My Theory On Femininism

I've got this theory -- it basically goes like "women ruined the economy."

Basically, I hypothesize that if women had not stayed the workforce after having to work during war, and had gone back to domestic work, our economy would be better. My reasoning behind this is that before women worked, a man could make enough money to support a content family without much effort. However, after women started working, their salaries dropped to compensate for the inflation of people in the workforce. At first, a woman had an option to work, but if she chose to stay at home, that was okay -- the woman's salary only added to the sufficient funds the family already had. However, gradually, more and more women selfishly opted to work -- relating the concept of work to things like "liberation" and "freedom." Finally, as their abundance grew, the salaries had finally hit an equilibrium (more or less, women still complain about getting paid less, though), thus making it an obligation for both parents to work. Gone were the days of only the man working, for as long as women stayed predominant in the workforce, their salaries would be far too low to sustain a family on their own (mind you, I speak of average paying jobs, not occupations that rake in a lot of dough like law or medicine).

The irony of it all is now that women have gotten a fair taste of what it is like to work and the consequences of their selfishness have become more or less irreversible, they are whining about how they don't want the "privilege" they fought so fervently for only a few decades ago! Women nowadays complain about working too hard, not being able to get home at a decent time, and not getting paid enough (even though by entering the workforce, they probably more or less halved the man's salary -- inflation accounted for). They are finally recognizing that maybe causing such a ruckus to get the right to work really wasn't worth it, especially considering the coincidental and unrelated misfortunes of recent economic times.

Now, as a disclaimer, I'd like to emphasize that I am not against "women's liberation" as a broader concept. I understand many women prior to the feminist movement were abused and raped and other such things, and I by no means support this. However, I think they could have achieved their so called "liberation" through different means, and still been able to reside domestically. I mean, think about it, what's more efficient when there are two jobs that must be done by two people -- for both to work on the same job, and then when that's done, go on to the next, or letting one person work on one job while the other works on the other? Not to mention, it's not like women were ever actually held back from education or learning -- with all that spare time in the home, could they not pick up a book and self-educate themselves (mind you, they did have basic education, and knew reading, writing, arithmetic, etc. -- basically non-college-level skills). The problem was that not enough women even really cared about learning such things, while the radical feminist women refused to self-educate because they didn't get a diploma afterwards. Honestly, this makes me question their motives a little -- what are women really after? Education, personal success, and a happy family... or to be noticed and acknowledged for having said things? You don't need a diploma to understand what you study, but I think they wanted it so they could wave it around in an attempt to trump men in the educational world and the workforce.

Which like I said, is really selfish.

tl;dr, if women hadn't joined the workforce after war, men would make more because there'd be less people for employers to pay, and we'd thus have more money in our families. By opting to work, women have gradually made it an obligation for women to work (no longer can they choose to be housewives, really) -- a concept women now dislike and complain about. Thus, women have destroyed the economy by lowering the base pay for the average worker (inflation considered).

What do you think about my theory MFGG? Find some loopholes for me.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Aforcer on Feb 24 2009, 03:01 PM

Saying you started this thread, Mrs. A. I can't wait to see some of the responses and controversy this theory brings.

I actually see no real flaws with this theory, but allow me to play devil's advocate.

If somehow women decided to just chill back and stick to domestic work, not breaking into the work force and accounting for what they do these days, do you believe this would really solve today's problems? Or would it just prolong the inevitable need for women to want "equality" and freedom to account for more than just housewives? Do you think it is actually a legitimate belief that the female mass as a whole would not jump on the band wagon as soon as a few "radicals" speak out for what they believe? After all, it was their contributions that helped shape the face of this country and the war (referring to WWII).

Also, previous point aside, is it safe to say today that women have amassed such a giant portion of the work force that it could move or sway the economy in majority value. It was my idea that while the statistics are pretty out of sync when immigrants, single moms, and widows are factored in, the majority of women still fill the housewife position, or are at least working from home.


Again, just playing devil's advocate here.

Feminism is the worst thing since Chauvinism

I hate them both, but feminism is more common now a days

I totally agree with you.
But many great discoveries has been made by women, some of those couldn't be made without the proper equipment, equipment that you can't get at home.

...I don't believe your a woman anymore, Mrs.A... if your telling yourself to get back in the kitchen, then... do that. Quit college and marry, raise babies, and other stuff. If you believe women's jobs are ruining the economy, then don't get one.
The women complaining about having a job that women fought to earn: they can go back to the kitchen. If they're going to complain, then they might as well.

Now that I think about it; I believe that there would still be economic problems of equal value than what we have now if women could not to work. Considering more and more jobs are going to illegal immigrants.

Working for women's equal rights, or having a strong sense that women are equal to men does not make you a feminist; it makes you an equalitist.

I'm pretty sure it had more to do with corporations getting greedier rather than too many people in the work force. There were just more people to screw with the women there too.
As for feminism, there's nothing wrong with it. Just like everything else in life, it's fine in moderation. When the line is crossed to "feminazi," that's where the problem begins. And that's also what most of you think of when you hear the word.

I thought feminazi was today's definition of feminism. I'd have to agree with Ton, there is a large un-employment rate that out weighs the number.

All I'm going to say is that there was no one like the female manager that we had at Pizza Hut - we generated a hell of a lot more profit than the previous manager, she was awesome at her job, she was stern, yet nice with her employees, and I really wish she didn't have to quit when the new company took over.


She works at the regional manager for Montana's now, and she's doing an excellent job - I actually managed to eat there and enjoy it, despite previous attempts resulting in never wanting to eat due to horrible quality food.

In general, equal rights are cool, why would women have less rights than men? Some women do their jobs better than a man would do them and vice versa.
However, feminism is not the quest for equality, but for women having more rights than men, which sucks.

I remember a somewhat recent issue, where all the politicians in my country FOCUSED on the problem if PICTOGRAMS were sexistic because they showed only men. I mean seriously, it's a pictogram. Having a picture with a man and a woman running to the exit doesn't make sense and if anything adds to the difference between man and woman.
If a sign has a HUMAN on it and the word "exit", it doesn't mean that a woman is not allowed to exit >_>

Same goes for those weirdoes (in German language) who try to attach "Innen" (MFGGerInnen would be the female form of MFGGers) to each and every noun so it "includes" women. If you're german you know what I mean and it's absolutely ridiculous, because of making women and man equal it even emphasises that women are different enough to require their own attachment to the word.


I have no problem with equal rights and I hate feminism because it is NOT about equal rights.

The vast majority of female workers do complain, but I can guarantee not all are. However that majority can be a pain in the ass.

One rant I have about feminism is the effect it has in the media. Nowadays EVERYTHING has to have women (not a woman alone either) in it, cartoons, kids shows, adult shows, everywhere. It's "politically correct." If you fail to oblige, your content is rejected, censored, and your're deemed sexist. It's not that I'm against it, but throughout my life, I've only ever come up with around 3 female characters compared to my 10+ males, simply because Males are easier for me to draw than women. And even there, women are a disadvantage point for me in drawing; I once drew boobs and someone thought I was being sexist. What a world.

Wouldn't things like this happen regardless?

This post has been edited by Sparker the Pikachu on Feb 24 2009, 01:46 PM

Well a lot of women were already working before the wars. The ones who had to. Seems a lot of people think no women worked at all before the wars began then suddenly they all started into careers, when that is just not true.


It was only the upper class females who suddenly had a job and felt important because of it that caused a fuss.

Women did work back then, but the number of those who did then and now is HUGE.

Interesting. However, what about the impact the female workforce has had on populations of developed countries? Perhaps that's a dynamic that is a dynamic affecting wages as well?

Moreover, I'd be surprised if women have had a bigger impact on overall wages than outsourcing to other countries.

No, I don't think it would solve all of today's current problems; in fact, I said nothing of the sort. Note my qualification:

This would imply that there are other unrelated variables accounting for today's state of affairs.

Also, you ask if it would just prolong women's inevitable desire for "equality," but then I ask -- what is equality? T'is such a broad, ambiguous term; why can't women havign an equal amount of domestic work in comparison to the male's work outside the house be considered "equal?" Is equal really the same -- because that's all women seemed to want to do -- to be the same as men (and, now, they appear to want even more than just that.

And, yes, I know it was necessary for them to work in WWII, because most of the working males were fighting. However, during this time, there was still more or less an equal amount of people in the workforce, the employees merely changed gender. However, when an onslaught of new employees came in (women) after the war and after the men had returned to there job -- that is when the problem started; that is when the average pay went down due to worker inflation (if you will). Plus, you know what they say -- "all's fair in war" -- but I speak of after war, not during. I never denied their working during WWII was not necessary, it just was no longer needed after the war.

I hope I have addressed your points satisfactorily; you had a lot of questions, and it was hard to get them all answered concisely.

Resorting to a personal attack in an attempt to derail my theory! Very mature, Saberie! Did I ever say I didn't want to go to college? Or that I wanted to get married right away? Are you arguing with your emotions or your logic, Saberie? Please, stop upholding the commonly held belief that women can't argue rationally. Additionally, note that I never said anyone should quit their job or not try to succeed in this day and age. In fact, did I not say:

That insinuates that despite the unfortunate present situation, not acquiescing to current standards (i.e. going to college, not dropping out to get married, getting a good job) is madness and will get you no where. Times have changed, for better or for worse, and we have to go along with that.

Also, as I said above, I never said lack of feminism would change all of the world's problems; it would only benefit the problems it caused. Yes, illegal immigration and corporate greed would still exist, but those are unrelated variables that don't even play a part in my theory. Why would you even bother to bring them in?

Again, I ask -- do women desire equality or sameness? Equality is such an ambiguous term -- why can't it mean that women and men do similarly difficult jobs in different locations (i.e. the house and at work)? Why is working in an office (or what have you) "better" than working at hoe? Who decided the terms for this equality? Also:

Heed some of my ideas here and come back when you've given them some rational thought, yes?

I did not mean to imply that feminism accounts entirely for the current state of the economy -- only a small fraction. But despite its obscurity, I don't see why it shouldn't be addressed nonetheless. But, yes, as I said above, corporate greed (amogn other things) does account for some of the problems today, too.

One example does not stand as a constant standard for all. I'm sure there's just as many good male workers as there are female and vice versa. This point is a situational one, and thus moot to my point.

As noted above, yes, there are other factors deteriorating our economy, but I am addressing one concept, and others are irrelevant. I'm not saying reversing feminism would fix the economy entirely, or that it is at complete fault for our current problems. I am only addressing one tin, obscure issue regardless of other unrelated factors.

I don't understand why people seem so incapable of separating factors such as these for the sake of a discussion.

Yes, but they were generally allowed only "women's" jobs (i.e. maids, teachers, etc.), if I recall correctly. And I think this system should have continued, because -- yes, while the man probably made enough, the women still had the option to make a little more money doing a job that normally a man wouldn't do. That way, they still pulled in the dough, but didn't disrupt the balance of employee count and wages in the male workforce.

However, unlike today, it was not obligatory that a woman work to sustain a family.

Can't say I know, though this certainly isn't a factor I had considered. Perhaps I should have said upfront I was only referring to America in this hypothesis.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Aforcer on Feb 24 2009, 03:04 PM

That is the longest post I have ever seen.

Yeah, sorry, I was trying to address everyone's comments at once.

I'm so disconnected from politics :<

Also, I always thought feminism was, "We are not sex objects," and the like.

I'm afraid to contribute (0'-0)

There's lots of interpretations of it. I used to think the same thing, and I was like, "Well, doesn't sound like such a bad concept, so I'll go with it."

Since I started attending college, though, I've realized there's more feminist theories than you can count on one hand -- ranging from "Feminism means I should be able to sleep with anyone I want any time I want because I'm sexually 'equal,'" to "women are more intellectual than men because they have a snatch," to the good ol' agreeable "we should all be equal."

I'm addressing feminism here as the idea that women not working is inequality and that women should be in the workforce amongst men and not do housework.