1991659_blogBy Selwyn Duke

When women start doing what men have traditionally done,
yours is a civilization of the setting sun.  This is brought to mind when pondering
a recent Pew Research Center study
showing that women are now the primary or sole breadwinners in 40 percent of
American households.  You may have heard the story — it created quite a
stir on Fox News, with Greta Van Susteren and Megyn Kelly (who became quite
hysterical) taking exception to male colleagues' warnings about the
development's sociological implications.  But if these two ladies, and the
other critics, had reacted rationally and not emotionally, they would realize
what is obvious:

The rise in female breadwinners is a sign of a civilization
in decline.


Let's start by first examining the study.  While the
term "breadwinner" conjures up images of pleasingly plump paychecks,
the real story here is the rise of poor single mothers.  Among the 40
percent of women in the breadwinner group, 63 percent are single
mothers.  This isn't surprising, since the out-of-wedlock birthrate has
risen from about 4 percent in the 1940s to 41 percent today (72 percent in the
black community).  So what kind of "bread" are we talking about?
 Writes Amy Langfield of CNBC,
"The median income for a single mother who has never been married was
$17,400 as of 2011."  And, obviously, having large numbers of single
mothers, with essentially fatherless children, struggling to make ends meet
isn't good for the women, the children, or the society as a whole.

The picture looks better for the married 37 percent of the
breadwinner group, but only by comparison.  Twenty-nine percent of these
women's husbands are unemployed.  Moreover, Pew describes these women as
older, college-educated, and white.  Translation: they're the one-child
wonders.  These are often women who postpone childbirth in deference to
careerism and then, perhaps after dropping a tidy sum at a fertility clinic,
have their sole son or daughter.  Why does this warrant mention?
 Because as the documentary Demographic Winter points out, this
phenomenon is a significant contributing factor to the plummeting birth rates
among Western peoples.  Outside New Zealand, there isn't one major
European-descent group with a replacement-level birth rate.  And for all
you secular-feminist chauvinists so proud of your cultural hegemony, what do
you think happens to values that cause people to erase themselves?

So why can't the Megyn Kellys of the world perceive the rise
in female breadwinners as the warning sign it is?  Because their feminist
dogma teaches that any female "gain" relative to men is positive, and
any criticism of it is blind male chauvinism.  These are the people who
cheer girls' "better" performance in schools even though this is
largely attributable to boys' worsening performance (and improved female test
scores aren't relevant, because the exams, like the boys, have been dumbed
down).  It's a mindset that would consider it a good thing if women won
every future marathon because men either lost their legs or stopped running.

And that is the point.  If a warring nation must move a
few divisions from the southern front to shore up the northern, it isn't a
victory for those divisions; it means the war effort is waning.  And if
the divisions' generals view it as a personal victory because they'll have the
opportunity to distinguish themselves, they're self-centered and ignorant.  

Likewise, it was a sign of crisis when women had to assume
men's roles in the factories during WWII, but the idea was that the crisis
would end and normalcy resume.  But today we are in perpetual war —
culture war — in a never-ending crisis in which we fight ourselves and confuse
losses with gains.  No, the intersex wage gap isn't a bad thing, and it
isn't good when it starts to close.  The size of that gap correlates with
the health of the nuclear family; the larger it is, the greater men's ability
to support their families and women's opportunity to stay at home with the
children.  No, it isn't good when girls outshine boys in school, as this
reflects a society of undisciplined lads and a hostile yet permissive,
feminist-oriented academia.

And, no, it isn't good when you destroy patriarchy.
 Why?  G.K. Chesterton put it best when he wrote, "What is
called matriarchy is simply moral anarchy, in which the mother alone remains
fixed because all the fathers are fugitive and irresponsible."  If
you want matriarchy, just go into the black community.  Women rule the
roost there, but they reign in a hell born of degraded morals and family
breakdown.  There has never been a successful matriarchy — the notion of
a matriarchal prehistory is a myth
and there never will be.

This is why, ultimately, the feminist model is destined for
the dustbin of history.  The only system that ensures the perpetuation of
civilization (replacement-level birth rates) is patriarchy; the only system
that compels women and men to fulfill their responsibilities to hearth
and home is patriarchy.  And this is why, barring the end of man or a
dystopian future in which children are lab-created assembly-line style to be
the collective's drones, patriarchy is inevitable.

There is no substitute for tradition. The Soviets learned
this the hard way, for after undermining the family, sex roles, and religion,
mass murderer Joseph Stalin actually outlawed abortion in a vain attempt to
combat a bottomed-out birth rate.  But today Russia's population is still
declining by 700,000 per year — the wages of their statist sin.

When a people would be invaded or conquered years ago, the
men and boys above a certain age would sometimes be killed.  Emasculate a
society, and it's no longer a force to be reckoned with.  But we have
emasculated ourselves, killing off manhood by neutering men emotionally,
intellectually, and spiritually.  This won't end well, but for sure it
will end.  Because the feminist band can play on, but the rising water
will soon drown out their music — for good.

                 Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

                                               © 2013 Selwyn Duke — All Rights Reserved

Posted in , , , ,

9 responses to “Rise in Female Breadwinners Means America is a Loser”

  1. Philip France Avatar
    Philip France

    Great column, Mr. Duke!
    If you have not done so already, you might enjoy a book entitled “What to Expect When No One’s Expecting: America’s Coming Demographic Disaster” by Jonathan V. Last. I found it most intruiging.

    Like

  2. Robert Berger Avatar
    Robert Berger

    Selwynduke is not only a rabid homophobe, but an equally rabid misogynist . Dofficult social and eocnomic conditions have made it absolutely necessary for many women to be the breadwinners.
    To see this as causing disaster for society is beyond idiotic . Women should be free to go into whatever field they choose and earn a good living .
    Selwyn’s mind, if you can even call it a mind, is still stuck in the distant past when supposedly everything in America was hunky dory because all the men were good fathers who brought home the bacon and women all stayed at home raising the children . Poppycock !
    Selwyn is a sexist creep who does not want women to have their own careers , to be free to control their bodies,lives and futures and wants them to be ruled by a primitive Old Testament patriarchy .
    He’s not aconservative ; he’s a backward ignoramus ,Neanderthal and dinosaur. Actually ,it’s an insult to those ancient,long vanished Neanderthals to call him one, because they were no doubtr much nicer people and far more intelligent .Sheesh !

    Like

  3. Philip France Avatar
    Philip France

    Robert the Reprobate,
    Even a broken clock is right twice a day. You are less correct than an inanimate object. Why do you continue to demonstrate your ignorance and empty-headedness here? There are plenty of your fellow morons at the Daily Kos and Huffpost that would be delighted to hear from you. No one that comes to this site earnestly to read the erudite and eloquent wisdom of Selwyn Duke does not.

    Like

  4. Pascal Avatar

    Everyone, not no one Philip.

    Like

  5. Paul Avatar
    Paul

    Mr Duke,
    Well done sir.
    Respondentes autem quidam scribarum dixerunt magister bene dixist.
    Regards,

    Like

  6. Cristina Avatar
    Cristina

    The only women interested in sex equality are those longing to be men.
    A woman happy to be so never, ever will try to supplant a man in whatever role the man is playing.
    We tend to be more rigid, vindictive, autocratic and rude than men when we are in positions of power. It is so until we have in front of us a man who refuses to conform to our petty mandates. Immediately we recognize him as a real man and our demeanor change to one of respect and subtle sexual attraction.
    We can be effective collaborators, helpers and enablers for the men in power, but we cannot be good leaders.
    There are exceptions, of course, but those are just that, exceptions.
    And, please men, stop being “sensitive”! The so-called “sensitivity” is just a miserable excuse for the shameful lack of true manhood and chivalry.

    Like

  7. Philip France Avatar
    Philip France

    Cristina,
    Have you heard the Spanky & Our Gang song “Like to Get to Know You”?
    All the best,
    Philip

    Like

  8. Cristina Avatar
    Cristina

    No, I haven’t. Sorry.
    All the best to you too.
    Cristina.

    Like

  9. CMandish Avatar
    CMandish

    I must say I do understand how a woman of so little intelligence could assume her sex to be so entirely inferior, if she believes the rest to be of such limited abilities as herself, that is. Please remember dear, your own inferiority in intellect and reason does not, in fact, reflect the collective abilities of womankind as a whole. It is rather ironic though, that as you so forcefully declare the inferiority of women, you sound so completely like a domineering man, in not only your ignorant ideology, but in your aggressive tone and erroneous assumptions as well. And so, perhaps you have done us no disservice after all, in aligning yourself with the men. It seems you have not only spared us the embarrassment of association, but have also served as a fairly humorous reminder of the asinine nature of the men whom you extol.

    Like

Let us know what you think, dear reader. We value your input!