Women who claim they “want to have it all”, a career and a family

One of the more ludicrous claims of feminist-minded women is that they “want to have it all”, by which they mean they would like to have both a career and a family. Of course, the issue is that this is only possible in a very limited interpretation of “career” and “family”, namely, it only works when looking at surface appearances. I have certainly noticed that women are much more concerned with appearances than substance. Now I could point out how they like glittery clothes, even if they are of poor quality, or how they all want to have “a degree”, just because they assume academic degrees to have value by itself, regardless of the subject they are in.

Women who aim for a degree sometimes seem to lack an understanding that putting a BA, MA, or PhD behind one’s name isn’t all that important. After all, if there is any value to be conveyed by those titles, it is largely due to the knowledge holders of said degrees are equipped with. This fact is normally not acknowledged by feminists who push for more womyn in tech. Your skills are important, not so much your actual degree. Of course, there are some caveats, but let’s just throw this out there: a STEM degree from a middling institution will likely open a lot more doors than a degree in b.s. from the same place. Thus, I find the attitude so common in the US that any degree is a good degree, or libshits claiming that they went to “collage” means they should automatically get a good job so grating.

But what has all of this to do with womyn who want to have it all? Well, similarly they only care about the check box to tick. Oh, they have one kid, so technically they have a family. Then, they have work, even if it’s not full-time, so it’s a “career”. However, doing a piss-poor job on both fronts does not mean that you have it all. Raising kids, when done properly, is, by and large, a full-time job. Of course, this implies that the woman keeps the house in order, prepares elaborate nutritious means instead of microwaved crap, and checks up on the kids’ homework.

Likewise, having a “career” normally entails significant sacrifices. In fact, it’s a bit of a gamble because the deal is normally that you work really hard for many years, and if things work out, you may end up working even harder. What also might happen is that things change. Sometimes, entire industries collapse, for instance, which tanks career prospects in a, well, rather democratic manner. Oh, and even if you don’t need to put in more hours at work, it is likely that you’ll have to make other sacrifices, like traveling for work assignments, or commuting to less desirable locations. If you really want to pursue a career, then chances are that you won’t be able to be very involved with your family, which is indeed what many career-minded men regret, namely that they barely see their kids.

Yet, there is an easy solution which makes it possible that womyn can have it all:

1) Call anything a family that involves kids, even if they are from different fathers.

2) Claim that it’s still a family even if dad got dragged out of the house on false accusations of domestic violence.

3) Use “career” as a synonym for “job”, and claim that every job is a career. If push comes to shove, welfare payments are a valid substitute for a job and, consequently, a career.

In the end, you will have a lot of women who “have it all”, even though they have gotten a really shitty deal as opposed to women who stayed at home, properly raised their kids, and made their husband happy.

What do you think? Let me know in the comments below, but keep the comment policy in mind.
Please support my work with a donation; your contribution is greatly appreciated! If you need further advice, then get my books or arrange a Skype or email consultation.

23 thoughts on “Women who claim they “want to have it all”, a career and a family

  1. Another trend I notice is a bunch of b.s. jobs/careers catered or customized for women. You touched on those “buzz” titles like “Growth hacker” in lieu of “marketing manager”.

    But now I see crap like “Chief Happiness Officer” and “Chief Diversity Officer”.

    Do a quick google search and you see ‘chief diversity officer’ held by the dual-zinger: a Womyn of Colour. take for example this LinkedIn profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/cynthiaharrisbowman/

    I guess the only “upside” is that banks and other big corporations have to do this for the ‘corporate social responsibility’.

    Who the hell comes up with these bogus movements? (E.g. corporate social responsibility seems an oxymoron…i mean, don’t banks layoff, dole out mortgages to financially unfit people, etc etc????) But I guess it’s smart in that these companies can neutralize any of their bad activities…by keeping the social justice warriors happy.

    1. Chief happiness officer… hahahaa great one.
      That reminds me of an anecdote at my former employer. So, a product specialist from the Asset Management division and I have a chat about upcomming investmentfunds they’ll launch, and a female colleague (40+, easily 25 kg to much, well beyond having hit the wall), chimes in and says “Oh, what about the gender diversity theme for a fund, you know like, I heard our chief investment office talk about how companies with more women are more profitable and have less risk?”
      My colleague just turned over to me and said: “Gender diversity – can you short that?”
      Needless to say, our female colleague was not pleased… 🙂

  2. I just love the current Silicon Valley gender diversity backlash panic. More and more guys in Silicon Valley are speaking out against this gender diversity shit.

  3. Having it all is like fried ice once enough women want it. Most women refuse to marry down and so every woman who get high enough in the social hierarchy is having a hard time finding a partner. In the first generation of feminist, the only woman in the office could hope to find a partner among male peers because she was alone and there was so many men. Now we are in a situation where women complain about the wage gap and about the lack of suitable men at the same time. None of the having it all crowd seems to realize that if the income of women and men become equall it mean a very large percentage of women will have to marry down. In every domain that as some importance for the social hierarchy, feminist will complain about patriarchy if men clearly dominate and complain about men droping out and lack of worthy men if men don’t keep up.

    1. “if the income of women and men become equall”
      It is already equal. If you compare the quality of each gender’s output and the respective compensation you will see that there’s no inequality.
      Not that I want to kick off the gender-pay-gap bullshit discussion here. I think we all agree that it is… well… bullshit.

    2. Millennial women already out-earn millennial men. The top earning jobs are still done by men. Most of the middle management jobs go to women however. And still they won’t pay a net tax over their lifetime. Men don’t just compete with other men. They have to compete with the government. The middle income in the US is 50k. A single mother on welfare and a minimum wage job has a 65k income. She’s financially better off as a single mother instead of marrying down with a man earning a middle income. So even the minimum wage earning women are not that interested in middle wage earning men. Even the girl working at mcdonalds is now looking for men earning 65k as a minimum requirement. Most women that did even a little college will set the minimum at 100k.

    3. As far as I looked into it, most serious economists agree that most of the so called gender pay gap can be explained by factors other than gender.

      However a small fraction of it seems to be gender related, not because of any patriarchy, but because women on average are less competitive and dont negotiate their compensation as agressively as men.

      I recently saw Jordan Peterson make this point too on Joe Rogans show.

    4. @ben

      Got any sources to back these numbers up?
      If that’s the picture in the US then good night.

      “A single mother on welfare and a minimum wage job has a 65k income.”
      How many kids?
      (Sounds like a lot of cash, considering that she’ll pay less taxes on it than a man earning 65k straight.)

  4. The concept of having it all needs to be left behind. Everyone should strive for what they want, and really take the time to contemplate what they want, not what any point in society says what they should want. For example, what I want right now is freedom. I know I can’t have that with a corporate career, and I know I can’t have that if I have kids. That’s why I am not pursuing either of those. So far, so good.

    1. So you want neither a career nor a family. Sure, that’s one way of solving the problem. But keep in mind that your eggs will make themselves noticeable sooner rather than later.

    2. You can do whatever you want. The consequences however are often disappointing for women. Many women feel the same when they are younger. Lot’s of them end up crying in their 40’s. It’s your life. If you’re okay with the possible consequences. He good luck.

  5. Neutralrandomthoughts: 3 kids. And she pay’s no net tax at all. Women as a group still dont pay a net tax. Even most of the millennial women that out-earn the millennial men. Will receive more government benefits then they will pay tax in their lifetime. As a group, only white and asian men pay a net tax. All other groups will receive more money from the government then they will pay in tax. Yes good night for the US. And sadly to say. Some European countries are even worse. And with the migrant influx it’s going to shit even faster. The welfare state will claps. Nothing can save it now. Good news is that after the claps women will understand why they need men. Most will die without a man.

    1. Just look at Greece. They had a large middle class. Girls that grew up in the middle class saying “i dont need a man”. Are now prostituting them selfs on the streets for the price of a sandwich. Most of them have a college degree and are now fucking tourists for just 2 euro’s.

    2. Neutralrandomthoughts: Women are not independent in the western world. The government is taking money from men and giving it to women. White males are paying the bill. And at the same time they are blamed for everything bad in society. They are biting the hand that feeds them. One of many reasons i decided to leave the western world. I’m not paying for this leftwing party anymore. In the Netherlands we have many different kinds of taxes. If i combine all my taxes together i pay a total of 85%. In Thailand i only pay 10%.

    3. 85% tax is a lot.
      Do you base that on your gross annual salary? Because if we assume that to live a bit above minimum in NL one needs say net 1600 €, that would mean you’d have a gross salary of 10,5k +. OK, I’m not taking into account tge progressive steepening of the tax percentage curve, but… 85%… I’m just saying, this looks like a rather huge base in terms of gross salary to begin with.
      Maybe I’m just deluded by Swiss standards, although even if you happen to have your tax domicile in Geneva you’d pay 42% on 250k taxable income. Move to canton Schwyz and it drops to 28% lol.
      Anyway, happy to hear more details if you don’t mind.

    4. 85% seems very high, however, don’t forget to add all the taxes paid for you by your employer, such as payroll tax. This can be a sizable amount of money. In Sweden, for instance, the total tax burden based on that calculation is up to around 2/3!

    5. “such as payroll tax”
      Payroll tax in NL at least is just a fancy word which describes social security.
      Effectively the only “income” related deduction being part of the payroll tax is “wage tax” which is “an advance levy of income tax”. The rest is pretty much health care and other suck-me-dry-via-social-security-my-dear-goverment shit which the employer pays.


      So (not that it matters) we are talking about social contribution, not taxes. But you can’t really claim that, because you consume it, too in the form of healthcare and pension. Yes, we can have the discussion if you should not be able to chose, how you insure yourself instead of being forced by some ridiculous standards set by daddy government.
      If we speak about social contributions then 85% seem totally reasonable. I remember the rule of thumb from my time in France, that an employee costs the employer the “net salary” times 1,8-2,2. Mind you, the employee still pays income tax on his socalled net salary. Leftist shithole, I tell you. Not even talking about 27,5% corporate profit tax… how to kill growth, but I digress.
      Makes sense now, Ben.

  6. If you are a white man living in the western world. Get out! Save your self. Just leave. There are many places that are much better. The Western world is doomed. Nothing can save it. It’s game over. I’m finishing some bisness and after that i’ll leave and never come back. I’m not taking this shit anymore. If you don’t have the financial means, start preparing now. And don’t put all your money in one place. When the ship go’s down they will block your bank account. You won’t be able to withdraw your money.

  7. @shaking my head, If you knew what growth hacking is, you would know that it is far from traditional marketing stuff. Data scientist is a trendy job title too nowadays, but good luck to you if you want to improvise yourself as a data scientist.

    Growth hacking is about being creative with technology in order to attract more customers and without having to invest money into it. Ok yes, put like that it sounds like marketing. But it also involves getting some strong developing/computing skills, being creative, and doing nearly illegal things most of the time.

    I have never met any women doing that stuff yet -even if there may be some.

    1. I have a few “Growth Hackers” among my contacts in LinkedIn. It’s just a fancy title for people working in Marketing. It does not involve serious technical skills.

      With regards to “Data Science”, you are mistaken. There are countless people who happily started using that label in the hope of propelling their careers. This includes even people from non-technical career paths, like business graduates.

    2. Speaking of data scientists, I recently watched a video in which a Russian chick made the claim that traditional academic training background (like brick and mortar universities) could no longer offer adequate preparation for a data scientist career. So, according to her, one can start with this career by learning traditional math topics like Calculus, Linear Algebra, etc via…Khan Academy. And when I look at the profiles of real data scientists, they are all Phd from some universities. That’s when I know she is just selling something.

      Khan Academy is great if you are looking for an introduction to a certain topics, but it cannot replace a hard and rigorous course offered by a traditional university. To become a data scientist, I think one needs to be as qualified as someone who will become a quant (that is someone with a Phd in Maths or Physics).

    3. I wouldn’t overestimate PhDs because they are normally over-specialized. After a research-based Master’s, you should be in a position to do independent research as well, but this would be a very minor part os your job as Data Scientist. Quite frankly, data science is yet another example of hype-driven bullshit, and everyone is jumping on the band-waggon. There are perfectly adequate degrees like Mathematical Statistics or Applied Mathematics, but now universities offer specialized degrees in Data Science as well, which are often little more than a cash grab. For instance, I noticed that entry requirements tend to be lower than for proper quantitative degrees. Thus, I have a hard time believing that someone with a new-fangled degree in that field could compete with someone with a traditional education in Mathematical Statistics. In Data Science degrees, they often dumb down the maths and add a few very applied courses, but that is material you can quickly pick up yourself. On a side note, this reminds me of some buffoon recently posting on LinkedIn something alone the lines of “Statistics is the science studying the past, while Data Science is the science studying the future”. Of course, a lot of ill-informed people happily “liked” that comment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *