http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/12/12/upshot/the-rise-of-men-who-dont-work-and-what-they-do-instead.html?referrer=&_r=0

In the late 1960s, almost all men between the ages of 25 and 54 went to work. Only about 5 out of every 100 did not have a job in any given week. By 2000, this figure had more than doubled, to 11 out of every 100 men. This year, it’s 16. (People in the military, prison and institutions are excluded from these figures.)

The upshot is, while not addressed in the article although the data is obvious, men have no need for society. A society in which men don’t participate is doomed.

My favorite comment from Prague of course, no American man has the b~~~~ to say so:

Marriage and family were the main reasons men worked. But women flooded the labor market and there were then fewer eligible men. No woman will marry and give children to an unemployed man.

But it was men that made women wealthy. Single women with children are impoverished. Or they just don’t have children and work. It’s a society in the process of imploding.

Destroy men, destroy the family.

I say let the women go to work and pay for their lazy sisters to sit on their butts.

I’m working on the band I’ve started and living off a small early retirement which is plenty sufficient for me and me only.

I hope I’m around to see it burst.

This is indeed good news. A few bricks in the dam loosing up I hope I’m around to see it burst.

Fermat wrote:

Yes women have flooded the labor market but still expect men to work high income jobs when the number of jobs in the US hasn’t changed much. Higher education will very soon be female dominated. There will be a spike in female employment in 20 years. The math predicts this. The job market is looking grim for men.

Let the little hamsters run their asses of as we sit back and laugh at the fall of this civilization, you know, the one feminism barbequed to a black crispy charcoal crunch!

The job market is looking grim for men.

True, as far as office drone work goes. No disagreement there. However I propose an exception or two.

1. STEM jobs. Men still outnumber in college educated STEM professionals. The fact is, women are not willing to take on the math and science necessary.
2. Doing things. Do women fix air conditioners? Do they fix automobiles? Do they keep big rig trucks running? Do they put on new roofs in August?
No, that is man’s work.
Women sit in air conditioned offices with roofs that do not leak and type at keyboards while sipping sugary drinks some trucker delivered to their vending machines.

1. STEM jobs. Men still outnumber in college educated STEM professionals. The fact is, women are not willing to take on the math and science necessary.

2. Doing things. Do women fix air conditioners? Do they fix automobiles? Do they keep big rig trucks running? Do they put on new roofs in August? No, that is man’s work. Women sit in air conditioned offices with roofs that do not leak and type at keyboards while sipping sugary drinks some trucker delivered to their vending machines.

I’d agree with this assessment.  Labor jobs are always going to be dominated by men.  If just simple physics…the average healthy, fit male you’d expect to find in a labor job is probably going to weigh in the 160-220lb range…where as the average fit female is going to be in the 120-150lb range simply because they tend to be shorter and have less muscle mass.  If you have to do grunt work men are just superior for the task.  Sure you will have some wimpy men, and some bullish women who can put some guys to shame…but on average a group of guys is going to get a physical task done more quickly and with less chance of wear and tear related injury on their body since they are using less of their full potential to get a task done.  Its simply easier for a 200lb guy to lift 50lbs, walk 50 feet, and put it down than it is for a 120lb woman.  Its the same for trades as well…most women just simply don’t want to get their hands dirty.

STEM jobs I’d also agree with.  We’ll probably see more women going into them…but the thing with STEM jobs is they generally require a lot of learning/training on the job even after schooling, and require continuous training over the years, and because of that, a lot of employers want career oriented, dedicated employees.  Again like labor jobs…there will be some women that get into STEM fields and can hang with the guys…but as an employer, beyond government mandates that force you to higher certain percentages of women, if you had a 25 year old man, and a 25 year old woman both applying for a job who had equivalent degrees and and both interviewed equally well, why would you take the woman over the man when you know at some point in the next 5 years the woman is probably going to go out on maternity leave, and might just decide to be a SAHM.  You can literally invest a year in training and mentoring a new hire before they really start to have any value to your company, and shortly after that she could milk you for maternity leave, burn all her vacation and sick time, then inform you she is not coming back to work.  Giant waste of money…corporate America knows this…they just can’t get around affirmative action bulls~~~.

But besides from that I think the increase in men retiring early is a great indicator of the growth of MGTOW.  Expect to see this trend continue over the next decade as MGTOW becomes more wide spread.  As more men are deciding not to marry and hand their paychecks over to the wife, and more men are avoiding the financial slaughter of divorce court, I think the number of guys who in their 40s or 50s realize they have enough money for a lifetime and opting to retire early is going to increase at an accelerated pace.

No woman will marry and give children to an unemployed man.

give?  Give? GIVE?

How about the word inflict?  How about, unilateral decision to a man?

How about the truth?  No woman will marry and give themselves children with an unemployed man.

H.R. Pufnstuf wrote:

No woman will marry and give children to an unemployed man.

give? Give? GIVE? How about the word inflict? How about, unilateral decision to a man? How about the truth? No woman will marry and give themselves children with an unemployed man.

To women it’s all subconscious cost-benefits analysis running as a resident program in the background (can’t blame them for that, I wish men exercised it more often as well). If at any point C/BA of staying married to a man goes above the C/BA of being married to the government – man is out the door, hello you sexy uncle Sam

If 2 young broke people are getting married, the guy probably isn’t thinking much about a potential C/BA of his marriage 10 years down the road, but as the average first time marriage age is now up around 30, I think a C/BA because a pretty common thing if one partner is dragging a six figure debt load around while the other is debt free.  The problem is only compounded by income differentials and life style choices.  If you are making 70k a year, debt free, live below your means, and prioritize retirement savings as you want to retire early, are you really going to want to become financially tied to someone making 30k a year with a six figure debt load who maxes out every credit card she can get her hands on, and wants to spend all her income, all your income, and still isn’t satisfied?  If you have a good credit history and saving habits any potential partner that does not have the same should be treated like they have ebola.