Sympathy for the Feminist

The abandonment of patriarchy is a disastrous step that is killing our civilisation. (Unless some other blunder kills it first, which is quite possible)

The chain of effects has been spelled out before, but here it is again:

  • Women get jobs.
  • Women don’t need husbands
  • Women not needing husbands becomes a social norm, so even non-working women are supported by the state
  • Women not needing husbands can exercise hypergamic sexual impulses, via casual or temporary sexual relationships
  • Men can easily exercise their polygamic sexual impulse
  • Men do not need wives
  • Men do not need to create stable households for wives
  • Men do not need solid careers that require commitment
  • Nobody has any children
  • Men do not do enough work

The solution I propose is that women are pushed back out of the workforce, expected to marry, have children and raise them as their normal lifestyle.

There is a possible issue with this in that losing women from the workforce is too high a cost. I am not convinced. The aim is to get men into the workforce, with the seriousness produced by needing a proper job to attract a wife, and that mostly compensates. If not entirely, well, you can always eat better if you eat your seedcorn, but that’s not a viable long-term strategy under any circumstances. I do believe it is economically possible to go back to a male-dominated workforce.

The second problem with my proposed solution is that it may be simply unachievable. Many women will be happy to adopt the lifestyle of housewife, that currently is so discouraged by both state action and social norms. Many, but not necessarily enough. A very large number of women—quite possibly a majority—will resent and resist any such change.

Some of the resistance will be ideological. That is always assumed. All our mapping of what sort of future might be desirable rests on the premise that leftist ideology can be defeated.

However, while the ideological argument stable families with women raising children full-time might achieve acceptance, the fact remains that a life of nothing but house-cleaning  and child-rearing while men go out and do everything else is unattractive for more reasons than the fashionable denial of biology. A large proportion of women will not accept it, and  a large number of men will sympathise.

The fundamental problem is that it isolates most women from nearly all economic activity. We can argue that raising children for twenty or so years is economically necessary, but it is a rather narrow life experience. And while automation takes much of the drudgery out of running a household, leisure will not be enough to satisfy the need for positive achievement. Men and women are different, but not that different.

There must be an escape from this dichotomy of independent (and probably childless) career woman versus economically isolated housewife. And indeed, historically, it is not inevitable. Rather, it is largely a phenomenon of the twentieth century. Apart from the fact that maintaining a home was a more challenging task in the past than it is now, women have normally been involved in the productive economy far more than the stereotype 1950s housewife was.

Prior to large-scale industrialisation, a large proportion of production happened in the home. As such, the economy was much less male-dominated than the twentieth-century industrial model. Wives would share in their husbands’ craft or have their own. This was possible because they worked at home with their children.

The twentieth-century factory with its thousands of workers is dead. The twentieth-century office  is still very much with us, and it is that, as much as the ideology of the feminists, that is destroying the viability of our society. It appears hard to see how to get rid of it, but it is at least as hard to see how to get women to stay at home and raise the children of the men who spend the larger part of their lives in that office.

We can talk about communications technology making it unnecessary to congregate in large numbers for work. In my experience we are still very far from that. We might get there, but time is running out. There is a pressing need to start the process now of establishing work-from-home as the new norm. Right now, it might be only a minority of people who can do their jobs from their residence, but any who can should be encouraged to, while longer processes of dismantling the current system is begun. The goal is to establish a norm—who knows, maybe even a law—that houses should not be left empty. If the house is not empty, then it can have children in it. A man who leaves his house every day to go to work is not helping to sustain society, unless he finds a wife who is happy to stay at home.

Moving to domestic production is not the whole answer—by itself it does not deny women the childless-multi-partner lifestyle option. But it’s a pre-requisite, and it’s a start.