Post: #1

Subtitle "How the ingrained expectation that women should want to become parents is detrimental and unhealthy"

Ingrained expectation? Try biological imperative.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archiv...al/262367/

Post: #2

This is just standard feminist/female solipsism and projection: I believe things should be X, therefore X is good and those who disagree are misogynists.

Post: #3

It's no that bad, guys. My guess is that if you have 70% of women playing the traditional role of full time homemakers and breeding an average of 3 children each, a society can reach the 2.1 ratio of Net Population Growth required to replace its population. Even more, polygamy must be allowed, so those wealthy men who can afford and want to have several wives and a LAAAAARGE family can do that. As for the other 30% of women, well, they can take the cock carrousel and provide fun and entertainment for men... Well, those who are bangable.

Post: #4

Too bad her ancestors didn't have the same belief.

Post: #5

(09-21-2012 12:17 PM)Luvianka Wrote:  As for the other 30% of women, well, they can take the cock carrousel and provide fun and entertainment for men... Well, those who are bangable.

That's pretty much the entire purpose of female existence isn't it?

1. Keep the population growing
2. Male entertainment

It's not like they have some greater drive or desire in life do they?
When is the last time you heard about a woman curing cancer or the like?
The most they can hope to achieve is to "raise awareness" for a cause

Here's a pic of her with her newborn daughter


Her and her beta husband


There's some gold in this article as well
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2...ca-valenti

Quote:But never underestimate the power of being in love. Andrew is fabulous and I want to be married to him - due in no small part to the fact that he also identifies himself as a feminist and that an equal partnership is just as important to him as it is to me.

Post: #6

I'm fine with this-it all works out in the end. The women who downplay the importance of children like this will simply breed themselves out of the genepool anyway. Darwinism at work-we're merely selecting for the more fertility-minded among us, as they'll eventually be the only ones left standing in numbers.

(09-21-2012 04:11 PM)Parlay44 Wrote:  There's some gold in this article as well
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2...ca-valenti

Quote:But never underestimate the power of being in love. Andrew is fabulous and I want to be married to him - due in no small part to the fact that he also identifies himself as a feminist and that an equal partnership is just as important to him as it is to me.

Translation: he's my bitch, and he likes it.

Post: #7

(09-21-2012 04:59 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  I'm fine with this-it all works out in the end. The women who downplay the importance of children like this will simply breed themselves out of the genepool anyway. Darwinism at work-we're merely selecting for the more fertility-minded among us, as they'll eventually be the only ones left standing in numbers.

Not quite. Instead, they wait till the eleventh hour (late 30s) and have a hail-mary retarded kid (Asperger's, autistic, or some other problem)--the product of decaying eggs--with some weak, desperate, vegan beta who pretends to not mind the 75 cocks she took during her "sex-positive" phase.

Incidentally, this whole article (and point of view) smacks of the par-for-the-course denialism of biological gender difference and evolutionary imperatives that we've come to expect from the extremist (and probably mentally ill) branch of feminism.

Post: #8

(09-21-2012 04:11 PM)Parlay44 Wrote:  

(09-21-2012 12:17 PM)Luvianka Wrote:  As for the other 30% of women, well, they can take the cock carrousel and provide fun and entertainment for men... Well, those who are bangable.

That's pretty much the entire purpose of female existence isn't it?

1. Keep the population growing
2. Male entertainment

It's not like they have some greater drive or desire in life do they?
When is the last time you heard about a woman curing cancer or the like?
The most they can hope to achieve is to "raise awareness" for a cause

Here's a pic of her with her newborn daughter


Her and her beta husband


There's some gold in this article as well
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2...ca-valenti

Quote:But never underestimate the power of being in love. Andrew is fabulous and I want to be married to him - due in no small part to the fact that he also identifies himself as a feminist and that an equal partnership is just as important to him as it is to me.

I bet she cheats on that sorry excuse for a man all the time and loves it when the guy calls her a dirty slut while he's stuffing her good.

Post: #9

(09-21-2012 08:00 PM)Only One Man Wrote:  I bet she cheats on that sorry excuse for a man all the time and loves it when the guy calls her a dirty slut while he's stuffing her good.

I'd bet everything I own that this chick loved--and loves--rough, nasty, dominating sex. These chicks always, always, always do. Oh, the examples I could give. My sweet, innocent, angelic heart has been corroded by the things I've seen and heard.

A good example.

Post: #10

(09-21-2012 05:59 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  Not quite. Instead, they wait till the eleventh hour (late 30s) and have a hail-mary retarded kid (Asperger's, autistic, or some other problem)--the product of decaying eggs--with some weak, desperate, vegan beta who pretends to not mind the 75 cocks she took during her "sex-positive" phase.

Actually, I think that still plays into the dynamic I outlined. You're right to point out that these women do tend to go for that "hail mary" towards the very end of their reproductive years (and they spend vast sums of money to do so-fertility clinics are big business in some places), but at the end of the day they're bringing one, maybe two kids into the world.

The average fertility rate for women on Valenti's end of the political spectrum is well under 2, and is low enough that if maintained, it will halve their population in 40-50 years.
The good news for liberals is that they've successfully controlled their fertility rates. The bad news is that they've only really done so for themselves-their ideological opponents are still breeding. Not as much as they used to, but much more than Valenti-style progressives.

The bottomline is that you can't operate the way these folks do (ignoring the role of biology and its interaction with gender, low fertility, etc) and expect to survive for too long. This kind of progressivism just isn't built for the long run.

Post: #11

Feminism or liberal culture will not just die off because these social strata have below replacement-level rates of reproduction.

While genetic lines will disappear, fresh blood is always at hand to adopt the ideas of the dominant culture. Simply put, the conservative family in Iowa sends their kid to college and then they go live in New York and become a liberal.

In fact, elites have always had low birth rates going back to the Hellenistic Greeks, the Romans, and the Chinese. They survive by recruitment and co-opting of the more fertile lower classes.

Post: #12

I get the feeling that these femicunts and ultra-liberals that say 'I don't want kids and it's normal to feel that way!' are really just compensating for the inner voice of reason saying 'I can find no one who wants to have kids with me and some days I want to kill myself...'

Post: #13

(09-22-2012 01:31 AM)RawGod Wrote:  Feminism or liberal culture will not just die off because these social strata have below replacement-level rates of reproduction.

It might not disappear, but they would be delusional to think that this trend will have no long term impact on them. History isn't on their side.

Quote:While genetic lines will disappear, fresh blood is always at hand to adopt the ideas of the dominant culture. Simply put, the conservative family in Iowa sends their kid to college and then they go live in New York and become a liberal.

Fresh blood is not a given these days. Conservatives have much higher retention rates today than they did 50 years ago, and they'd holding on liberal college or not.

Furthermore, fresh blood is not your blood-it can differ in small but tangible ways that ultimately create an altering of the dominant culture should their numbers increase significantly enough in proportion.

Example: immigrants. Immigrants may help boost the left in a nation where the left is dying, but in the long term even integrated immigrants maintain small, but crucial cultural differences (ex: Blacks and hispanics in usa = far more socially conservative than many whites, though they are otherwise liberal, left leaning).

Quote:In fact, elites have always had low birth rates going back to the Hellenistic Greeks, the Romans, and the Chinese. They survive by recruitment and co-opting of the more fertile lower classes.

This is fantasy. No culture can sustain itself with the kind of below-replacement fertility we see today, nor has it historically been done. Elites have, in fact, had high fertility rates in the past for much of their history, to go along with higher survival rates. Their declines did not tend to come until the twilight of their civilizations.

This article handily illustrates that better than I can:

Quote:"If we could survive without a wife, citizens of Rome, all of us would do without that nuisance." So proclaimed the Roman general, statesman, and censor Quintus Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus, in 131 B.C. Still, he went on to plead, falling birthrates required that Roman men fulfill their duty to reproduce, no matter how irritating Roman women might have become. "Since nature has so decreed that we cannot manage comfortably with them, nor live in any way without them, we must plan for our lasting preservation rather than for our temporary pleasure."

Quote: But the most fateful change rendered by the agricultural revolution was the way it turned population into power. Because of the relative abundance of food, more and more societies discovered that the greatest demographic threat to their survival was no longer overpopulation, but underpopulation.

At that point, instead of dying of starvation, societies with high fertility grew in strength and number and began menacing those with lower fertility. In more and more places in the world, fast-breeding tribes morphed into nations and empires and swept away any remaining, slow-breeding hunters and gatherers. It mattered that your warriors were fierce and valiant in battle; it mattered more that there were lots of them.

That was the lesson King Pyrrhus learned in the third century B.C., when he marched his Greek armies into the Italian peninsula and tried to take on the Romans. Pyrrhus initially prevailed at a great battle at Asculum. But it was, as they say, "a Pyrrhic victory," and Pyrrhus could only conclude that "another such victory over the Romans and we are undone." The Romans, who by then were procreating far more rapidly than were the Greeks, kept pouring in reinforcements -- "as from a fountain continually flowing out of the city," the Greek historian Plutarch tells us. Hopelessly outnumbered, Pyrrhus went on to lose the war, and Greece, after falling into a long era of population decline, eventually became a looted colony of Rome.

Like today's modern, well-fed nations, both ancient Greece and Rome eventually found that their elites had lost interest in the often dreary chores of family life. "In our time all Greece was visited by a dearth of children and a general decay of population," lamented the Greek historian Polybius around 140 B.C., just as Greece was giving in to Roman domination. "This evil grew upon us rapidly, and without attracting attention, by our men becoming perverted to a passion for show and money and the pleasures of an idle life." But, as with civilizations around the globe, patriarchy, for as long as it could be sustained, was the key to maintaining population and, therefore, power.

Western civilization has been here before. Low fertility became a norm, it was not born one.
The cycle made itself clear. Patriarchy begins, and it begets high fertility. That mass of manpower begets dominance, and eventually higher living standards. That breeds complacency, and the downfall of the patriarchy. That, in turn, breeds low fertility and decline of the civilization as a whole. The modern west (certainly most of Europe and East Asia, if not all of its former colonies) is on that last step.

The Greeks and the Romans in particular did not begin and end with low fertility-they began with strong fertility rates in their patriarchal dawns, and ended with very low fertility. The Roman Patrician elite died out as a result of this-they did not begin that way, but by the end of the Republic they simply weren't fertile enough to resist the onslaught of outsiders and formerly "lowborn" among them as they had historically done, preventing them from keeping their hold on power. That fertility decline played a significant role in the eventual demise of both civilizations, and the words of more than one stateman from each civilization illustrate that there was concern over this development within the elite.

In many ways, we may be replaying their old reality.

Post: #14

Look into Sparta as well... another case of population decline followed up with being conquered.



What's interesting about Greece and Rome, however, was that their population decline was not caused by immoral women, but rather, immoral men (Sparta is the exception to this - the women were evil). Men had all the power in places like Athens, including life and death of their wives, and also had access to slave girls (as young as they wanted) as well as prostitutes, and regular women.

Instead of saddling up with a wife, children, and responsibility, these men would just go around living the good life and spending their wealth only on themselves.


Although we know today that women are corrupted in Western Civilization, it has happened before that the men were the ones who were corrupt.

It seems to me, no matter what happens, that people will fuck things up one way or the other.

Post: #15

Athlone, you misunderstand, or I didn't explain myself clearly enough.
The ruling classes tend to have below replacement fertility. This is not fantasy. I'm most familiar with the Roman evidence, but there are scholarly studies on Hellenistic Greece, and I believe China and early modern Europe will show the same. Even without an ideology of feminism, procreation is a problem for the privileged.

I'm unclear why you quoted something about Quintus Caecilius Metellus which directly shows my point. The Roman senatorial and aristocratic classes suffered this problem early and persistently. They just couldn't maintain family lines and had to resort to strong measures such as tax exemptions for those families with two or more children.

Eventually the old Roman families dwindled to a handful, and the rise of provincial aristocrats occurred, as they came to Rome and became prominent. Thus emperors started to come of African, Spanish or even Syrian heritage.

Along with this came a transformation of culture, most definitely. I don't mean to imply that there will be no cultural evolution in the next generation once the liberal baby boomers die off. But the power of co-opting those of different genes will be strong.

If the conservative Christians push out loads of babies, it will be a long time before they have the upper hand culturally. There will be plenty of willing young interns at the Huffington Post or Goldman Sachs, even if they come from conservative families.

Cultural change will come, and in part from these demographic changes. I agree with you there. But by the time it does change, "conservative" and "liberal" or even "feminist" will all mean different things reflecting a different reality. And it could be a slow transformation. Just like the Roman Empire did fall, but many hundreds of years after the aristocrats started to bemoan the lack of reproduction you quoted. And by the time, it fell, it was no longer a pagan republic but a Christian empire. Likewise, I also think that feminism will be only a passing phase, given its reliance on certain artificial factors to keep it alive. But by the time it's gone, what we will have may be something completely different to what conservatives or the manosphere would like to see, and completely different to what we have had in the past.

So no, America is not going to collapse or be conquered like Sparta. It will change, as it always has.

Post: #16

Not wanting kids is a great evolutionary strategy.

Biology is obviously just a social structure made by the patriarchy to oppress women.

Post: #17

Personally, I could care less if a woman doesn't want to have kids or wants to dedicate all of her time and energy to career or wants to slut it up to her hearts content. I just wish that they would shit the fuck up about it.

It's just like the fat acceptance people. If you want the freedom to do or be something, cool you got it, but be an adult about it and accept the consequences that go with it. It is funny to me that the woman who most harp on the injustice of gender stereotypes are the one who do the most to prove them correct.

Post: #18

The ruling classes and fertility is all over the place, yeah? Rameses the Great had like eight hundred little whelps, and some of the British Empire had maybe two (messed up looking) daughters, tops.

Post: #19

Putting aside the “sour grapes” aspect of this “movement” there is an even more basic consideration: whether or not any society has a vested interest in its constituent members reproducing.

Singles don’t face social shaming because people are mean, frumpy, old-fashioned, or because society hates fun and can’t handle the girl-power of a take charge no-nonsense women totally aware of her intelligence and sexiness. No, singles face a degree of social shaming because it’s in every civilization’s interest that its men and women come together to make babies in sufficiently large numbers. The day this doesn’t happen, is the day your civilization begins to die—just check Japan which is projected to lose a third of it’s population by 2060. Social shaming alone won’t solve the problem, clearly, but shame has always been a part of the equation throughout human history.

As usual, the best solution is compromise. As a 29-yr old single man, I understand and accept the—fairly mild, in the grand scheme of things—social shaming directed my way because I realize that society has an interest in my reproduction. However, it is not in my best interests or desire to reproduce at this time, and so I respond by developing thicker skin, enjoying my life and doing whatever the hell I want. What I don’t do is write an angry article in an effort to get the society in which I live to adopt anti-civilizational attitudes.

Post: #20

(09-22-2012 08:27 AM)dragnet Wrote:  There is a more basic consideration in this article that is being ignored: whether or not any society has a vested interest in its constituent members reproducing.

Singles don’t face social shaming because people are mean, frumpy, old-fashioned, or because society hates fun and can’t handle the girl-power of a take charge no-nonsense women totally aware of her intelligence and sexiness. No, singles face a degree of social shaming because it’s in every civilization’s interest that its men and women come together to make babies in sufficiently large numbers. The day this doesn’t happen, is the day your civilization begins to die—just check Japan which is projected to lose a third of it’s population by 2060. Social shaming alone won’t solve the problem, clearly, but shame has always been a part of the equation throughout human history.

As usual, the best solution is compromise. As a 29-yr old single man, I understand and accept the—fairly mild, in the grand scheme of things—social shaming directed my way because I realize that society has an interest in my reproduction. However, it is not in my best interests or desire to reproduce at this time, and so I respond by developing thicker skin, enjoying my life and doing whatever the hell I want. What I don’t do is write an angry article in an effort to get the society in which I live to adopt anti-civilizational attitudes.

Post: #21

(09-22-2012 05:34 AM)RawGod Wrote:  Athlone, you misunderstand, or I didn't explain myself clearly enough.
The ruling classes tend to have below replacement fertility. This is not fantasy. I'm most familiar with the Roman evidence, but there are scholarly studies on Hellenistic Greece, and I believe China and early modern Europe will show the same. Even without an ideology of feminism, procreation is a problem for the privileged.

I would still submit that this is not a universal rule, as evidenced by what we see in other cultures (ex: pre-colonial Africa, the Arab world, etc) among the elite.
Anecdotally, the American elite seem slightly more fertile than the upper middle class, although I cannot prove this.

Quote:Along with this came a transformation of culture, most definitely. I don't mean to imply that there will be no cultural evolution in the next generation once the liberal baby boomers die off. But the power of co-opting those of different genes will be strong.

It might, though I am not sure how successful this strategy will be in the long run. We agree that it will bring much change, but I'm not sure how much of that change those enacting this co-opting will be prepared for.

Quote:If the conservative Christians push out loads of babies, it will be a long time before they have the upper hand culturally. There will be plenty of willing young interns at the Huffington Post or Goldman Sachs, even if they come from conservative families.

I think we've already started to see some of the side effects of high conservative fertility with the slow drift to right of American politics in recent years and the resurgence in importance of some conservative issues (ex: the pro-life movement and subsequent reform attempts).
I would count on seeing some more significant impact sooner (by that I mean within our lifetimes) rather than later, especially with these conservatives maintaining such high retention rates relative to their predecessors.

Granted, I'll agree that even if substantive change comes soon, many other trends are going to end up playing out over a longer term. America certainly will not be voting in a theocracy next year, though by the time I turn 59 (2050) I expect some significant developments to have moved forward, many of which I'll not like.

Quote:Cultural change will come, and in part from these demographic changes. I agree with you there. But by the time it does change, "conservative" and "liberal" or even "feminist" will all mean different things reflecting a different reality.

I agree that this may be the case.

Quote:So no, America is not going to collapse or be conquered like Sparta. It will change, as it always has.

I agree with this. America won't collapse/disappear, but substantive change is coming and coming soon.

Post: #22

Here's an interview with Valenti at a Jezebel clone.

An Interview with Jessica Valenti

Most of the interview is unreadable bullshit, but one question stood out. The interviewer asks Valenti about her opinion about legal remedies for men who father unwanted children, a "Roe for Men" as she says.

Quote: I also have sympathy, for sure – but as you said, there’s no real legal remedy so long as women are the ones who give birth. So unless we’re going to get all Shulamith Firestone about it, this is what we’ve got. I think I would be more concerned for men if 1) Women actually had total reproductive freedom in the U.S., which of course we don’t and 2) If the men leading the charge with this “Roe for Men” stuff weren’t such blatant misogynists.

Wow, just wow.

Post: #23

Let them not have kids, that way these kinds of people can die off.