How sending women to work scuttled our economy

jobs_are_jailsThe right fears theory because it is accustomed to the arbitrary abstractions of clever people who work very hard to justify the herd-instinct and its source, the individualism that conceals a fear of insufficiency.

However pure theory is often the best way to argue, because unlike facts, it cannot remain “spun,” or adjusted by the context of its presentation from logic to a “talking point,” or verbal meme that resembles a logical argument but is in fact rhetoric.

To start thinking logically in that way is against all that you’re taught. Opinions are opinions, but facts are real. Except that fact is often buried within the presumption of a certain ideological spin, so facts aren’t even facts.

One area to which we should turn our brains is the ongoing instability of our economy. For most of the modern era, the economy has been unpredictable and sometimes, it turns on us. A factor in this unpredictability is our leadership and tendency toward social trends, but another looms larger.

When we started sending women to work, we began doubling our workforce. This is great in theory but for employers only. More workers devalues the cost of any one particular worker because there are more alternatives. But then the question is what type of job is filled.

Every business can separate its employees into two general categories. There are those who serve a role in the production of the goods or services that make the business money, and then there are those in administrative or bureaucratic roles.

For example, if my company makes widgets, the factory workers, engineers, truck drivers, managers and purchasers directly contribute to the widget-making. However, the people filing paperwork, paying salaries, processing employee complaints, and ensuring compliance do not.

That is not to say that some of those staff are necessary. However, with more regulations, we need more of them.

When women were placed into the workforce, most of them took jobs that were not already filled. A good portion of these were administrative; not coincidentally, this category has swelled dramatically in the last fifty years.

One reason a category swells is because it can since there are not only people who take those jobs, but people who will depend upon them. Thus it seems cheap at first to hire more, and then more.

If you wonder how we got to the point where most jobs involved four hours of actual work per week, and 36 hours of attending meetings, filling out inconsequential paperwork, reading email, being on conference calls, etc. this is the source: the jobs themselves aren’t important.

When women entered the workforce, we needed to find a way to hire all these new people who would need the income. We diluted job roles in order to make room. This in turn made jobs boring, except for people who enjoy the social aspects of the job, which are all of the non-work parts of the job.

By insisting on this universal participation, we’ve changed jobs from having purpose to being a process of attendance and compliance. Even further, this has diluted productivity. We have made most jobs or most of jobs fully extraneous.

The result is that industry moves more slowly, and has a higher cost in those jobs which are not related at all to the production of widgets. This is the new norm, and most people are afraid to criticize it.

Tags: , ,

23 Responses to “How sending women to work scuttled our economy”

  1. Bob Wallace says:

    It is an impossibility for some women to not be productive…but I have never seen one. Then you have to consider what the addition of 70 million women have done to wages. It’s not worth it.

  2. NotTheDude says:

    A man doesn’t need a woman to watch him dig the veg patch. A woman can change a nappy alone.

    • GoshDarnIt says:

      I do both – with no help from Himself, my lord & master, who dislikes all physical labor. Maybe if I got a job I could then afford a nice little rototiller. There’s reasons that some women want paying jobs.

      • NotTheDude says:

        Some women are better workers than some men. Nothing wrong with women doing a lot of jobs, as they always have done, but you have to question things when anyone calls data input into a computer a ‘career’. Gardening is far more fulfilling and meaningful!

        • GoshDarnIt says:

          Yes, gardening is quite fulfilling. But it’s not being done for its own sake, it’s being done to have food now and through the winter. When combined with all – all – of the usual women’s work in the home, it is too much. There’s a million women like me who threw it all overboard because being regarded as a servant was too painful, both physically and mentally. Yet countless “men” whine endlessly because their wives dumped them. They are too dumb to get it. They think the wife just wanted to be able to have boyfriends, have fun, etc. etc. Such blindness.

          • crow says:

            Most women I have known do dick-all work in the home. Or anywhere else. It seems the less work a woman actually performs, the more she whines about her ‘status’, whatever that is.
            My wife, on the other hand, is a beacon of exception disproving the rule. She is exactly one half of a superb team.
            There are many useless women, and may useless men. This is the consequence of living in a useless age under useless leaders adhering to useless social rules.

            • GoshDarnIt says:

              I’m curious as to what kind of women you know where “most” of them do dick-all work in the home. I know not one woman of any age, social status, level of intelligence or income who I would describe that way. And I know a variety of women.

              Where are all these spoiled women that you are acquainted with?

              • crow says:

                A small island off the west coast of Canada.
                Ex-(or current) hippies, feminists, lesbians, dolts, lazy weiners, the entitled, wannabee-registered-disabled, those bent upon ’empowering’ themselves, and other assorted grey, lifeless, loud-mouthed left-wing activist types.
                Granted, my neck-of-the-woods is not stereotypical of women everywhere, but to any man living here, it all gets remarkably tiresome, remarkably quickly.

  3. Kingsley Davis says:

    About to delve into the archives here and it can’t be a coincidence that i just left Uncle Bob’s site to see the esteemed proprietor had posted.

  4. Ironthumb says:

    therefore,instead of assets – these people become liabilities.
    We are becoming a nation of liabilities
    That is obviously bad for the economy

  5. Aldreth says:

    I’m proud to say that I’m not some pencil pushing drone, my job and possibly my career is one that requires some level of skill, plus with the nature of my job, termite/pest control, it’s very unlikely that I will lose it to some affirmative action case.

    • crow says:

      I’ll trade you 500 termites for 25 wasps. Any type of wasps will do, but mudwasps are best. My termites come with wings, and are the light brown variety. I assume you don’t feel any special attachment to wasps?

  6. Barry W says:

    In neolithic times some women would face paint and spend their time having their hair braided. But only some women – high value women. Superflous activity was how they demonstrated their value. The other women would spend their time doing the backbreaking work for the tribe.
    So it has been through history. In eighteenth century France aristocratic women would compete for the tallest and most elaborate hairstyles/wigs. To show off their value. It was also a way for society to show off how wealthy it had become – look it said, we can afford useless women like this.
    Today the same rule applies but has been amended slightly, at least here in the UK. Here we have vast public sector organisations such as the civil service and the BBC who employ at least three quarters women.
    Now they are not doing anything of value and if they all disappeared tomorrow no-one would notice any deterioration anywhere.
    But these jobs do have a vanity role. Look – they are saying – look how virtous a society we have become, that we can afford vast legions of women doing nothing but vote for more stuff.
    Way the world goes, I’m afraid.

    • Joe says:

      Well, funny thing, I was at the local grocery store today and noticed (not that I have not before) how most of the women *and* men looked like the same types as all the rest, same look, same pompous narcissistic way of holding themselves. Basically, we have become a society based on the value of appearance without regard to substance. Not everyone, but it is very prevalent. It runs across gender, race, economic status, etc. A phony society through and through. Now where are my male designer jeans with the rhinestone gothic decorative back pockets? I’m going out tonight and going to look so designer male I’ll tell you what. Maybe toss on a pair of ray bans and strut all tough and sh**. Yeah, I’m all that! Got the trimmed just right facial hair as well, and the north face vest sportin’. Going big I tell you! Yeah, I’m a man of substance in a deep world. We’re getting it done baby!

      • Joe says:

        Actually, most of these people come across as rich, self-entitled white folks. But usually younger and probably sure they know it all. It’s a funny game we got out there in this world today. Phony is as phony does, that’s what my mommy always told me.

  7. Colleen says:

    Here is the view from the ground as seen by a millennial woman:

    1. We cannot assume that we will get married at 23 and be supported for our whole life. We will likely have to spend many years sorting through the men-children to find a man who is worthy. Or, even if we do find someone, his job may not cover all the bills, or he could get laid off. Meanwhile, we have to eat, and most of us don’t live in a self-sufficient household economy such as a farm. Most of us will have to work outside the home.

    2. Some of you assume that women’s primary function is to have kids and take care of them, but in the current terrible economy and in view of dwindling planetary resources, the better thing to do is to have fewer kids or no kids. Women who are highly educated and have jobs generally have fewer kids. Regardless of the fact that some of you think they are parasites, they may actually be reducing parasitism down the road (since there will be fewer mouths to feed).

    • Astrid says:

      Of course, your comment is filled with completely retarded assumptions. I will start in reverse order.
      1)The sole biological purpose of all life is to reproduce – i.e. have children. Regardless, this doesn’t have to be an imperative for anyone, but educated women not having children won’t reduce the burden humans are on the planet. The planet’s carrying capacity is a function of the ingenuity of the humans. We had more resources during the stone age, but due to the general lack of scientific and technological knowledge, we lived worse. So the crux of this issue is the quality of the people who reproduce and intelligent women having less children isn’t a positive: it leads to society getting dumber over time because intelligence is overwhelmingly heritable. If you thought humans are some great burden on this planet, maybe we should cull the stupid ones, not the intelligent. Awkwardly enough, I also think educated women use far more resources than dumb women because they have more disposable income. Some of these women consume more resources than uneducated women AND her kids.
      2)In regards to the economy, it isn’t so bad. I know plenty of men who could afford having a stay at home wife and children, but choose not to because the vast majority of millennial women are nothing more than materialistic whores. Even my not so upper class friends afford spending thousands of Euros per year on drinking and traveling. The economy is horrifying for unskilled people because we decided to import hordes of illiterate peasants from the third world, so yes, entry level jobs and jobs that don’t require much skill are outright trash.
      3)In regards to marriage, you can spend years sorting through men-children and still marry at 23. Last time I checked, we do have co-educational schools and women do start dating before 23. Most of my high-school classmates had a girlfriend or a boyfriend in high-school. From your junior year in high-school to age 23, there are 6-7 years. Plenty of time to find someone you could settle down with. After 23, finding someone will become harder anyway because men like youth and looks, while they dislike emotional baggage and bitterness(most millennial women don’t offer anything to men besides looks). If you don’t like the quality of men you can get at 20, it won’t increase by 30. By 35, you will settle for anyone still interested, usually.

      His job not covering the bills isn’t an issue either. You’d be surprised how many expenses one can cut if one member of the family is entirely devoted to it. Plus, there are such things as part time jobs – you don’t need a whole career to cover expenses uncovered by your significant other.

      To sum this up, if I was a man, in 3-4 years, I wouldn’t even bother with millennial women anymore and start dating the women born in the mid 1990s. There’s fundamentally no reason for a man in his mid 30s, for example, to date women who are in their 30s. So my game plan as a man would be to have fun until my mid 30s and then find someone a decade and a bit younger than me to settle down with. I don’t know many men in their mid 30s who couldn’t afford a wife either.

      • Colleen says:

        Any attempt at population reduction would, of course, need to be accompanied by a shift toward a more simple and frugal lifestyle in order to conserve resources.

        Our economy runs on oil, and that oil is not going to last forever. Unless there is some huge alternative energy breakthrough, our industrialized global economy will collapse when we run out of oil. When that happens, the planet will likely not be able to support the current number of people on it. If this is the case, then significant population reduction is an imperative. Yes, we could cull, but the amount of hatred and social unrest that would follow in the wake of such a policy would probably offset any gains. Benign incentives are better.

  8. Jeremy Janson says:

    I think you’re very close to the truth, and when I read:

    “Every business can separate its employees into two general categories. There are those who serve a role in the production of the goods or services that make the business money, and then there are those in administrative or bureaucratic roles.”

    I thought you had it, especially because in the American West and Texas it is actually TRADITIONAL, and has been since the days of the Wild West, for women to fill those jobs, especially auditors, accountants and clerks (all of which are stereotyped as female jobs in those places) because the men were too busy working out on the range, laying rail track or throwing around a pick down in the mines to man the offices at the county seat, which was done by “California widows” left alone with their paperwork and account books for months at a time before their men came home from the mountains where they were building a railroad line, the forest where they were clearing a new patch, or the 800-mile-long Chrisholm Trail, but after that, you go to this “ensuring universal participation” thing, and that’s where you became dead wrong.

    In fact, by bringing women in to the workplace, we ceased VALUING universal participation, because before women worked, men were the providers. Women had babies, and men made money to support their family. Once we decided that women should work too, men no longer had any role in families to speak of except for an informal, ceremonial and poorly-defined notion of fatherhood that is frequently the butt of jokes and all manner of disrespect, and viewed as lawless and unruly. Men no longer had a place in society or any kind of purpose – they were just “the problem” since women could have babies, which is painful, dangerous, etc etc etc, but there was nothing only men could do.

    Hence, when you put millions of men out of work with regulation, or because you’re afraid of some kind of pollution that hardly effects life or quality-of-life at all, it didn’t matter, because THEY didn’t matter, and they only make money so they don’t starve individually, and if we stop caring about them individually, which we will because they are lazy, entitled, et cetera et cetera, we stop caring about them being able to find work. If it was hard on them, tough, not my problem. If they can’t hack it, they should just kill themselves before they impregnate women and lead to more babies.

    Further, women filling those jobs meant that some of their political power, influence and money came from putting men out-of-work through regulations.

  9. Carnivore says:

    Great article. For some graphs and similar commentary, see here:
    Also, women vastly outnumber men in local and state government employment.

    As Colleen noted above – higher education and jobs for women universally has meant plunging birth rates worldwide. And, no, this is not good, even with the so-called ‘excuse’ of dwindling global resources. Ask yourself – do you think China is reducing its consumption of global resources in order to save the planet? Hell no. China is actively securing and expanding its global access to vital resources. Although each book has its flaws, read “How Civilizations Die” by David Goldman and “After America” by Mark Steyn.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>