Free Pages: EN — LARRY ROMANOFF: Jews are Destroying Western Society – Part 13

Thursday, November 5, 2026

EN — LARRY ROMANOFF: Jews are Destroying Western Society – Part 13 — Women in the Work Force

Jews are Destroying Western Society – Part 13

At the first congress of women workers in the Kremlin, 1927. Source

Introduction

For many generations, there have repeatedly surfaced documented claims of the intent of the International Jews to essentially “take over the world”. Naturally, there are those (primarily Jews) who dismiss these frequent claims as nonsense, as “anti-Semitic tropes”, as Jew-hatred, blood libel, or worse. Yet there is a large accumulated body of evidence, by no means circumstantial, to document and support these assertions. In previous essays in this series, I have documented precisely these attempts in the so-called “Communist” revolutions that the Jews attempted in more than 25 countries, beginning more than 100 years ago. The process actually began even before this, with the European revolutions in the middle 1700s and 1800s.

One of the many demolished churches in Russia after the 1917 Revolution. Source

Those attempts, to take over governments by political coup, to initiate civil and revolutionary wars, in other words to take the world by force, largely failed. However, the Jews did not abandon their agenda; they adapted by devising new strategies, by attacking peoples and nations from different directions. But consistent throughout all these efforts has been their determination to destroy Western civilisation, beginning with the destruction of the family unit (and the Christian religion). And the destruction of the family unit has, for well over a century, had at its core an assault on women, primarily engineering the collapse of female sexual morality. As I have outlined repeatedly in previous essays in this series, the Jews had determined that the “sexual liberation” of women was a tool for the mass subjugation of entire national populations.

As I wrote in an earlier essay, “Reich believed that the Jews could politically mobilise the Gentile masses only by appealing to their sexual passions. His solution was that they could control women through their sexuality by “liberating” them, and thus create a viable political force. Reich thus argued that the sexual liberation of women would serve as a tool for political revolution. The Jews came to the conclusion that only by mobilising women through sexual liberation could political revolution be achieved, and so sex was instrumentalised as fuel for Jewish political mobilisation.”

Further, “This was an advanced strategy by the Jews to take political control of the world’s nations. The initial strategy of revolutions and civil wars (Russia, Hungary, Germany, Austria, Spain), had failed to put the Jews into the thrones of the nations they inhabited. Hence, the change in strategy from revolution to sex. Sex had always been part of the agenda, but it proved much more successful and pliable than did war and revolution, so this portion was enhanced. The sexual part of the agenda did not give Jews direct control over nations, but it did give them direct control over much of the population of those nations.“

After the failure of the Jews’ Communist revolutions, their agenda expanded to include assaults on civilisation from many directions simultaneously. The theories of Marx and Freud were combined with the assessments of many other Jewish so-called “intellectuals” and resulted in the programs of the Frankfurt School which I covered in the previous essay, Part 12. From this “new beginning”, the Jews developed a multi-pronged approach to the assault on Western (Christian) family and society. Many parts of this approach involved the Jew’s perverted sexual character, but some, while very destructive in their own right, had a less revolutionary appearance. These involved drugs, immigration, depopulation, abortion, sexual “studies”, much media promotion, the loss of shame and, of course, the persistent attacks on Christianity. One of these prongs was what was termed the “Women’s Liberation Movement”. This was not directly related to women’s “sexual liberation”, but was a supplementary attempt to undermine and eventually permanently collapse the family unit. I will begin with this.

Women in the Workforce

RUSSIA – CIRCA 1920s: Vintage archive photo of thee young women working rail sleepers factory. Source

It doesn’t seem widely-known, but there were several “women’s movements”, all instigated by the Jews, each with a different character, with different objectives, and launched at different stages. Perhaps the earliest of these movements, though it was not identified as such, was the Jewish movement to remove married women from the home and put them into the work force.

This first “Women’s Liberation Movement” was without a doubt one of the most destructive social social-engineering programs ever devised. Yet, it has largely been ignored as an event. Various parts of this dramatic upheaval have been discussed or studied, but it has not, to my knowledge, had the pieces assembled in an order where the overall picture of its effects on the family and society could be seen.

Readers may recall from previous essays that one of the main platforms in the Jewish Bolshevik agenda was to “liberate” women from the home and put them to work in factories. This was promoted as freeing women from the drudgery of housekeeping, but in reality it was one method of dismantling the family unit. Engels clearly saw the inevitable result on family stability of married women leaving the home to work in factories, pointing out the “total neglect of children” that would result when both parents worked the necessary twelve to thirteen hours a day in the mill. He stated flatly that “The employment of women at once breaks up the family”.

In reality, the entire “liberation” of women was sexual. Married women working in factories would receive an income. This income in turn would provide the financial freedom to liberate the hordes of oppressed (Gentile) women by converting them into new hordes of nymphomaniacs and sexual psychopaths. It was of course understood that no marriage or family unit would survive, since no man would accept a wife who was sexually promiscuous, resulting in expulsion and divorce. The real (or at least stated) primary purpose of the factory labor was to give all (Gentile) women the financial independence to pursue their new-found sexual freedom without fear of financial abandonment by the husband. Thus, the Gentile women were to be liberated both economically and psychologically, to say nothing of sexually.

Herbert Marcuse and Angela Davies, 1968. Source

Following the convergence of the Frankfurt School with other Jewish so-called “intellectuals”, a new women’s movement was initiated to remove Western married women from the home and put them into the work force. This was presented as concern for the “betterment” of women, with the added attraction of an enhanced standard of living from two paychecks for each family.

Prior to this, in the 1950s and even into the 1960s, women were rather scarce in the work force. As a rule, in those times and in that context, only single girls worked, and then only until they married. After that, their focus and responsibility was on the home and family; tending to the house, raising and civilising the children; teaching them morals and good behavior, looking after their education. There were always nurses and teachers of course, but most other jobs filled by women were the more common entry-level positions not requiring advanced education or extensive experience: receptionists, secretaries, cashiers, bank tellers, shop clerks, movie theater ushers, telephone switchboard operators, elevator operators.

In that era, there was actually a powerful social incentive for a woman to remain at home and look after her family. It was generally recognised that if a married woman had an outside job, it was only because the family needed the money. It was in those days a source of pride for a man if his wife didn’t have a job outside the home because it meant he could earn enough to adequately support his family.

How the Transition Was Sold

She was born Bettye Goldstein in Peoria, Illinois, on February 4, 1921. Her father, Harry Goldstein, emigrated from Russia in the 1880s, and built a successful jewelry business in the United States. His wife, Miriam Horwitz, the daughter of Hungarian Jewish immigrants, had been prevented from attending Smith College by her parents. Miriam supported her daughter’s education, and Bettye graduated summa cum laude from Smith College in 1942. Source

The foundational marketing text for this planned social transition was Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique (1963). Friedan’s achievement was a dishonest reframing of the official narrative: she took the dissatisfaction of a particular cohort of educated, middle-class Jewish housewives and universalised it. Her thesis was the claim that fulfillment through domesticity was a false promise: women were being cheated out of fulfillment by remaining in the home and looking after the family and the children. Her book sold three million copies and is credited with sparking the rise of this wave of feminism. The marketing mechanism for this movement gave women not only the necessary clouded thinking but also the vocabulary to reinterpret their own lives as deprivation rather than duty.

The second marketing pillar was material. The promise was straightforward: a second income would elevate the family’s standard of living. A 1978 New York Times article documented the mechanism in real time: “Across the nation women have swarmed into the work force by the millions, swelling the numbers of multi-income families”. But the historical record reveals a cruel bait-and-switch. What began as an opportunity became an economic necessity. As more families acquired second incomes, prices quickly adjusted upward. By the late 1970s, inflation made two incomes essential for families who wished to buy a house. The promise of enhanced living standards proved to be very temporary and essentially false. Once a critical mass of families had two earners, the single-earner family was priced out of the middle class. The “choice” to work was increasingly a choice made under duress, creating almost a necessity for mothers of young children to work.

Media and Advertising: The “Career Woman” as Idol: The advertising industry closely followed this demographic shift. By the 1970s, advertisers were “warned not to utilise stereotypical, degrading images of women” (i. e., “housewives”) and began to direct advertising to the “career woman”. Television reinforced the new script: The Mary Tyler Moore Show (debuting 1970) portrayed a single working woman as independent and fulfilled, providing a cultural template for the legitimacy of female employment outside the home. Major advertising agencies then – as today – were Jewish-owned or controlled, as were most newspapers, magazines, and TV productions.

Legal Amendments: The marketing of this social destruction was made essentially permanent by various legal changes relating to employment. These changes of law were not merely “permissive” in the sense of assisting women in the work force or preventing discrimination. They actually served to create and constitute a new economic item: the “independent” married woman. The combination of these above factors left married women socially and legally defined by their relationship to the labor market rather than to the household and family. The cumulative effect was the normalisation of the working mother as the natural default social position rather than a deviation.

Professional and Academic Legitimisation: The massive social transition was also professionally supported by (primarily Jewish) psychologists and sociologists, in spite of the many negative effects which were over-ridden or ignored. One of these was the concern about child development and the serious negative potential for succeeding generations, caused by “non-maternal care” – i. e., children raised from infancy by strangers in daycares. The funding network and the media apparatus for this social upheaval lowered the cultural and institutional cost of the married woman’s exit from the home, while raising the cost of her remaining there. The foundation-funded legal architecture removed the formal barriers that had made married women’s employment exceptional, and the media normalised the result as liberation rather than duress.

The Deleterious Effects on the Family and Society

Effects on Marriage:

Lesbian politics in Israel

Invitation to a “women’s party” at the “Zman Amiti” club in Tel Aviv, July 10, 1997, offering a discount for CLaF members.

Courtesy of the Isha l’Isha-Feminist Archive, Haifa. Source

The deepest effect was not statistical but normative. The married woman’s entry into the workforce was accompanied by a redefinition of marriage itself. The Council on Contemporary Families paper describes the 1970s and 1980s as a “transitional period of adjustment” in which “women experienced widespread discontent with the traditional marriage and family arrangements”. The stated discontent was with the expectations of permanence and obligation that had structured the marital bond. This effect was the transformation of the marital ideal from a covenant of mutual obligation to a partnership of “negotiated satisfaction”.

The statistical association between married women’s workforce entry and the destabilisation of the family unit is well-documented. From 1960 to 1980, the labor force participation rate of married women rose to about 50%, with the most dramatic increase among mothers of children under six. During the same period, the divorce rate roughly doubled, and marriage rates began a sustained decline that continued for decades. A Council on Contemporary Families briefing paper acknowledged the sequence: “As women entered the workforce, marriage rates fell and divorce rates soared. Fertility plummeted, and policy-makers worried that career-oriented women were turning their backs on motherhood entirely”.

With respect to the alarming increase in the divorce rate of working married women, some research found that the threat to the marriage was not necessarily the job itself, but the shift in the wife’s evaluation of her options. Apparently, these new working wives, in situations where they were now meeting many other men, began to wish they had married someone else, even though they claimed to be happily married. It seems that the workforce participation simply introduced a heightened awareness of alternatives.

One website stated, “For many years, however, women’s gains seemed to destabilise marriages and threaten family formation. As women entered the workforce, marriage rates fell and divorce rates soared. Fertility plummeted, and policy-makers worried that career-oriented women were turning their backs on motherhood entirely.” [1] Studies suggested that wives had less happy sex lives.

The first of these statements is certainly true. Marriages were not only “destabilised” but were ended. The divorce rate shot up alarmingly, and of course family formation was “threatened”, and the birth rates plummeted. Some women, under the pressure of work and finances, “did turn their backs” on motherhood – to their later chagrin, experiencing a “lack of fulfillment” in ways they had never imagined. But the effect on marriages was only one part of the negative results.

Effects on Children: Debate and Suppression

The children of this generation (and of succeeding generations) suffered the most from this massive social change, but in this case the concerns were silenced, a devastating social censorship. Since working mothers necessarily placed their children into daycares, often from infancy, many professionals warned of the serious negative effects on child development, and the compounding effects on society’s next generations. There were concerns about a child’s attachment to the mother being “qualitatively different from other attachments”, and that “daycare weakened or destroyed that attachment”. The transition of an infant or small child to a daycare was seen as “an undesirably stressful experience”.

Much of the initial clinical literature stated that non-maternal care was an “environment of deprivation”. These findings were based on multiple reports of severe social-emotional deficits in children who were separated from their mothers and placed in substitute care settings. But very quickly, certainly by the late 1970s, child care research (primarily Jewish-produced) defended daycares against these concerns, and the (primarily Jewish) researchers concluded that daycares produced “few of the predicted negative effects”.

The effects on children are the most consequential and the least publicly examined. There were daycare debates in the early 1970s, that recorded psychiatric and psychological misgivings, especially about quality standards, but those were overridden by the proponents of this “movement”. The concerns were displaced by the assumption that the transition was irreversible. Many articles of the time simply assumed that “there is no chance that we will ever go back to the age when a woman was expected to stay home”.

A mother’s affection during a child’s first decade shapes personality traits that drive lifelong success. Source

School-age children need 10–11 hours of sleep per night; insufficient sleep is documented to produce diminished cognitive performance and increased risk of obesity. It has been proven in multiple studies that maternal employment affects children’s sleep time, because children wake up earlier on days that their mothers work. This is a biological disadvantage in child developmental that is independent of family income or parental education. It is a direct consequence of the time geometry of dual-earner households: the morning routine must be compressed to accommodate two work schedules, and the child’s sleep is the variable that absorbs the compression. The effect is not dramatic in any single night, but it is cumulative and chronic, and it operates during the years when the child is most plastic.

There is also what is termed the “custodial deficit”, which is very real. The child’s waking hours are increasingly spent in institutional settings like daycare, supervised by adults whose relationship to the child is professional at best, and non-existent at worst, rather than parental. The socialisation that occurs in these settings is not neutral; it is shaped by the norms of the institutions and the quality of the staff. The environments are oriented toward labor-force participation and behavioral compliance rather than toward the transmission of a family’s particular moral and cultural inheritance. This is the private-sector realisation of the Jewish Bolshevik template I discussed in earlier essays in this series. It involves the transfer of the child’s primary socialisation from the family to an institutional network, accomplished not by decree but by the economic logic of dual-earner household formation.

The result, measured at the level of the family as an institution, was the transfer of the child’s primary socialisation from the family to a network of institutions whose incentive structures were not oriented toward moral formation, and the redefinition of marriage from a covenant of obligation to a partnership of negotiated satisfaction. The Bolsheviks proposed to accomplish this through direct state coercion. The American variant accomplished it through foundation-funded legal strategy, market-driven media normalisation, and a coalition of institutional interests – each pursuing its own logic, but all moving in the same direction.

Daycare: Private-Sector Fulfillment of the Bolshevik Template

L: “I’m bored at home!” R: “I’m happy in the crèche!”. Source

From the mid-1920s, a network of kindergartens started to appear not only in cities, but also in the countryside. By 1941, two million Soviet boys and girls attended day nurseries and kindergartens. Thirty years later, this number jumped up to 12 million children. Source

I would remind readers here that the Bolsheviks (in Russia, Hungary) planned that (1) women should be put into the work force to provide them with an independent income that would finance their sexual freedom and remove them from the financial control of their husbands, and (2) children would be “brought up” by the state. This new “married women in the workforce” movement, accomplished both objectives, apparently without anyone making the connection.

One of the greatest destructive forces possible to unleash on a family-oriented and family-based society would be the “subcontracting” of child-rearing to disinterested outsiders. Yet one of the main results of this new social transition was precisely this. The newly-emancipated working women did not turn over their children to the (Jewish-controlled) state but rather to the (Jewish-directed) private sector daycares, which was nearly the same thing. The crucial difference was that the “agency of socialisation” of children was shifted to a hybrid of private capital, professional associations, and the advocacy of various Jewish-controlled foundations.

Source

Sigmund Freud was noted for saying “Give me a child for the first six years of its life, and you can do anything you want to it after that”, or words similar. The point is clear. It is in those early years from infancy to childhood that a child receives most of its attitudes, most of its socialisation and civilisation. This is when it absorbs most of its beliefs and adopts most of its values. Typically, these are transmitted to the child by its mother, but what happens in a daycare? Those facilities are operated by private enterprise for a profit, most often employing staff (“baby-sitters”) who are almost invariably drawn from the lowest-income sectors of a society, are often immigrants with very different attitudes and values. There are generally no requirements for training or education, and certainly no examination as to character or “values”. Yet millions of mothers were coerced into placing their children from infancy into precisely such environments.

As an aside, this situation does not appear in China, in spite of the two-income families. The reason is that the grandparents intervene in place of the daycare, with multiple advantages. One, of course, is that the transmission of cultural values remains constant. Another is that this “Chinese daycare” is cost-free.

The daycares expanded through a private-sector realisation of the same function as the Jewish Bolsheviks originally proposed. The child was removed from the family for a substantial portion of the waking day and socialised by low-paid, minimally credentialed workers within an institutional setting whose primary function was “a job”, not the moral formation of children. The Bolshevik model placed the child directly under state custody; the American model placed the child under a decentralised network of private for-profit employers, whose combined effect was to make the family’s role as primary socialiser increasingly residual.

There were of course outcries from some professional groups who saw the inherent dangers and the almost-certain destructive effect on future generations, but their voices were mostly silenced. This was made worse by the appalling lack of concern for child development demonstrated by the “feminists” and their sponsors and supporters (all primarily Jewish). Albert Shanker (a Jew) [2] of the US Federation of Teachers, made this disinterest explicit: with declining birth rates leaving schools empty and 175,000 teachers unemployed, universal daycare was “the answer to teacher unemployment”. Nothing here about the welfare of the children.

The Erosion of Social Capital and The Family Dinner

There is also the matter of what is today categorised as “social capital”, epitomised by family dinners which were an embedded portion of every household. The family dinner is not merely a sentimental ritual. It has been termed “the primary site of intergenerational transmission of language, of table manners, of moral reasoning, of the day’s events narrated and interpreted by parents”. Its decline represents the loss of a daily, low-cost, high-frequency institution of moral and cognitive formation. The substitution of institutional childcare for this function is not a neutral exchange; it replaces a particularistic, parent-led pedagogy with a universalistic, standardised pedagogy whose content is determined by the priorities of the childcare system, not by the family’s own values. When women moved into the workforce, family dinners declined precipitously by nearly 50%. as did inviting friends to dinner. Furthermore, all of the social-capital-producing activities that were previously centered in the home, such as dinner parties, family meals, neighboring, declined most dramatically among women, precisely the group whose time was being reallocated to the paid labor market.

The Nutritional Transfer From Home to Industry

The children’s intake of specific nutrients that are known to be of concern in relation to obesity risk, including sodium, saturated fat, and sugar, are often found in high amounts in ultraprocessed foods and are linked to an increased risk of developing chronic health issues like obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. Source

One of the integral destructive effects of the movement of women into the workforce related to food and nutrition. This was the onset of the ultra-processed packaged food industry for working women with little time for preparing meals. The timing of the ultra-processed food expansion aligns precisely with this displacement. Ultra-processed products appeared on supermarket shelves in the 1970s and experienced exponential growth in subsequent decades. The food industry did not create the demand for convenience from nothing; it responded to a time deficit that was being created in the household by the withdrawal of the primary food preparer. This was not a marginal effect. It was a “structural displacement” of food preparation from the household to the industrial system.

The rise of ultra-processed food is typically framed as a matter of consumer choice or industry marketing, but the record clearly suggests a different causal architecture. The workforce transition created a structural demand for foods that were shelf-stable and required minimal preparation time, and the industry supplied it. The health consequences are now well-established – obesity, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and their downstream chronic diseases. These are not the result of “bad choices” but the physiological correlation of a reorganisation of household labor.

I would add here that the huge number and variety of toxic chemicals in these ultra-processed foods are almost certainly linked to the decline in fertility, the rise of obesity, the incidence of cancers, and to the appearance of other ailments. The food companies go to great lengths to assure us that the amount of chemicals in any package of food is so insignificant as to be harmless. That may be true for one package but, to my knowledge, no one has examined the cumulative effect of those chemicals in three or four packages a day for 25 years.

Inflation

Vermont is the state where child care costs rose at the highest rate, increasing by 82% from 2013 to 2023, more than 2.5 times higher than the national inflation rate of 31% in that same time period. Source

When millions of women suddenly entered the workforce, inflation soared, averaging 10% per year. Among other things, that meant that the US dollar lost between 90% and 95% of its value in ten years. Sellers, realising that many families had two incomes, quickly re-priced their wares to take advantage of the increased purchasing power. House prices in many cities rose by ten times in ten years, with groceries and most other items following the trend. Daycares in particular became almost prohibitively expensive. Just as the owners of shopping malls increase their rents to exclude all but the most profitable shops, so daycares increased their charges to exclude all but the highest-earning women. Some families pay thousands of dollars a month merely for daycare, nearly eliminating the earnings of the second job. The “two-income family” proved to be a trap. The incomes were higher but the increased costs deleted much or most of that advantage.

Unemployment

17th March 1931: Young women queuing up for the chance of a job. (Photo by Fox Photos/Getty Images). Source

Another negative was that the concept of “full employment” disappeared forever. Until the beginning of the 1960s, there was always a shortage of labor. For those entering the labor force, a good job was almost always available. For those already employed, it was often possible to quit one job and find within a day another equally as good. But no society has ever been able to create sufficient employment to provide two jobs for each family.

The unemployment rate is a real and under-examined dimension of the workforce transition. It involves the displacement and marginalisation of less-skilled men, and the consequent damage to their capacity to form and sustain families. In the 1950s and into the 1960s, jobs were still abundant, with unemployment rates hovering near zero. Today, the real unemployment rates, after allowing for government manipulation, are generally in the 7% to 10% range, and will never likely change. So, the decline in male labor force participation is real and sustained. The fraction of prime-age men (25–54) in the labor force has fallen significantly over the past 60 years. Jewish “researchers”, including the San Francisco FED, blame this on a “skills mismatch”, but that isn’t the real issue, nor is education. The issue is that female labor force participation increased dramatically from about 1960.

Some argue that the dominant explanations for male decline in the workforce were automation and trade, not female competition. Others excuse this by claiming that the men who are out of work are less likely to be married or to have children, somehow suggesting that male unemployment is a function of parenthood rather than job availability. There are so many ways to smoke up a room. An argument with some validity is that female workforce entry coincided with the structural decline in manufacturing, a field in which men were always concentrated. However, a contrary item is that the married women newly entering the workforce would generally accept lower wages for a position than would a married man with a family to support. From an employer’s perspective, this was a lower-cost and lower-risk input. Women represented a workforce that was socialised to accept lower expectations, to avoid conflict in negotiation, and to prioritise stability over aggressive advancement. Employers who face a choice between a male and a female candidate with similar qualifications have a rational incentive to prefer the candidate who requests less. You can already see where the HR professionals were heading.

The Marginalised Single-Earner Man

Men unable to earn a family wage could not start or maintain a family or buy a home. Once enough families sent a second earner into the market, the second income was capitalised straight into house prices in good school districts. The result was that single-earner households were outbid and forced to choose “longer commutes, less space, worse schools or other trade-offs, or simply renting”.

The marriage data reinforce this. Only about 60% of men aged 35 are married today, down from 90% in 1980. The causality runs in both directions: men who are out of work are less likely to be married, and unmarried men have weaker incentives to compete for the wages that would make them marriageable. The family wage – the income sufficient to support a wife and children – was the material foundation of the male breadwinner role. When the labor market no longer delivered that wage to men without advanced credentials, and when housing prices were set by dual-professional-income households, the men who would once have been marriageable on a single income were structurally excluded from the family formation market.

This displacement is best understood not as a single causal chain (women enter → men displaced → families collapse) but as a feedback loop in which several transformations reinforced one another: Sectoral restructuring eliminated the male-heavy jobs that had sustained single-earner families. Female workforce entry provided a cheaper, more flexible labor supply for the expanding service sectors, and masked the male decline in aggregate statistics. The two-income price spiral capitalised the second income into housing and other positional goods, making the single-earner family economically non-viable in high-opportunity areas. The decline of the family wage made marriage and fatherhood economically irrational for less-skilled men, and the resulting unattached male population became both a symptom and a further cause of the decline in male labor force participation. The socialisation of children shifted from the family to institutional settings, completing the transfer of functions that had once defined the family as a self-sufficient moral and economic unit.

The Jewish Bolshevik model proposed to accomplish this transfer through direct state coercion. The Western (still Jewish) variant accomplished it through market incentives, legal redefinition, and cultural normalisation. The men who were marginalised were not the target of a coordinated policy; they were the residue of a transformation that had no place for them. That is, in some respects, more damning than a conspiracy: a system that produces such an outcome through the uncoordinated pursuit of institutional self-interest is harder to correct, because there is no author to hold responsible and no single lever to pull.

The Cumulative Result

The pattern across these areas is consistent: the workforce transition externalised functions that had previously been internal to the family: food production, child socialisation, sleep scheduling, social capital generation, and transferred them to the food and childcare industries. It is obvious that the incentives of this structure were not aligned with a family’s reproductive and formative needs, and in fact ran counter to those needs. The food industry was interested in shelf life, not nutrition. The childcare industry was interested in profit and behavioral compliance, not moral formation. The employer was interested in productivity, not the sleep needs of children.

The Jewish Bolshevik model proposed to accomplish this transfer through direct state custody. The Western variant accomplished it through market signals and institutional incentives, each actor pursuing its own rational interest, but all moving in the same direction. The result is a functional convergence that is harder to reverse than a policy decree, because there is no single author to hold accountable. The tragedy is that the family unit did not disappear. Instead, it was hollowed out but retained as a legal unit while its reproductive, nutritional, and socialising functions were progressively outsourced to institutions that were never designed to perform them.

The Mechanism, Stated Precisely

I do not claim, and the evidence does not support, the existence of a centrally-directed conspiracy specifically to destroy the Western family by pushing Gentile women into the workforce. However, the evidence does support the claim of a convergence in which Jewish individuals, professionals, and organisations cooperated in planning, producing (and disguising, if not burying the existence of) this vast destructive social change. People like Friedan provided the grievance narrative that reframed domesticity as deprivation. The movement of the huge number of married women into the workforce caused economic restructuring that resulted in very high inflation, rising housing costs and much higher living costs, that made the new narrative economically rational if not compulsory. Many institutional participants (legislatures, courts, credit markets, employers) removed the barriers that had previously prevented this upheaval. Professional and academic institutions provided legitimacy by adapting their frameworks to the demographic reality rather than challenging it. Media and advertising provided the cultural normalisation that made the transition appear as liberation rather than duress.

The result was a transformation that functioned as if it had been coordinated, because every institutional actor was moving in the same direction, even in the absence of a central directive. The deleterious effects on the stability of the marital bond, on the socialisation of children, and on the family’s capacity to function as the primary transmitter of moral formation, were not incidental. They were the predictable consequences of a transition that was marketed as costless and that systematically suppressed the evidence of its costs.

The Funding

Jewish Women’s Archive — The Feminist Revolution: Susan Brownmiller publishes ‘Against Our Will: Men, Women, And Rape’. Source

We can trace the funding and institutional networks that connected the ideological entrepreneurs, the professional associations, and the policy advocates of this social upheaval, to map the infrastructure of convergence that made the transition appear inevitable. Also, the mass media and the women’s magazines played an important part in “selling” this new attitude to married women.

The funding network did not operate as a conspiracy, but the documentary record shows something that functions in practice with comparable effect: a philanthropic and media infrastructure that made the workforce transition appear both inevitable and desirable, while systematically defunding or marginalising the evidence of its costs. The mechanism was a convergence of funding streams, legal strategies, and commercial incentives, each reinforcing the others.

The Ford Foundation was the single most consequential institutional actor in this network, because it financed the legal and organisational infrastructure that made this social transition legally and culturally irreversible. Some of this was nefarious at best. In 1972, Ford Foundation president McGeorge Bundy conceived a strategy to penetrate existing male-dominated liberal organisations and redirect their agendas. This was clearly intended to silence the very real objections of men to the obvious destruction of their marriages and families. At the same time, Ruth Bader Ginsburg (a Jew who ended up on the US Supreme Court) created the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project to eliminate “gender distinctions” in employment and family law.

The Rockefeller Foundation also provided substantial funding, and throughout the 1970s, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Carnegie Corporation, the Mellon Foundations, and others, all funded various “Women’s Studies” that produced reports and media news in support of this social transition. The private foundations, Jewish “philanthropists”, many Jewish authors, the Jewish-owned newspapers and magazines, were all reading from the same script, lending credibility and attempting to normalise this transition in the public mind. The financial architecture of this “wave of feminism” was in no way an organic “grass-roots” movement, but was totally controlled and promoted by the corporate-liberal base. The movement that marketed itself as the liberation of ordinary women was financed and promoted by a vast Jewish institutional and individual stratum.

The Media as Sales Channel: From Profit Motive to Ideological Amplifier

The women’s magazines of the day were a large part of this social deconstruction, true in part because the commercially-driven plot of this movement demonstrated an enormous capacity to sell copies. The most important single vehicle was Helen Gurley Brown’s Cosmopolitan magazine. Brown’s Sex and the Single Girl (1962) had already normalised the idea that unmarried women could have and enjoy sex. As editor of Cosmopolitan from the mid-1960s, she advocated for the primacy of work in women’s lives and packaged sexual freedom and career ambition as a single, coherent identity. One social commentator stated that Brown’s magazine “released the single woman from all social and sexual constraints, making her a threat to the institution of marriage”. Cosmopolitan did not argue that married women should abandon the home; it constructed a cultural template in which the working, sexually autonomous woman was the aspirational norm, against which the housewife appeared as a diminished or “unfulfilled” figure. This re-characterisation of women was not an accident; it was the agenda, with all else following from this. Many other magazines like the Ladies’ Home Journal and McCall’s, followed in the footsteps of Cosmopolitan, all adopting the basic agenda of what was essentially “women’s liberation” in another form. The tragedy was that they leapt onto this bandwagon not primarily out of conviction but because the articles sold huge numbers of magazines.

Ms. magazine, founded in 1972, was the more explicitly ideological vehicle in support of this social upheaval, with its financing coming from various Jewish so-called “philanthropists” like Clay Felker, who was Gloria Steinem’s editor at New York magazine. Katharine Graham, publisher of the Washington Post and Newsweek, was strongly onside as an investor and proponent. Warner Communications was the same, putting up all the money to support this subversive enterprise. The influence of the media – and of those who controlled the media – was enormous. They not only controlled access to the press and the airwaves, but who obtained funding. All these components, primarily controlled by Jews, were structurally aligned with the institutions that were financing and legitimating this social transition.

There was a convergence of a philanthropic-legal-media complex in which Jewish foundations and philanthropists provided funding, Jewish lawyers supplied the legal architecture, while Jewish professionals provided academic legitimacy, Jewish women’s magazines supplied the cultural script, and the Jewish daycare coalition supplied the institutional receptacle for the children. No single actor commanded the result, but the direction was consistent across every major institutional sector. That makes the outcome functionally indistinguishable from a coordinated project, and makes so important this documentary record that is being assembled here.

One article told us that, “Many of these (negative) developments were products of a transitional period of adjustment, especially marked in the 1970s and 1980s, when women embraced gender equality more quickly than did men and experienced widespread discontent with the persistence of traditional marriage and family arrangements. The gender revolution is nowhere complete, but there is now evidence that the further progress of the gender revolution is in many cases resulting in a certain restabilisation of family life.” [3]

Those statements are obscenely false. The negative results of this social transformation were not in any sense “a transitional period of adjustment”. They were permanent, and exist in exacerbated form today. And the destructive environment that ensued was not because “women embraced gender equality more quickly than did men”. It was due entirely to the realisation – at least on the part of the men – that their family unit and marriage itself were undergoing a permanent destruction. The article’s claim that as this “gender revolution” progresses further, there will be realised a “restabilisation of family life”, is simply fraudulent. The “family”, the family unit as we knew it, has been irrevocably diminished to the point where it can only superficially execute its former functions or fulfill its former obligations.

With the virtual abandonment of the upbringing and socialisation of children to the commercial daycares, the real tragedy to Western society will be fully experienced only in future generations. The overall destructive effect to Western societies of this gender transformation is so vast as to be almost unimaginable. And yet in the face of all this, we have Jewish hopefuls writing articles like “Times are changing! Data show gender revolution’s benefits to family life”. Un huh.

A Documented Intent to Reconstruct, not to “Liberate”

There are still nagging questions about the sudden mass movement of married women into the work force. I wrote earlier that Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique took the dissatisfaction of some middle-class Jewish housewives and universalised it as if it applied to all women everywhere. Her premise was essentially an implicit claim that – for women – fulfillment through domesticity (motherhood, housekeeping) was a false promise. This view was cleverly inflicted on Western women everywhere, and it gave women a vocabulary to reinterpret their (married, motherhood) lives as deprivation.

I don’t see a “conspiracy” here in the usual sense of that word, but it is true that many people and institutions quickly joined Friedan’s thesis and began to promote it widely. My point is that this massive social transition was not a natural evolution but an agenda shared by disparate groups of Jews who decided to impose it on Western Gentile society. A very small group of people, particularly in the media and those with money (institutions and individuals) decided they wanted to deconstruct the Western family (and society in the process), and caused the movement to progress to its ultimate end. The mass media heavily supported it, as did various so-called “scientific studies”, while ignoring or downplaying the serious social negative effects. People like Bader-Ginsburg pushed for laws that would legislate these results. Again, a relatively few Jewish individuals were responsible for the planning and execution of this massive social transition. It is especially disturbing to realise that this social transition was caused by these few individuals (1) with little or no concern for the tragic deleterious effects on the family and society, and (2) was done with full knowledge of the probability of those effects.

The facts in the historical record indicate that the Jews were not only fully aware of the likely results of their actions, fully aware of the eventual effects on the family and society, but that they proceeded deliberately (and recklessly) because this was the agenda.

My claim that this socially-fatal upheaval was not an organic evolution, is adequately supported by the historical record, but it is not quite so simple as “a small group imposed it”. The evidence points to something that sits between spontaneous social change and deliberate conspiracy, in the sense that the conspiracy part necessarily energised a social change that, while not precisely spontaneous, was inevitable. This was a strategic, financed, and legally codified reconstruction of the family, carried out by identifiable actors who possessed both the intention to dismantle the breadwinner-homemaker system and who had advance knowledge of the costs that dismantling would impose on the (Gentile) family and on (Gentile) society. They did not need to foresee every consequence with perfect accuracy; they needed only to know that the institution they were attacking was load-bearing, and to proceed anyway.

August 10, 1993 — Ruth Bader Ginsburg is appointed to the US Supreme Court.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg becomes the first Jewish woman appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States. Source

The documentary record shows a coherent legal and philanthropic strategy aimed at a specific institutional target: the breadwinner-homemaker family, understood by its architects as a system of “separate spheres” (i. e. breadwinner, homemaker) that had to be dismantled. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the clearest case. She is not accurately described as a “formal equality” feminist who merely wanted women treated like men. Legal scholars characterise her as a “reconstructive feminist” whose explicit goal was “to deconstruct the breadwinner-homemaker system” and to “reconstruct gender along different lines”. Her litigation strategy at the ACLU Women’s Rights Project, funded by the Ford Foundation, used male plaintiffs precisely to demonstrate that the “separate spheres” system harmed men as well as women, thereby building a constitutional case for erasing gender as a legal category in family law and employment. This was not accidental; it was a designed intervention into the legal architecture of the family.

The Structure of Intent: A Convergence with a Direction

Spock wrote Baby and Child Care partly to counteract the rigid pediatric doctrines of his day, which emphasized strict feeding schedules for infants and discouraged open displays of affection between parent and child. Spock, by contrast, encouraged understanding and flexibility on the part of parents, and he stressed the importance of listening to children and appreciating their individual differences. Source

I operate on the principle that foreseeable consequences imply deliberate intent, and this principle applies most powerfully to the daycare debate, where the evidence of harm was not hidden but explicitly articulated in the public record and then overridden. In 1971 there were multiple Senate debates in the US over child care. Opponents of the proposed Jewish system cited evidence from Israel, proving that kibbutz child-rearing was severely detrimental to child development. Many professionals warned that state-supervised communal care carried risks “ranging from mild neuroses and developmental lags to serious maladjustments”. Dr. Benjamin Spock’s proposal to pay mothers to care for their own children rather than financing institutional care, was entered into the Congressional Record as a rational alternative.

These were not obscure objections. They were in the Congressional Record. The coalition that supported the bill – the Jewish “feminists” and professional childcare advocates – knew that serious developmental concerns existed. They proceeded anyway, because the social-control incentives outweighed the warnings. At one point then-President Richard Nixon vetoed the proposed legislation because he accurately identified it as “designed to undermine the American family”. The intense pressure by the Jewish cabal to proceed down this fatal path was not from ignorance of the consequences. It was because the consequences were the desired outcome, and they won.

This massive social transition was driven by a convergence of strategically positioned primarily Jewish actors who shared a project – the dismantling of the breadwinner-homemaker family, and who possessed the institutional resources (foundation money, legal expertise, media platforms, legislative access) to translate that project into law, culture, and economic structure. They did not need to meet in a single room. The Ford Foundation’s grant officers, Ginsburg’s litigation team, the editors of Cosmopolitan and Ms., and the daycare coalition were all moving in the same direction, each pursuing a logic that reinforced the others.

The question of knowledge is best answered by the record of what they were trying to do. Ginsburg’s strategy was explicitly aimed at deconstructing the breadwinner-homemaker system. Ford’s funding was aimed at erasing gender distinctions in family law. The media were aimed at normalising the working, autonomous, sexually-free woman as the cultural ideal. These were not “unintended” goals; they were the stated objectives. And the costs – to the family unit, to marital stability, to the developmental environment of children, to the capacity of single-earner families to survive – were knowable and, in the case of the daycare debate, explicitly known. The architects did not need a crystal ball. They needed only to understand what the breadwinner-homemaker family was doing, and to decide that it should stop doing it.

June 30, 1966 — NOW is founded.

The National Organization of Women is founded at the Third National Conference of Commissions on the Status of Women. Source

My years of experience have taught me something that the social-scientific literature often obscures: It is always a mistake to assume that people don’t know what they are doing. I have found that almost inevitably those in positions of institutional power are largely if not fully aware, of the potential results of their actions. Those in positions of institutional power generally know full well what they are doing, and are almost always fully aware of the potential consequences. “Unanticipated or unintended consequences” are rare. The record of this transition confirms that judgment. The family was not accidentally destabilised by a million individual “choices” made by naive women. It was legally, financially, and culturally reconstructed by (primarily) Jewish actors who understood the institution they were targeting, and who accepted the collateral damage as the price of the reconstruction. That is not a conspiracy theory.

The content of this essay is a documented history, and it is more disturbing than a mere “Jewish conspiracy”, because it means the damage was not the product of a hidden cabal but of open, financed, and legally codified decisions made by Jews who believed they had the right to remake the (Western, Christian) family in their own image. The honest conclusion is that the society we knew cannot be reinstated. The material base is gone, the legal architecture is entrenched, and the normative memory has faded for the majority. Western society has suffered a tragically serious loss, and it would be a mistake to pretend otherwise.

Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 34 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 150 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. (Chap. 2 — Dealing with Demons).

His full archive can be seen at

https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/ + https://www.moonofshanghai.com/

He can be contacted at: 2186604556@qq.com

NOTES – Part 13

[1] Gender Revolution and the Restabilization of Family Life

https://contemporaryfamilies.utah.edu/publications/posts/2015/august/gender-restabilization.php#1

[2] Albert Shanker

https://www.shankerinstitute.org/about-albert-shanker

[3] Gender Revolution and the Restabilization of Family Life

https://contemporaryfamilies.utah.edu/publications/posts/2015/august/gender-restabilization.php#1

This article may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. This content is being made available under the Fair Use doctrine, and is for educational and information purposes only. There is no commercial use of this content.

Other Works by this Author