father's rights

Tom Chambers got himself in trouble when he said that men got paid more because they had to “pay for their wives and children”. He was pointing to a very important underlying mechanism – the transfer of resources from men to women and far from being silenced this should be part of the debate.

In the past, men were paid more than women because it was recognised that they might be supporting a wife and children. And among the middle classes even working wives are still supported by their well-paid husbands – not because of the gender pay gap, but because, women do so much more spending than men.

Let’s look at the facts. We know that women don’t earn as much money as men. This is reflected in the fact that men pay around 70 per cent of the tax.

Yet despite overall earning less than men for reasons which we have reiterated here and here and here, women are responsible for the vast majority of spending that goes on. A recent article in Forbes tells us:

“Women drive 70-80 per cent of all consumer purchasing, through a combination of their buying power and influence. Influence means that even when a woman isn’t paying for something herself, she is often the influence or veto vote behind someone else’s purchase.

And that “the name on the credit card doesn’t tell the whole story. The person who makes a sales transaction isn’t necessarily the decision maker. Even if a woman does not earn a paycheck, she is likely the gatekeeper to her household’s expenditures.”

Women may not earn most of the money but they control most of the money that is earned.

That is what Tom Chambers means when he says that “men have to pay for wives and children”.

The worst thing about this story is not that it happens. Prior to feminism, male provisioning was an effective way of ensuring that children were looked after. Even until recently women (only non-feminist ones I am sure!) have been more likely to go without for the benefit of their children. Prior to feminism, I suspect the majority of women respected their husband’s hard work and were themselves prepared to work hard in return.

The problem is that it only happens among the better off. If you look at the gender pay gap, the differences between men’s and women’s earnings decrease the further down the employment scale you go. Men make up the vast majority of those working in the gig economy and are increasingly present in other poorly paid sectors. The mothers of their children are much less likely to be cohabiting with or married to them because the State is the better provider. The poor are poor because the gender pay gap has gone into reverse.

The disastrous results of the decline in male earnings was laid bare in a recent report by the Institute of Fiscal Studies. The report explains how over the last 20 years the growth in earnings of working fathers has grown extremely slowly at 0.3 per cent on average while mothers’ earnings shave grown at more than 2 per cent a year. As a result, while the incomes of two earner families are 10 per cent higher than in 2002-2003, the incomes of one earner families have not changed in that period. The slump in male earnings leads to poverty where the mother does not work.

This means mothers of even the very young are under significant pressure to be in employment. This spells a huge burden of deprivation of love and care for our future generations. Endless evidence shows that women really want to be involved in the direct care of their children. And that children benefit from this. Fathers do too, and I think they should have the opportunity to do so, but you will have a hard time convincing me that the majority of men would prefer to spend more time with infants than out at work. By contrast, mothers prefer to spend time with their babies. So the traditional arrangement, given flexibility, actually works out well.

While this is still possible for the wives of well-paid men it is not possible for less advantaged women. Our feminist-driven policies have been so intent on promoting the position of women we have completely and utterly neglected the employment of men.

However, the way we live has been built on male providing and to ignore it and deny it is going to leave us all a lot worse off. Men earned money and gained status (patriarchy) because women demanded it.

Those who were successful were able to mate and reproduce. Men’s earnings rise both when they get married and when children are born. Men with partners are much more likely to be working than men without partners. This is particularly important for men whose work gives them little intrinsic motivation for doing the job. (further evidence for these arguments is available here, here )

Men used to earn because they wanted to look after their families. Women earn because they think it gives them more status, makes them more ‘equal’ and because they like spending money. Feminism has made women feel entitled to be ‘takers’ so men are turning away from them. As men lose their interest in supporting families, they are freed up to find more creative, enjoyable and interesting ways to spend their time.

They will be less motivated to earn money. This will help to solve the pay gap. It also threatens the future of our culture by undermining our reproductive relations – love and interdependence between women and men.


  1. Belinda, 1000 upvotes for “Feminism has made women feel entitled to be ‘takers’ so men are turning away from them.”.

    No hard worker likes a “taker”, and feminism, as well as turning women into “takers”, also turns men into “takers” – the beta males who think “why should i work hard when my wife is a high earner”, the modern equivalent of the spongers who married heiresses in the past. (No wonder some high earning women divorce their low earning spouses).

    We’ve gone from families with two hard workers, Father in work, and Mother at home (and sometimes in part time or flexible work), to families with one hard worker and one sponger, or even worse, one sponger and the state.

    • Not only that, but providing for your family, especially for a man, is always meaningful work, so the feminists are depriving men of this too; and by making women into “takers”, it also deprives women of their traditional role of working in the home.

      A lot of our current mental health problems in adults (especially the jobless) seem to me to stem from a lack of purpose in life, which is not only due to a decline in traditional Christian religious belief, but also to the idea that there is no reason to work if the state provides everything, therefore work is meaningless; when the reverse is true, work, particularly to provide for others, or to help others, gives our lives real meaning.

      • I would also add that this “universal wage” idea being proposed by the lefties is immoral if not wicked. Rather than leading to some kind of utopia, it will lead to much more emptiness, idleness and even suicides.

        • Well, OTOH the idea does have the advantage of removing millions from under the thumb of “social services” busybodies … and of allowing far more sensible taxation régimes.

          Nobody thinks it’s any kind of utopia, and there are positives to the proposal that aren’t just lefty bollox, but it’s a cheaper method overall of helping the genuinely needy than the socialist method of politicised means and needs testing by hundreds of thousands of Corbynista bureaucrats.

          • You’re not wrong in your caveat. But it would be much better to return that function, which is illegitimate in government, back where it belongs, churches and service charities, voluntarily supported. Along with a generous helping of sermons and shame.

          • On the contrary JabbaPapa, I think it would be modern slavery – he who pays the piper… As a small business owner, I can see my decision making ability (that is freedom) has been eroded over the last 15 or so years, and so it would be with the national wage.

            Most of the poor at the moment are suffering from poverty of spirit (as well as excess bureaucracy, I grant you that), rather than real material want.

            Perhaps the powers that be think that a national wage would allow everybody to be altruistic and work towards curing cancer or saving the whales, but I think that one of the risks is that nobody would want to work any more.

            It appals me that people with a little money stashed away seem to want to float around Europe in a campervan for the rest of their days, rather than using their time to help other people, or even use their capital to make more money (and employ others by doing so, which is the best form of charity there is).

            This may sound harsh, but the abolition of the dole (or a perhaps lifetime limit of 2 years worth), plus genuine charities to help the sick and needy, might actually be better for the poor in spirit than endless handouts which remove their will to work (and to live) by removing the imperative to put food on the table.

          • Oh, I’m not suggesting that the idea doesn’t have flaws. Just that there are both pros and cons to it.

          • erm, the idea is that *everyone* gets this income, regardless of wealth or poverty.

            IIRC it was first proposed by someone quite conservative.

          • What I mean is that most people will only have this as an income source, to be controlled by the elite, while they themselves will have other income and other freedoms the rest of us won’t have.

            I believe that the true conservative values freedom and personal responsibility above all else, and suspect it either was an academic who’s not in touch with reality, or a “conservative in name only”.

          • If it’s enough to live on, I fear that human nature will mean that will be enough for the majority who will live lives of idleness and emptiness as a result.

          • As far as I can see, enough to survive, but not live on — certainly that’s the case in the current Finnish experiment.

          • Time will tell… btw, do you have a link to the experiment? sounds fascinating (in a car crash kind of way)

          • Thanks JP (and don’t worry about reading the Indie, I find myself reading the Guardian recipe column from time to time 🙂 )

        • Universal wage is an inevatiblity in the end unfortunalty, automation will make it unavoidable. In other words, the communist utopia ill happen in the end. Its inevitable. It will just happen silently, out of nessesity because robots do everything better then humans (maybe except entertainment but….).

          • Sorry, I disagree – that’s what some people WANT you to think, but believe you me, we are a whole lot further from automation being able to do a great many things than you might imagine. Plus, if robots can do everything, why have humans at all (except perhaps an elite?) ? ,There is no reason for us to go down that route, and you have to wonder why it is being proposed, and who is pushing that idea so forcefully.

          • You are absolutely right Lagopus. Look at who is proposing this; and remember, universal wage means universal control. The ultimate aim of the left is to turn everybody into a drone that looks the same, thinks the same and believes the same.

          • Isaac Asimov, who was a militant atheist, explored this idea in a book — and even such a man as he was forced to conclude that such a society would be utterly dehumanising and intrinsically worthless.

          • Im not saying it will be super soon, but it will happen. For the simple fact machines are better at doing anything humans do now. They dont need rest, they do things more precise etc etc. And yeh you will get that question too, why have humans at all? There is a reason for us to go that route, as it is the logical choice. Is it the best choice? On that im not sure. But it is the logical one. And when machines do everything, you either abolish currency altogheter, or you have universal pay, as in communism solution.

            Maybe we can reorganize and reprioritize to other things to compensate for the destruction of previous state of affairs, i hope so, as the progress of automation is highly unlikely to stop.

          • (a) Machines are not better at everything, for starters, they’re all designed and programmed and maintained (or not) by human beings. Secondly, the things they can do better are still quite limited (I work with manufacturing industry, so see a lot of industrial and domestic technology working, or not, as the case may be).

            (b) This idea is just nihilism in technological clothing, and you have to think who would benefit from it.

            (c) The future is not pre-determined, we still have free will

          • As I said they are not there yet. But they are inherently superior by two simple facts: 1) they do not need rest, 2) they do everything perfectly when they work as intended.

            If the development we see today continues, machines will program, maintain and design themselves. What little AI experimentation we have done shows that machines are better at making new stuff then us as well (i.e better and more efficent language etc).

            And I even agree with you, it will probably not make human existance better. But its not like were even discussing that in any way shape or form, its just a continous spread of automation everywhere.

          • 1) not true, they need maintenance periods, shutdown, cleaning etc 2) also not true, because they are designed by humans and we are fallible. Plus, the more complex the systems are, the more likely they are to have “bugs” and not work as intended.

            Even AI will be limited by the parameters a human decides (or not). Plus we can choose not to have AI in certain fields, or, we can choose not to allow machines to design themselves.

          • AI is not limited by the parameters a human decides. We already know this, and we havent even created true AI yet. And once AI exists, they will be in all fields as long as money and efficency decides (wich it does in every way shape and form now at least).

            And sure, they need maintenance, but it gets better for every year that goes by, machines can go for months or even years before its needed depending on the work it does. They are also cheaper…..

          • Then don’t bl**dy create”true AI”! How old are you BTW? Your faith in technological progress is quite touching 🙂

          • My faith in? I dont like that kind of progress. I dont need faith to dicern the development of this in the future. The next big thing is the autoamtion of transportation. That will happen in my lifteime, and will kill so many jobs its actually sickening. And technological progress is not linear its exponential.

          • And technological progress is not linear its exponential

            In which dimensionality ?

            Really, it’s just a meaningless slogan that sounds sort of OK right up to the point where you actually start thinking what on EARTH it’s supposed to actually mean …

          • Techonological innovation progresses faster the more techonlogically advanced you get. In 100 years we went from horse and carriage, to landing on meteors at the edges of our solar system.

          • See ? You’re incapable of formulating any actually mathematical scale to back up the claim, because it just doesn’t exist.

          • The only technological progress proven to be exponential is chip processing power (Moores’ law, mainly related to improvements in cooling AFAIK). Other technological progress isn’t even linear, knowledge is lost and re-found, moved about between different disciplines etc. For example, drug discovery has slowed down recently, as we may be about to find out as bacterial resistance increases.

          • That’s only one small part of technological progress, there’s a lot more to it than processing power.

          • Unfortunately the genie is well and truly out of the bottle, and love it or hate it, it’s [realistically] only going to go in one direction.

            Knowing that, the challenge for every one of us is to find in ourselves ways in which our “humanity” can still beat the machine. We don’t have to accept defeat but we *do* have to be creative in our ideas.

          • Latest AI experiment, it invented its own programming language, hence not limited to parameters humans decide. Hence AI.

          • it invented its own programming language

            No, it produced a randomised variant of Linux within the limits of various pre-programmed parameters.

          • It still produced something new. However limited that new thing was. And it was better then what the human used.

          • You mean “new”.

            There’s a trick to getting a computer to provide random results, which is neither that complicated except when learning it the first time, nor is it terribly interesting once you’ve done it.

            It is the basic trick used to create the illusion of randomness in computer software, including in certain basic AI functions designed to give the appearance of unpredictable behaviour.

            But it’s all just game theory smoke and mirrors, that you’re making the mistake of taking at face value.

          • AI in action :

            Bob: i can i i everything else . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

            Alice: balls have zero to me to me to me to me to me to me to me to me to

            Bob: you i everything else . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

            Alice: balls have a ball to me to me to me to me to me to me to me

            Bob: i i can i i i everything else . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

            Alice: balls have a ball to me to me to me to me to me to me to me

            Bob: i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

            Alice: balls have zero to me to me to me to me to me to me to me to me to

            Bob: you i i i i i everything else . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

            Alice: balls have 0 to me to me to me to me to me to me to me to me to

            Bob: you i i i everything else . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

            Alice: balls have zero to me to me to me to me to me to me to me to me to

          • A lot of sad men will resort to “sex robots” because they are unable to get laid.

          • You should buy one for yourself, darling, and talk to it instead of typing your bollox in here.

          • What a sad, broken, and twisted little individual this “boy” friend sounds like.

            How many times have you pushed him to the brink of suicide ?

          • Why do you assume that someone is less of a “man” because they are happy not to be the dominant partner in a relationship?

          • Evolutionary Biology shows us that 80% of women mated with 20% of men throughout known human history. The 80% of men who didn’t mate were non-dominant. Not chosen by the sisterhood. Take a Psych class if you want to see female preferences as they have shaped the masculinity you abhor so much. Don’t even bother to argue. It is your female preferences that demand a dominant partner. If you don’t have them realise you are the odd one out among billions and STFU.

          • Even if that was true in the past, in the modern world your “toxic masculinity” is increasingly obsolete.

          • And most important of all; they are a dead end, they will not and cannot innovate in any way at all, and that is what has made humans what they are.My grandfather did much the same job as I do, but almost nothing we do is done the same way, we’ve improved every aspect.

          • 1) they do not need rest

            Yes they do, or they overheat and break down

            2) they do everything perfectly when they work as intended

            No they don’t, as the cases of workers killed or maimed by malfunctioning machinery demonstrate

            machines will program, maintain and design themselves

            No they won’t — you’re confusing some quite exaggerated claims about so-called “machine learning” with the human characteristic that the expression is derived from.

            AI is not actually intelligent, as you would know if you’d ever used any AI programming techniques.

      • Wow. You have articulated in a couple of paragraphs the main thesis of my husband’s book ” Transforming Men”. A whole book on it but still no one listened…

        • The leftists would probably rule out reading his book on the grounds that he’s male ….

          By the way, feel free to pinch said paragraphs if it would help publicising his book (eg FB, twitter etc ). We need to get the message that feminism has failed everyone out to as many people as possible.

          Those of us who are regulars on TCW will not be the only people who’ve noticed there’s a problem, the important bit is describing what the solutions are, or could be.

          • I had already decided to pinch the paragraphs for a family policy conference paper I am working on.

      • “A lot of our current mental health problems … seem to me to stem from a lack of purpose”

        Which ironically, I think is actually made worse by university degrees. When people used to think “this job is cr@p”, now they think “this job is cr@p *and beneath me because I have a degree*”

    • It seems very one-sided that for years men happily accepted a relationship with women who earned less than them, yet high-earning women do not seem at all keen to stay with low earning men.

      In my case, the answer to “why should I work hard when my wife is a high earner” was simply “because the two of us make a team and we both work hard to contribute” – maybe our relationship is in the minority.

      • It may be one sided, but it is quite in line with the theory that women prioritise money over other considerations when looking for a possible father of their children.

        Financial security helps to guarantee the availability of the necessities of life during the process of getting and raising children, which is the fundamental purpose of mating.

        Such attitudes are written into our DNA. Locke thought that we are untouched by animal nature at birth. He was wrong.

        • Yes yes you’re talking about the traditional contract we have had for millennia. Bik Byro is saying that women have broken this and have the gall to expect men to stay in their box and be good little boys holding their end up for women’s benefit and women’s benefit only.
          I was only young when I witnessed a female lawyer laughing and mocking a man who had just lost everything in divorce saying “if he didn’t want to lose all his money and possessions he should have married his equal”.
          I was outraged. Men were supposed to dismiss their natural biological drive or be penalised yet not so for women. Oh no, no penalty for them. Instantly I knew women would pay for that. I understood mgtow without knowing it’s name. I knew the backlash would grow and men would harden their hearts to women. Other men must feel the way I did. I hoped in my yet to be even a teen determination that it would hit women harder than they had ever felt before in the history of humankind. If I had my way everything, Everything ever written about male and female relations was going to be made void by the noncompliance of the male.
          Cassandra you seem to be walking around in a fog. You have no idea how many men want to invert women’s biological imperative and shove it down their throats.

        • To be honest I don’t think its a theory any more. The evidence since WW2 has been consistent. Women prioritise their potential partners ability to provide and men their partners healthiness to have children. This is so overwhelmingly found I think its proven insofar as anything can be.

    • “The state” means taxpayers; us hard workers pay for those spongers, not the Government.

  2. Disposable income before marriage :
    Man : 30k, Woman 20k

    Disposable income after marriage:
    Man : 0, Woman 50k

      • Chuckle, yes but very true. My father was one of the very few that used to hand his pay packet (remember them?) over unopened to my mother. near enough every other family that I knew of, the male took out a housekeeping allowance and handed it to his wife.
        In my long and happy marriage, what was mine became hers and what was hers, stayed hers.

        • Did you live in the south? AFAIK the classic northern model is the man handing the pay packet to the wife and getting some “pocket-money” back.

          • Absolutely and woe betide the man who took a “broken wage packet” back to his wife, by way of the pub.

            In fact fearsome strong women were described as “not one to take a broken wage packet home to”.

            As you say, the wife counted the money and gave the mani his “spends” .

          • Within my experience, I have witnessed the males in the Gorbals pubs while the little lady stood outside trying to get her housekeeping money. Come the ‘fair’ some families were destitute with the holiday pay going to the bar.

          • That’s husbands not playing fair – in other communities (especially smaller towns/ more rural areas) it would not have been tolerated by the wider family.

          • In my experience this remains the “norm” in the “working class” boroughs here in Manchester.

  3. It makes me want to weep when I see so many women driven out to work and leaving their children with carers. This is precious time with your children – bonding with them, teaching them your values in life, how to act politely and respond to others. In the 1970’s and 80’s I stayed at home with my children and my husband had a good salary – and yes I was in charge of the finances. As the children grew I began to retrain for work and took Management courses and then decided to do a teaching certificate. I was able to do this because of the family structured support. I enjoyed a new career for 15 years before I retired and enjoy helping to look after my own grandchildren now I have the time. Money and career is not everything. Quality of life and the next generation are important too. Many of our societal ills are down to how we now live – especially mental illness in young people.

    • Thank you for this. It is a principle of Christian teaching on the family that the ‘stay-at-home mother’ is the gold standard. But as with so many other family and child-friendly Christian principles it has been thrown out. I guess, at the same time as the concept that ‘more’ money isn’t everything, and that it can’t buy you the things that really matter in this life.

  4. “Feminism has made women feel entitled to be ‘takers’ so men are turning away from them”.
    Nail on head. Why would young men tie themselves down to a female? Wouldn’t it be easier to let the state provide for the female (possibly females) and the kids while the young man has some freedom to pursue whatever interests him (even though, in some cases it is taking dope).
    In the longer term, it represents the downfall of society as borrowing escalates to cover welfare costs and the productive sectors move in search of a skilled and committed workforce.

    • Really good article, but then de Tocqueville was a very acute observer. I doubt many American men, at least through the 60s or so would dissent. We’ve always been very very proud of our women, who were brave enough to go everywhere with us. Not to mention put up with us, which Fanny Trollope seemed to think was quite a feat.

  5. Following the recent BBC debacle about the ‘gender pay gap’, and all large companies being obliged to do likewise shortly, it is inevitable that the pressure to equalise men’s and women’s pay will intensify. So far men’s work ethic has stood up remarkably well, but perhaps it won’t when they see women being gifted the same pay whilst being clearly less deserving (e.g., forcing equal pay after extended maternity leave or part time working). The effect of hypergamy in this situation will be to drive down marriage rates amongst the higher socioeconomic classes, as it has already done in the lower. Fewer men being married will lead to still further reduction in male effort (which is known to be enhanced by marriage). The feminist/progressive lobby want to achieve equal pay and equal childcare by men and women. But this will be undermined by declining marriage and continuing decline in the birth rate for UK born women. This will be accompanied by a declining economy – inevitably since men are the drivers of the economy and equalising pay will be achieved primarily at the cost of reduced male effort, not increased female effort.

  6. “As men lose their interest in supporting families, they are freed up to find more creative, enjoyable and interesting ways to spend their time.”

    Feminism told women they don’t need men anymore. Ok. Men are unemployed and under employed in record numbers. They are not going to college in record numbers. They work low paid , no future jobs, that have no stress and meet there basic needs. Women on the other hand are moving up the ladder, getting all the high status/ paid jobs.

    Good for them. Just stop whining on why you cant find a good man who makes more money than you, you drove him out of the market.

    • The real danger there isnt the lack of good man material for women. No the risk is that the 100% essential crappy jobs that no woman even touches, will suddenly find no men wanting to do them. When that happens say bye bye to sanitation and electricity.

      • Thor Alexander Michelsen wrote:

        When that happens say bye bye to sanitation and electricity.

        And railway permanent way gangs, telephone engineers willing to climb masts hundreds or thousands of feet high, roadside recovery, luggage handlers, navvies, maintenance fitters, central heating engineers, even bra designers (still mostly men I understand).

        That aside, what happens to welfare and benefits as the 72% of personal taxes currently paid by men plummets with falling male incomes? Women won’t be working harder and longer to earn more so where will the government handouts come from?

        • Well yeh, but i only took the two 100% essentials for modern society here. As listing upp all would be pointless, as cities would be uninhabitable withouth sanitation, and electricity runs everything.

      • “work gives them little intrinsic motivation for doing the job” Perhaps we have reached that point in some areas, with such jobs taken by Polish and other eastern Europeans?

  7. Interesting. I earn and my wife doesn’t, and i give her a substantial sum each month. When she was earning considerably more than i was the reverse did not take place.

    • I didn’t mean to engage in consciousness raising ….I feel rebellion brewing…I am a woman…I like things as they are….

      • Well Belinda I think the “consciousness raising” is being done by the “Blob” in its gender training. For although much of this is telling males they’re oppressive it does get them thinking……. For not only does paying for drinks and so on seem unfair, it is heightened by the knowledge, excuse that it’s being “dominant”. In my local estate many young men are semi employed with the justification this gives them more time to help with their “kids” (they aren’t married). No I get the impression that in my offspring’s generation men are unimpressed by “takers” and acutely aware that their contemporaries are totally “hooked” on consumer goods. They are in short “high maintenance”. So men aren’t in a rush to “commit” they can wait.

  8. They will be less motivated to earn money. This … threatens the future of our culture by undermining our reproductive relations … ‘

    Falling levels of reproduction in an overpopulated and over-consuming world (women overwhelmingly the cause of both problems) are not cause for concern. The biggest threat to our culture comes from the decline in male creative output and I’m not referring to ‘the arts’; the number of women capable of solving complex scientific, technical and engineering problems is insufficient to support a dynamic industrial society and the number of those who are capable and are prepared to put in the hours and effort necessary to do so effectively may be considerably fewer.

    What will women do when things no longer work and there are few if any men with the knowledge and inclination necessary to fix them?

    • “the number of women capable of solving complex scientific, technical and engineering problems is insufficient to support a dynamic industrial society”

      What’s your evidence for this? You know, scientific, “manly” facts? Or are you relying on your feelings and what you want to be true?

      The number of women taking STEM courses at uni is growing. More work still needs to be done, but the gap is narrowing. Already girls have overtaken boys in Biology and Chemistry.

      By 2050, 50% of our engineers and physicists will probably be female.

        • 100 years ago, males were saying women would never become lawyers, doctors, politicians, journalists and businesspeople.

          • lawyer – worthless destroyer of families
            doctor – much under-performing compared to men
            Journalists – worthless typists; no actual journalism, just herd groupthink
            politicians – seriously?
            businesspeople – that hasn’t changed. Oh you mean involved in corporatism as cubicle slaves.

            What you don’t see is the rise in female garbage collectors, road pavers, miners, oil extractors, infantry warfighters, power-line workers.

            Meanwhile – civilization collapses. Instant gratification delays the debt and demographic collapse to come.

          • Robots have, and will continue to, replace jobs that require physical strength.

            However, robots can never replace female empathy and people skills. Female-dominated jobs in the caring sector, HR and nursing, are safe.

          • No, they rely on the taxes from the jobs men do. When they go, and thoose taxes dissapear, the entire people skills sector dies with it.

          • That is quite possibly the stupidest thing I have ever read. That is exactly what A. I. is going to do. That is the designed purpose.

          • Female empathy and people skills are part of the feminist mythical narrative. There are no such things as female empathy or female “people skills” in society.

            These are fictional concepts discussed in gender studies echo chambers in academic centers, but are complete fictions in the real world.

            Pay attention, feminist.

      • the idiot is female wrote:

        What’s your evidence for this?

        There’s an ample supply of evidence available from a multiplicity of sources. Look for it yourself and stop expecting people with better things to do to do it for you.

        The number of women taking STEM courses at uni is growing. More work still needs to be done, but the gap is narrowing. Already girls have overtaken boys in Biology and Chemistry.

        The number of girls taking STEM courses at university is indeed growing, thanks entirely to discriminatory enrolment and funding schemes and not from any growth in real interest in the subject. Quite simply boys and young men are being excluded so that girls and young women have a better chance. That’s the only way women can outperform men; by handicapping us or preventing us from participating.

        By 2050, 50% of our engineers and physicists will probably be female.

        Quite possibly, but not by their own efforts and not with any benefit to society or the economy. Women are increasingly taking courses in STEM because of the bribes they are being offered to do so. However, few are going on to study in STEM fields at post-graduate level, so again they re being bribed to. Unfortunately most then take their higher degree and go into other fields, if they go into anything at all, which many don’t.

        As with earnings so with engineering: women are likely to achieve parity with men only because of a substantial decline in the number of male engineers, with a consequent collapse in the quality of decision making and problem solving.

        • I was in post graduate engineering program at a large university. We had 3 females in the entire program – two of them exchange students from China. The other girl was not interested in the slightest in engineering, but wanted the Master’s degree to get a good job. Very poor contributor to the group projects – conceptually flawed and lack of grasp of basic engineering theory.

  9. A lot of men feel threatened by strong, independent, assertive women like me.

    Here’s the headline, boys.

    We will never go back to being the meek, submissive doormats of the 1950s, content to squander our talents on household drudgery.

    No Millennial man could seriously expect his wife (assuming she’s a uni graduate) to put food on his table when he came home from work. She would either laugh in his face, slap him or divorce him. Every modern couple I know share the cooking and cleaning.

    In the old days, women had to accept men’s domestic rule because we depended on you as breadwinners.

    Now we are independent and if you want a partner, you better respect her and treat her as your equal.

    • Yup. and the downward spiral of unhappy women denying their biology continues. Enjoy your cats.

      • My boyfriend and I have been going out for 3 years. He earns less than me but he doesn’t mind and neither do I. We don’t even think it’s an issue.

        All the feminist women I know have partners.

        • Your personal story, does not disprove the trend. Wich is more single parent households, more lonely people, and less happy people with the new state of affairs.

        • I believe the term is “mangina”.
          You date a mangina with low self confidence, and likely Low-T.

    • And we will not settle for a lazy, parasitic woman who spends freely, but does not contribute financially. Nor will we settle for being cut off from our children upon divorce, nor subject to the debt peonage of alimony and outrageous child support.

      Until family court changes from its bigoted, feminist positions on just about every aspect of divorce, better start proposing to your boyfriends, or freezing your eggs, ladies.

      Feminists made your bed, now you can lie in it…alone.

      • “a lazy, parasitic woman who spends freely”

        When will men stop wasting their money on video games, sports and “boys’ toys” like sports cars?

        • Follow the line of thought if you can. It would only be a waste if it was her money. Try not to trip yourself up yet again.

        • Just as soon as women stop wasting money on fashion, makeup, expensive diet fads, shoes, and handbags.

        • We will stop wasting our hard-earned money on bigoted, lazy feminist harridans, that is for sure. And we will ensure going forward that our hard-earned tax dollars are used for our benefit.

          The era of our kleptocratic government using our tax monies to subsidize feminist pork is ending. Pay your own way, entitled laggard, or go without.

      • It’s already happening. Read the Marriage Strike. Or listen to Karen Straughan on YouTube.

        Watch “The Red Pill” by Cassie Jaye.

        • There will always be enormous societal pressure on males to have girlfriends.

          Not being able to “get a girlfriend” is still a source of shame for most men.

          • Not anymore. It was untill recently. But all you need now is to bang from time to time. No girlfriend required.

          • Those sexualist indoctrination claims of the 1960s and 1970s don’t convince anyone any more.

            Personally, I’d be ashamed if I were so addicted to s*x that it would require putting up with the likes of you.

            Don’t like what I just said ? Well tough nuts, “darling”.

          • I’ll call you anything I like, “darling”, given the sheer extent of the moronically sexist insults you’ve been pushing into these threads — as unwanted as they are unintelligent.

          • Sexism, like racism, means prejudice + power.

            Therefore males cannot be victims of sexism, because you are the privileged group with power.

            In the same way, white people cannot be victims of racism.

          • You and your kind don’t make the rules. We are not listening anymore. Any agreement is over.

          • Actually, last time I checked, we do make the rules. We are in charge now. Your children will learn our rules in school.

          • You and your kind will no longer make your bigoted rules to artificially prop up your bigoted agenda. Rules mean nothing to those who will not comply. We are not listening anymore. Any agreement is over. Women are freezing their eggs looking for children from men who went to F. U.

          • Sexism, like racism, means prejudice + power

            Your grotesque S&M ideology is completely disconnected from reality.

            Go and see a clinical psychiatrist to treat your obvious insanity, my dear, if it’s not already too late.

          • If women overtake men in the power they can exert, as you suggest is happening, only women will be capable of sexism.
            If this is not the case, then your proposition is nonsense.

          • It’s easy to “get a girlfriend” or 3, or 4.

            The Soft Harem is the New Marriage, except without the asymmetric liabilities of the institution that lay predominantly with the male, given the vast extensive female legal privilege that exists.

            Men have escaped The Plantation, dear. Get used to it.

    • A lot of men feel amused by the ridiculous claims of a feeble, indoctrinated sockpuppet account like this one.

      Here’s the headline, you moron.

      We couldn’t give a monkey’s fart about this bollox that you carry on spamming into these threads, and in the unlikely event that you actually were a woman, well you’ll end up doing all of that household drudgery anyway as no self-respecting man would ever possibly want to share his life with such a ghastly example of indoctrinated Marxist slogan-mongery.

      No self-respecting man could possibly want to get home from work and use his hard-earned or easy-earned cash to put food down your yawning, voracious gullet.

      If you claim to be so “independent”, well then you’ve no need for a “partner” anyway. I certainly have zero respect for you, and as for “equality”, you’re a moral midget with an objectively inferior ideology.

    • Hello dear, still in the UK? Don’t you worry your pretty little head, I’m sure we can still find the money for your plane ticket to Canada, you’re obviously getting over-excited again, and a move to the socialist paradise there will be just the ticket for your nerves.

        • 1000 upvotes for Venezuela, let the left lie in the bed they’ve made.

          Bless her lickle cotton socks, she was threatening to move to Canada if we voted for Brexit, and I’m just trying to get her to keep her promise 🙂 .

      • She is more to pitied than scolded. Brought up in a single mother household with daddy doing a runner (she let slip on Guido). No wonder she has daddy issues. It wouldn’t surprise me if mother also did a runner. Wouldn’t you?

    • To any gentlemen reading this site, this pathetic female is not representative of the views of most of the ladies who read and comment on TCW, please ignore her.

          • If you are female, you must be totally ignorant of what Feminism has done for us.

            Ever heard of internalised misogyny?

          • I am old enough to know that Feminism has not just thrown the baby out with the bathwater, it has done far more damage than you could ever imagine, because your worldview is so narrow.

            Please take your insults back to the Guardian, and leave us social conservatives to try to work out some actual practical solutions to the current problems we face.

    • I thought sperm counts were decreasing because of toxins such as Bisphenol A were leaching into food and drink from plastics (which is perhaps why sperm counts have decreased in developed countries but not in third-world ones).

      Like most arts and social science graduates you do not use facts linked by logical reasoning but simply plonk facts, related or otherwise, in a big heap and hope the size of the heap, rather than its contents, impresses others.

  10. The female impersonator infesting this thread will keep returning and become a nuisance if everyone takes his bait.

  11. Ms Brown and others

    You need to read Hanna Rosin’s magnum opus “The End of Men”

    Ms Rosin explains how technological and social changes are making traditional masculinity obsolete in the modern world. Women are increasingly becoming the breadwinners, becoming more assertive and taking the lead in sex and relationships.

    Women no longer need a man to take care of us. No longer do we have to settle for a boring or mediocre husband simply because we need a provider. Young women have more power now and we know it.

    No longer do we submit to men, blush or bow our heads in deference when a man walks past.

    We have stormed all the male bastions and in Hillary’s words, “the future is female”.

    For men to find a place in an increasingly female-dominated world, they will need to work with Feminists to re-invent masculinity for the 21st century. The old toxic masculinity will have to go.

    • the idiot is female wrote:

      Ms Brown and others

      I believe it’s Mrs. I don’t doubt that as a card carrying, easily triggered, left leaning, anally evacuating, gratuitously insulting and thoroughly revolting misandrous lunatic addressing someone you disapprove of with the courtesy that is everyone’s due is anathema to you but really, most civilised people will, I’m sure, agree with me that there is no need to be rude.

      • The old social convention, whereby women had to display their marital status in their title, was problematic.

        Men had the privilege of being able to keep their personal lives primate.

        • the idiot is female wrote:

          The old social convention, whereby women had to display their marital status in their title, was problematic.

          In my experience, women who can attract and keep mate are delighted to advertise the fact with a name change and a ring, and react sharply if addressed with a form that might suggest they are not so capable. My wife, who knows how to assert her interests and defend her corner, would put you in your place were you to address her as ‘mizzz’.

          Men had the privilege of being able to keep their personal lives primate.

          A Freudian slip? Whether or not, men aren’t driven by the need to change our surnames before we hit the big three oh but we are prone to uxoriousness, which means that we tend to indulge our wives in all but their wildest flights of fancy, even when we should say no and no more. I can’t say, nor can you, however, I suspect that long long ago, women took their husbands’ surnames through choice and the men said, then as now, well if that’s what she wants to do why not?

          Primate? Interesting: if you really do have a mangina boyfriend who’s happy to be bossed about by you, in your stud busting nine and a half inch spike heeled ballerina fantasy pumps, your vocabularial lapse is understandable. Fancy a bit of shibari and suspension, Toots?

          • Thank you so much Mister Cis – yes that Ms made me feel extremely annoyed. And yes I have always been very happy to advertise the fact that I am married. And initially I chose not to take my husbands surname because I liked being Belinda Brown and more recently have chosen to do so. So yes it is entirely about choice. Feminists do all that they can to deprive us women of choice but some of us fight back.

          • In my experience, the only reason for using Ms, is that you don’t know, or, I suppose, her preference, which I’ve never run across if real life. Belinda Brown is a lovely alliterative name, but Belinda was my favorite Aunt, so I’m a bit prejudiced. In any case, it’s lovely to have you on side. I only wish more would say so, maybe we’d make more progress. Oh, and your husband is a very lucky man, but you already know that! 🙂

          • D. A. Christianson wrote:

            In my experience, the only reason for using Ms, is … ‘

            That she isn’t married and wants to conceal that fact. Married women like to be known as such and their husbands are happy for them to bear their surnames. I know that my wife will never disgrace my name and I am proud to introduce her as my wife. In allowing her to take my surname I confirmed that I trust her to protect it. It’s not her property nor is it mine; it is the property of my ancestors long dead and in accepting my proposal she accepted that obligation. What greater gift can a man give a woman?

          • I agree. My point was that occasionally one deals with a woman, in correspondence, for instance, where one can’t know, and do not wish to offend. The old standard was ‘Miss’, of course, but I was told by several, a few years back that they didn’t like the term, and preferred Ms. So I called them Ms, just not important to me, but it seemed to be to them. If I were to conjecture after having dealt with them for a time, they were unhappy that they hadn’t been able to attract a man, for reasons you are aware of, even on this thread. I was very glad when I no longer had to deal with them, as well.

          • Belinda Brown wrote:

            ‘ … initially I chose not to take my husbands surname because I liked being Belinda Brown and more recently have chosen to do so.

            There is still an accepted convention that married women who are successful in a professional sphere often use a pseudonym, as do many men. It is their privilege to use either the married or unmarried form of address. Most choose the unmarried form, perhaps to separate their work from their homes. It is still impolite to address a woman in a presumed way and no less acceptable for a woman to presume to dictate to another how she should be addressed.

            How typical that one preaching and screeching about ‘equality’ and ‘diversity’ and ‘liberation’ should presume to address you in a form likely to offend you because it denies your ability to make your own decisions. My wife accepted my proposal, married me and took my name from choice. She could have said no but didn’t. Should I consider her my inferior for that?

          • This feminist lives in fantasy land, where her own delusions are reality. Marriage is a HUGE status marker to women. It will become an even bigger status marker the more rare it becomes. Women ruthlessly dominate one another even in their own circles via status markers. If you’re observant and you watch a group of women gathered together, you’ll quickly see them ‘organize’ themselves. Married women with children and high-earning husbands will be the queens of the group. The lowest status females will be older never-married women. No married woman would leave the house without her rings on. Not to ‘ward off’ the advances of men but, to proclaim to other women, ‘See! I got one! What about you?’

        • I think that the “Social convention” that women had to display their marital status was so that when a woman entered in to a financial contract the other party knew who to send the bill to (the husband)

          • There is also a logic of why children take the father’s surname. I realised that with Jamaican families where daddies have got lots of different baby mamas. It signals that you are related – and it has probably always been like that. Even in the Old Testament daddies had baby mamas. Well they weren’t called that…wives, wives hadmaidens, concubines…

          • I’m rather fond of the old/middle English usage i.e. Fitzroy, and such to differentiate between legitimate offspring and others. Of course now, it would be (more than) a bit unwieldy. Maybe it always was, except in the nobility.

          • In Iceland , they take their father’s first name suffixed by ‘son’ or ‘daughter’. Thus, Olafson and Olafsdottir.

            It does make finding people problematical sometimes.

          • Very traditional Scandinavian, my great grandfather was Christian Severinson who came here from Oslo with his sons. I’ve a bunch of Severinson cousins. For us it changed at Ellis Island, most of Scandinavia changed in the early 20th century.

    • Your idea of a “modern world” is a house of cards. You don’t seem to understand that this modern world won’t be there unless men support it. All great cultures have fallen when men turn their backs on them. Are you blind that you cannot see men are withdrawing that support. Both you and Hanna Rosin will be sitting in the dirt if we re-invent your modern world for you. Perhaps we will take a leaf from Julie Bindel’s book and put you in camps where we can withdraw you like a loan from the library and then return you to your shelf. Have a look around the world and see if there isn’t a large culture that wouldn’t mind doing that…and that could just be the beginning for you to pay your debt to society. Have you never heard of the dark ages? Your idea that the 21st century goes “forward” as far as you goals are concerned is laughable. Try re-inventing masculinity when you spend your life in chains. You, your daughter, your daughter’s daughter. You don’t want to meet toxic.

          • She’d have to do a lot more than make a sandwich if she really thinks she can use Islam to her advantage…

        • Belinda Brown wrote:

          She can’t possibly have children.

          That, as a former corporate manager to whom I was subordinate used to say, is a ‘massive assumption’. If you’re expressing the subjunctive mood you may be disappointed. If the optative, I reserve judgement while not implying disagreement. Otherwise, I will say nothing except that the possibility is alarming.

          • No it is neither. Nor is it a massive assumption. It is logical deduction. No man would go near her for starters, she wouldn’t hold such extreme versions of the views she holds if she had kids, she wouldn’t be channelling so much energy into destructiveness. I bet you I am right. She doesn’t have kids. And never will.

    • I am not Ms Brown. I am a Mrs. Mrs Dench actually. I read it ages ago. Yes I agree women have all the power so how do you go on justifying your theories of patriarchy etc. You feminists have created a huge number of extremely unhappy women, men and children and have done and are still doing enormous damage to our society. I am trying to do what little bit I can to stop that damage and protect future generations. You and other feminists are hell bent on destruction and you care nothing for the costs. As long as your idea of your own personal interests are fulfilled. I hope you live to understand the damage which you have done.

      • “A little ray of sunshine has come in to the world, in the shape of a girl.”

        Thank you Mrs. Dench, if I may be so forward. (Ma’am)
        (Happily lifts hat and bows smartly)

        There, it is nice to be pleasant to each other is it not? Like it used to be.

          • I went to El Paso three times and never once saw a cow, a horse or a Stetson. I was deeply disappointed.

          • Horses and cows you might have to look for, especially in the cities, even the Pass, unless the rodeo is in town. But Stetsons are quite common, even the Cavalry still wears them, although not all are traditional cowboy hats, personally, I have three, one straw, one wool (crushable, handy that), and a fur one. Arguably the best American hats made. Heck, you could even get your own from Amazon.co.uk, although the selection isn’t great.

      • Belinda Brown wrote:

        I hope you live to understand the damage which you have done.

        Craig Martin wrote:

        Ah, the Future is Female, the same clown who posted on Guido last week the ‘secret’ that Feminists are using Islam to destroy western men and will discard Islam once that is done.

        She may yet, Miss Brown and I hope so too. That aside, the belief of western feminists that they can use and discard men who have no notion of chivalry or female privilege is rib ticklingly funny. “You go girl”, as the idiot is female is occasionally wont to write.

        • Wow. She is even more of a total raving lunatic than I would have imagined possible. God help us. He will.

          • “the ‘secret’ that Feminists are using Islam to destroy western men and will discard Islam once that is done.'”

            if the feminists truly think this then they will be in for a very big shock.

            because Islam(or rather extremists will turn on them as they have done to their own community). Lived under islam and sharia law for many many years( overseas) and the female activists within Islam are championing for major reform of Islam ( or rather sharia law) and they don’t want feminism since they see it as doing the very thing that was being done to muslim women( S.I.S) is an example of a group doing this.

            Some Muslim women don’t want feminism because it means giving up their protected privileges accorded to them under Islam.

            the dirty little secret feminists don’t want to tell everyone is that Sharia law is oppressive to both men and women( one reason why many Muslims go to non Muslim countries to avoid this) , but that the women have rights the feminists would love to have such as automatic custody of children or that their assets/income are not part of the marriage. The stories and advocacy research we hear in the west are the selected examples coming from societies that are by themselves already totalitarian and who wins in such conflicts are the one who have the power and money rather than the law.

            I’m happy to point the holes in her(future is female) theory if she wishes, since this was part of my life..

          • The Canadian clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson has suggested that because the feminists are repressing structures based on “dominance” or authority, unconsciously their desire for dominant males is irrationally manifesting as a support for the extreme male dominance of Islam.

    • Ah, the Future is Female, the same clown who posted on Guido last week the ‘secret’ that Feminists are using Islam to destroy western men and will discard Islam once that is done.
      The buffoon then asked for the post to be deleted as ‘she was drunk’ when she posted it.
      To bad screenshots were taken 🙂

      You are simply a Female Supremacy bigot, no different to groups like the KKK or the Nazis, who wish to use deception and lies to secure power.

      And you”re an idiot.

      • Since all the views expressed by this person are absolutely unoriginal (even “The Future is Female” is a standard feminist slogan of considerable vintage) I wonder if the stuff on Guido is actually a reflection of the standard thought of campus feminists?

        There is a sort of precedence for this kind of self-deception and stupidity. In the 1920s and 1930s Stalin thought that if the Nazis came to power this would simply accelerate the collapse of capitalism and hence the spread of worldwide communist revolution. Like radical feminists, communists had a quasi-religious belief in inevitable destiny. The result in the case of Germany (and in the Spanish Civil War) was that communists spent their energies attacking moderate socialists instead of the extreme Right.
        Stalin of course got a nasty surprise in the form of Operation Barbarossa.

    • Automation will ultimately destroy all jobs, both directly and because the loss of both consumer spending and tax revenue will cause a collapse in state spending and private spending power.
      That is just the economic effect. If you have machines that can design improved machines you set up a positive feedback, completely outside human control, which will result in the world being controlled neither by men nor women.

      • Quite right. A lot of jobs which are going to go, and are going before our very eyes, are those currently dominated by women, especially those which enabled them to come into employment in the first place.

        These include those requiring superior digital dexterity and attention to detail such as factory work and clerical work involving routine computer inputting in offices. Checkouts in Supermarkets are going to be pretty much history in as soon as 10 – 15 years. Meantime, deliveries of goods bought on line are done almost exclusively by men because of the risks and heavy lifting involved.

        A good deal of routine legal work from conveyancing to finding legal precedents for barristers could be digitalised. A high percentage of GPs’ work will be computerised with diagnoses and prescriptions being available on line. Anaesthetics is already done by robots and at a fraction of the cost of a human anaesthetist.

        And so on.

        Incidentally, roboticisation / computerisation will have other effects. It will mean, for example that the lower labour costs enjoyed by third world countries will disappear or be greatly lessened.

        It also means that the argument that we need immigrants is revealed as total nonsense.

        More jobs could be created by computerisation etc initially, but these will be done away with in their turn in the same manner.

    • Your hostility to men is positively pathological. Did your father desert you as a child, as did Germain Greer’s, or was he abusive in some way?

      You should reflect that your brand of overwrought, aggressive female triumphalism is tolerated by men only because of a lingering sense of chivalry.

  12. Yet again the BoE is concerned about ballooning personal debt. Perhaps it is the human condition to forget. It seems the “crash” blamed on “the bankers” but also a symptom of a belief in “consumer” society, an economy built on shopping. Rather like Adam Smiths useless aristocrats fuelling wealth through their profligacy followed by crash as the bailiffs caught up with milord The problem being todays aristocratic consumers, women, spend on stuff from abroad. The slowing in men’s wages growth should be concerning because that reflects the slow growth in the productive economy , while the rise in women’s reflects growth in the public and administrative sectors. In a sense the slow producer growth isn’t caused by feminism, but the increasing costs of the public sector and chunks of the service sector are.
    In the Public sector (where pay is higher on average than the productive sector) the “professionalization” particularly under new labour (graduate only) of nursing, primary teaching,social work and professions allied to health increased wages and costs (not least because it became necessary to employ more people to do the “hands on work” the new professions were now too good to do).
    The second hike in public sector costs comes in with the fairly obvious nonsense of trying to deliver flexible, patient/customer centred, wrap around services and give staff “family friendly” working practices. There are vast costs in Agency, overtime and employing additional staff to “cover”. Feminists in politics ,having made women expensive to employ, have condemned those service industries, specially public services to a sort of constant lie, promising levels of service that are not possible without huge increase in costs.
    There is good reason why feminist Sweden is also one of the most “sex segregated” economies, with its wealth producing industries almost exclusively a male preserve.
    Having worked in health and social care for over 30 years I now know that , whatever Gov. policy may say , no Hospital or community service will do more than tick over at weekend, that the Christmas, Easter and August periods will be on a skeleton basis and outside office hours not much more. For whatever the political drive or clinical need, the workforce simply evaporates like condensing steam.

    • “BoE is concerned about ballooning personal debt”

      Get ready more QE and inflation.

      It really is the only option left open to us. (Although even this option has failed in low birthrate Japan)

    • “….. whatever Gov. policy may say , no Hospital or community service will do more than tick over at weekend, that the Christmas, Easter and August periods will be on a skeleton basis and outside office hours not much more than skeleton.”

      That is so true. My sister in-law had the misfortune to be hospitalized over the Christmas and New Year period. She as being treated for cancer, took a turn for the worse a few days before Christmas and was admitted to hospital. She had to endure ten miserable days in a virtually staff free hospital before her oncologist returned from his Christmas break only to be told “There’s nothing else we can do for you, I don’t know why are you still here” or words to that effect. She died a few weeks later in a hospice.

Comments are closed.