28 January 2006
First time house buyers are at an all time low in Scotland and this is a trend all across the UK, with house prices rising to the point where many people cannot afford them. More importantly, hardly any single people can afford a house on their own.
This is because houses were previously designed and priced for a single income. It was assumed a couple moving in would have just the husband’s income. Since women flooded the workplace, however, this has changed. If it is assumed couples will have an income each then houses will reach the prices that require two incomes. Additionally, women flooding the workplace has diluted incomes. Employers don’t have to worry too much about paying a guy enough money so he can support a family because it is assumed he will have a wife bringing in an income too.
I had the opportunity to cluebat a couple of women at work the other day on this very topic. We were discussing how difficult it is to get on the property ladder (these two women, like me, rent apartments.) I pointed out that:
“It’s because most couples have two incomes these days. Fifty-years ago only the man would have an income, so in order to sell a house this had to be taken into account by the agents, who would price it in the range of a single income. Then women all got jobs and so houses reached the prices that require two incomes.”
I thought the two women may start gnashing their teeth and growling because I had dared to imply that womenkind may actually be responsible for their own misfortune, but they looked rather thoughtful.
“That’s right,” one muttered, “it takes one income to cover the mortgage and the other to cover the bills and run the car.”
The other woman spoke of the term DINKs, meaning childless professional couples; Double Income, No Kids.
“So,” I continued, “it’s the fault of you women for entering the workplace. Now single people can’t afford houses and even if you find a husband you will have to continue working. All because you women wanted a career.”
I kept my tone light-hearted so I could claim I was being ironic should any of these women take real offense. You really have to tread carefully these days when it comes to criticising women or feminism.
However, one woman just looked a little forlorn whilst the other, Jenny, said in the most pitiful voice “I didn’t want a career.”
I shrugged and changed the subject, deciding against saying “Me neither” or “Tough shit” or something else.
This was feminism’s aim all along, to force women into the workplace. Simone de Beauvoir once declared that women should not be given the choice to be stay-at-home mothers and housewives “because too many women would make that choice.” Things have been carefully crafted to succeed in this aim. The growth of the welfare state to support single mothers and the like has also meant higher taxes that reduce the ability of a man to support a stay-at-home wife. Finally, anti-male bias in the divorce courts have meant many men are sensibly avoiding marriage anyway. So 21st century Britain is full of eternal bachelors, eternal spinsters and DINKs.
Some feminists have the nerve to claim that feminism was for the benefit for men too. Nonsense. It wasn’t even for the benefit of women. Jenny represents many young women these days; thirty, single, unable to find a husband, hates her job and with little chance of any change in these circumstances. She’s utterly miserable. So are most other women. Before feminism they would have been happy at home, raising kids and getting dinner ready for when their husband comes home from a hard day at work. They would have been busy, sure, but they would have been happy. Like their husbands.
These days they live in rented flats, either on their own or with other women, or with a boyfriend who dare not marry them. They have rubbish jobs they hate. Their biological clocks are ticking and childlessness beckons. Or maybe they do have a husband but they have to stick to their jobs just to help hubby cover the mortgage payments. No time or money for children. Maybe one kid, if they’re lucky.
According to government statistics, one-in-five women who are currently reaching the end of their childbearing years are childless. In twenty-years time this figure be one-in-three. A third of women now under the age of 30 will never ever marry. Do women want this? According to feminists, they did, and should be dancing in the streets.
Just because feminists were so neurotic and full of hate for children and men that they would prefer to have careers instead of a family, doesn’t mean every other women would like that. But feminists made the choice on behalf of other women. And now other women are stuck with it.
“I didn’t choose feminism” young women may collectively claim. Maybe so. But neither did any of us men and we’ve suffered far far more under feminism than women. Plus women like the benefits of feminism; the right to abort babies, education orientated towards them, positive discrimination, the ability to strip men of their assets in divorce courts, etc. They were all so happy to grab these benefits.
Now, to balance the books, women have to take the negative effects of feminism; loneliness, spinsterhood and tedious jobs. I have little sympathy.
posted by Duncan Idaho @ 3:31 PM