So, in the early 1900s, the lives of your average homo sapiens sapiens was fairly similar to how it had been for the preceding thousand or more years. Yes, technology had made it so that rather than work the fields, people worked in factories, rather than live spread out in rural areas and many had started moving to cities where more jobs could be found. Still, most human beings were living similar cycles to their parents of childhood, and then adulthood.
The average marriage and child-birth happened in the early twenties, for many women even earlier. They were married to their husband, who was the head of the household and the main wage earner. Taking care of a house was a full-time job, where floors had to be scrubbed by hand, in some cases using sand or other materials. Water had to be picked up at public pumps or springs, then carried back to the house and heated over a wood stove, which, made chopping and carrying wood a major prerequisite for being able to heat water, and cook food. Clothes were cleaned either in a river, or by heating up enough water to clean them by hand.
So, a stay at home mother, had much work to do in the house in the early 1900s. The father on the other hand, most likely worked 6 to 7 days per week, up to 12 – 15 hours pr day, to put food on the table. This was similar to both rural and urban families. The male children from the age when they were able to contribute either worked in factories, selling papers or working the fields. The female children started helping their mother out in the house from an early age preparing food and cleaning.
Prior to the industrial revolution, and the growth of factories, most rural boys grew up working with their father, possibly grandfather, uncles, and other men in the fields. This acted both as male bonding, but also as the education of the young boys in the ways of men. The girls would be assisting their mothers in the house, bonding and learning how to become a good wife.
As the century moved on, women slowly earned suffrage throughout most of western Europe and America. They won the right to be educated, and to work. This is not to say that women had been unable to attend Universities or been barred from work prior to this, however it was not a central goal for many women, to educate themselves or work, because once they had children, they would stay at home and not use their degrees thus it was considered a poor investment.
The role of the woman changed a lot in just a 100 years. From being expected to be a stay at home mother, who would have a full days work just ensuring that her home, her children and her husband were taken care of, to a worker bee, equally educated and equally hard working compared to her husband. Some of this followed naturally from making the required time to take care of a home much less than what it once was. The hoover, washing machines, tumble-driers, electric or gas stoves, indoor plumbing, hot water heaters, deep freezers, and many other modern appliances has turned housework into chores. Where a single person can easily do a weeks laundry, clean a reasonably sized house, and prepare food in less than 8 hours total active labour pr week.
As the century went on, the ideological movement of feminism, hand in hand with progressivism and liberalism, redefined what it meant to be a woman. Rather than the submissive and feminine ideals, worshiped by many societies, the new woman was strong, independent, she had her own job, education, made her own money, and she needed to indulge herself. Which, inevitably lead to the “Sex & The City” culture, where women after going through 4 – 8 years of University education, at age 24 – 28, wanted to “live” for a while, and experience being the “strong, independent woman” that she had been told to aspire towards.
This lead to women not really being interested in marriage and being mothers until they had the education they wanted and then had the career they had been told to aspire to, meaning that the average age of marriage and motherhood increased. Rather than having 3 children at 24 (or younger) like their mothers, who married their high school sweetheart and started a family at 19. This new generation of women moved up the clock to 3 children at 34.
An unfortunate side-effect of the “Sex & The City” lifestyle, is that nature tends to not care that “I’m living my life, just having fun with different men” so we got the single mother, a rarity in previous times, now growing year on year at an unprecedented rate. 
The re-defining of the woman was simple, she was to be redefined to be centered on herself, not on her family and her husband. Her actions were not to be seen in the context that her life’s goal was to be a mother and a wife, but in that she was to realize herself in life however she saw fit. Furthermore, her behavior was to not be viewed in terms of what she could do for her society, but what her society could do for her.
Everything I wrote about above, about the redefinition of women and the redefinition of family is fine, so long as women redefine what womanhood, motherhood and so on, doesn’t inherently mean redefining men as well. Where women over the past 100 years, have worked hard to change their definition from being one centered on their husband and family, to one centered on themselves, this has not happened for men.
Men are in many ways still not considered “grown men” until they have taken on the responsibility of a wife and children. This is why, there is such outrage in the media right now about “man-children“, men who need to “man-up“, the question of “where have all the good men gone“, and so on. This stems from one simple source, women wanted to change themselves and their deal, but keep the men the same in many ways. Women wanted to spend their 20s and early 30s “being them” rather than being mothers and wives, but once they decided that they wanted a husband, they wanted the same deal that their mothers and grandmothers got.
So, Samantha after banging her way through most of Manhattan, sleeping her way through a liberal arts college, perhaps with a unexpected “bundle of joy or two” and if you’re really lucky 10s of thousands of dollars in credit card debt, and student loan debt from her B.A in Finnish Feminist dance and now 38 years old, expects to be married to “her equal“. The unfortunately valuation problem that comes here is that “her equal” is Joe Bob, a guy who never went to college, peaked in high school, banged his way through a cheer squad or two, and ended up with a couple of baby mommas, an assault charge and a few hundred grand in credit card debt. Her equal is not David, who she perceives as her equal, who went to college to study engineering, math, economics or law, who continued on to land a prestigious, high paying job, who has paid off his student loan debt, owns his home outright and has no children. However, she thinks she deserves David.
However, David has defined himself in his life. Being an analytical and intelligent man, he has realized that Samantha has wasted her youth, she has been irresponsible and that marrying her or even sleeping with her represents a huge risk. He may not be one of the full-blown red pillers who reads blogs like this one, or the ones in my blog-roll, but he understands on a gut level, that he is better off being a bachelor. Perhaps, he’s seen his friends go through divorces with children, where child support is used as a proxy for alimony, where they have lost their houses, retirements and are now forced to work until the day they die to maintain the lifestyle of harpies.
So, David has redefined himself as a “soft-MGTOW” meaning that while he is happy to engage in short term affairs with women, perhaps he goes to a country such as Thailand, Brazil, The Dominican Republic or Eastern Europe a few times a year, to enjoy the company of feminine women who are more than happy to take care of their man. He has a group of male friends who he enjoys spending time with, a range of hobbies that he enjoys and in most ways he is happy with his life. Perhaps he wants children and a wife, however, he understands that from an analytical perspective, it makes no sense in today’s world.
Conclusions and Summary
The very nature of men and women is somewhat of a zero-sum case. If one takes a couple, in each week they have a total number of hours that can be spent of 336 (168 each). So, anything one party does not do, yet has to be done will consume time from the other person’s 168 hours. Thus, if a man goes from 0 hours chores, to 10 hours chores, and the woman goes from 20 hours chores to 10 hours chores, this is a net gain for the woman, and a net loss for the man.
The feminist movement never took into account that men and women are engage in a negotiation. That has been the state of the genders throughout history. To pair up, the man offers what he could, usually provision and protection, the woman offered what she could, mainly progeny and caretaking. This was a deal in which both parties offered something the other could not do for themselves, where both offerings were perceived as equal in value.
When you go about wholly redefining the woman, this affects the deal that the women are able to offer the men for pairing up. A young woman, with a high SMV has many options for pairing off with a man at that point in time. As her SMV drops as a function of age, her options diminish, and with the bundles of joy in tow, it diminishes further. The reason for this is simple, most men are happy to care for their own children, but very few would happily take care of the children of another male.
In a sense, women and men are an equation that has to stay balanced, if one side is altered the other has to be as well in order to keep that equation in balance. Feminists by engaging in widespread tampering with both sides of the equation, managed to make it so unbalanced that it no longer works. I suppose a better analogy, would be that men and women are a financial statement, with equity and liabilities. The old statement, sought to roughly balance equity and liabilities for both parties engaging in the deal. The feminist movement, slowly removed the equity on the woman’s side, and increased the liabilities on the man’s side.
I’m not sure if the feminist ideologues understood this and did it intentionally as a way to break up the family unit or hurt men. Or if it was a case of female solipsism gone mad, that assumed that by removing all equity a woman brings into a relationship, and adding to the liabilities of the man entering into that relationship, it would do nothing.
What we are seeing today with “perpetual bachelors“, “herbivore men“, “MGTOW“, and the various other incarnations of male perspectives on life that are often written off as “men refusing to grow up and man up“. Is actually men redefining themselves in the same way women have already done. Rather than define themselves in the role of father and husband, as men did throughout history, they are defining themselves based on themselves. They are moving their locus of control from external to internal, and are living the lives they want to live.
These are perhaps not the lives many of them ideally would like to have, where they marry their high school sweetheart, get a steady and predictable job, work for 40 years, and retire at 60, and enjoy their remaining years surrounded by family and loved ones. However, being a perpetual bachelor, is simply more enjoyable than being raked across the coals in divorce court and custody hearings. Being accused of financial abuse when they cut up their wife’s credit cards before she can spend them into the poorhouse. Being hauled off to jail after false domestic abuse allegations, or have their lives ruined as their names are pasted across a national publication after a false rape accusation.
The Red Queen: Sex and the evolution of human nature by Matt Ridley
The War on Men by Suzanne Venker
The Manipulated Male by Esther Vilar
Sources & References