Female Empowerment Is Slavery

Here’s a bedroom conversation I had with an empowered woman…

Woman: “Do you want to get married?”

Me: “I’m not ready to get married, but I am ready to hold on—at least temporarily—to the good girls I meet. When I’m older I think I want to be with one great woman and occasionally cheat on the side to keep things fresh. This is how they do it in South America. The guy provides for the family while the wife turns a blind eye. I know you think that’s unacceptable, but I believe being able to cheat, without openly disrespecting my wife, is a way to ensure a marriage’s long-term success.”

Woman: “That’s what my grandfather did to my grandmother. She actually knew the girls he was sponsoring, but she didn’t have any options. This is why it’s better these days. Women have options.”

Me: “What do you mean by options?”

Woman: “I don’t have to be enslaved by my husband.”

Me: “So instead of being enslaved by your husband, a man who is not perfect but provides for you and loves you, you want to be enslaved by the corporation you work for? You want to depend on a company that can fire you at will, that values profits above everything else, and that would commemorate your death with a three-line email mentioning how you were a pleasant and obedient worker? How important can your job—excuse me—your career really be if they can find your replacement in the time it takes to post an ad on Craigslist? It sounds like you’re trading loyalty of the most important man in your life for a faceless entity that has little stake in your happiness as a woman. I rather depend on my spouse for bread and shelter than a board of directors who identifies me as an expendable entry on an accounting spreadsheet instead of a human being with wants and dreams.”

Woman: “But you would want your wife to stay at home and do nothing with her life?”

Me: “How long does it take to cook three healthy meals and keep the home clean? Not more than four hours. If she is awake for 16 hours a day, and spends four hours of quality time with me, that means she has eight hours to do whatever she wants, at least until the kids start rolling in. She can pursue her hobbies and passions, go to the gym, read books, and enjoy her leisure time. As long as it doesn’t come at the expense of maintaining the home, and she does her best to please me, she is free to do what she wants.”

Woman: “But I want to accomplish something. I don’t want to be just a housewife.”

Me: “Pushing papers in an office is accomplishing something? Let’s be real, no woman is going to win a Nobel Prize with her work as a human resource associate, middle manager, or government bureaucrat. If you owned your own business or ran a charity that fed starving kids, I’d agree that you were accomplishing something, but spending all your days in meetings, dealing with dumb office politics, and being a standard-issue wage slave sounds a lot less fulfilling than being able to pursue your interests while satisfying a man who takes good care of you.”

Woman: “But if I don’t have a job and my husband has an affair, I’ll be helpless. I want to have a backup plan in case he neglects me.”

Me: “So you’re going to marry someone with the expectation of failure? If you already have divorce in the back of your head before you walk down the aisle then I guarantee it won’t work. It’s having the need for options and a way out that ensures the marriage will fail. It’s only when both parties are unconditionally committed to the marriage that it has a chance of success. You don’t think the man has stake in the marriage when he knows that his wife’s survival solely depends on him? You have to have made a horrible decision to marry a man who is willing to put you on the street. In that case it’s as much your mistake as it is his failure as a husband. It’s having too many options, too many outs, that has made marriage a joke that it is today. Either you depend on each other for everything or do what everyone else does and form a business partnership that can be severed with two lawyers over afternoon coffee. It takes serious commitment and sacrifice to make it work, something that people don’t do as long as they have their call-this-law-firm-in-case-of-emergency Plan B.'”

Woman: “You want to force your wife to stay home?”

Me: “I don’t know any woman who would rather put up with rush hour traffic and a job that doesn’t move humanity forward than stay home and raise a good family. You’re telling me you rather work than be provided for and not have to worry about money? There are billions of women in the world right now who would think you’re insane for preferring to work in a padded cubicle box for forty hours a week. Unfortunately, you’ve been brainwashed to think that it’s a better idea to make shareholders rich through your labor than to dedicate yourself to family. Consider that this whole full employment movement for women is less than 100 hundred years old, a blink of the eye in the hundreds of thousands of years of human history. It’s one of the greatest tragedies committed to women of the world, and it will not be reversed.”

Woman: “You’re going to provide for a woman so that she doesn’t have to work? You can afford that?”

Me: “I will only get married if I’m able to provide for her and two future kids with solely my income. This is becoming impossible in declining societies like America and Britain, but it can be done in South America and Eastern Europe, which works out fine for me since I prefer those women anyway. They still have what it takes to be a good wife and mother.”

Woman: “I just don’t want to be bored at home.”

Me (smiling): “Don’t worry, I’ll find you some nice hobbies. Maybe you can start your own side business. In America, a lot of women get burned out with their soulless careers and become bakers or sell arts and crafts on the internet.”

Sadly, female empowerment is nothing more than a form of disempowerment. It forces women to dedicate their lives to capital, not husbands, gradually destroying society in the process. Men’s rights guys and game guys are nothing but symptoms of the disease, manifestations of a dying body.

Soon after the above conversation, she gave me a real compliment without a hint of sarcasm, the first time she had done so. She held me tighter and sweetly asked me if I wanted to see her again. While Western corruption has made women like her absolutely despise provider men, deep down they want a strong man who can take care of them and make them forget about being mere little machines in the creation of wealth for others. Thankfully, there are still women in the world who will completely and unreservedly dedicate their lives to men instead of their little office jobs.

123 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
DW
DW
8 years ago

Great article, Roosh. Western women don’t realize just how foolish they’re being by giving up the life of a housewife and instead working for a corporation. Who ever did anything great by working as a cubicle drone?

Jason Mendelson
Jason Mendelson
2 years ago
Reply to  DW

Women work because they get bored at home and want their own money. If neong a housewife is so good, why do sharia muslims like it?

Anonymous
Anonymous
8 years ago

So the only jobs that are fullfilling involve ownership or charity? That is a pretty lame view. What about a nurse or doctor or teacher? I agree with the part of having a woman that supports you and your family and is devoted, helpful and affectionate is a good thing. I dont really understand how it is eaither that they are a corporate whore or stay at home.

[Roosh: What percentage of women have a calling to contribute to society instead of picking a whatever major in psychology or communications? For most women, “opportunity” is just about making a buck for dining, shopping, smartphone unlimited data package, etc..]

JST
JST
8 years ago

Where were you during this dialogue?

JST
JST
8 years ago

And who and where is this girl from?

Johnny Milfquest
8 years ago

She was Polish wasn’t she?

Roosh, do you really want to get married and have kids one day?

Paging Susan Walsh!

dragnet
dragnet
8 years ago

This is real talk.

The truth is that women were lied to. Women were told that work was this wonderful, amazing and fulfilling thing that men were depriving them of. Bullshit. Most jobs suck—always have—and women are now waking up to this.

But they should have known better—the working woman is actually an invention of “the patriarchy”. Ask women 500 years what work was like and they would’ve told you how much it sucked as they toiled in fields and shit. Women have always provided substantial economic value to their families. Feminists like to act as if women didn’t do shit in the workplace before they came along, but it’s not true.

Now these bitches are complaining about “burnout”. Guys haven’t been able to complain about “burnout” as they were expected to work themselves to death for their families. It’s not “burnout”, bitch, it’s just you beginning to figure out what it’s finally like to be a man. It’s not powerful. It’s not glamarous. It’s hard. Oftentimes it sucks. And, nope, most times you don’t even get a thank you. This is what the world of men has always been like.

You mess with the bull and you’ll get the horns.

TheWiseMan
TheWiseMan
8 years ago

Roosh, you made one mistake. Don’t you ever talk to a girl with logic, common sense, rational mind. Such message will always fail.
Girls will not even understand what you were trying to say.

Once you’ll become a bit older and will have more conversations like these, you’ll know its pointless to discuss with women. Just have fun and bang hard!

j d
j d
8 years ago

note that the period of women staying at home (1950s) was a very short one existing mostly for your grandparents. prior to that women were doing jobs outside the home as nurses, teachers, maids in between giving birth and caring for children.

the idea that masses of women would just stay at home is a Western one made possible by the economic boom of the post-war period.

this is a great article regardless.

kitty
kitty
8 years ago

My mom is Latin and divorced her first husband for cheating on her. This was in Latin America.

Now she’s married to my father, an Anglo American who provides for her and doesn’t cheat.

I think you should really question the blind eye thing. That worked in Latin America 50-60 years ago, but stopped working in the 70’s, and has gradually declined over the years.

Chad Daring
8 years ago

Were already doomed to this system now. Economic times have changed and the corporations hcve adjusted to.feminism. two incomes are almost mandatory now if you wish to live comfortably with a family. Now the “freedom” woman wanted has become a shackle for all of us because they skewed the system. Now perpetual bachelorhood is.the better choice in all regards.

A_Stranger
A_Stranger
8 years ago

More clear than water!!
Excellent post.

Dirt Man
8 years ago

Great post Roosh

Ollie
Ollie
8 years ago

@The Wise Man

You are absolutely right about that logic vs. emotion thing.

So are all of Roosh’s points.

What to do?

I think the trick lies in creating the psychological association.

Instead of telling a lady why he “empowerment” is a kind of slavery, you must show her.

Images of strong willed, wildly successful career gals having the time of their lives and being the center of attention pervade our society. As we know, much like the beautiful, leather bodysuit clad femme fatale who can dispatch a platoon of marines with her bare hands, this is utter BS – a complete fabrication dumped into the collective conscious by Hollywood on a daily basis.

Repeat the lie enough, and people start to believe it.

To subvert the programming, one must present striking images of the world as it is. You need to place the subject into the loneliness and despair, into the feelings they want to avoid.

Thankfully, this job is being done by the ladies themselves. Their sense of disenchantment, their solipsism, access to mainstream media outlets and desire to air their complaints has combined to create the requisite imagery. Lori Gottlieb, Kate Bollick (to a lesser extent – she’s still rationalizing), and Tracy MacMillan are but a few of the growing number of sources for the content needed to deprogram someone.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tracy-mcmillan/why-youre-not-married_b_822088.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/feb/06/lori-gottlieb-feminists-marriage

All you need to do is plant the seeds of doubt, coupled with a few heart-rending anecdotes about ladies who died miserable and alone atop piles of shiny baubles.

Some of whom ended it themselves, a la Rachel Wetzsteon:
http://eumaios.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/the-solitary-yet-defiant-lives-of-single-women/

They’ve all seen Gone With the Wind. Remind them of the scene at the end, where Rhett Buttler “frankly doesn’t give a damn”.

Let them know that you may not either.

Tajik
Tajik
8 years ago

FIXED:

Female Empowerment is — Male Slavery (or mangina-enforced female supremacy)

Anonymous
Anonymous
8 years ago

Come on…

You’re saying that a woman is enslaved because she’s dependent on the whims of a corporation rather than a man who provides for her. Yet all the while, that man’s ability to provide is dependent… on the whims of a corporation.

Is this a joke?

Women, more so than men, want security.

Many men aren’t willing to provide for a woman ’til death do them part. Many men won’t be able hold up their end of the bargain. There’s no doubting that anyone, man or woman, has more security than when they have the ability to generate their own income.

Contrary to the notion that female empowerment is slavery, options are power and there is no doubt that women have many options today. If she’s pretty but dumb, she can find a provider and be a homemaker. If she’s homely but capable, she can provide for herself. If she’s pretty and capable, she can do whatever she wants. Whether having more options is good for “society” or nets the average woman more happiness may be up for debate. There’s little doubt, however, that female empowerment has given more women access to achieve security.

Luke
Luke
3 years ago
Reply to  Anonymous

And in any of those cases, a woman will throw a man out of the house faster than a man will throw a woman out simply for not having a job. Women can’t be trusted to be providers any more than you clearly cant trust men

ersatz
ersatz
8 years ago

Going into a marriage without thinking how it could fail and having a plan to deal with it is like driving a motorbike without a helmet and armor, or a car without a seat belt, air bags and ABS breaks and staying safe by ‘never getting in an accident’. It’s just stupid and naive and does not provide any benefits.

I feel like the modern divorce court and child support system is what causes a lot of human misery when people do divorce, basically incentivizing women to burn bridges in order to get more money instead of reconciliation and having the family stay together.

rationalist
rationalist
8 years ago

this post seems a little extreme to me. whilst I think that a woman pursuing a family AND and high-powered career as a lawyer or doctor is silly, I also think it is silly to recommend that women should depend on hubby entirely. what about her having a part-time job? or a job which is low stress with long breaks (like being a teacher at a private school).

I mean I want a feminine woman as a wife, and I want her to not be stressed and overworked, so yes I agree that manly careers are bad, but I also don’t want to marry a glorified house pet.

Luke
Luke
3 years ago
Reply to  rationalist

Hubbies have always been more trustworthy in that they won’t throw their wifey out for not having a job. Women have and do. Also, women are far more picky when they’re in power.

Basil Ransom
Basil Ransom
8 years ago

j d
note that the period of women staying at home (1950s) was a very short one existing mostly for your grandparents. prior to that women were doing jobs outside the home as nurses, teachers, maids in between giving birth and caring for children.

the idea that masses of women would just stay at home is a Western one made possible by the economic boom of the post-war period.

This is complete bullshit. The participation of married women in the workforce, in employment outside the home, increased every decade for over 100 years. It was 2.2% for married white women in 1890, 20.7% in 1950, 29.8% in 1960, and 61% today. The Fifties wasn’t a golden age, but the bookend of an era.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/GenderGap.html

Going into a marriage without thinking how it could fail and having a plan to deal with it
Roosh meant the mentality that “if the marriage isn’t perfect, if I’m not *happy*, then it’s okay if I leave.” Expecting and enabling failure as an exit strategy is different from creating an exit strategy in the event of failure. I don’t expect that women can maintain this distinction emotionally either.

Plus, Roosh makes marriage sound worse than it is. Roosh is not most men; most American neither plan nor actually do have a serial stream of affairs like Roosh would.

Luke
Luke
3 years ago
Reply to  Basil Ransom

Before feminism, before 1950, men could actually trust their wives not to walk out on them or throw them out for whatever reason. Men have no good reason to trust women with that kind of power today.

Noa
Noa
3 years ago
Reply to  Basil Ransom

Most American men are also most likely betas and cuckolds with no sexual experience. While their wives have fucked the whole football team :/

Anon
Anon
8 years ago

Capitalism is a disease that destroys everything it touches.

Throughout history, men provided for their families via agriculture or skilled trade passed from father to son. Capitalism came and promised easy money and an easier life. Instead, men gave up their skills and became subservient to corporations and loss whatever security they had. Capitalism destroyed men.

So women had to go to work outside the home. Capitalism came to women and promised security and independence. Instead, women gave up the home, neglected their children and spouses and became subservient to corporations. Capitalism destroyed the family.

spandrell
8 years ago

Damn right you are. Don´t get married if you can´t afford for your wife to stay home and serve you. Why should she respect you if you force her to drive every morning to some goddamn office where horny betas will flirt with her, where she spends her time in doing some liberal shit for some corporation.

Just earn enough for her to eat and buy some nice clothes, it aint that hard.

Black Rebel
Black Rebel
8 years ago

‘Being a woman is so hard, staying home, spending someone’s money and raising kids (note: it’s really not). All men have to do is go work at jobs where they’re paid based on their performances and how much they work, and they can come home to a nice meal and a clean house, they have it so much easier (note: we do not). I should just become a man!’

What’s the opposite of self-awareness?

Jevioso
Jevioso
8 years ago

Before capitalism, farmers didn’t own the land they produced on. Before capitalism, there was no such thing as property rights; what you owned was assigned to you by the monarchy and could be taken by force anytime they felt like it.

Like many people today, you’ve managed to mix-up corporatism and capitalism. Unlike capitalism, where markets are free, and whoever offers the best goods at the cheapest prices is king; corporatism favors whoever has the most money and influence over governments.

That all being said, capitalism didn’t destroy the family, corporations did. Corporations funded the feminist movement, and corporations fund them till this day. To go further, was it not beta male politicians who passed legislation that destroyed the family? Was it not legislators who gave “incentives” (or preferably subsidies) to corporation that gave money to them if they hired women over men (white women have gained more than any other group from Affirmative Action, even though black people are the ones mostly stereotyped by it)?

Be careful, when you criticize capitalism; a system that is totally dependent on freedom and rewards hard-work, intuition and efficiency. If there is any hope for men in our day and age, it is in capitalism. Capitalism was what our forefathers believed in, it was the conclusion of the best ideas of the enlightenment era, which helped bring Europe out of the Dark Ages. It is the greatest invention of mankind, and is the best way of fighting corruption that runs rampant today. To denounce capitalism, is to denounce freedom and embrace slavery, which is what too many women have embraced as Roosh alluded to in this article.

Anonymous
Anonymous
8 years ago

@15, female empowerment, with attendant free falling birthrates, has given females increased security the same way socialism have given all people more security: By building a system of forced wealth extraction from those who do, to those who don’t.

As long as a ponzi scheme of ever increasing debt camouflages the deleterious effects this has on the doers, things can hold together. But once the Ponzi’s up, so is doer’s willingness to work more than for what they get to keep.

Historically, men has not needed to be pointed a gun at by the tax man to provide for the good, virtous women bearing their children. And neither have children needed armed thugs in government costumes to force them to care for their mothers in old age. But what man with options wold ever want to work to provide for some feminist whore? And since she has no kids, who will bother caring for her in old age? Hence, her only out is “the government”, i.e. a thug band enslaving others to work for her in exchange for her vote.

Problem is, slaves aren’t particularly productive workers. And hence, a society of slaves pitted against a society of volunteers in a battle for limited resources, will see the society organized to encourage voluntarism win every time. Which is exacatly why feminist Europe is become Islamist Europe as we speak, and the Americas, unless we drastically change our ways, are not far behind.

International Banker
International Banker
8 years ago

This is unacceptable. We need both men and women working overtime for low wages and paying high taxes. Who else would pay off the interest on the fiat money debt that the government has accumulated from our private central banks? Who else would pay for the imperialist wars abroad that were never meant to be won but to generate revenue for as long as possible? Who would fund the surveillance state that is so necessary to keep all you silly lowlifes in check? And how are you gonna fund all the flashy electronic gadgets and mindless fashion fads that our want creation departments have made your mouth salivate over? Come on, you are our slaves and you always will be!

Luke
Luke
3 years ago

Yeah but we don’t need these women feeling so empowered / cocky and arrogant that she walks out on her husband for reacting to stress like a human. Men aren’t going to throw a woman out and break up the family because the wife has a breakdown over bills. BUT men cannot trust modern women not to do that to them. Before feminism liberated women, men could trust and rely on their women to be there, even through the worst of the worst. Afterward, every feminist likes throwing out words like “oppression” or “misogyny” or “abuse” far too often.

(R)evoluzione
(R)evoluzione
8 years ago

@Jevioso,

Great comment.

The world won’t improve for shit until we either get rid of corporatism (also called fascism in earlier dictionaries–they’re synonymous), or until it falls on its own. The former is not likely, since it’s so well-entrenched. The latter is bound to happen as the house of cards gets more and more unstable due to resource depletion and social instability. Both are happening. We’re gonna see some shit go down in our lifetimes. Occupy Everything is merely the beginning.