Loading UTC time and date...
2024/09/22
For years now we are seeing headlines telling us that more and more women are joining the work force. One particular story caught my attention - Young women are starting to leave men behind - reported by the Financial Times.
For decades since the invention of the birth control pill, and the proliferation of abortion (made prevalent not just in the Western world but pioneered in the Communist bloc as a woman's "right"), feminists in the West demanded access to equal employment. Similarly, in the Communist bloc countries prior to 1989, women were all but forced to go to work. Regardless, in the 21st century the trend continues.
Today women are storming the workplaces with their chin raised up, as the Human Resources departments (overwhelmingly staffed by women, by the way) cheer their "gender balance" quotas being met, and the team managers proudly announcing that they employ more and more women, with more and more degrees to their name. No doubt, many H.R. department chiefs and the managing class functionaries will be rewarded for this "achievement".
Still, this reflects on a more important trend - in my view at least - which shows that more and more men no longer want or need to work. Perhaps I should dedicate a separate essay to this topic, but ask yourself - how much do you want to live freely? Do you really need to own that fancy two story house in the Bay Area? Do you really need a good shiny car and the latest phone? A meager thousand dollars a month will suffice to live as a free man. But it is hard to get out of our comfort zone for that. Especially if you are a woman.
Consider the driving forces of consumption (and before you tell yourself you know where I'm going with this, no, I am not anti-consumerist). Women want to live in a large, spacious house. Why? To show her neighbors that she can. It is her arrogant, prideful nature to do so. In addition, a garage for two cars (and yes, there better be at least two cars - one for the hubbie and one for the "queen" herself), a room for the baby (make it two!), and preferably, a separate kitchen and dining rooms. In 2024, a low-end home that could satisfy such demands will cost you as much as $3 million in San Francisco or San Jose, with slightly cheaper options available in Oakland or Berkeley.
"Wow! Three million dollars! I do not have this kind of money! Who the hell buys these things for such cash?! Surely, one has to be a millionaire to afford them!" one might exclaim. But not so fast. Enter the banks (no, I am not anti-bank either, bare with me, please). The banks will offer you a fixed mortgage for 40 years. And even though the interest rate may be high (as of 2024 it may go as high as 5-6% or more, depending on the bank, but that is an abnormality, as most of the last two decades passed with rates that are significantly lower), a woman's demand for comfort will drive her and her hubbie to buy that piece of property. A man has no need for, and probably does not even want one. After all, having one's own house means taking care of it. Managing the decaying walls and floors, repairing the wiring, replacing the pipes, etc. Oh and then there is insurance - life insurance (what if something happens to you, and the you can't pay mortgage back?), real estate insurance (what if the house burns down when you fix the wiring?), theft insurance (that can happen too!), etc. And you will not just have to maintain the loan and clean the pool, but you will face a very real threat of it being condemned if you can no longer do it. If (heavens forbid!) your house is condemned, then good luck! Not only will the state hire someone to demolish your house, but you will have to pay for it too!
Isn't it just marvelous? Surely, there are other option ...
Why not just rent and leave it for the owner to manage? Well, that's also an option. Can you afford to pay up to $8000 a month for such a house? And you still need to have enough on yourself, but most importantly, your wife. She needs new clothes, new shoes, new makeup. Oh and let's not forget to mention her nails and hair done. God forbid she goes and does it in a bathroom. No way! She has to go to a salon (and a fancy one!) to pay that stylist's salary (and don't forget about the tips!)
I mentioned clothes? Do not forget, they have to match her mood! And the accessories have to match too - shoes, nail polish, lipstick, hair dyes ... She needs new clothes every day of the week. They have to match her hair and lipstick color. Plus there has to be a dinner dress for special occasions, a black dress for funeral. Do not forget the seasonality - as weather changes, so does her wardrobe. Oh and who can forget about her once-in-a-lifetime wedding expenses! The dress alone costs a fortune, and I did not even mention the jewelry yet ...
The only difference between this and having a mortgage will be just that your landlord won't be able to evict you unless you just stop paying. All that you spend as a "house owner" with a mortgage, a man happily married, remains. Thus, a wife will not just take her husband's money and spend it on her arrogant, prideful self, but she will force him to buy property he doesn't need to maintain a lifestyle he didn't choose to have.
But, baby, say it is not this bad! After all, more and more women enter the workforce, and finally they can afford their own housing, their own expenses, their own lifestyle. No?
Well. About that. I will not go into too much detail, but even if we take the most optimistic data, women still earn less than men on average. According to the Bureau Labor Statistics, in the state of California, a woman will earn on average only 86.8% of a man's salary. (link)
Still, the situation is changing in women's favor. And finally we can safely say that women no longer need men. Right?
Well, somehow women still insist on having access to males. They complain about not being sexually attractive as they age and when they are given advice on that, they brush it off.
Smartphone dating applications were designed to cater to women's needs but women complain that they are unhappy, and that they cannot find a partner with them. Which strikes me as odd. Is there a shortage of men on these apps? Probably not. Perhaps there is a more plausible explanation, such as women being too picky. Alas, that criticism does not apply! It is men who are the problem - they don't step up, and don't take those extra hours of time and effort to break their backs for that six figure salaries, athletic bodies, a fancy car (that has to be maintained, insured and - with an introduction of the recent electric car fad - regularly charged)!
Some women ask - and have been asking for at least two decades - where have all the "good men" gone?
I do not have the answer to that question. But perhaps I may have some hints. A Darwinian explanation, let's call it. The less hospitable the environment becomes for species, the more likely the speices is to go extinct. That does not happen overnight, but it happens gradually. If anything, that FT article supports this explanation. Men are no longer welcome at jobs (fake jobs, that is, like H.R. managers and invoice back office team leads). So they don't go to do them. The upper management creates fanciful "gender balance" and "diversity" demands, dictated by the whims of activist investors. Worse, governments (in Europe particularly) implement quotas and legal demands on companies to have a minimum of women in the managerial workforce. If your company is non-compliant, then you will be struck with a fee. It may look nice and cozy on the paper, but it will mean that an employer will skip hiring a suitable male candidate, and let a female be "trained on the job" instead. No wonder that there is a spike in mentally deranged "trans-women". What was normally reserved as a domain of genetically deformed unfortunates or utterly insane schizophrenics, is now being (quite smartly) utilized by some men as a gateway to being hired.
Now let's compare the needs of a man to that of a woman. Even if the man earns the same (or even lower!) salary than a woman, he may still be better off in the end. A man will not go to make his hair and nails in the salon. A made-in-China trimmer and cheap scissors will do the trick. A man will not need a garage or even a car. One can take a bicycle, ride a bus (given that he lives in a relatively safe area, of course), take a train or the subway. Makeup? No need. Fragrances? Buy a cheap one in the mall groceries store. No nail polish, no hair products, no lipstick or other make up.
How many clothes does a man need? Three or four t-shirts that will last a few decades, a few pairs of jeans, cheap and comfortable shoes (sneakers) that he can wear until they get torn. A pair of glasses and an extra in case they get broken. A few pairs of unremarkable socks. And all that will last him for years with little need to buy anything new unless it's an absolute emergency.
It is then no exaggeration on my part if I claim that the entire export economies of Bangladesh and Indonesia (i.e. textiles) are being run by the female demand. If it disappears overnight, then so will these countries entire industries. If female demand is evaporated, the cotton plantations of Uzbekistan will have to be abandoned, finally letting the Syr-Darya river's waters to return to the once mighty Aral Sea.
A sturdy used car will do. Preferably something made before the year 1990 when the manufacturers began stuffing them with electronics. That makes the entire car industry panic! If the only thing you need is parts to replace (and you can cannibalize older cars too), then manufacturing lines at factories go dark and employees get laid off. The entire German economy had to be protected by a European Central Bank's interest rate cut earlier this month because Germans are closing factories - there is no demand! Now imagine if this happens worldwide.
After all, what is the point of having a car as a teenager, unless you want to impress the opposite sex? Give one bare minimum - reliance, sturdiness and safety, and we won't need as many cars as there are in the circulation.
Furthermore, what is the need for barbers or stylists for men, unless the men come to them either to impress their girlfriends or make their wives satisfied? If one is not comfortable with their facial hair, a trimmer will do the job. But even that is optional - a mirror and some scissors will do.
Perfume? Why bother? Perhaps the natural stench of a man is off-putting, but it is hardly ever as eye-watering as the stink of the Ganges, if all you do is take a shower.
Same goes with hygiene products. You don't really need a shampoo if you're bald, but if you're not, a good old home soap will do. Swaths of vanity products like bubbles, fancy salts, bath bombs, etc. all become pointless.
A man is urged to take an extra step, unpaid extra hours perhaps, to appear more productive, earn more, get recognized. Why bother? We are being told women are outpacing men anyway, as men are being passed on by female-dominated H.R. departments for everything - hiring, promotions, salary increases, bonuses. Only a man who needs to keep up with his wife's spending will do this, hence the oft cited factoid that married men make more money (they never mention how much more they spend).
Without women yearning for "prestigious" university degrees (often in useless fluff), who will support the insanely high prices of getting said degrees? In today's world you can learn anything you want for free. But God forbid you don't have those extra letters to your name. No wonder all these fake office jobs require at least a Bachelor's Degree, especially in those large corporations with inflated H.R. departments. You cannot possibly do mind numbing monkey job looking at invoices to process for 8 hours straight unless you've got a B.A. in Sociology! Naturally, with female economy gone, so will the "education" economy.
And this leads me to one of the most understated aspects of this topic - the government education camps, also known as "schools". The overwhelming majority of school teachers and staff are women. Bureaucrats and teachers alike. A typical answer to the question of why so many teachers are women usually ends in some nonsensical garbage about "natural proclivity" of women for "nurture" (whatever that is). This does not explain why kids finish school dumber and dumber with every generation. In my experience, the best answer is the simplest one. So if women overwhelmingly choose teaching, which is underpaid and overregulated to the point of being a burden not only on societies at large but on the teachers themselves, then the simplest answer is that teaching is easy.
Men don't go into teaching unless they absolutely have to. At best, an experienced engineer will go into academia as a side gig to his retirement, while mathematicians will almost exclusively pick universities not only due to higher salaries and the company of colleagues but also because it is more rewarding and less taxing on one's health and sanity than babysitting underage brainwashing camp prisoners.
Therefore, if overnight, only men drove the demand and consumption, the global economy would crash. Governments would fall and entire tyrannical regimes toppled. Alas, as women are being taken into workforce on higher and higher rate, and the employers are ready to pay extra just to get those females in, no sudden changes will occur.
But change we will see alright.
As women realize what a rotten deal they had, they will be pushed to keep the hamster wheel spinning. As time passes, it will become clear that the equilibrium between productivity and health of the employees will switch to the employers' detriment. More and more money will have to be spent on managing ranks, internal conflicts between individual employees, their casual pregnancies (ask any employer in Europe about the horrors of the maternity leave!), their demands for more and more benefits for more and more costs, etc. that a drive for automation and AI-managed work will only accelerate.
The sad reality of women in workforce is that it has not dawned upon women that the only reason men were ever motivated to go and work was largely for the sake of women. It is for their wives sakes, that they provide for them and their children. It is for the woman's arrogant and prideful nature, that men would spend extra money on a larger home, newer car or a mobile phone. She will urge him to ask for higher salaries to satisfy her ever more and more expensive lifestyle. It is that her womb spawns his progeny, that he is eager to work his back off right into an early grave. Without women, most of the economy will grind to an unbearable, painful halt.
Therefore, I welcome women to come to work. As there will be fewer and fewer children, the point of the entire state-controlled education industry is to provide welfare for teachers "teaching" empty classes, right until the next inspection arrives and closes the school down - and maybe even recommends fraud charges for female teachers who kept getting paid for doing no work. As more and more women take hold of key positions in important industries, e.g. managing quality control in manufacturing, we will see more and more cost cuts, as employers will realize a computer farm running a Large Language Model is better at the job than a human female. As more and more women end up as managers, more and more blunders and strategic missteps will lead to corporate catastrophes. As more and more women become government bureaucrats, the weight of the regulations imposed on men will only accelerate their complete withdrawal from the female-dominated dysfunctional, dystopian society.
And that is the silver lining. No matter what happens, men will be able to preserve their freedom and the lifestyle they choose. And the only thing women will do, is boil with anger, when they finally realize that men need no women.