are certainly the more common things. As govt breeds corruption. but there have been various times and cases where this was not so.
You even double down with "every country has an economy of some kind" as a defense of your "lel bribed politicians and monopolies are inevitable and normal"
Then why the fuck none of the non-western countries, rich or not so rich, can set up the system you want for you to point to as an example?
So wishful thinking it is. Got it. Go preach this to the idealists on the left, they won't believe it because they hate capitalism, but at least you will waste their time.
Some times were too chaotic or had insufficient communication and transportation to enable such large scale business, but you don't want that either, that moves general prosperity in the other direction.
Again, so which country has it different? Japan has famously low corruption, at least in our understanding. Switzerland? Maybe Sweden? Regardless of how you call it, it's something that applies to every country more or less.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
I work from home, my wife has an office job. As far as such things go, I already am. If we succeed at having children, I'll be the primary at-home parent.
If my writing becomes profitable enough, she would prefer to quit her office job and be a primary care-giver for children, and run a 'cottage' bakery on the side, but it's hard to say if that will be financially viable.
Your premise here is preposterous. 'If women actually preferred.'
How many men prefer working sewage maintenance?
How many men prefer not being a CEO?
A professional athlete?
The recognized best in their trade?
Preference is a world away from what is actually within your reach. Economic pressure to have two-income houses, cultural pressure that tells women they need to have a job to be someone of consequence, feminists denigrating and devaluating having a family, cultural lies that women can build a career for 15 years, and then have however many children they want, all of these are major factors in whether or not women are deciding to marry and have children.
Also, the whole thing of the marriage rate plummeting and the divorce rate skyrocketing has a huge impact on how many women are working full-time, not to mention it's no longer socially expected, and not particularly socially acceptable, for a young woman to keep living in her father's home until she gets married, even if that takes her well past 20.
The whole reason there is a 'tradwife movement' in the first place, is because some women are starting to realize that no, they don't like the careerist path through life.
Beyond that, there's the issue that most people never get to have 'careers.' A 'career' implies a rising arc of raises and promotions within a chosen professional field, almost always with white-collar work. Generally speaking, you need to be upper middle class or higher to have a meaningful shot at such things, and even then since the 2008 economic collapse, it's been much harder for younger generations to get a career started, much less have one actually develop and carry through.
And very few people are actively interested in pinballing around different jobs every few years due to sheer economic necessity. They do it because they need to, not because it brings them deep fulfillment, and especially not a more profound fulfillment than having a family.
You need to try to control for all kinds of factors when you're interpreting trends in society before you draw a conclusion, and you are far too strident in your claims that 'women prefer being proper citizen workers' given all the factors influencing this issue.
mrttao
Well-known member
facepalm.
You are still doubling down on this.
This is literally your entire argument.
> In 2024 monopolistic megacorps colluding with bribed politicians control everything.
> Therefore, it is impossible to have an "industrialized society" which is not ruled by monopolies colluding with bribed politicians.
> Let us conveniently ignore all the time periods post industrialization where this thing I am saying is impossible was actually the norm.
- marduk
As for "why don't the non western countries do this"
Non western countries fall into 2 categories:
1. communist countries. which are EVEN WORSE in terms of bribed politicians.
2. subsidiary powers beholden to either the western world or the communist world.
A perfect example is khaddafi.
He dumped the dollar to trade in gold. Stamped out corruption. Set up a homesteading program where anyone who wanted to be a farmer got land and free started livestock.
So the western media spent years trying to make him out to be a monster.
Then the CIA funded a "rebellion" that was full of foreign mercenaries instead of his actual people.
Then when he was about to destroy said rebellion, the USA had an aircraft carried perform a bombing run on khaddafi's military lines. breaking it and allowing the "rebels" (foreign mercenaries) to reach him and torture him to death.
Khaddafi's last words were "what did I ever do to you" (to the group of foreign mercenaries publicly torturing him in the street while filming it)
Then his country fell into utter shit without him.
So other non western countries toe the line. And that means that western oligarchs, buy and own everything
You do realize that USA oligarchs can literally create dollars out of thin air?
It is called fractional reserve banking. If you are an exalted bloodline, you get to create money from thin air.
Meanwhile actual inventors are brainwashed with "exit strategy". that is, hand over their hard built new innovation that threatens the market control to an oligarch who pays with money he created from thin air.
mrttao
Well-known member
Speaking of commie corruption. here is an excellent video:
> China "relaxed" communism by allowing private ownership of real estate.
> But done the CCP way. that is, with extra ordinary amount of corruption and graft by politicians.
> Cue Tofu Dreg construction. Buildings literally collapse. Concrete you can crumble with bare hands. Steel reinforcement bars you can break with your bare hands.
> When there is earthquake, every school building built after these changes collapsed. Every school building built before remains standing. Those are in the same school complex. the buildings were side by side and exposed to same forces
> Every time it rains buildings collapse.
> And so much more
There are no "periods post industrialization where it was the norm", there is one, in specific region or few, and we know the rare combination of positive circumstances that made it possible, and those are impossible to replicate in a controlled way.
Yeah, sure, whatever, world conspiracy, amirite?
90% of the conspiracy shit is distraction from the real politics and schemes, so that people smart enough to look for answers but not smart enough to filter them will make themselves look like crazies by believing the wrong ones and in turn help convince normies to vote for the usual.
Libya never had an industrial, nevermind post-industrial economy, its that fucking irrelevant to our discussion. It's a third world shithole with a gas station he owned and could generously throw income from at local population to pretend to like him.
Ironically, that's one way to in fact have the lifestyle you want, some Arab countries do it to a degree with their oil revenues, after all it's not like the women who aren't allowed to leave the house without a male attendant are going to work.
Every major country has that. Not just USA. And it's unlimited only in the dreams of socialists like the squad, i think some actually said it. In practice, not so much, in theory it is unlimited, in practice you will crash the system if you push it too far.
Ok, more chan level lore of how the world works and all the conspiracies, why do i care?
Last edited:
Actually about 20 y/o for females and 25 y/o for males.
Skitzyfrenic
Well-known member
What makes them not a housewife? The lack of abusive husband? That they share their enjoyment of their lifestyle on social media? Because they share their lifestyle for clout and prestige? Because most of these women are married to wealthy men? Because they do up their hair and make up? Because some of them like to wear 50s clothes and live a piece of the American dream that existed at that time?
They're wives, who stay at home, take care of children and do housework while their spouse leaves the house to do work.
That's the literal definition of a housewife. If they do those things, they aren't LARPing. Prove they have staff or hired helpers of some kind.
They are housewives. And not all housewives are abused emotionally or physically. Your mother is not the only housewife to ever exist.
Other wives stayed at home, perfectly happy to take care of their family. Housewives can exist at all economic brackets, certainly with different levels of difficulty but that doesn't mean they're LARPing.
Unless, of course, you think these women have a staff doing all the work and they're just making videos for clout.
Most of these women on social media are married or in committed relationships, so they aren't hoping a man will fall in love with them.
To touch another point:
Workforce participation for females is only ~57% as of 2022 in the USA compared to males participating at ~69%. That tells me women aren't super hot up about working. And it checks out with the total workforce participation being ~63%
That's everyone considered working age who either has a job or is looking for a job.
43% of working age women aren't even looking for a job. That's far more than would be accounted for by women in school, injured women who cannot work, and women who cannot work due to other reasons.
That means there is a very large chunk of women who do not want to work in the workforce.
Another quick google search tells me that in 2023 something like 25% of women identify as the stay at home parent, up from 15% in 2022. That's a sharp increase and, given Covid shaking things up and how that's continuing to play out, isn't all that surprising to me. And that's just stay at home parents. That doesn't necessarily include those working from home and pulling double duty, or include those being homemakers without children either from not having them yet or from having the children age out.
Gallup reports in 2019 that a record high of 56% of women wanted to work outside the home. That's... basically the Workforce participation rate.
Women in general don't seem particularly keen to have careers.
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
Men and women want to raise families and have children. It is programmed into our genetics to procreate, which goes to show how much modern society has cocked up by managing to put sufficient barriers in the way.
Morphic Tide
Well-known member
Well, a good chunk of it is that automation-based productivity increases inherently reduce the people involved. However, this "should" have resulted in a much more impactful group of technical staff from that productivity going to the people contributing the capital responsible, whereas the reality is the managers of the business and shareholders owning the business using contracts to assume functionally lone ownership of said capital.
Not the whole body of factors, but vigorously purging the hell out of contract fuckery absorbing the capital into indefinite ownership by managers would bring back quite a bit of it. As would eradicating the regulation creep driving up the barrier to entry so middle class people can start meaningful competition to big businesses.
The point is that we can identify the policy changes since and trace them to how things went worse, thus we can improve things by reversing said changes.