Support a husband? Nooooo!


——————————————————-

15 November 2006

Secret lives of breadwinner wives

We knew the deal going in. But we can’t escape the stubborn fantasy: That Mr. Right will step up and start bringing home the big bucks.

Burn that quote into your heads guys.

On the off-chance any men didn’t realise already, that’s what sums up women’s attitudes when they stormed triumphantly into the workplace. They still want some sucker to bail them out of having to work when they’re bored so they can work less or not at all, and sit at home and do fuck all.

Well fuck you career gals. Get back to that office, sit at your desk, do some work and stop your complaining and your dreams of finding a sucker to bank-roll your early retirement. Mr Right has left the building.

Take the example of this woman, Anne:

Since their daughter was born two years ago, her husband has become the main caregiver. “I feel lucky that we can afford to do that,” she says.

At the same time, she admits, she covers all the household expenses and cuts him a check for his needs, “and that part is uncomfortable,” she says.

Yeah, she’s fine with him doing all the housework and looking after their daughter, but it’s soooo uncomfortable having to actually support him financially. Well that’s what men have been doing for generations, and are still expected to do now even though women have shunted most of us out of the workplace with their positive discrimination/affirmative action crap, and even though they are usually unwilling (and often unable) to run a home for us in return for us providing them.

Well fuck you once more ladies.

Finally, the columnist herself mentions that she’s working hard and bringing in most of the money, whilst her husband does most of the housework and works less. She’s all very proud of this, boasting that she’s an Alpha Female…

But in reality, I guess I was kinda sorta hoping this arrangement would be temporary.

Did you really? Boo-hoo! As she herself admits at the start of the article, “We knew the deal.” Yeah, so no claiming ignorance now that you want out.

Ladies: get out the workplace, back in the kitchen and get the dinner on, or stay in the workplace, get on with your work and don’t expect us to support you when you get bored and want to quit. One or the other.

220px-jigsawkiller.jpg

“Make your choice.”

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 6:43 PM
——————————————————-

At 7:08 PM, Wacky Willy said…

I’d like to have access to the entire article, but seem to be unable to do so…..

——————————————————-

At 7:22 PM, ditchthebitch said…

Here’s a suggestion.. what if all men started treating all women in the workplace like total garbage? I don’t just mean the women you work with, but any woman at any business everyone and anyone dealt with- all the time. I do it. Just think of it like this: For every woman who’s working (especially in a management position or better) that represents one man out of a job and unable to support his family, not to mention just another bitch lowering wages, standards, and driving businesses out of the country.

——————————————————-

At 7:48 PM, Duncan Idaho said…

I’ve fixed the link.

——————————————————-

At 7:53 PM, VoodooJock said…

I’m glad to see this. We’ve been giving women the whole ‘choices’ option for all these years while men got stuck with the “responsibility”. We’ve been hearing this ‘girl power’, this ‘if only women ran the world…’, and the ‘women are superior at (insert everything)’ bullshit for at least 15 years now.

Well, the world’s a rough place. Men have known this all along. Putting chow on the table often conflicts with the desire to play ball with your son or make your daughter’s recital. NO! You can’t have it all.

The more we rub women’s noses in the “No! You can’t have it all!” pile of dogshit, the sooner this mess will fix itself. The more we deny it, the later this mess will fix itself.

——————————————————-

At 8:21 PM, Anonymous said…

In case anyone has not yet figured this out, this is how women define having a “career”:

1) go to college and/or grad/professional school.
2) graduate and work till 30.
3) settled down, married, and children by mid 30s with little to no chance of going back to work full time.

This is a woman’s “career” fellas. They have no intention of working till retirement age. They just want to put in a few years until “mr. right” rescues them from the drudgery and finances the lifestyle she’s been dreaming about. Of course since she was a “career woman” until she had kids, there’s no way she’s gonna be doing housework now its too demeaning for her. Her normal behavior will be Oprah watching, QVC shopping, and meeting her friends for lunch and cocktails after stashing the kids in daycare and hiring a maid on your dime to clean the house.

They want it both ways which is complete BS. I agree with Duncan, either get in the kitchen and start cooking dinner and raising the kids or work till REAL retirement age like the rest of us.

——————————————————-

At 8:43 PM, Davout said…

Voodoojock brings up a great point: regardless of what either anti-feminists or feminists do, feminism has a very limited shelf life because it has ensured that women cannot be happy:
From women’s perspective,
1. If they get jobs, they must do housework? + external work: they get overworked.
2. If they become housewives, they have ‘sacrificed their careers’.
Result: A no-win situation for women, entirely created by feminist indoctrination.

Here’s a feminist publication titled “Weak Men and Disorderly Women: Divorce and the Division of Labor” by M. Brinig and S. Nock that makes the following admission:

“Our results suggest that mutual perceived fairness or an exchange-type
relationship may not be the most desirable situation if stable marriages are the desired outcome.”

i.e. if you want a stable marriage, even feminist publication show that a sensible man should stay the hell away from a ‘career woman’ AND an ‘equal earning’ woman too.

As a sidenote, the authors have made the typical mistake of equating ‘equality’ with ‘fairness’, which muddles their other conclusions, particularly about the ‘specialization’ model of Gary Becker.

I encourage everyone to have a read and check out Becker’s ‘specialization’ model, referred to in the paper, which turns out to be the most stable family arrangement. This is nothing more than a vindication of a model in which you have the breadwinner-housewife dichotomy.

It’s no rare coincidence that free market economists of high repute such as Hayek, Sowell, Friedman and Becker get under the skin of feminists, because free market theory is fundamentally at odds with socialism.

——————————————————-

At 10:08 PM, Anonymous said…

Free market theory might be fundamentally at odds with socialism and feminism but it sure suits me. I don’t know about you boys, but I have to say that with women having priced themselves way above the market clearing price, the economic effects are entirely predictable: I, like an increasing number of you, and any other rational buyer in any other market, have decided to exercise a little ‘restraint of trade’ of my own and I have to say that not having to finance the pampered lifestyle of one of these smug, self-satisfied, obnoxious, narcissistic, caustic, entitlement-complexed little pit vipers, only to have her thrust her ingratitude in my face daily is, for me, THE SINGLE biggest attraction of remaining single, FAR, FAR outweighing as it does the minor inconvenience of nookie irregularity.

That the most decent women are impacted least and the vilest the most, and that I find I need nookie far less when not living with a woman is divine beauty indeed.

I just LOVE listening to them slowly …SOOOOO, SOOOOO SLOOOOOOWWWLY realising that they’ll have to pay their own debts and that, unable to find anyone gullible enough to leech off, they, like me, will have to ‘enjoy’ the ‘benefits of the patriarchy’ until they’re 65. Watching them cast around for someone – anyone – (anyone except themselves that is) to blame – can’t possibly be down to lil ol’ me – is like watching a beached whale realise the tide is going out. It truly is a hell of their very own creation!

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!

——————————————————-

At 12:11 AM, Anonymous said…

“They have no intention of working till retirement age.”

Not if I have anything to say about it.

Panzer

——————————————————-

At 4:46 AM, Anonymous said…

Some years ago I was at a dinner event and happened to share a table with a (male) veterinarian and a few others, all males if I recall correctly.

There is a shortage of veterinarians in many areas of the US, but the entire country has relatively few universities with that curriculum. Slots are highly competitive, almost as much as for medical school, but women get favored treatment in admissions to vet school and often for financial aid. The veterinarian commented that women now fill most of the available slots at these universities—but once they start practice, they will typically work until they decide to have a family five or so years later. Then they drop out of the field, usually for good.

This means several things:

1. A woman is taking a slot in vet school yet in the end isn’t serious about that career. That’s a huge waste of tax-financed resources. As a male taxpayer, I resent that.

2. A man who really wants to be a vet has been turned down so she can take the space.

3. She leaves the field for good after a short time in practice, aggravating the shortage.

4. She probably still has college loans, which her husband now gets to pay as she obviously is no longer making any money herself. (Of course, a lot of females, not just veterinarians, pull this stunt. Or they get some sucker-man to pay their way through school and then dump him once they get their degree free and clear.)

Many fields have gone the same route, but veterinary science is evidently one of the hardest hit nationally. What I’ve noticed locally is that the local vets here have more business than they can handle, but most of the vets are youngish females and just happen not to stay long. That male vet was right. Imagine that.

I agree with your statement, Duncan: women should either get married right off the bat and stay home to tend home and family, or get a job and stay at work till retirement. Quit trying to have it both ways at the ultimate expense of some male.

——————————————————-

At 5:36 AM, Verlch said…

Women in general are mean spirited to men! We have feminism to thank for that!!!

——————————————————-

At 7:00 AM, Anonymous said…

Hey DitchtheBitch

Men are already treating women bad in the workplace. it’s called The Glass Partition — men are avoiding women because of the myriad “harassment” claims that can be filed against men.

——————————————————-

At 1:01 PM, Anonymous said…

anonymous 10:08 said
‘realising that they’ll have to pay their own debts..’

Now I know why the number of folk declaring bankruptcy is on the increase, huzaar! It’s all those empowered women and there shoe fetishes taken a little too far..

Maybe some feminist in a place of power will lobby the government of the day to establish a ‘parachute fund’, much like relegated premiership clubs have, for these helpless financially unrestrained cretins. Whereby the club (debtor) is given money to cushion the blow of losing (in this case) free money. What a thought.

——————————————————-

At 7:04 PM, Anonymous said…

Let me make sure I understand this now. Women have fought for the right to equal education, employment opportunity, and compensation. Yet when they’re forced to take advantage of those opportunities because they knowingly chose a husband who will never make more money than them, they complain that life (men) are being unfair.

Naturally the response will be “but I didn’t necessarily want to do those things, I just wanted the CHOICE to do them!”

TRANSLATION: “I wanted those opportunities, but only if I couldn’t find a man who would do them for me.”

What I don’t understand is why women should have the choice to do those things or not. Men don’t have that choice. If they don’t get married, men need a way to support themselves. If they do get married, most men are expected to be the breadwinner by women who want to stay home with the kids.

Think about it. If you had the choice to: (i) stay home with the kids (and take them to school when they’re older), (ii) clean the house and (iii) cook most of the meals.

-versus-

(i) commute for 30-60 minutes each way to work, (ii) work 50-60 hours a week in an office or at manual labor, and (iii) make sure you earn enough money to support yourself, your wife, and your 2-3+ kids.

Which would you choose?

——————————————————-

At 9:06 PM, VoodooJock said…

I believe that choice should be:

i. stay at home
ii. pay someone to raise the kids
iii. pay someone to do the housework
iv. spend all my time at starbucks griping with my ‘girlfriends’ about how I never have enough time in the day to get things done.

——————————————————-

At 4:16 AM, Verlch said…

Voodoo,

Yeah, then after empowered princess chickenator gets finished digging through her man’s wallet, computer, and anything she can think about, American Wives have zero time to put out!!

Talk about control freaks!!!

——————————————————-

%d bloggers like this: