"Life – and everything in it – is a means to the ultimate goal of reproduction. Life is important, and we have to live, only because we can’t reproduce if we are dead. There is no other ultimate purpose to life. Reproduction is the goal, and life and health are but means to it..."(1)This becomes obvious when we consider all life on earth. Plants, animals, fungi, bacteria, etc. Since us humans are animals too, it follows that this goal applies to us as well. Of course, this assumes that the theory of evolution is true. I am not going to try and prove the theory here, because the topic has been adequately dealt with by other people.
Life is not about any of these things: fun, happiness, education, money, power, love, charity, entertainment, travel, God, etc. They are only important insofar as they assist in the achievement of the primary goal. People may disagree with this statement, but that's ok. Just as chess pieces are oblivious to the rules of chess, most people are oblivious to the game of life being played and the rules of the game. It doesn't matter, because just as chess can be won or lost in spite of the chess pieces being oblivious to the game, the game of life can be won or lost in spite of the living organisms (animals, plants, fungi, bacteria, etc) being oblivious to the game of life.
Feminists have always been envious of the male role. This envy is understandable, because it does seem like men really get to have more fun in life. They get more and better education. This education allows them to have careers which allows them to use their full intellectual potential. They have more money. They have more status and power. Everything they do seems more important.
But what feminists don't choose to realize, is that all of these things are necessary for a man's reproduction. None of these things are required for a woman's reproduction.
"...daughters’ future reproductive success is largely determined by their youth and physical attractiveness. Once they are conceived with particular genes that influence their physical attractiveness, there is very little that parents can do to increase their daughters’ future reproductive success, beyond keeping them alive and healthy. There is absolutely nothing that parents can do to affect the progression of time that determines the daughters’ age [and thus fertility], nor is there anything they can do after the conception to influence the daughters’ physical appearance (once again, beyond keeping them healthy)."(2)Demands have always been greater on men to perform for women. If they failed in this task, they still had a trump card: they could use force because they had nothing to lose and everything to gain (which is why more criminals are men - it is written in their DNA). If they failed in that as well, they died childless. None of us are descended from losers who could neither be famous nor infamous.
Men display, women choose. This can even be seen in nearly all animal species. A man without an education cannot get a high-paying job. A man without status, power, wealth, etc. will not be able to attract a mate. This is especially true today, with widespread polygamy. Incidentally, while women envy all the good things about men, they don't envy all the bad things.
The increase in the numbers of women seeking jobs has resulted in far more men without jobs. Without jobs, these men are unmarriageable. With jobs, the women are also unmarriageable because they have very little reproductive potential. So this is a lose-lose situation.
But what has all this got to do with educating your daughters? If you have both sons and daughters, then you are better off investing in your sons' education instead of spreading the money thinly and giving everyone a mediocre education. Education will enhance your sons' reproductive chances, whereas it will not improve your daughters' chances and instead reduce them.
This is especially important today, when virtually no one can directly afford a university education. Nearly everyone has to borrow money to pay for it. By educating your daughters, you will be saddling her future husband with crippling student debt that will in most cases not be used to its full potential. Keep in mind that if she chooses to work, it will usually be some years before the debt is paid off and she breaks even. By that point, she will want to have children but cannot do it wholeheartedly because so much has been invested in her career ("what was it all for?"). And since there is no one taking care of the domestic side of things, an unhappy marriage will result. The only winners are the education industry and the banking industry.
Even if you had the ability to pay for university education with hard cash, it is far better for your daughter to get married to a marriageable man and then give the couple that money to pay off their mortgage.
Not sending daughters to university also has large-scale society-wide impacts. For example:
- Large numbers of women going to university has driven up university fees for everyone due to the greater demand for higher education.
- When women are financially independent, they have less need for men's financial power or potential. Thus they give sex away cheaply. (If a shop owner suddenly wins a billion dollars in a lottery, he will be more than happy to let you have anything in his shop for free.) This soon leads to a state where men no longer have much incentive to work for sex. This is one of the causes of delayed adolescence seen in men in their 20s and sometimes 30s.
- Educated women marry late, and thus spend a large portion of their lives single. This lifestyle is wasteful and drives up demand for housing which in turn drives up house prices. And for every single woman out there, there is also a single man having the same effect on the economy.
- Married women vote for social-conservative political parties. This is because social conservatives prefer a small government and lower taxes: "Married women preferred Bush; unmarried women overwhelmingly preferred Gore. Why? Voting motivations are complex, but Gore promised more government protection, and unmarried women often seek the government as a substitute husband - or substitute protector. In contrast, forty percent of married women do not work outside the home when their children are young. So the married woman is more likely to care about her husband's paycheck not being taxed thus encouraging a vote for Bush (Bush's mode of being a married woman's protector is to protect her husband's ability to protect). In different ways, both Gore and Bush sought to be women's protector, each receiving the greater support from the type of woman who felt most protected by him."(3) On the other hand, social-liberal governments tend to raise taxes and use that money to spend on welfare. That is, they will take money from your daughter and her husband and use that money to raise other people's children. That doesn't sound like a good reproductive plan does it?
- By far the biggest reason you should not send your daughters to university is because universities are breeding grounds of feminism.
1. Why Is Health Care a Right?
2. Why Are Older Parents More Likely to Have Daughters?
3. The Myth Of Male Power by Dr. Warren Farrell
