With that in mind, I think it would be a good idea to ask women "What would it take to make having children worthwhile for you?"
The article explicitly mentions a bad job market and brutal hours; why do women want that? If they could stay home and only raise kids, is that not better than wage slaving? Or, rather than shaming the single, is there a problem with how "popular" culture portrays mothers?
Personally, I don't think women tend to understand their own motivations for doing things (and the article doesn't seem to mention anything specific that women do want in exchange for having kids), which suggests to me that this is the same result that feminism and "gender equality" have acheived in the West; women are propagandised into thinking that they want to be men.
They didn't. A bunch of overprivileged, bored and rich women a bunch of decades ago decided they did. But because women need social acceptance, they framed it as "all women" want this and convinced the rest that they were slaves who secretly wanted liberation. Mostly through the sexual revolution, because being a stay at home mother was stopping them from getting dicked by every hot guy they saw and that's what they really wanted.
Now, even if they wanted to stay home and make babies they cannot. The cost of living for most of the world is designed for dual income, and the vast majority of men will not be able to support a family entirely on an achievable income. Because those bored rich bitches played right into the hands of the corporations and government who knew they could be a huge market for siphoning taxes/money.
We asked them what they wanted, and their infantile minds is what got us into this mess. Just the same as asking "where do you want to eat" gets you nowhere, neither is asking civilization level questions about what they want.
Because those bored rich bitches played right into the hands of the corporations and government who knew they could be a huge market for siphoning taxes/money.
They played their support role perfectly of furthering the interests of their rich husbands.
I'm gonna disagree on that point. It wasn't their own rich husbands they were furthering the interest of. It was the other rich husbands who were exciting and new and hotter.
(and the article doesn't seem to mention anything specific that women do want in exchange for having kids),
Only some vague statements about wanting to be treated more equally. Mind you, this essay was written by a Korean feminist, so it's unsurprising that its utter tripe.
With that in mind, I think it would be a good idea to ask women "What would it take to make having children worthwhile for you?"
The article explicitly mentions a bad job market and brutal hours; why do women want that? If they could stay home and only raise kids, is that not better than wage slaving? Or, rather than shaming the single, is there a problem with how "popular" culture portrays mothers?
Personally, I don't think women tend to understand their own motivations for doing things (and the article doesn't seem to mention anything specific that women do want in exchange for having kids), which suggests to me that this is the same result that feminism and "gender equality" have acheived in the West; women are propagandised into thinking that they want to be men.
They didn't. A bunch of overprivileged, bored and rich women a bunch of decades ago decided they did. But because women need social acceptance, they framed it as "all women" want this and convinced the rest that they were slaves who secretly wanted liberation. Mostly through the sexual revolution, because being a stay at home mother was stopping them from getting dicked by every hot guy they saw and that's what they really wanted.
Now, even if they wanted to stay home and make babies they cannot. The cost of living for most of the world is designed for dual income, and the vast majority of men will not be able to support a family entirely on an achievable income. Because those bored rich bitches played right into the hands of the corporations and government who knew they could be a huge market for siphoning taxes/money.
We asked them what they wanted, and their infantile minds is what got us into this mess. Just the same as asking "where do you want to eat" gets you nowhere, neither is asking civilization level questions about what they want.
As soon as humans discover an effective, mass-marketable method for medically curbing pussy thirst, this world is going to change big time.
They played their support role perfectly of furthering the interests of their rich husbands.
I'm gonna disagree on that point. It wasn't their own rich husbands they were furthering the interest of. It was the other rich husbands who were exciting and new and hotter.
This misses that something this widespread is rarely motivated by only 1 reason.
"Why not both?"
The rich have certainly gotten richer with these things.
Women, and most men, do whatever they are told to do.
Only some vague statements about wanting to be treated more equally. Mind you, this essay was written by a Korean feminist, so it's unsurprising that its utter tripe.
I swear, the only thing that would satisfy you is the extinction of the human race.
To "own teh wimmenz."
You forgot to add having the baby grow somewhere else and not having to deal with it at all.