How to Have More White Babies: Part I of III
Audio; Posted on: 2008-11-30 18:44:03 [ Printer friendly / Instant flyer ]
by John Young
“While culture can reinforce our genes; and genes create the culture, this is NOT a "chicken and egg" conundrum because genes absolutely positively must come FIRST.”
Welcome to Western Voices, I'm John Young of European Americans United.
About once a week, I receive earnestly written email from folks lamenting the low natality of European-Americans, especially compared to those of ethnic groups who have invaded our country illegally. My friend and colleague Frank Roman has spoken at length about the upcoming demographics shift, what it means for our future generations, and how it can be averted. Clearly, unless something is done, the future looks pretty bleak.
But the one area where I consistently receive email is related to the low birth rates of our people. This is entirely understandable, especially with the wild success of Pat Buchanan's excellent book "The Death of the West." There is a growing awareness among our Folk that we are on a road to extinction.
The smallest unit of our Folk capable of reproducing itself and carrying on our culture is not the individual, but the family. Anything that affects the family, automatically affects our people. Many lament the fact that, across the globe, European numbers are dwindling both in absolute terms and relative to incoming replacement Third World populations. If current low natality rates continue, even if our lands were emptied of invaders; most of our unique genes that have persisted for untold millennia will cease to exist in about 250 years. When taking inter-racial marriage, the rates at which our people are the victims of violence and similar phenomena into account, the end of our people will be even sooner.
This is no small matter. We are talking about an entire human race being wiped from the face of the earth in two centuries or less. We will be gone just as certainly and just as irrevocably as if we had all been lined up for mass gas-chamber execution and incineration. No more Michelangelos, Lois Pasteurs, Thomas Edisons, Elizabeth Brownings or William Shockleys will be born. The idea that what is important about us is our culture, and that our culture can continue without us flies in the face of reality.
Haiti inherited French governmental, philosophical and constitutional systems in their entirety; yet even neglecting obvious differences of appearance, no rational person would argue that Haiti bears even the slightest resemblance to France. Rather, it is a hell-hole from which inhabitants seek escape. The same situation prevails in South Africa. South Africa inherited hundreds of years of European traditions, cultures, governmental forms and law. Once European-derived people abandoned governance, South Africa has become a cruel caricature just like Haiti from which people, even African people, seek to escape. Rhodesia was given European culture and technology; and when the Europeans turned over the reins of government to non-Europeans ... it went from being a food exporter to widespread starvation.
Every place in the world where Europeans planted a culture and then abandoned that culture to non-Europeans has seen that culture die. That's reality. Yes, culture is important; but it cannot survive without our genes. So our physical survival as a distinct genetic group of people is the paramount consideration.(1) While culture can reinforce our genes; and genes create the culture, this is NOT a "chicken and egg" conundrum because genes absolutely positively must come FIRST.
So we cannot allow ourselves to fall into the Michael Savage trap of "Borders, Language and Culture." Yes, by all means, these things are important and they need to be defended in order to create an hospitable environment for our folk. But they interact with, and depend upon our critical and irreplaceable genes FIRST.
Two things should be obvious. The first, is that any ideology, governmental form or policy that results in (or contributes to) the extinction of an entire ethnic group is, in and of itself, genocidal. Genocide is the ultimate wrong; because it cannot ever be undone. The second is that males do not reproduce and neither do females, individually. A COUPLE is required to reproduce, and anything that adversely affects the bonding and relationship of that couple will ultimately have a genocidal effect. A lone individual cannot carry on our genes or preserve our culture. Only families can do that, and the dynamic of relations between European men and European women for purposes of courtship and marriage is a crucial consideration in our continued existence.
The damage that has been done to the European-American family can be measured, in aggregate, in stark terms. Even though there are many contributing factors, and quantifying the precise contribution of each individual factor would be difficult, the aggregate impact is worth examining.
In 1965, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan issued what has become known as The Moynihan Report for the Department of Labor. In this report, Senator Moynihan revealed the damage being done to African-Americans in unambiguous terms by discussing the illegitimacy rate in the African-American community. At that time, the illegitimacy rate for black mothers was an unacceptably high 23.6%. Misunderstanding the big picture, Senator Moynihan blamed this troubling statistic on the legacy of slavery and so-called "racism."
What you may be shocked to learn is that, while the illegitimacy rate among white women in 1975 was only 7.1%, by 2002 the illegitimacy rate among white women was 28.5% and rising. That's five percentage points higher than the illegitimacy rates that Moynihan considered to be a crisis in the black community in 1965.(2)
But that's not all. Fully ONE THIRD of the white children in America are growing up in homes without both biological parents. 29% of white children are growing up in families receiving welfare assistance; and that number is roughly DOUBLE the number of black children whose families were receiving welfare back in 1965. Since 1980, the percentage of white men under the age of 30 in jail has doubled.(3)
Our divorce epidemic has also reared its ugly head, to the extent that nearly 1/3rd of the white kids in America don't share a home with their biological fathers, and a stunning 40% of the kids in these fatherless homes haven't laid eyes on their fathers for at least a year.(4) There are many reasons for this. No doubt, some very small percentage of these fathers are simply scumbags. But as I will explain in greater depth later, the PRIMARY cause for the absence of fathers from the lives of their kids is a punitive marital court system that actively encourages the absence of the father; and has become so lopsidedly biased against fathers that Wendy McElroy reports that men are undertaking a marriage -- and hence, reproductive -- strike in ever-greater numbers.
Men are deliberately avoiding marriage, and they are actively avoiding fathering children. Ms. McElroy states: "As a critic of anti-male bias in the family courts, the reasons I hear most frequently from non-marrying men are fear of financial devastation in divorce and of losing meaningful contact with children afterward."(5) (emphasis added) Ms. McElroy continues: "A significant number of men are loudly stating their reasons (for the marriage strike): anti-male bias in the current marriage law and in the family courts. Solving this piece of the "marriage crisis" is not difficult. Allow people to draw up their own private marriage contracts, without government law acting as a third party; have unbiased family courts adjudicate breaches of contracts. If men participated equally in forging the terms of the most important commitment in their lives, perhaps they would cease to view marriage as a form of indentured servitude and divorce as slavery." (6)
Here, then, is the reality that I want you to understand. Our birth rate is so low that, if things don't change, within 250 years we'll cease to exist. In practical terms, considering interracial marriage and the sort of treatment European-derived people usually receive at the hands of non-white governments, it will likely be sooner. And men are avoiding marriage and children due to the extreme anti-male bias of our court system, further exacerbating that problem. Those white children who manage to get born aren't facing a picnic. The chance of being illegitimate is 1 in 3. The chance of being on welfare is 1 in 3. The chance of never laying eyes on your biological father is increasing steadily. The odds of inhabiting a jail cell have more than doubled.
In short, we are facing a complex and inter-related set of problems affecting our families. It is for this reason that, when EAU was created, one of the objectives that we placed in our Constitution was as follows: "To support the preservation and advancement of the two-parent European American family."
It is from the foregoing background that I would like to launch our exploration of this topic. As I described earlier, I get a lot of email from people who are concerned about our low birth rates. Along with the lamentation regarding low natality, this email usually contains advice, urging me to encourage women to have more babies. Quite often, the correspondent focuses blame on what is perceived to be a primary causative factor. Examples include tax policy, radical feminism, a business climate that is unfriendly to families, and so forth.
No doubt, all of these factors contribute. Because they are all interrelated to such a profound degree, it is simply impossible to truly and accurately attribute degrees of culpability. But, because we aren't in the lawsuit business and therefore aren't going for the "deep pockets" or applying concepts such as "joint and several liability," it makes no sense for us to just address one aspect of the problem. That's because we aren't seeking compensation for a tort, but are rather seeking to solve a problem; and solving a problem with multiple causation requires dealing with ALL of the larger causative factors. So, today, I am going to deal with economics, the demands of employers, radical feminism and the relationships of married couples among other things. Throughout all of these, will be an undercurrent of white psychology; because the way white people react to environmental influences is unique to our people and relevant to specifying solutions.
So ... first we will be looking at the causative factors of our low natality rate. Then, we will look at solutions we can implement in our daily lives. Finally, we will look at public policy proposals we can advance to help solve our problem.
Because this is an extensive topic with many inter-related issues, I am breaking up this podcast into three parts. The first, today, includes the introduction and an exploration of all of the causative factors except for radical feminism. The second will deal exclusively with radical feminism. And the final installment in the series will explore solutions to the problems revealed in the first two podcasts that can be implemented at both the individual and collective levels.
Let's start with exploring economics. As you know, I talk about economics a lot on these Western Voices podcasts, and back in March I discussed how something a simple as a European American Victory Garden could help us have more children. The reasoning is simple. Because of the unique nature of European-Americans, the lower our cost of living, the more children we have. The higher our cost of living, the fewer children we have.(7) A comprehensive approach to a home garden effectively lowers the cost of living by the value of the food it replaces, thereby exerting a positive effect on European-American birth rates. Simple.
Starting your victory garden is certainly very valuable, but there are other economic factors at work that need to be explored, and that we need to effectively counter. As our cost of living climbs, our birthrates fall. But there is a lot more to this straightforward equation than meets the eye.
The effective cost of living is affected by many factors. The largest factor, and the toughest for us to counter, is the fact that over the past forty years wages for average white Americans have been falling relative to what can be purchased with those wages. In 1970, the median home price was $23,400. In 1970, the median wage was $6,670. This means that an average home cost a little less than four years of wages. In 2004, the median home price was $221,000, but the median wage was $30,516. So 34 years later, it cost over 7 years wages to buy a home.(8)(9) Since 1970, then, the purchasing power of the average white worker has declined precipitously. Or, looking at it from the other direction, the cost of living has risen dramatically. Thus, our birth rates have declined. The causes of this falling standard of living can primarily be traced to our Federal Reserve System, off-shoring and immigration policies.
But there are other aspects of economic impact as well, including taxation. This trend in taxation was explored by the Heritage Foundation, and affects our birth rates dramatically. According to a Heritage Foundation report -- this is a long quote, but pay attention because you'll find this shocking:
"The Federal government has put American families under financial siege. ... To a large degree, this is because of an explosive rise in the burden of federal taxation. In 1950, the average American family with children paid only 2% of its income to the federal government in taxes. Today (in 1994) that same family pays 24.5%. ... This tax loss exceeds the annual cost of the average home mortgage. When state and local taxes are included, the government now takes 37.6% of the income of the average family with children. Most employed wives are not aware that they are really working to support Uncle Sam. Among married-couple families where both the husband and wife are employed, two-thirds of the wife's earnings go to pay for increased federal taxes; only one-third goes to supporting the family. During the past four decades, the federal income tax burden on a family of four has increased by over 300% as a share of family income. Single Americans and couples without children have escaped most of this tax increase. Measured by average per-capita after-tax income, families with children now are the lowest income group in America. Their average after-tax income is lower than that of elderly households, single persons, and couples without children. ... The income loss due to increased taxation has seriously strained American family finances and profoundly affected American family life."(10)
The Supreme Court noted appropriately in 1819 that "The power to tax is the power to destroy."(11) It most certainly is. Unfortunately, most people don't understand the full context in which the statist justice John Marshall penned those words. At issue was whether or not the State of Maryland could tax notes issued by the Second Bank of the United States. It was with this decision that the Supreme Court paved the way for the "legality" of today's abominable Federal Reserve System and the absolute power of a tax code which is destroying our people.
Nobody wants to be impoverished, so when you combine the rising cost of living compared to incomes -- caused by our Federal Reserve, trade and immigration policies, with the fact that having a child is the single largest predictor of poverty, and a tax system that penalizes taxpayers for having children ... you have an extremely powerful motivator against having children.
This, in fact, is one of the largest factors affecting our birth rates. When you look across Europe at the low birth rates of our brethren, you will find that their socialist systems effectively tax them at even higher rates than us, while they have undergone the same rise in the cost of living. So it should come as no surprise that birth rates have plummeted across the white world. There are a few white populations that are either unaffected or less affected. In almost every case, such as among the Amish, it is because the population has effectively isolated itself from outside economic forces.
I have, as I mentioned, received correspondence from a number of people recommending that I urge white women to have more babies. Unfortunately, it's just not that simple. Women don't reproduce asexually -- a man is also required. And white folks, as a rule, are not well-disposed to having children under circumstances where they aren't sure the kids will be properly supported. Obviously, there are a growing number of exceptions to this, but white folks as a whole are failing to even replace themselves -- and now you know one of the major reasons why. Steve Sailer supports this contention when he says:
"Whites appear more sensitive to cost-of-living calculations about marriage and babies. While white parents of small children in Manhattan have a median income of $284,208, the NYT reports, “In comparison, the median income of other Manhattan households with toddlers was $66,213 for Asians, $31,171 for blacks and $25,467 for Hispanic families.” Similarly, demographer Hans Johnson of the Public Policy Institute of California finds that American-born white women in costly California are having babies at a rate of only 1.6 per lifetime, while immigrant Latinas are having 3.7."(12)
So I can sit here and urge people to make babies all day, and it won't do any good unless that urging comes with concrete solutions to the problems of taxation and cost of living. If we were to solve this problem, I strongly suspect that our families wouldn't require urging in the first place. Raising a child to age 18 costs about $204,000 on average for middle-income families.(13) This cost has simply become insurmountable in an economic environment where the average prospective white parent is earning less than $31,000 year.
The next area we need to examine is, unfortunately, less susceptible to correction through public policy. Workplaces, jobs and careers are simply not designed in a fashion that is compatible with parenthood. If anything, the demands of modern employment actively discourage parenthood.
This situation applies to some degree pretty much across the board, but nowhere is it more evident than in Information Technology. A 2005 study indicates that the culture and expectations surrounding the Information Technology field create an environment in which willingness to sacrifice personal life -- including children -- is a prerequisite for advancement, and often a prerequisite for being employed at all.(14) The study authors report that "... although long hours are sometimes necessary to meet a deadline, they are more often a status symbol ..." I should point out that most IT professionals receive no overtime for long hours, but putting in extra time is often seen as a sign of dedication that is a prerequisite for raises and advancement. One woman interviewed for the study indicated: "The reward structure here rewards people for doing stupid things, then working 80-hour weeks to save the day."
Like much of business today, Information Technology is also "interrupt driven" -- by which I mean that a crisis can materialize at any time during the workday, or even in the middle of the night. So five minutes before you are supposed to leave work to go pick up your kid from school, somebody runs into your office wringing their hands about how a server just crashed, and if it isn't fixed immediately -- preferably yesterday then the company will go out of business. At home, you are in bed when the pager your employer requires you to carry goes off at 2am. You have to drive into work and you won't return until long after you were supposed to put your kid on the bus to school. As business has gone global, the "nine to five" workday has gone the way of the dinosaur with businesses issuing Blackberries to employees with the expectation of immediate responsiveness to business requirements. Sheraton hotels recently performed a survey of business travelers, 87% of whom report sleeping with their Blackberries. 84% of these business travelers also reported checking their email immediately before sleeping and upon awakening.(15)
Obviously, if you expect to earn a good salary, the requirements posed by the best paying jobs are utterly incompatible with having children -- particularly if this sort of career track is undertaken by both spouses.
Roberta Hall pointed this out way back in 1972 when she wrote:
"With the change from rural to urban life and from subsistence farming to employment for wages, the extended kin system is replaced by an economic pattern in which the nuclear family becomes the economic unit. The result is that a large number of children becomes an economic liability rather than an asset. In this model, fertility decline is expected to originate in and spread outward from urban areas and to be noted first among the upper classes ..." (16, emphasis added)
Here is a place where I have an argument with many feminists, including the authors of the IT study cited above. Let me express my argument this way:
It is impossible to work 15 hours a day, six days a week and simultaneously be the best parent -- whether father or mother -- that you can be. A man who is away from his children sixteen hours a day, six days a week or working 80-hour weeks in order to make "partner" at the law firm cannot POSSIBLY simultaneously be the best father he can be. Can he be a "good" father? Well, that is subjective and I won't issue into such value judgments because nobody came down from on-high and appointed me the avatar of a deity. But by the standard I am using, the standard of being the best you can be, nobody can be the best father – or mother -- possible while absent.
Notwithstanding the idealized model of the 1950's that never were, historically among our people, all of the adults in a household capable of working -- men and women alike -- have worked. The thing that changed was where that work occurred. For thousands of years, a family's home was also the place where the family exercised its profession. You can still see reminders of this in the form of first-floor store-fronts with apartments located overhead. Whether a family did blacksmithing, milling or tailoring; by and large that family owned its own means of production which coincided with the property of their residence. This also applied to lawyers and doctors, who overwhelmingly worked out of their homes. And who can forget the fictional Sherlock Holmes whose apartment that he shared with Dr. Watson was also the center of his business?
So it is not the idea of pursuing a profession, per se, that has been particularly problematic for our people. But for men and women alike, the real problem has been working outside the home. A hundred and fifty years ago, most doctors, lawyers, ministers, farmers and blacksmiths kept their workplace within or adjacent to their home. They owned their own means of production and their professions could be exercised within the context of their other family responsibilities, so children didn't take away from professional pursuits or vice-versa. Thus, pursuit of career and the raising of children were not "either/or" or mutually exclusive choices.
The Baby Boomer generation was the first generation raised with absentee fathers. The first hints came as early as the Whiskey Rebellion, but starting in earnest after the civil war, there was a concerted effort to crush and destroy the agrarian culture of the South and rural America, along with the culture of self-sufficiency that had served our people so well. Up until that point, large portions of the American populace lived with a very high quality of life through their own production and trade, but seldom had much in the way of cash or currency, because it wasn't needed. The destruction of home industry was initiated by government at the behest of business interests who were seeking, as usual, cheap labor. Using a variety of methods that took only a couple of generations, our people were deprived of their un-mortgaged property, put upon with cash requirements to pay taxes, when the only way they could obtain cash was through employment, and so forth. Their economic independence was taken away. Remember, when you own the means of production -- you are independent. But when you depend upon the goodwill of an employer to put food in your mouth and a roof over your head, you are dependent. Either way, at the behest of industry a new model of manhood was put forth in the media of the day in which the husband and father leaving home every day to go work to make somebody else rich was seen as not merely a duty -- but virtuous.
As the move from self-ownership to employee-ism intensified in the early to mid 20th centuries, men whose occupations coincided with their homes -- at one point the overwhelming preponderance of our people -- became a minority of a minority. In this way, the men of the greatest generation had comparatively little time with their kids -- who were raised exclusively by their mothers for five years and then turned over to Frankfurt School influenced public schools for the remainder of their education. Given this lack of fatherly guidance, it is no wonder that the "Baby Boomers" raised by this generation were so easily influenced by their college professors to turn the world on its head and put us on the march to International Socialism, Multiracialism and Global Corporatism.
Obviously, the wholesale abandonment of children by the men of our Folk was, and is, a bad idea. Certainly, the demands of the economy have driven that behavior and even made it a necessity; but we ought not be so foolish as to equate necessity with virtue. If being away from your family eight hours a day is virtuous, then sixteen hours a day would be even more virtuous. Well, at that rate, why not be as virtuous as possible by leaving them altogether and just sending a weekly check?
The place where I disagree with certain ideologues on this topic is with their logic that equality demands that "anything men do, women should also do." So if men abandon the home, women should too. This sort of logic reminds me of my mother's question about whether I should want to do whatever my friends were doing, even if they were running off a cliff. It also reminds me of my father's straightforward statement that two wrongs don't make a right. Obviously, it is undesirable for men to abandon the home, though they are sometimes forced to do so by necessity. Likewise, it is also undesirable for women to abandon the home, though they, also, are sometimes forced to do so by necessity. If it must be done, then it must be done -- that is entirely understandable and I'm the last person who would pass judgment on the actions a family takes out of economic necessity. But don't try to pass this behavior off as somehow virtuous.
The end result was quantified by the President's Council of Economic advisors in 1999: between 1969 and 1999, parents, in aggregate, spent 22 fewer hours per week with their children, and this was caused entirely by the number of hours that parents spent on the job.(17) Furthermore, this same study declared that there is an inverse relationship between the amount of time that parents spend working, and the number of children they have. This is not surprising, because European-Americans have developed what is called a High Investment Parenting Strategy. This sort of strategy, which focuses on time and resources devoted to children rather than sheer numbers, causes a certain proportion of potential parents to forego children if they believe they will have insufficient time to devote to them. This mindset was beautifully summarized by a young lady who said to me: "Why should I have kids if I'm just going to be outsourcing their care to someone else?"
And she was right to be concerned. In 2007, the National Institutes of Health issued a report on the longest, largest and most comprehensive study ever conducted that compared the differences between children raised by a full-time parent and children raised in daycare. The study established that:
“The longer children had spent in day care centers before kindergarten, researchers had found, the more likely their sixth-grade teachers were to report 'problem behavior,' such as getting into fights, arguing or being disobedient.” Furthermore, higher levels of aggression and defiance were reported as early as kindergarten. For purposes of the study, daycare was defined as “care by anyone other than the child’s mother who was regularly scheduled for at least 10 hours per week.”(18)
AND -- there is another way in which employment affects our natality rate: economic insecurity. Across America, job security is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. According to a Population Studies Center Research Report:
"In the last several decades the labor market has undergone dramatic changes in most industrialized western countries. Economic recessions, the industrial shift from manufacturing toward service, and rising global competition have all contributed to the dramatic restructuring organizations have engaged in to enhance flexibility and competitiveness. This restructuring has led to large-scale reductions of permanent employees through layoffs or plant closings, and the substitution of involuntary part-time jobs or fixed-term contracts for permanent, full-time jobs. A critical outcome of these shifts in the way work is organized is a rising sense that the employment relationship has become less secure."(19)
A German report, after studying the causes of low birthrate, found that a sense of economic insecurity was a primary factor in the decision of 47% of potential mothers to forego having children.(20)
In other words, income is not enough -- potential parents must feel that their income is secure before committing themselves to having and raising children; and today's job market, due primarily to the machinations of finance capitalism, has become less stable every year for decades.
And, the most rewarding jobs for women are also the least supportive of parenthood. Ellen Goodman writes:
"Before Iliescu entered the momhood, Berkeley Dean Mary Ann Mason set out to answer the question asked by her women graduate students: "Is there a good time to have a baby?" Her analysis of 160,000 Ph.D.s showed that having children early in their careers was a boon for men and a bust for women. Fathers who had children within five years of their Ph.D. were more likely to get tenure-track jobs than other men, but mothers were less likely than either fathers or other women. As for women who got on the tenure track before the baby track? Only one in three ever became mothers."(21)
The simple fact is that even workplaces that are supposed to be the most liberal make it extremely tough to be a mother, in particular. Do I also need to point out that women with Ph.D.s are among our very best and brightest -- and that two out of three of them on a tenure track aren't having children *at all*? I'm not saying they should be forced to have children -- because, after all, there is compelling evidence that genes play a role in our political opinions, and college Ph.D.s are disproportionately Marxists ... so their voluntary withdrawal from the gene pool could be a blessing in disguise. But, what I AM saying is that our workplaces have to become much more family friendly so that people who actually WANT to have children are able to do so.
And the final cause of our low birth rates that we'll be discussing today may be surprising; but it can be summarized as "insensitive men." It is a fact that, even as women have entered the workforce outside the home, they continue to shoulder an extremely disproportionate share of household chores: vacuuming, ironing, doing the dishes, and so forth. This contributes heavily to fatigue and the levels of stress that married women feel. Although it is usually subconscious, the wife generally considers that if she's doing all of the household chores before she has any children, her at-home workload will increase exponentially after she has children; with her husband picking up very little of the slack. Several studies show that this unequal division of labor plays a role in a potential mother's decision regarding whether or not to have a child.(22)
Marriage Missions describes the problem thusly:
“With the advent of so many dual career marriages, the division of domestic responsibilities has become a major source of marital conflict. Changes in our cultural values have contributed greatly to the problem, because there is now almost unanimous agreement that both a husband and wife should share these responsibilities, particularly child care. But change in behavior has not kept pace with the change in values. ... Domestic responsibilities are a time bomb in many marriages. ... When does it explode? It’s when children arrive! Children create huge needs, both a greater need for income and greater domestic responsibilities. The previous division of labor is not obsolete. Both spouses must take on new responsibilities. Which ones should they take? In most modern marriages, both spouses opt for income, leaving the domestic responsibilities to whoever will volunteer. It’s a recipe for disaster, at least for most working women, because they end up doing most of the housework and child care, resenting their husbands’ lack of support.”(23)
Now, one thing I must point out, in the interest of full-disclosure, is that a person's perception of how appreciated a particular role is culturally substantially affects his or her degree of dis-satisfaction or resentment for shouldering household chores, especially those related to offspring. One study specifically controlled for this variable and concluded that “This reduction in satisfaction disappeared after accounting for perceived social appreciation of individual contributions.”(24) So if the dominant culture assigned high status to the performance of chores related to child-rearing, the fact that men weren't pulling their weight in that department wouldn't be as big of a deal.
But, the simple fact is that we don't live in such a culture. If anything, we live in quite the opposite. Therefore, husbands generally need to "smarten up" on this issue. The woman from the Enjoli commercial who can “bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan and never let you forget you're a man” is a strictly fictional creation.
When the wife puts in a full day on the job just like the husband, it is entirely reasonable for her to expect some assistance. While I realize that there are certain tasks, such as ironing, that studies say men don't adapt well to performing(25); the vast majority of housework is well within the average man's abilities to perform. Husbands need to honestly assess whether they are doing their fair share of housework, and if they aren't, undertake certain assigned responsibilities in cooperation with their wives.
If you're a man, I'm absolutely not kidding you when I say that something as simple as turning off the football game, getting up and doing the dishes can make all the difference in the world as to whether or not a baby is in your future.
We've covered a lot of ground today in the exploration of the causes of low birthrates among our Folk. In our next podcast in this series, we'll be covering the substantial contributions of radical feminism to this problem.
Until then, please keep in mind that the problems we face are entirely surmountable through dedication and effort. As my friend and colleague Frank Roman says: “We are not asking for a lot from a few European Americans, but we are asking for a little from many.”
This has been John Young from European Americans United. Thank you for joining me again today.
(1)This is indicative of something very important. Long before Europeans ever came to Africa, the Africans were feeding themselves just fine at population levels sustainable by their own indigenous technology. It is only in the wake of widespread dissemination of European culture and our technological artifacts that starvation has become widespread in Africa. When non-Europeans adopt European culture, it is to their detriment.
(2) Eberstadt, N. (2005), White Families Are in Trouble, Too; Published by the American Enterprise Institute, http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.23048/pub_detail.asp
(4) Effects of Divorce (2001)
(5) McElroy, Wendy (2003) The Marriage Strike, http://www.ejfi.org/Civilization/Civilization-12.htm
(7)Sailer, Steve (2008), Value Voters, http://amconmag.com/article/2008/feb/11/00016/
(11) McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 319
(12)Sailer, Steve (2008), Value Voters, http://amconmag.com/article/2008/feb/11/00016/
(13)Expenditures on Children by Families, 2007. United States Department of Agriculture
(14) Ramsey, N. & McCorduck P. (2005), Where are the Women in Information Technology?
(15) Menon, V. (2008), Blackberry or Spouse? You Choose. http://www.thestar.com/News/Columnist/article/501286
(16) Hall, Roberta (1972), The Demographic Transition: Stage Four
(17) Council of Economic Advisors (1999), Families and the Labor Market 1969-1999: Analyzing the Time Crunch
(18) MSNBC News, March 17, 2007 “Study Ties day care to some behavioral problems.”
(19) Burgart, Brand and House (2006), Population Studies Center Research Report: Job Insecurity and Health in the United States
(21) Goodman, Ellen (2005), Academia is unfriendly to professors who want to be mothers, Deseret News (Salt Lake City), Jan 21, 2005
(22) Perry-Jenkins & Folk (1994), Class, Couples, and Conflict: Effects of the Division of Labor on Assessments of Marriage in Dual-Earner Families, Journal of Marriage and the Family, v56 n1 p165-80 Feb 1994
(23) Marriage Missions, How to Create a Fair Division of Labor
(24) Klumb, Hoppmann and Stats(2006), Division of Labor in German Dual-Earner Families: Testing Equity Theoretical Hypotheses, Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 68 Issue 4.
(25) Moir, Anne (2000), Why Men Don't Iron: The Fascinating and Unalterable Differences Between Men and Women
News Source: Author