This has been on my mind ever since I heard Aaron Russo suggest the elites were behind Women’s Suffrage because they wanted to change America from a country in which half the people worked and paid taxes to a country where everyone worked and paid taxes. As it typical they hi-jacked a legitimate movement for their own purposes.
I was interested to see this report from thedailybell.com. They quote some news then offer analysis along the same lines as Aaron Russo:
At a time when the world is short of causes for celebration, here is a candidate: within the next few months women will cross the 50% threshold and become the majority of the American workforce. Women already make up the majority of university graduates in the OECD countries and the majority of professional workers in several rich countries, including the United States. Women run many of the world’s great companies, from PepsiCo in America to Areva in France. Women’s economic empowerment is arguably the biggest social change of our times. Just a generation ago, women were largely confined to repetitive, menial jobs. They were routinely subjected to casual sexism and were expected to abandon their careers when they married and had children. Today they are running some of the organisations that once treated them as second-class citizens. Millions of women have been given more control over their own lives. And millions of brains have been put to more productive use. Societies that try to resist this trend-most notably the Arab countries, but also Japan and some southern European countries-will pay a heavy price in the form of wasted talent and frustrated citizens. – Economist
Dominant Social Theme: Hurray for women …
Free-Market Analysis: The liberation of women is in our opinion another dominant social theme, one of the longest running of the power elite’s promotions. The real push for women to become part of the work force happened in the 20th century. Not surprisingly, this was the century that saw the imposition of full-fledged central banking around the world. At the beginning of the 20th century, it was still culturally a problem for women to work, but the power elite promotion was launched to make women “modern” and it is still ongoing.
If you want to implement global governance, you need to break down the family unit as much as possible. Nothing can stand in the way of the state. From the power elite’s standpoint, getting women into the workplace in the name of “equality” solved a lot of problems at once. It left children parentless during much of the day, so that the state itself could take over childcare. And without the firm guidance of the full family, many children, especially girls, became much more promiscuous at an early age which also contributed to a fracturing of private culture.
. . . . But the real reason, in our opinion, that woman’s liberation is a power-elite promotion, and a very long-running one, has to do with central banking. The erosion of fiat money earning meant inevitably that to keep up there would have to be more than one wage earner in the household. Woman’s liberation was promoted, in our opinion, as a way of making it culturally acceptable for women to work – so as to conceal the degradation of the currency.
i dont even know where to start. ugh. ill just leave it at this – im constantly amazed at how frequently people who believe in liberty and rail against dependence in other forms lament the downfall of the ‘traditional family’, not even considering for a second how when women leave the workforce, even for a short period of time, they sacrifice future earnings and employability, making themselves and their children incredibly susceptible to abusive situations because they cannot support themselves on their own.
I’m not suggesting women’s sufferage was illegitimate. Women were getting shafted in the workplace. I’m just pointing out that in the process of fixing that problem we went from being a country in which half the people worked and paid taxes, to a country where everybody does.
to me, thats an ok transition – id rather have the govt steal only a portion of my labor than have my body and labor be entirely the property of a husband or father ;)
Women’s suffrage wasn’t supposed be a choice between those two possibilities. How about households living comfortably on one income, regardless of which spouse earned it?
two things – suffrage refers specifically to the right to vote, it had nothing to do with working.
of course it not a choice between the two possibilities i mentioned, but the tone of articles like this is that the natural and optimal social form is the traditional family structure with women not working and that the shift towards women working inherently undermines the family unit and, of course, this is all part of the global elite’s (JEWS!@!!!!… jk :)) grand plan to shift power towards the state.
while it is possible for a household to live on a single income, it doesnt avoid the problem that whichever spouse leaves the workforce sacrifices future careers and earnings in doing so. if one is absolutely sure theyll never get divorced, turn out to be married to an abusive person, and that their spouse wont die, then sure thats fine. but if one does stay at home for a prolonged period, and one of those things does happen, they (and their children) are going to be screwed.