Babies? We don’t need no stinking babies! The genius of Amanda Marcotte. Again.

7 Feb


There are two kinds of dumb in this world:  bag of hammers dumb, and Amanda Marcotte.  She’s a blogger at Slate Magazine’s Double XX feature, and she has really outdone herself this time.


America Is Doomed Unless Women Start Having More Babies. How Convenient.

Hmm.  Really?  That’s interesting.  I know we can blame men for ALMOST EVERYTHING, but declining fertility, too? For fuck’s sake, men, would you please start having babies? What, you think women should do everything?  Sorry lads, we’re too busy working on oil rigs and flunking out of STEM courses to have babies.

Who needs babies, anyways?

Oh, just, you know, the ENTIRE WORLD.  I could be wrong, and correct me if you think so, but I believe babies actually grow into adults and without them, WE HAVE NO SOCIETY.

Let’s look at Amanda’s first sentence (her grammar improves, trust me).

Ever since it became less socially acceptable to argue openly that women—at least white, middle-class women—owe it to men to curtail our professional ambitions in favor of a life as our husbands’ support staff, conservatives started to panic about declining birth rates.

Ladies, you must not curtail your professional ambitions.  And what are those professional ambitions?  Oh yeah, to work as SUPPORT STAFF for someone who is NOT your husband.

Yay, ladies!  Don’t be support staff for the man you love!  Go and do it for someone else.


Ok, that’s just one job.  I hear you.  What are the other jobs?



Retail sales clerks

Home health care workers




Childcare workers

So, let’s see.  Women found being a housewife so terribly dull and dreary and oppressive that they flocked to the labor market to teach children their alphabet, tend to the sick, fold clothes, care for the elderly, cook food, fetch food, clean house and take care of small children. And that’s just all the ladies who couldn’t find a cushy job organizing a man’s professional life.

Organizing, tending, fetching, wiping noses and asses, cooking and cleaning.

Wow.  Those are some pretty big ambitions.  Kinda makes you wonder, doesn’t it?  If it’s not the actual JOB that women dislike, since they clearly don’t mind doing those things for OTHER people, what is it that women didn’t like?

We’ll get to that.  For now, let’s go back to our favorite little retard, Amanda.


And don’t give me any crap about using the word “retard”.  Retard DOES NOT mean someone with Down Syndrome any more than gay means “effervescently happy” or computer means “someone who does calculations”. Language evolves.  It’s called semantic change, and it’s WHAT language IS.

To save America, women, especially those aforementioned pesky middle-class, white women, are going to have to start having more babies at a younger age, the argument goes. That this demand means that women will end up curtailing their ambitions and moving into the support-staff role is simply a coincidence, of course. Nothing to see here.

Uhm, Amanda?  WOMEN HAVE NEVER LEFT THEIR SUPPORT STAFF ROLE.  That is what they do, by and large.  Women are not building airplanes or crafting bridges or curing cancer or designing new technologies or searching for the Higgs-Boson.  They are SUPPORT STAFF for the MEN who are building airplanes and crafting bridges and curing cancer and designing new technologies and searching for the Higgs-Boson (it’s not a done deal, yet folks!).


And those are the ambitious ones.  The rest of them are fetching and carrying food and sorting out shit on shelves or scanning things across a bar-code reader (designed by men!) or taking care of children, the sick or the elderly.

Your outliers don’t mean shit.  Look at the facts.  The doors have been thrown open to women for decades, and most of them are still housewives.

They’re just not at home.

If women don’t want to have more children, then instead of abandoning women’s equality as a goal, we should rework our economic system so it doesn’t rely on a steadily growing population to function.

WOMEN’S EQUALITY?  Equal to what? Because it sure as hell isn’t men.

Where is our Mozart?

Where is our Galileo?

Where is our Hawking?

Where is our Mersenne?


Oh, wait, I know.  She’s busy getting an order of wings ready.


Let’s rework our economic system, shall we?

First of all, ladies, stop going to college.  Seriously.  Just stop.  Most of what you study is complete and utter bullshit (film theory degree here).  You don’t need an exhaustive knowledge of the Sonnets of the Portuguese to be a secretary.  You need to know your alphabet, how to tell time and the days of the week.

Secondly, get out of the labor market during your reproductive years.  Stop taking care of other people’s children and parents and husbands and go take care of your own.  You can get to filing shit alphabetically AFTER you have made your contribution to society by raising stable, happy, healthy children and supporting a man who is probably out there doing something useful.


Those two things combined would have quite an impact.  First of all, the labor market would contract dramatically and wages for men would rise correspondingly, allowing them to support a wife and young family.  Funding that is currently being poured into Children’s Literature and Urban Anthropology would go instead to the STEM fields, where all the real innovation and work is done.  By men, of course.  Social spending by the government would decline as women contribute more to the care of children and the elderly.  Federal tax revenues would stay about the same, because the fact is that while there are MORE jobs in the current labor market, there is not more MONEY.  The money would shift to men, and they would pay tax as usual on that income.  If anything, reduced need for social spending would lower the government’s outlay, giving them MORE money to spend on defence and debt repayment and infrastructure.


So why don’t women want to do this?

Because it would make them dependent on a man during their reproductive years.  They would need to rely on a man for income, and if you are going to rely on a man, you will have to give him something in return for that.  His own children, first of all.  Oh my.  Well that will require fidelity, won’t it? #sorrysluts


If he is heading out into the labor market every day, earning a wage for all of you, you will have to accommodate the stresses and anxieties that entails.  How do you do that?


Be nice.  Cook.  Clean.  Take of the children. Teach them manners and how to read and how to count.  Take care of your parents.  His and yours.  Keep the house organized.  Fold clothes.  Book your appointments and needs around his schedule.  Watch your finances.  Don’t spend too much money.


In other words, do all the jobs that women do in the labor market.  Secretary, teacher, retail sales clerk, home care worker, nurse, waitress, cook and maid.

But don’t do it for money.  Do it for love.  Love for your husband, love for your children, love for your parents, love for your country.  The alternative is to do everything for yourself.  Your own goals (be a secretary!), your own ambitions (fetch people food!), your own fulfilment (fold clothes at the Gap!), your own actualization (I never see my children!).

There is plenty of time to get to being a secretary or a waitress or a teacher.  Children are only young for a short period of time.  The real problem with people like Amanda is that she has uncritically accepted a male timeline for achieving what she defines as “equality”. Go to college, repay horrendous loans, build a “career” (if you can call being a secretary a career) – all during a woman’s reproductive years.  The result is obvious:  no babies.


All to avoid being dependant on a man for a few years. Amanda is probably one of those feminists who would claim that she “loves men”.  And yet, she’s terrified of them.  She has bought, hook line and sinker, the idea that men are abusive power-mongers who will oppress and mistreat their dependent wives and children without remorse or hesitation.  And she is hell-bent on making sure other women believe that, too.

And we all pay for that.  Dearly. The consequences will be stark when we have failed to produce the next generation.  The most important thing we lose is love. Feminism has destroyed the family, destroyed the love between men and women and destroyed the love between parents and children.

How very sad.

True love, and true happiness comes from loving another person.  For most of us, the greatest love we will ever know will be for our children.


Who needs babies?  We all do.  Without them, we have nothing.

There is only one happiness in this life, to love and be loved.

George Sand

Lots of love,


86 Responses to “Babies? We don’t need no stinking babies! The genius of Amanda Marcotte. Again.”

  1. Mik February 7, 2013 at 15:01 #

    Damn. Article hits like a sledgehammer. Another great write up. Keep it comin’.


  2. pumpsix February 7, 2013 at 15:48 #

    What I find funny is that Amanda is an English Lit major. Talk about a worthless degree.


  3. judgybitch February 7, 2013 at 15:50 #

    She could have got the same training with a library card and a bus pass.


  4. Erudite Knight February 7, 2013 at 15:58 #

    Ha, nice find from her article: ‘To save America, women, especially those aforementioned pesky middle-class, white women, are going to have to start having more babies at a younger age, the argument goes.’

    Yes, that is indeed how the argument goes. Just saying it sarcastical does not make the argument have less validity.


  5. Leap of a Beta February 7, 2013 at 16:02 #

    I always find it funny how much we romanticize and worship the concept of true love. Of doing things for love. Of finding love. Of sacrifice for love

    Then today’s women dont do anything to even look for love.

    Its like all the mass media of tv and literature about love is a mental masturbation women do because they know their actions are screwing over their search and they dont even care


  6. judgybitch February 7, 2013 at 16:14 #

    I think a lot of that is because they don’t have children. There is nothing like a newborn to teach you about love. What looks like sacrifice turns out to be pure joy.

    I loved my husband before I married him, but there was nothing like holding our daughter to cement that bond.


  7. pumpsix February 7, 2013 at 16:19 #

    And a “$1.50 in late fees…”

    I just want to bang my head against the wall. I can’t believe someone so ignorant holds so much sway over the minds of other people. Oh well, I guess we all better just enjoy the decline.


  8. M3 February 7, 2013 at 16:22 #

    You know what we need to have more babies?

    More women. Less feminists.

    Problem solved.

    To what address can i send Marotte the bill?

    @ Leap

    “the concept of true love. Of doing things for love. Of finding love. Of sacrifice for love”

    When was the last time you EVER saw a feminist sacrifice ANYTHING other than a man’s penis on the alter of the great Feminist deity Buhguul?

    @ Erudite

    “To save America, women, especially those aforementioned pesky middle-class, white women, are going to have to start having more babies at a younger age, the argument goes. ”

    No, more deficient babies at older beyond peak fetility years to careerist carousel women who can divorce their non 5 minutes of alpha beat bux men and be all they can be as single mothers sending their kids off to daycare while they play paper pusher or mobile infantry.

    Yup, that’s how to save America.

    Seriously… has ANYONE thought about putting Marcunt in an MRI unit to find out what went wrong with her brains development?


  9. M3 February 7, 2013 at 16:28 #

    “Yay, ladies! Don’t be support staff for the man you love! Go and do it for someone else.”

    Or dress sexy for the man you love. Go do it for someone else. 🙂


  10. judgybitch February 7, 2013 at 16:34 #

    Ha! That’s great, M3!

    I wear yoga pants at home, I confess, but I look fucking great in yoga pants!


  11. M3 February 7, 2013 at 16:40 #

    You don’t know how often i hear women speak of how their children are their world/their life and so happy they had them.

    This isn’t rocket science. Biologically women were built to do one thing and one thing well. Have children and rear them to be our next generation (as your previous post so effectively put forth the genius of women)

    You can’t even call Marcotte a women. She promotes abdication of the one primary function that makes a woman a woman.

    She’s advocating people who would buy a Ferrarri to drive the car only in school zones doing 30km/h.


  12. TMG February 7, 2013 at 16:56 #

    The social services that most women so desperately cry for are dependent on taxpayers footing the bill.

    Men, being the pack animals of humanity, know we can’t rely on anyone to give a shit about us and prepare accordingly.

    Less babies means less taxpayers to pay for “strong and independent women” who decided to marry the government.


  13. Steve February 7, 2013 at 18:09 #

    I am not trying to be divisive or argumentative for the sake of being argumentative but I have a couple of comments in response to your article and would like a response if you have the time.

    1) You talk about reworking the economic system and then say that women won’t want to do that because it would require fidelity on their part, however what about fidelity on the part of men. This economic system puts 100% faith that the man is going to be able to find wage that supports a family, but even more so that he is going to be fully committed to that family. If he chooses to not remain faithful or just to divorce his wife, the woman in this situation due to lack of education is going to face an extremely difficult time supporting herself. It seems that is a whole lot of faith to place in an individual or the system of marriage when over 50% of them end in divorce.

    2) What place do the growing number of men and women who wish to remain child free have in this reworked economic system? Should these women also not pursue higher education?

    3) I could be wrong and if I am I apologize for misconstruing your words; but it sounds like you are advocating that a woman’s greatest contribution to society will be through her children and everything else is secondary. If that is indeed the case then a woman’s value is intrinsically tied to whether or not she has children. Personally I would like to believe that women have more value to society than their reproductive organs.


  14. Leap of a Beta February 7, 2013 at 18:12 #

    Wow. I went qnd actually read the article. All it was is an emotional tirade demonstrating how Marcotte feels persobally attacked by those pesky things called ‘facts’


  15. judgybitch February 7, 2013 at 18:26 #


    1. Most divorces are initiated by women. Take away a woman’s incentive to divorce, and you won’t see anything like a 50% divorce rate.

    2. If you plan of being “child-free”, you better be contributing something unbelievably valuable to society. It is beyond selfish to expect to have cardiologists and police officers and garbage collectors and all the other people who make society run without putting a single ounce of work into raising one of those people. Child free people can go fuck themselves, as far as I’m concerned. You better cure fucking cancer if you expect to live on the backs of the children I’ve raised.

    3.Yes, women’s main contribution is to raise children. Women are valuable for more than just that? Show me the evidence. Where are the great artists? Musicians? Where are the discoveries and talents and inventions of womankind?

    There aren’t any.

    Women make the people who make great discoveries and inventions and achieve artistic greatness. That is exactly what makes women so valuable.

    Any more questions?


  16. judgybitch February 7, 2013 at 18:35 #

    And Steve, your overly apologetic writing style, combined with your passive-aggressiveness makes me think that maybe your name is Susan, but for some reason you think you’ll get a better response if you post as a man?

    You couldn’t be more wrong.

    About a whole lot of things, evidently.


  17. Leap of a Beta February 7, 2013 at 18:49 #

    JB, you also might want to take on this article. I find it hilarious to read the slate and this Atlantic one back to back by pure chance


  18. judgybitch February 7, 2013 at 18:56 #

    We could care less what people around us think.

    There you have it in a nutshell.


  19. driversuz February 7, 2013 at 19:24 #

    JB for President!
    (with the caveat that I think your stance on childless people is a bit extreme for two reasons. Most childless people have historically been productive, even if not spectacularly so, and PLENTY of people are simply not fit to raise humans.)



  20. Kai February 7, 2013 at 20:50 #

    I don’t want to argue with your other issues, and am simply not addressing them. But I do disagree with your point about the worth of people without children.
    People who don’t have children are saving a lot of money on that prospect and can likely afford to pay for their own health care and retirement and other needs, and not need to live on the backs of your children.
    As for the general use of society, we all live on each other’s backs in that sense, and there’s no order, unless you want to restructure society completely so that raising more citizens gives you bonuses.
    Which, mind you, doesn’t actually help society, when we’re not short on people. In a small society that desperately needs more people, everyone must procreate, or they are not doing their share. In a heavily-populated world, we really aren’t in need of more numbers. For best results, for every person who has 3-4 kids, someone else needs to be having 0-1.
    People are born with different aptitudes. When people try to go into an area for which they lack skills, it doesn’t help anyone. When people try to go into parenting without the skills, it not only doesn’t help society, but it hurts the children directly, and often ends up hurting society. For the betterment of society, anyone who isn’t sure they want children should be encouraged not to have them. I agree with suggesting that they should be finding another major contribution they can make instead (hopefully they have talents in other areas, not just no talents), but suggesting they need to procreate for the sake of society really isn’t likely to help anyone, least of all their theoretical children.

    Having been raised by one, and worked with the children of many others, I’m a strong supporter of encouraging people without parenting aptitude to NOT attempt to parent.
    and I think not WANTING children whole-heartedly is a likely sign #1 in lacking the aptitude to do it.

    Heck, you could even think of it genetically. There are always some mutant genes that leave us with people who don’t desire to reproduce, but it’s just as well that they don’t do so, rather than pushing them to pass on their weird ‘don’t want to reproduce’ genes on to the next generation.


  21. Teresa Dietzinger February 7, 2013 at 22:22 #

    As far as artists go, there’ve been a few good female ones. Mary Cassat had a period when she was creative and productive.

    Her best artwork was centered around Motherhood, but her later works were apparently less well regarded for being too sentimental. And something significant happened to her later in life that was very telling:

    “A trip to Egypt in 1910 impressed Cassatt with the beauty of its ancient art, but was followed by a crisis of creativity; not only had the trip exhausted her, but she declared herself “crushed by the strength of this Art”, saying, “I fought against it but it conquered, it is surely the greatest Art the past has left us … how are my feeble hands to ever paint the effect on me.”[47] Diagnosed with diabetes, rheumatism, neuralgia, and cataracts in 1911, she did not slow down, but after 1914 she was forced to stop painting as she became almost blind. Nonetheless, she took up the cause of women’s suffrage, and in 1915, she showed eighteen works in an exhibition supporting the movement.”

    Aww. Such a tragic end for such a great talent.


  22. Ter February 8, 2013 at 00:25 #

    Toward the end, you touch on feminism’s common fear/mistrust/loathing of men in general.

    As a man, this is something I’ve been noticing a lot of lately. E.g. Often, if I’m somewhere in public (on the street, on the train, etc) and simply happen to make eye contact (expressionless) with a young woman then it’s amazing how often I’ll get a back-handed response – such as a rolling of the eyes, grimace or some kind of look of disgust. So I’m left wondering where this presumption of “He must be lusting after me” mentality comes from? Often these are women I don’t even find attractive – they just happened to be in line-of-sight. Furthermore, where this sense of entitlement and prejudice to be ‘righteously rude’ comes from?


  23. judgybitch February 8, 2013 at 00:27 #

    That comes from porn culture. Women’s porn. AKA the romance novel.


  24. Mike Hunter February 8, 2013 at 00:39 #


    1.) That’s what child support and alimony are for. In my state we have life long alimony. To me that’s crazy, and given our current society I don’t think that an adult should be able to force another adult to support them for the rest of their natural life. Women are either adults with equal rights and responsibilities; or they aren’t. Pick one.

    In any case there’s certainly no danger of women and children starving in the street. A divorcee won’t have to worry about being the sole provider for her children either. She gets an unreasonably large tax free child support payment every month for that. Also we may have a 50% divorce rate; but that’s hardly a problem of men leaving their wives. Quite the contrary in fact considering women initiate 2/3rds of all divorces.

    Personally I think things like: child support & alimony should be worked out in between a couple and put into the marriage contract while they still like each other; instead of being mandated by the government. But that’s another conversation entirely.

    2.) If women want to: remain childless, pursue higher education, or join the work force then they should be free to do so. No one’s talking about putting a gun to anyone’s head. But JB is simply pointing out that if you’re the average woman being a: nurse, secretary, teacher, or waiter during the most fertile years of your life is a bad deal!

    If a woman wants to remain childless and be a: lawyer, engineer, scientist, accountant, or go into some similar high paying field then going to a university and majoring in a practical subject is a good plan. But very few women actually desire to do those things. Just look at the numbers. On the other hand: going to college to get a useless degree, loading yourself up to the gills in debt to do it, and dropping out of the labor force a few years later is an extremely bad idea. But that’s what many women do.


  25. Ter February 8, 2013 at 00:54 #

    Ah, thanks, your referenced article explains that very well (I’d only managed to read far back as Dec ’12). Love the humorous nature in your posts!

    I wonder if these are the same women who wonder “Where have all the good men gone – I just can’t meet any!” ..only to lurk in online dating sites every night.


  26. richsly February 8, 2013 at 01:23 #

    First off I would like to thank you for your response. You are a busy individual and so thank you for taking the time to respond to my comments. Secondly I am a male but I believe that 2 people can exchange in a debate without being rude, insulting or dismissive of the other person or their personal beliefs. Thirdly I appreciate you taking about mens rights and being a female advocate for mens rights.

    Lastly to say that women have contributed nothing to history or society is just inaccurate. For example Marie Curie discovered radium and its radioactivity and was the first INDIVIDUAL (man or woman) to win a noble prize in 2 categories (physics and chemistry).

    @Kai Not wanting children doesn’t make a person defective, selfish or possessing of a genetic mutation. There are single and married people who choose to not have children for a variety of reasons. Why should they be labeled as selfish or defective when even you yourself made the point that we don’t live in a society where procreation is a must. If anything the world is over-populated and over crowded. Individuals who are child free aren’t contributing to over-population, they have a smaller carbon foot print and they typically reach levels of financial comfort where they are not a drain on society as a whole.

    Thank you for your time and a good discussion.


  27. abhishek February 8, 2013 at 05:25 #

    Hey JB,

    Another great post! Makes so much sense. I just wanted to recommend a tv show called ‘Modern family’. I think you will love it. It puts out the message just why is that a traditional family system works out so well in a subtle manner. Do check it out!


  28. Kai February 8, 2013 at 08:38 #

    to richsly, regarding childfree:
    1. I never said anywhere that childfree people are selfish. I don’t believe that, and that is one of the major accusations I regularly oppose.
    I think that raising children requires a lot of selflessness, but the actual choice to create them in the first place can really only come from selfish reasons. I’m not saying people shouldn’t be having them, but I am saying it is a selfish (but understandable and reasonable) act to decide to procreate.
    2. The fact that they aren’t selfish doesn’t mean they’re not defective in a genetic sense. Humans are animals. At a base level, living creatures exist to live and create more living creatures. An animal that does not attempt to create miniature versions of itself by definition does not pass its genes on, and thus logically, the genes for ‘not desiring replication’ should not be passed on. The fact that we still get some in every generation suggests that there’s a level of random mutation that will always be around, but as mentioned, doesn’t grow too far, since people who don’t desire to procreate don’t pass on their genes.
    I’m not saying that there is anything wrong with people who choose not to have children on a social level. I don’t think we experience any shortage of kids, and I don’t think everyone needs to have them. I strongly believe that the only people who should have kids are the people who both have the skills to do a good job of raising them, and cannot possibly imagine their lives without. Otherwise, go on, don’t have kids. Not a problem. But that’s the social level. On a base, animal level, there is something abnormal in a living organism that does not desire to replicate.
    There is probably a very small subset of people who do feel the pull to have kids, but for one reason or another decide not to because other circumstances prevent it. But most people who choose to be child-free simply don’t feel any pull to parenthood. and that’s a reasonable choice, but genetically defective as far as goes the species.


  29. Sarah Daniels February 8, 2013 at 10:47 #

    “The doors have been thrown open to women for decades, and most of them are still housewives.

    They’re just not at home”

    Very true…


  30. Bee February 8, 2013 at 12:21 #

    Wow, very descriptive, very well written.


  31. Roy February 8, 2013 at 12:54 #

    Ter, you don’t give the entitlement bitch an expressionless look, you give her a look filled with loathing and disgust and watch her turn away in fear.
    It works because I do it all the time.


  32. Liz February 8, 2013 at 14:34 #

    To Richsly:
    Marie Curie would be considered an outlier, but she isn’t the only woman who has contributed. There are female physicians, scientists, actuaries, and quite a few geneticists (one of the primary contributors to the initial discovery of the prion was a woman, whose name escapes me). There are some great female authors and artists as well. I’d like to think I contributed to society when I worked in the medical lab myself (and as a nurse, and science teacher before that).

    The point is, women as a group, haven’t excelled in particular. Even after they threw off the proverbial ostensible “yoke of oppression” that was motherhood/housewifery decades ago, and instead have elected to perform those same tasks for strangers for a buck while shifting their own responsibilities onto others for a few less bucks. There is NOTHING more important than the family. It would be one thing if the perpetrators of this fiasco accepted that they are making substandard choices, but instead they denigrate those who make the right choice and elect to stay at home, and praise those who throw their children into a kiddy kennel (that’s called “having it all”).

    I’ve heard it said an economist is a person who knows the cost of everything, but the value of nothing (a variation of Wilde’s definition of a cynic). I think it applies equally well to the Feminist.


  33. Liz February 8, 2013 at 14:51 #

    Wish there was an edit feature…I’d like to change the last from ‘cost’ to ‘price’, which is what I intended to convey. I daresay Feminists don’t know the cost (particuarly social cost) of anything any more than they are aware of the real value. But they know the dollar price well enough.


  34. JenB February 8, 2013 at 15:01 #

    Hi, I just recently found your blog and I’m really enjoying your writing. I agree with your viewpoints, especially regarding the importance of traditional family. I wish I could have stayed home with my daughter. My husband was of the opinion that if he had to work, so did I (granted, my husband’s opinion may be a bit unusual). However, this got me thinking. With so many men in recent years who were raised in families where both parents worked, I think there are many men nowadays that simply expect their wives to do the same. My thought was, how do we change these men’s minds and bring back the traditional family?


  35. gravitasprime February 10, 2013 at 01:03 #

    Start by changing the family law system. At present a man who divorces a stay at home wife without a career will literally lose everything. The court will deem that the wife has no career skills and “sacrificed her career” for her husband and, quite literally, give her everything. The house, the car, the kids (she was the “primary caretaker” after all,) alimony and child support.

    I for one would love to marry a traditional woman but I never will because I know the risk is just far too great. The existing system of family law will not only destroy me if my wife gets bored, but it will constant dangle carrots, in the form of incentives, in front of her to leave me and give her a huge stick with which to abuse me in the meantime (ie “do everything I want or I will take away everything you have and care about and never let you see your children again.”)

    The only safe woman to marry is a career woman who doesn’t plan to stay home with the kids. It’s terrible for the children (although not as bad for them as losing their father altogether or having him relegated to a visitor in their lives post divorce,) but it’s the only safe path for the father.


  36. James Williams February 14, 2013 at 08:17 #

    You are very correct in what you say. Our son when he was just 9 years old came home from school one day and declared he would not marry when he was older. It was quite unprovoked and a surprise to hear a boy say such a thing.

    My wife thought I’d put him up to it, but when we enquired as to why he came to that conclusion, we found that a lot of his friends were losing their fathers through separation and divorce. Not only that, the children themselves had worked out that their dads had been forced out the home and lost everything. They may be children, but they learned the reality of how to survive as an adult and one of those rules they learned is: Do not marry and have children.

    The onus is on women to change the rules back again and make it worth while for men to be committed. They have to reject the abuse industry’s claims that men are all violent abusers and potential rapists. It is truthful and fair minded women who have to get into power and into the legal system and make the difference because their male counterparts have so far failed miserably.


  37. Ton February 15, 2013 at 15:55 #

    To get more stay at home mom’s you would also need to reduce folks spending habits/ realign their standard of living to match reality of their income.

    Economics seem to be the common “why the wife cannot stay home” argument


  38. Transmillenium February 15, 2013 at 16:54 #

    Considering translation.


  39. judgybitch February 15, 2013 at 16:57 #

    Just curious, but into what language?

    I know we’ve been translated into Bulgarian,which is kind of neat!

    JudgyBitch in Cyrillic!


  40. Transmillenium February 15, 2013 at 17:20 #

    Sadly, Spanish. JudgyBitch=PerraJuzgona o Juzgona Perra


  41. judgybitch February 15, 2013 at 17:24 #

    !Que maravilla!


  42. KTD February 16, 2013 at 01:53 #

    Excellent excellent excellent. I feel the same way as you do. The reason the cost of living is so high (especially the housing market) is because women are in the workforce to such a large degree. Why were women once able to stay at home? Because our economy was crafted in such a way that each family only needed one breadwinner. Now women who want to stay at home feel like they must work. Thank you feminists – you have destroyed the American family. (By the way, I am in my late 20’s, a stay at home mom, and have a masters degree)


  43. Scythian Arrows February 16, 2013 at 05:06 #

    Women entering the workforce en masse is precisely why there is a need for dual incomes – a rapidly growing labor pool puts downward pressure on wages. Women leaving the labor market en masse would allow wages to rise.


  44. Scythian Arrows February 16, 2013 at 05:08 #

    Just goes to show that no matter how hard the mustachioed harpies want to claim that everything is a social construct, women naturally gravitate towards careers that involve homemaking skills. You can’t fit a square peg into a round hole, but feminists insist that if they just use a bigger hammer to do it that it’ll all work just fine.


  45. Maureen from Canada February 16, 2013 at 15:07 #

    Wonderful article (I’m a self-employed woman single mostly by choice and not regretting it, but I also appreciate all the work that the stay at home mom does – thanks for raising those kids that will pay for my old age).

    I would also like to point out that women who are medical doctors tend to cluster in the family medicine or pediatrics areas which, in Canada at any rate, tend to be nothing more that what our mom’s did only with the authority to order drugs!! My family doctor is great (and a woman), but as I’m in her waiting room waiting for my appointment to start it strikes me that all she has ever done for me is berate me for not losing weight (which my mom did) and fill out her prescription plan for my superdoper pain killers for my arthritic knees (my mom would give me an aspirin – so basically my family doctor has access to better drugs!


  46. EMMA February 21, 2013 at 15:41 #

    LMAO. Yes! Let me quit my secretary job-which pays for my apartment/car/accounting degree/food/life. Move back in with my parents and go man hunting! Yes Yes Yes!!!! I should of never started working at 18, I should of never moved out. I should of gone man-hunting and found someone who is close to 10+years older than me, because someone closer to my age would not be able to provide for me. Yes, Yes, Yes. How could I be so fucking stupid-this article is such an eye opener. Fuck my degree, i’ll be spending the rest of my life on my back and knees anyway. Im going to quit today! Such a life changer!


  47. judgybitch February 21, 2013 at 15:48 #

    Wow, Emma, your reading comprehension is outstanding!

    Get your accounting degree, sweetheart. That’s actually a really sensible choice.

    Then get married.

    Then have children.

    Then raise your children yourself. Do the work. Assuming you WANT children and a husband. If not, well, get a cat and carry on, pumpkin. You’re doing great!

    Your career as an accountant can wait. That will be a fine way to help support your family once your children are in school full time.

    But if you WANT children and a husband and a family and a home, you’ll need to get on that now.


  48. EMMA February 21, 2013 at 16:21 #

    Listen here judgy bitch- I don’t need your fuckin approval on my choice of study-it is GENUINELY what I desire to do. You make a reference to women being FORCED into STEM courses, some are, I don’t dispute that. But when I was growing up it was all “oh, why dont you become a nurse, nursing is a nice way for a woman to make money.” Or a teacher, or child-care. I never wanted to be any of those things-genuinely. Women are pushed more into pink collar jobs than the military, law enforcement, science, technology, mathematics, or engineering. That’s what I saw and still see today. You can argue that all you want, but you will hear more people supporting a 10yr old girl who wants to be a nurse, than another 10yr girl wanting to be a Marine.

    You are just as awful as any fuckin feminist out there. We enjoy choices today as women. STOP JUDGING THE WAY OTHER WOMEN LIVE THEIR LIVES. Its fuckin theirs. You just keep making those sandwiches sweetheart, its what you were made to do. Not all women were made like you. In the same way not all men are protectors and/or providers. And you’re not addressing the fact that most men don’t even WANT to be those things today! You’re not addressing the fact that men today are not looking for traditional women but women who can provide for themselves. You can blame that on feminism if you want, I could care less why they feel that way. But bottom line is-in today’s world men want independent women. Don’t know how fucking old you are, but that’s the way the world is today.

    I have nothing against stay at home moms, working mothers, single women, women who work in pink or blue collar jobs. I’m just happy they have the choice to do what they want to do! Just a thought, I would love to see you battle it out with some MRA. MRAs are fucking lethal in calling stay at home moms parasites, useless, and resource seekers. I will never agree with them, OR YOU, but it’ll make for some good entertainment.

    Liked by 1 person

  49. Joe February 21, 2013 at 19:14 #

    Of course the article was all about you… of couse it was. Isn’t everything?


  50. princesspixiepointless February 24, 2013 at 08:46 #

    Am I the only one here that reads something into the title JUDGYBITCH?


  51. Hugh G. Rection February 28, 2013 at 20:49 #

    Women are pushed by whom, exactly?

    The type of man who wants an independent woman (such as myself) usually can’t in turn be depended upon, so you might not wanna raise a family with him anyways.

    The thing is, society isn’t built around the needs of men, it’s built around the needs of women and children. What men WANT doesn’t play so much into the equation, if most women want to be a stay at home wives the men will comply, because in order to sleep with women they need to please them first. This also explains why men never put up a serious fight against feminism.


  52. Z March 22, 2013 at 04:05 #



  53. Z March 22, 2013 at 04:17 #

    You know… not to be rude, but I’m child free and I don’t plan to live on ANYBODY’S backs. I doubt social security will even be around when I get to retirement age. I’m planning to take care of myself. (well, me and my husband as a team are). No need to be so nasty to the child free. Those of us who don’t want children should not raise them. Look around you at all the children raised by mothers who didn’t want them. How is THAT good for society?

    In addition there are 7 billion people on this planet. I feel I can safely sit this one out.

    Also, what about women who CAN’T have children. Are they worthless parasites, too? I think there is something quite bizarre about you fighting for the right of women to stay home and being upset that feminists consider you a parasite, while acting like child free women are doing you any harm. If you love having kids so much, then why so much anger about it?

    Also, even though I don’t WANT children, I’m actually pretty sure we can’t have them anyway.

    I really really love your blog. I agree literally with like everything you post… except this rabid hatred for the child-free. But, hey, that’s your right to feel that way. But seriously, we aren’t all evil bitch monsters and none of us are hoping your children supports us in our old age.


  54. Z March 22, 2013 at 04:19 #

    Exactly. Thank you. I have no children so somebody else can have 3-4. Appreciate it. People who want children should have all the kids they want. The rest of us should be free to live OUR lives.

    I note that having kids and staying at home and all this stuff is exactly what makes judgy bitch happy. And I’m thrilled for her, but not everybody wants all the same things and I’m not obligated to pop out some babies and be miserable just because it’s Judgy Bitch’s life plan. I mean really dude.


  55. EMMA April 5, 2013 at 19:22 #

    Hmmm does that mean her blog shouldnt be taken seriously because its called judgybitch? Damn! The genius you are! How could I have missed that. Thank you pointless, you make great points.


  56. princesspixiepointless April 5, 2013 at 19:55 #

    oh yeah, I mean yawn…” STOP JUDGING THE WAY OTHER WOMEN LIVE THEIR LIVES.” (Emma) Of course this blog must be taken seriously, it is the way, the truth, the god damn light! I am a fucking genius. Maybe you just missed the word JUDGY from the title was all i was implying. Meaning to judge.

    “There is only one lawgiver and judgybitch, she who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your fellow commentor?

    glad you still find us entertaining.


  57. princesspixiepointless April 5, 2013 at 19:59 #

    oh yeah, I mean yawn…” STOP JUDGING THE WAY OTHER WOMEN LIVE THEIR LIVES.” (Emma) Of course this blog must be taken seriously, it is the way, the truth, the god damn light! I am a fucking genius. Maybe you just missed the word JUDGY from the title was all i was implying. Meaning to judge.

    “There is only one lawgiver and judgybitch, she who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your fellow commentor?

    glad you still find us entertaining.


  58. yaser April 18, 2013 at 22:02 #

    “men today are not looking for traditional women but women who can provide for themselves.”



  59. EMMA April 22, 2013 at 17:27 #

    I live in AMERICA. And thats the way it is here. Or maybe, it is bullshit, and guys are just bullshitting. But Im almost positive a 23yr old woman who is educated, employed and living on her own is more attractive than an uneducated, unemployed, girl living at home with her parents waiting for prince charming to scoop her up.

    Providing for yourself does not make you a feminist. Living on your own and providing for yourself (male or female) is vital to one’s self development. You learn much and grow as an individual when you only have you to fall back on. You understand yourself better and would be better in a partnership (marriage) later on in life.

    But then again, what do I know? Im just a 23yo girl.


  60. yaser April 22, 2013 at 17:37 #

    It’s projection on the female part to assume that men are attracted to formal education, employment and having their own home.

    They are not. But women are.

    I could agree that a “good” woman (not gonna bother defining “good”) who is taking care of herself is better than a “bad” woman who is not taking care of herself.

    But that’s not a fair comparison.

    I rather say that a “good” woman who is training to be the best housewife will be better than a “good” woman who is striving for independence, academics and a career.

    Why would i want a woman who has boosted up their hypergamous instincts through advances in masculine endeavors, when i rather could have a woman who has boosted their hypergamous instincts through progress in feminine fields?

    If i was turned on by masculinity, i would get a hard on for my male friends. I do not.


  61. EMMA April 22, 2013 at 19:43 #

    I agree, I dont think you need to be formally educated, employed or have assets for men to find you attractive. But it does help, and set you apart from the pack. A lot of men are afraid of being “used” solely for their resources, and being self sufficient suppresses that fear? I think its why men find independent women attractive. But I agree, its not a necessity.

    Its not about training to be the best housewife or the best manager, its about becoming the best person you can possibly be. Living on your own can sharpen both domestic and labor skills. Being educated opens your mind. A career that is mentally demanding will make you more intelligent. All of those things attribute to you becoming a more well rounded individual.

    Then you can be whatever the hell it is that you want to be, housewife or career superstar-whatever it is, I’ll be damn good at it.


  62. Kp11221 June 26, 2013 at 04:08 #

    I know this is and old post but I just stumbled upon it and absolutely love it! I feel obliged to comment only in regards to the way ‘feminism is being used in this discussion– we must keep in mind that this is a dynamic term that can mean different things to different people. I like to think of it as female solidarity i.e. I am a feminist because I believe in female solidarity. This way of thinking promotes love and can also face the realities of our society, as referenced above by judgy bitch 🙂 Just wanted to share another way of thinking. Thanks jb!


  63. The Remasculator June 30, 2013 at 03:54 #

    A 23 year old man who is educated, employed, and living on his own is attractive.

    But if you think the degree of education a woman has imbibed has any great bearing whatsoever on her attractiveness to human males? How many degrees do the women have whom men who can have any woman they want marry?

    If education was such a paramount quantum, then the most eligible men on Earth would be marrying women in their forties who had at least five doctorates. Strangely, as viewed from the clouded surface of Venus where your ilk seem to reside, men prefer young, FERTILE, beautiful, attentive supportive women.

    Donald Trump’s complaint about Ivana wasn’t that she was old. It was that she quit being a wife, and was too busy with her business.

    Besides, why do you care? You are employed and independent, uncaring of what men want. You have yourself tricked into thinking that being able to copulate with then discard men while paying the whole tab sets you apart as a shining example of the New World Woman.

    For the sane ones out there, men want a woman who is madly sexy, passionately loving, and a great supporter of him and their family. And, if she’s substantially younger, he is far less likely to wander, most especially if she’s a virgin. The hymen is there because it has a purpose. Call it a respect-O-meter that has two readings: infinite and zero.

    Without families, princess, the human race ceases to exist. As JB said, go ahead and get an education, but if you are going to have kids, stay at home and raise them. Quit aiming your ovipositor at the closest state-run child incarceration facility and breaking your arm patting yourself on the back for being so awesomely successful, while you hire others to ignore and abuse your kids for you.

    Men work and create a world in which women can safely raise sane kids. But forsaking your husband so you can go fawn on some rich guy at work and do his bidding instead? And abandoning your brood to daycarceration?

    Even alligators do a better job.


  64. Luke June 12, 2014 at 21:47 #

    Well done, JB. I would only add that there is something approaching unBiblical about a man’s wife spending half or more of her waking hours taking orders from another man, to whom she is not married.


  65. Anonymous age 72 June 13, 2014 at 16:23 #

    Just for the record, Mr. Curie actually initiated the radium project. His wife kept on after his death, but it was not her creativeness which started the project. Check it out.

    Am I saying she did not deserve the Nobel? Not at all.

    She kept on working on that project for years, and in the end it killed her. Few people have done more to win the Nobel. It was a world class performance.But, it is pure fantasy which gives her creativity credit for the discovery of radium.

    Let me note also that her daughter also won the Nobel., and there is no reason to doubt that she also well deserved it.


  66. FaytesEnd July 24, 2014 at 20:35 #

    I don’t know a single man that has those requirements. I’m a 32 year old man, married to my high school sweetheart, I have 4 younger bothers and a LOT of guy friends (basically, all my brothers friends as well as mine… and my wife’s 2 younger brothers…you get the point). And yet, not a single one would be attracted to what you describe, in fact I only ever hear women speak like that.

    I’m sorry you feel the way you do. I honestly hope you find happiness. But instead of telling men what we want, try listening instead.


  67. farkennel February 12, 2015 at 14:43 #

    “I think it`s why men find independent women attractive”.WHAT MEN? WHO THE FUCK TOLD YOU THAT????? And to top it off,you egotistical bitch,you ASSUMED that what you said was true.Ever thought to ask some actual men what they find attractive?Your bullshit fucking go-gurl magazines might possibly be leading you to a foregone conclusion.NEWSFLASH young lady,your destiny is to end up with a simpering pussy who will be grateful to you after you say yes to his constant pleadings for sex…your approved of definition of sex,of course.Your assumption of knowing what a man finds attractive like it was as foregone as two plus two equaling four gives me the fucking creeps.I wish you luck,please dont think that I dont,but it would suck to be the dude who ends up with you..and not in a good way.Anyways…..long joy.


  68. Jim March 15, 2015 at 01:26 #

    As you can see JB, bitches be crazy.


  69. Jim March 15, 2015 at 01:30 #

    It’s funny. Sometimes we here the “get back in the kitchen woman!” bit around the internet. As cliche as it is most of them never really left when you think about it. Now they just have a minor way of fulfilling their penis envy while only appearing to be “independent”.


  70. Nesa Simon David March 18, 2015 at 04:03 #

    “Nature Boy” by Nat King Cole

    There was a boy
    A very strange enchanted boy
    They say he wandered very far
    Very far, over land and sea

    A little shy and sad of eye
    But very wise was he

    And then one day, a magic day
    He passed my way, and while we spoke
    Of many things, fools and kings
    This he said to me

    “The greatest thing you’ll ever learn
    Is just to love and be loved in return”

    Liked by 1 person


  1. Holy Crap: Amanda Marcotte the Libertarian « Free Northerner - February 10, 2013

    […] It seems Judgy Bitch found this article as well and posted on it before me. Check it out, it’s a gooder. […]


  2. It’s been fifty years since Betty Friedan tore apart her home. Thanks for nothing, you whiny bitch. « judgybitch - February 14, 2013

    […]… […]


  3. Thanks for nothing, Betty Friedan | A Voice for Men - February 14, 2013

    […]… […]


  4. Equality « On the Rock - February 15, 2013

    […] held up for the world to see as a prime example of what women are taught they should strive for.  But most of us are simply not interested in that (Hat tip: Captain Capitalism), and when we look beyond the surface of that successful 40 something […]


  5. The 21st-century problem: “having it all.” | Happycrow's Eyeball Factory - February 22, 2013

    […] who show up (which gives the SAHM side of the Mommy Wars a fundamental advantage that feminists dismiss at their ideological peril).  There are, however, some ideas worth […]


  6. Women work harder than men? At what? | judgybitch - February 27, 2013

    […]… […]


  7. Feminist Housewife? I don’t think so. | judgybitch - March 20, 2013

    […]… […]


  8. Work for THE Man = Freedom. Work for YOUR Man = Slavery. | judgybitch - March 25, 2013

    […]… […]


  9. Beroende av staten vs vara beroende sin man | Yasers hörna - April 18, 2013

    […] Yay, ladies! Don’t be support staff for the man you love! Go and do it for someone else. [källa] […]


  10. Kvinnors bedrift är att föda genier och erövra män | Yasers hörna - April 18, 2013

    […] Women make the people who make great discoveries and inventions and achieve artistic greatness. That is exactly what makes women so valuable. [källa] […]


  11. There are no lady anti-heroes on television because SEXISM! Well, except for two of the most popular television series out there, but reality never counts when it’s time to invent the next Women as Victim Narrative. Will they ever get tired of this bull - June 29, 2013

    […]… […]


  12. Where feminism went wrong? Oh, I don’t know. Maybe with that whole men suck and let’s tell young women a giant pack of lies strategy? Just a thought. | judgybitch - September 6, 2013

    […]… […]


  13. If on-campus men’s centers are a push-back against feminism, what exactly are they pushing back against? Let’s look at The Redstockings Manifesto. | judgybitch - September 30, 2013

    […]… […]


  14. Post-Modernism’s Final Causes and Pyrrhic Victory | iParallax - March 5, 2014

    […] Babies? We don’t need no stinking babies! The genius of Amanda Marcotte. Again. – Addresses post-modern failure to address entropy vis-a-vis the necessity of having children.  Because humans die.  A sort of thing that shouldn’t really need to be explained or defended, one would think. […]


  15. The point went so far over Marcotte’s big fat head, even a BUK missile couldn’t bring it down. | judgybitch - July 19, 2014

    […] of stupid seems to know no bounds.  Yes, I am of course referring to Amanda Marcotte of the “we don’t need no babies” and “giving up your baby is the same as abortion” school of dumbassery.  Here she is today […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: