Hearted Youtube comments on Whatifalthist (@WhatifAltHist) channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I lived thru women going to work in the 1970s. Women were told this will empower you. Feminists said women can compete with men. They were right. But who ended up with all the money created by the hard work of women? A few people at the top, like Larry Fink. Larry says thanks, ladies.
My main question about feminism: does it work? Does it make women happier? Sadly the answer is no. Yale University did a 30 year study since the 1970s, worldwide on whether new career options for women, were making them happier? Betsey Stevenson, "The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness". Free online study. The sad part of feminism: it made women unhappy.
Most humans, particularly females, most find happiness and meaning, in family. Nature and evolution has rules: Women evolved to have children when women are in their 20s.
Feminism prioritized working over family. So: Women worked hard. But: Most of the money created by hard working women, went to the 1%....Larry Fink. Empowering women just meant, making corporations richer.
Some women don't want family, that's fine. Some women are happy working for corporations and Bill Gates, most are not. Those that prefer family over career should be helped to find meaning in their lives. For most it means family.
Feminism mostly helped corporations and the 1%, not women. Women got used, by rich men. They know it. That's why they are unhappy. Female happiness has been in steady decline, since the 1970s. If you are a young woman today, your grandmother had a happier life, before feminism. That's what the study found...by asking women.
However, curiously the study says male happiness has gone up, since the 1970s. So: in a strange plot twist, feminism made men a bit happier overall, but made women unhappy. The war over feminism is over: men won. That's sad. We need to do things to make women happier. I support feminism, but it's obvious we need feminism 2.0.
Our current version, isn't working. It's making women miserable. This is not up to men, we should support women, but I have no interest in telling women how to live or what to do with their bodies. But the current feminist ideas, are not helping women. Sad.
Data I have seen on studies in Holland, reported on CNN said: 20% of women prefer to be full time career women, 60% prefer to be part time moms, part time at work, while 20% of women prefer to be full time Moms, at home. Feminists don't stick up for women who simply want traditional families. These women are stigmatized by feminists.
What to do? Give women more choice. Women are pressured to conform to what other people think is good for them. I'm not into that. I prefer choice, let women sort it out for themselves. Those women who want lots of children, let them, often that's what they want. The data I've seen says the happiest people in America are women with 4+ children and a husband that earns a very good income. Not for everyone. But for those women that want careers, let them. Encourage them. Most women are in the middle, support them all. Stigmatize no one.
I don't believe in, one answer to fit everybody. Yes, some stay at home moms end up unfulfilled psychotic, jealous etc. True. Others bloom in that environment. Depends on the person, the circumstances.
One error I think feminism made: Most of the benefit from feminism actually ended up helping upper class women in advanced countries, at the expense of the middle and lower class women. You can figure this out by looking at data of: who goes to university? It's almost entirely the bright young women, from the upper classes, who pursue higher education. Jordan Peterson recently said that when he taught at Harvard he noticed almost all his students had parents in the economic top 1%. Girls from poor families seldom go to advanced education. Rich girls often do.
Feminism benefitted rich upper class mostly white American women, by giving them opportunity for a career, fulfillment and a lot more money. It enlarged the already white class privilege or upper class white women. This was disguised as "helping all women." No. It did not. At university upper class women tend to marry highly educated men, producing very high income families. Charles Murray the libertarian picked up on this long ago and wrote "Coming Apart". The classes are separating, for mating and education. When people first noticed this trend in the late 1970s, we called these couples "yuppies"...young upwardly mobile professionals. This is one of the main drivers of wealth and income inequality now. The very thing the progressive left rails about. They help create it.
For the upper classes, marriage is still largely intact. The reason is, women are hypergamous. See: Dr. David Buss, evolutionary mating science professor University of Austin, in conversation with Dr. Jordan Peterson. Women are mainly interested in men above them or equal to the woman. Women are wired by nature that way, the way men are wired by nature to prefer young attractive women. In other words: Women don't "date down".
Upper class men earn more money than other men, so it's a good deal for women to marry them. So they do. They do say, I do. So the marriages are stable in the upper class...just like the 1950s. But in the middle and lower classes, women are now outcompeting men on wages and status, so marriage has basically collapsed for most women. That's the practical implication of feminism. This was not the way it was supposed to be. Middle class American women are the inadvertent victims of a bad but unintended consequence of feminism, while rich white women are the biggest winners under feminism. It's about rich girl privilege. They won.
How to improve our lives, by understanding gender:
Yes, to the original point. Women traded in, a confined life at home, to work for corporations, starting mostly in the 1970s. This created a lot of wealth for rich folks, didn't improve women's lives. This improved some things, made other things worse. We need to improve. Unpacking gender and politics, what we can learn from it:
Gender and Politics, is it left vs. right anymore? No. It's men vs. women:
Why?
Women are 55% of all voters. Their votes decide every election in America, because they are the largest group of voters. Some facts: Single women in their 20s in America vote 80% Democrat/Progressive. Married women tend to trend Republican, for voting, although overall women tilt more left than men. Why this pattern? Evolution: Women evolved for a bit more empathy than men, they also have children, primarily in their 20s. And the political left emphasizes things that have more appeal to women, than men overall. Biology? Having babies reduces female wages, so females look to politics, to even things out with men.
We need to understand evolved biology: Women think of themselves, more as a group, a collective, a hive, than men do. That came out of evolution, female vulnerability with offspring. Karen Straughan has a video on it. In-group female preference, she calls it: Because women have babies, they tend to vote in big government, if marriage and being looked after by a male partner, does not work for them. Our economic system has to keep that in mind.
Women vote in far higher numbers, for the political left, than do men. It's the same political voting pattern in every country, that gave women, the vote. In America: The Democrat Party is becoming the Party of Women....they emphasize using tax dollars, to take money away from men, to look after women. Looking after the vulnerable. The Republican Party is becoming the Party of men....they emphasize less taxes, traditional gender roles more. Biology roles out, in how your money is spent: Men pay 70% of taxes, but use only 30% of government services. Women pay 30% of taxes, but use 70% of government services.
Lots of political commentators for decades said, the political left is winning. That's true. Everything keeps shifting politically left and big government is growing exponentially. Why is that? Who are the majority of voters? Are they looked after? Leftwards shifts are what happens when women vote and we have a society where women are sexually free, so permanent bonds don't form, families don't form. The gov't takes the place of family and collects and distributes taxes to favor women, to even things out. That pushes things politically leftwards. So women essentially vote in a Substitute Husband. Women use their voting power to elect socialist governments, to look after them. In America now, 50% of children are born to unmarried women. Who will help them out? Marriage is in decline, so they vote in the government husband to look after them.
The political divide in America isn't really left vs right, Republican vs. Democrat. It's men vs. women. We don't have a cohesive culture, our values suck, feminism is the cultural hardware of our government, our schools. Feminism as a social model doesn't work to run a successful society on. It needs to improve. It doesn't have solutions for all our problems, it just says give women more and more and more, ask more of men, while letting women be sexually free. That means as Andrew Tate keeps point it out, our current culture is a bad deal for men to form long term bonds with women. So men turn to jerks who figure: It's not worth it. The result? Our culture is going down the toilet. Our social model failed.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I'm a Spaniard, I'm 30, Fine Arts college Degree, it's 5 AM I just woke up from a nightmare, get up, have some water, turn back to bed, see a new WIAH thumbnail, click in... watch, enjoy, struggle, realize how truthful your knowledge is and share it with men younger than me... and leave the classical, "CARROLL QUIGLEY you tried to warn us, you Catholic Anglo" You died before Billy Clinton's D#ck got publicly sucked, i wonder what would you have thought of that XD "
Peace out smart guy ;)
2
-
Rather poignant, my friend. Despite your confessed depressive intentions, I find something exceeding solace, yet still falling slightly short of elation in that fact that you, are a person that is alive as my contemporary. I knew I couldn't be the only one suffering, awash in my own personal version of purgatory/hell/meaninglessness. You are a gift to the uncountable lost souls, the overly introspective, the hyper self-critical, and last, but in no way the least the average Joe, endlessly asking himself between his own two ears, "What the fuck is going on in the world around me. This is not what I thought I or it would be..." I also got some long awaited affirmation that yes, this indeed is simply a rather shitty and maddening period of time to be alive. Godspeed. Keep this shit up my man! All the best!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I'm an accountant. I believe science works because the scientific method works. However, I've always felt it was dumb to apply economic principles to every aspect of life, just as it is dumb to apply scientific principles to every aspect of life. The moment I realized I was on to something was when my economics professor taught, with a straight face, that manufacturing job losses to off-shoring were an overall good to the economy. The theory is that the reduction in prices is beneficial, while the factory workers represent an economic resource that will be re-allocated elsewhere.
I thought, well I understand that the lines on her graph supported her theory, but common sense says that ruining the lives of thousands of factory workers is a greater negative than the small savings all Americans receive on the price of the goods now made offshore. The majority of the profit from such moves goes into the pockets of already wealthy shareholders and upper management, who aren't likely to spend it. Whereas the workers who lose prime factory jobs will likely never replace their income fully, permanently reducing their ability to spend money and keep the economy growing.
What makes the most common sense is to mix and match policies with what will do the most good for society. None of the philosophies or theories is best in every situation, including liberalism, conservatism, socialism, or libertarianism. Pretending your favorite -ism is always best is an overly simplistic way of thinking that leads to foreseeable mistakes in public policy.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1