Do Women ACTUALLY have to work?

File: 1478358415646.png (433KB, 379x383px) Image search: [Google]

433KB, 379x383px

>>1623383
Uncle /pol/ here, listen: the ultimate goal of cultural marxism is to wittle away at everything sane and sensible in society, until we're left with an unusable mess. Then they offer "the solution" to "fix" it (communism, or some other oppressive totalitarian system, masked as "progress"/moving "forward"). If you see those words, know that it is liberal (neo-communist) propaganda.

In any case, feminism is but one branch of that scheme, and feminism does many bad things. One of those things is to break down the family unit by "empowering" women. What this means to achieve is to be another vector through which the international elite can attack and destroy the family unit. There's no reason for women to work, other than to give them additional "freedom". This "freedom" presents them with a choice of family or career, in which they can choose only one.

But the choice has already been made for most of them. Their parents have raised them career over family already, and stay-at-home-mothers (why does such a term even exist?) are constantly demonized everywhere. Staying at home, taking care of the home, kids and your husband is seen and presented as something negative - media, movies, anywhere you look really. This leads to children essentially being rasied by the state instead of their parents, who are simply too tired to bother after a day's work (which the children spent "learning" stuff at an approved facility).

Hopefully Trump is real. Judging from the way (((the elites))) and their lackeys are acting, it's possible. He could hopefully fix some of the root causes of this for future generations, get the country back on track again.

https://youtu.be/vST61W4bGm8
https://youtu.be/PagVeZgHbhk

I'm not even american, but you made a good choice. The rest of us are stuck in indoctrination land, still.

>>1623730
Do you sell water filters?

>>1623730
Is entry to the 'elites' based solely upon a certain net worth? If I was to win the lottery would I receive an invitation in the mail akin to AARP cards and pre-approved offers of credit? Is the Illuminati elite better than the one world order™ elite? How about the European elite?

>>1623730
Holy autism, Batman

File: 1476401555835.gif (3MB, 368x349px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 368x349px

>>1623746
Only Super Male Vitality™ and Colloidal Silver™ in stock.

>>1623782
Joke all you want, but unless you've been asleep for the last decades it should be painfully obvious by now that politicians meet up with non-politicians and arrange things in accordance to a similar policy plan all over the world.

Someone like George Soros would be a figure you can publicly read about now, since he has to show his hand in order to play fast enough to try to stay on top of the quickly changing societal climate. He's linked to practically every single significant "protest" group, foundation (including the Clinton pay-to-play one, in addition to directly having donated to the Clinton campaign), "forward"-thinking NGO and other shady organisation you could think of. Look him up, and you'll find that he's the very definition of the elite class that Trump has now mentioned in public.

The reason Trump isn't in it, is because he's not old money. You can't join it like that. It's not a golf club. You have to be born into it more or less. Money doesn't equal influence, money and connections do. Your election showed that (even IF Trump turns out to be yet another puppet) the american people are fed up with this, and realize exactly who's responsible for it. The illuminati etc. is just a way to get the water filter salesman some material with which he can way overshoot the cause of the problem, thereby letting people dimiss it all as falsehood. It's a distraction tactic.

I'll leave you with a question, though: Do you think it's a coincidence that every single politician for decades, all across the west, has been following the exact same policies of globalization and erosion of the rights of individual countries?

>>1623784
You read it, didn't you?

TL;DR For you of the above reply: Everything is fine. It's just as is it should be. Your future prospects have never been better, and your government loves you.

>>1623383
>can they just rely on men?

If you're really attractive you can, but would you want to?

Do you REALLY want to put your entire life in the hands of some other dude? He will be able to beat the shit out of you, cheat on you, and do whatever he wants, because you are 100% reliant on him, and will literally be homeless if you leave. Not to mention the ever looming fear of him dumping you.

Sounds like a pretty shit life bro.

>>1624309
Replace man with government and that will be the reality of society in 30 years.

>>1624309
>Do you REALLY want to put your entire life in the hands of some other dude?

Are you kidding? Women do this all the time.

>>1624350
Yes, because that's the social norm.

That's what feminism is all about, trying to fix the system so women can support themselves and not need to rely on some dude for their well being.

Obviously every person is different, and many women still just want some dude to look after them, but I'm sure there's equally as many men, if not more, that would just want a woman to look after them while they get to live a NEET life.

>>1624355

Boys maybe, not men.

Almost all women want a man to look after them, that's just the way it is. No amount of cultural programming can change that. People have been trying to change that since the 60s but i meet plenty of women that just want a solid man

>>1624373
>Almost all women want a man to look after them, that's just the way it is.

>hurr i just make up shit and pass it off as fact.

I have many female friends who have good jobs, who have no intention of ever getting married nor having children, are attractive, and currently single.

If you actually knew about the past, you'd understand how drastically womens roles in society have changed, and how they will further continue to change.

>>1624390
congratulations, you now have a recipe for dysgenics and societal collapse

thanks feminism

>>1624400
Why would this cause society to collapse?

>>1623383
No they don't labor market gets smaller salaries go uo

>>1624355

Feminism is actually a plot by the bankers to break up the traditional family structure and collect taxes from the other half of the population.

>>1623730
I'm tempted to save this for later reposting. I haven't seen many people crystalize the big picture this well

>>1623536
Just a reminder that the rules forbid saying you're saging stuff. I got banned for that last week.

>>1623383
Being a STRONG INDEPENDENT WOMAN WHO DON'T NEED NO MAN.
Also, there are limited amounts of pussy-addicted suckers around.

>>1623383

This isn't >>>/r9k/

>>1624403
because not only are the smart, responisble people having fewer children than the dumb people, the birthrate isn't high enough to sustain the population

>>1623383

The better looking a woman is the higher her value is for procreation.

And as that value goes up, so will the efforts of men to attain that woman.

So female beauty and male effort go hand in hand.

>>1624499
Automation = fewer and fewer people are needed to keep society going.

By the end of the century, working will be entirely optional, and everything will be grand.

>>1623383
>What benefits can working give that just being attractive can't?

The highest value woman is going to be good looking and be able to create resources. If you were looking for a partner in life why would you choose just looks when you could choose looks and value?

Do women get by on their looks alone? Yes of course, beauty has great value. But they could get men of higher value if they were of higher value themselves.

>>1624309
If they're attractive they could find another man. It's not much different than if you quit your job. Just stay with family or friends until you're back in your feet. Shouldn't be that hard if she has a few beta orbiters.

>>1624654
obviously the powers that be don't see it that way, hence mass immigration

>>1624937
Yeah, that doesn't really work once you're 35+ with 3 children.

>>1624979
By that point you must have fucked up pretty bad to be in an abusive relationship unless you're really unlucky and the guy just turns.

Having the guy cheat on you probably isn't the end of the world and if you need to leave because he's beating you or something, you won't become homeless if you have family and friends. I suspect that's why girls are so friendly, friends act like their version of savings.

File: OItnWGv.jpg (42KB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 480x270px

>>1624338
>itt: redpilled fedoras and economical artist discuss why they're still virgins

>>1624499
Btw isn't that the premise for "Idiocracy"?

I will say this: A women doesn't need a man nowadays, in fact they may have certain advantages men don't/can't (and good for them). BUT I have seen a LOT of women over 35 who are sardonic, melancholic and sometimes just bitter that they (at that point) CAN'T get a man (of their standard) even though they don't need one.

>>1623746
Underrated answer. Gonna remember that one.

>>1624979
Oh?

It works BEST when you're 35 with 3 children.
The child support, the government welfare the alimony.

It's like that deep sea angler fish where the male sort of approaches the female.. and then melds his balls onto her and basically dies.


Add onto all of that a second guy with him paying the rent, and food.

>>1624390

Get back to me when they hit the wall and are completely unhappy because they never found a man and made thr bond early enough in life to last

>>1624309
>because you are 100% reliant on him, and will literally be homeless if you leave. Not to mention the ever looming fear of him dumping you.

No, most places have laws that entitle a woman to half a man's earnings as though he where his wife if they lived together for at least a year. It's bullshit but what can you expect when you let women into the judicial system and politics?

>>1625435
>>1625320
You make it sound like every man is wealthy.

The vast majority of people live paycheck to paycheck. There's hardly any assets to split in the divorce, and the minimal childsupport isn't nearly enough.

You guys are deluded.

File: 1397165548482.png (393KB, 696x717px) Image search: [Google]

393KB, 696x717px

>>1624309
>He will be able to beat the shit out of you, cheat on you, and do whatever he wants, because you are 100% reliant on him

>>1623746
is this a joke about fluoride or something?

>>1625823
It's an Alex Jones jokr.