Women these days are wasting their reproductive years doing vapid work at glorified adult daycares. Would it be sensible to ban women from the workforce until, say, their third child?
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
17
genesisSOC on scored.co
15 days ago17 points(+0/-0/+17Score on mirror)2 children
Why third child? Should be permabanned. Their job is at the house being wives, mothers, nurturers and teachers. We need man provider single income economy.
15 days ago9 points(+0/-0/+9Score on mirror)2 children
Yeah, I just don't see the advantage of working alongside women.
They can't keep up with men, physically or emotionally. They disrupt the cohesion in an all male team (guys in trades know what I mean, all you White Collars have probably never seen such a thing). And they are a guaranteed bitch one out of every four weeks (imagine studying the correlation between HR complaints and "that time of the month"; I bet it drops 90% on the other weeks).
On top of all that, they don't even increase productivity per capta, they just add bodies and drive down wages.
Exactly. And worse, they're not even happy at work and being "independent." Who's happier? A woman with several children that they spend all day with teaching, nurturing and watching grow every precious moment of their lives, or the single 40+ year old with no children on several medications including antidepressants as she binge watches drama TV at night after work eating ice cream and addicted to wine because jews told her this would make her happy?
Women don't need to work alongside men, and they certainly can't hold high, tough,, or skilled positions like leadership, hard labour, or anything STEM.
Some level of extra income for people who have started families can be a good thing. And I'm not interested in unfairly flattening wealth inequality, so just like in the majority of history, poorer families need working women.
15 days ago4 points(+0/-0/+4Score on mirror)1 child
There are some menial and part time jobs that we could benefit from having women do as opposed to the excuse to import indians. So long as the women are married, have children, and aren't responsible for their own finances.
Three is a good cap because it's just above the 2.1 for population stability, but it could be negotiated higher
15 days ago3 points(+0/-0/+3Score on mirror)1 child
I don't think there's any justification for women being in any work position, even for menial and part time jobs. I think those would be better served by men still, perhaps those too young, or too old, or too infirm to do other work. Women really, really need to be with their many children, and we need to be living in close knit large tribal communities as well. Not 6 million random families that don't know each other all living on the street but far from the rest of their own families
15 days ago1 point(+0/-0/+1Score on mirror)1 child
I understand what you're saying, but what of the women with empty nests? Who have had and raised their children? Should they not be able to work and provide for their community?
15 days ago2 points(+0/-0/+2Score on mirror)1 child
Their "work" is teaching other children with the other midwives and assisting the local community. They really shouldn't be any "employment" nor should they really be around other men. Even widows and orphans in general should be taken care of by society naturally as per God's instructions. I mean sure, you could consider things like stringing green beans, knitting and spinning flax as "work" but these are just common household tasks every woman should be doing naturally. If you're defining "work" as in be some receptionist in our current jewed world, I don't think that's how society should be at all
I'm certainly not talking about some mindless pencil pushing job the likes of which we have in surplus today. But with the reality of the world, there is going to be some contingency of women who will for reasons of class, workforce deficit, or otherwise, need to work.
And sensible restrictions to preserve the reproductive years of young women, and maintain homemaking and growth of family, I believe are the most measured way to deal with that.
They can't keep up with men, physically or emotionally. They disrupt the cohesion in an all male team (guys in trades know what I mean, all you White Collars have probably never seen such a thing). And they are a guaranteed bitch one out of every four weeks (imagine studying the correlation between HR complaints and "that time of the month"; I bet it drops 90% on the other weeks).
On top of all that, they don't even increase productivity per capta, they just add bodies and drive down wages.
What's the point?
Some level of extra income for people who have started families can be a good thing. And I'm not interested in unfairly flattening wealth inequality, so just like in the majority of history, poorer families need working women.
Three is a good cap because it's just above the 2.1 for population stability, but it could be negotiated higher
And sensible restrictions to preserve the reproductive years of young women, and maintain homemaking and growth of family, I believe are the most measured way to deal with that.