There’s two broad categories of MRA’s. One wants a return to traditional marriage, with most women staying at home and the workplace being mostly a male realm. The other takes the libertarian view that this tradition is just another form of exploitation of men and that in the future, women should expect to have to support themselves financially.
Of course, as things are now, men should avoid yoking themselves to a woman. But the reform I would like to see is in the former category.
There are a few reasons for this. One is that it will only continue the current system of female hypergamy. With culturally enforced monogamy, most people got married. With “sexual liberation”, a handful of alpha males get all the sex from numerous women, leaving the majority of men celibate, lonely and with no hope of children. With so little in the way of rewards – no sex, no female companionship, no children, and no job if the quotas require hiring a less-qualified woman – men have little motivation to work at steady jobs instead of becoming criminals of some sort. Polygamous societies, which leave a large number of perpetual bachelors, have a high level of violence because young men have no reason not to commit it.
In addition, as I keep showing, most women are not particularly valuable in the workplace. There are exceptions, but for the most part, the work that most women are being paid to do ends up getting done by men (or lesbians). Most men have experienced this. This is what evolution designed women to do – get other people to work for them so that they would have someone to provide for them while they cared for children – but it is a liability in the modern workplace.
Few women can psychologically cope with the rigors of the workplace. The Larry Summers example is familiar to everyone; a woman heard a highly caveated speculation that she didn’t like and had to flee the room lest she swoon. What would we think of a male professor who announced that a colleague who proposed a theory he disliked made him faint? As Mencius Moldbug put it:
One clue to the fact that something fundamental has changed is the almost complete absence of true intellectual debate in the modern university. Nor does this mean congeniality pervades throughout. It means that when you see the appearance of an argument over ideas, the substance beneath that argument is not that of men trying to convince each other and/or an audience. The substance is that of bureaucratic warfare. When someone criticizes your work in the modern university, he is probably trying to kill you and take your funding. His criticism is not the opening for dialogue; it is the ritual pretext for an attack.
Thus, any fool who starts such an argument, with no better reason than that he (a) disagrees with someone else, and (b) grew up reading about the age of Darwin, Huxley and Wilberforce, will be surprised to find himself on the other end of an administrative mafia war. You might as well call your opponent a faggot. It will not exacerbate his ferocity in the slightest. He is right to assume that you are probably out to kill him, and right to respond in kind. When in Rome, etc.
Mr. Moldbug blames this on “Progressivism”, but really, it is due to a particular offshoot of Progressivism: feminism. Women are too threatened by heated debates; some primal part of the female brain knows that if shouts give way to blows, she is at a disadvantage. Indeed, scientists have determined that the normal way in which men interact with each other is perceived by women as “harassment”. So universities (and other institutions) that employ female professors are stuck with enforced conformity of opinion. Since we need room for debate and intellectual freedom in universities if they are to serve their purpose, it is necessary to limit the number of women in this field.
Women, quite naturally, do not want to work full-time. Feminists might not like this, but in real life, raising children does take time; it can’t be done in half an hour a day after a fulfilling day at the office. “Gender equality” in the workplace means that women will demand special privileges for the sake of more flexible schedules. Female doctors in Ireland are only half as likely to work full time as male ones. The same applies in England. Also in the UK, female pilots are demanding to be paid the same amount for less work.
Just imagine for a moment what work would be like with few women in your office, and those few compelled to actually do their jobs because they lack sex discrimination legislation to force employers to hire them. No sudden backlog because a co-worker has to take time off to look after her child who caught the flu at his day care center. No random outbursts of emotion because you failed to anticipate a working woman’s delicate feelings. No worrying that a casual joke will result in accusations of “sexual harassment”.
Feminists have robbed women of a chance to do something truly useful to society, something for which women are actually suited: raise children. Of course, today’s western women have been carefully trained so that they are unfit to be anywhere near a child, which makes them pretty much completely useless in any area. Retraining will be required, which will require that anti-male legislation be repealed, allowing men to treat their partners with the firmness which women need and want anyway.
The most important reason I oppose the notion of making the sexes genuinely equal, leaving women to support themselves, is that children need to be raised. My Republican friends were furious at me for saying that a woman with a newborn special needs baby was not in a position to be Vice-President of the United States, but it’s true: preteen kids need to be looked after. They need to be taught proper behavior, they need to bond emotionally with a mother who gives them affection, they need nutritious food, and they need to be supervised. Not only do children need these things, but the survival of the society requies it. These things take time. It’s impossible to be a good mother and work full-time.
Feminists like to respond to such arguments by whining, “But most women can’t affooooord not to work.” This is true, and it is one of the most heinous of feminism’s many crimes. In the 60’s, most men, even blue-collar workers, could afford to support their families themselves. The great fraud of “equal pay for equal work” was not, contrary to current propaganda, a measure against the mythical pay gap; it put a stop to the before-then common practice of paying married men more, since those men had families to support. In fact, a century ago, one promise labor unions made was that they would win men a “family wage” so that their wives and children would not have to work!
Feminism has wrecked the economy. It abolished the practices which allowed most men to support their families. It inflated prices of things like houses and cars by dragging naive women into the workplace, allowing sellers to base their prices on the two-income family. At first this might have been fun for those few women who had fun jobs, but soon, all women were forced into this system whether they wanted to be or not.
Women don’t belong in the workplace. Their job is at home, and men should be able to do their own work without having to coddle and protect women while they do it.
***
Read my MRA blog.
