Counter-Currents
333 words
Ivanka Trump’s speech at the Republican National Convention contained a remarkable passage that heralds the end of feminism in America:
Women represent 46 percent of the total U.S. labor force, and 40 percent of American households have female primary breadwinners. In 2014, women made 83 cents for every dollar made by a man. Single women without children earn 94 cents for each dollar earned by a man, whereas married mothers made only 77 cents. As researchers have noted, gender is no longer the factor creating the greatest wage discrepancy in this country, motherhood is.
Feminists, of course, hold that discrimination against women is the main cause of male-female wage discrepancies. But a much more significant cause is the difficulty of combining work and motherhood. The American system, in short, does not discriminate against women. It discriminates against mothers. But so do feminist cat ladies, who are surely one of the most anti-natal groups in America today. This points to a new correlation of forces, with evil corporations and feminist cat ladies united in their opposition to motherhood — versus working mothers and would-be mothers on the other side — along with Donald Trump. For, as Ivanka spells out:
As President, my father will change the labor laws that were put into place at a time when women were not a significant portion of the workforce. And he will focus on making quality childcare affordable and accessible for all.
In an ideal society, of course, mothers would not have to work at all. They would be married to men who can easily provide for a family, and the culture would value rather than denigrate women who choose family over careers. However, we are a long way from such a society, and in the meantime, one of the forces that most powerfully depresses the white birthrate is the difficulty of combining careers and motherhood. By addressing that problem, Donald Trump would simultaneously undercut feminism and raise the white birth rate. That is a good thing for white people.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
22 comments
I respectfully disagree that more laws can have a positive impact. Legal measures to “support mothers” will come in the form of policies like mandated maternity leave, which mean that men will have to work harder – without increased pay – to pick up the slack. This will further devalue male labor and transfer wealth to women, resulting in a net negative for the traditional family.
And let’s not forget that any new children born of these policies will grow up as neglected daycare babies – large numbers of whom can currently be found burning flags and demanding socialism outside of Trump events.
The root of the problem, ignoring culture, is the low cost of male labor brought about by immigration, globalization, and women entering the workforce. the welfare state disproportionately robbing men for the benefit of women is another element, but good luck changing that.
Totally agree.
A few years before retirement, I will never forget being asked by my boss to do a female co-worker’s duties (as well as my own) while she was away on paid maternity leave. Her husband worked elsewhere in an equally well paid government job. For all I know he was getting patwtnitu leave. A win for everyone…except me.
My elderly wife had not worked since she gave it up decades earlier to raise our children.
So for several weeks I ended up doing two jobs for one salary while she enjoyed two salaries for electing to have her own children.
I complied for reasons I will not go into, but it left a very, very sour taste in my mouth.
Totally agree.
A few years before retirement, I will never forget being asked by my boss to do a female co-worker’s duties (as well as my own) while she was away on paid maternity leave. Her husband worked elsewhere in an equally well paid government job. For all I know he was getting paternity leave. A win for everyone…except me.
My elderly wife had not worked since she gave it up decades earlier to raise our children.
So for several weeks I ended up doing two jobs for one salary while she enjoyed two salaries for electing to have her own children.
I complied for reasons I will not go into, but it left a very, very sour taste in my mouth.
Married women shouldn’t work. It’s a waste of everyone’s time and energy. We dont have enough jobs to go around anyway, and mothers are needed at home with their kids. There needs to be, if not a law against it, an abolition of incentives to keep women at work after marriage.
My wife is getting paid maternity leave when we have our next child, and she isn’t really employed to begin with. You take what you can get of course, but it’s a ridiculous system. Just let men keep their tax money for their families and keep up the male wage by excluding women from the labour market. It would create jobs for the young, too, so they wouldn’t have to drag our their first quarter century in classrooms where most learn nothing, and many more learn nothing worthwhile.
I agree.
Prior to leaving the workforce I ran many employee focus groups. Men only wanted more money, and women focussed on paid time off and then benefits, but mostly paid time off. It was so predictable I’m not sure why any one bothers with EE focus groups except for PR value.
If you give women more paid time off you will increase female workforce participation as in Canada where it has increased it substantially to max out at 65% when I last looked.
There is only one way that I have seen long maternity leaves increase birth rates. Young woman returned to work after years mat leave. It’s stressful so she gets pregnant again does easy work for nine months then another full year off with top up. I’m pretty certain this is very expensive but businesses are so PC and determined to implement progressivism that they suck up the costs.
Eventually women have to decide how many babies they are willing to have to escape work. Offering high paid part time roles is the gold ring. Having a highly paid husband so they can quit to work full time on mothering blogs is the highest status option. They pretty much dance out the door if that happens. Also women are more likely to suffer health effects from stress so women take a lot more paid time off to recover.
All in all women cost substantially more to employ and when apples and apples are compared make more money than men. One of the biggest feminist scams is the assution that women earn less money for the same work.
The single women who earn less do so because even single women opt for more time off work than men.
Also the intergenerational hatred that is being entrenched in the white population is even more insidious than the gender war. It didn’t take, in my experience, until the announcement of generation X the daycare generation. My offspring are borderline gen X/Y and for some reason we don’t have a generation gap. Apples didn’t fall far from the tree. But they did get into habit of referring to themselves by the advertising (((generation))) labels as assigned.
Greg, most of my female acquaintances have degrees and are stacking shelves or work menial jobs unrelated to their studies. My male friends on the other hand do very well for themselves. Some didn’t go to university but they are cooks in Michelin star restaurants, opening gyms, setting up security firms, boxing for british title’s and my friends that went to university are putting their studies into practice. The problem with women in university is a lot of them shouldn’t be there in the first place and are taking up space that could have went to a more deserving male. I am referring to the mounting evidence showing that female teachers are downgrading male students on coursework even though boys outperform girls on standardized tests in maths and science, as shown in consecutive PISA results. A study by the OECD (and there are many other studies with identical results) shows that teachers (overwhelmingly female) give lower marks to males on coursework for the same quality of work. This is explained by their stronger in group bias (see Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87). Michael Gove, the former Education minister in the UK wanted more emphasis on testing as part of his education reforms, and one of the main arguments against his reforms was that it would lead to a decrease in women going to university (to hell with men and society, for that matter) and he caved in; Which really just goes to show that they are well aware of what they are doing. Christina blower, the feminist fanatic and head of the National union of Teachers is now calling for the scrapping of all tests (she is going with the whole “children are suicidal due to the stress” thing) and she has the backing of the union (again, largely female). And I haven’t even started on the feminization of the ciriculum! The women that go to university in the UK, are on average more intelligent than the females that do not go to university and half of them remain childless. This subject is rarely touched on by the alt right yet there isn’t a more damaging social trend in society than the female takeover of the education system. And to think the university system was the institution that gave the west its edge. Today, it is a farce. Any society that allows its women to run rampant and transform the institutions essestial to the maintenance of civilization (marriage and the education system are the two that immediately spring to mind) to suit their own needs is a society in steep decline. I hope that we see more discussion on this topic in the future in a respectful way. God knows the alt right doesn’t need to alienate the few women that are already here but this issue must be addressed.
The German National Socialist government had the best solution, pay Aryan mothers a stipend for raising children. What job could be more important?
What is needed is getting rid of ‘marriage penalty’ in income taxes, and also increase of tax exemption for children – currently it’s less than $4K per child, which is basically the same rate as in 1950. Adjusted for inflation, it should be around $12K.
Whilst I agree with the views expressed above, Trump is trying to win an election not restore Western civilisation. Trump won’t fix this, at best he will slow the decline. But decline it will. To actually reverse the decline we’d have to repeal female/universal sufferage or suspend democracy. Ironically, the two things our enemies will do when they have the numbers (Turkey??).
That was indeed a remarkable speech. The ability to see the potential in people is a significant virtue.
That is what most people really want from their parents: See what they are good at and encourage that. Channel all that energy into developing that talent. That is what good parents do. Bad parents are jealous and thwart and arrest talent. It cannot be helped that women were basically forced by economics and feminsm as cultural marxism to enter the work force. It was another divide and conquer game to cause resentment and bitterness.
I remember when I was working how I had to give up certain opportunities because I could not afford to pay for someone to look after my kids for a week or two. Yes, I resented those women who could just go and put their cats in a kennel and the guys who did not have to think about that at all and didn’t. But, that was the way it was, so I lived with it. It was especially hard when the kids were sick because no one wants to look after someone else’s sick kid and when you take time off work for that the men all say ‘ see that’s why women should not work’ and yet I was the one who brought in a perfect audit. None of them did and that caused resentement too. (too busy going after perks, instead of doing the work) La de da.
As I see it, Trump is proposing a new deal and against this globalization that will make slaves of us all and that can only be good. If motherhood is truly seen as the sacred duty it is and that women are not denigrated socially for wanting just that and not to be a CEO, then it is good. Yet, not all women can be decent mothers and know it and they should not be forced into a role where they harm their kids because they resent them.
I could never give a speech like that and mean it about my parents. Good for her. Good for Trump to have such a remarkable daughter. I would have liked to hear from the sons too. Do they agree with her assessment?
Women have absolutely no business being a significant part of the workforce. There are direct parallels with their entry into it and the rapid decline of our civilization. What the lovely Ivanka said was an improvement over the current orthodoxy but still fundamentally wrong.
Personally, my wife doesn’t work and never will.
Personally, my wife doesn’t work and never will.
If you wife doesn’t work, either your househhold has full-time live-in servants; or your house and children are a mess in every sense, and y’all are eating order-in food every day.
Doesn’t work at a job outside of our home. She is not a participant in the work force. It must have been impossible for you to infer that from the phrasing of my message.
Of course I knew what you meant. I am trying, I guess not successfully judging by others’ comments here, to get folks to use words that acknowledge the reality that being a socalled non-working wife and mother involves more work and responsibility than you can possibly imagine. It’s an insult to say “my wife doesn’t work” because it implies that real work involves being paid out in the open market and that the work done at home especially as regards child care, is somehow inferior. Liberalism, capitalism & feminism all rolled into one expression.
Why, oh why, does this continue. Is it so hard to say “women working outside the home” [for pay].
Words matter.
When my children were small and I was at home, people would often ask ‘do you work?’. I would reply – ‘yes, all the time’.
They always got it.
I would like to ask if Greg Johnson remembers the disaster that resulted from Obama and the Democrats suddenly deciding that the US Govt and the White House had some kind of authority to stick their noses into the Health care and Health insurance industries so as to ‘ensure’ that every American could have access to ‘affordable health care’?
The end result is that Obama and the Democrats managed to almost totally destroy the health care that millions of Americans used to be able to get as a benefit from their employers, where they usually had to kick in a certain percentage of the premium costs themselves – and then their employer would scrape off a little from his salary compensation package, offering slightly less in actual salary but tacking on benefits with that salary, and then – being able to write off his contribution to the employee’s health care premium as a business expense.
Thanks to Obama, a system that worked pretty well for most productive and talented American workers was destroyed – all so he could give free, tax payer subsidized Obamacare to his inner city minority, non-productive ethnic cousins, who didn’t previously have health insurance because most of them didn’t have any marketable skills that might get them a full time job that included benefits.
Anyway, my point is this: No where in the U.S. Constitution does it give the US Govt or any White House, whether a D or an R or anyone else sits inside it – the authority to stick their noses into health care. Nor, does it give the US Govt or any White House the authority to meddle with the child / day care industry, aside from perhaps offering tax deductions for some of the expenses that a citizen might incur. But, here we have Ivanka Trump promising that her father will work to ‘ensure affordable child care’ for every American citizen? Well, if he goes down that path, he had better be very careful about how he goes about it – or else he runs the risk of doing the same unconstitutional thing that Obama and the Democrats did by sticking their noses into the health insurance industry.
BTW: I have several times to point this out on several other pro-white, pro-Trump websites, and for some bizarre reason – the moderators for those sites are refusing to approve my comment. Why is that? It’s not as though I’m saying do not vote for Trump. I’m merely pointing out a contradiction and a potential bear trap that Trump should want to avoid putting his foot into.
I’m with Greg on the far better solution of ending affirmative action discrimination against White men, and removing all of these anti-White male obstacles that the left have created – so White men can have a better chance to gain high paying careers and reach their full potential, and hopefully having salaries high enough to allow their wives to have the option of staying at home and raising their children.
Making it easier for women to be single mothers by forcing the tax payers to subsidize their day care is not a remedy that will strengthen the traditional White American, two parent family. What the govt subsidizes, they always get more of, right? We need policies that encourage White men and women to get married and then add incentives that reward them for having White children. Poland is doing this:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-poland-politics-subsidy-idUSKCN0ZZ19L?il=0
And, so is Russia and a growing number of other White European nations.
Obamacare was a colossal giveaway to the insurance industry. But just because it is stupid, that does not mean there should be a presumption in favor of a complete “free market” and that the state has no business in “sticking its nose in” to establish standards. Unregulated capitalism usually results in a race to the bottom that corrodes human virtues and social institutions. See my essay “5 to 9 Conservatism”: https://counter-currents.com/2011/10/5-to-9-conservatism/ Also see “How About Fascist Medicine?” https://counter-currents.com/2011/10/how-about-fascist-medicine/
If women are going to work, then their biological differences should be taken into account. There should be no presumption that the generic employee is a man. That said, I said above that in an ideal society, women would not need to work, and we should move to that form of society. But in the meantime, improving the lot of working mothers (1) undermines feminism and realigns working mothers with populist nationalism, and (2) will probably increase the number of white babies born.
I concede your point that we could see a possible increase in the birth rates of White children, but if those children are sent off to a day care center that is being run and controlled by Cultural Marxists, as are the vast majority of our elementary, middle schools, high schools and colleges – those White children will be new victims of anti-White brainwashing and probably grow up to be defective SJW types.
This practice of getting control over children as early as possible is one of the most dangerous tactics of Communists – and that’s precisely what the Cultural Marxists are positioned to do, for as long as White women are forced out of their homes and into the job market. Ideally, children should always be looked after by family members – so as to better enable White parents to pass down their values and sense of racial pride, and that’s why the Cultural Marxists rejoice over the need to put children into day care indoctrination centers, where those kids will be certain to get zero racial pride taught to them and lots and lots of self-hate and white guilt.
And, the worst aspect to this whole scheme – is that, while the Cultural Marxists are busy poisoning your White child’s mind with white guilt – you are being forced to PAY them to screw up your kid. The same concept applies to college educations; student loan debt has passed $1 trillion dollars, and what are White parents and White college students getting in exchange for all that debt they are burying themselves under?
Why, they get taught to hate their own race and be ashamed of their White European history.
I can see why jews have such a low opinion for White gentiles. No other race is as easily conned and fleeced as are White Europeans.
The root of the problem is the debt-based money system. We should study some history:
Consider what happened when jews were kicked out of England in the middle ages (1290) – from Stephen Goodson’s book History of Central Banking, pg 26-28:
THE GLORIOUS MIDDLE AGES
With the banishment of the moneylenders and the abolition of usury, there were hardly any taxes to pay and no state debt, as the interest-free tally stick was used for government expenditures. England now enjoyed a period of unparalleled growth and prosperity. The average laborer worked only 14 weeks a year and enjoyed 160 to 180 holidays. According to Lord Leverhulme, a writer of that time: “The men of the 15th century were very well paid,” in fact so well paid that the purchasing power of their wages and their standard of living would only be exceeded in the late 19th century. A laborer could provide all the necessities his family required. They were well clothed in good woolen cloth and had plenty of meat and bread.
Houston Stewart Chamberlain, the Anglo-German philosopher, confirms these living conditions in his The Foundations of the XIXth Century.
“In the 13th century, when the Teutonic races began to build their new world, the agriculturist over nearly the whole of Europe was a freer man, with a more assured existence than he is today; copyhold was the rule, so that England , for example – today a seat of landlordism – was even in the 15th century almost entirely in the hands of thousands of farmers, who were not only legal owners of their land, but possessed in addition far-reaching free rights to common pastures and woodlands”
During their spare hours many craftsmen volunteered their skills in building some of England’s magnificent cathedrals, which reinforces one of the basic tenets of Western civilization that without leisure time, the fostering of culture is not possible. George Macauley Trevelyan, the English social historian, describes these accomplishments as follows:
“The continuous but ever-moving tradition of ecclesiastical architecture still proceeded on its majestic way, filling England with towering forest of masonry of which the beauty and grandeur have never been rivaled either by the Ancients or the Moderns…In the newer churches the light no longer crept but flooded in, through the stained glass, of which the secret is today even more completely lost than the magic of the architecture.”
I forgot to add, I have no objections to increasing the birth rate by giving generous government cash incentives to women raising children at home.
To me, that’s what it’s all about. Even the woman with a high-earning husband.
Also, I have soft spot for the single working girl who just has to earn a living like everyone else, but really does not want to be there.
I just cannot stomach the highly paid professional woman with two household incomes, but who still wants AA and flexible work arrangements. They are now becoming a real pest.
Everything Ivanka said in her speech about Trump’s business practices are consistent with early feminist precepts, to wit: affordable, quality childcare, employer maternity leave, and women CEOS. I think there is some wishful thinking and manosphere magical thinking going on here.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment