I have said that one of our purposes here was to tell women what to do. Women naturally do what they are told anyway — they pick this up from social norms and their social circle, authority figures like teachers and professors, the media, their parents and so forth. Unfortunately, much of what women are told to do these days is horribly dysfunctional. Much of it is dysfunctional on purpose — this is Cultural Marxism. Women themselves seem to have little capacity to understand this dysfunction, or remedy it. They rely upon men for this.

Matriarchy does not exist.

Thus, we are telling them what to do because women are relying on us. If we men fail to tell them what to do, or fail to tell them to do something that is functional and beneficial, then women blame men for the problems in society. Have you noticed this? “It is not my fault,” women say (they say this all the time today) “because I did what I was told to do.” And … they are right. One of the consequences of Matriarchy Does Not Exist is that it is Men’s Fault if things do not go well.

But, it is best if we begin telling them what to do at a young age, so we are really addressing girls here, of the ages roughly 12-16. So, I will speak now to these girls.

Girls:

Much of what you are told — by your teachers, your friends, older girls, the media, the role models in television or movies, and even your own parents — is horribly dysfunctional. If you follow these directives, you will cause great harm to yourself, and also, along the way, to your husband, children, the other men in your life, strangers who have to pay for your mistakes, and society as a whole. Millions upon millions of women have tried to follow these rules, and the result is wreckage and destruction — single moms on welfare, broken families, wrecked men who were raped in divorce court, children without fathers, heavy taxes to pay for all this catastrophe, children who were never born because they were murdered by their own mothers, diseases, huge swathes of single middle-aged women who can’t get through the day without prescription antidepressants, working women who can’t manage to get married, children neglected because Mom abandons them each morning to go to work, men who simply cannot trust any woman not to cause him harm and destruction, women who cannot trust any man not to abandon her, and on and on and on.

I have now warned you. If you do that, and you get the same results as millions and millions of women before you, then it is now your fault, not mine.

If you want to avoid this fate, then you will have to do something else. Who knows what to do? In the past, it would be your Mother; but, typically, only if she herself followed this pattern, so it was mostly a matter of rote and repetition for her. Such Mothers are rare today. Thus, today we will rely mostly on older men, over forty, with some experience and insight, to chart a new path through the wilderness. Ideally, this is your father. But, if you don’t have that sort of father, or you don’t have a father, then you can get help from other older men. Among this group, who is charged in all societies with making such decisions, a new consensus is emerging. I have described it here on this website. Actually, it should be familiar, because, in large part, it is the way things were done, in the West and actually in all advanced societies, for centuries until about 1920.

The most important thing for young women to do is to bear children, and raise them. This is a simple matter of biology: a woman’s peak childbearing years are 18-32. Not all women have to be moms, but most of them do, because societies that don’t bear children cease to exist. The future belongs to those who show up. But actually, nearly all women today want to marry and have children. They just don’t figure it out until they are 29.9999 years old. All the women who ever bore children did not do it out of some felt obligation to “society,” but for their own purposes and satisfaction. If you really think you are one of those women who is not meant to have children, then don’t; just don’t blame me later if you change your mind.

Several things follow directly from this. A woman should be married before she has children. Children should be raised in an intact nuclear family. Thus, to bear children while young, a woman should get married young. Traditionally, women got married in the ages 16-25, with the ideal around 18-21. Fortunately for women, this corresponds with a woman’s peak physical attractiveness (which is directly tied to fertility — even former supermodels lose their appeal over the age of 35), and also, a woman’s highest levels of what was known as “innocence and purity.” Nobody much wants to marry a man known for his “innocence and purity,” but this is vital for a woman.

Marriage sanctifies sex. In other words, sex within marriage is a good thing, and far preferable to a marriage without sex; sex outside of marriage, although it has some appealing aspects, also brings problems, difficulty and destruction. Thus, the best thing for a young woman is to avoid sex before marriage; get married young; and then have lots of sex with your husband.

Thus, our goals are: get married young, to the best husband you can get (typically 3-10 years older); have a full set of children before age 32; avoid premarital sex; maintain “purity and innocence.”

From this, it makes sense to live at your father’s house until marriage. Then you don’t need a job. Your father will maintain you before marriage; and your husband will maintain you afterwards. If you come from a lower-income family that really needs your additional income, you can work but still live at your father’s house.

A woman can certainly be educated, but this education should happen at home. A woman probably has plenty of free time while she is living at home with her father, so this would be a good time for study. Much of this can be done independently (self-study), or with the help of a tutor or mentor.

But, a woman should not go to college. Not much education happens at college; “purity and innocence,” along with virginity, are inevitably lost; four years of peak fertility and marriageability are lost (getting married while in college, once common, is nearly unheard-of today), a woman’s mind is filled with the most destructive Cultural Marxist garbage, and often, student loan debt introduces a big fat reason for a man not to marry this woman until she pays it off, which often does not happen until after 30. We might make an exception for a local college that a woman can attend while living at home. But, colleges today are so dismal that a young woman would still be better off studying on her own.

This might seem like it is risking an awful lot on finding a willing and attractive husband. This can be a challenge; but, you have the ages 16-25 to do it, and these days, not a lot of competition from other women. It is also a challenge to get into a good college and then get a good job from a good employer afterward. But, after all that, you still aren’t married — you still have to find a willing and attractive husband! — and now you have a ton of student debt. Even if you didn’t have the debt, and you did get married, now you should have some children; which means that you should quit your job. Which doesn’t make a whole lot of sense does it?

Now you are a young wife with a full passel of children. That should keep you busy. Be a good wife, a good housekeeper, and a good mother. I recommend homeschooling.

If you have children young, then they will be out of the house before you are fifty. Then, you can have whatever career you like, without any conflict with children and family. You could probably begin the process of getting vocational training (from a school for example) while your children are high school age.

Inevitably, there are some women who are just destined to become Hollywood actresses, or doctors. Some women will inevitably choose career over family while young. Like all choices in life, this will require sacrifices and produce consequences. Don’t blame me if you don’t like them. Most women today would be better off if they followed this script, rather than the dysfunctional feminist career-girl/party slut script that they are following today.

Nice visual data from Nathan Yau.

Marrying Later, Staying Single Longer.

The idea that being a stay-at-home Mom is boring, demeaning and inadequately challenging comes from the 1960s; specifically, Betty Friedan‘s 1963 book The Feminine Mystique. “Betty Friedan’s” real name was Naomi Goldstein. She had been a communist propagandist since her student days. She dropped out of graduate school to become a reporter for a communist news service. From 1946 -1952 she worked for the newspaper of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, (UE) “the largest Communist-led institution of any kind in the United States.” In 1947, Congress targeted the UE as a Communist front and its membership began a steady decline.

In other words, The Feminine Mystique was communist propaganda designed to destroy the family.

For some women, that is all they need to know to drop this “women are unfulfilled in the home” garbage and rush back to their children and husbands. But, most women need a little more than this.

The book did make a connection with women, mostly those that were graduates of the better colleges. They felt that spending their time with household drudgery was a waste of their potential. They were bored. So they rushed off to work.

This is actually rather stupid. No housewife should be spending very much of her time on “household drudgery.” You have to clean the toilet and vacuum the floors whether you have a full-time job or not. It should take about the same amount of time. If you are spending more than one hour a day at it, it is taking too long. A lot of this “drudgery” is really childcare. Children require a lot of care. Wealthy women have always had others do it for them: nannies, governesses, tutors, maids and so forth. Yet, a woman who is unwilling to undertake the process of raising and educating her children, and considers it drudgery beneath her station, should not be a mother. You are unfit for it. Go be a barren accountant; but please do not get married or have children.

No, the main reason that these women — this small set of upper-class well-educated women — were bored is not that their days were full of mopping and cleaning toilets. It was that mopping and cleaning the toilet took only a few minutes, and then they were bored.

This boredom arose, I would guess, primarily due to a lack of imagination. They couldn’t think of anything more worthwhile to do than labor for some corporation. They could have become more involved in their children’s upbringing and education. Today, they could become homeschoolers, which would engage the most able minds to their full capacity. They could continue to educate themselves — basically, read good books. They could socialize with other bored women. They could adopt various hobbies, like playing the piano. They could undertake the homemaking process with greater ambition — to become an ambitious cook, or maintain an ambitious flower garden, or become an ambitious interior decorator. They could get involved in some sort of community organization. They could get involved in some sort of national organization. They could become a Level 5 Housewife, or a fitness Mom.

Certainly, these women had some energy and ability, or they wouldn’t have graduated from one of the better colleges. But, they don’t seem that intelligent to me, or they would have thought of one of these things, rather than being conned by communist propaganda. For fifty years.

Unfortunately, as I think of this, it again reinforces the perception that women really need men to tell them what to do — to guide and protect them. Women, it seems, just can’t figure out even obvious subversive communist horseshit like this. They fall for it like total idiots. So, I am going to tell them what to do: stuff this toxic filth in the garbage.

Housekeeping, and raising and educating children, is a milieu with many opportunities to challenge the most able women. But, if a woman has additional time and energy beyond that, there are many, many worthwhile things to do. A woman who is actually bored has nobody to blame but herself.

A selection of quotes from conservative author Ann Coulter.

Ann Coulter, the far-right pundit and author of the new anti-immigration book “Adios, America!,” recently voiced her disdain for both immigrants and female voters on the radio show “Free Speech” with Gavin McInnes. While McInnes is himself an immigrant from Canada, he apparently had no problem bashing immigration from America’s Southern neighbors.

From The Transformed Wife:

In September of 1903, an article in The Atlantic called Why Women Do Not Wish the Suffrage, the author explains why women didn’t want to vote (only 4 percent wanted to vote in a poll taken). They knew their highest calling was in the home and raising the next generation. They wanted their entire focus to be upon this and not concerned with things that they weren’t involved with like fighting wars, being policemen, or going out and making a living for the family. Oh, how far we have fallen. Now, many mothers do not want to be home full time raising the next generation. They want to be out in the workforce instead and societies have suffered greatly.

(click for more)

Here is Roosh V on “How to Save Western Civilization.”

—–

I’ve had a front-row seat in the culture war for over a decade, but I haven’t made any big policy declarations like other movements. Men’s rights activists have their “family law reform” platform. The MGTOW group has “legalize prostitution and invent realistic sex bots.” The alt right has “white ethno-state.” The alt lite has “civic nationalism.” When it comes to policy, I’ve been quiet, solely focusing on fostering truth and masculinity. Only now am I ready to make the commitment to a policy platform which nips the essential problem in the bud in a way that other movements do not. We must repeal women’s suffrage, starting with the 19th Amendment in the United States. Once this is accomplished, no other planned or conscious action must be taken to solve nearly all our societal ills.

The origin of our problems

Today’s problems are all branches of a radical leftist root that has been normalized through feminism, social justice, and socialism. Allowing women to vote has made it effortless to elect leftist politicians who hate the family unit, men, and healthy market competition, while simultaneously weakening society by pushing women into work and giving them generous welfare in the form of handouts to single moms and the able-bodied along with make-work jobs for females in bloated government bureaucracies.

Thanks to leftism, we have seen the rise of a techno-matriarchy with an agenda of male disempowerment and persecution that transfers resources and soft power from men to women while solidifying hard power among elite globalists who control it all to uphold their own high-level aims. Individual globalists work together as an oligarchy to enact a divide-and-conquer strategy among races and sexes to fund leftist causes, politicians, and NGOs. The group with the most money to influence “democratic” politics and public opinion implants their useful idiots and political puppets to maintain control.

These puppets, whether on the “right” or “left,” have a true center on the left end of the spectrum for the sheer reason that votes from women must be gained. The manosphere cannon has shown that women have special mental faculties that operate almost exclusively on emotion, submission, and social conflict more than logic, dominance, and merit. Western countries have transformed into a national representation of the female psyche.

Appeasing women leads to civilizational destruction

To appease female voters and their destructive nature of promiscuity and drama, a symptom of which is collectively propelling a book about a woman being brutally dominated by a man (50 Shades Of Grey) to one of the best selling books of all time, society has veered so far to the left that it is crumbling at its base through declining birth rates and collapse of the family unit. Because we have given women suffrage, it has become necessary to gain their votes by promising whatever they want in the moment, including the removal of all gates to the sexual market so they can engage in the great game of “alpha male hunting,” which has led to such unbridled chaos and sterility that we have to import third-world people as these empowered female voters abort nearly 60 million American babies. The demographic crisis the West faces today is primarily due to allowing women to do as they please instead of imposing healthy standards on their behavior and choices. The direct cause of this horror movie is giving women the vote.

I haven’t even touched the surface of the problems we have today that stem from having to appeal to the female vote: lowering of academic standards in universities to allow them to “excel,” promotion of degeneracy in media, invention of apps and technology to allow frictionless casual sex with bad boys, promotion of sex change operations among children, re-defining fat women as “beautiful at any size,” legalization of gay marriage, use of murder (abortion) as birth control, maligning normal masculinity as “toxic masculinity,” and elevation of damaging myths such as “rape culture” and the “wage gap” to foment gender fear and confusion. The culture has degraded because women have been at the forefront of degrading it. Their true nature, once unimpaired by societal limits, embarks on a tragic mission of destruction to recreate reality in a way to make them appear more attractive to high-status men, no matter the consequence.

The problems I mentioned above would take thousands of local and Federal laws to address individually, and it would meet intense opposition from globalists who would fund the sort of antifascist protests and Deep State interference that we have seen thwarting Donald Trump. And even if those thousands of laws are passed, there is no guarantee that a renewed leftward push, thanks to ongoing demographic changes, wouldn’t roll them back. Is there a way to solve the problems while being assured that they couldn’t be repealed over the course of several generations? I’ve thought about this dilemma for years, after scratching the surface with previous thought experiments, and can only come to one conclusion: the problems in society can only be solved, and remain solved beyond one generation, by repealing women’s suffrage.

The ultimate solution

Take away the power of women to vote, and the degradation stops. The paltry population of male feminists, who are likely suffering from low testosterone due to environmental plastics, would offer no barrier in stopping the return to patriarchal normalcy. Women, helpless at enacting political change, would just whine and nag endlessly, and when they tire themselves out, they’d complete their protest by buying dildos or cats. Consider that no Democratic candidate for President since Jimmy Carter would have likely won if women were not allowed to vote. Upon repeal of women’s suffrage, a new party to the right of Republicans would be created as conservative men seek true conservatism and tradition.

Remove a woman’s right to vote and within just one national election, every single leftist party would be crushed. Within two elections, politicians would speak directly to men and their innate interest for patriarchy, economic success, stable families, and an equitable distribution of females among society. More than half of the candidates running for office would already be more conservative than Donald Trump, who is still liberal on social issues like equality and gay marriage.

Within three elections, the entirety of the liberal platform of the past 50 years would be rolled back, and the only living audience a woman can gain for her political opinions is from her feline friends. Within four elections, the global elite would be forced to retrench while sitting on billions of capital with no direct path of influence except sponsoring color revolutions and coups that can be defeated in the name of patriotic national defense. By then, the power of NGOs, media outlets, and day care universities will have declined. Within five elections, cultural standards would have tamed the sexual marketplace, and birth rates would rise once more as both women and men see the incentive in spending their free time building families instead of endlessly trying to secure a sex partner for the fleeting moment.

Repealing women’s suffrage would also diminish other dissident movements whose solutions can only bring temporary success as long as women have the right to vote. Men will automatically push laws that account for men’s rights. They will automatically regulate the sexual marketplace to make it more fair, diminishing MGTOW. They will automatically regulate immigration and replace it with a policy of natalism, diminishing the alt right. And they will automatically have high standards for citizenship, diminishing the alt lite.

Even the concept of masculinity will be built into the crust of society where only men have a political voice and not women. My game guides would no longer be needed, allowing me to buy land and operate a real farm instead of a content farm where most of my life has been spent pushing back the harmful effects that were unleashed after allowing women to vote. There will be no need for counter-cultural movements of men when those in charge of national politics only need to cater to male votes. If women’s suffrage is repealed, the most reviled dissident today would even be able to easily attain political office.

Conclusion

It should be clear to you that women will always use their votes to destroy themselves and their nations, to invite invaders with open legs, to persecute their own men, and to ravage their economies with socialism. Because they don’t operate on logic like men do, you will always have this destructive element within the political ranks of your nation as long as women have the right to vote. Giving them this right was a terrible mistake. I can now claim to have one political dream, and that is to repeal women’s suffrage. I will vote only for politicians who put me closer to realizing this necessary goal. Within my lifetime, I’m certain that at least one country, in an attempt to save itself, will elevate a barbarous and ferocious strongman to fulfill this task, and he will have my full support, because repealing women’s suffrage is the only issue of our day that can single-handedly solve all the others.

A stay-at-home Mom could have a home-based business of some sort. But, having your own business is no easy thing, and not everyone is suited to it, especially on top of all the demands of children and family. Nevertheless, there are two “businesses” that a Stay-at-Home Mom can easily do. They are: daycare services, and homeschooling.

When a woman has small children of daycare age, it is usually not very hard to set up as a small daycare provider. I know one woman who did this — she took care of our own son from time to time. Regulations probably allow a stay-at-home Mom to handle up to six children in her home, including her own children. So, if you have two children, you could provide daycare services for four other children. This could pay $600-$1500 per month, per child; so, four children would be $2400-$6000 per month. This would not be much more work than simply taking care of two children. It might even be less work — when children play with each other, it is often a lot less bother for a Mother.

As the children get older, our Stay-at-Home Mom might become a homeschooler. Then, she could also offer to homeschool other people’s children as well — basically, a small private school. I know of some homeschool Moms who homeschooled twelve of their own children. A student:teacher ratio of 12:1 would be considered very, very plush in any private school today. Again, our Mom could get perhaps $600-$1500 per child per month. With six other children, that is $3600-$9000 per month. Now she is making a possible six-figure income homeschooling other people’s children. She can also allow afterschool services to other working Moms that can’t pick up their children until after 5:30. That would be a big advantage over public and private schools. Regulations on whether a homeschool Mom can also homeschool other children varies from State to State, but it is often possible.

Again, this does not cost our Mom much extra time or effort. Whether you have one child or ten, it tends to absorb a full day of time and energy. Homeschoolers with a lot of children often find that, although they have less time to spend on each child, the children learn a lot more from each other.

Let’s say that you decide that it would be a good idea for mothers to stay at home with their children.

This is a good summary from Lori Alexander:

If that is not enough for you, consider this book by our recent presidential candidate, Elizabeth Warren:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two-Income_Trap

It might seem like there are fewer problems when a family has two full-time parents. There is more money. And also, if one person loses their job, there is still another income. But, it doesn’t quite work out that way in practice. What often happens is, a family spends all its money. Now it has a financial disaster when either parent loses their job. In other words, it is now two times more risky.

Plus, there are additional problems. Having two people with a career creates issues when career opportunities appear in different cities, or when you are trying to find a home that is a tolerable distance for two commuting parents. If a wife has a career, and a man loses his job (which often happens to any working people), unfortunately many women would quickly divorce this man, thus breaking up the family. A stay-at-home wife is more likely to keep the family together.

Today, many American families have been having a hard time. It might seem difficult to get by these days, on one income. But, somehow people did it, back when incomes were lower than they are today, even in real terms.

It is easy for a wife to say: “Well, it would be nice if I could stay at home with the kids, but we don’t have enough money because of yadda yadda yadda.” Basically, a stay-at-home Mom is a luxury that only the upper-middle class can afford, and even then, these women often choose to work even when they can afford not to. The basic problem is that a stay-at-home Mom is not prioritized. It is a nice thing that is somewhere way down the list of priorities, a few steps past a two-week vacation in Italy.

But, if you prioritized it — if you were willing to give other things up so that you could have it — I think a lot of families today could afford to live on one income.

For example, we often prioritize a “big house in the suburbs with a yard.” Yes, we would like to live on one income, but our three-bedroom 2,200sf house costs a lot, and even then, we have to live 60 minutes from work, so there are a lot of costs of commuting as well. But, it is worth it because our kids get their own bedrooms.

But, if we were willing to give that up, perhaps we could live in a much smaller and cheaper situation, closer to work. Maybe it is a one-bedroom condo. That is a big step down, but maybe it is worth it, so that we could have a stay-at-home Mom.

There would be a lot of other savings from having Mom stay at home. Daycare and other childcare expenses plummet. Costs of working — transportation, clothing, lunches in restaurants, coffee from Starbucks, etc. — disappear. Then there are the “soft” costs of working, such as dinner from Chinese takeout or a frozen pizza instead of a homecooked meal; and, later, the health consequences of so much processed/restaurant food.

Then there are the big-picture costs of working mothers. Four years of college education. Maybe more vocational training on top of that. Many years of peak fertility and peak attractiveness squandered on climbing the career ladder.

When a woman stays at home, she (and her children) don’t really cost much. A man can pay for a wife and two small children for about $1000/month more than living alone.

You might be able to get by with one car. A smaller home also has a lot fewer costs in terms of maintenance, utilities, yardwork, etc. A woman’s income is also, typically, taxed at higher income tax rates, since it comes on top of the man’s income.

But, the biggest savings might come from homeschooling. Elizabeth Warren found that one reason that families were overstretched financially is that they were spending big $$$ to get a house in the most desirable school districts. But, if you are homeschooling, then even if you still want to live in a nice neighborhood, the school district is not so important.

You might have to give up a lot to get by on one income. You might have camping vacations rather than something involving an airplane. You might spend time in the park rather than spending money on dance lessons. You might have to learn to cook. But, you might get a lot too. You might get the most important things.

Women: stay away from hormonal birth control. Use condoms only.

When a woman follows the common Feminist Life Script — go to college, get a job and career, and maybe, somehow, get married and have a family — she commonly ends up Married to the Corporation. At least she is not Married to the Government, the common outcome of many women with less educational or career attainment.

Perhaps some women would deliberately choose this. But, I hope that most women would not. So, if you don’t want that, don’t do it.

What purposes does a Husband serve for a traditional stay-at-home wife? First, he provides a Frame — a system in which she functions. She has a home and family, and certain duties and responsibilities, and so forth. She is not aimless or idle. Her husband typically takes care of making the money, from which follows food, shelter and so forth. Her husband provides direction and leadership. At some level, the husband provides security and protection. There is someone she can rely upon for those purposes. The stay-at-home mother does not have conflicting allegiances. She does not attempt to serve Two Masters.

You could look upon this marriage as a sort of employment. It is more intimate than that, but nevertheless, at a basic economic level, the woman labors for the benefit of the family and perhaps community, and receives her sustenance, security and protection from the family (husband) in return.

In a similar way, you could look upon the typical full-time employment as a sort of marriage. The corporation provides a Frame — a certain set of expectations and duties. Show up at work at 8:30, lunch at noon, work until 5pm or perhaps later if it is needed. Instead of working for the benefit of the husband, children, family and community, the woman works for the benefit of the corporation and its shareholders. The outcome of this labor is not the prosperity of the family, children, community and nation, but instead, net profit. In return for this labor, the corporation sustains the woman, in the form of a salary. The corporation can also serve in some role for security and protection — and we find women today increasingly pushing corporations (and governments) toward protecting women from “sexual harassment” and other such discomforts; a role once taken by husbands, fathers and brothers.

Given that these basic needs are met by the corporation, not the husband, it is no surprise that a woman’s first allegiance is to her employer. A husband may be useful in forming a family and for raising children; but, he might be more useful, in her eyes, if he would just leave her alone and send a check every month. Most childcare these days is done by the public school system. Here, the government takes the role of the wife, while the mother is off acting like the husband. Many divorces begin when the youngest child is old enough to be dropped off at school in the morning.

A woman who is married to a corporation and to a husband also does not serve two masters. The corporation always comes first. Does a woman ever refuse the commands of her corporation? Does she ever show up at 11:00 am because she feels like it? She does not. She is always obedient to the last letter. She is “submissive” to the corporation. From this, it is no surprise that submission to the corporation tends to be accompanied by a notable lack of submission to any husband, by these women.

Being married to the corporation has its downsides. The corporation is overtly exploitive, and does not care much for the woman on any intimate level — not the institution itself, or its representatives such as her immediate superior. The corporation will give a woman no children and no family. There is little community and no nation. There is only endless labor for the benefit of the shareholders. The corporate workerbee has far less freedom than the typical housewife, who is largely free to arrange her day and manage the household as she sees fit.

I don’t think a woman can be easily married to both a corporation — or a career, a series of corporations in a pattern of serial monogamy — and a husband. A husband works at the corporation to sustain a family. It is because of his labor that the family can be formed and maintained. When a wife works at the corporation, the family is destroyed. I hope that some women will recognize where this leads, and divorce the corporation.