|
10/9/01
Did Women Really
Want To Go Out To Work?
One
of the most poisonous feminist fabrications over the past thirty years concerns our
recent History. For example,
for almost two whole generations now, our children have been fed the deceitful propaganda that
marriage is a mechanism whereby men have oppressed women and, somehow, forced
them to remain in the home, while they themselves ventured outside into the
liberating world of work - presumably for fun, frolics, fulfillment and independence.
The deceit herein is that,
in reality, the world of work has been, for
the most part, an extremely unpleasant world in which to live - until quite recently.
The majority of men
in recent History were working in terrible conditions - down filthy, dangerous
mines - in the hot, unwholesome, poisonous construction industries of ship and
house building, and in arduous heavy engineering projects such as building roads and
bridges - in tedious, sweaty factories, labouring for 16 hours non-stop, day
after day - in the military, sent away from home, sometimes for years, to the
most inhospitable and hostile of conditions and climates, to face disease,
damage, death, and war - in agriculture, where men toiled and tilled without the
advanced machinery of today - and even in the new offices, where rows upon rows
of clerks spent their hours laboriously copying out, by hand, the mountains of information
that needed to be documented.
In the world of work,
men were being 'oppressed' far more so than were their women at home. They were
at the beck and call of their bosses, and were given little in the way of rights, safety, security or decent
pay.
For the most part,
therefore, the jobs of the past were mostly soul destroying, if not downright dangerous and debilitating,
and it is men who did most of them in order to provide for their women and
children.
The world of work was
not a pleasant place to be. And it was not somewhere where most women, then, or
nowadays, would
choose to have been.
When feminists give the impression to
our younger folk that working
for a living in the recent past was invigorating, cathartic or therapeutic in
some way, they are lying.
In more recent times, technological advancements
have removed much of the worst
aspects of 'work', and, further, other huge industries requiring less odious
forms of work have sprung up; e.g. media, computer, financial.
And it is in these
far more benign circumstances that today's women are continually indoctrinated
with the view that some glorious world of 'work' was somehow denied to them in
the past.
The truth is that
they were not denied
it.
They were saved from it.
5/1/02
USA In 1900, only 6 percent
of married women worked outside the home, usually when their blue-collar
husbands were unemployed. Among wives with children at home, very few worked at
all. Almost half of single women held jobs, but they usually stopped working
when they married or, at the latest, when they got pregnant, and most never
worked for pay again. About a third of widowed and divorced women worked,
typically out of economic necessity. Never-married women with children were
virtually unknown. Only 6% eh? Now that's interesting! ... ... And so is this ... In
1936, a Gallup poll asked a national sample, “Should a married woman earn
money if she has a husband capable of supporting her?” By OVERWHELMING
majorities, both men and women said
that she should not.
Here is an extract from David Thomas' book
Not Guilty ...
The desire to free oneself from work
was common to all classes and both sexes. Dr Joanna Bourke of Birkbeck College,
London, has studied the diaries of 5,000 women who lived between 1860 and 1930.
During that period, the proportion of women in paid employment dropped from 75
per cent to 10 per cent. This was regarded as a huge step forward for womankind,
an opinion shared by the women whose writings Dr Bourke researched. Freed from
mills and factories, they created a new power base for themselves at home. This
was, claims Dr Bourke, "a deliberate choice. . . and a choice that gave
great pleasure."
Teenage Girls Just Want to Marry and Stay
Home
Amelia Hill Sunday October 19, 2003
The Observer
Their grandmothers fought for the
vote, their mothers battled to have it all, but the upcoming generation
of girls have decided to turn the clock back and just want stay at home
with their babies.
According to a survey of 5,000-plus
teenage girls, their main ambition is to complete university then return
to the homestead - whether their partners like it or not.
More than nine out of 10 of the girls
believe it should be up to their husbands to provide for them, with 97
per cent disagreeing with the statement 'It doesn't matter who is the
main earner, as long as we are happy.'
More than 90 per cent of those polled
for CosmoGirl magazine's November issue believe it is the man's role to
provide the household's money, with 85 per cent maintaining they would
rather rely on their partner for financial support than be a successful,
independent woman.
Instead of making a career for
themselves, girls today plan to be married by the age of 25 - three
years below the current national average of 28.2 years old.
And although 43 per cent of those
questioned believe they should continue with their education until they
have achieved a university degree, one in four say getting married is
their number one priority in life.
The supposedly super-modern, 'fun
comes first' teenage generation has proved to be remarkably traditional
in every area of their beliefs, with over 50 per cent saying they would
not dream of having children before seeing a ring on their finger.
The desire to have children is kicking
in earlier too, with the girls taking their 'ticking biological clock'
cue from role models such as Kate Moss, Posh Spice and Reese Witherspoon
and wanting to have their first child in their twenties.
On average, teenage girls plan to have
their first child at 26 and most plan to have one or two more children
over the following four years, The national average now is 1.64 children
per couple.
'This is so unsurprising,' said agony
aunt and author Claire Rayner. 'The majority of girls have no glamorous
future and nothing very special to look forward to. All they can hope
for is their own man and their own baby - like their mothers and their
grandmothers before them.
'This survey doesn't indicate that the
battles of feminism have been lost,' she added. 'Feminism was never
opposed to marriage or children. [Rubbish] On the contrary, feminism was about
equal opportunities for women to do what they wanted to do, when they
wanted to do it, which is exactly what these girls are choosing to do.'
And now, study closely the words of one of the
most powerful and influential women the world as ever known.
"I love peace and quiet, I hate
politics and turmoil. We women are not made for governing, and if we are good
women, we must dislike these masculine occupations. There are times which force
one to take interest in them, and I do, of course intensely"
" I am most anxious to enlist everyone
who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of 'Women's
Rights', with all its attendant horrors, on which her poor feeble sex is bent,
forgetting every sense of womanly feelings and propriety. Feminists ought to get
a good whipping. Were woman to 'unsex' themselves by claiming equality with men,
they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings, and would
surely perish without male protection."
Queen Victoria 1870
And when today's vindictive men-hating
feminists purposefully distort the whole of our history in order to make you
hate men, by telling you that men have always tried to hold women back, and were
only, finally, defeated in this heinous operation by the feminists of the 60s
and the 70s, please take on board the fact that it was WOMEN - influential
women like Queen Victoria - who, rightly or wrongly,
promoted whatever views of men and women people had in those earlier days.
And so, for example, if women did not go out
to work in greater numbers in those days it was because both men AND WOMEN
thought that this was the best way to handle the circumstances in which they
lived.
So, when you listen to the media feminists,
and to those who lecture on Women's Studies courses, take note on whether or not
they EVER point out to you that, in recent history, the circumstances of women
were CHOSEN as much by women as by men.
And if they do not point this out to you, or
if they even try to deny the huge influence that women have had in the past,
then ask yourself why they do this.
Is it because they wish to continue to
engender hatred toward men by distorting the truth? Or are they just plain
stupid?
Ask them also, what jobs there were,
realistically speaking, that were actually available, even fifty years ago, that
women actually wanted to do, but were prevented from doing.
There were some, yes. It was very difficult
for a woman to become a doctor or a lawyer. But, firstly, how many women were
actually affected by this? Very few indeed! There were not many such jobs around
in those days. And, secondly, for the most part, only the well-heeled well-connected men
near the top of the food chain could actually get such jobs. For 98% of men these jobs
were just as unavailable as they were for women.
In fact, it was mostly men, not
women, who were actually discriminated against when they were turned down for
such jobs.
Finally, feminists, with tiresome frequency,
like to point out that women, even fifty years ago, were often forced to
retire from their jobs to make way for the men if they became pregnant. And
feminists have used this fact for 30 years as an example of oppression and
discrimination.
But it was absolutely the right thing to
do.
Can you imagine what would have happened to
society - and to its women! - if millions of unemployed men had
been roaming the streets with nothing to do, with nowhere to go, with no money
to pay for the bills for their families, their children and their sweethearts,
while, among their very own neighbours, there were husbands and wives who BOTH
had jobs and were doing very well thank you.
Society would have lived its life completely
enmeshed in crime, violence and mayhem.
There was no modern police force in those
days, no sophisticated communications technology, no major welfare benefits to
be had, and so, no real protection whenever things went wrong.
One only has to look at what happens in poorer
sections of our own society to see what happens when men are not occupied in
gainful employment and the children are not well looked after to see what would
have happened to the entire nation if both men and women had not accepted the
solution of giving men the priority when it came to allocating jobs.
But, for thirty years, most of you will not have heard
about any of this thanks to the hatred that feminists want to keep heaping onto
the heads of men by preventing the truth from being told.
11/5/04
Women Aspire to be
Housewives
Without Any of the
Housework
Sarah Womack
Daily
Telegraph
Mothers are rejecting equality in the
workplace and prefer the idea of becoming full-time housewives - but not
ones who actually do housework.
This is the overall conclusion of
research among 2,100 British adults that says women are happy to abandon
the workplace but not if it means spending all day at home cooking,
cleaning and looking after children.
Marian Salzman: well known for
spotting pre-mainstream trends Instead they want to play the
"role" of housewife with a little help from, for instance, a
nanny, and someone who does the ironing. And unlike Kylie Minogue, they
don't want to do any dusting either.
The report, by Marian Salzman, chief
strategic officer of Euro RSCG Worldwide, the world's fifth largest
advertising agency, describes these women as princess-style
"domestic divas" who effectively exploit their husbands.
"Today, 'women's lib' means wanting to be liberated from the
intense pressures of the modern-day working mum," she said.
"And what we're seeing is a
serious gender divide regarding women in the workplace. This time
around, it is the women who want to stay at home and the men who want to
keep them in the offices and factories."
Miss Salzman, 45, who does not have
children, is well known in the United States for spotting trends before
they go mainstream. She predicted the rise of 1970s fashion nostalgia
and, on the eve of the Bridget Jones phenomenon, spotted that single
professional women would become the new, free-spending yuppies.
Her report last year, the Future of
Men, predicted that "metrosexuals" - straight men who care
about fashion, food and grooming - would be the new target of
advertisers.
Yesterday she said 69 per cent of
women thought it perfectly acceptable for females to be housewives and
not to earn a salary. In contrast, only 48 per cent of men felt that
women should remain outside paid employment.
Her research suggested that the
motivation to spend more time at home was "self-centred" for
some women. "There are many women who choose to stay home out of
concern for their children's quality of life," she said. "But
there are plenty of others who are paying lip service to being the 2004
version of the perfect mum.
"In reality they are domestic
divas who want the flawless kids, courtesy of the nanny; a spotless
home, thanks to a cleaning service; and a reputation for being a
fabulously put-together homemaker.
"These are the women who are
becoming a target of disdain and rage on the part of spouses who didn't
expect to be shouldering the financial burden single-handedly."
She said she was not talking about
mothers with very young children but those whose offspring were older
and in full-time education.
"My two closest friends are
stay-at-home women and I have no idea what they do all day. One of them
has a daughter at university and a second daughter at high school."
Jill Kirby, the chairman of the family
group at the Centre for Policy Studies think-tank, said: "It's very
clear that women who have the choice between working and being at home
with their children still want to prioritise their home life and life
with their children."
She denied claims that women who
wanted to be at home were often lazy, with their reliance on paid help.
"We can't create a world where people just do what they want,"
she said, "but women do need fulfilment."
Last week the actress Gwyneth Paltrow
reignited the debate over career versus children for working mothers,
saying: "I can't understand mothers who put their career before
children. There are certain women in this business who have children and
I just think 'you must never see them'. You can't do movies back to back
and see your child if they go to school."
Holly Hamilton-Bleakley, of Full Time
Mothers, a lobbying organisation, said she abhorred the idea of women
buying in child care so that they could simply sit in a coffee shop, but
she did not believe this was an accurate picture.
"The dual income, two-career
family is becoming outdated. Parents are finally recognising that
children need time with them. Time spent with children is well spent and
makes a major difference to a child's life."
But Miss Salzman said the reality was
that women with older children were increasingly becoming
self-indulgent. "They look at the realities of paid work - the
stress, the politics, the pressure, the dress code - and they say that
it would mean less 'me' time.
"And we are not just talking
about women who earn lots of money. Women who earn £27,500, or
£55,000, or more than £55,000 did not want to work, and men are
feeling a great deal of financial pressure.
"Women think: 'What's mine is
mine, and what's his is mine.' "
10/8/02
Here is an example of women pulling their
weight in a manner which would have been unthinkable had they been truly oppressed ...
Women
had been involved in the antislavery movement from its beginning. Following the
typical patterns of early-nineteenth century social life, they participated
primarily as organizers and members of separate female anti-slavery societies,
beginning .n Philadelphia (1833), Boston (1833), and New York (1836), spreading
to other cities like Providence, RI and, Portland, Maine, and quickly spreading
through the countryside. By the late 1830s there were female societies in
communities as small as Boylston, Massachusetts, with fewer than 1,000
inhabitants. These local societies were in most ways like the many THOUSANDS of
other women’s voluntary organizations that were emerging in Northern
communities in the early nineteenth century. They met, prayed, raised funds for
state and national activities, and circulated publications and information.
Oh yes, and look at this, concerning domestic
violence ...
The
changing character of male employment, and the growing demand for female
employees in the lace industry are pointed to as an explanation of the marked
preponderance of husbands committed [to prison] for domestic violence, and drunkenness,
laziness and general fecklessness. And while economic change is certainly a
major context for this phenomenon, it again does not explain why, within a
strongly patriarchal society, relatively large numbers of women were given and
took the authority and support of the state in order to control their disorderly
husbands. Nor does it explain the internal power relationships within the
household that allowed women to use these opportunities as effectively as they
seem to have done.
... Yep. That was the Austrian
Netherlands, circa 1770 - a full 200 years before the vindictive feminists of
the 1970's came on the scene.
Finally, given that feminists have expended a
great deal of their energy trying to engender male hatred by brainwashing
women into believing that their lack of voting rights until the beginning of the
last century is, somehow, strong evidence of oppression, it is worth pointing out that governments
in those days hardly did anything!
There was nothing much to vote for!
For example, ...
USA In
1914, federal spending totaled less than 2 percent of GNP. The top rate of the
recently enacted federal individual-income tax was 7 percent, on income over
$500,000, and 99 percent of the population owed no income tax. The 402,000
federal civilian employees, most of whom worked for the Post Office, constituted
about 1 percent of the labor force. The armed forces comprised fewer than
166,000 men on active duty. Although the federal government meddled in a few
areas of economic life, prescribing railroad rates and bringing antitrust suits
against a handful of unlucky firms, it was for most citizens remote and
unimportant. Robert Higgs
Further, given that it was men who, by and
large, had to defend and fight for the country, and that it was men, mostly,
whose labours created the nation's wealth and built all the physical structures
within it, and that it was men, mostly, who were expected to labour outside of
the home in order to support the enterprises of the government as well as their
families, it seems quite reasonable that men should have been the ones to decide
the direction in which the economy would develop and to determine what
governments could and could not do on their behalf.
For example, why should women have had the
right to determine whether or not men should be conscripted to go and die or to be
maimed for their country in times of war?
In
the feminist movement's version of history, women's changing economic position
is explained by women's being repressed by men until they began to be rescued in
the 1960s by the women's movement, anti-discrimination policies, and affirmative
action. Hard facts tell a very different story. Thomas Sowell
"Women received 34 percent of the
bachelor's degrees in 1920 but only 24 percent in 1950."
|
