CONSIDER YOURSELF WARNED: Women in the workplace means “disaster for the race”


Lady_McDuffLady McDuff, best hen in the world

Mrs. John Martin, a leader of the New York State Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage, warned in a speech last night of the peril to humankind if it becomes common for the “best” women to work outside the home.  As reported by the New-York Tribune:

Fable of the Best Hens

When a smart young man receives a big salary it is a good thing for the race. He can marry and transmit his smartness to posterity.  When a young woman receives a big salary it means disaster for the race, and the wiser, handsomer, more efficient the woman is to-day the more likely she is to have a salary instead of a husband.  You couldn’t run a chicken farm on those principles. Suppose you took all the best hens and set them aside to go to college or run a feather factory for the other hens.  It’s a tragedy!

It has taken the race millions of years to produce the high salaried women of to-day, and now those qualities are allowed to perish. The spark carried through the centuries is snuffed out  by a salary!

* * *

There was woman named Nancy Hanks, who swept her dirt floor with a home-made broom, cooked over her open fire, and made a home in a hovel. To-day the Nancy Hankses are $5,000 buyers in department stores, and the output of Abraham Lincolns is curiously scant.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to CONSIDER YOURSELF WARNED: Women in the workplace means “disaster for the race”

  1. Jane says:

    Fascinating from a Darwinian perspective. I would think a liberal evolutionist who is normally in favor of women’s lib would have to see some truth in this.

    I hadn’t thought about this angle before. All the smartest, college-educated women I know best are in my homeschooling co-op, so maybe some of the race isn’t doomed after all.

    • this1 says:

      I would think a liberal evolutionist who is normally in favor of women’s lib would have to see some truth in this.

      I know of at least one who appears to. Her name is GirlWritesWhat, and she’s an increasingly popular figure on YouTube.

  2. lawman45 says:

    He’s correct, of course. What is best for the race may well be second or third best for the particular person.

    We’ll find out in 1000 years whether direct competition with men is superior to support for the male and cooperation raising the best children. I suspect we’ll know before that whether single motherhood and absentee fatherhood is a good choice. It is indeed true that a man is not a rechargeable vibrator. But does it matter? Probably yes to the race, not to the individual clitoris.

    • sestamibi says:

      “We’ll find out in 1000 years . . . ”

      Oh, really? I think a lot sooner than that . . . maybe even within the lifetimes of our younger generation.

    • gcm says:

      He’s wrong, of course. Then again, you’re small pea brain cannot fathom the earning power, nor the economic viability, that female workers hold in our modern society. I think that vibrator you talk about is in your ass.

  3. Retropundit says:

    “Clitoris”? FYI, that word is not used in polite company in 1913.

  4. R.Flagg says:

    “When a young woman receives a big salary it means disaster for the race, and the wider, handsomer, more efficient the woman is to-day the more likely she is to have a salary instead of a husband.”

    The wider the woman, the less likely she is to be married? Not if you watch reality TV.

  5. lawman45 says:

    The size of the salary is irrelevant to the point being made. Job specialization (some grow crops, some raise animals, some invent the Internet) is the secret of a society’s economic (and social) success.

    • Remo says:

      Incorrect. Women marry up. The larger the salary the less likely she is to find a mate with a higher salary. Also, the fruit of that labor is being taken *away* from the home. She is working for someone else. Assuming a higher salary equals higher worth, for a large salary you are taking away a huge contribution from the home and raising children if any, in a lesser setting.

  6. dave1941 says:

    Liberals don’t believe in Darwin except when they’re ridiculing Christians for not believing in Darwin. If children of successful parents turn out better than children of jobless single mothers, that just proves we’re not spending enough on welfare and public schools.

  7. Arty says:

    It’s not the work. It’s their voting that’s disasterous for the race.

  8. CatoRenasci says:

    @R.Flagg — the use of ‘wide’ in the early 20th century context probably refers to a (refined) sense of style, or education and breeding. There used to be a phrase “high, wide and handsome” which means “in a carefree manner; in good style” which I’m pretty sure this reference alludes to.

  9. Pingback: Transterrestrial Musings - Women In The Workplace

  10. Deoxy says:

    We’ll find out in 1000 years whether direct competition with men is superior to support for the male and cooperation raising the best children.

    You have this exactly backwards – the whole point (from a long term, evolutionary/good of the race perspective) is the raising of the children. The woman doesn’t support the man in the situation you are talking about, she is SUPPORTED by the man so that she can concentrate on raising the children.

    Thank you, feminism, for muddying the blindingly obvious point. He’s out drawing a salary so that she doesn’t have to do so – SHE is being supported. That’s the verbiage that was used for generations, and it is accurate.

    The ONLY way it could be otherwise is if the point, the primary goal, is his career. In this context, at least, that’s not an option. (Goodness, how I wish it weren’t an option in any other context – how sad to have that as the point of your existence.)

  11. Interesting article and clearly on one side of the Race Suicide debate of that era. It’s precisely this sort of rhetoric that inspired Margaret Sanger to take the opposite approach. Rather than block careers and require the ‘superior’ sort of women to have babies, she proclaimed, why not pressure ‘inferior’ women–in her day mostly immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe–to have fewer children. That was the birth of today’s Planned Parenthood.If you’d like to know more, read her 1922 bestseller, The Pivot of Civilization.

    And as to where liberals, with their Darwinian beliefs, stood on this topic, they were enthusiastic her supporters. He opponents were almost exclusively religious conservatives such as G. K. Chesterton, author of Eugenics and Other Evils. Today, liberals believe much the same but are more secretive about that agenda. I had a liberal English professor (and strong Planned Parenthood supporter) point at a young black man nearby and say, in a conspiratorial whisper, “That’s why we need legalized abortion.”

  12. Number Six says:

    This his how we will become the Idiocracy.

  13. glissmeister says:

    What a marvelous example to index the normalization of Phrenology in active modern practice and the continuing incurious submission to Hegel, bigotry and race carpetbaggery in its modern forms.

    There is no human gene for race; there never was. There is only one Homo sapiens sapiens; no Homo sapiens honkey, no Homo sapiens blacqueness, no Homo sapiens beaner, no Homo sapiens hymie, et al. All represent ordinary and unremarkable variation of Homo sapiens sapiens.

    The remarkable variations are found in tribe and culture that control the defining curiosity, disciplines, diets, behaviors, philosophy and habits that express over time as economic, interpersonal and intellectual differences.

    Why is it our government, universities and schools continue to practice Phrenology and publicly champion fraud in the form of 19th Century race constructs? Why in this 21st Century does “education” idealize and promulgate the thought disorders of bigotry and anti–science when the truth is so easily taught? It’s time to stop the carpetbaggery and fire the carpetbaggers.

  14. Brock says:

    Of course the beauty of evolution, is that it always applies. There’s no escaping it. It’s just a question of “What is fitness?”. Different environments reward different characteristics.

    My suspicion is that the observed dip in the breeding rate among advanced nations (most notably in Germany, Italy and Japan) is a temporary matter. Maybe not temporary enough to save Germany, Italy and Japan, but certainly on a geological time scale. And the race will adapt to the existence of the great wealth and technological sophistication of the present. In a world where children are not necessary to support you in your old age, “fitness” will mean the people who choose to have them anyway for the emotional rewards of parenting.

  15. RS says:

    The entire premise of the movie “Idiocracy”.

    Another outcome. Poor education. Once upon a time, pre-1950, the best job a woman could hope for was as a teacher. As such, we had the best of 50% of the population teaching our children. And the children learned quite well.

    But when other doors opened for those talented top women.

    That best of the best LEFT education, leaving a vacuum filled by the output of low rated “education” schools drawing from the BOTTOM of the talent pool, not the top.

    And behold, now our children can’t learn because too many of their teachers are barely literate.

    Unintended consequence.

    • gcm says:

      Yep, those graduate degrees that hang on the wall mean squat.

      • apollyon911 says:

        They do mean squat. Average I.Q. in the field of teaching has dropped. Almost anyone can get a liberal arts degree. That was not the case 50 years ago (you actually had to be intelligent and qualify). Outside of STEM degrees, most degrees are useless. Ever wonder why MBA programs have a GMAT score as part of the criteria? It’s correlated to success in the program (not undergrad marks or previous work experience). The GMAT is accepted as a legitimate I.Q. test for Mensa and other high I.Q. societies.

        Note that women tend to go to the easier liberal arts programs and shy away from STEM degrees. They are not ‘socialized’ away…in fact, quite the opposite. Boys are failing everything, affirmative action and lower marks to receive scholarships and yet women rarely enter these fields. Look at the distribution of I.Q.’s and you’ll understand (hint: there are way more highly intelligent men than women).

        If men drop out of the ‘productive’ aspects of the economy, women don’t fill the vacuum. They enter ‘non-productive’ areas such as HR (made up department so that women can feel ‘comfortable’), marketing (bloated due to so many women), customer service, admin, teaching, government and charities…none of which help a society accumulate wealth. These women, esp. the ‘career’ women, have fewer children, thus not passing on their genes.

        That is the ‘contribution’ of the modern woman. Goodbye Western Civilzation. It only took 100 years for women to ruin it. Thanks Suffragettes.

  16. Alice Finkel says:

    Russia, Japan, Spain, Greece, and many more are losing their core populations — the populations that made their countries wealthy and strong to begin with. Part of this loss is due to the hens that will not breed. Part of it is due to out-migration of fertile hens and the most productive roosters.

    Think of a core population as an extended family with liberal breeding practises, rather than a “race.” Once the family dies out, its rich and productive genetic combinations likewise die out. Other extended families will have other genetic combinations which may not prove out so well over time, considering the perennially impoverished lands from which they arose.

  17. Fred2 says:

    “This his how we will become the Idiocracy.” ?Unlikely, someone will invade and restore order of a sort, which will help no-one, personally.

  18. Frank says:

    God has divided mankind into two groups:

    1. Those who believe that the most powerful biological force is the tendency of a population to be dominated by its most quickly reproducing members. (the Darwinians)

    2. Those who are actually reproducing. (the non-Darwinians)

  19. pashley1411 says:

    There is a problem equating success in corporate America = a superior genepool, and then cry about their failure to produce.

    If you are a Darwinian, stay with it; females who fail to take the time and the energy to reproduce will be swept into the genetic garbage can, along with sabertooth tigers and three-toed sloths. Gaia wills it, it is good.

  20. AAB says:

    Lord Curzon said the same thing around 100 years ago, that women should not get the vote:

    “He had heard in this debate no sufficient answer to the plea that no mandate or authority had been given by the country for the grant of the vote to women.

    He did not think anyone had disputed Lord Loreburn’s contention that the selection of the age of 30 years as that at which women should be entitled to the franchise was both arbitrary and illogical. That arbitrary, artificial and illogical limit of age in the case of women could not possibly last. This was not only the thin end of the wedge ; they would be taking the thin end of the wedge and hammering it half way in. The 6,000,000 women voters within 20 years or 15 or even 10 years would become 10,000,000 or very likely 12,000,000. On all these grounds he continued to regard this proposal with a mistrust and an apprehension which he would be dishonest were he to attempt to conceal.”

  21. Pingback: Societal devolution | Vox Popoli

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s