>>9248688Another problem that they seem oblivious to, is the creation of two new groups that are subservient to the state: the first-world welfare class, and the third-world worker class. In order to gain the revenue necessary to provide women with the benefits of feminism (through social services or government subsidies) third-world workers will be brought in to place a downward pressure on wages through their excessive supply, while also working under the table to dodge minimum wage laws. If this trend continues, all employees will be looking at wages that are approaching zero, virtual slavery. To ensure that legal citizens don't revolt over below-subsistence wages, the government will provide them with social services and boosts to their income. This will not be done based on ideology or charity, it will be done for political stability. Applying a “bread and circus” model of pacification will be cheaper and less risky than violent crackdowns. In order to pay for all of this, mega-corporations will have to pay for it through their taxes; they don't want to, but it's still better than riots. Because they will be writing the checks to the government, they will have an overwhelming influence on government policies; this is true today, but the trend will get worse over time, money talks.
So it looks like the end result of women's rights in the west is the subjugation of third world women for their child production, and mass migration until the world runs out of people to move into the first-world or forever if their birth rate is high enough. This ends in wages approaching zero, and first-world citizens becoming a class of people who don't need to work because they are being paid by the “social democracies” who have had to submit to corporations in order to tax them for the sake of political stability. Who the fuck thought that this was a good idea? Why can't women just have kids instead of getting educated and having a career?
