Wednesday, June 12, 2013

The Role Women Should Play in Society

I received a question from a reader about what I thought women's role in society should be.

At first thought I imagined the response would be a lengthy one, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized it was very simple.

Women's role in society should be whatever role women wish to play.

That's it.


Women, like men, are human and have every right to freedom and should not be pigeon-holed into one role or another.  They are sentient, they are human, they are individuals, there should be no specific "role" they play in society as pre-ordaining them to play ANY role would be be tyranny over the individual.

Where the hubbub or contention occurs is where women do precisely that, but then whine and complain about the consequences.

For example, if a woman wants to get impregnated at the age of 16...and then 18...and then 21 by three different men, I personally do not care.  But when you start telling me I have to pay higher taxes to bail this parasite out of her own idiotic mistakes, then I morally and logically should have a say in how she should lead her life because the veritable parasite is now consuming part of mine.  I would go so far as to even say I have the right to force birth control on her.  And the reason why is that when somebody starts requiring others pay for their way, then they cease to be an individual and forfeit all rights.

Or another example. Say a woman majors in a worthless subject.  I don't care.  I don't really care.  You go major in Lesbian, Transgender, Chicano-White-Privilege, French, 18th Century Poetry for all I care and make sure to go $150,000 in debt at some prissy little liberal arts college tucked away in the non-urban East coast.

As long as she lives up to the fact she will be unemployable, in debt, and just plain out of luck.

But once I'm requested to bail her out (either though loan forgiveness via the taxpayer or lobbying to increase my taxes to make a pointless, make-work government job for her), then once again she has forfeited being an individual and I have every right to dictate to her what she should and should not do.

In other words, the issue of "women's place in society" is not one of liberty or individualistic choice or idealism.  That is a simple matter - they should be allowed to do whatever they want.  It's a matter of whether society is man enough to let them suffer the consequences of their decisions and TRULY TREAT THEM AS EQUALS or is hoodwinked into being asked to bail out women for stupid choices, stupid mistakes, and just plain stupidity.

But don't think this just applies to women.  It is only women we are talking about because of the question posed to me.  This lesson applies to both sexes.

To what extent do we grant freedom to an individual to fuck up his or her own life?

Philosophically and morally I say "the fullest extent."

But it is on the grounds and understanding that they get to suffer the full and complete consequences of their mistakes, their stupidity, and their inferiority with no cost to the taxpayer. 

Of course, we do not have this today.  Everybody gets bailed out.

The loser who borrowed more than they could afford to buy a house.
The loser who had more children than he/she could afford.
The loser that majors in English in an English speaking country where English is a skill akin to breathing.
The loser that started a sports bar or a trinket shop because they had a dream but no business acumen. 

I could go on, but you get the point. 

Mature, freedom-loving adults, allow people to do whatever they want because that is freedom and that is liberty.  It is the consequences of stupid decisions that causes the controversy about women's role in society today because women (disproportionately to men - and yes, I will defend that with empirical data) then go begging, nay, DEMANDING the rest of RESPONSIBLE society lessen their standards of living to bail them out of their stupidity.

So what role should women play in society?

Simple, whatever they want, long as they're adult about it.


Cogitans Iuvenis said...


Traveller said...

One of your best posts.

This is the truth, and this is what leftist feminists and christians will never agree.

earl said...

The only way women show any semblance of adulthood is when they get married to a man and have some children.

The role women should play is producing and help raising the next generation of humans.

Green Grass said...

Agree fully.

On another note, what is a "liberal bumper sticker"?

Could you give some examples because I read several bumper stickers weekly while driving, and I have a few myself, and wanted to identify what was referred to as "liberal bumper stickers".

Redneck said...

This. Exactly this. Welcome to anarchism, if you didn't already define yourself that way.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

One day far in the future...we will have to adopt some sort of population the form of economic restriction. You make X dollars/ get X kids/life. You pick this have X chance at repaying your loans off and getting a career. It's time for a few sensible conditions to pure freedoms.

Jacob Ian Stalk said...

GOLD. Pure.

Amy said...

@Green Grass:

Visualize Whirled Peas

Organize! (with a pic of a group of small fish shaped like a big fish eating a lone mediums sized fish)

The abominable "Coexist" sticker

And it's cousin, Tolerance.

My Other Car Is A Broom


Minds Are Like Parachutes, They Only Function When Open

Go Vegan!

PETA (in every un-ironic sense)

Free Tibet

Go Green!

Love Your Mother (with a nice photo of Earth somewhere in/on/around the phrase)

Be Kind To Animals/I Brake For Animals

This Car Climbed Mt. xxx

13.1 or 26.2 pretty much guarantees the driver is a liberal. I'd say maybe 98% of the time.

Hell, having a bumper sticker pretty much guarantees you're a lefty, I'd say 98% of the time. Most libertarians or conservatives I know can't be bothered to deface their vehicles advertising their politics.

Anonymous said...

All this talk of leftist/liberal this and that is bull. Both sides right and left are no different, if you think voting either way is going to make any great changes forget it. Go listen to some George Carlings last shows if you want the truth.

wanderling said...


wanderling said...

@Traveller, I'm a pinko centrist lefty and a feminist if you define feminists as those who agree that men and women should not have to perform predefined societal roles. Which was exactly CC's answer, and with which you agree, so I guess you must be a feminist.

I agree with this post and I'm sure any christian who wasn't a radical fundamentalist traditionalist would also agree.

dannyfrom504 said...

*slow clap*

Traveller said...

wanderling you are totally wrong and that's not a surprise since you are leftist.

Feminists like you do not care about societal roles just they want the state give them whatever they want.

Let's remove public school affirmative action food stamps alimony and child support and parasites like you will disappear like mosquito piss in the Sahara.

Unknown said...

You've outdone yourself with this post. This is (real) feminism taken to its most logical level. Stop bailing out people who knowingly decided to screw up their lives. Gender shouldn't suddenly be an exception to the rule.

It's not that damn hard to practice due dilligence. For example, it took me about a year to figure out welding would be a good viable option for me even though I had the idea of going to a tech school all the way back in October.

Like Tom Leykis said on his show, eventually you have to learn how to say no to people no matter how close they are to you.

One of the reasons I was more reluctant about votech was because I told my sister about it, and she didn't quite like the idea. She kept nagging me into trying to take general ed courses and she didn't like the idea overall.

My dad tried giving me some horror stories about welding and tried to discourage me from pursuing that option and told me all this crap like if you don't like this certain job, it doesn't matter how much money you're gonna make.

Jeremy said...

There is one problem with this fantastic way of responding to that question. What if a majority of women decide not to have children? Individual comeuppance for bad choices is fine, if some mitigation of the affect those poor choices have on society can be applied. However, if women all collectively decide that they don't want to try to have kids until they're 30+, this can only restrict the number of kids they can have, which in turn reduces population.

I just heard on talk radio this morning that for the first time in a couple hundred years, this year, there will be more deaths of caucasians in the United States than births (I'm sure Disease and/or the native Americans made this happen once or twice in the 1600s). That's right all you ladies who are reading this, because of feminism's hatred of the stay at home mother, white middle-class america is now dying. So this is not really a hypothetical scenario, it's happening right now. America is officially only gaining population through immigration.

Is it constructive to society to tell women when they're 18, "go play any role you want in society," when the reality is society needs their wombs to be used when they're the most fertile and capable of having strong children?

We don't tell the men of society, "Sure, opt out of selective service if you want to, play the role of pacifist when your country is attacked." No, the government correctly hunts down people who skip out on that societal obligation when it comes due. How then can we tell the ladies it is ok to ignore reproduction?

I agree women should be allowed to do whatever they want. I disagree that that is possible to do with the current educational/social/legal structure we have and still maintain a population.

Herzog said...

The funny thing about this is if the entitlement system was taken away, women would voluntarily return to the traditional wife-mother role. Tyranny, Pigeon-holing, sexism, or whatever you choose to call it would become irrelevant, the free market would work its magic and women would begin to "oppress" themselves.

The idea that even a small minority of females would voluntarily become young single mothers in a true free market is laughable.

KevinB said...

Jeremy wrote "What if women decide to stop having children?"

Already happening, buddy. In Quebec, the 'pur laine' Quebecois women stopped having babies at even the replacement level about 20 years ago. Same thing in Japan.

The only people who continue to have large families are those dependent on welfare, as each new child is a temporary bump in living standards (predicted by Rand in Atlas Shrugged as the parable of the 20th Century Motor Company), and posited into the future in the near-brilliant film 'Idiocracy'.

Of course, we are very near Huxley's Brave New World of totally test tube babies, in which case people won't be needed to reproduce at all. The 'liberals' (actually, and more accurately, neo-fascists) of today would love it - they would get to control how many children were born, how they were raised, and what their futures would be, with some sluggos destined to clean toilets and others born into the Brahmin caste.

wanderling said...

Why should anyone, whether it's a man getting drafted or a woman breeding, be expected or required to have to maintain the population?

You can avoid the draft on conscientious objections, but women can't avoid reproduction just because you say so?

That's rhetorical btw.

I hear you, your convenience is more important than any individual womans.

V10 said...


All very good points.

Too bad I, and many others, simply don't give a fuck anymore about long-term consequences and sustainability.

The leftists will not be satisfied until they've run this car over the cliff and leave a smoking crater in the canyon below (and probably not even then). We've tried to patiently explain gravity and the aerodynamics of automobiles to them, and been told with sneering contempt that these are artificial concepts perpetuated old racist rich white males. We've tried to pull the steering wheel to change course and they start screaming and biting like a rabid animal.

So here I sit, a passenger in a vehicle driven by a truly impaired madman. My seatbelt is off, because it won't protect me from the inevitable crash, and because it will only entangle me as I try to jump clear. The car is pretty much a write off at this point anyway, let it burn.

Green Grass said...

Amy, I see a few of those bumper stickers from time to time but didn't associate them with American politics.

And Aaron said people who have them on their cars tend to be ugly with unhappy scowls on their faces but most I've seen are young, thin, attractive women who look happy enough.

I have "visualize having a nice day" which I think is funny.

The "coexist" one.

Nice concept on paper but then they have a cross and a crescent moon and neither Islam nor Christianity respect freedom of religion so why would I want to "co-exist" with them when their only aim is global domination and One World Order: that the entire planet become either Christian or Muslim?

Anonymous said...

Signed. As a mexican saying goes "everyone scratches with his own nails".

Leo G said...

What is the difference between men and women? One chromosome.

Anonymous said...

Not disagreeing with you, but I'd love to see your data.