Direct Link to Latest News


Women Usurping Role of Provider

October 19, 2012



The latest Canadian census shows  women, aided & abetted by the Illuminati bankers, are usurping the male role as providers.

Although this article doesn't say it, men are often openly discriminated against in hiring. This is so men can't be providers and women are too preoccupied to have children. 

Men are becoming more dependent on working wives, and naturally assume more child rearing responsibilities. This is another example of gender bending with the ultimate goal of making marriage and family obsolete. First they will eliminate men; then, they will eliminate women. Ultimately, the State  will control reproduction and raise the young. There will be no families.

From REALITY - The monthly publication of REAL Women of Canada  (Sept.-Oct.)

According to Statistics Canada, in 2009, 18% of Canadian women are now the primary breadwinners in their family - up from 14% in 1997. In this same period, the proportion of women matching or exceeding their husbands' earnings climbed to 42% from 37%.

With more women assuming the role of predominant financial provider for their families--where does this leave the men?

It appears that more men are stay-at-home fathers: their numbers have risen by 50% in the past twenty years.

In 2009, there were approximately 53,765 stay-at-home fathers in Canada, compared to 20,610 in 1976.

And while the number of stay-at-home mothers in mother/father families has decreased dramatically--from 1. 5 million in 1976 to 436,995 in 2009--the number of stay-at-home fathers has almost tripled since the mid 70s. 

In 1976 stay-at-home fathers represented only 1% of all stay-at-home parents, while, in 2009, 12% of the stay-at-home parents in Canadian mother/ father families were men.


In spite of the increased number of stay-at-home fathers, it's important to note that they represent a very small proportion--2%--of all fathers. In contrast, 16% of all mothers reported that they were at home by choice in 2010.

It's also important to bear in mind that these data are based on a rather strict definition of a stay-at-home parent: the parent at home must be not looking for work or going to school and must have no reported income.

Therefore, the actual number of men who identify themselves as stay-at- home-fathers is quite likely much higher than the data indicate, because many of today's stay-at-home parents earn some income. Research conducted at Carleton university shows that most stay-at-home fathers have not fully relinquished their ties to the workforce, to the extent that many women did in the 1950s and 1960s. Roughly half of the stay-at-home fathers are actually working to some extent - either part- time or flexibly, at home.

This increase in stay-at-home fathers can be partially attributed to evolving attitudes about gender roles in parenting. 

On the other hand, two economic factors may account for some of the increases. One is the impact of economic fluctuations on the employment prospects of some fathers. 

The number of stay-at-home fathers actually dropped by over 4,000 between 2009 and 2010, possibly due to improved employment prospects, as the economy recovered from the financial crisis of 2009. Another factor, which may explain some of the increases, is that women are more likely to outearn their male partners than in the past, as noted above.


The number of Canadian fathers taking paid parental leave after a birth or adoption of a child has skyrocketed in the past decade. In 2001 only 3% of eligible men applied for parental leave benefits. In 2010, 30% percent of eligible fathers filed for parental leave benefits, a ten-fold increase in just a few years. (Statistics Canada, 2011)

Even men who don't qualify for paid paternal leave are more likely to spend time at home after a birth or adoption than in the past. data from the general Social Survey of 2006, show that 55% of all Canadian fathers take some sort of leave from work (including unpaid leave and vacation time) around the time their children are born or adopted, up from 38% in 2001.

One more indication of fathers' increasing involvement on the home front is their use of short-term leave for personal or family reasons. Canadian fathers of preschoolers missed an average of 6.3 workdays for personal or family reasons in 2007, up from 1.8 days in 1997.

The growing number of stay-at-home fathers and the fathers' increased use of parental and family leave provide further evidence of the changing role of Canadian men in the provision of child care. While mothers are still more likely than fathers to be at home caring for children, fathers have increased their involvement significantly, suggesting that paternal care of children has become an increasingly important child care resource for Canadian families.


It should be noted, however, that despite the greater involvement of fathers, it is still the employed mother who has the most difficult position in that she is expected to adjust her life to shoulder the brunt of domestic responsibilities and spend, on average, more hours per week on housework and child care.

It is also usually the mother, too, who actually organizes family life, i.e. makes sure all the bases are covered: milk in the fridge and children taken to hockey practice on time, etc.

That is, although, both mothers and fathers are operating the home base these days, it's not in equal numbers. Maybe this is because women want it this way, i.e., to be "in charge" of the home, with the husband as helper. Perhaps too, it is men who like it that way as well.


First Comment from Dan:

I do volunteer work for a charity that helps poor families.  When we get a call for assistance I go with other volunteers on a 'home visit' to meet them and hear their problems.  I have noticed we get lots of single mothers with two or more children from different fathers, and no man in sight.  That's the hardest visits, since the children already display symptoms of attention deficit (listless, withdrawn) or hyperactivity.   Children with a mom and dad are definitely more social.  It's moving to see that children where there's love and commitment in the home don't see the financial danger and poverty in which they live.

Regarding the article, I see a lot of women working while the men are laid off.  Most of the people we serve are laborers who were fully employed in the building construction trades which hit a slump after 2008.  For this demographic there are simply more office jobs for women than construction jobs and manufacturing jobs for the men.   I've been seeing a trend that these men seem to get to like being the 'mom' babysitting all day.   While I think this is better psychologically for children than day care, these are families in which both parents should be working.  That's why they call us - missing a month's rent they could end up on the street.

When I was six, the father across the street from us was a Navy veteran who drove a milk truck delivery route.  His wife was a 'homemaker' if they still use the term for 'housewife that does the work that needs to be done at home for smooth running of the family'.  On his income alone they owned their house, drove a new car, wore new clothes, got their teeth cleaned, had a family doctor, and all the rest of it. (That during the late 50's, early 60's).

Today the same family would be living in a tiny overpriced apartment with drug deals going on in the parking lot, and everybody on food stamps.  The man would be unemployed because dairies haven't delivered milk to people's door in half a century,   he'd probably be the one home and his wife would be working as dental assistant or office manager.

Where did it start?  WW II.  My grandfather told me it started with Rockefeller and the "Big Boys" getting together and deciding to use a World War to put women to work.  They could double the number of workers to start wages moving down, and double the tax base to boot.

Quoting from of an authorized FDR-friendly biography [1.], "Roosevelt and Stimson pleaded for drafting women into the Army. Since for war purposes all bodies were equally necessary, and the war priority all powerful, traditional distinctions and ties diminished. The kinship system, never very strong, was virtually dismantled.  The demands for young men in the services lessened their economic dependence upon their elders and projected anew a cult of youth.  The freedom and importance of young people--almost instant adulthood--sent the marriage rate skyrocketing.  The economic demand for women on the assembly line caused a new move toward sexual equality and a de-emphasis on the wife-mother role. Families, separated geographically and functionally spent less time together.  Long overtime hours, migration to job centers, the induction of husbands into the services, and loss of control by parents over marriage, all weakened family stability...The hierarchy of age, income, sex--in fact the whole stratification system--was eroding."

Once the world war was underway there could never be a reversion of society to what it was prior to the war.

Scruples - the game of moral dillemas

Comments for "Women Usurping Role of Provider"

Tony B said (October 22, 2012):

Who does "Monica" [below] think she's kidding?

"Frivolous pursuits" are unseemly on men but with women they are a way of life.

Men "marginally" interested in their kids? How does that stack up against abortion for convenience, which is all but a few abortions. Fathers have sued to stop them and been turned down by the courts.

Monica said (October 21, 2012):

It is always amusing to see the "official" government interpretation of statistics and how they flagrantly ignore the current economic influences on families which, as many have already stated, affects the functioning of these families. Although I have seen men at both ends of the spectrum, those who are happy not to work and ride the wife's coat tails, and those who are genuinely underemployed, I would have to say the latter are the majority, in my experience. Sadly, also in the majority, are men who have only marginal interest in their children or in having a family at all, happy to see them in public schools, daycare etc to keep the wife happy and available for frivolous pursuits. You know, status quo.

That the family is slated for oblivion by the money-masters is no doubt. Frankly, these statistics say that they will need to up their game if they want their plans to succeed before the next 30 years go by. Yes, things are moving in their planned direction, but far too slowly for their ambitions. We are definitely scheduled for another war or "produced" cataclysm(s) for their agenda to really bloom.

Marcos said (October 20, 2012):

Women as chiefs of the house is a situation that violates the female need to be protected and to rely on a strong man.
When difficulties come, she will get bitter and resentful and will lose all respect for the husband. From that, to divorce or a pair of long horns in the husband's head (cuckoldry) it is just a small step.

Tony Blizzard said (October 20, 2012):

Is there anything in those Canadian statistics about the fact that the jobs left after offshoring are pretty much jobs that women have filled for at least the last century? Service jobs such as waitresses and nurses. Men have not held many of those types of jobs for a long time. Now they are discriminated against in those, still existing areas, but also in the areas getting the squeeze from "globalism."

The mundane sit down type manufacturing jobs have, from the start, been given mostly to women. Monotonous work such as soldering mother boards and a myriad of other electronic production lines; connecting components in tiny objects such as cell phones, etc.

In the U.S. there are still few women in jobs that actually require physical labor that machines can't do - construction, etc, - but those jobs are mostly given to illegal aliens now. The women who are in them are pretty much "tokens" in situations where the work is government subsidized. Women love the pay of a man's job but not the work. They immediately find all kinds of ways to reduce the actual work, once they have been handed a man's job.

Al is right that being a single parent by choice is foolhardy but it's not the end of the world. I raised three with some off and on help from my mother, who actually spent more time helping with my kids than with me as my father was killed in a WPA accident in the depression and my mother had to give us up to orphanages when I was four - her health broke from the stress. I home schooled my kids too, sometimes working two jobs - none of them out of my home.

Also, because I am a man, when my wife decided to be the belle of the bar (any bar) instead of a mother, I was given no help whatsoever of the welfare-train style single women are handed as though it was a guaranteed insurance deal. REAL gender discrimination. In fact, I was told in so many words that I could not indulge in the paid welfare of raising my kids by myself specifically because I am a man. This was over 50 years ago.

Those child rearing years were busy years for me and they precluded any idea of a "career" but my kids now have their own families - all home schooled - and all are making it in life as well as most Americans these days. Yet damned few women, single or not, will home school their kids, most all want their kids in the horrible schools. They love the "free" babysitter as much as they love the "free" welfare as single parents. Their concern is for themselves, not their kids.

Al said (October 20, 2012):

I don't know how single parents do it. I had only two sons, but we home schooled them and I worked from home. The two of us were involved in their lives and life was good. But sometimes I used to think about how it would be for my sons if they only had one parent. And I shudder to think about the quality of their lives. Sometimes it can't be helped due to circumstances, but to choose this kind of lifestyle I think is not a good idea.

Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at