“The Future is Female” Has Us All Going Broke

Modern feminized women are taught that men are either tyrants or incompetent boobs, so it’s better to rely on the government, as the government has the power to coerce men to hand over their money and to punish them for unacceptable behavior.

Part I: The Assemblywomen

I regard it as a matter of course that Aristophanes, the preeminent comedic genius of antiquity, imagined a government run by women as both a socialist state and something hilarious. Though never considered as one of his best plays, The Assemblywomen is nonetheless a very funny play, at least the first half of it is. It is also wonderfully refreshing, as gendered humor nowadays so predictably resolves itself into male-bashing. Not that Aristophanes delighted in bashing women, far from it, for even the philosopher Socrates was not spared his acidic (and bawdy) wit, only that the guys do get their innings here.

Briefly, the play opens with our protagonist Praxagora waiting in the predawn darkness for her female compatriots to show, and they are late. She is close to the point of exasperation when two of them finally arrive, with excuses of course, but Praxagora is eager to get straight to the plan. The two women affirm that they have stopped shaving their armpits, spent time out in the sun to bronze their skin, and have sewed beards for themselves as instructed. Satisfied, the three of them proceed to the assembly, where they intend to pitch their plan to save Athens. Which is to hand over control of the state to the women.

Immediately there are problems. One of the women resumes her wool-combing, explaining that she may as well get some chores done while waiting for the Assembly to fill. Praxagora is livid and berates her compatriot for acting in a way that would give away her gender. The success of their plan depends on them passing themselves off as men, as only men are allowed to participate in the assembly.

Praxagora’s argument for a matriarchy begins with noting that women are the ones responsible for the efficient management of the home. And that they are reliably conservative in their methods, unlike men who are always tinkering. For example, she notes that women always use hot water when dyeing wool, and would never start experimenting with cold water or some such nonsense. They’re not always trying to come up with a cockamamie invention. She continues: “Women still sit down to do the roasting, as they’ve always done. They carry things on their heads, as they’ve always done. They hold the Thesmophoria Festival, as they’ve always done. They bake cakes, as they’ve always done. They infuriate their husbands, as they’ve always done. They conceal lovers in the house, as they’ve always done …” After Praxagora finishes the two women agree that it is a brilliant speech, and so they are off to deliver it at the assembly [1].

Scene Two opens with a gentleman named Chremes and his two slaves hauling all of his possessions off to the Agora, where he will hand it over to the state. The newly elected female rulers have abolished private property. Everything will be shared from now on. Chremes is then accosted by a citizen who wants him to know he’s a damned fool for listening to these women. “Grabbing, not giving is what comes natural to us” explains the citizen, but Chremes is undeterred. They are both interrupted by a female crier with a message from the state: “Calling all citizens, yes, all citizens, for that is how we do things now …” The crier announces that dinner is served for everyone, no one will go hungry in this new regime because everything is shared. After which the citizen tells Chremes that he’s off to go get some free food, to which Chremes recoils and tries in vain to chastise the freeloader, explaining that he must turn in his possessions first. “Oh, I’ll hand it in, some time” the citizen replies. [1](pp. 248-9, 251)

The play ends with a festival, and thus without any conclusion. In the age of Classical Greece, the age in which Aristophanes lived, Athens’ rival Sparta was perhaps the most perfect socialist state that has ever existed, and the Spartan women were famously powerful. According to Plutarch they “were bold and masculine, overbearing to their husbands . . . and speaking openly even on the most important subjects.” The Spartan women “could inherit and bequeath property; and in the course of time—so great was their influence over men—nearly half the real wealth of Sparta was in their hands. They lived a life of luxury and liberty at home while the men bore the brunt of frequent war, or dined on simple fare in the public mess.” [2]

Historian Bettany Hughes says of the Spartan women: “At at time when Greek women were expected to be invisible, [Spartan women] had power and responsibility in their own right. In fact they were so cocksure, they dared to take on the men in politics, on the streets, and even in that most sacred bastion, the sporting arena … it wasn’t just Spartan women’s physicality that shocked the outside world. Their freedom was equally notorious. Aristotle described the place as a gynocracy–a state run by women, and he didn’t mean it as a compliment.” [3]

Spartan mothers made sure from the get-go that their boys understood the Spartan warrior code. Hughes cites an anecdote of a Spartan mother shaming her wayward son, in which she hikes up her skirt and asks him if he would like to crawl back in. A man’s life is either total devotion to the state, or no life at all. “With your shield or on it” the Spartan mother would say to her son when his time came to march off to battle. You either return victorious, or as a dead body for burial.

This strong matriarchal element, which demanded the slavish obedience of all males, also produced a stifling conservatism which ultimately spelled Sparta’s demise. The Spartan code became inviolable. Or perhaps reflected what Praxagora considered women’s superior wisdom in the efficient management of the home. “The Spartan code produced good soldiers and nothing more; [the code] made vigor of body a graceless brutality because it killed nearly all capacity for the things of the mind. With the triumph of the code the arts that had flourished before its establishment died a sudden death; we hear of no more poets, sculptors, or builders in Sparta after 550. …In the end Sparta’s narrowness of spirit betrayed even her strength of soul.” [2] (p. 167)

Yet despite it all, men proudly obeyed the laws of Sparta. Famously so at the Battle of Thermopolyae, where Leonidas and his 300 Spartans refused to the retreat from the overwhelming Persian force after it was handed a great tactical advantage by a traitor to the Greeks. They were all killed, and for that, immortalized. A stone memorial was placed on the road leading through Thermopolyae which, variously translated, reads: “Passer by, go tell the Spartans that here we lay dead, but that we lived true to the Spartan code.”

Sparta provides an extreme example of the extent to which men are willing to sacrifice, suffer, and to face death so long as are respected for it, especially by women.

Part II: I’m Being Oppressed!

Fast forward two and half millennia and we have feminists arguing that men are at an evolutionary end. “The End of Men” triumphantly wrote Hannah Rosin in a lengthy article for the Atlantic. At long last women are stepping up to their rightful place at the table–at the head of the table, that is, insists Maria Shriver. And that’s just the beginning. Women not only need to take their proper place as leaders, but need to avenge all the historical injustices perpetrated on them so that the guilty gender finally learns.

What has changed? Men (as in human males), those incorrigible tinkerers as Praxagora chided them, over the centuries eventually accumulated the knowledge necessary, particularly in mathematics and physical sciences, to invent machines and cities and supply chains which free humans from the privations, dangers, disease, and suffering routinely imposed on them by mean old Mother Nature. Yes, I’m sure there were a few female pioneers in there too. Anyway, the relationship between men and women throughout history appears to have been largely a cooperative one, as allies facing a common enemy. To our ancestors, the squabbles between the sexes we nowadays make so much hay over would probably count as little more than humorous diversions.

Regardless, the feminists insist that women are and have been systematically disadvantaged by men for ages. They point to the overwhelming dominance of males in our history books, and as well as the continuing dominance of males at the highest echelons of society, as leading statesmen, as captains of industry. The Invisible Hand is really the Patriarchy, a pervasive and persistent favoring of men over women. Interviewing Jordan Peterson for GQ Magazine, feminist author Helen Lewis sums up what is generally called “Patriarchy Theory”: “My conception of the patriarchy is … that there is a structure in which women participate that overall privileges and benefits men in order to control female reproduction.” [4]

There are certainly historical examples of women denied jobs, political representation, or property rights because of their sex. Or of chauvinistic men who waved them away saying “this is a man’s job, cupcake”, and so on. But anecdotes alone do not maketh a social history. Patriarchy theory sounds plausible on the first pass, but when zoomed in to higher resolutions, it becomes clear that even the feminists themselves have trouble describing exactly what it is.

In a 2018 article titled “The age of patriarchy: how an unfashionable idea became a rallying cry for feminism today”, Charlotte Higgins writes: “Patriarchy is nimble and lithe. Its margins of operation always seem to be expanding. Feminists have naturally tended to arrange their battle lines in front of the aspect of oppression that they have regarded as the most pressing.” [5]

Which sounds to me like they make it up as they go. If patriarchy theory seems a bit flimsy coming from the feminists, it terms of biology and evolutionary psychology, on the other hand, it makes no sense at all. Again quoting Ms. Higgins “For much of human history, the persistence of male domination was so much part of the oxygen of life that patriarchy was not even identified as a concept”. On the contrary, the evolutionary biologists supply ample evidence that gynocentric societies are the default, not patriarchies. While men may hold the top positions of power in the social structure, ultimately said structure serves to provision for and protect women.

Why should females be served and protected? The answer begins with basic biology. First, males produce viable sperm at an average rate of 12 million per hour, whereas the average woman will produce only 400 viable eggs in her entire life [6]. Secondly, a human female takes around nine months to gestate a single child (typically), during which time she is taken offline from any further baby production. Clearly males could produce almost unlimited numbers of babies but not so with the females. So for a given population of humans in which there are roughly equal numbers of males and females, in order to attain some hurdle rate of baby production necessary for survival, only a small percentage of the males will be actually necessary. Moreover, given that most human civilizations struggled merely to survive, few women could be spared and so they were typically sheltered from danger. The excess males, on the other hand, could make themselves valued and necessary to their fellows by taking on the dangerous jobs, as soldiers, hunters, explorers, and so on.

Hence we have the traditional division of labor between the sexes, of blue jobs and pink jobs, of males as protectors and providers and females raising the kids. From which comes a natural sexual dimorphism, with men developing stronger, more athletic bodies and more stoic temperaments, while females become more empathic and particularly attentive to the needs of infants. This dimorphism is maintained and re-enforced by the dynamics of human mate selection, to which I now turn.

Observed human mating behaviors can be understood all the way down to the level of genetics. An essential function of sexual reproduction is purging harmful traits while retaining beneficial ones. Now because females have the paired XX sex chromosomes, while males have an X paired with a Y, many male recessive genes will be unpaired with a dominant and thus expressed. While the actual mechanics of gene expression is, sorry to say, beyond the comprehension of your humble author here, the upshot is that observed genetic traits will show more variability in human males than females. An example of this is the IQ curve. While males and females have approximately the same average IQ (100), there are more males the the extremes–i.e., there are more male dummies and geniuses than females [7]. There are approximately twice as many men as women with an IQ above 125. There are approximately six times as many men as women with an IQ above 155. [8]

How does this make sense in terms of human mating? Think about what we’ve said. Genes are not static. There are copying errors, random mutations, which usually produce defects that will hinder an organism’s ability to survive, but sometimes produce improvements. Obviously we therefore want some mechanism that will filter out bad variations and hang on to beneficial ones. Now in the case of humans, as we’ve said, the females are the scarce resource–they cap the rate of baby production for any population of humans. Therefore it makes sense to express genes more in males so that the poorly coded ones can be more easily sifted out by the females. Put another way, in producing equal numbers of males and females, there is an excess number of males needed for the species to survive, so bad genes are best purged by purging the males from reproduction. It therefore makes sense that the males would express their genes more, while the females would be the more discerning mate selectors.

But how does this happen? Now we move up to the level of human social behaviors, of human mating. Research shows what every man and boy knows: human males are competitive. They instinctively form hierarchies based on primarily on talent and ability. Boys will race each other, wrestle each other, dare each other to do crazy things like jumping their bicycles as I once did (I grew up in the age of Evel Knievel). This may appear to be all fun and games–boys will be boys–but it is hardly so. “The reason that a male instinctively starts vying with his same-sex peers from when he is a toddler is for the very purpose of calibrating to what extent he will be able to reproduce. That women may be interested in him if he is the winner in a male–male contest is no mere by-product: it’s the very thing he is competing for.” [8] (p. 29)

Genetics of course will play a key role in determining who comes out victorious. If basketball were the only success hierarchy by which human males were judged, as a man who stands a five and a half feet my sorry fate would be sealed. Fortunately there are many arenas in which a man can compete for status and which may get him noticed by a winsome lass. It is well established that the social status of a male is a key factor for being selected by a female.

So men naturally compete for status and women naturally encourage them to do so. Young men must be subjected to harsh conditions in order to be assessed for mating. And if said harsh conditions come in the form of military training, as an example, society at large reaps the great benefit of having devoted protectors. To disadvantage men and let them struggle in life thus benefits women and society. This is what we might call a gynocentric social order. Gynocentric societies will allow no soft option for its boys and men. Recall the extreme example of ancient Sparta.

Not only ancient Sparta, but Western cultures are gynocentric as well. In his book The Empathy Gap, William Collins documents how boys and men are regularly disadvantaged in the UK, from education to health care to marriage–and all the while feminists keep pushing politicians to pass more laws helping women to succeed against supposed patriarchal oppression.

Take health care for example. Men die prematurely from nearly all causes at a higher rate than women, leading with cancer and cardiovascular disease. Yet in an analysis of the UK health system, William Collins shows that females are favored when it comes to services. In some cases the sex discrimination is overt, as in the case of the HPV vaccine: “Despite the number of premature deaths due to HPV cancers being virtually the same for the two sexes, over ten years ago the NHS introduced a free vaccination programme against HPV for girls, but with no such programme for boys.” [9]

Nor is it true that men simply do not take advantage of the available services because they don’t want to be seen as sissies: “There is a willingness to attribute men’s indisputable health disadvantages to men’s lesser use of healthcare services, and to attribute this to men’s destructive masculine characteristics. However, this hypothesis does not survive inspection … There are signs here that male health disadvantage is more due to society-wide acceptance of such disadvantage than it is to destructive masculine traits. Adopting a stance that traditional male gender norms are responsible (” it’s men’s own fault”) may be a subconscious means of avoiding acknowledging the implied empathy gap.” [9](pp. 153-154).\

While I applaud William Collins for exploding feminist myths about male privilege, I don’t expect the empathy gap to close any time soon. Males must prove themselves, compete, endure more, suffer more, because the health and survival of our species depends on it (or at least it did in pre-industrial times). So far as I know no amount of social conditioning, in any society, has ever overwritten this most basic programming (although you might argue that monogamous marriage has curbed natural human polygyny, where the females would rather share a high status male than mate with a low ranking one). It is not society’s job to care for men, it is men’s job to take care of society’s business. Ask any Men’s Rights Advocate how their pleas for compassion on behalf of men are typically received.

Part III : Richard Reeves

“The feminists are at war with Mother Nature, and Mother Nature is still winning” wrote the late conservative firebrand, Phyllis Schlafly, and she is right. But don’t expect that to impress any feminists, not so long as our phenomenally wealthy Western societies continue as such, not so long as they have intellectual heavy hitters, such as Brookings Institution senior fellow Richard V. Reeves, going to bat for them.

In his recent book, Of Boys and Men, Reeves recognizes the myriad of challenges facing males in present day Western Civ, and that, it must be admitted, is a major step forward coming from “the establishment” (academia, think tanks, legacy publishing). Not only does Reeves correctly diagnose many of problems specific to boys and men, he also endeavors to offer solutions. And while I am willing to assume that his intentions are good, Reeves is a feminist, and that is a problem. Feminists proclaim to be advocates of gender equality. Evidence suggests otherwise. Baldly stated, feminism is a war on men. Feminists have no interest in helping men and in fact will vigorously oppose anyone who does.

Let’s begin with education, as that is where Richard Reeves begins. Boys are failing in school, at almost every level, while girls are succeeding. In the United States, by eighth grade, 41 percent of girls are at least “proficient” in writing, while only 20 percent of boys are [10]. Boys are expelled from school three times as often as girls. Since 1993, in the United States, more females have received associate’s, bachelor’s, and post-graduate degrees than males [11]. The trend is downward for men in virtually all areas of education, and has been so ever since the feminist revolution of the 1960’s.

Now for Reeves and company, the male recession in education is puzzling. Says Reeves, “the underperformance of males in college is shrouded in a good deal of mystery. World-class scholars have pored over the low rates of male college enrollment and completion, piling up data and running regressions. I have read these studies and spoken to many of the scholars. The short summary of their conclusions is: ‘We don’t know.’ Economic incentives do not provide an answer. The value of a college education is at least as high for men as for women. Even a scholar like MIT’s David Autor, who has dug deeply into the data, ends up describing male education trends as ‘puzzling’. Mary Curnock Cook, the former head of the UK’s university and college admissions service, says she is ‘baffled.’ [11] (p. 31).

Well they might of asked Jordan Peterson, who stated in the previously cited interview with Helen Lewis: “[People] are sick and tired … of this doctrine which says that throughout history the relationship between men and women was one of power, essentially slavery … [that men’s] ambition and forthrightness is a manifestation of something fundamentally tyrannical. They’re not happy with that, it’s not doing anyone any good, and it’s also not true. It’s really a terrible thing to do to young men, and it’s happening all the time. That’s why they’re bailing out of the universities like mad. There won’t be a man left in the social sciences in ten years in the universities, and it’s no bloody wonder, it’s an inhospitable place.” [4] (starting at 12:27)

And should you find an outpost of male success in education, you can be sure that a small detachment of huffy feminists will soon be on the scene to cry foul. Consider the case of Aviation High School in Queens, New York. Philosophy professor Christina Hoff Sommers writes: ” … to walk through the front doors of Aviation High is to enter one of the quietest, most inspiring places in all of New York City. This is an institution that is working miracles with students. Schools everywhere struggle to keep teenagers engaged. At Aviation, they are enthralled … The school’s two thousand pupils—mostly Hispanic, African American, and Asian from homes below the poverty line—have a 95 percent attendance rate and an 88 percent graduation rate, with 80 percent attending college. The New York City Department of Education routinely awards the school an “A” on its annual Progress Report. And it has been recognized by U.S. News & World Report as one of the best high schools in the nation. Aviation High lives up to its motto: ‘Where Dreams Take Flight.’ “[12]

When asked about the school’s smashing success, the school principal cites the strict code of discipline, their culture of respect. But for Sommers the secret sauce is not the “culture of respect”, rather the immediate application of classroom knowledge to practical–and employable–skills. And when it comes to traditional academic disciplines such as English and history, students must pass a performance threshold before they get to tinker with the Cessna 411 engine sitting out on the playground.

Except there’s problem, and I’m sure that you have already guessed what it is: Aviation High School is predominantly (85%) male. It was the National Women’s Law Center who deployed the first regiment. “In 2001, its copresident, Marcia Greenberger, along with two activist lawyers, wrote a letter to the then–Chancellor of the New York City Board of Education, claiming that girls’ rights were being violated in the city’s vocational public schools and demanding that the ‘problem be remedied without delay.’ “[12] (pp. 9-10) Thus began the long siege against Aviation High School and similar boy-friendly vocational schools. “Despite their success and promise, vocational academies like Aviation High School and Blackstone Valley Tech face harsh opposition from the women’s lobby. In a 2007 report, the National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education (NCWGE) condemned high school vocational training schools as hotbeds of ‘sex-segregation'”[12] (p. 162)

Lest you think the feminists just make noise, they are adroit lobbyists too. For example, in 2012 US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan re-jiggered the Perkins Act, under which federal grant money gets allocated to technical and vocational schools, in order to ensure not only equality in admission to such schools, but equality in outcome. So basically proportional representation of girls and boys. Hence “The new Perkins Act will further empower the women’s lobby to threaten schools like Aviation and Blackstone Valley with lawsuits.”[12] (p. 164)

The feminist Obama administration directed Title IX at technical and vocational schools. Title IX has been used against college sports programs, as sports like football tend to be heavily male dominated, so athletic programs were forced to recruit more women athletes to avoid losing federal funding or possibly facing discrimination lawsuits. In response some universities, like Boston University, simply did away with their football team. As a result “vocation and technical schools won’t get rid of their ‘male teams’ in welding, engineering, or automotive repair, but they are likely to cut them back and practice reverse discrimination in favor of girls. More resources will be deployed to change the preferences of young women to suit the ideology of groups like the AAUW [American Association of University Women] and the National Women’s Law Center. School leaders have no matching incentive to develop programs that could attract great numbers of disengaged young men. On the contrary, they are well advised to avoid them. Such programs will put them at risk of a federal investigation and loss of funds.”[12] (p. 166)

Sommers also notes that by the 2010’s there is already ample evidence showing that boys are failing in school. The feminists, of course, dismiss it. As I’ve said, the feminists are waging a war on men, and the best way to defeat men is to knock them out while they are still boys.

Next Reeves moves on to the labor market where men, blue collar men in particular, are losing ground. The outsourcing of muscular labor abroad and automation are certainly two factors. But it goes much deeper than that. I shall return to this subject in the next section.

Moving on to family life, the next crisis is the decline of dad. Reeves I think sums up the traditional male role very well: “Men are expected to put others before themselves in a variety of ways, including by giving up resources to the group, as well as risking injury or even death in its defense. One of the central ideas here is that of a surplus. Mature men generate more resources than they need for their own survival, and these are shared with the clan, tribe, or family.”[11] (p. 52) Men produce more than they consume, which is how they make up the inherent value difference between them and women, the latter having intrinsic value by virtue of their role in reproduction, as we discussed in the previous section. Traditional marriage then ties the biological male parent to the female such that his surplus resources are transferred to her exclusively. Per the contract he is also placed in charge of her and the children as a father. As such marriage has worked since we have recorded history of it because it is congenial to the natural gender dynamic of humans.

It’s only the spectacular technological and economic advances of the last century that has cleared the way for a feminist critique, that marriage stifles women’s autonomy by making them the property of men. In any case, in our present day: “Women are now the main breadwinner in 41% of U.S. households. Some of those are single mothers, but by no means all; three in ten wives now out-earn their husbands, twice as many as in 1981. Most mothers now work full time, and in almost half of families where both parents work full time, mothers earn as much or more than fathers. Mothers have also received growing support from the welfare system, allowing even those with low or no earnings to be freer of the need for a breadwinning husband.”[11] (p. 55)

Of this Reeves says: “The success of the women’s movement has not caused the precariousness of male social identity, but it has exposed it … Economically independent women can now flourish whether they are wives or not. Wifeless men, by contrast, are often a mess.”[11] (p. 60) And you thought men were tough and rugged, but alas, they’re just emotionally vulnerable big-mouths. Once you take away their patriarchal powers, they just go to pieces. Feminists like Reeves see it as their noblesse oblige to figure out how to help males adapt to an increasingly female primary world.

Professor Stephen Baskerville sees it differently: “The only benefit [pushing women into the workforce] can give to women is to increase not their affluence (though this may have been part of the short-term temptation), and certainly not their leisure, but their power—the power against their husbands that accrues from a separate paycheck and with it the ability and willingness to divorce … But the real beneficiary is the state. For this trend has transformed child-rearing from a private family matter into a public communal and taxable activity, expanding the tax base and with it the size and power of the state, while the elite sisters in traditional male occupations drive down male wages, lower productivity, and fuel inflation.” [13]

In other words, pushing women out of the homes and their traditional role as mothers and homemakers means that they must hire professionals to raise their kids. This means that these women are now engaged in taxable economic activity, as are the mercenary moms who are caring for their kids. In addition, the sudden expansion of the labor force beginning in the 1960’s in the US drove down wages, making it very difficult for many men to support a family without his wife working as well, so many are forced into this new arrangement. Moreover, the dissolution of the traditional family, as Reeves himself notes, has created many single moms who depend on the welfare state. Instead of relying on men, who naturally see it as their charge to protect and provide for their women, these modern feminized women are taught that men are either tyrants or incompetent boobs, so it’s better to rely on the government, as the government has the power to coerce men to hand over their money and to punish them for unacceptable behavior.

By 1977 no-fault divorce became the law of the land in the United States. Theoretically no-fault divorce is gender neutral, but in practice women initiate around 70% of divorces in the US, and among college educated women that number jumps to 90% [14]. Since women generally marry men who make more money than them, typically the father ends up paying the bills–child support, alimony, lawyer fees. In other words, the typical woman can file divorce, regardless of what her husband thinks, take the kids, the house, and at least half of his personal wealth with her. A massive bureaucratic industry has since grown up around family demolition, whose centerpiece is the family courts, comprised of a shadowy army of judges, lawyers, psychologists, child protective services, child support enforcement agents, mediators, counselors, feminist groups of course, and the list goes on.

In reality, the divorce industry that feminists have helped to create is far worse than this. Dads who have already been financially zeroed out by the divorce and who cannot afford to pay child support are castigated in the media as “deadbeat dads”, while the women are frequently propped up as heroines, as single moms bravely navigating this tough world on their own and raising their kids at the same time. And if the insults weren’t bad enough, many dads find themselves in jail: “To the abandonment hoax was added the nonpayment of ‘child support,’ whereby fathers whose children had been confiscated by the divorce courts were required to pay for it through instant ‘obligations’ they had done nothing to incur and that could well constitute 60–100% of their income and even more. Any arrears are quickly collected by predawn raids at gunpoint. Wild and patently fabricated accusations of wife-beating, child abuse, and pedophilia turned the father into a monster and a pariah with whom no one dared associate. This government-propagated hysteria rationalized its own funding and expansion.”[13] (p. 77)

For Baskerville, and for many who have paid close attention to the matter, the divorce industry has worked to disempower fathers while looting them and the taxpayers all at the same time:
“The power of this bureaucratic underworld is derived almost entirely from children. It is the world of social work, child psychology, child and family counseling, child care, child protection, foster care, child support enforcement, and juvenile and family courts. Overwhelmingly, it is feminist-dominated … These feminists created and control the vast and impenetrable social services industries that most journalists and scholars find too dreary to scrutinize. In the US they dominate the $53 billion federal Administration for Children and Families, itself part of the gargantuan trillion dollar Department of Health and Human Services. They are both dispensers and recipients of its $350 billion grant program (“larger than all other federal agencies combined,” according to HHS) funding local “human services” or “social services” bureaucracies—by far the largest patronage machine ever created, reaching into almost every household in the land and making the Soviet nomenklatura look ramshackle … that great experiment in open-ended social engineering and government expansion that continues to evolve and wheedle its way into ever more intimate corners of private life, increasingly by bankrupting the most prosperous societies in human history.”[13] (pp. 46-47)

No matter. Reeves insists that there is not any sort of discrimination, unfairness, or disadvantaging of men and boys. No need to roll back any feminism. The problems are structural, which up until recently had been holding back the girls, they have “had the brakes on”. [15] For Reeves the challenge is to figure out how to help males adapt to this new world. To this end, Reeves proposes several solutions.

He suggests “red shirting” boys in early education (which is to hold them back a year) to account for the fact that boy’s brains develop more slowly than girls. Another is freeing students and male students in particular from the college railroad, the persistent cultural norm that a four-year college degree is the only path to success. He suggests we work to revive CTE (Career and Technical Education) which certainly has shown to benefit boys and young men. But already I have to raise my hand. We have seen with Aviation High School what happens when boys begin flourishing in a space where girls are not: the feminists marshal their forces to shut it down. I think it’s fair to say at this point that feminists now control the education system.

Another solution Reeves offers is encouraging men to get into HEAL professions (Health, Education, Administration and Literacy). I agree with him that more male teachers, particularly at the elementary school level, would give the boys an early and much needed boost. Teaching young kids is generally seen as a pink profession, and nowadays males in this line of work are often suspected of being pedophiles.

As the health care industry is booming, Reeves sees a lot of opportunities for male nurses, but once again, despite numerous campaigns to recruit male nurses, men remain largely recalcitrant: “… the ad featured nine nurses who, as the Center’s Deborah Burton, explained, ’embody male characteristics in our society.’ Among them were a former Navy SEAL, a biker, a karate champion, a rugby player, a snowboarder, and an ex-firefighter. The campaign generated media attention. It was certainly a bold effort with precisely the right intent. But it didn’t seem to move the dial in terms of the rate of recruitment of men in the state.” [11] (p. 201)

I remember back in grade school, circa 1980, when school counselors brought in football players to pitch Home Economics to boys over traditional Industrial Arts. Even the principal assured us that Home Ec is not for sissies, as these strapping older boys took Home Ec instead of IA and were patently not sissies. As I recall, that didn’t move the needle much either. Home Economics is for girls, everyone knew that.

The popular YouTuber Rollo Tomassi I think put his finger on the problem with trying to recruit men into pink professions. Young men who have yet had any experience in the dating market know that working as a nurse or school teacher for a slim paycheck is not going to get them anywhere near desirable women. When they think of a male elementary school teacher, they envision some effeminate man struggling to control screaming kids all day, and then going home to an overweight wife who yells at him for failing at his share of the domestic chores. Most men would rather take their chances with Andrew Tate’s Hustler University, gamble on this or that crazy pyramid selling scheme, than face such a dreary future.

Part IV: Men Going Galt

In 1970, 80 percent of 25-to 29-year-old men were married; in 2007, only about 40 percent percent of them were. In 1970, 85 percent of 30- to 34-year-old men were married; in 2007, only 60 percent of them were.

Kay Hymowitz, from Manning Up

According the 1940 census, the work rate for civilian noninstitutional men twenty–to–sixty-four years old was 81.3 percent. In 2015, that rate was 78.4 percent. The work rate for prime-age males in 1940 was reported to be 86.5 percent, two points higher than in 2015 and about a point and a half higher than readings thus far for 2016. In other words, work rates for men appear to be lower today than they were late in the Great Depression when the civilian unemployment rate ran above 14 percent.

Nicholas Eberstadt, from Men Without Work

The Pentagon likewise disputes details of recruitment shortfalls. But the military brass concedes that many branches of the military are still between a third to a quarter short of their recruitment goals—despite the military steadily lowering standards for enlistment

Victor Davis Hanson, from an article in American Greatness, Feb. 16, 2023

Who is John Galt?

The oft repeated question in Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged is a verbalized shrug, a colloquialism for “I don’t know”. They don’t know why their society is collapsing. Everything they’ve been taught on how to think of it only leaves them more confused. Rand was writing about the Soviet Union, but in the novel she imagines the United States of America succumbing to communism.

When we finally meet John Galt more than halfway through the novel we find him living amongst fellow industrialists, entrepreneurs, engineers, medical doctors, artists and scientists in a kind of anarcho-capitalist Paradiso. Galt is in fact leading a strike against an ascendant managerial class who busy themselves with passing sweeping moral laws designed correct human inequality. In practice this amounts to looting the wealth creators in order to support the idle and quarrelsome.

A crisis point has been reached when even the wealthiest industrialists can no longer afford to stay in businesses. So John Galt cleverly grants the new moralists just precisely what they ask for: “Ability is a selfish evil that leaves no chance to those who are less able? We have withdrawn from the competition and left all chances open to incompetents … It is evil to succeed, since success is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? We have ceased burdening the weak with our ambition and have left them free to prosper without us. It is evil to be an employer? We have no employment to offer … We are giving men everything they’ve professed to want and to seek as virtue for centuries. Now let them see whether they want it.” [16]

In a recent Twitter thread venture capitalist Balaji Srinivasan notes the increasing number of industrial accidents and construction related mishaps including: the Ohio chemical explosion; airline runway incidents; failed high speed rail; fires from mismanaged forests; million dollar toilets; $300M bus lanes; and $3.5B subways. Why is this happening? He responds: “One answer is that the only type of maintenance that’s even semi-prestigious in American society is software maintenance. That is, it’s not prestigious to be plumber, mechanic, or electrician. You can make money, but it doesn’t have cultural cachet. And so maintenance suffers.” [17]

In her Atlantic magazine piece “The End of Men”, Hannah Rosin cites the work of french sociologist Pierre Bourdieu: ” … Although the land no longer produced the impressive income it once had, the men felt obligated to tend it. Meanwhile, modern women shunned farm life, lured away by jobs and adventure in the city. They occasionally returned for the traditional balls, but the men who awaited them had lost their prestige and become unmarriageable. This is the image that keeps recurring to me, one that Bourdieu describes in his book: at the bachelors’ ball, the men, self-conscious about their diminished status, stand stiffly, their hands by their sides, as the women twirl away.” [18]

While Rosin is correct that technology has reduced the demand for blue collar muscular jobs, jobs in which the larger, broad-shouldered male body possesses an obvious advantage, we still need people in America to do these jobs. But the women are indeed just twirling away from these men, particularly in the dating markets. It is a well established fact that women will seldom date or marry a man who stands below them on the socioeconomic ladder. This is the result of the female prioritization of provision and protection in choosing a mate. As discussed in the preceding section, women are attending universities at higher rates than men, which is still the standard path to a well paying and prestigious professional career. As a result, many women are out-earning men. Recent data shows that women aged 22-29 out-earn their male counterparts [19].

Moreover, data indicates that the higher a woman’s socioeconomic status, the stronger her preference for a higher status male mate. The result is an ever growing shortage of men meeting the standards of these modern women: “Cleverly titled the Rise of the SHEconomy, Morgan Stanley forecasts that 45 percent of working women between the ages of 25 and 44 will be single and childless by 2030, the largest share in history.” [20]

The problem is further exacerbated by the fact that men are dropping out of the labor force. In his recent book Men Without Work, Nicholas Eberstadt combs through the latest data on the American labor market, focusing on the male flight from paid employment. “To a distressing degree, these men appear to have relinquished what we think of ordinarily as adult responsibilities not only as breadwinners but as parents, family members, community members, and citizens. Having largely freed themselves of such obligations, they fill their days in the pursuit of more immediate sources of gratification. While a minority (those in training or further education) can be seen as pursuing or already possessing a vocation in life, the vast majority cannot be so described. On the contrary, the data here suggest that something like infantilization besets some un-working men.” [21] One interesting observation he makes, in addition: “Between 1972 and 2014, formal worship was on the decline among all American adults, but the proportion of un-working men who never went to worship was distinctly higher than for men with work.” [21] (p.101)

The feminists can only offer shame with books like Manning Up (Kay Hymowitz), Save the Males (Kathleen Parker), Why Boys Fail (Richard Whitmire), etc.. The traditional conservatives are seldom much better. Boys need to grow up, man up, and do their damn jobs. Which, admittedly, is a fair point. What they miss, and what their dripping condescension reveals, is that they cannot see men as rational beings who respond to incentives. Sure, many men are louts, many are lazy ne’er-do-wells, the despair of society, but there appears to be many more men who are simply assessing the conditions on the ground and deciding that it just ain’t worth it. In other words, men are going on strike, an observation made by psychologist Helen Smith now over a decade ago: “What [Hannah Rosin] doesn’t mention is that this new world order is a place where men are discriminated against, forced into a hostile environment in school and later in college, and held in contempt by society—and for the honor, are expected to conform to a society for women only. What she calls inflexibility is men rejecting her and other feminists’ suggestions that they become more like women. She has no clue how men really feel or why they behave the way they do, nor does she seem to care.” [22]

History documents the achievements of men. It is a fact that, relative to men, comparatively few women have built anything of lasting value: in technology, in the arts, in philosophy, in politics. The motivations of men have roots that extend all the way down to basic biology–the more they achieve, the better their chances of finding an attractive mate and producing offspring like them. A lot of what we read in the history books are the endeavors of men going to unbelievable extremes to distinguish themselves, to be first, to be famous, to cover themselves with glory. From guitarists performing feats of unbelievable complexity, to explorers like Captain Cook, to entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs, to the ordinary Spartan soldier staring down death to prove his worth–we write their histories because such men changed our lives and deserve our reverence.

Yet should you deny men and boys their history, deny them their unique form of human energy, dismiss it as toxic, then perhaps you will bring about the end of men. Attack technical schools were boys thrive and implement affirmative action programs for girls, and you dash the boy’s sense of a unique and respectable path forward in life. Get rid of recess and competitive sports through Title IX and you undermine the young man’s desire to win, to earn trophies, get his name in the local paper. Promote women in the professional world, demand said world become more female friendly (maternity leave, child care, speech codes, etc.), blast the message that men must step aside to atone for historical oppression of women, and you undermine the man’s motivation to get ahead. Make it known that the average blue collar man is a lowly and undatable servant in the eyes of modern woman, that his advances on such women are likely to be regarded as sexual harassment, and many men will retreat into the safer world of virtual reality and pornography. And for the eligible bachelors who do succeed and marry, put them on perpetual probation with unilateral, no-fault divorce laws and a massive Soviet style bureaucracy whereby a woman can order her husband out of the house at any time, take his money and children, and if he resists have him arrested on domestic violence charges. Beat this drum 24/7, in the news, movies, literature, pop psychology: men are toxic!, the future is female!, stand aside!, check your privilege! and on, and on. This is what is happening in the West. Is it any wonder that men are resisting by refusing to engage? Is is any wonder that, like John Galt, many men have decided to give the feminists just precisely what they ask for by withholding themselves and seeing just how much the other half likes it?

The feminists will rejoin that they can get along fine without men. Recall we quoted Richard Reeves as saying “economically independent women can now flourish whether they are wives or not.” But are women, en masse, really capable of economic independence? Let’s look at some numbers: More than 50% of welfare recipients are single mothers [23]. In the United States, welfare accounts for about 15% of the total federal budget (a little over $1 trillion in 2020). Women are the primary recipients of welfare, being 85% of food stamp beneficiaries (SNAP). [24] And there are benefit programs which are exclusive to women such as WIC.

While more and more women are now working and paying taxes, still the burden falls mostly on men. Approximately 20% of Americans earn more than $100K/year [25], and about 2/3 of them are men. The top 20% of earners in America pay approximately 80% of all federal income tax [26]. Which means that the top 20% of men pay more than half of all income taxes (53%). So most federal income tax comes out of the pockets of men and goes into the pockets of women, at least those receiving welfare. An exhaustive analysis of who pays to whom in America is well beyond the scope of this essay. I only wish to make the point that the basic gender dynamic, which is the result of long evolved sex differences, has not gone away, rather it has been displaced from the most natural and direct arrangement of husbands providing for wives and kids to Big Daddy Government floating a raft of single moms.

William Collins makes a similar observation for the UK: “Men pay 73% of the income tax into the Exchequer. This funds the public sector, two-thirds of whose employees are women. The public sector enjoys far more lucrative pension provisions than the private sector, similar provisions having almost disappeared from the private sector due to unsustainable costs…In short, the economy is ‘gendered’ in the sense that money flows from men to women.” [9] (pp. 291-292)

Now let us have a look at the following chart of US dept to GDP over the past 200 years:

Prior to the 1960’s, in the bad old days of the oppressive patriarchy, debt/GDP was generally under 20%. The only exceptions being the three major wars: the Civil War, First and Second World Wars. Following WWII, when debt/GDP crested over 100%, it began recovering and appeared to be headed for its normal level of around 20% when it begins climbing again, starting in the 1970’s. And then it’s up, up, and away, with debt/GDP now over 100% — and that’s prior to the covid pandemic. I understand that correlation is not causation, and thus far I have not succeeded in unearthing the data which would prove causation, so I offer the following as a hypothesis.

Wealthy, industrialized societies like the United States can offer plenty of gainful employment in safe environments which require good people skills. Such jobs are well suited to women, and many women appear happy to take them. Many such jobs are white collar jobs, require a university degree, pay well and have a good deal of social prestige. In the US, women are now the majority of university graduates, and as of 2019 they comprised 52% of lawyers [27] and over 75% of all health care workers [28].

Well that all sounds great. But feminists are not happy with women merely having a satisfying career, they want women at the top, beating the boys, with the emphasis on the latter. They are female supremacists. To this end they continually push for more female-friendly working environments, more affirmative action in hiring and promotion, most of which come at the expense of men and of corporations. “[Men’s] well-being and job security have been under attack through a decades-long feminist campaign to protect and promote women at men’s expense: this has occurred through affirmative action hiring and the insistence on transforming workplace culture to make it welcoming of women (and hostile to men)” writes Janice Fiamengo. Feminist activism in the workplace has thus resulted in “decades-long unfairness—often legally enforced—to shoe-horn women into elite jobs they didn’t earn and to support their oft-unreasonable demands for accommodation, up to and including the firing of men deemed to have caused female discomfort.” [29]

Another issue is that, short of biologically modifying human females, there is no way of getting around the fact that a woman’s peak fertility happens between 18 and 28 years of age, which also coincides with the apprenticeship period of any highly skilled profession. Jordan Peterson recounts the time he had spent as a clinician with female lawyers, brilliant hard working women who made partner in prestigious law firms only to find out that they really wanted to be moms above anything else. This is obviously a sub-optimal situation, both for the women who invested so heavily in a career they would discover was not for them, and for the corporation who now has to find a replacement for a highly skilled worker. [30]

The plain fact is that women are not designed to be providers, or perhaps we should say, primary providers. I think many women enjoy careers so long as they are not under the gun to make all financial ends meet–they’d rather hand that off to a man. Many women want careers so long as that career does not deprive them of a certain amount of family time. This is certainly one reason why there are so few female CEO’s. To make the job of CEO accommodating to a woman’s priorities would necessary handicap the corporation against its not so female friendly competitors.

Moreover, while few women actually meet the demands of the top paying professions, they also do not seem to care much, nor really have ability for, all the necessary blue collar jobs–plumbers, roofers, farmers, miners, auto mechanics, computer techs, truck drivers, etc. –without which Ms. Career Woman would never be able to do her job, nay, would probably not even be able to survive. The maintenance of a prosperous modern society still falls largely on the shoulders of men whom feminists like Hannah Rosin sneer at and deride from their ivory towers, publishing houses, and posh media suites. Our modern civilization still very much depends on men. Its critical infrastructure cannot continue to function without them.

Thus I hold that, though admittedly as yet a hypothesis, even the wealthiest, most advanced societies like the United States cannot afford to sideline their men, who have evolved as primary wealth producers and technicians, while the women go on to run the world. The accommodating of work environments to female preferences does not scale. Firstly because it costs too much. The social experiment which began in the 1960’s in the US, of making women and men interchangeable, while simultaneously pushing women en masse into the traditionally male arena productive labor, is leading us to bankruptcy.

Now I would like to argue that the problem goes far deeper than the financial challenges. Richard Reeves states: “the male malaise is not the result of a mass psychological breakdown, but of deep structural challenges.” I disagree. Our current malaise is the result of trying to turn women into men so that men are no longer needed. While structural problems do indeed exist–outsourcing manufacturing jobs overseas, etc. –the root of the problem is psychological, energetic and spiritual. Reeves even notes that ” …not only are many boys and men struggling, they are less likely to be helped by policy interventions.” Nicholas Eberstadt notes that permanent unemployment is statistically lower among men who are religious than those who are secular. Evidently religion provides these men with a buffer against the cultural onslaught, provides them with a place not only in society but in all of Creation, in God’s plan, and that, among other things, significantly increases their productivity.

All successful cultures are able to harmonize often dissonant natural impulses. Monogamous marriage, for example, reigns in a man’s proclivity to pursue as many sexual partners as he can get his hands on by harmonizing his desire for sex with his pride in being an owner and a chief, the king of his castle. A woman’s natural hypergamy (to constantly seek higher status males), on the other hand, is reigned in by her desire for financial security and stable environment in which to bear a child, which she seeks in the form of a good husband. From all the research I have seen, this traditional arrangement is also best for children.

While monogamous marriage as understood in the Judeo-Christian tradition many not be the only way of effectively organizing human society, it appears better than anything else that has yet been tried. Phyllis Schlafly: “It should be clear that most social problems and many financial problems are caused by the absence of the nuclear family. The majority of suicides, runaways, school dropouts, kids using illegal drugs, teen pregnancies, and other social ills come from mother-headed homes. Likewise for those who end up in jail … Do you want Congress to cut taxpayer spending and balance the federal budget? Do you want Congress to stop raising the debt limit and to start paying down the national debt? Do you want to reduce or even eliminate the handouts of cash and benefits for living expenses that are paid monthly to nearly half of all Americans, creating widespread dependency on government? … No way can any of that happen unless we restore the nuclear family as the lifestyle of the majority of Americans, so families can support themselves without welfare handouts and government infringement.” [31]

Nowadays the entertainment industry routinely pushes the feminist social prescription. In a series of videos titled “Why Modern Movies Suck”, the film critic who goes by the name of Critical Drinker says: “The traditional heroic male lead which was pretty much the bedrock foundation of cinema for almost 100 years is apparently no longer a viable commodity … they’ve been replaced with more acceptable alternatives. Don’t believe me? Fuck it. Go turn on your TV and watch basically any commercial break that comes up in the next hour or so. Tell me how many dumb, hapless, incompetent husbands, fathers and boyfriends do you see constantly screwing up even the most simple household tasks and needing someone more diverse to bail them out? Go ahead, I’ll wait.” [32]

Life follows art only when art is able to harness genuine passion, when art is in some way beautiful. Feminized cinema appears to do no such thing, but is rather an attempt to re-engineer humans so that women rise to feminist approved positions of power. For reasons discussed above, this runs against many natural human currents and does not appear to achieve any sort of harmony. The result is ugly and nihilistic, and most people turn away. So called “woke” movies have thus far enjoyed little commercial success.

Contra Reeves, I think the extent to which the feminists have infected our culture is causing, if not a mass psychological breakdown, a lot of psychological duress, especially for men, though for women as well [33]. The feminist vision of society requires too much artifice and nature balks. One consequence is a distressing and increasing number of “men on strike”. I doubt the male recession will end until some conditions are met. My top three are as follows:

The feminists need to stop crying and lying about male dominance in technical fields like computer science, or in leadership positions like corporate CEO’s, as if it stands as evidence of an unfair and oppressive patriarchy. The natural competitiveness of males and their propensity to form strict hierarchies lends itself to the public sphere, to industry, to politics, to science, and is why Western Civ, from which nearly everyone has benefited, was almost entirely built by men. Feminists need to recognize the unique role of masculine energy in the world, and–this is critical–defer to it. They cannot sufficiently replicate it to take over the world. They must learn some humility and accept their place in the natural order.

Secondly, the feminists need to recognize the unique roles that fathers play in raising children. The weaponized divorce and family court system of which Stephen Baskerville writes needs a major overhaul (or perhaps even better, a funeral), and no-fault divorce needs to be abolished.

Third, all affirmative action needs to be ended. As for the United States, its own Declaration of Independence states: “[all humans] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The Declaration does not endorse affirmative action, only the underwriting of individual autonomy. Let men and women freely choose their paths in life, let them have their adventures, and let the chips fall where they will.

The men I respect do not want favors nor pity, they only want a fair deal. They want to work at something that is important and useful. They want to display their talents in competition, and may the best man win. They want the love and respect of women, and they want a good wife. If there is anything like hope to be found in our current predicament, it is perhaps that men will once again have a mission that is great, clear, and urgent: to restore Western Civilization. Even perhaps–with men being the inveterate tinkerers that they are–to improve upon it.

References

[1] Aristophanes. The Birds and Other Plays (Penguin Classics) (pp. 229-230). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

[2] Durant, Will. The Life of Greece: The Story of Civilization, Volume II (p. 163). Simon & Schuster. Kindle Edition.

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99WJDLpgo3U&t=1924s (starting at 24:54)

[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZYQpge1W5s&t=674s (starting at 52:35).

[5] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jun/22/the-age-of-patriarchy-how-an-unfashionable-idea-became-a-rallying-cry-for-feminism-today

[6] Buss, David M.. The Evolution of Desire (p. 32). Basic Books. Kindle Edition.

[7] https://www.nature.com/articles/npre.2009.3238.1

[8] Moxon, Steve. The Woman Racket (p. 70). Andrews UK – Academic. Kindle Edition.

[9] Collins, William. The Empathy Gap: Male Disadvantages and the Mechanisms of Their Neglect (p. 135). LPS publishing. Kindle Edition.

[10] Farrell, Warren . The Boy Crisis (p. 28). BenBella Books. Kindle Edition.

[11] Reeves, Richard V.. Of Boys and Men (p. 26). Brookings Institution Press. Kindle Edition.

[12] Sommers, Christina Hoff. The War Against Boys: How Misguided Policies are Harming Our Young Men (pp. 7-8). Simon & Schuster. Kindle Edition.

[13] Baskerville, Stephen. The New Politics of Sex: The Sexual Revolution, Civil Liberties, and the Growth of Governmental Power (p. 44). Angelico Press. Kindle Edition.

[14] https://sasforwomen.com/7-reasons-why-women-initiate-divorce-more-often-than-men/

[15] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1N7gA9cA1g&t=1156s (starting at 19:00)

[16] Rand, Ayn. Atlas Shrugged (p. 741). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

[17] https://www.revolver.news/2023/02/america-lost-hardworking-men-who-held-her-together-and-now-she-is-crumbling/

[18] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/308135/

[19] https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/aug/29/women-in-20s-earn-more-men-same-age-study-finds?ref=quillette%5D, and are now the primary breadwinners of 40% of American households.

[20] https://quillette.com/2021/06/28/mate-selection-for-modernity/

[21] Eberstadt, Nicholas. Men Without Work (New Threats to Freedom Series) (p. 102). Templeton Press. Kindle Edition.

[22] Smith, Helen. Men on Strike . Encounter Books. Kindle Edition (p. 8)

[23] https://www.creditdonkey.com/welfare-statistics.html

[24] https://prosperitynow.org/blog/welfare-policies-impede-gender-equity

[25] [https://www.zippia.com/advice/how-many-people-make-over-100k

[26] https://taxfoundation.org/rich-pay-their-fair-share-of-taxes/

[27] https://www.zippia.com/advice/what-percentage-of-lawyers-are-female/%5D

[28] https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2022/over-16-million-women-worked-in-health-care-and-social-assistance-in-2021.htm

[29] https://fiamengofile.substack.com/p/a-reformed-feminism-still-sees-men

[30] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoqjKqt__tI

[31] Schlafly, Phyllis. Who Killed the American Family? (p. 224). WND Books. Kindle Edition

[32] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUWe11I_7Oo&list=PLFz_00sC7mo7Zu5GSSj9hqJ8G3faYyhLK&index=11

[33] https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pol.1.2.190