What it took Men to support the Family later converted to become what was termed Employment
Alan Lee Millard
In the past one job equaled one family because what it took to originally support the family later converted to become what was termed employment or a job. The male resource of support/labor existed as a biological entity first and was later converted to employment. Life on the farm often was self-reliant and reminiscent of this more basic arrangement, occurring before money/currency was invented by governments. (Trade and bartering were common amongst people outside the government’s control.) Indeed, one family equaled one job because the job originated to match the needs of the family from the more basic arrangement when the mere role performed by one man matched, sufficing for the survival of a woman and offspring. There were originally no jobs but the male and his attributes as a resource to support life with his labor and ingenuity necessary to perform role tasks later converted to paid employment. That part of the male’s self-worth and socio-biological construct remains within but gutted of its opportunity to be expressed or implemented to its full potential. It’s also further tapped as when a male is enslaved to pay alimony and state-defined child support. Increased male suicide is centered around a man’s inability to gain and maintain resources and the acquisition to life’s fulfillment (e.g. mating and sexual acquisition) dependent upon it. It’s a familia human construct of nature that was later converted to something taken out of context of its original form necessary for human survival, ignorantly used by women (feminists) to claim an inequality. There was no effort or intention by men to dominate women but instead a bio-sociological derivative from a human evolutionary process taken out of context of the past to appear like an inequality of the present.
A mismatch now exists in our human biogenetic dynamics which was coerced upon society by government-imposed Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO). Controlling labor (male resources) to enable women to freely access the male resource caused more poverty/government dependence by taking resources from many and giving them to fewer, often producing couples with twice as much comparative income and another two people with twice as less income compared to a matched set in the past prior to this forced societal change.
When EEO was first implemented men felt violated much as women would if their sexual value (female resource commodity) were to be forcefully taken from them. ‘No woman should take a job from a man who has a family or potential family to support’ was common sentiment by both men and women. ‘A man needs to secure a good job and steady income to be prepared to have a wife and family’ was common knowledge. The only source countering this sentiment was coming from our colleges and universities, not the people. (As communists claimed they would, they infiltrated this medium to implement feminist indoctrination from which source its influence spread like a cancer into professions, occupations, and government positions wherever these educated idiots went.)
But ingrained within, men are often the first to discount their own needs (even if those needs include others) because they have been programmed to discount themselves as part of their manhood/masculine identity to serve women. Men as pawns are therefore played from both ends against the middle by women, with no regard for themselves in the process.
However, times to come reveal more than a sacrifice of the male’s basic self-worth but of his equal rights, with persecution and outright misandry expressed by many women and men alike. Men are even blamed for their prior role for being the ones only having jobs, which, if we understand the origination of employment, is as ridiculous as blaming women for their unique female attributes also derived by nature. But worse, women brought to the job (male resource) a lack of objectivity and defiance that never existed prior in the employer/employee arrangement amongst men, and were granted an authority above their employers by government coercion, with their high-horse egos (exaggerated female pride/entitlement mindset) taking precedence over men in their own element. Only chivalry and a pedestal status could have ever allowed this to occur. Sexual harassment and equal pay lawsuits, never before existing, came into the picture due to the female intrusion along with ridiculous female hiring quotas and rules that included weakening occupational standards set for professions to somehow compensate for female ineptness. The female’s higher status trumped what was best needed (professional/occupational standards set) for society. And even the proud stance representing the U.S. of equal justice for all was forfeited to the extent of commandeering our U.S. Constitution by the VAWA, Title IX, and discriminatory laws applying to sexual encounters that completely defy acceptable reasonable-man standards of the past.
The release of the female’s power, like opening Pandora’s box, into society began a series of societal events with unforeseen, never-ending, and devastating consequences. Many had no idea of the destructive power wielded by women, mostly due to their control over men—very effectual when women’s standing came into society out of the home where it was contained. (On a few occasions, this female power has overtly leaked to cause severe harm, however, as to include the Salem With Trials and many black lynchings in the South.) People must merely look within themselves to see where the injustice is held, with the male’s identity sculptured to serve women. (Only with some truthful self-reflection does this internal analogy create amongst many men a degree of cognitive dissonance—a mental conflict that is hard to face.) Yet, the very role men used to serve women in the past women were now tapping and depleting in the present. A mindful man could see the destructive hypocrisy taking place. Women, spoiled by men, wanted more than they already had, yet men, the true deserving recipients yet to receive an equality status to women, were then fated to deal with less self-worth and endure more persecution to come.
Both male and female partners (role incumbents) now have to work away from the home to make ends meet. Government and big business benefit by getting two workers for the comparative price of one at the expense of the family and a bonding between men and women that existed prior. The male resources attached to men that kept society strong, due to the cohesion that underlies a solid social structure, and the correlating male self-worth that matches, may never again be given back to a society that benefits from it.
To devalue men of their resourcefulness or what equates to modern-day earning identity/potential and not attribute recognition to men for their self-reliant ability and personal attributes would be like not attributing any sexual value/attraction, combined with no personal recognition, to women. The recognition must not be for a man’s use any more than the sexual value of women should be derived from women being used but due to his potential and value applied to his self-worth as a man—thus his male capacity/ability, a biogenetic-derived self-worth that he carries within himself just as does a female in possession of her female biogenetic attributes.
Read Millard’s latest book, A Flaw From Within: How Women’s Higher Status Defies Equal Justice, Violates Men, and Destroys Society.
