The Butker Principle: Is America Better Off Without Women In The Workforce?

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us

Some readers might recall a year ago the internet was in an uproar about a commencement speech given by Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker at Benedictine College, a private Catholic liberal arts school in Kansas. The speech went viral due to his denouncement of abortion, Pride Month, COVID-19 lockdowns and the tyranny of diversity, equity and inclusion.

However, it was his comments on women in the workforce that really put a twist in the panties of the leftist media:

“I want to speak directly to you briefly because I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolical lies told to you, how many of you are sitting here now about to cross the stage, and are thinking about all the promotions and titles you’re going to get in your career…

Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world. But I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world.”

“I can tell you that my beautiful wife Isabelle would be the first to say that her life truly started when she began living her vocation as a wife and as a mother…”

Leftists were enraged and attempted to cancel Butker. The problem was that cancel culture was in steep decline and the activist mobs had already lost much of their previous influence. More than DEI, more than ESG, more than CRT or the LGBT movement, leftists are most protective of feminism. It is, in a way, the “mother” of all other progressive propaganda movements in America.

As I have noted in the past, there are many Marxist and globalist ideologies focused on social engineering, but the first and perhaps most dangerous in the US is feminism. It’s not a coincidence that Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels published their Communist Manifesto in February of 1848, and feminism traces its roots directly to the Seneca Falls Convention in New York, held in July of 1848 (many of the women involved in the event would go on to express ties to socialism, including Fabian socialism).

Feminism was originally predicated on the idea that women should have access to the same legal rights as men. This was achieved many decades ago, yet activists continue to demand more privileges as the movement seeks to justify its ongoing existence. This begs the question: What is the real purpose of feminism?

In my research I recently stumbled across an article titled “Global 7 Billion: Half A Solution From Ted Turner” published by Forbes Magazine in 2011. For those who are unaware, Turner has been deeply involved in the globalist population control agenda prescribed by the Club of Rome and the UN since the 1970s. Turner publicly called for population reduction on a number of occasions and admitted that he thinks that an 80% decline in human beings would be ideal.

This agenda was launched in the name of “man-made climate change”, which has been thoroughly debunked as fraudulent (see my articles on the lack of correlation or causation between carbon emissions and temperatures in long term climate history, as an example).

Turner made it clear that population control primarily targeted women through increased access to contraception and abortion (the obvious), but one comment in the article stood out immediately. Forbes notes:

“There’s never a golden bullet to a systemic problem such as this, but the closest thing that does exists is not contraception provision, it is girls’ education.

Educating girls enables them to see and enact opportunities outside of childraising, and once they have other options they become much more likely to reach for the birth control after 2.5 children, just like their Western counterparts (often in direct contravention of patriarchal and religious doctrine — which education empowers them to resist)…”

The article goes on to argue that the educational focus on girls over boys is not unfair, but an act of historical correction for previous injustices (reparations). For any DEI agenda, abandoning meritocracy in order to enforce“fairness” requires that we subsidize one group over another. Feminism is no different.

Women today outnumber men in college admissions because colleges deliberately overlook male applicants (often with superior merits) and give female applicants special preference. Beyond that, women are more likely to be given grants and scholarships. Scholarships specifically designated for women number in the thousands, while male only scholarships number in the dozens.

In the business world, women are once again given special preference due to subsidies. State and federal governments have established numerous grants (Women in Apprenticeship and Nontraditional Occupations (WANTO) Grant Program), programs and tax deductions (like the Work Opportunity Tax Credit) for companies that hire more women. ESG related initiatives (funded by globalists) were the greatest driver of women-centric hiring, with companies getting access to a number of loans and incentives in exchange for a hiring focus on women and minorities. There are no such programs or incentives specifically for hiring men, especially white men.

The disparity is undeniable – Most women can only “succeed” in the working world when they are propped up by governments, NGOs and corporations seeking government payouts.

And, as Ted Turner and Forbes assert, this is by design. The longer women stay within the educational system and the more they are pushed into the workforce, the more likely they are to take contraception and the more likely they are to reject traditional relationships and not start a family. As a bonus, the longer women stay in the current far-left academic environment the more they can be indoctrinated with feminism and the less they will want to have children anyway.

In other words, feminism is primarily about population control and it is proving to be wildly effective. Within the next five years, 45% of women ages 25-44 will be single and childless. Western population growth is in steep decline and by the next generation there will be a societal crisis with the elderly greatly outnumbering the young.

We need to start asking hard questions as a civilization, and this is where we come back to Harrison Butker and his commencement speech in Kansas. In an open minded, liberal and “democratic” society we’re not supposed put limits on personal freedom. For around 70 years America has functioned on an “anything goes” playbook (the liberal playbook). If it feels good, do it. Don’t let “the man” hold you back. But this philosophy is not working, it’s destroying us. It turns out that gender roles are actually important.

What can we do about it? I suggest adopting a principle that weighs costs vs. benefits when it comes to women in the workforce. Not just women as a group, but individual women and their potential. I call this the “Butker Principle”.

The Butker Principle requires that women consider the advantages of the career they are pursuing and ask: “Is my job more valuable to the world than raising a healthy family?”

Is she working in STEM improving important technologies? Is she saving lives as a doctor or nurse? Is she providing a service that most people cannot provide? Does she own and operate a business that is creating jobs? Or, is she working as an HR representative taking mindless complaints from other women who should be at home?

Furthermore, we need to ask: “Can a man do the same job better?”

If so, then a man should be in that position providing greater value and greater productivity. At bottom, there are not many women in many fields of expertise that are offering the world more than if they were simply nurturing children to become better adults in the future.

This might sound like the kind of “greater good” argument the political left is known for, but I would point out that the greater good for leftists is always the worst case scenario for everyone else. We’ve had many years to observe the effects of feminism on our society and it is a clear net negative. The “greater good”, in this case, is to simply correct that mistake.

We must also consider the economic benefits if most women were to leave the labor pool. For example, the larger female workforce has saturated markets and throttled wage growth over the years. You want to know why almost 70% of American families used to be able to live on a single income in 1970 and that number has dropped to 25% today? Inflation is not the only factor.

Wages are about supply and demand, like anything else. Women flooded into white collar and retail environments and gave corporations a massive gift – Not only could these conglomerates keep wages low because of too much competition, they could also get subsidies for hiring females and making them feel independent (relying on big daddy CEO is apparently independent while relying on a husband is not…).

Beyond driving down wages, single women also eat up a large portion of the US housing market (more than illegal immigrants). The extra demand throttles supply and drives up home prices and rent payments. Imagine if just 20% of working women left the labor pool and abandoned single life – The housing supply would skyrocket and prices would drop dramatically. Women could save the economy simply by not taking up space.

This is not to say that there are not women out there doing great work. I’m sure there are many, but again, if we were to examine the situation case by case I think we would find that the majority of women are not working in jobs that are more important than building a family. The Butker Principle must be applied to save our nation, to save the nuclear family and to save the psychological health of the west.

Women have been conned by feminist propaganda into believing that they can have it all – They think they can pursue a stunning career in which they receive endless accolades and applause. They think they can gain masculine power and financial parity and they think they can have a family whenever it suits them. This false assumption has led many women to waste their 20s struggling for “boss babe” status and missing out on their prime years finding a husband and building a home.

To be sure, liberals (and many libertarians) will argue that if a woman wants to waste her life away working in a meaningless office job instead of having kids, then that is her right. I probably would have said the same thing twenty years ago but history is not kind to people who ignore the hard data. The west is decaying at a rapid rate and drastic measures need to be taken.

Does this mean forcing women to stay home? In a way, yes, but not by erasing their freedom to work. Rather, the solution may be as basic as returning to meritocracy in business environments. How? By canceling all government incentives and educational scholarships specifically for women of child bearing age. And, by eliminating affirmative action laws that push companies to maintain a female labor quota, specifically Title VII and the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972.

In other words, level the playing field back to the days before second wave feminism and let women compete. Most will not be capable, which means they will be forced to temper their expectations and fantasies, find a man, have children and, God forbid, become happy housewives. What a tragedy that would be…

To summarize, the Butker Principle is meant to defeat an agenda that was set in motion over a century ago to undermine western civilization, drive down wages and artificially suppress the population. The poisonous fruits of that agenda are now widely visible. Some of the people involved in the early movement might have had good intentions, but this is ultimately irrelevant. The results are the results, and feminism is a disaster for everyone except the globalists and the corporate oligarchy.

The fastest way to end feminism is to end the majority of female participation in the jobs market. It’s the only solution that makes sense.