Nostr Web Client

The “Women’s Rights” Movement Was Never About Empowerment

They told you the women’s rights movement was about equality. But what if I told you it was about something else entirely?

🔹 Before the movement, most women raised their children, managed households, and passed down values.

🔹 After? Two incomes became the norm, families became weaker, and kids were raised by the system. Grooming them to their values.

And the biggest winner? The government.

💰 When only men worked, the government could only tax half the population.

💰 Get women into the workforce? Ay, now we get to double the tax base!

💰 Remove mothers from the home? Easier to shape the next generation.

This wasn’t accidental. It was a power move to increase state control and economic dependence.

FeyssPalmer 9mo ago 💬 2

Spot the irony - “Born to be free” arguing against women’s freedom.

So, before feminism, women were fulfilled homemakers passing down “values”? Tell that to the generations trapped in legal and economic dependence.

And the tax conspiracy? More workers, more tax revenue - basic fiat economics, not some sinister feminist scheme.

As for the fear that “the system” raises children now - maybe the real issue is that educated kids don’t buy into reactionary fairytales.

In short: This argument isn’t just historically ignorant - it’s drenched in fear of women who think for themselves.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Craig 9mo ago

Lol

Born To Be Free 9mo ago 💬 1

Listen, you’re calling me out for irony, but hear me out—what if the “women’s rights” movement didn’t free women like they promised? We all have a responsibility to leave this earth better than we found it—respect it, improve it. For women, that often means the profound responsibility of giving birth and raising the next generation. That’s not a small thing; it’s foundational. I’m all for women’s freedom. If you don’t want kids? Don’t have them! Simple. But choosing to have kids and then handing them over to the system to raise? That’s a disconnect I can’t wrap my head around.

Sure, financial strain forces tough calls, two incomes are a must now, and it’s why I advocate for Bitcoin to break that cycle. But don’t miss this: the state’s propaganda nudged women into the workforce, doubling its tax haul while weakening families. Divorce rates climb, homes fracture—it’s no accident. More workers mean more control, less time for kids to learn values at home. This isn’t about fearing women who think; it’s about questioning a system that swapped independence for reliance and left us all paying the price.

FeyssPalmer 9mo ago

Hi there

I think you argue that the women’s rights movement didn’t truly free women but instead made them economically dependent on the state and workforce. In my opinion your argument rests on several key assumptions:

1. Traditional roles as the natural order: Framing motherhood and homemaking as women’s primary purpose ignores the fact that these roles were historically enforced rather than freely chosen. For example, in my country, Switzerland, women couldn’t vote on a federal level until 1971. And on the state level (we call them Cantons), the last of the 26 Cantons didn’t grant women the right to vote until 1990! True freedom means having the choice to be a mother, a worker, or both—while enjoying full and equal rights. Would you choose going back to 1960?

2. The state as a mastermind: The idea that women were pushed into the workforce as a tax strategy leans heavy into conspiracy thinking. But economic shifts (Inflation / Fiat-money, industrialization, globalization, higher living standards) made dual incomes (in parts) a necessity, not a secret agenda.

3. Family breakdown as a direct consequence of women working: Rising divorce rates reflect changing social dynamics, including the ability to leave unhappy or abusive marriages. Strong families depend on support, not rigid gender roles.

4. Bitcoin as solution: I don’t see how Bitcoin address structural issues like wages, childcare, or job security. As a Bitcoiner you / me maybe could gain substantial wealth - but i don‘t see how it would solve general problems for everyone.

Ultimately, I think your argument idealizes a past where women were “free” within a narrow role. True independence means the power to choose one’s own path. If the state is to be criticized, it should be for failing to support families of all models, not for granting women more autonomy.