Why Women Working Doesn’t Work
Once upon a time, as long as a man worked, and didn’t piss his money away on alcohol, even the most unskilled job was enough to support a family.
Following World War II, spurred onward by the positivity of their productive role in the wartime efforts, more women entered the workforce than ever before. For some of them, the goal was a kind of independence, to make as much as a man makes for the same work. And men let them do it. Because they asked very, very nicely.
We are still not at a point where the average working woman makes as much as the average working man, but let us accept for the sake of philosophical congeniality that this innocent sentiment has indeed been the goal of those women who obtained the right to work. Though a bit less innocent, let us add the goal that women should not only make as much as men, but that as many women should work as men, such that the workforce is evenly divided between the sexes. This state of equal pay and equal participation in the workforce: let us use this as our picture of “economic equality”.
What was the result of such egalitarian convictions? Well, for a start, there are now roughly twice as many people in the workforce (ignoring population growth). And, for a short time at least, the combined income of the typical household essentially doubled. Great, right? Now all the families in the country have twice as much money!
As you must surely be able to intuit for yourself though, there aren’t many two-income households where the members feel like they have twice as much money as they need. Anyone possessing a flitting familiarity with economics could tell you the supposed benefits of women entering the workforce did not come without cost. In fact, a certain female American democratic presidential candidate has written extensively on the many, many problems caused by this sudden doubling of the workforce density. In this article, I focus on two problems: The devaluation of money, and the destruction of the family unit.
The Economic Problem
During a year where the apple harvest is abundant, apples will be cheap, right? The same thing happens for money. When the average household makes much more than it needs to get by, people spend more money more frivolously, and the result is that the perceived value of each individual dollar decreases. It’s a simple extension of the basic principle of supply and demand.
If that’s true, then what is the actual net result of women entering the workforce and trying to be economically equal to men? Well, for poor and lower middle-class couples, it is no longer a benefit for both members to work. Rather, it is a necessity. Where once it would have been absurd to pay someone less than a living wage for working full time, employers can now get away with it because people don’t necessarily have to survive on a single income. They just have to be able to survive on two.
Women entering the workforce was tremendously good for one thing though: economic growth. Indeed, it should be no wonder that women’s liberation was first popularized in heavily capitalist countries: doubling the workforce doubles total production, and on paper it looks like your country is doing incredibly well compared to other countries. And yet, none of that positivity trickles down to the people actually doing the work, because ultimately, when women achieve economic equality (equal pay and equal participation in the workforce) the value of money necessarily decreases to half of what it was before, and now people need to work twice as many hours to make the same amount they used to. In any other situation, this type of abuse of the working poor would provoke national outrage from American democrats, and the unions would lobby with all their might to put an end to the injustice. Yet, because these effects are a result of “women’s liberation”, such abuse goes entirely unquestioned.
The Family Problem
Even more important than the devaluation of the dollar is the effect that women’s entering into the workforce has had on family. With women now expected to work full time, far fewer children are being raised by an intimate full-time caregiver. Children are more expensive than ever, parents are busier than ever, and so the greater part of children’s upbringing is in daycares. And while daycares are not all bad, the daycare worker is in no way equipped (or allowed) to provide children with the intimate emotional relationship that children look for in a mother.
As the children of two-income families get older, they come home to empty apartments, eat frozen dinners, and for lack of parental presence, are much more likely to join gangs, develop addiction, commit violence, teen pregnancy, STDs, and are much less likely to participate in healthy, life-affirming activities like school clubs, sports, or community events.
Though it is certainly possible in such an environment to grow into a wise, healthy, well-adjusted adult, the general trend is that these children develop in quite the opposite way. The entire purpose of the family unit is to provide prolonged personally-attuned guidance to the next generation. Without this guidance, the next generation suffers, the children of that generation suffer even more, so on and so on, propagating more and more confusion and dissatisfaction in a chain reaction that consumes and affects us all.
To be frank, for those who value general human happiness and well-being rather than the profits of the very few, women entering the workforce was the single most destructive and dehumanizing thing that has happened to the West. The so-called liberation of women has ultimately put the whole family in chains. And of course, if you read the early feminist literature, you will see that this was not an accident, but entirely by design. That, however, is a story for another article.
Some Women Can Work
Don’t get me wrong though. It’s not as if there’s anything wrong with having a very small number of women in the workforce. Not merely part-time secretaries either, (although I should hope such work will always be available for the single-mothers who need it). I mean scientists and laborers and perhaps even the rare CEO. All of that would be fine if it was thoroughly understood in our culture that these career-women simply are not marriage material.
Some women were never destined to be mothers, just as some men surely make terrible fathers, and it would be ideal to let such women instead do what fits them best.
The mistake is only made when the behaviors of these women are overtly encouraged in the youth. Not all but many of these women, gifted with intelligence and the drive to create, are in fact so incredibly self-absorbed that they truly believe they are a model for all womankind. No.
Women’s behaviors are well-adapted for moral reign over a household, but not for the impersonal and abstract complexities of commanding the world at large. It is the rare woman-scientist today who considers that what is best for her may not be best for all, let alone the drastic effects it would have on the entire human species if all women were to behave as she. Whatsoever the quality of her work, such selfish disregard for society and children is surely deserving of a heavy shadow of stigma.
And as for those rare, bright, innovative women with the self-awareness to realize they should not be held up as an example? Well, they can humbly accept the stigma and know it is not meant for them, but that sacrifices must sometimes be made by the irregular few for the well-being of the many. For a society can not be made to fit perfectly every individual, and it would be wrong to make a society that serves the few at the expense of the many. The best we can do is to have a society that fits the many and causes as little harm as possible to the few, while still being stable.
A Role For Women
And in order to return to a stable and humane way of life, we may need to find more appropriate activities for full-time mothers to participate in. Where once women tended to keep their hands busy with knitting and sewing, and their minds busy with the chatter of the local church community, the explicit need for the first has been automated away and the second has receded for other reasons. That said, don’t you think it odd that knitting nonetheless seems to be making a popular resurgence? Why, it’s almost as if women are unsatisfied with the modern world and subconsciously wish to return to the old ways.
And truth be told, I think there’s a market for them. Not the market of the capitalist, where quantity climbs and quality wanes, but the non-monetary market of the home and the local community, where I should think handmade clothes, fitted specially to the individual who will wear them, would be highly valued even in this wasteful modern world. Additionally, I would think home-grown herbs and vegetables would be appreciated, as would home-cooked meals made by someone concerned for the health and well-being of the individuals consuming them. So too would tidy, aesthetic, homes where you greet visitors with tea or knock on your neighbor’s door to offer them a fresh-baked pie just because.
In all honesty, it’s probably not that there isn’t a place for women in the modern world, and it’s probably not that the things women could do wouldn’t be valued. Women have all the warm, human solutions to the cold inhuman problems of the modern world. They’re just applying those solutions in places they don’t belong.
You can’t be a mother to a company. You can’t treat your employees like children. The external world, the world of men, is a harsh battleground where even the innocent and well-meaning must often perish to make way for things that simply get the job done. Cold approximations must often supplement where only incomplete knowledge is available. This is still the world we live in, but to a greater and greater extent every day, it is now being run by women (and subservient, woman-like men). So at the same time we’re all stabbing each other in the back behind the scenes, we must all pretend loudly to care SO MUCH about all people of all countries as if they were our own children, no matter what. Statistics concerning groups of people are ignored or twisted to support some greater exertion of self-sacrifice from the many in the service of some pitiable few. The sheer possibility that someone somewhere might be denied some opportunity because of something they can’t control is regarded as the greatest most evilest thing in the world, and the masses are expected to give up all their freedoms to make sure it never happens to anyone ever again.
I look at all this, and I think it’s clear.
Women as a whole are very much interested in making the world a better place. But the reality is this: it’s not working. The world is a bad place. That’s what men are for. Women, your domain is the home, and it is vast. Because the home, the family unit, is your chance, your only chance, to create a small bubble of existence where Love reigns supreme. The man fights to keep darkness at bay, and the woman tends to and nurtures the delicate light of the world. Failing that, women, you have failed us all.