I would say absolutely nothing! Women have been having these rights for the last hundred years. Not all at once, but certainly for quite some time. The siren song was that if we give them all these rights, the the wealth of both men and women will rise. Where is all this extra pay? If we have both men and women, should we not have double the output, double the prosperity, etc, etc. Men could support a whole family, and now many cannot support themselves. We're better off with the Patriarchy!
That wealth has not filtered down to the man. A man who educated himself 100 years ago could afford a wife, kids, house, plus a mistress on the side. For most men of today, this scenario is impossible to play out today. To me, that's a lower standard of living. Computers and a few neat gadgets do not change that. A hundred years ago, the woman cooked, cleaned, and did laundry. These things are done by the man today. I do not call this progress!
Minimalism only comes into being because the man is being ripped off by FICA taxes, a debt ridden money supply, and having to fund the various deadbeats -- most of all the slutty female deadbeats and their trove of bastard children. Minimalism is the false narrative that a hard working man simply needs to be happy with the slop provided so that a slut and her brood can live a life of idleness and waste.
These so called time saving devices are promoted as a substitute for a man's true helper of a hundred years ago. A hundred years ago, a wife or maid did 100% of the laundry, cooking, and cleaning. And even though the man takes less time to do these tasks, these tasks are in addition to his full time work. A hundred years ago a man spent 0% of his time in these areas. The man is left with slop, which is just what minimalism is.
Yes. Only the lazy or the alcoholic could not afford a wife or a made. Not only that but men had the FREEDOM to enjoy MALE ONLY SPACES, tell crude jokes in the workplace, and not have to bow to the god of political correctness. Other than technology, it was better.
[–]fengpi 10 points11 points12 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]double-happiness 8 points9 points10 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]perplexedm[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lethn 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]This_is_my_phone_tho 6 points7 points8 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]CurtisAxelmania 2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]MasterBassion 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]CurtisAxelmania 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]CurtisAxelmania 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MagicTampon 6 points7 points8 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]fengpi 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]perplexedm[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ScotHere 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]perplexedm[S] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]perplexedm[S] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Greg_W_Allan 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]topstrok2014 points [recovered] (8 children) | Copy Link
I would say absolutely nothing! Women have been having these rights for the last hundred years. Not all at once, but certainly for quite some time. The siren song was that if we give them all these rights, the the wealth of both men and women will rise. Where is all this extra pay? If we have both men and women, should we not have double the output, double the prosperity, etc, etc. Men could support a whole family, and now many cannot support themselves. We're better off with the Patriarchy!
[–]poorpersonality 0 points1 point2 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[+]topstrok2014 points [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link
That wealth has not filtered down to the man. A man who educated himself 100 years ago could afford a wife, kids, house, plus a mistress on the side. For most men of today, this scenario is impossible to play out today. To me, that's a lower standard of living. Computers and a few neat gadgets do not change that. A hundred years ago, the woman cooked, cleaned, and did laundry. These things are done by the man today. I do not call this progress!
[–]CurtisAxelmania 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[+]topstrok2014 points [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link
Minimalism only comes into being because the man is being ripped off by FICA taxes, a debt ridden money supply, and having to fund the various deadbeats -- most of all the slutty female deadbeats and their trove of bastard children. Minimalism is the false narrative that a hard working man simply needs to be happy with the slop provided so that a slut and her brood can live a life of idleness and waste.
These so called time saving devices are promoted as a substitute for a man's true helper of a hundred years ago. A hundred years ago, a wife or maid did 100% of the laundry, cooking, and cleaning. And even though the man takes less time to do these tasks, these tasks are in addition to his full time work. A hundred years ago a man spent 0% of his time in these areas. The man is left with slop, which is just what minimalism is.
[–]CurtisAxelmania -1 points0 points1 point (3 children) | Copy Link
[+]topstrok2014 points [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link
Yes. Only the lazy or the alcoholic could not afford a wife or a made. Not only that but men had the FREEDOM to enjoy MALE ONLY SPACES, tell crude jokes in the workplace, and not have to bow to the god of political correctness. Other than technology, it was better.
[–]CurtisAxelmania 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link