How did women entering the workforce in a big way during and after the 1970s affect the economy and Western society and...

Yes, that's what Western always means despite Europeans being nothing like Murrisharts societally or culturally. They're like China to us and we scoff when they refer to us as part of their 'civilization'.

Why did people think "dual income" was ever a good thing?

The video itself doesn't provide any solid arguments aside from pseudo-science and unsourced evolutionary psychology hypothesizing.

When everything is so expensive that it's necessary.

T. Working poor since time immemorial.

>>petty bickering over semantics

Does this mean we will see in the near future a strong push by women for polygamy in the West? I could definitely see that happening as more women reach their 30s and all the "good" men are already taken.

Research the June Cleaver Effect if you want a real answer from an economic perspective.

>June Cleaver Effect

I googled this and couldn't find anything. Mind explaining in more detail?

This, the idea of a woman doing nothing other than caring for children and running a household while the man provides 100% of household income is a rare thing historically. Outside of maybe a few generations in the early 20th century, women worked on the farm, or at the loom, or some other kind of activity. Even during the 20th century it was common for women to work party time while raising children, or full-time once they got older. It could be argued (not my opinion however) that we've taken a step back now that women have to work again.

I don't think so. With modern emphasis on individuality I don't think polygamy can be socially popular, nor would it last for most of the women involved for long when they get jealous over another. They're just going to either settle down for some damaged or crazy goods or die alone and depress like people do now.

s
>Post war economic boom. Workers are scarce and have lots of bargaining power.

s
>Europe and Japan recover from the war and start competing with American workers. automation stars to eat away at clerical jobs like bank tellers and switch board operators. Start of the neo-liberal revolution.

s
>China has taken all the low-skill labor intensive jobs (and some of the high-skill technical jobs) that Americans used to do. Workers have very little bargaining power.

>My family income is around 150 grand and we barely scrape by in our city.

Try moving to a shittier city.

In terms of economics, women receiving fairer pay, and being more present in the workforce, in conjunction with the manufacturing work moving overseas, helped to create the stagnation in American wages. It wasn't the largest factor, but it was one of the reasons why capitalists moved production to places like China, Mexico, and now into Africa.

Im willing to bet you will start seeing a lot of social programming or whatever you call it for "open relationships" in the next 5 years.

something where the girl gets the beta provider and also gets to fuck Chad/Jamal, and the beta will be the one who will defend it the most

Do you think something like a Bachelor tax on single men could be implemented as well? Wouldn't be too surprising if Hillary gets elected.

The problem with this video, is that from a evolutionary standpoint it shows the islamic culture as the stronger and more dominant culture. So, why would they not want this culture to take over?

>So, why would they not want this culture to take over?

Because Western libertarian ideals, history and culture will be eradicated if Islam conquers the West. The West was doing just fine socially up until about a century ago, no reason to passively throw it away just because some people and ideas went too far in a few places.

>Do you think something like a Bachelor tax on single men could be implemented as well?

maybe. Mussolini literally did just that to improve the birth rate in Italy. single men were taxed harder, couples were taxed less and even given money by the state if they were poor and had kids.

>So, why would they not want this culture to take over?

because its just right about one thing and wrong about everything else. Its also barbaric and would lead the world into ruin if it dominated it.

He probably couldn't get that wage in a shittier city.

That's a problem. You can live very well on 150k in nice small town USA, but you're not going to have an easy time ever finding a job paying that wage without moving to a population center.

That's because Euros on Veeky Forums are arrogant and are quick to criticize without admitting their countries own faults. Much like Americans.

So no, in essence you're both exactly the same.

I'll just add that what HAS changed is that women are now in a better position to develop marketable skills and receive fair compensation in return, so rather than homogenisation of the workforce leading to cultural change it could just as much be the reverse.

>phoneposter

>Because Western libertarian ideals, history and culture will be eradicated if Islam conquers the West.
It makes no sense to abandon liberal ideals because someone is threatening them (although in the real world liberal ideals are a much bigger threat to Islam than vice versa). That's like commiting suicide because your afraid your neighbour could kill you in a fight.

>The West was doing just fine socially up until about a century ago
Society in the 19th and early 20th century was chaotic as fuck. I don't know where this meme comes from but it's not from a knowledge of history.

Did you misread? I was agreeing with you.

Rome did it, so yea probably.

Women being convinced that having a career is more important than a stable marriage and children is the biggest catastrophe to hit western civilization since the black plague

worse than that, Im starting to see this really creepy pedo tier trend among social media (mostly among minorities) where they dress up little girls like slutty 20 year olds. And you have old men commenting on how attractive they are.

Its the most skin crawl inducing cringy thing I see normies do and it makes me thing we are in a state of societal decay

>where they dress up little girls like slutty 20 year olds.

Pretty sure that's been going on for awhile now. But if it is increasing in frequency, as you say, what does that mean? That society will soon deem it socially acceptable again for a older man to marry girls who are in their teens?

>Mind explaining in more detail?

In short, June Cleaver is mom from the series "Leave It to Beaver!" which was a popular tv show during the 1950's. June does a lot of work preparing meals, running errands, taking care of kids, cleaning the home, etc but because none of that is monitored by the government, it doesn't appear as part of GDP.

There is a good chance that modern-day June Cleaver would not being doing those things, though. Instead, she is working a job during the day. This gets factored directly into GDP because the government monitors all business activity. Does this mean that June is working harder now? Not necessarily. It just means that the type of work that June does now is monitored and reported to the government whereas before all the work that June Cleaver did was housework that doesn't appear as part of GDP because the government can't monitor or record everything a housewife does during the day because that would just be really creepy.

Why does this matter? Because it creates an illusion of massive GDP growth that has to be accounted for when you compare GDP growth over time. Now let's be clear, am I saying that the GDP hasn't actually grown since the 1950's? No, that would be silly. But it hasn't grown as much as it appears to have grown. Sure, June is just 1 woman, but she represents 50% of the population.

Another thing, June used to do a lot of work preparing meals for the family herself. Again, this work she does is NOT factored in GDP because the government isn't spying on June in her kitchen. However, when modern day June goes to the store to by a pre-prepared meal from Giant, that does get factored into GDP because Giant has to report its economic activities to the government under law. So in this instance, June is actually doing LESS work than she did in the 1905's but it gets factored into GDP whereas the stuff she did at home before did not get counted towards GDP.

Polygamy works but it only does when all the parties are fine with it and are for it.

t. Know a guy in one for 15 years with a kid from both women.

Interesting, one problem though is that wouldn't a 1950s housewife's shopping and expenses related to cooking, cleaning, entertaining kids, etc. also be factored into GDP back then? Even 60 years ago women were buying all the necessary ingredients for meals at supermarkets (and also buying frozen foods). Or would that have been included as part of the man's earnings and expenditures since married women didn't have independent incomes?

Actually worse, since the aftermath of the Black Death at least resulted in positive things to happen to Europe.

I don't actually have a good answer for this. I'm basically just telling you what I was told in an introductory macroeconomics course. So after this point everything I say is just speculation. Your comment earlier about not being able to find any more information online is true for me as well, which makes me think that my professor just gave this phenomenon his own nickname for it. He never really gave any kind of qualifier for how much of an impact the effect has, simply that it exists and we should be aware of it. So it might be a minor effect that is easily compensated for or it might be a huge deal, I honestly can't tell you for certain either way.

>included as part of the man's earnings and expenditures since married women didn't have independent incomes?
Yes that part. The man earned, and the women spent the man's earnings.

Find how how many people are in the US workforce, double it overnight and imagine how that would affect wages.

>Does this mean we will see in the near future a strong push by women for polygamy in the West?

Feminist call it polyamory.

People are dumb and have it backwards. Women were forced to work for economic reasons.

Fug, is it already being pushed?

prior to the 20th century there were very few formal jobs available to women though. In terms of employment (where you get paid a regular salary for having a regular job with an employer), you could be a teacher, a nurse, a maid, a cook, and a nanny and that was essentially it. The vast majority of women may have helped out with the farm work or done craft work to sell on the side but this is not formal employment.

so women worked informally, but in terms of jobs very few of them worked prior to the 20th century. there is a difference.

They were pretty heavily employed in textile mills beginning in the 19th century too, but that was usually limited to a few major industrial centers.

yes. the point remains that this idea that 'career women' isn't new because women have supposedly 'always worked' is wrong. some women did work, but they were a small minority.

I agree for the most part, but it really depends on the location, demographics and period that you are looking at. In mid-19th century New York City, for example, most working-class Irish immigrant women were working for wages as servants or other menial occupations. But yes, the vast majority of women living in rural Illinois at the same time were not doing anything but serving as housewives.

i hope so
the anger will be planet-busting :^)

Yeah brah of course there's a difference between formal employment in its current form, and the way women (also men, but particularly women) worked in the past. I was trying to point out that comparing the current situation to what immediately preceded it needs to be done carefully because a situation where women don't work is a historical aberration. It's important to understand how things were earlier this century but hold up a distorted view of the 1950s situation as some kind of ideal or norm is distracting and innacurate.

If anything the confinement of women to the home was one of the driving forces behind the movement for workforce equality because it coincided with the growth of capitalism. Capitalism values money-earning ability above all other attributes, which led to the view in many that traditionally important contributions such as home labour were far less important than actual monetary income. In this sense the contributions of men came to be viewed as more important, and thus women's position suffered as a result.

>The problem with this video, is that from a evolutionary standpoint it shows the islamic culture as the stronger and more dominant culture. So, why would they not want this culture to take over?
Actually the problem is you equate evolution with being a moral force, and think that competing evolutionary strains are obligated to bow out and concede defeat when subject to evolutionary pressure.

more like

Hey bitches
now that you can vote, here is some shit you can have so you can elect my ass.

>free child care in the form of pre K and K-12 education.
no the 13 yrs of education won't get them a job at anything other then walmart or mcdonalds, but hey, they can opt for 4 years of student loans to learn how to be communists, then they can be a telemarketer.

Best part? You don't have to raise your kid for most of the day, go get a job to pay the taxes needed for such a good system.

>Oh, you can divorce your husband for no reason. We will also extort money from your husband to pay for your whoring.
"I don't love him" or "I want food stamps" are valid reasons.

>Did I mention that we will pay you to be a single mother? We will also pay for your abortions.
Go ahead and spread your legs bitches, daddy government will take care of your shit. Also, we will make sure to teach that slut shaming is wrong in our 4 year college system.

>Student Loans for anything.
Want to get in lots of debt for a useless degree? Are you a women who is very submissive and easy to leave an impression on? Well here is a 4 year program of authority figures for you to submit to.

Democracy, was a mistake.

You sound really bitter, mad you can't get any and never went to college lmao

>military vet
>college grad in econ (GI bill, paid for by you faggot)
>devout catholic
>monarchist/anarchist. (natural hierarchy)
>married.

Nah, I'm good. I just see the state pure stupidity. Men and women are not equal, but the state is used to rectify this with interesting and stupid results.

...

I never really did understand the idea of an anarchist monarchy. To be considered a functioning monarch, wouldn't that person have to operate a bona fide state apparatus?

It seems like the big problem we need to deal with is giving out loans for bad investments.

If someone wants to take feminist studies and there's no feminist study jobs, then it should be restricted to people who can pay for their education in feminist studies because they want it, not because it's supposed to be an investment, or those who can earn scholarships from organizations that support feminist studies.

in europe, couples are already taxed less today

Did women work outside the home in large numbers in the Soviet Union and other communist countries?

Not an argument

Its already happening
The 20% Chads are getting 80% of the women

Yeah but there's a big difference between de facto polygamy and de jure. Once it's officially legalized the West will truly be beyond repair.

>The 20% Chads are getting 80% of the women

This has always been true though. The real number is 33% of the men get 67% of the women.

>weaker sex
>have to push affirmative action and quotas everywhere

and even then girls cant compete with men

How can people still believe in 2016 that the West is a patriarchy?

If you're sufficiently ideological, anything is possible.

I love these images. There's another one where they had this girl tell her 5 year bf she used to gang bang in college and he just gets her to leave. No anger, no crying, just 'this isn't what I signed up for, bye'

...

>purely physical
Awesome. Seem I mixed the two up. There's another one about college banging, but that's totally the one were he just deapans and backs out.

Fun (?) fact: Women define cheating emotionally and men define cheating physically (on average)

I genuinely think it has everything to do with the evolutionary growth of mating behaviours. Women never had to consider the idea that their children are not their own, instead valuing the stability and support of a partner rather than the necessity of passing on their genes. To a male however the concept of physical cheating means that they may lose a change at reproduction this cycle and worse would have to waste resources on offspring that isn't theirs.
tl;dr
Women are geared to care about whether the help and money is being split between a competitor. Men are geared to care about whether the genetic continuation of their line is secure.

t. Vague shade of brown

I agree, but with a caveat. I think the woman in that picture simply wasn't honest with herself and was in some serious well of self-deception.

If you are in a committed relationship, and suddenly feel the need to fuck other people, chances are you aren't really happy in it, and are just lying to yourself.

Sometimes I wish adultary was still criminalized. Because most often people don't get the "sweet revenge" like this guy got when his girlfriend broke down. Nothing too serious as a punishment, just being tied up in a square with people throwing rotten vegetables at you or something.

That is true but it assumes no societal influence. In the basic societies humans are all monogamous unless disaster creates gender imbalance.

As things developed then the 'harem' thought process started appearing. You could take it any of four ways. She is a bad person. Society has geared her to value carnal diversity to the point where she genuinely felt she was missing out. She was unconsciously seeking new mates. The general unrest and decline in her environment triggered an inclination for polygamous pairing.

Tangential perhaps but the effects of the stability of a familial environment, down to hormone intensity and production cycles proves without doubt that people are far more sensitive to such things than social science would like to advertise.

>but it assumes no societal influence

It really doesn't. Even from an evolutionary perspective it makes sense for a woman to constantly seek a better mate; the question is simply whether or not people are honest to themselves about that fact.

Legalising such actions is stupid. People will always react within a margin of error. That is to say if you say that it needs to be dealt with in court some people will get physical. If you make it a public/physical punishment then some people will escalate from that standard too (look at the middle east)

As it stands there is still a level of punishment and humiliation that is quietly 'accounted for'.

That's if you're view it from a vacuum. Mating behaviours aren't purely based on reason. If they were almost all animals would breed in the exact same fashion or at least have almost indistinguishable approach behaviours.
Humans are by nature a pairing animal. This is very hard to dispute from a empirical point of view.

>Mating behaviours aren't purely based on reason.

They are precisely *not* based on reason. Reason would suggest a woman should stay with a man who is strong, has a lot of resources and is a good father, but that's not what women do for the most part; they want the exciting and Machiavellian character, because these people are highly adaptive, to the point of pathology, but they know how to succeed in a dominance-hierarchy.

Women love to drink and sleep around. Women do not want rights for just having rights, they want rights to have a comfy life, just like previously, the (male) peasants demanded more rights (typically less taxation) to have a comfier life.
It runs out that women are very good at getting to make them partying, drinking and cumming.

Punishment like what? Women and Chads can easily find a new partner even if they cheated.

Reminder that women have strong animalistic traits they hide under manipulative lies. Reminder that feminists want society to return to pic related.

youtube.com/watch?v=Jupr_hLO9BQ

Not all women want Machiavelli as a partner. Further, that is a very societal view of the process. I think that breaking the process down is the best way to form an accurate evolutionary model.

If you're assuming that the nature was developed over time than the most basic elements are those from the furthest back. Those elements were 1:1 pairings. Obviously you'd vie for the best partner but a pairing is a pairing, not a match on mating season.

The respect of power (in the fashion we're referring to it in) is likely a result of inter-societal conquering. The 'my husband is dead and I might be to if I don't learn to love his killer' mentality. I do not think it is 'core' to the human sexual evolution so much as it is a relatively recent addition. One which is more prevalent in some groups compared to others.

>Not all women want Machiavelli as a partner.

No, but they want to fuck him, and fucking people for most of history until the invention of the birth control pill usually meant getting pregnant.

All of these things are at humanity's base sexual nature. Now, you can supplant and destroy that if you are sufficiently draconian in your social engineering; the question is how far do you want to go in your social engineering in order to destroy human nature?

> how far do you want to go in your social engineering
What is Abrahamic religions?

Yes, that is one way to control women's and men's sexuality.

And it worked for about 2000 years approximately, out of a evolutionary history of several tens of millions of years.

Related: 80% of US divorces are now filed by women

divorcesource.com/blog/why-women-file-80-percent-of-divorces/

Monogamy is the basic human nature. You literally cannot prove that wrong through any historical view point. It is an anthropological fact.

Again I do not think that is entirely the case and history would tend to agree. Early human development did not have the resources for women to procreate with security when unpaired. This is a later iteration on the baser nature. I will not deny it is an element now but it is not the core. It is what you'd define as engineering. Just as much as Abhramic versions of pairing are engineering.

>attacking the male
Classic over-investment. Competitors are unavoidable in life, suffering a traitor is a choice.

unmitigated disaster

marxist rhetoric in the 60s-70s was amazingly 1984-like

to men

>WORKING IS ALIENATING, IT DESTROYS THE HUMAN SPIRIT

to women

>WORKING IS EMPOWERING, IT'S EMANCIPATING

Literally political schizophrenia.

>difficulty living on 150,000
LITERALLY KILL YOURSELF, YOU FUCKING UPPER CLASS FUCK

Relative poverty is worse than absolute poverty m8, ask any economist.

This is completely misleading and you know it.

Working for the profit of someone else whilst being exploited leads to alienation. Working for your own enterprise or a community enterprise is uplifting and revolutionary.

>this thread
>misogyny
>r9k memes
>poly conspiracies
>marxism conspiraces
>black pigeon speaks shitposting
RIP in piss Veeky Forums

>Working for your own enterprise or a community enterprise is uplifting and revolutionary.

Well this isn't mostly, what happened. Women were just thrust into the same alienating world as men.

And?
most marxists wouldn't be satisfied with female working conditions

>The West was doing just fine socially up until about a century ago,
Oh, wow. That's has not an ounce of truth into it, man.

Nobody wants improved birth rates except Muslims. World is fucking collapsing over so many people.