The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Desired Versus Realized Fertility Among Women by Educational Attainment
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Rosie writes:

What about desired fertility? Does that change with educational attainment for either sex? If not, then the challenge is to close the gap between desired and actual fertility. If so, then there is something wrong with the “education” being provided. If a liberal arts education doesn’t impress upon a woman the importance and necessity of “paying life forward” (as you call it), then it has utterly failed.

The GSS routinely asks respondents what the ideal number of children to have is. The survey also asks respondents how many children they actually have. The following graph shows women’s responses, by educational attainment, to the ideal number of children for a woman to have and the number of children those women have actually had. To avoid racial confounding, only non-Hispanic whites are included. For contemporary relevance, results are from 2000 onward. To allow family formation to have occurred, responses are only taken from those aged 35 and older at the time of participation:

The realized fertility gap by educational attainment is nearly four times as large as the idealized fertility gap is. Women who try to have it all tend to come up short on the birthing front. But women who drop out of high school often end up having more than they can handle. Somewhere between sophomore year and graduating from high school before heading to the hearth is the goldilocks sweet spot! These are the women most likely to make their ideals come true.

Parenthetically, the pattern for men is similar but the divergence between ideal and realized fertility is half what it is for women. Nothing reduces female fertility like higher education does.

Feminism’s results are mixed. On the one hand, it hasn’t done much to reduce the number of children women would ideally like to have. It has, however, reduced the number of children women end up having. Feminism: Ensuring women’s dreams don’t come true by making sure the next generation doesn’t come through!

GSS variables used: CHLDIDEL(0-7), CHILDS, SEX(2), RACECEN1(1), HISPANIC(1), AGE(35-89), YEAR(2000-2016)

 
• Category: Ideology, Science • Tags: Feminism, Fertility, GSS, Kids, Love and Marriage 
Hide 222 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. 90% OF THE DEGREES WOMEN EARN ARE IN BOGUS FIELDS; WHITE WOMEN MUST ATTEND MY UNIVERSITY INSTEAD.

    Thanks for the stats, Sir. It confirms our common sense observation.

    It would be interesting to study how many women get degrees in REAL fields, such as computer science, physics, medicine, mathematics, nursing, etc.

    Sociology, gender studies, communications, etc. are bogus fields and do not warrant a degree as they knowledge they impart (if any) can often be acquired in a weekend course or a few month diploma, max.

    Even nursing can be learnt in 2 years, say LPN, but then they go for BSN. What more they learn there? Not much.

    White women need to stay home and have 10 white kids each. I must start a university for white women. They must marry a white man to get admission, and need to have 10 white kids to graduate. I will aware them a degree called MOM—Master of Motherhood. If you all donate, I can give them scholarships of 10K+ per year.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    I like your University program per your last paragraph, Mr. Rational*! I don't agree on the BSN for nurses though. This is more "certification creep" by those big shots in the field and in the higher-ed scam. They are telling RNs right now that they will need a BSN to get the same jobs they have now, come a coupla years from now - not to keep one's job, as I don't think they are that stupid, but they are saying it'll be required to get hired for the same type job very soon.

    Yes, that BSN, if one is already a nurse with a year's experience, is a complete waste of time. However, the Universities need that money from these continual students badly, you know, to support more dieversity coordinators, new offices with safe spaces, etc. It's critical, man!

    .

    * Wait a minute, you are not "Mr. Rational"? I think your handle may be pretty confusing, as there is Mr. Rational, who's been on here a long time.

  2. CORRECTION OF TYPO: Award, not aware.

  3. Redstan will pay off your student loans in exchange for marriage to a huwhite beta male and having four children.

    • Replies: @Thomm

    Redstan will pay off your student loans in exchange for marriage to a huwhite beta male and having four children.
     
    What guarantee is there against frivorce by the woman, a few years later? Then she has no debt plus an alimony stream (and CS stream). Plus, beta males to pay off her student loans are already available.

    Plus, as the children are now from a broken home, they will grow up to be damaged and less successful adults.

    Too many White Trashionalists don't think fatherhood is valuable. A white baby born to a slutty, tattooed single mother is just as valuable to them as one born to one of Mitt Romney's sons. That is why Heartiste rightfully bashes the 'MOAR WHITE BABIES QUANTITY AGAINST QUALITY' trolls, as he calls them.

    , @anon
    its not that Im opposed to patriarchal restoration guaranteeing the rights of the betas vs bitches
    its just that it tends to produce more betas which cant sustain a patriarchy
    maybe crspr alpha babies, maybe multiwives for alphas, maybe less wars that are lethal to white alphas, maybe stepford crispr wives, ...
    I know betas are more civilized and we need to transition from founding martial phase of civilization to science tech economy art etc but its not true beta nerds are smarter and its not true you have to complete eschew the martial its bad ide to rest on past battles and forget violence solves everything is the very foundation of civilization and can not be transcended yet if youre a hammer you always want to smash something, we need to understand what keeps toppling white empires for 4000 years
  4. @216
    Redstan will pay off your student loans in exchange for marriage to a huwhite beta male and having four children.

    Redstan will pay off your student loans in exchange for marriage to a huwhite beta male and having four children.

    What guarantee is there against frivorce by the woman, a few years later? Then she has no debt plus an alimony stream (and CS stream). Plus, beta males to pay off her student loans are already available.

    Plus, as the children are now from a broken home, they will grow up to be damaged and less successful adults.

    Too many White Trashionalists don’t think fatherhood is valuable. A white baby born to a slutty, tattooed single mother is just as valuable to them as one born to one of Mitt Romney’s sons. That is why Heartiste rightfully bashes the ‘MOAR WHITE BABIES QUANTITY AGAINST QUALITY’ trolls, as he calls them.

    • Replies: @216

    What guarantee is there against frivorce by the woman, a few years later? Then she has no debt plus an alimony stream (and CS stream). Plus, beta males to pay off her student loans are already available.
     
    The Israeli policy is for marriage to be governed by the religious authorities, a legacy of the Ottoman millet system. Secular and gay marriages have to be performed in Cyprus. Redstan would have a similar policy, and would impose a "luxury tax" on these foreign marriages.

    Where marriage is governed by the religious authorities, so would divorce. Thus removing the powers from a feminist legal system, and transferring them to clerics.

    The idea of student loan repayment is designed to encourage the higher IQ to reproduce. If you don't go to college because you aren't intelligent enough, and Redstan would be examination only admissions, then you have no debts to repay.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    If it weren't for that silly "White Trashionalist" bit, I could mash the AGREE button, now that I'm qualified, as I agree completely with the rest, Thomm. You may not agree with these WTs, but damn, that talk about them being wiggers all that, is ridiculous. Just lay out your argument - I have insulted plenty of people with names on line, such as the Commies that come out of the woodwork onto the unz site. However, these people are ON YOUR SIDE, Thomm (unless you are a dot-Indian type, as some have been indicating).
    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    "Too many White Trashionalists don’t think fatherhood is valuable."

    Citation needed Shiva. The white nationalists living rent free in your head have you pulling lies out of your unwiped ass.
    , @James Forrestal
    Leaving aside the ignorant, virulent anti-White hatred expressed in your post, there is a related point to be made:

    Both family stability and fertility are impacted, not just by modernity and prosperity in general, but by specific aspects of current year government policy and law -- as well as by (((media)))-promoted cultural norms.

    Most industrialized countries have total fertility rates (TFR) below replacement. Perhaps it would be useful to see if there are any exceptions to this rule. One prosperous country has an overall TFR of 3.11. For the people who make up this country's majority population, it's even higher -- 3.16. What's different about this particular country?

    This country has rather different policies on several family-related issues than those that we see in the US and other Western countries:
    --Abortion is severely restricted. Women have to be evaluated by a committee in order to get approval for an abortion.
    --There's no such thing as civil marriage -- only religious marriage. Miscegenation is highly discouraged.
    --Divorce is adjudicated by religious courts -- there is no "no-fault" divorce.
    --Ethnic groups are strictly segregated in housing, schooling, etc.


    This country, of course, is the Zionist entity in Palestine. The official government policies for the Jewish ethnostate on these issues are almost exactly the opposite of the policies that the Tribe promotes for White countries. What a surprise.
    , @RadicalCenter
    Both quality and quantity matter.

    Numbers of people, therefore numbers of babies, matter very much. This should be obvious.

    Physical defense against crime and civil unrest takes bodies, lots of people wielding firearms against aggressors and, when needed, fighting up close against rival colonizing tribes (the hordes taking over the USA right now). It’s typically harder for defend your home, your neighborhood, your town, the more you’re outnumbered.

    To the extent that voting matters, voters need to be conceived, “allowed” to be born rather than murdered, raised to love and respect and defend their families and their nation (not their government), in serious numbers.

    It takes people to hold, take, or re-take territory and the resources — water, fertile ag land, minerals, oil and gas — that go with it.

  5. @Thomm

    Redstan will pay off your student loans in exchange for marriage to a huwhite beta male and having four children.
     
    What guarantee is there against frivorce by the woman, a few years later? Then she has no debt plus an alimony stream (and CS stream). Plus, beta males to pay off her student loans are already available.

    Plus, as the children are now from a broken home, they will grow up to be damaged and less successful adults.

    Too many White Trashionalists don't think fatherhood is valuable. A white baby born to a slutty, tattooed single mother is just as valuable to them as one born to one of Mitt Romney's sons. That is why Heartiste rightfully bashes the 'MOAR WHITE BABIES QUANTITY AGAINST QUALITY' trolls, as he calls them.

    What guarantee is there against frivorce by the woman, a few years later? Then she has no debt plus an alimony stream (and CS stream). Plus, beta males to pay off her student loans are already available.

    The Israeli policy is for marriage to be governed by the religious authorities, a legacy of the Ottoman millet system. Secular and gay marriages have to be performed in Cyprus. Redstan would have a similar policy, and would impose a “luxury tax” on these foreign marriages.

    Where marriage is governed by the religious authorities, so would divorce. Thus removing the powers from a feminist legal system, and transferring them to clerics.

    The idea of student loan repayment is designed to encourage the higher IQ to reproduce. If you don’t go to college because you aren’t intelligent enough, and Redstan would be examination only admissions, then you have no debts to repay.

    • Replies: @Thomm

    Redstan would have a similar policy, and would impose a “luxury tax” on these foreign marriages.

    Where marriage is governed by the religious authorities, so would divorce. Thus removing the powers from a feminist legal system, and transferring them to clerics.
     
    I hate to tell you this, but there is no country or subnational entity called 'Redstan'.

    Plus, a lot of women with tons of student loan debt are not high-IQ by any means.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    Along with Thomm, I also don't have any idea who this "Redstan" is. Do you just mean a nation of the "Red" states? (Man, that color scheme was intentionally left backwards.) Whose money will Redstan use to pay back these ladies with? Not freaking mine, I'll tell you right now. Socialism is much the cause of our problems - the solution to Socialism is not more Socialism.
    , @RadicalCenter
    No homosexual “marriage” should be recognized in our nation no matter where the travesty ceremony is conducted. Israel is also quite full of pervert propaganda, including the requisite sodomite parades as in the vassal USA.
  6. Buckle up: The stack is on the attack

    White conservative males have no moral authority respected by the left. But outright infanticide is excused because a WeeOhCee is in favor.

    Normiecons may be outraged, by Intersectionality doesn’t care.

    If you find yourself attracted to attacking a non-white Dem, don’t. Defer it to the TokenCons and then signal boost them.

    Beyer is open to attack for his white-knighting.

  7. @216

    What guarantee is there against frivorce by the woman, a few years later? Then she has no debt plus an alimony stream (and CS stream). Plus, beta males to pay off her student loans are already available.
     
    The Israeli policy is for marriage to be governed by the religious authorities, a legacy of the Ottoman millet system. Secular and gay marriages have to be performed in Cyprus. Redstan would have a similar policy, and would impose a "luxury tax" on these foreign marriages.

    Where marriage is governed by the religious authorities, so would divorce. Thus removing the powers from a feminist legal system, and transferring them to clerics.

    The idea of student loan repayment is designed to encourage the higher IQ to reproduce. If you don't go to college because you aren't intelligent enough, and Redstan would be examination only admissions, then you have no debts to repay.

    Redstan would have a similar policy, and would impose a “luxury tax” on these foreign marriages.

    Where marriage is governed by the religious authorities, so would divorce. Thus removing the powers from a feminist legal system, and transferring them to clerics.

    I hate to tell you this, but there is no country or subnational entity called ‘Redstan’.

    Plus, a lot of women with tons of student loan debt are not high-IQ by any means.

    • Replies: @Michael S
    For reals. "If I ran the country" preening is even duller than "if I had a billion dollars" water-cooler talk.

    It's one thing to write thinkpieces about how good government might function in the abstract, and quite another to openly fantasize about convoluted policies that would only be necessary in precisely the sort of culture that would never enact them.
  8. @Thomm

    Redstan would have a similar policy, and would impose a “luxury tax” on these foreign marriages.

    Where marriage is governed by the religious authorities, so would divorce. Thus removing the powers from a feminist legal system, and transferring them to clerics.
     
    I hate to tell you this, but there is no country or subnational entity called 'Redstan'.

    Plus, a lot of women with tons of student loan debt are not high-IQ by any means.

    For reals. “If I ran the country” preening is even duller than “if I had a billion dollars” water-cooler talk.

    It’s one thing to write thinkpieces about how good government might function in the abstract, and quite another to openly fantasize about convoluted policies that would only be necessary in precisely the sort of culture that would never enact them.

    • Agree: Thomm
  9. The point of the liberal arts in higher education, both in the classical and modern senses, is not for young women to play house and learn about the facts of life.

  10. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:

    On the one hand, it hasn’t done much to reduce the number of children women would ideally like to have. It has, however, reduced the number of children women end up having.

    Feminism has reduced the number of children women would like to have with a significant proportion of the male population.

    Educational attainment is a major class and status marker. Before feminism, few women went to college and men generally had greater relative status in society. Thus men without higher education were not immediately undesirable or unacceptable prospective mates.

    Today however, women attend college at similar or greater rates as men do, and men’s relative status has declined significantly. For most women, men with less educational and professional attainment than themselves are undesirable or unacceptable as mates, unless they are wealthy, celebrities, pro athletes, etc.

    In other words, the pool of men with whom women would like to have their ideal number of children has shrunk. By ratcheting up women’s educational, professional, social status relative to men, the men below them in status become written off and undesirable and unacceptable as sires for their children, and they pursue the smaller pool of men with greater status.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    This is true. Many lonely female high achievers rationalise this away by saying men are "intimidated" by them, which is possible in some cases, but I've never seen it. Instead it seems merely the case of assets entering the market well over-priced until too late. One should not underestimate the torment of realising this and then chasing the market down, perhaps never to make the sale.

    Can these high-achieving women overcome this simply by recognising it early? Or does their actual relative status have to change for the sexual market to function properly for them?

    , @YetAnotherAnon
    https://paa.confex.com/paa/2016/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/6937

    They look at the educational and income characteristics of the husbands of married women with degrees and high incomes. They posit that these are the kind of husbands that unmarried women with degrees and high incomes would like to marry, and find that there aren’t enough of those men to go round.

    “Our results reveal shortages of men with college degrees and incomes above $40,000 and a surplus of men with only high school degrees or incomes less than $20,000. We document how shortages of marriageable partners affect both the probability of marriage and income levels.”
     
    , @Twinkie

    In other words, the pool of men with whom women would like to have their ideal number of children has shrunk. By ratcheting up women’s educational, professional, social status relative to men, the men below them in status become written off and undesirable and unacceptable as sires for their children, and they pursue the smaller pool of men with greater status.
     
    This is true to some extent, but let me mention another factor. In the past, it was common for women to marry up in status/educational attainment. But today, particularly at the high end, women tend to marry their equals (e.g. doctors marrying doctors, instead of nurses marrying doctors).

    David Brooks discussed this nearly 20 years ago in "Bobos in Paradise" - by examining the wedding announcements in the NY Times.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Men will date sideways and downward. Women will date sideways and upward. Lifting all women up in status has been predictably disruptive as hell.
  11. @Anonymous

    On the one hand, it hasn’t done much to reduce the number of children women would ideally like to have. It has, however, reduced the number of children women end up having.
     
    Feminism has reduced the number of children women would like to have with a significant proportion of the male population.

    Educational attainment is a major class and status marker. Before feminism, few women went to college and men generally had greater relative status in society. Thus men without higher education were not immediately undesirable or unacceptable prospective mates.

    Today however, women attend college at similar or greater rates as men do, and men's relative status has declined significantly. For most women, men with less educational and professional attainment than themselves are undesirable or unacceptable as mates, unless they are wealthy, celebrities, pro athletes, etc.

    In other words, the pool of men with whom women would like to have their ideal number of children has shrunk. By ratcheting up women's educational, professional, social status relative to men, the men below them in status become written off and undesirable and unacceptable as sires for their children, and they pursue the smaller pool of men with greater status.

    This is true. Many lonely female high achievers rationalise this away by saying men are “intimidated” by them, which is possible in some cases, but I’ve never seen it. Instead it seems merely the case of assets entering the market well over-priced until too late. One should not underestimate the torment of realising this and then chasing the market down, perhaps never to make the sale.

    Can these high-achieving women overcome this simply by recognising it early? Or does their actual relative status have to change for the sexual market to function properly for them?

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  12. @Anonymous

    On the one hand, it hasn’t done much to reduce the number of children women would ideally like to have. It has, however, reduced the number of children women end up having.
     
    Feminism has reduced the number of children women would like to have with a significant proportion of the male population.

    Educational attainment is a major class and status marker. Before feminism, few women went to college and men generally had greater relative status in society. Thus men without higher education were not immediately undesirable or unacceptable prospective mates.

    Today however, women attend college at similar or greater rates as men do, and men's relative status has declined significantly. For most women, men with less educational and professional attainment than themselves are undesirable or unacceptable as mates, unless they are wealthy, celebrities, pro athletes, etc.

    In other words, the pool of men with whom women would like to have their ideal number of children has shrunk. By ratcheting up women's educational, professional, social status relative to men, the men below them in status become written off and undesirable and unacceptable as sires for their children, and they pursue the smaller pool of men with greater status.

    https://paa.confex.com/paa/2016/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/6937

    They look at the educational and income characteristics of the husbands of married women with degrees and high incomes. They posit that these are the kind of husbands that unmarried women with degrees and high incomes would like to marry, and find that there aren’t enough of those men to go round.

    “Our results reveal shortages of men with college degrees and incomes above $40,000 and a surplus of men with only high school degrees or incomes less than $20,000. We document how shortages of marriageable partners affect both the probability of marriage and income levels.”

    • Replies: @Rosie

    They look at the educational and income characteristics of the husbands of married women with degrees and high incomes. They posit that these are the kind of husbands that unmarried women with degrees and high incomes would like to marry, and find that there aren’t enough of those men to go round.
     
    At that point the question becomes how to make more desirable men.

    The answer is obvious: Bring back high-paying industrial and tech jobs and put a stop to immigration, both high and low-skill.
  13. Looking at the fertility issue in a different tack, Razib Khan and I discussed (briefly) a while back that fertility drops as income rises up to a certain point ($500K a year?) and then starts to rise again.

    Do you, by any chance, see data to this effect?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    I recall it being a little lower than that but comfortably in the six-figure range. I haven't looked but the GSS has the relevant data so I will. Thanks.
  14. @Anonymous

    On the one hand, it hasn’t done much to reduce the number of children women would ideally like to have. It has, however, reduced the number of children women end up having.
     
    Feminism has reduced the number of children women would like to have with a significant proportion of the male population.

    Educational attainment is a major class and status marker. Before feminism, few women went to college and men generally had greater relative status in society. Thus men without higher education were not immediately undesirable or unacceptable prospective mates.

    Today however, women attend college at similar or greater rates as men do, and men's relative status has declined significantly. For most women, men with less educational and professional attainment than themselves are undesirable or unacceptable as mates, unless they are wealthy, celebrities, pro athletes, etc.

    In other words, the pool of men with whom women would like to have their ideal number of children has shrunk. By ratcheting up women's educational, professional, social status relative to men, the men below them in status become written off and undesirable and unacceptable as sires for their children, and they pursue the smaller pool of men with greater status.

    In other words, the pool of men with whom women would like to have their ideal number of children has shrunk. By ratcheting up women’s educational, professional, social status relative to men, the men below them in status become written off and undesirable and unacceptable as sires for their children, and they pursue the smaller pool of men with greater status.

    This is true to some extent, but let me mention another factor. In the past, it was common for women to marry up in status/educational attainment. But today, particularly at the high end, women tend to marry their equals (e.g. doctors marrying doctors, instead of nurses marrying doctors).

    David Brooks discussed this nearly 20 years ago in “Bobos in Paradise” – by examining the wedding announcements in the NY Times.

    • Replies: @James Forrestal

    In the past, it was common for women to marry up in status/educational attainment. But today, particularly at the high end, women tend to marry their equals (e.g. doctors marrying doctors, instead of nurses marrying doctors).
     
    Could be a factor in this:

    Parenthetically, the pattern for men is similar but the divergence between ideal and realized fertility is half what it is for women.
     
    It would be interesting to see how much of the (smaller) decrease in male fertility with higher educational attainment is due to this factor -- do doctors who marry high school grads still have fewer kids?
    , @Anonymous
    In the past, men in general had greater relative status. Higher education, employment outside the home and "breadwinning", and public life were exclusive to men. So in general, women would "marry up" almost by default, even if people tended to marry roughly within the same class background.

    A lot of the marrying of "equals" in occupation and status these days is due to simple logistics. There weren't any women doctors in the past, and people tend to marry those they tend to come in contact with.

    I don't think women have a preference for marrying professional equals. Ceteris paribus, a woman doctor will prefer a high powered executive or billionaire to a podiatrist. Compared to a woman doctor, the vast majority of men have lower incomes, educational attainment, and social status. This means the vast majority of men are undesirable or less than ideal mates for a woman doctor. Male doctors and other men of similar professional backgrounds are roughly the minimum desirable level as prospective mates for many women doctors and professionals, and they're also the men they're likely to come across in their professional lives. Men above this level of status have greater options and bargaining power in the mating market, and thus tend not to go for women doctors and the like, especially since women doctors tend to be older as they've spent many years training to become doctors.

  15. Feminism: Ensuring women’s dreams don’t come true by making sure the next generation doesn’t come through!

    I first just want to write that that is a great line, A.E.! (I had to go through it in my head 2 times first.) I hope I can use this in the future, with all due attribution, of course, and if I remember it.

  16. @Rational
    90% OF THE DEGREES WOMEN EARN ARE IN BOGUS FIELDS; WHITE WOMEN MUST ATTEND MY UNIVERSITY INSTEAD.

    Thanks for the stats, Sir. It confirms our common sense observation.

    It would be interesting to study how many women get degrees in REAL fields, such as computer science, physics, medicine, mathematics, nursing, etc.

    Sociology, gender studies, communications, etc. are bogus fields and do not warrant a degree as they knowledge they impart (if any) can often be acquired in a weekend course or a few month diploma, max.

    Even nursing can be learnt in 2 years, say LPN, but then they go for BSN. What more they learn there? Not much.

    White women need to stay home and have 10 white kids each. I must start a university for white women. They must marry a white man to get admission, and need to have 10 white kids to graduate. I will aware them a degree called MOM—Master of Motherhood. If you all donate, I can give them scholarships of 10K+ per year.

    I like your University program per your last paragraph, Mr. Rational*! I don’t agree on the BSN for nurses though. This is more “certification creep” by those big shots in the field and in the higher-ed scam. They are telling RNs right now that they will need a BSN to get the same jobs they have now, come a coupla years from now – not to keep one’s job, as I don’t think they are that stupid, but they are saying it’ll be required to get hired for the same type job very soon.

    Yes, that BSN, if one is already a nurse with a year’s experience, is a complete waste of time. However, the Universities need that money from these continual students badly, you know, to support more dieversity coordinators, new offices with safe spaces, etc. It’s critical, man!

    .

    * Wait a minute, you are not “Mr. Rational”? I think your handle may be pretty confusing, as there is Mr. Rational, who’s been on here a long time.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    Correctamundo.  He is not me and I am not him.
  17. @Thomm

    Redstan will pay off your student loans in exchange for marriage to a huwhite beta male and having four children.
     
    What guarantee is there against frivorce by the woman, a few years later? Then she has no debt plus an alimony stream (and CS stream). Plus, beta males to pay off her student loans are already available.

    Plus, as the children are now from a broken home, they will grow up to be damaged and less successful adults.

    Too many White Trashionalists don't think fatherhood is valuable. A white baby born to a slutty, tattooed single mother is just as valuable to them as one born to one of Mitt Romney's sons. That is why Heartiste rightfully bashes the 'MOAR WHITE BABIES QUANTITY AGAINST QUALITY' trolls, as he calls them.

    If it weren’t for that silly “White Trashionalist” bit, I could mash the AGREE button, now that I’m qualified, as I agree completely with the rest, Thomm. You may not agree with these WTs, but damn, that talk about them being wiggers all that, is ridiculous. Just lay out your argument – I have insulted plenty of people with names on line, such as the Commies that come out of the woodwork onto the unz site. However, these people are ON YOUR SIDE, Thomm (unless you are a dot-Indian type, as some have been indicating).

    • Replies: @Thomm

    However, these people are ON YOUR SIDE, Thomm
     
    They are not. To understand this, we have to observe the extremely high variance found within whites.

    I have consistently maintained that the top 80% of whites (that I belong to) represent functional whites. We have an average IQ of 105, are good-looking, and of good character.

    The bottom 20% represent a defective subrace. They have low IQs, poor character, and fail the physiognomy test. The men of this defective subrace become the White Trashionalists. The women become the fat bluehaired feminists.

    The defective subrace just wants to mooch off of the rest of us. Remember that White Trashionalism is just an appeal for intra-white socialism, since these parasites want to mooch off of the rest of us.

    A White Trashionalist taking credit for white success is no more appropriate than a pygmy in the Congo taking credit for Usain Bolt's athletic feats.

    A number of peculiar things make sense once you realize that that biological character of the white race is to concentrate all genetic waste matter into this bottom 20% defective subrace.

    , @Pericles
    Thomm will have to go back to the land of spicy curry and rotten meat, so not on his side, actually.
  18. As to the gist of the post (finally), it’s not just an issue of women’s status or wastage of taxpayers’ money in bogus majors at the U. There is the time factor also.

    That BS degree could be 4 years, but right up through 5 1/2 for some, and the Master’s, etc. add on 1 to 3 more. Those years, from 18 to as late as 26 (not counting Med school/residency, but that’s not a bogus field anyway) are years of PRIME FERTILITY for woman. Yes, you are like flowers, ladies, whether you wanted to hear that or not. No Dutchman ever ran-up a Tulip bubble by picking the flowers at the end of the summer. I’m talking about 4 to 8 years out of only 14 or so! (I subtracted out ~ 3 years below 18 y/o, for which women are very fertile, but most are agreed that it’s too early.)

    Women in college is a good thing for men who just want to use them for a good time (and I can’t blame these men – it’s nature). However, it’s funny that the feminists don’t care about what men want, yet me come out really good. Society doesn’t however. Men, who may not even really know that they would like children yet, would be much better off if there were twice as big a pool of 20 year-olds, many prettier too, as there are now. Of course, per Rosie’s comment and most of what you’ll read on this, what men want is immaterial.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Those years, from 18 to as late as 26 (not counting Med school/residency, but that’s not a bogus field anyway) are years of PRIME FERTILITY for woman.
     
    Women in their early twenties, let alone late teens, do not need to be having children. Studying and getting to know smart young men is exactly what they should be doing.

    A woman who has her first child at 28 easily has time to have the three children she desires.

    Of course, per Rosie’s comment and most of what you’ll read on this, what men want is immaterial.
     
    I don't think men's wants are immaterial. I just don't think women's wants are immaterial, which I suppose amounts to the same in your view.
    , @Corvinus
    "Those years, from 18 to as late as 26 (not counting Med school/residency, but that’s not a bogus field anyway) are years of PRIME FERTILITY for woman."

    18-30 you mean. And, of course, it depends upon to what extent is the man and woman are financially and emotionally prepared to handle this awesome responsibility.

    "Women in college is a good thing for men who just want to use them for a good time (and I can’t blame these men – it’s nature)."

    First, that is not nature. Masculine men curb their rutting instincts. Second, you are encouraging pre-marital sex. I thought that was in direct opposition to the Bible. Alt Right Christians still believe in that book. Third, women in college is a good thing for themselves, their families, and the men that they date who prefer an educated female.

    "Men, who may not even really know that they would like children yet, would be much better off if there were twice as big a pool of 20 year-olds, many prettier too, as there are now."

    Of course, that is simply your opinion.
  19. Looks like for men who want to have a family life, they should pursue women with high school diploma or some junior college.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Looks like for men who want to have a family life, they should pursue women with high school diploma or some junior college.
     
    I suspect this attitude is at least in part responsible for the shortfall in educated women's fertility.
  20. @216

    What guarantee is there against frivorce by the woman, a few years later? Then she has no debt plus an alimony stream (and CS stream). Plus, beta males to pay off her student loans are already available.
     
    The Israeli policy is for marriage to be governed by the religious authorities, a legacy of the Ottoman millet system. Secular and gay marriages have to be performed in Cyprus. Redstan would have a similar policy, and would impose a "luxury tax" on these foreign marriages.

    Where marriage is governed by the religious authorities, so would divorce. Thus removing the powers from a feminist legal system, and transferring them to clerics.

    The idea of student loan repayment is designed to encourage the higher IQ to reproduce. If you don't go to college because you aren't intelligent enough, and Redstan would be examination only admissions, then you have no debts to repay.

    Along with Thomm, I also don’t have any idea who this “Redstan” is. Do you just mean a nation of the “Red” states? (Man, that color scheme was intentionally left backwards.) Whose money will Redstan use to pay back these ladies with? Not freaking mine, I’ll tell you right now. Socialism is much the cause of our problems – the solution to Socialism is not more Socialism.

  21. Further – what are the affects of higher ed/advanced career on the woman’s children? Dad’s not home much, but now mom’s not either. Consuela is minding the children, but she doesn’t speak much English and smells like the grocery store. She also likes to borrow the dining room dinnerware.

  22. @Thomm

    Redstan will pay off your student loans in exchange for marriage to a huwhite beta male and having four children.
     
    What guarantee is there against frivorce by the woman, a few years later? Then she has no debt plus an alimony stream (and CS stream). Plus, beta males to pay off her student loans are already available.

    Plus, as the children are now from a broken home, they will grow up to be damaged and less successful adults.

    Too many White Trashionalists don't think fatherhood is valuable. A white baby born to a slutty, tattooed single mother is just as valuable to them as one born to one of Mitt Romney's sons. That is why Heartiste rightfully bashes the 'MOAR WHITE BABIES QUANTITY AGAINST QUALITY' trolls, as he calls them.

    “Too many White Trashionalists don’t think fatherhood is valuable.”

    Citation needed Shiva. The white nationalists living rent free in your head have you pulling lies out of your unwiped ass.

    • Replies: @Bubba
    Agree and LOL!
  23. Any society that let’s its economy outbid young men for young women is doomed as each generation sees less of the characteristics demanded by the economy.

    This is why folks would be wise to start following my advice.

  24. Anti-Zionist Jews are not your friend

    If someone is willing to align with Omar because of how much they hate us, that tells you all you need to know.

    That said, there’s no reason for our people to spend any energy on attacking Omar or defending Israel. Let the center-left Jews expend their energy and dollars, don’t reward the ingratitude of those who don’t thank Heritage Americans for saving their ancestors in the Second World War.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @maxberger

    they still hate you. always have, always will. and now they don't have to hide it
  25. @Thomm

    Redstan will pay off your student loans in exchange for marriage to a huwhite beta male and having four children.
     
    What guarantee is there against frivorce by the woman, a few years later? Then she has no debt plus an alimony stream (and CS stream). Plus, beta males to pay off her student loans are already available.

    Plus, as the children are now from a broken home, they will grow up to be damaged and less successful adults.

    Too many White Trashionalists don't think fatherhood is valuable. A white baby born to a slutty, tattooed single mother is just as valuable to them as one born to one of Mitt Romney's sons. That is why Heartiste rightfully bashes the 'MOAR WHITE BABIES QUANTITY AGAINST QUALITY' trolls, as he calls them.

    Leaving aside the ignorant, virulent anti-White hatred expressed in your post, there is a related point to be made:

    Both family stability and fertility are impacted, not just by modernity and prosperity in general, but by specific aspects of current year government policy and law — as well as by (((media)))-promoted cultural norms.

    Most industrialized countries have total fertility rates (TFR) below replacement. Perhaps it would be useful to see if there are any exceptions to this rule. One prosperous country has an overall TFR of 3.11. For the people who make up this country’s majority population, it’s even higher — 3.16. What’s different about this particular country?

    This country has rather different policies on several family-related issues than those that we see in the US and other Western countries:
    –Abortion is severely restricted. Women have to be evaluated by a committee in order to get approval for an abortion.
    –There’s no such thing as civil marriage — only religious marriage. Miscegenation is highly discouraged.
    –Divorce is adjudicated by religious courts — there is no “no-fault” divorce.
    –Ethnic groups are strictly segregated in housing, schooling, etc.

    This country, of course, is the Zionist entity in Palestine. The official government policies for the Jewish ethnostate on these issues are almost exactly the opposite of the policies that the Tribe promotes for White countries. What a surprise.

    • Agree: Rosie
    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    "Most industrialized countries have total fertility rates (TFR) below replacement. Perhaps it would be useful to see if there are any exceptions to this rule. One prosperous country has an overall TFR of 3.11. "

    Do you consider this country you describe "industrialized" in the classic sense? I'm not sure that I do. Most everything about its existence seems artificial, from how it was created to how it maintains its prosperity.
    , @Corvinus
    "This country has rather different policies on several family-related issues than those that we see in the US and other Western countries"

    Good for them. Not for us.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    –Abortion is severely restricted. Women have to be evaluated by a committee in order to get approval for an abortion.
     
    That's still true in parts of Europe as well. It's called "civilization", and "democracy". We should try it.
  26. @Twinkie

    In other words, the pool of men with whom women would like to have their ideal number of children has shrunk. By ratcheting up women’s educational, professional, social status relative to men, the men below them in status become written off and undesirable and unacceptable as sires for their children, and they pursue the smaller pool of men with greater status.
     
    This is true to some extent, but let me mention another factor. In the past, it was common for women to marry up in status/educational attainment. But today, particularly at the high end, women tend to marry their equals (e.g. doctors marrying doctors, instead of nurses marrying doctors).

    David Brooks discussed this nearly 20 years ago in "Bobos in Paradise" - by examining the wedding announcements in the NY Times.

    In the past, it was common for women to marry up in status/educational attainment. But today, particularly at the high end, women tend to marry their equals (e.g. doctors marrying doctors, instead of nurses marrying doctors).

    Could be a factor in this:

    Parenthetically, the pattern for men is similar but the divergence between ideal and realized fertility is half what it is for women.

    It would be interesting to see how much of the (smaller) decrease in male fertility with higher educational attainment is due to this factor — do doctors who marry high school grads still have fewer kids?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    The GSS does track occupational prestige of both respondents and their spouses. It also looks like the survey started asking about spousal education in 2012. Only three years of data so far but 2018 should be coming out in the next couple of months. I'll check back then.
    , @Rosie

    It would be interesting to see how much of the (smaller) decrease in male fertility with higher educational attainment is due to this factor — do doctors who marry high school grads still have fewer kids?
     
    Another question:

    If the gap between desired and actual fertility for highly educated men is smaller than the same gap for women, is it because of lower desired fertility, higher actual fertility, or some combination of both?
  27. @Achmed E. Newman
    If it weren't for that silly "White Trashionalist" bit, I could mash the AGREE button, now that I'm qualified, as I agree completely with the rest, Thomm. You may not agree with these WTs, but damn, that talk about them being wiggers all that, is ridiculous. Just lay out your argument - I have insulted plenty of people with names on line, such as the Commies that come out of the woodwork onto the unz site. However, these people are ON YOUR SIDE, Thomm (unless you are a dot-Indian type, as some have been indicating).

    However, these people are ON YOUR SIDE, Thomm

    They are not. To understand this, we have to observe the extremely high variance found within whites.

    I have consistently maintained that the top 80% of whites (that I belong to) represent functional whites. We have an average IQ of 105, are good-looking, and of good character.

    The bottom 20% represent a defective subrace. They have low IQs, poor character, and fail the physiognomy test. The men of this defective subrace become the White Trashionalists. The women become the fat bluehaired feminists.

    The defective subrace just wants to mooch off of the rest of us. Remember that White Trashionalism is just an appeal for intra-white socialism, since these parasites want to mooch off of the rest of us.

    A White Trashionalist taking credit for white success is no more appropriate than a pygmy in the Congo taking credit for Usain Bolt’s athletic feats.

    A number of peculiar things make sense once you realize that that biological character of the white race is to concentrate all genetic waste matter into this bottom 20% defective subrace.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    No, we all know better, Thomm, or your terminology is, let's just say, unsound. Almost all people considered white trash are thought of that way because they act like certain racial groups in this country that are absolutely NOT white. Many could be called the word you often use, "whiggers". However, that is exactly the OPPOSITE of being a big believer in your white race, whether it's "white nationalism" or something along those lines.

    White nationalists are not going to be the ones acting like the more annoying and violent black people, are they Thomm? It just doesn't make any sense. Those bottom 20% (your number) have nothing in common with anyone that could sanely be called a white nationalist. I really don't think its the low-end-of-intelligence group of women that are the blue-haired feminists either, Thomm.

    You just sound like you don't know many Americans.
    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    And everyone who reads this tired, unsolicited proclamation of yours is consistent in their comprehensive refutation of it. It is an absurd contention, and you insert it into every discussion, no matter what the topic, with a fetishistic fervor that boarders on the pathological.

    "I have consistently maintained that the top 80% of whites (that I belong to) represent functional whites. We have an average IQ of 105, are good-looking, and of good character. "

    Case in point. There is nothing in the above that describes your existence here. You are a nasty, ill mannered troll who spouts sophomoric slurs and reverts to a reflexive, repetitive defensive sputtering of "wn wigger" accusations to anyone and everyone who disagrees with your demented worldview. You also like to threaten to shoot people who disagree with you, which is more indicative of the typical negro, not a "high IQ white of good character."

    You lack insight and creativity, and have no sense of humor. You lack character. Even if you are white, which I doubt (refer to your constant over-insistence that you are one of the productive whites, even though you offer no evidence of this at all,) your failure to understand (unless you're just a deceitful liar, which is also possible) the continuing efforts by the globalist, sexually degenerate elites to relegate ALL whites to second class status in the countries they have built in favor of an invasive alien population who will by nature tear down all that was made and reestablish disfigured and parasitic versions of their cultures throughout the West, makes you a useless burden to bear. At this point you'd probably be taken more seriously if you just admitted that you're an Indian.

    That is why you are mostly mocked and scorned on this website. Ron Unz has blocked your repetitive bleating at times and stated plainly that even he believes you to be a dim witted Hindu.

    Have a great night Shiva. Don't forget to check under the mattress for wn wiggers of 1994 before you fall asleep.

  28. @Achmed E. Newman
    I like your University program per your last paragraph, Mr. Rational*! I don't agree on the BSN for nurses though. This is more "certification creep" by those big shots in the field and in the higher-ed scam. They are telling RNs right now that they will need a BSN to get the same jobs they have now, come a coupla years from now - not to keep one's job, as I don't think they are that stupid, but they are saying it'll be required to get hired for the same type job very soon.

    Yes, that BSN, if one is already a nurse with a year's experience, is a complete waste of time. However, the Universities need that money from these continual students badly, you know, to support more dieversity coordinators, new offices with safe spaces, etc. It's critical, man!

    .

    * Wait a minute, you are not "Mr. Rational"? I think your handle may be pretty confusing, as there is Mr. Rational, who's been on here a long time.

    Correctamundo.  He is not me and I am not him.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    OK. I don't want to talk Global Climate Disruption (TM) with you, so I avoid it, but I've got to watch the two handles. I seem to agree with you on everything else but that, so there's no reason to get in another 50-comment argument, what with the polar vortex coming and all. ;-} We have almost all other views in common, so I'm gonna leave that be, 'cept on my own blog.
  29. @Thomm

    However, these people are ON YOUR SIDE, Thomm
     
    They are not. To understand this, we have to observe the extremely high variance found within whites.

    I have consistently maintained that the top 80% of whites (that I belong to) represent functional whites. We have an average IQ of 105, are good-looking, and of good character.

    The bottom 20% represent a defective subrace. They have low IQs, poor character, and fail the physiognomy test. The men of this defective subrace become the White Trashionalists. The women become the fat bluehaired feminists.

    The defective subrace just wants to mooch off of the rest of us. Remember that White Trashionalism is just an appeal for intra-white socialism, since these parasites want to mooch off of the rest of us.

    A White Trashionalist taking credit for white success is no more appropriate than a pygmy in the Congo taking credit for Usain Bolt's athletic feats.

    A number of peculiar things make sense once you realize that that biological character of the white race is to concentrate all genetic waste matter into this bottom 20% defective subrace.

    No, we all know better, Thomm, or your terminology is, let’s just say, unsound. Almost all people considered white trash are thought of that way because they act like certain racial groups in this country that are absolutely NOT white. Many could be called the word you often use, “whiggers”. However, that is exactly the OPPOSITE of being a big believer in your white race, whether it’s “white nationalism” or something along those lines.

    White nationalists are not going to be the ones acting like the more annoying and violent black people, are they Thomm? It just doesn’t make any sense. Those bottom 20% (your number) have nothing in common with anyone that could sanely be called a white nationalist. I really don’t think its the low-end-of-intelligence group of women that are the blue-haired feminists either, Thomm.

    You just sound like you don’t know many Americans.

    • Replies: @Thomm
    That is why the definition of ‘wigger’ changed slightly in 1994 (due to the ‘gold watch’ segment in Pulp Fiction).

    It used to be : Whites who behave like blacks because they admire blacks.
    It is now : Whites who behave like blacks unwittingly, even though they hate blacks.

    How do they behave like blacks?

    i) Left-wing economic views, dependent on taxing successful whites. The fond feelings that White Nationalists have for Bernie Sanders is no secret.
    ii) Very low IQ
    iii) Low economic productivity
    iv) The tendency to see race in EVERYTHING.
    v) Preference for female obesity.

    That is why White Trashionalists are now Wiggers as well.

    Furthermore, just because a white person is poor, does not mean they are 'trash'. The epithet of 'trash' applies to a very specific set of negative attributes, which is not dependent on the income of the parents at all.

    If you knew anything about HBD, you would see the obvious manifestation of high variance among whites, and why White Trashionalism has almost no female adherents (remember, the women of this defective subrace become the fat bluehaired feminists).

    Got it?

    , @Mr. Rational

    You just sound like you don’t know many Americans.
     
    Possibly a selection effect:  they are the Americans who can't afford to live where he isn't.  They are the ones most likely to pick up Black culture unwittingly, like this oddly-pale Ebonics-speaking shooter (NSFW).
    , @Pericles

    You just sound like you don’t know many Americans.

     

    Hmm, how could that be?
  30. @Mr. Rational
    Correctamundo.  He is not me and I am not him.

    OK. I don’t want to talk Global Climate Disruption (TM) with you, so I avoid it, but I’ve got to watch the two handles. I seem to agree with you on everything else but that, so there’s no reason to get in another 50-comment argument, what with the polar vortex coming and all. ;-} We have almost all other views in common, so I’m gonna leave that be, ‘cept on my own blog.

  31. @Achmed E. Newman
    No, we all know better, Thomm, or your terminology is, let's just say, unsound. Almost all people considered white trash are thought of that way because they act like certain racial groups in this country that are absolutely NOT white. Many could be called the word you often use, "whiggers". However, that is exactly the OPPOSITE of being a big believer in your white race, whether it's "white nationalism" or something along those lines.

    White nationalists are not going to be the ones acting like the more annoying and violent black people, are they Thomm? It just doesn't make any sense. Those bottom 20% (your number) have nothing in common with anyone that could sanely be called a white nationalist. I really don't think its the low-end-of-intelligence group of women that are the blue-haired feminists either, Thomm.

    You just sound like you don't know many Americans.

    That is why the definition of ‘wigger’ changed slightly in 1994 (due to the ‘gold watch’ segment in Pulp Fiction).

    It used to be : Whites who behave like blacks because they admire blacks.
    It is now : Whites who behave like blacks unwittingly, even though they hate blacks.

    How do they behave like blacks?

    i) Left-wing economic views, dependent on taxing successful whites. The fond feelings that White Nationalists have for Bernie Sanders is no secret.
    ii) Very low IQ
    iii) Low economic productivity
    iv) The tendency to see race in EVERYTHING.
    v) Preference for female obesity.

    That is why White Trashionalists are now Wiggers as well.

    Furthermore, just because a white person is poor, does not mean they are ‘trash’. The epithet of ‘trash’ applies to a very specific set of negative attributes, which is not dependent on the income of the parents at all.

    If you knew anything about HBD, you would see the obvious manifestation of high variance among whites, and why White Trashionalism has almost no female adherents (remember, the women of this defective subrace become the fat bluehaired feminists).

    Got it?

    • Replies: @C. ThunderCock
    Yeah, yeah, we've all heard your autistic pet theory (unsupported by any data, or even common sense) about how lower class whites who don't want to be replaced are untermensch who should be euthanized, maybe you should think of something useful to add to the conversation, chaim.
    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    "That is why the definition of ‘wigger’ changed slightly in 1994 (due to the ‘gold watch’ segment in Pulp Fiction)."

    Of all your stupid contentions, this might be the absolute dumbest of them all. You might literally be the only person on the planet that believes this.
  32. @Thomm
    That is why the definition of ‘wigger’ changed slightly in 1994 (due to the ‘gold watch’ segment in Pulp Fiction).

    It used to be : Whites who behave like blacks because they admire blacks.
    It is now : Whites who behave like blacks unwittingly, even though they hate blacks.

    How do they behave like blacks?

    i) Left-wing economic views, dependent on taxing successful whites. The fond feelings that White Nationalists have for Bernie Sanders is no secret.
    ii) Very low IQ
    iii) Low economic productivity
    iv) The tendency to see race in EVERYTHING.
    v) Preference for female obesity.

    That is why White Trashionalists are now Wiggers as well.

    Furthermore, just because a white person is poor, does not mean they are 'trash'. The epithet of 'trash' applies to a very specific set of negative attributes, which is not dependent on the income of the parents at all.

    If you knew anything about HBD, you would see the obvious manifestation of high variance among whites, and why White Trashionalism has almost no female adherents (remember, the women of this defective subrace become the fat bluehaired feminists).

    Got it?

    Yeah, yeah, we’ve all heard your autistic pet theory (unsupported by any data, or even common sense) about how lower class whites who don’t want to be replaced are untermensch who should be euthanized, maybe you should think of something useful to add to the conversation, chaim.

    • Replies: @Thomm

    about how lower class whites who don’t want to be replaced are untermensch
     
    In the very comment that you are responding to, I specifically said that poverty is not the determinant of which white person is genetic wastematter. Most radical feminists are from wealthy families, as are many White Trashionalists.

    Then again, as a 70-IQ wigger, it is expected that you would miss that clearly stated point. Your brain cannot process that much at once.

    Now get off my lawn, faggot.

    Heh heh heh heh
  33. @C. ThunderCock
    Yeah, yeah, we've all heard your autistic pet theory (unsupported by any data, or even common sense) about how lower class whites who don't want to be replaced are untermensch who should be euthanized, maybe you should think of something useful to add to the conversation, chaim.

    about how lower class whites who don’t want to be replaced are untermensch

    In the very comment that you are responding to, I specifically said that poverty is not the determinant of which white person is genetic wastematter. Most radical feminists are from wealthy families, as are many White Trashionalists.

    Then again, as a 70-IQ wigger, it is expected that you would miss that clearly stated point. Your brain cannot process that much at once.

    Now get off my lawn, faggot.

    Heh heh heh heh

    • Troll: 216
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2

    In the very comment that you are responding to, I specifically said that poverty is not the determinant of which white person is genetic wastematter.
     
    What percentage of native Europeans, native East Asians, native South Asians and native Sub-Saharan Africans would you guesstimate to fit your definition of "genetic waste matter"?
  34. interesting analysis. But I can only blame myself for having just 3 kids. I wanted to wait until we were more financially secure, my wife wanted to start having kids at 30, I waited until she was 34. Initially we wanted two children but the first two were easier than expected so we had a third. now we wish started earlier and had a fourth child. Thankfully our eldest has always helped out with her younger siblings, made it easier. If our son was born first we probably would have stopped after 2 children.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    I wanted to wait until we were more financially secure, my wife wanted to start having kids at 30, I waited until she was 34.
     
    Thank you for your honesty here. I think provisioning anxiety, rather than feminism per se, is causing the low birth rate problem. Though in your case, your wife was pushing for an earlier start, I'm sure the reverse is often true as well. The simple fact of the matter is that we know that anxiety correlates with IQ which correlates with educational attainment. In the past, provisioning anxiety was adaptive, now it is catastrophically maladaptive.

    Congratulations on your family!
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Above replacement in this day and age is commendable. Don't be so hard on yourself. But do share your story because it's the missing piece--kids are great. The caliber of person who reads threads like this one is never going to feel like he is really ready to have children because there are so many costs and expenses--monetary and otherwise--that he can latch onto to avoid having them. But it's amazing how much works itself out, especially if you find a nurturing wife.
  35. White women with college degrees or without college degrees should have any student loan debt they might have gently placed onto the bloated balance sheet of the privately-controlled Federal Reserve Bank. The Fed made a market for all the worthless mortgage-backed securities that went belly up, and the Fed should help the cause of enabling White women to have more babies by putting all the student loan debt on the Fed’s balance sheet.

    Every penny ever paid for any student loan whatsoever should be repaid back to the student or the debtor. This lump sum should be returned with 6 percent interest per year added onto the total debt amount refunded.

    The Founding Fathers were radicals intent on getting a better deal for themselves by severing their ties to the English Empire. The Founding Fathers were, for the most part, radical Englishmen who brought about the secession of colonial America from the English Empire.

    I am the only possible presidential candidate who will appeal directly to White women to win their votes. The GOP ruling class and the ruling class of the Democrat Party have launched a war on White women.

    White women with college degrees such as Hillary Clinton move to mostly White areas to avoid having to live around Blacks and other non-Whites. White women with college degrees can be appealed to using the language of safety and security.

    White women know that mass legal immigration and illegal immigration lowers wages, swamps schools, increases housing costs, overwhelms hospitals, harms the environment and produces multicultural mayhem.

    Tweet from 2014:

  36. @Achmed E. Newman
    No, we all know better, Thomm, or your terminology is, let's just say, unsound. Almost all people considered white trash are thought of that way because they act like certain racial groups in this country that are absolutely NOT white. Many could be called the word you often use, "whiggers". However, that is exactly the OPPOSITE of being a big believer in your white race, whether it's "white nationalism" or something along those lines.

    White nationalists are not going to be the ones acting like the more annoying and violent black people, are they Thomm? It just doesn't make any sense. Those bottom 20% (your number) have nothing in common with anyone that could sanely be called a white nationalist. I really don't think its the low-end-of-intelligence group of women that are the blue-haired feminists either, Thomm.

    You just sound like you don't know many Americans.

    You just sound like you don’t know many Americans.

    Possibly a selection effect:  they are the Americans who can’t afford to live where he isn’t.  They are the ones most likely to pick up Black culture unwittingly, like this oddly-pale Ebonics-speaking shooter (NSFW).

  37. More stack commentary:

    https://newrepublic.com/article/153019/fetid-right-wing-origins-learn-code

    CTRL + F “harass” is 16. This is an inevitability of the female, and particularly 2% female mindset. It might be “edgy” and fun, but it always backfires whenever the target has even a modicum of Intersectional Pokemon points.

  38. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Twinkie

    In other words, the pool of men with whom women would like to have their ideal number of children has shrunk. By ratcheting up women’s educational, professional, social status relative to men, the men below them in status become written off and undesirable and unacceptable as sires for their children, and they pursue the smaller pool of men with greater status.
     
    This is true to some extent, but let me mention another factor. In the past, it was common for women to marry up in status/educational attainment. But today, particularly at the high end, women tend to marry their equals (e.g. doctors marrying doctors, instead of nurses marrying doctors).

    David Brooks discussed this nearly 20 years ago in "Bobos in Paradise" - by examining the wedding announcements in the NY Times.

    In the past, men in general had greater relative status. Higher education, employment outside the home and “breadwinning”, and public life were exclusive to men. So in general, women would “marry up” almost by default, even if people tended to marry roughly within the same class background.

    A lot of the marrying of “equals” in occupation and status these days is due to simple logistics. There weren’t any women doctors in the past, and people tend to marry those they tend to come in contact with.

    I don’t think women have a preference for marrying professional equals. Ceteris paribus, a woman doctor will prefer a high powered executive or billionaire to a podiatrist. Compared to a woman doctor, the vast majority of men have lower incomes, educational attainment, and social status. This means the vast majority of men are undesirable or less than ideal mates for a woman doctor. Male doctors and other men of similar professional backgrounds are roughly the minimum desirable level as prospective mates for many women doctors and professionals, and they’re also the men they’re likely to come across in their professional lives. Men above this level of status have greater options and bargaining power in the mating market, and thus tend not to go for women doctors and the like, especially since women doctors tend to be older as they’ve spent many years training to become doctors.

    • Replies: @dvorak

    Men above this level of status have greater options and bargaining power in the mating market, and thus tend not to go for women doctors and the like, especially since women doctors tend to be older as they’ve spent many years training to become doctors.
     
    Any evidence to support your assertion? What I have seen is that women doctors on their clinic websites really like to mention that they are married to their "medical school sweetheart."
  39. @Achmed E. Newman
    If it weren't for that silly "White Trashionalist" bit, I could mash the AGREE button, now that I'm qualified, as I agree completely with the rest, Thomm. You may not agree with these WTs, but damn, that talk about them being wiggers all that, is ridiculous. Just lay out your argument - I have insulted plenty of people with names on line, such as the Commies that come out of the woodwork onto the unz site. However, these people are ON YOUR SIDE, Thomm (unless you are a dot-Indian type, as some have been indicating).

    Thomm will have to go back to the land of spicy curry and rotten meat, so not on his side, actually.

  40. @Achmed E. Newman
    No, we all know better, Thomm, or your terminology is, let's just say, unsound. Almost all people considered white trash are thought of that way because they act like certain racial groups in this country that are absolutely NOT white. Many could be called the word you often use, "whiggers". However, that is exactly the OPPOSITE of being a big believer in your white race, whether it's "white nationalism" or something along those lines.

    White nationalists are not going to be the ones acting like the more annoying and violent black people, are they Thomm? It just doesn't make any sense. Those bottom 20% (your number) have nothing in common with anyone that could sanely be called a white nationalist. I really don't think its the low-end-of-intelligence group of women that are the blue-haired feminists either, Thomm.

    You just sound like you don't know many Americans.

    You just sound like you don’t know many Americans.

    Hmm, how could that be?

  41. Bribe The White Broads To Have More White Babies — White Women With Or Without College Degrees Might Find It Nice If They Can Have More White Babies

    Nationalize the privately-controlled Federal Reserve Bank and shovel out the loot to White women to have more White babies.

    Some political leader will win a lot of White votes by being honest about bribing voters.

    GOP bribes some voters with government jobs in the war industry.

    Democrat Party bribes some voters with government jobs in the public school system and universities and colleges.

    A lot of government workers vote for their jobs and benefits.

    Be Honest — Bribe the White Women To Have More White Babies

    High IQ Gals Might Ditch the Grind To Pop Out High IQ Kids — If They Are Bribed.

    Subtlety Is Overrated — English Subtlety Is A Recent And Horrible Innovation

    English People Used To Wade Through Blood With Unsubtle Joy

  42. @James Forrestal
    Leaving aside the ignorant, virulent anti-White hatred expressed in your post, there is a related point to be made:

    Both family stability and fertility are impacted, not just by modernity and prosperity in general, but by specific aspects of current year government policy and law -- as well as by (((media)))-promoted cultural norms.

    Most industrialized countries have total fertility rates (TFR) below replacement. Perhaps it would be useful to see if there are any exceptions to this rule. One prosperous country has an overall TFR of 3.11. For the people who make up this country's majority population, it's even higher -- 3.16. What's different about this particular country?

    This country has rather different policies on several family-related issues than those that we see in the US and other Western countries:
    --Abortion is severely restricted. Women have to be evaluated by a committee in order to get approval for an abortion.
    --There's no such thing as civil marriage -- only religious marriage. Miscegenation is highly discouraged.
    --Divorce is adjudicated by religious courts -- there is no "no-fault" divorce.
    --Ethnic groups are strictly segregated in housing, schooling, etc.


    This country, of course, is the Zionist entity in Palestine. The official government policies for the Jewish ethnostate on these issues are almost exactly the opposite of the policies that the Tribe promotes for White countries. What a surprise.

    “Most industrialized countries have total fertility rates (TFR) below replacement. Perhaps it would be useful to see if there are any exceptions to this rule. One prosperous country has an overall TFR of 3.11. ”

    Do you consider this country you describe “industrialized” in the classic sense? I’m not sure that I do. Most everything about its existence seems artificial, from how it was created to how it maintains its prosperity.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Do you consider this country you describe “industrialized” in the classic sense? I’m not sure that I do. Most everything about its existence seems artificial, from how it was created to how it maintains its prosperity.
     
    It's certainly industrialized in the sense that children are not an economic boon. They are, materially speaking, a burden (albeit a worthwhile one). Yet they have children, even though they have equal rights to education and employment. What Israeli women have that we don't have: a sense of collective purpose and identity.
  43. How about men?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    I'll include it soon, just ran out of time.
  44. @Thomm

    However, these people are ON YOUR SIDE, Thomm
     
    They are not. To understand this, we have to observe the extremely high variance found within whites.

    I have consistently maintained that the top 80% of whites (that I belong to) represent functional whites. We have an average IQ of 105, are good-looking, and of good character.

    The bottom 20% represent a defective subrace. They have low IQs, poor character, and fail the physiognomy test. The men of this defective subrace become the White Trashionalists. The women become the fat bluehaired feminists.

    The defective subrace just wants to mooch off of the rest of us. Remember that White Trashionalism is just an appeal for intra-white socialism, since these parasites want to mooch off of the rest of us.

    A White Trashionalist taking credit for white success is no more appropriate than a pygmy in the Congo taking credit for Usain Bolt's athletic feats.

    A number of peculiar things make sense once you realize that that biological character of the white race is to concentrate all genetic waste matter into this bottom 20% defective subrace.

    And everyone who reads this tired, unsolicited proclamation of yours is consistent in their comprehensive refutation of it. It is an absurd contention, and you insert it into every discussion, no matter what the topic, with a fetishistic fervor that boarders on the pathological.

    “I have consistently maintained that the top 80% of whites (that I belong to) represent functional whites. We have an average IQ of 105, are good-looking, and of good character. ”

    Case in point. There is nothing in the above that describes your existence here. You are a nasty, ill mannered troll who spouts sophomoric slurs and reverts to a reflexive, repetitive defensive sputtering of “wn wigger” accusations to anyone and everyone who disagrees with your demented worldview. You also like to threaten to shoot people who disagree with you, which is more indicative of the typical negro, not a “high IQ white of good character.”

    You lack insight and creativity, and have no sense of humor. You lack character. Even if you are white, which I doubt (refer to your constant over-insistence that you are one of the productive whites, even though you offer no evidence of this at all,) your failure to understand (unless you’re just a deceitful liar, which is also possible) the continuing efforts by the globalist, sexually degenerate elites to relegate ALL whites to second class status in the countries they have built in favor of an invasive alien population who will by nature tear down all that was made and reestablish disfigured and parasitic versions of their cultures throughout the West, makes you a useless burden to bear. At this point you’d probably be taken more seriously if you just admitted that you’re an Indian.

    That is why you are mostly mocked and scorned on this website. Ron Unz has blocked your repetitive bleating at times and stated plainly that even he believes you to be a dim witted Hindu.

    Have a great night Shiva. Don’t forget to check under the mattress for wn wiggers of 1994 before you fall asleep.

  45. @Thomm
    That is why the definition of ‘wigger’ changed slightly in 1994 (due to the ‘gold watch’ segment in Pulp Fiction).

    It used to be : Whites who behave like blacks because they admire blacks.
    It is now : Whites who behave like blacks unwittingly, even though they hate blacks.

    How do they behave like blacks?

    i) Left-wing economic views, dependent on taxing successful whites. The fond feelings that White Nationalists have for Bernie Sanders is no secret.
    ii) Very low IQ
    iii) Low economic productivity
    iv) The tendency to see race in EVERYTHING.
    v) Preference for female obesity.

    That is why White Trashionalists are now Wiggers as well.

    Furthermore, just because a white person is poor, does not mean they are 'trash'. The epithet of 'trash' applies to a very specific set of negative attributes, which is not dependent on the income of the parents at all.

    If you knew anything about HBD, you would see the obvious manifestation of high variance among whites, and why White Trashionalism has almost no female adherents (remember, the women of this defective subrace become the fat bluehaired feminists).

    Got it?

    “That is why the definition of ‘wigger’ changed slightly in 1994 (due to the ‘gold watch’ segment in Pulp Fiction).”

    Of all your stupid contentions, this might be the absolute dumbest of them all. You might literally be the only person on the planet that believes this.

  46. I work with some professional women who are unmarried and don’t have children and probably never will. I don’t think that was necessarily the plan but that is what is happening as they age.

  47. @YetAnotherAnon
    https://paa.confex.com/paa/2016/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/6937

    They look at the educational and income characteristics of the husbands of married women with degrees and high incomes. They posit that these are the kind of husbands that unmarried women with degrees and high incomes would like to marry, and find that there aren’t enough of those men to go round.

    “Our results reveal shortages of men with college degrees and incomes above $40,000 and a surplus of men with only high school degrees or incomes less than $20,000. We document how shortages of marriageable partners affect both the probability of marriage and income levels.”
     

    They look at the educational and income characteristics of the husbands of married women with degrees and high incomes. They posit that these are the kind of husbands that unmarried women with degrees and high incomes would like to marry, and find that there aren’t enough of those men to go round.

    At that point the question becomes how to make more desirable men.

    The answer is obvious: Bring back high-paying industrial and tech jobs and put a stop to immigration, both high and low-skill.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    At that point the question becomes how to make more desirable men.

    The answer is obvious: Bring back high-paying industrial and tech jobs and put a stop to immigration, both high and low-skill.
     
    I married a woman with only a high-school degree and, while she was making more than $20,000 at the time, she wasn't for very long thereafter. Needless to say, a man in that position does not have women all around him "letting you grab their *****s", let alone rushing him to the altar. I did have a college degree, and it took seemingly forever to find a willing wife.

    The part of the answer you left out is to have fewer high-earning women. Women's standards don't go down as their earnings increase, they go up.

    A mere C+ in Elementary Statistics class could have told them that that won't work out.
    , @Anonymous
    But those jobs would have to be high status and high paying, and they would have to exclude women. But if they exclude women, that would be incompatible with the modern and feminist sensibilities you seem to be sympathetic to.
  48. @Achmed E. Newman
    As to the gist of the post (finally), it's not just an issue of women's status or wastage of taxpayers' money in bogus majors at the U. There is the time factor also.

    That BS degree could be 4 years, but right up through 5 1/2 for some, and the Master's, etc. add on 1 to 3 more. Those years, from 18 to as late as 26 (not counting Med school/residency, but that's not a bogus field anyway) are years of PRIME FERTILITY for woman. Yes, you are like flowers, ladies, whether you wanted to hear that or not. No Dutchman ever ran-up a Tulip bubble by picking the flowers at the end of the summer. I'm talking about 4 to 8 years out of only 14 or so! (I subtracted out ~ 3 years below 18 y/o, for which women are very fertile, but most are agreed that it's too early.)

    Women in college is a good thing for men who just want to use them for a good time (and I can't blame these men - it's nature). However, it's funny that the feminists don't care about what men want, yet me come out really good. Society doesn't however. Men, who may not even really know that they would like children yet, would be much better off if there were twice as big a pool of 20 year-olds, many prettier too, as there are now. Of course, per Rosie's comment and most of what you'll read on this, what men want is immaterial.

    Those years, from 18 to as late as 26 (not counting Med school/residency, but that’s not a bogus field anyway) are years of PRIME FERTILITY for woman.

    Women in their early twenties, let alone late teens, do not need to be having children. Studying and getting to know smart young men is exactly what they should be doing.

    A woman who has her first child at 28 easily has time to have the three children she desires.

    Of course, per Rosie’s comment and most of what you’ll read on this, what men want is immaterial.

    I don’t think men’s wants are immaterial. I just don’t think women’s wants are immaterial, which I suppose amounts to the same in your view.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    A woman who has her first child at 28 easily has time to have the three children she desires.
     
    We've been through this before. I'm not a doctor, much less an OB doc. You are not either. Why don't you ask one how much safer and easier things go from, say, 22 to 28 for those 3 conceptions, gestations, and deliveries vs. from 28 through 34?

    I'm not saying that it's at all dangerous or bad to have them during that latter period, but women are built to have them during that earlier period. Men appreciate it when there are women around who are ready at this time, as for both the men and woman, they have more energy and they pass on more energy to the young ones. Men having children at 30 y/o +/- 3 years with women that are 25 +/- 3 years is probably the ideal.

    I just don’t think women’s wants are immaterial, which I suppose amounts to the same in your view.
     
    Women's wants, when they are not beneficial to society, should not be heeded by men who've created that society. Everybody's wants are going to be shot to hell when things collapse.
  49. @Brett
    Looks like for men who want to have a family life, they should pursue women with high school diploma or some junior college.

    Looks like for men who want to have a family life, they should pursue women with high school diploma or some junior college.

    I suspect this attitude is at least in part responsible for the shortfall in educated women’s fertility.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar


    Looks like for men who want to have a family life, they should pursue women with high school diploma or some junior college.
     
    I suspect this attitude is at least in part responsible for the shortfall in educated women’s fertility.
     
    Q. Why do women leave their husbands?
    A. Because they can.


    Need is the most underrated component of a successful marriage.

  50. @Travis
    interesting analysis. But I can only blame myself for having just 3 kids. I wanted to wait until we were more financially secure, my wife wanted to start having kids at 30, I waited until she was 34. Initially we wanted two children but the first two were easier than expected so we had a third. now we wish started earlier and had a fourth child. Thankfully our eldest has always helped out with her younger siblings, made it easier. If our son was born first we probably would have stopped after 2 children.

    I wanted to wait until we were more financially secure, my wife wanted to start having kids at 30, I waited until she was 34.

    Thank you for your honesty here. I think provisioning anxiety, rather than feminism per se, is causing the low birth rate problem. Though in your case, your wife was pushing for an earlier start, I’m sure the reverse is often true as well. The simple fact of the matter is that we know that anxiety correlates with IQ which correlates with educational attainment. In the past, provisioning anxiety was adaptive, now it is catastrophically maladaptive.

    Congratulations on your family!

  51. @MikeatMikedotMike
    "Most industrialized countries have total fertility rates (TFR) below replacement. Perhaps it would be useful to see if there are any exceptions to this rule. One prosperous country has an overall TFR of 3.11. "

    Do you consider this country you describe "industrialized" in the classic sense? I'm not sure that I do. Most everything about its existence seems artificial, from how it was created to how it maintains its prosperity.

    Do you consider this country you describe “industrialized” in the classic sense? I’m not sure that I do. Most everything about its existence seems artificial, from how it was created to how it maintains its prosperity.

    It’s certainly industrialized in the sense that children are not an economic boon. They are, materially speaking, a burden (albeit a worthwhile one). Yet they have children, even though they have equal rights to education and employment. What Israeli women have that we don’t have: a sense of collective purpose and identity.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  52. @Rosie

    They look at the educational and income characteristics of the husbands of married women with degrees and high incomes. They posit that these are the kind of husbands that unmarried women with degrees and high incomes would like to marry, and find that there aren’t enough of those men to go round.
     
    At that point the question becomes how to make more desirable men.

    The answer is obvious: Bring back high-paying industrial and tech jobs and put a stop to immigration, both high and low-skill.

    At that point the question becomes how to make more desirable men.

    The answer is obvious: Bring back high-paying industrial and tech jobs and put a stop to immigration, both high and low-skill.

    I married a woman with only a high-school degree and, while she was making more than $20,000 at the time, she wasn’t for very long thereafter. Needless to say, a man in that position does not have women all around him “letting you grab their *****s”, let alone rushing him to the altar. I did have a college degree, and it took seemingly forever to find a willing wife.

    The part of the answer you left out is to have fewer high-earning women. Women’s standards don’t go down as their earnings increase, they go up.

    A mere C+ in Elementary Statistics class could have told them that that won’t work out.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    The part of the answer you left out is to have fewer high-earning women.
     
    You haven't made any case as to why this is necessary. If Mike earns less than Susie, you can rectify this situation by paying Mike more. You don't need to pay Susie less.

    Women’s standards don’t go down as their earnings increase, they go up.
     
    How is that a problem if men are not subjected to unfair competition from foreigners, who I will remind you are taking very good jobs.

    https://giphy.com/gifs/south-park-jobs-redneck-oEqzXzvEX6vIs/tile
    , @Rosie

    The part of the answer you left out is to have fewer high-earning women. Women’s standards don’t go down as their earnings increase, they go up.
     
    Reg,

    Part of the problem with manosphere thinking is that you all claim to disagree with feminists, then you turn right around and accept their premises, to wit, that men are just as intelligent, hard-working, and ambitious as men.

    Take Anon375 above. He claims that women doctors won't be able to find a mate because they are higher status than 98% (or whatever) of men.

    The problem with this is that men are vastly overrepresented in the highest IQ percentiles, so the smartest women actually have the best dating odds of any women. Even the very smartest women will always be able to find smarter men and more ambitious men. (I assume I don't need to link the overlapping IQ bell curves of men and women.)

    Indeed, as I referenced above, we know that highly intelligent people are prone to anxiety, and we know that highly intelligent women marry even more intelligent men, who, taken together, are going to have high levels of provisioning anxiety. This may explain dysgenic birth differentials all by itself.
  53. @Rosie

    Looks like for men who want to have a family life, they should pursue women with high school diploma or some junior college.
     
    I suspect this attitude is at least in part responsible for the shortfall in educated women's fertility.

    Looks like for men who want to have a family life, they should pursue women with high school diploma or some junior college.

    I suspect this attitude is at least in part responsible for the shortfall in educated women’s fertility.

    Q. Why do women leave their husbands?
    A. Because they can.

    Need is the most underrated component of a successful marriage.

    • Agree: Stan d Mute
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Q. Why do women leave their husbands?
    A. Because they can.
     
    We're not going back to the good ole days when women had no way out of abusive relationships.
  54. @Reg Cæsar

    At that point the question becomes how to make more desirable men.

    The answer is obvious: Bring back high-paying industrial and tech jobs and put a stop to immigration, both high and low-skill.
     
    I married a woman with only a high-school degree and, while she was making more than $20,000 at the time, she wasn't for very long thereafter. Needless to say, a man in that position does not have women all around him "letting you grab their *****s", let alone rushing him to the altar. I did have a college degree, and it took seemingly forever to find a willing wife.

    The part of the answer you left out is to have fewer high-earning women. Women's standards don't go down as their earnings increase, they go up.

    A mere C+ in Elementary Statistics class could have told them that that won't work out.

    The part of the answer you left out is to have fewer high-earning women.

    You haven’t made any case as to why this is necessary. If Mike earns less than Susie, you can rectify this situation by paying Mike more. You don’t need to pay Susie less.

    Women’s standards don’t go down as their earnings increase, they go up.

    How is that a problem if men are not subjected to unfair competition from foreigners, who I will remind you are taking very good jobs.

    https://giphy.com/gifs/south-park-jobs-redneck-oEqzXzvEX6vIs/tile

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Because "earnings" only make sense in reference to something. Saying one earns a million dollars a year doesn't mean anything by itself. It only has meaning in reference to something else. One million dollars has one meaning if Big Macs cost one million dollars; it has another if Big Macs cost 5 dollars.

    In the context of this discussion, women's "earnings" have meaning with respect to men's "earnings". Women’s standards increase as their earnings relative to men's earnings go up. If women's earnings increase at the same rate as men's earnings go up, then their earnings relative to men don't go up and their standards also don't go up. Paying Mike more without paying Susie more means that Susie's pay relative to Mike's has declined.
  55. @Rosie

    Those years, from 18 to as late as 26 (not counting Med school/residency, but that’s not a bogus field anyway) are years of PRIME FERTILITY for woman.
     
    Women in their early twenties, let alone late teens, do not need to be having children. Studying and getting to know smart young men is exactly what they should be doing.

    A woman who has her first child at 28 easily has time to have the three children she desires.

    Of course, per Rosie’s comment and most of what you’ll read on this, what men want is immaterial.
     
    I don't think men's wants are immaterial. I just don't think women's wants are immaterial, which I suppose amounts to the same in your view.

    A woman who has her first child at 28 easily has time to have the three children she desires.

    We’ve been through this before. I’m not a doctor, much less an OB doc. You are not either. Why don’t you ask one how much safer and easier things go from, say, 22 to 28 for those 3 conceptions, gestations, and deliveries vs. from 28 through 34?

    I’m not saying that it’s at all dangerous or bad to have them during that latter period, but women are built to have them during that earlier period. Men appreciate it when there are women around who are ready at this time, as for both the men and woman, they have more energy and they pass on more energy to the young ones. Men having children at 30 y/o +/- 3 years with women that are 25 +/- 3 years is probably the ideal.

    I just don’t think women’s wants are immaterial, which I suppose amounts to the same in your view.

    Women’s wants, when they are not beneficial to society, should not be heeded by men who’ve created that society. Everybody’s wants are going to be shot to hell when things collapse.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    I was 30, 32, and 35 when my children were born. My wife was 23, 25, and 28 when they were. *Preen*
    , @szopen
    Remember that historically it was not uncommon in north-western EUrope average date the women married was between 24 to 26. In Eastern Europe is was earlier.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_marriage_pattern

    "While the average age at first marriage had climbed to 25 years for women and 27 years for men in England and the Low Countries by the end of the 16th century,[17] and the percentage of unmarried Englishwomen rose from less than 10% to nearly 20% by the mid-17th century and their average age at first marriage rose to 26 years at the same time"

    The earlier pregnancy is dangerous for women's health and children. The lowest ratio for child defects is when mother's first child age is 26, while when assessing mother's health later in life it seems that the first-child age should be even later.

    Now thing which is more anecdotal, and not based on anything I've read, just on discussions with nurses: it seems that the chances for pregnancy and children for women at age 34 depend a lot of whether it's the first child or not. The doctors and nurses Ive talked to claimed, without giving sources (so it might be an urban legend common in their environment) that woman, who has already few children, would get less problems getting pregnant at close to 40 than women who is 35 and who is trying to get her first child.
  56. Women’s wants, when they are not beneficial to society, should not be heeded by men who’ve created that society.

    There’s your ridiculous sense of male entitlement again. Men’s interests matter more because they “created that society.” As if women weren’t there the whole time. I guess Medieval women were pampered housewives living in luxury and comfort while the men did all the real work.

    Men having children at 30 y/o +/- 3 years with women that are 25 +/- 3 years is probably the ideal.

    So we agree. Bright young women have plenty of time to earn a four-year degree before having children.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    There’s your ridiculous sense of male entitlement again.
     
    That's also nature. Or, one could even read the Bible about this.

    As if women weren’t there the whole time. I guess Medieval women were pampered housewives living in luxury and comfort while the men did all the real work.
     
    Not at all, but, again, we'd all still be living in caves if men acted like women. If you mean the "real work" in improving civilization, yes, all of it.

    No, we don't agree. 4 to 8 years of college reduces the ability to take advantage of the fertile years. Those were ranges. The more that are at the higher range, the fewer kids that we can expect. If you really can't get that, don't write back.

    There are other factors, of course, in that once a woman is on the hook for that damn-near-mortgage size loan, she's going to feel the need to get a career job for 2 reasons:

    a) Just to make it seem all worthwhile .. not to channel Mary Tyler Moore here.

    b) If she doesn't get married soon, the debt will accumulate, so she's got to start paying on it.

    That doesn't help family formation prospects, except to pretty well-off guys because,

    a) It's a bit of a turn-off to find out that you will together have $120,000 to pay off. That's a serious monthly payment for a long time.

    b) The guy figures this girl will need to work for them to make ends meet. That puts off the having of children for some more years. See The Two-Income Trap written by our favorite Indian squaw Democrat candidate, before she had to drop all that by popular demand of the current crop of crazies.
  57. @Reg Cæsar


    Looks like for men who want to have a family life, they should pursue women with high school diploma or some junior college.
     
    I suspect this attitude is at least in part responsible for the shortfall in educated women’s fertility.
     
    Q. Why do women leave their husbands?
    A. Because they can.


    Need is the most underrated component of a successful marriage.

    Q. Why do women leave their husbands?
    A. Because they can.

    We’re not going back to the good ole days when women had no way out of abusive relationships.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    You need to face the fact that you are a feminist, Rosie. There are 12-step programs for this. You know what step 1 is. If you start backsliding at any point, you know where to find us.

    Achmed E. Durden*

    .

    * Actually that movie really, really sucked, even the 2nd time around.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    We’re not going back to the good ole days when women had no way out of abusive relationships.
     
    It was just as hard for men to do so, though for different reasons. Mostly we sucked it up and persevered.
  58. @James Forrestal
    Leaving aside the ignorant, virulent anti-White hatred expressed in your post, there is a related point to be made:

    Both family stability and fertility are impacted, not just by modernity and prosperity in general, but by specific aspects of current year government policy and law -- as well as by (((media)))-promoted cultural norms.

    Most industrialized countries have total fertility rates (TFR) below replacement. Perhaps it would be useful to see if there are any exceptions to this rule. One prosperous country has an overall TFR of 3.11. For the people who make up this country's majority population, it's even higher -- 3.16. What's different about this particular country?

    This country has rather different policies on several family-related issues than those that we see in the US and other Western countries:
    --Abortion is severely restricted. Women have to be evaluated by a committee in order to get approval for an abortion.
    --There's no such thing as civil marriage -- only religious marriage. Miscegenation is highly discouraged.
    --Divorce is adjudicated by religious courts -- there is no "no-fault" divorce.
    --Ethnic groups are strictly segregated in housing, schooling, etc.


    This country, of course, is the Zionist entity in Palestine. The official government policies for the Jewish ethnostate on these issues are almost exactly the opposite of the policies that the Tribe promotes for White countries. What a surprise.

    “This country has rather different policies on several family-related issues than those that we see in the US and other Western countries”

    Good for them. Not for us.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Good for them. Not for us.
     
    Their policies are a holdover from the days when the West was still civilized.

    Parts hang on. Surrogacy is illegal in France, and sperm "donation" in Italy. Divorce is still not available in the Philippines, basically a Western if not white nation.
  59. @Achmed E. Newman
    As to the gist of the post (finally), it's not just an issue of women's status or wastage of taxpayers' money in bogus majors at the U. There is the time factor also.

    That BS degree could be 4 years, but right up through 5 1/2 for some, and the Master's, etc. add on 1 to 3 more. Those years, from 18 to as late as 26 (not counting Med school/residency, but that's not a bogus field anyway) are years of PRIME FERTILITY for woman. Yes, you are like flowers, ladies, whether you wanted to hear that or not. No Dutchman ever ran-up a Tulip bubble by picking the flowers at the end of the summer. I'm talking about 4 to 8 years out of only 14 or so! (I subtracted out ~ 3 years below 18 y/o, for which women are very fertile, but most are agreed that it's too early.)

    Women in college is a good thing for men who just want to use them for a good time (and I can't blame these men - it's nature). However, it's funny that the feminists don't care about what men want, yet me come out really good. Society doesn't however. Men, who may not even really know that they would like children yet, would be much better off if there were twice as big a pool of 20 year-olds, many prettier too, as there are now. Of course, per Rosie's comment and most of what you'll read on this, what men want is immaterial.

    “Those years, from 18 to as late as 26 (not counting Med school/residency, but that’s not a bogus field anyway) are years of PRIME FERTILITY for woman.”

    18-30 you mean. And, of course, it depends upon to what extent is the man and woman are financially and emotionally prepared to handle this awesome responsibility.

    “Women in college is a good thing for men who just want to use them for a good time (and I can’t blame these men – it’s nature).”

    First, that is not nature. Masculine men curb their rutting instincts. Second, you are encouraging pre-marital sex. I thought that was in direct opposition to the Bible. Alt Right Christians still believe in that book. Third, women in college is a good thing for themselves, their families, and the men that they date who prefer an educated female.

    “Men, who may not even really know that they would like children yet, would be much better off if there were twice as big a pool of 20 year-olds, many prettier too, as there are now.”

    Of course, that is simply your opinion.

  60. @Reg Cæsar

    At that point the question becomes how to make more desirable men.

    The answer is obvious: Bring back high-paying industrial and tech jobs and put a stop to immigration, both high and low-skill.
     
    I married a woman with only a high-school degree and, while she was making more than $20,000 at the time, she wasn't for very long thereafter. Needless to say, a man in that position does not have women all around him "letting you grab their *****s", let alone rushing him to the altar. I did have a college degree, and it took seemingly forever to find a willing wife.

    The part of the answer you left out is to have fewer high-earning women. Women's standards don't go down as their earnings increase, they go up.

    A mere C+ in Elementary Statistics class could have told them that that won't work out.

    The part of the answer you left out is to have fewer high-earning women. Women’s standards don’t go down as their earnings increase, they go up.

    Reg,

    Part of the problem with manosphere thinking is that you all claim to disagree with feminists, then you turn right around and accept their premises, to wit, that men are just as intelligent, hard-working, and ambitious as men.

    Take Anon375 above. He claims that women doctors won’t be able to find a mate because they are higher status than 98% (or whatever) of men.

    The problem with this is that men are vastly overrepresented in the highest IQ percentiles, so the smartest women actually have the best dating odds of any women. Even the very smartest women will always be able to find smarter men and more ambitious men. (I assume I don’t need to link the overlapping IQ bell curves of men and women.)

    Indeed, as I referenced above, we know that highly intelligent people are prone to anxiety, and we know that highly intelligent women marry even more intelligent men, who, taken together, are going to have high levels of provisioning anxiety. This may explain dysgenic birth differentials all by itself.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    ...that men are just as intelligent, hard-working, and ambitious as men.
     
    ?

    The problem with this is that men are vastly overrepresented in the highest IQ percentiles, so the smartest women actually have the best dating odds of any women.
     
    The IQ isn't the drawing point. I knew a lot of lonely guys in Mensa.
    , @Anonymous

    Take Anon375 above. He claims that women doctors won’t be able to find a mate because they are higher status than 98% (or whatever) of men.

    The problem with this is that men are vastly overrepresented in the highest IQ percentiles, so the smartest women actually have the best dating odds of any women. Even the very smartest women will always be able to find smarter men and more ambitious men. (I assume I don’t need to link the overlapping IQ bell curves of men and women.)
     
    No, by your logic, the dumbest woman would have the best dating odds, since the pool of men smarter than her would be the largest.

    Most guys would have no problem marrying a woman doctor, assuming she's attractive and personable enough. That's not the issue here. The issue is that to a woman doctor, most men are losers. Most men are not as successful and high in status as doctors are. The pool of men who are more successful and higher in status than doctors are is small, and they have the greatest choice in the mating market. Donald Trump married a series of models, not doctors.
  61. @Rosie

    Women’s wants, when they are not beneficial to society, should not be heeded by men who’ve created that society.
     
    There's your ridiculous sense of male entitlement again. Men's interests matter more because they "created that society." As if women weren't there the whole time. I guess Medieval women were pampered housewives living in luxury and comfort while the men did all the real work.

    Men having children at 30 y/o +/- 3 years with women that are 25 +/- 3 years is probably the ideal.
     
    So we agree. Bright young women have plenty of time to earn a four-year degree before having children.

    There’s your ridiculous sense of male entitlement again.

    That’s also nature. Or, one could even read the Bible about this.

    As if women weren’t there the whole time. I guess Medieval women were pampered housewives living in luxury and comfort while the men did all the real work.

    Not at all, but, again, we’d all still be living in caves if men acted like women. If you mean the “real work” in improving civilization, yes, all of it.

    No, we don’t agree. 4 to 8 years of college reduces the ability to take advantage of the fertile years. Those were ranges. The more that are at the higher range, the fewer kids that we can expect. If you really can’t get that, don’t write back.

    There are other factors, of course, in that once a woman is on the hook for that damn-near-mortgage size loan, she’s going to feel the need to get a career job for 2 reasons:

    a) Just to make it seem all worthwhile .. not to channel Mary Tyler Moore here.

    b) If she doesn’t get married soon, the debt will accumulate, so she’s got to start paying on it.

    That doesn’t help family formation prospects, except to pretty well-off guys because,

    a) It’s a bit of a turn-off to find out that you will together have $120,000 to pay off. That’s a serious monthly payment for a long time.

    b) The guy figures this girl will need to work for them to make ends meet. That puts off the having of children for some more years. See The Two-Income Trap written by our favorite Indian squaw Democrat candidate, before she had to drop all that by popular demand of the current crop of crazies.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Not at all, but, again, we’d all still be living in caves if men acted like women.
     
    I suppose this is a manosphere article of faith that you have come to believe is self-evident.

    If you mean the “real work” in improving civilization, yes, all of it.
     
    Assuming you're right about this, you can't improve civilization until you've been born of a woman. I do not accept your premise that men are more important than women.

    No, we don’t agree. 4 to 8 years of college reduces the ability to take advantage of the fertile years. Those were ranges. The more that are at the higher range, the fewer kids that we can expect. If you really can’t get that, don’t write back.
     
    I notice you don't suggest banning birth control, which would be a much more direct, effective, and fairer way to raise the birthrate, because that would require sacrifices from both sexes, and you just want to target women.

    There are other factors, of course, in that once a woman is on the hook for that damn-near-mortgage size loan, she’s going to feel the need to get a career job for 2 reasons:
     
    The solution here is not to deprive women of education, but to reduce the cost and get rid of student loans.
  62. @Rosie

    Q. Why do women leave their husbands?
    A. Because they can.
     
    We're not going back to the good ole days when women had no way out of abusive relationships.

    You need to face the fact that you are a feminist, Rosie. There are 12-step programs for this. You know what step 1 is. If you start backsliding at any point, you know where to find us.

    Achmed E. Durden*

    .

    * Actually that movie really, really sucked, even the 2nd time around.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    You need to face the fact that you are a feminist, Rosie.
     
    Whatever
  63. : Do you think that artificial wombs (if they will be commercialized and cheap enough, that is) will result in highly educated women having much more babies?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Probably lots of women avoiding childlessness. I doubt many will push past one in that situation, though.
    , @Mr. Rational
    You didn't ask me, but I strongly suspect that robotized infant/child care would be a much bigger factor than offloading (part of*) pregnancy onto a machine.  Having robot-nanny do the 3x nightly feedings and stimulate baby most of the day would free up a lot of time for more stimulating activities.  (Upon reflection, a robot nanny that imitates what mama does might be close to ideal.)

    * The "artificial wombs" appear to be a bag to hold amniotic fluid and a fluid-exchange system to replace the placenta.  There's no analog to the endometrium, so there's no way to grow a placenta from scratch.  You'd still have to do that the normal way and transfer to the bag pre-term.
  64. @Achmed E. Newman
    You need to face the fact that you are a feminist, Rosie. There are 12-step programs for this. You know what step 1 is. If you start backsliding at any point, you know where to find us.

    Achmed E. Durden*

    .

    * Actually that movie really, really sucked, even the 2nd time around.

    You need to face the fact that you are a feminist, Rosie.

    Whatever

  65. The progressive stack does not defend its white male allies.

    Good riddance, Ralph.

    Maybe you’ll have some regrets about being a traitor.

    • Replies: @216
    Irony or Wokewashing?

    https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/1091533069499084802

    Thermosvich is the true heir to WF Buckley.
  66. @Achmed E. Newman

    There’s your ridiculous sense of male entitlement again.
     
    That's also nature. Or, one could even read the Bible about this.

    As if women weren’t there the whole time. I guess Medieval women were pampered housewives living in luxury and comfort while the men did all the real work.
     
    Not at all, but, again, we'd all still be living in caves if men acted like women. If you mean the "real work" in improving civilization, yes, all of it.

    No, we don't agree. 4 to 8 years of college reduces the ability to take advantage of the fertile years. Those were ranges. The more that are at the higher range, the fewer kids that we can expect. If you really can't get that, don't write back.

    There are other factors, of course, in that once a woman is on the hook for that damn-near-mortgage size loan, she's going to feel the need to get a career job for 2 reasons:

    a) Just to make it seem all worthwhile .. not to channel Mary Tyler Moore here.

    b) If she doesn't get married soon, the debt will accumulate, so she's got to start paying on it.

    That doesn't help family formation prospects, except to pretty well-off guys because,

    a) It's a bit of a turn-off to find out that you will together have $120,000 to pay off. That's a serious monthly payment for a long time.

    b) The guy figures this girl will need to work for them to make ends meet. That puts off the having of children for some more years. See The Two-Income Trap written by our favorite Indian squaw Democrat candidate, before she had to drop all that by popular demand of the current crop of crazies.

    Not at all, but, again, we’d all still be living in caves if men acted like women.

    I suppose this is a manosphere article of faith that you have come to believe is self-evident.

    If you mean the “real work” in improving civilization, yes, all of it.

    Assuming you’re right about this, you can’t improve civilization until you’ve been born of a woman. I do not accept your premise that men are more important than women.

    No, we don’t agree. 4 to 8 years of college reduces the ability to take advantage of the fertile years. Those were ranges. The more that are at the higher range, the fewer kids that we can expect. If you really can’t get that, don’t write back.

    I notice you don’t suggest banning birth control, which would be a much more direct, effective, and fairer way to raise the birthrate, because that would require sacrifices from both sexes, and you just want to target women.

    There are other factors, of course, in that once a woman is on the hook for that damn-near-mortgage size loan, she’s going to feel the need to get a career job for 2 reasons:

    The solution here is not to deprive women of education, but to reduce the cost and get rid of student loans.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Fair point, but why the unquestioned assumption that people simply “must” borrow money to get s college degree? Even otherwise sensible and intelligent people, like you, often accept this college-debt propaganda uncritically.

    Women, like men, already have the ability to get a college degree with NO debt. It is not complicated and not even necessarily incredibly difficult. See Zack Bissonnette’s book “Debt Free U” or just think it through.

    Attend college near home and, horrors, live at home with parent(s) for at least two years.
    and/or
    Attend a dirt-cheap community college for two years before transferring to a four-year college.

    Cook and eat at home rather than in restaurants or a pricey dorm meal plan.

    and by all means choose an in-state government university rather than a private university or an out-of-State university charging the out-of-State rate.

    Work part-time during the academic year, as I did 24-30 hours per week while attending a very demanding institution, then full-time during most or all summers as family finances dictate.

    Boom, college graduate without debt. Eminently doable. For the most part, someone taking on debt for college, especially substantial debt, has only himself to blame, and it’s avoidable with common sense, basic planning, and hard work.

    (Graduate and professional schools, that could be another story, especially Med / dental school.)

    I enjoy your thoughtful comments, and the responses they engender, as much as anything on this site.

  67. @Rosie

    The part of the answer you left out is to have fewer high-earning women. Women’s standards don’t go down as their earnings increase, they go up.
     
    Reg,

    Part of the problem with manosphere thinking is that you all claim to disagree with feminists, then you turn right around and accept their premises, to wit, that men are just as intelligent, hard-working, and ambitious as men.

    Take Anon375 above. He claims that women doctors won't be able to find a mate because they are higher status than 98% (or whatever) of men.

    The problem with this is that men are vastly overrepresented in the highest IQ percentiles, so the smartest women actually have the best dating odds of any women. Even the very smartest women will always be able to find smarter men and more ambitious men. (I assume I don't need to link the overlapping IQ bell curves of men and women.)

    Indeed, as I referenced above, we know that highly intelligent people are prone to anxiety, and we know that highly intelligent women marry even more intelligent men, who, taken together, are going to have high levels of provisioning anxiety. This may explain dysgenic birth differentials all by itself.

    …that men are just as intelligent, hard-working, and ambitious as men.

    ?

    The problem with this is that men are vastly overrepresented in the highest IQ percentiles, so the smartest women actually have the best dating odds of any women.

    The IQ isn’t the drawing point. I knew a lot of lonely guys in Mensa.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    The IQ isn’t the drawing point. I knew a lot of lonely guys in Mensa.
     
    I notice you said "lonely guys" rather than "lonely girls," thus proving my point.
    , @Rosie

    ?
     
    It should have read as follows:

    …that women are just as intelligent, hard-working, and ambitious as men.
     
    I noticed my error and would have posted a correction, but I thought my intended meaning was obvious.
  68. @Rosie

    Q. Why do women leave their husbands?
    A. Because they can.
     
    We're not going back to the good ole days when women had no way out of abusive relationships.

    We’re not going back to the good ole days when women had no way out of abusive relationships.

    It was just as hard for men to do so, though for different reasons. Mostly we sucked it up and persevered.

  69. @James Forrestal
    Leaving aside the ignorant, virulent anti-White hatred expressed in your post, there is a related point to be made:

    Both family stability and fertility are impacted, not just by modernity and prosperity in general, but by specific aspects of current year government policy and law -- as well as by (((media)))-promoted cultural norms.

    Most industrialized countries have total fertility rates (TFR) below replacement. Perhaps it would be useful to see if there are any exceptions to this rule. One prosperous country has an overall TFR of 3.11. For the people who make up this country's majority population, it's even higher -- 3.16. What's different about this particular country?

    This country has rather different policies on several family-related issues than those that we see in the US and other Western countries:
    --Abortion is severely restricted. Women have to be evaluated by a committee in order to get approval for an abortion.
    --There's no such thing as civil marriage -- only religious marriage. Miscegenation is highly discouraged.
    --Divorce is adjudicated by religious courts -- there is no "no-fault" divorce.
    --Ethnic groups are strictly segregated in housing, schooling, etc.


    This country, of course, is the Zionist entity in Palestine. The official government policies for the Jewish ethnostate on these issues are almost exactly the opposite of the policies that the Tribe promotes for White countries. What a surprise.

    –Abortion is severely restricted. Women have to be evaluated by a committee in order to get approval for an abortion.

    That’s still true in parts of Europe as well. It’s called “civilization”, and “democracy”. We should try it.

  70. @216
    The progressive stack does not defend its white male allies.

    Good riddance, Ralph.

    Maybe you'll have some regrets about being a traitor.

    Irony or Wokewashing?

    Thermosvich is the true heir to WF Buckley.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    The samurai had the solution for cases like this:


    https://allthatsinteresting.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/utagawa-kunisada.jpg
    , @Audacious Epigone
    The former, I hope. The latter, I fear.
  71. @Corvinus
    "This country has rather different policies on several family-related issues than those that we see in the US and other Western countries"

    Good for them. Not for us.

    Good for them. Not for us.

    Their policies are a holdover from the days when the West was still civilized.

    Parts hang on. Surrogacy is illegal in France, and sperm “donation” in Italy. Divorce is still not available in the Philippines, basically a Western if not white nation.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Their policies are a holdover from the days when the West was still civilized."

    Silly goose, the West is civilized. It's just a matter of perception. Do white normies generally hold your personal opinion of what to be civilized entails? Must they agree with your position, or do they have the liberty to figure out things for themselves?

    "Parts hang on. Surrogacy is illegal in France."

    Barely hang on.

    https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-france-health-surrogacy/majority-of-french-now-favor-allowing-surrogate-motherhood-poll-idUKKBN1ES0HQ

    "and sperm “donation” in Italy."

    Looks like the courts interfered. Just like our Nine Justices, eh?

    "In April 2014, Italy’s constitutional court overturned a ban on using donor sperm and eggs in fertility treatments, knocking down part of a divisive set of restrictions on assisted reproduction. The court said the ban breached the constitution, without going into further detail, but the Health Minister Beatrice Lorenzin, from the socially conservative New Centre Right party, said parliament would have to debate how the court order could be applied-delaying tactics. Couples in Italy have launched a string of legal challenges to the restrictions and this week a court in Bologna granted a couple the right to use donors in fertility treatment immediately, four years since they launched their legal battle to have a family. Sperm and egg donation will at last become legal and in future the many couples who currently go abroad for treatment will no longer need to."

    "Divorce is still not available in the Philippines, basically a Western if not white nation."

    The Philippines, basically a "white nation"? LOL.

    And, about divorce here...

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-43457117

  72. @216
    Irony or Wokewashing?

    https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/1091533069499084802

    Thermosvich is the true heir to WF Buckley.

    The samurai had the solution for cases like this:

  73. @Anonymous

    On the one hand, it hasn’t done much to reduce the number of children women would ideally like to have. It has, however, reduced the number of children women end up having.
     
    Feminism has reduced the number of children women would like to have with a significant proportion of the male population.

    Educational attainment is a major class and status marker. Before feminism, few women went to college and men generally had greater relative status in society. Thus men without higher education were not immediately undesirable or unacceptable prospective mates.

    Today however, women attend college at similar or greater rates as men do, and men's relative status has declined significantly. For most women, men with less educational and professional attainment than themselves are undesirable or unacceptable as mates, unless they are wealthy, celebrities, pro athletes, etc.

    In other words, the pool of men with whom women would like to have their ideal number of children has shrunk. By ratcheting up women's educational, professional, social status relative to men, the men below them in status become written off and undesirable and unacceptable as sires for their children, and they pursue the smaller pool of men with greater status.

    Men will date sideways and downward. Women will date sideways and upward. Lifting all women up in status has been predictably disruptive as hell.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Men will date sideways and downward. Women will date sideways and upward. Lifting all women up in status has been predictably disruptive as hell.
     
    This is a fairer and more accurate statement of the facts than I usually see on this site, so thanks for that.

    Still, I don't understand why this should be a problem. Even now, with affirmative action for women in some high-paying fields, women still only earn 77% of what men do. A feminist would say this is the result of discrimination against women. I don't believe that. I think it is rather the result of male overrepresentation in the upper echelons of the cognitive elite, but even more than that, greater male ambition and the accomplishment that goes along with that. If you get rid of affirmative action, a move which White women overwhelmingly support, presumably the gap would be even greater.
    , @Talha

    Men/women will date
     
    If men and women are dating, patriarchy is already dead...the bill simply hasn’t arrived yet.

    Peace.
  74. @Twinkie
    Looking at the fertility issue in a different tack, Razib Khan and I discussed (briefly) a while back that fertility drops as income rises up to a certain point ($500K a year?) and then starts to rise again.

    Do you, by any chance, see data to this effect?

    I recall it being a little lower than that but comfortably in the six-figure range. I haven’t looked but the GSS has the relevant data so I will. Thanks.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    Yes, it could have been $250k year, perhaps... Thank you for looking into it.
  75. @Rosie

    Not at all, but, again, we’d all still be living in caves if men acted like women.
     
    I suppose this is a manosphere article of faith that you have come to believe is self-evident.

    If you mean the “real work” in improving civilization, yes, all of it.
     
    Assuming you're right about this, you can't improve civilization until you've been born of a woman. I do not accept your premise that men are more important than women.

    No, we don’t agree. 4 to 8 years of college reduces the ability to take advantage of the fertile years. Those were ranges. The more that are at the higher range, the fewer kids that we can expect. If you really can’t get that, don’t write back.
     
    I notice you don't suggest banning birth control, which would be a much more direct, effective, and fairer way to raise the birthrate, because that would require sacrifices from both sexes, and you just want to target women.

    There are other factors, of course, in that once a woman is on the hook for that damn-near-mortgage size loan, she’s going to feel the need to get a career job for 2 reasons:
     
    The solution here is not to deprive women of education, but to reduce the cost and get rid of student loans.

    Fair point, but why the unquestioned assumption that people simply “must” borrow money to get s college degree? Even otherwise sensible and intelligent people, like you, often accept this college-debt propaganda uncritically.

    Women, like men, already have the ability to get a college degree with NO debt. It is not complicated and not even necessarily incredibly difficult. See Zack Bissonnette’s book “Debt Free U” or just think it through.

    Attend college near home and, horrors, live at home with parent(s) for at least two years.
    and/or
    Attend a dirt-cheap community college for two years before transferring to a four-year college.

    Cook and eat at home rather than in restaurants or a pricey dorm meal plan.

    and by all means choose an in-state government university rather than a private university or an out-of-State university charging the out-of-State rate.

    Work part-time during the academic year, as I did 24-30 hours per week while attending a very demanding institution, then full-time during most or all summers as family finances dictate.

    Boom, college graduate without debt. Eminently doable. For the most part, someone taking on debt for college, especially substantial debt, has only himself to blame, and it’s avoidable with common sense, basic planning, and hard work.

    (Graduate and professional schools, that could be another story, especially Med / dental school.)

    I enjoy your thoughtful comments, and the responses they engender, as much as anything on this site.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    I enjoy your thoughtful comments, and the responses they engender, as much as anything on this site.
     
    Thanks!

    FWIW, I don't have much to offer my children in terms of cash for college, but they know they're welcome at home as long as they're doing the right thing.

  76. @216
    Anti-Zionist Jews are not your friend

    https://twitter.com/maxberger/status/1091189176106733568

    If someone is willing to align with Omar because of how much they hate us, that tells you all you need to know.

    That said, there's no reason for our people to spend any energy on attacking Omar or defending Israel. Let the center-left Jews expend their energy and dollars, don't reward the ingratitude of those who don't thank Heritage Americans for saving their ancestors in the Second World War.

    @maxberger

    they still hate you. always have, always will. and now they don’t have to hide it

  77. @Thomm

    Redstan will pay off your student loans in exchange for marriage to a huwhite beta male and having four children.
     
    What guarantee is there against frivorce by the woman, a few years later? Then she has no debt plus an alimony stream (and CS stream). Plus, beta males to pay off her student loans are already available.

    Plus, as the children are now from a broken home, they will grow up to be damaged and less successful adults.

    Too many White Trashionalists don't think fatherhood is valuable. A white baby born to a slutty, tattooed single mother is just as valuable to them as one born to one of Mitt Romney's sons. That is why Heartiste rightfully bashes the 'MOAR WHITE BABIES QUANTITY AGAINST QUALITY' trolls, as he calls them.

    Both quality and quantity matter.

    Numbers of people, therefore numbers of babies, matter very much. This should be obvious.

    Physical defense against crime and civil unrest takes bodies, lots of people wielding firearms against aggressors and, when needed, fighting up close against rival colonizing tribes (the hordes taking over the USA right now). It’s typically harder for defend your home, your neighborhood, your town, the more you’re outnumbered.

    To the extent that voting matters, voters need to be conceived, “allowed” to be born rather than murdered, raised to love and respect and defend their families and their nation (not their government), in serious numbers.

    It takes people to hold, take, or re-take territory and the resources — water, fertile ag land, minerals, oil and gas — that go with it.

  78. @216

    What guarantee is there against frivorce by the woman, a few years later? Then she has no debt plus an alimony stream (and CS stream). Plus, beta males to pay off her student loans are already available.
     
    The Israeli policy is for marriage to be governed by the religious authorities, a legacy of the Ottoman millet system. Secular and gay marriages have to be performed in Cyprus. Redstan would have a similar policy, and would impose a "luxury tax" on these foreign marriages.

    Where marriage is governed by the religious authorities, so would divorce. Thus removing the powers from a feminist legal system, and transferring them to clerics.

    The idea of student loan repayment is designed to encourage the higher IQ to reproduce. If you don't go to college because you aren't intelligent enough, and Redstan would be examination only admissions, then you have no debts to repay.

    No homosexual “marriage” should be recognized in our nation no matter where the travesty ceremony is conducted. Israel is also quite full of pervert propaganda, including the requisite sodomite parades as in the vassal USA.

  79. @James Forrestal

    In the past, it was common for women to marry up in status/educational attainment. But today, particularly at the high end, women tend to marry their equals (e.g. doctors marrying doctors, instead of nurses marrying doctors).
     
    Could be a factor in this:

    Parenthetically, the pattern for men is similar but the divergence between ideal and realized fertility is half what it is for women.
     
    It would be interesting to see how much of the (smaller) decrease in male fertility with higher educational attainment is due to this factor -- do doctors who marry high school grads still have fewer kids?

    The GSS does track occupational prestige of both respondents and their spouses. It also looks like the survey started asking about spousal education in 2012. Only three years of data so far but 2018 should be coming out in the next couple of months. I’ll check back then.

  80. @Travis
    interesting analysis. But I can only blame myself for having just 3 kids. I wanted to wait until we were more financially secure, my wife wanted to start having kids at 30, I waited until she was 34. Initially we wanted two children but the first two were easier than expected so we had a third. now we wish started earlier and had a fourth child. Thankfully our eldest has always helped out with her younger siblings, made it easier. If our son was born first we probably would have stopped after 2 children.

    Above replacement in this day and age is commendable. Don’t be so hard on yourself. But do share your story because it’s the missing piece–kids are great. The caliber of person who reads threads like this one is never going to feel like he is really ready to have children because there are so many costs and expenses–monetary and otherwise–that he can latch onto to avoid having them. But it’s amazing how much works itself out, especially if you find a nurturing wife.

  81. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    How about men?

    I’ll include it soon, just ran out of time.

  82. @Achmed E. Newman

    A woman who has her first child at 28 easily has time to have the three children she desires.
     
    We've been through this before. I'm not a doctor, much less an OB doc. You are not either. Why don't you ask one how much safer and easier things go from, say, 22 to 28 for those 3 conceptions, gestations, and deliveries vs. from 28 through 34?

    I'm not saying that it's at all dangerous or bad to have them during that latter period, but women are built to have them during that earlier period. Men appreciate it when there are women around who are ready at this time, as for both the men and woman, they have more energy and they pass on more energy to the young ones. Men having children at 30 y/o +/- 3 years with women that are 25 +/- 3 years is probably the ideal.

    I just don’t think women’s wants are immaterial, which I suppose amounts to the same in your view.
     
    Women's wants, when they are not beneficial to society, should not be heeded by men who've created that society. Everybody's wants are going to be shot to hell when things collapse.

    I was 30, 32, and 35 when my children were born. My wife was 23, 25, and 28 when they were. *Preen*

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Wow, what a lucky guy. Where did you meet a woman 7 years younger who wanted 3 kids? I'm asking for myself, I would like to know where to find such women. I hope she is non Hispanic white.

    Also, any plans for a fourth?
  83. @Mr. XYZ
    @Audacious Epigone: Do you think that artificial wombs (if they will be commercialized and cheap enough, that is) will result in highly educated women having much more babies?

    Probably lots of women avoiding childlessness. I doubt many will push past one in that situation, though.

  84. @216
    Irony or Wokewashing?

    https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/1091533069499084802

    Thermosvich is the true heir to WF Buckley.

    The former, I hope. The latter, I fear.

    • Replies: @216
    He's retweeting Elie Mystal's kvetching about "emotional labor".

    At least I can say that I never bought any Thermosvich snake oil. Lots of Boomers were taken in.

    The speed at which the timeline moves still surprises me. We've moved onto "Woke Conservatism" and Trump is at least nominally still in office.

  85. @Audacious Epigone
    The former, I hope. The latter, I fear.

    He’s retweeting Elie Mystal’s kvetching about “emotional labor”.

    At least I can say that I never bought any Thermosvich snake oil. Lots of Boomers were taken in.

    The speed at which the timeline moves still surprises me. We’ve moved onto “Woke Conservatism” and Trump is at least nominally still in office.

  86. @Mr. XYZ
    @Audacious Epigone: Do you think that artificial wombs (if they will be commercialized and cheap enough, that is) will result in highly educated women having much more babies?

    You didn’t ask me, but I strongly suspect that robotized infant/child care would be a much bigger factor than offloading (part of*) pregnancy onto a machine.  Having robot-nanny do the 3x nightly feedings and stimulate baby most of the day would free up a lot of time for more stimulating activities.  (Upon reflection, a robot nanny that imitates what mama does might be close to ideal.)

    * The “artificial wombs” appear to be a bag to hold amniotic fluid and a fluid-exchange system to replace the placenta.  There’s no analog to the endometrium, so there’s no way to grow a placenta from scratch.  You’d still have to do that the normal way and transfer to the bag pre-term.

  87. @Reg Cæsar

    ...that men are just as intelligent, hard-working, and ambitious as men.
     
    ?

    The problem with this is that men are vastly overrepresented in the highest IQ percentiles, so the smartest women actually have the best dating odds of any women.
     
    The IQ isn't the drawing point. I knew a lot of lonely guys in Mensa.

    The IQ isn’t the drawing point. I knew a lot of lonely guys in Mensa.

    I notice you said “lonely guys” rather than “lonely girls,” thus proving my point.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    I notice you said “lonely guys” rather than “lonely girls,” thus proving my point.
     BTW, I have acknowledged this problem in the past. I think many high IQ men have very serious difficulties with women on account of their orientation towards things rather than people, low agreeableness, and all-around terrible personalities. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that they have little contact with women in daily life because their interests are very different from ours. We don't major in tech fields and we don't play video games for hours on end.

    In previous generations, these men were forced to go out and learn how to interact with people, and insofar as their only interest in getting to know women was for sex, at least learn how to pretend otherwise for awhile. Now, they can sit in their houses and live a virtual life with their video games and porn.
  88. @Reg Cæsar

    ...that men are just as intelligent, hard-working, and ambitious as men.
     
    ?

    The problem with this is that men are vastly overrepresented in the highest IQ percentiles, so the smartest women actually have the best dating odds of any women.
     
    The IQ isn't the drawing point. I knew a lot of lonely guys in Mensa.

    ?

    It should have read as follows:

    …that women are just as intelligent, hard-working, and ambitious as men.

    I noticed my error and would have posted a correction, but I thought my intended meaning was obvious.

  89. @Audacious Epigone
    Men will date sideways and downward. Women will date sideways and upward. Lifting all women up in status has been predictably disruptive as hell.

    Men will date sideways and downward. Women will date sideways and upward. Lifting all women up in status has been predictably disruptive as hell.

    This is a fairer and more accurate statement of the facts than I usually see on this site, so thanks for that.

    Still, I don’t understand why this should be a problem. Even now, with affirmative action for women in some high-paying fields, women still only earn 77% of what men do. A feminist would say this is the result of discrimination against women. I don’t believe that. I think it is rather the result of male overrepresentation in the upper echelons of the cognitive elite, but even more than that, greater male ambition and the accomplishment that goes along with that. If you get rid of affirmative action, a move which White women overwhelmingly support, presumably the gap would be even greater.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2

    Still, I don’t understand why this should be a problem. Even now, with affirmative action for women in some high-paying fields, women still only earn 77% of what men do
     
    This is partly just a result of many of even the most seemingly career driven women re-evaluating their priorities as soon as they have children.

    They return to their great jobs that pay multiples of the average after maternity leave, full of "you go girl" third wave feminist brio, everyone is exceptionally supportive, and then they realise the opportunity cost of a career is raising their child.

    This does not apply to all and is a luxury that far from all can afford but it is a huge factor in the supposed gender pay gap. They often find other, much less time-demanding work and so this is reflected in the statistics.

    I suppose some feminists want compensation for having the luxury of this choice. Which is rational from a perspective of their pure self-interest, I suppose.
  90. @RadicalCenter
    Fair point, but why the unquestioned assumption that people simply “must” borrow money to get s college degree? Even otherwise sensible and intelligent people, like you, often accept this college-debt propaganda uncritically.

    Women, like men, already have the ability to get a college degree with NO debt. It is not complicated and not even necessarily incredibly difficult. See Zack Bissonnette’s book “Debt Free U” or just think it through.

    Attend college near home and, horrors, live at home with parent(s) for at least two years.
    and/or
    Attend a dirt-cheap community college for two years before transferring to a four-year college.

    Cook and eat at home rather than in restaurants or a pricey dorm meal plan.

    and by all means choose an in-state government university rather than a private university or an out-of-State university charging the out-of-State rate.

    Work part-time during the academic year, as I did 24-30 hours per week while attending a very demanding institution, then full-time during most or all summers as family finances dictate.

    Boom, college graduate without debt. Eminently doable. For the most part, someone taking on debt for college, especially substantial debt, has only himself to blame, and it’s avoidable with common sense, basic planning, and hard work.

    (Graduate and professional schools, that could be another story, especially Med / dental school.)

    I enjoy your thoughtful comments, and the responses they engender, as much as anything on this site.

    I enjoy your thoughtful comments, and the responses they engender, as much as anything on this site.

    Thanks!

    FWIW, I don’t have much to offer my children in terms of cash for college, but they know they’re welcome at home as long as they’re doing the right thing.

  91. @Rosie

    The IQ isn’t the drawing point. I knew a lot of lonely guys in Mensa.
     
    I notice you said "lonely guys" rather than "lonely girls," thus proving my point.

    I notice you said “lonely guys” rather than “lonely girls,” thus proving my point.

    BTW, I have acknowledged this problem in the past. I think many high IQ men have very serious difficulties with women on account of their orientation towards things rather than people, low agreeableness, and all-around terrible personalities. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that they have little contact with women in daily life because their interests are very different from ours. We don’t major in tech fields and we don’t play video games for hours on end.

    In previous generations, these men were forced to go out and learn how to interact with people, and insofar as their only interest in getting to know women was for sex, at least learn how to pretend otherwise for awhile. Now, they can sit in their houses and live a virtual life with their video games and porn.

  92. @Thomm

    about how lower class whites who don’t want to be replaced are untermensch
     
    In the very comment that you are responding to, I specifically said that poverty is not the determinant of which white person is genetic wastematter. Most radical feminists are from wealthy families, as are many White Trashionalists.

    Then again, as a 70-IQ wigger, it is expected that you would miss that clearly stated point. Your brain cannot process that much at once.

    Now get off my lawn, faggot.

    Heh heh heh heh

    In the very comment that you are responding to, I specifically said that poverty is not the determinant of which white person is genetic wastematter.

    What percentage of native Europeans, native East Asians, native South Asians and native Sub-Saharan Africans would you guesstimate to fit your definition of “genetic waste matter”?

    • Replies: @anon
    Ideally europeans would have eliminated 100% of all races as soon as darwin confirmed the evolutionary process and while we were able to do it emotionally and technically. Or at least reduced them to game preserves of manageable size and forbidden cucks from missionary contact. Its a simple fact all life forms are in competition with all others humans being pretty smart can handle the other lifeforms and need only worry about other races, even a negro in sufficient numbers assisted by (((smarter races))) or through some accident can pose an existential threat to euros and keeping these other races around is just fucing insane they pose an existential threat and serve no purpose whatsoever they also make the world suck and crowd out lands we could be enjoying and resources we could be using to move out into the rest of the universe
  93. @Rosie

    Men will date sideways and downward. Women will date sideways and upward. Lifting all women up in status has been predictably disruptive as hell.
     
    This is a fairer and more accurate statement of the facts than I usually see on this site, so thanks for that.

    Still, I don't understand why this should be a problem. Even now, with affirmative action for women in some high-paying fields, women still only earn 77% of what men do. A feminist would say this is the result of discrimination against women. I don't believe that. I think it is rather the result of male overrepresentation in the upper echelons of the cognitive elite, but even more than that, greater male ambition and the accomplishment that goes along with that. If you get rid of affirmative action, a move which White women overwhelmingly support, presumably the gap would be even greater.

    Still, I don’t understand why this should be a problem. Even now, with affirmative action for women in some high-paying fields, women still only earn 77% of what men do

    This is partly just a result of many of even the most seemingly career driven women re-evaluating their priorities as soon as they have children.

    They return to their great jobs that pay multiples of the average after maternity leave, full of “you go girl” third wave feminist brio, everyone is exceptionally supportive, and then they realise the opportunity cost of a career is raising their child.

    This does not apply to all and is a luxury that far from all can afford but it is a huge factor in the supposed gender pay gap. They often find other, much less time-demanding work and so this is reflected in the statistics.

    I suppose some feminists want compensation for having the luxury of this choice. Which is rational from a perspective of their pure self-interest, I suppose.

  94. @Achmed E. Newman

    A woman who has her first child at 28 easily has time to have the three children she desires.
     
    We've been through this before. I'm not a doctor, much less an OB doc. You are not either. Why don't you ask one how much safer and easier things go from, say, 22 to 28 for those 3 conceptions, gestations, and deliveries vs. from 28 through 34?

    I'm not saying that it's at all dangerous or bad to have them during that latter period, but women are built to have them during that earlier period. Men appreciate it when there are women around who are ready at this time, as for both the men and woman, they have more energy and they pass on more energy to the young ones. Men having children at 30 y/o +/- 3 years with women that are 25 +/- 3 years is probably the ideal.

    I just don’t think women’s wants are immaterial, which I suppose amounts to the same in your view.
     
    Women's wants, when they are not beneficial to society, should not be heeded by men who've created that society. Everybody's wants are going to be shot to hell when things collapse.

    Remember that historically it was not uncommon in north-western EUrope average date the women married was between 24 to 26. In Eastern Europe is was earlier.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_marriage_pattern

    “While the average age at first marriage had climbed to 25 years for women and 27 years for men in England and the Low Countries by the end of the 16th century,[17] and the percentage of unmarried Englishwomen rose from less than 10% to nearly 20% by the mid-17th century and their average age at first marriage rose to 26 years at the same time”

    The earlier pregnancy is dangerous for women’s health and children. The lowest ratio for child defects is when mother’s first child age is 26, while when assessing mother’s health later in life it seems that the first-child age should be even later.

    Now thing which is more anecdotal, and not based on anything I’ve read, just on discussions with nurses: it seems that the chances for pregnancy and children for women at age 34 depend a lot of whether it’s the first child or not. The doctors and nurses Ive talked to claimed, without giving sources (so it might be an urban legend common in their environment) that woman, who has already few children, would get less problems getting pregnant at close to 40 than women who is 35 and who is trying to get her first child.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Remember that historically it was not uncommon in north-western EUrope average date the women married was between 24 to 26.
     
    He knows that. His stated concern for low birth rates is an obvious pretext for a reactionary, and unnecessary, crackdown on women. The real agenda is to deprive women of the ability to earn a living so they have no choice but to marry men they do not desire for a meal ticket, i.e. forced prostitution. I shouldn't pick on him, though. This is a common point of view in the dissident Right.
    , @Mr. Rational

    that woman, who has already few children, would get less problems getting pregnant at close to 40 than women who is 35 and who is trying to get her first child.
     
    This is obvious if you understand a bit of mammalian reproductive biology.

    At birth, the ovaries have all the oocytes they're ever going to have.  At each ripening of the endometrium post-puberty, a number of the oocytes begin to develop but most of them die off (apoptosis) leaving usually just one.  This depletes the ovaries of oocytes.

    During pregnancy, the ovaries are not going through this cycle so oocytes are not being lost in the usual manner.  A woman who's spent much of her reproductive years pregnant is effectively going to have "younger" ovaries than a nun.

    I know there are drugs which block the menstrual cycle (and ovulation and thus pregnancy).  They must have ugly side effects or they would be highly attractive for birth control as well as maintaining fertility to a more advanced age.
    , @Anonymous
    That was before the Industrial Revolution, when absolute standards of living were much lower. We also used to hang poor single mothers for shoplifting:

    http://www.executedtoday.com/2017/10/16/1771-mary-jones-hanged-for-shoplifting/


    Mary was thought to be about eighteen or nineteen years old but was already married with two children when her husband, William, was press ganged into the Navy to go to the Falkland Islands, leaving her virtually destitute. She lived with her friend Ann Styles in Angel Alley in the Strand and was at times reduced to begging to feed herself and the infants. It is said that she had her baby with her in the cart as she was taken to Tyburn to be hanged.
     
    More recently in the US, from the 50s until the early 80s, the median age of first marriage for women was below 22. From the 50s until the 70s, it was 20 years old:

    https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/images/average-age-marriage-us-1521989692.jpg

  95. anon[393] • Disclaimer says:
    @216
    Redstan will pay off your student loans in exchange for marriage to a huwhite beta male and having four children.

    its not that Im opposed to patriarchal restoration guaranteeing the rights of the betas vs bitches
    its just that it tends to produce more betas which cant sustain a patriarchy
    maybe crspr alpha babies, maybe multiwives for alphas, maybe less wars that are lethal to white alphas, maybe stepford crispr wives, …
    I know betas are more civilized and we need to transition from founding martial phase of civilization to science tech economy art etc but its not true beta nerds are smarter and its not true you have to complete eschew the martial its bad ide to rest on past battles and forget violence solves everything is the very foundation of civilization and can not be transcended yet if youre a hammer you always want to smash something, we need to understand what keeps toppling white empires for 4000 years

  96. anon[393] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tyrion 2

    In the very comment that you are responding to, I specifically said that poverty is not the determinant of which white person is genetic wastematter.
     
    What percentage of native Europeans, native East Asians, native South Asians and native Sub-Saharan Africans would you guesstimate to fit your definition of "genetic waste matter"?

    Ideally europeans would have eliminated 100% of all races as soon as darwin confirmed the evolutionary process and while we were able to do it emotionally and technically. Or at least reduced them to game preserves of manageable size and forbidden cucks from missionary contact. Its a simple fact all life forms are in competition with all others humans being pretty smart can handle the other lifeforms and need only worry about other races, even a negro in sufficient numbers assisted by (((smarter races))) or through some accident can pose an existential threat to euros and keeping these other races around is just fucing insane they pose an existential threat and serve no purpose whatsoever they also make the world suck and crowd out lands we could be enjoying and resources we could be using to move out into the rest of the universe

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    So should families "eliminate" other families? Or sub-ethnicities other sub-ethnicities? Or should all humans just eliminate other species and cram as many of us as we can into existence?

    Race is a somewhat useful conceptual tool but there are myriad others that are at even more useful for dividing people by conflicting interests.

    Or should one eliminate one's sibling for not being them?

  97. The data supports my idea, even if that would be applicable only for some countries: lower the school age for girls only and introduce unisex schools.

    Unisex schools is supported also by different maturation rates of boys/girls, different learning styles and even different “comfortable temperature” rates. To appease the feminists, the possibility would be to allow some boys/girls to go the opposite sex school.

    The beauty of this solution is that it could be advertised solely based on how more mature and more clever the girls are, how they society should concentrate on their different needs and should stop be boys-concentrated and so on – you can invent dozens of such justifications, while in reality the idea would be to make girls finish the education earlier and be earlier on job market and marriage market.

    While being on job market would be also good thing? Because (without “white sharia” hehe) women want to work and their motives are quite often both safety and independence plus conformity. The last thing cannot be addressed. In that system, in my home country (Poland) girls would have 16 years of education, and they would finish at 21. Three years for starting a career and bang – instead of 27, they could be 24 while starting to look for husband and child.

    Another thing would be that in universities the female student would interact with older males, hence – will naturally look to them as more mature and higher in status.

    Some additional legal category (between “full adult” and “child”) should be introduced for people who are old enough to decide about themselves, but not old enough to vote 😀 (and again, it should be formulated is such a way to be it invisible for feminists).

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  98. @szopen
    Remember that historically it was not uncommon in north-western EUrope average date the women married was between 24 to 26. In Eastern Europe is was earlier.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_marriage_pattern

    "While the average age at first marriage had climbed to 25 years for women and 27 years for men in England and the Low Countries by the end of the 16th century,[17] and the percentage of unmarried Englishwomen rose from less than 10% to nearly 20% by the mid-17th century and their average age at first marriage rose to 26 years at the same time"

    The earlier pregnancy is dangerous for women's health and children. The lowest ratio for child defects is when mother's first child age is 26, while when assessing mother's health later in life it seems that the first-child age should be even later.

    Now thing which is more anecdotal, and not based on anything I've read, just on discussions with nurses: it seems that the chances for pregnancy and children for women at age 34 depend a lot of whether it's the first child or not. The doctors and nurses Ive talked to claimed, without giving sources (so it might be an urban legend common in their environment) that woman, who has already few children, would get less problems getting pregnant at close to 40 than women who is 35 and who is trying to get her first child.

    Remember that historically it was not uncommon in north-western EUrope average date the women married was between 24 to 26.

    He knows that. His stated concern for low birth rates is an obvious pretext for a reactionary, and unnecessary, crackdown on women. The real agenda is to deprive women of the ability to earn a living so they have no choice but to marry men they do not desire for a meal ticket, i.e. forced prostitution. I shouldn’t pick on him, though. This is a common point of view in the dissident Right.

  99. @anon
    Ideally europeans would have eliminated 100% of all races as soon as darwin confirmed the evolutionary process and while we were able to do it emotionally and technically. Or at least reduced them to game preserves of manageable size and forbidden cucks from missionary contact. Its a simple fact all life forms are in competition with all others humans being pretty smart can handle the other lifeforms and need only worry about other races, even a negro in sufficient numbers assisted by (((smarter races))) or through some accident can pose an existential threat to euros and keeping these other races around is just fucing insane they pose an existential threat and serve no purpose whatsoever they also make the world suck and crowd out lands we could be enjoying and resources we could be using to move out into the rest of the universe

    So should families “eliminate” other families? Or sub-ethnicities other sub-ethnicities? Or should all humans just eliminate other species and cram as many of us as we can into existence?

    Race is a somewhat useful conceptual tool but there are myriad others that are at even more useful for dividing people by conflicting interests.

    Or should one eliminate one’s sibling for not being them?

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    Or should one eliminate one’s sibling for not being them?
     
    All too common a thing in royal families.
  100. @Audacious Epigone
    I was 30, 32, and 35 when my children were born. My wife was 23, 25, and 28 when they were. *Preen*

    Wow, what a lucky guy. Where did you meet a woman 7 years younger who wanted 3 kids? I’m asking for myself, I would like to know where to find such women. I hope she is non Hispanic white.

    Also, any plans for a fourth?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Through my sister. It wasn't an arranged meetup or anything like that, she was just at my parents' house one time when I came home and the rest is history as they say. Same SES/cultural milieu I am. Unfortunately she's just a bit of an outlier so I'm not sure I have much strategic advice to give.

    She only wanted two children. Then she only wanted three. Now she only wants four! Four is probably be where we'll call it quits. So maybe there's something to go off of there--if she wants to have children, don't get too caught up on the number if you think her number is too low. If she loves the first kid (she will), breaking through the resistance on more kids probably won't be too difficult.

    Yes, she is a good huwhite woman. Whiter than I am--she has blue eyes, I don't.

  101. @Reg Cæsar

    Good for them. Not for us.
     
    Their policies are a holdover from the days when the West was still civilized.

    Parts hang on. Surrogacy is illegal in France, and sperm "donation" in Italy. Divorce is still not available in the Philippines, basically a Western if not white nation.

    “Their policies are a holdover from the days when the West was still civilized.”

    Silly goose, the West is civilized. It’s just a matter of perception. Do white normies generally hold your personal opinion of what to be civilized entails? Must they agree with your position, or do they have the liberty to figure out things for themselves?

    “Parts hang on. Surrogacy is illegal in France.”

    Barely hang on.

    https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-france-health-surrogacy/majority-of-french-now-favor-allowing-surrogate-motherhood-poll-idUKKBN1ES0HQ

    “and sperm “donation” in Italy.”

    Looks like the courts interfered. Just like our Nine Justices, eh?

    “In April 2014, Italy’s constitutional court overturned a ban on using donor sperm and eggs in fertility treatments, knocking down part of a divisive set of restrictions on assisted reproduction. The court said the ban breached the constitution, without going into further detail, but the Health Minister Beatrice Lorenzin, from the socially conservative New Centre Right party, said parliament would have to debate how the court order could be applied-delaying tactics. Couples in Italy have launched a string of legal challenges to the restrictions and this week a court in Bologna granted a couple the right to use donors in fertility treatment immediately, four years since they launched their legal battle to have a family. Sperm and egg donation will at last become legal and in future the many couples who currently go abroad for treatment will no longer need to.”

    “Divorce is still not available in the Philippines, basically a Western if not white nation.”

    The Philippines, basically a “white nation”? LOL.

    And, about divorce here…

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-43457117

  102. @James Forrestal

    In the past, it was common for women to marry up in status/educational attainment. But today, particularly at the high end, women tend to marry their equals (e.g. doctors marrying doctors, instead of nurses marrying doctors).
     
    Could be a factor in this:

    Parenthetically, the pattern for men is similar but the divergence between ideal and realized fertility is half what it is for women.
     
    It would be interesting to see how much of the (smaller) decrease in male fertility with higher educational attainment is due to this factor -- do doctors who marry high school grads still have fewer kids?

    It would be interesting to see how much of the (smaller) decrease in male fertility with higher educational attainment is due to this factor — do doctors who marry high school grads still have fewer kids?

    Another question:

    If the gap between desired and actual fertility for highly educated men is smaller than the same gap for women, is it because of lower desired fertility, higher actual fertility, or some combination of both?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Higher actual fertility, primarily.
  103. @Audacious Epigone
    I recall it being a little lower than that but comfortably in the six-figure range. I haven't looked but the GSS has the relevant data so I will. Thanks.

    Yes, it could have been $250k year, perhaps… Thank you for looking into it.

  104. @Audacious Epigone
    Men will date sideways and downward. Women will date sideways and upward. Lifting all women up in status has been predictably disruptive as hell.

    Men/women will date

    If men and women are dating, patriarchy is already dead…the bill simply hasn’t arrived yet.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    Interesting. Please explain.

    Dating (seemingly) used to be about a man choosing a suitable mate for himself before marrying.

    Now dating has also become something men and women do to kill time in between sex.
  105. @Talha

    Men/women will date
     
    If men and women are dating, patriarchy is already dead...the bill simply hasn’t arrived yet.

    Peace.

    Interesting. Please explain.

    Dating (seemingly) used to be about a man choosing a suitable mate for himself before marrying.

    Now dating has also become something men and women do to kill time in between sex.

    • Replies: @Talha
    If the decision is being made with just the two individuals involved and with practically none to little involvement of the father (or worse, if he doesn’t care to be involved much in the decision) of the woman, then you are LARPing at patriarchy (at best). I can’t think of a serious patriarchal culture that is still around where there is casual dating - I’d love to have a counter example.

    Peace.

  106. @MikeatMikedotMike
    Interesting. Please explain.

    Dating (seemingly) used to be about a man choosing a suitable mate for himself before marrying.

    Now dating has also become something men and women do to kill time in between sex.

    If the decision is being made with just the two individuals involved and with practically none to little involvement of the father (or worse, if he doesn’t care to be involved much in the decision) of the woman, then you are LARPing at patriarchy (at best). I can’t think of a serious patriarchal culture that is still around where there is casual dating – I’d love to have a counter example.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    Well, as the US has illustrated, we are nowhere near a patriarchal culture.

    We have women in the military and police/fire professions, for chrissake, and half the self proclaimed red pilled men will angrily defend that foolish practice.
  107. @Talha
    If the decision is being made with just the two individuals involved and with practically none to little involvement of the father (or worse, if he doesn’t care to be involved much in the decision) of the woman, then you are LARPing at patriarchy (at best). I can’t think of a serious patriarchal culture that is still around where there is casual dating - I’d love to have a counter example.

    Peace.

    Well, as the US has illustrated, we are nowhere near a patriarchal culture.

    We have women in the military and police/fire professions, for chrissake, and half the self proclaimed red pilled men will angrily defend that foolish practice.

  108. @szopen
    Remember that historically it was not uncommon in north-western EUrope average date the women married was between 24 to 26. In Eastern Europe is was earlier.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_marriage_pattern

    "While the average age at first marriage had climbed to 25 years for women and 27 years for men in England and the Low Countries by the end of the 16th century,[17] and the percentage of unmarried Englishwomen rose from less than 10% to nearly 20% by the mid-17th century and their average age at first marriage rose to 26 years at the same time"

    The earlier pregnancy is dangerous for women's health and children. The lowest ratio for child defects is when mother's first child age is 26, while when assessing mother's health later in life it seems that the first-child age should be even later.

    Now thing which is more anecdotal, and not based on anything I've read, just on discussions with nurses: it seems that the chances for pregnancy and children for women at age 34 depend a lot of whether it's the first child or not. The doctors and nurses Ive talked to claimed, without giving sources (so it might be an urban legend common in their environment) that woman, who has already few children, would get less problems getting pregnant at close to 40 than women who is 35 and who is trying to get her first child.

    that woman, who has already few children, would get less problems getting pregnant at close to 40 than women who is 35 and who is trying to get her first child.

    This is obvious if you understand a bit of mammalian reproductive biology.

    At birth, the ovaries have all the oocytes they’re ever going to have.  At each ripening of the endometrium post-puberty, a number of the oocytes begin to develop but most of them die off (apoptosis) leaving usually just one.  This depletes the ovaries of oocytes.

    During pregnancy, the ovaries are not going through this cycle so oocytes are not being lost in the usual manner.  A woman who’s spent much of her reproductive years pregnant is effectively going to have “younger” ovaries than a nun.

    I know there are drugs which block the menstrual cycle (and ovulation and thus pregnancy).  They must have ugly side effects or they would be highly attractive for birth control as well as maintaining fertility to a more advanced age.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Rosie

    During pregnancy, the ovaries are not going through this cycle so oocytes are not being lost in the usual manner. A woman who’s spent much of her reproductive years pregnant is effectively going to have “younger” ovaries than a nun.
     
    Oh, I see. And then some of us don't have periods while we're nursing, either.
  109. @Tyrion 2
    So should families "eliminate" other families? Or sub-ethnicities other sub-ethnicities? Or should all humans just eliminate other species and cram as many of us as we can into existence?

    Race is a somewhat useful conceptual tool but there are myriad others that are at even more useful for dividing people by conflicting interests.

    Or should one eliminate one's sibling for not being them?

    Or should one eliminate one’s sibling for not being them?

    All too common a thing in royal families.

  110. @Mr. Rational

    that woman, who has already few children, would get less problems getting pregnant at close to 40 than women who is 35 and who is trying to get her first child.
     
    This is obvious if you understand a bit of mammalian reproductive biology.

    At birth, the ovaries have all the oocytes they're ever going to have.  At each ripening of the endometrium post-puberty, a number of the oocytes begin to develop but most of them die off (apoptosis) leaving usually just one.  This depletes the ovaries of oocytes.

    During pregnancy, the ovaries are not going through this cycle so oocytes are not being lost in the usual manner.  A woman who's spent much of her reproductive years pregnant is effectively going to have "younger" ovaries than a nun.

    I know there are drugs which block the menstrual cycle (and ovulation and thus pregnancy).  They must have ugly side effects or they would be highly attractive for birth control as well as maintaining fertility to a more advanced age.

    During pregnancy, the ovaries are not going through this cycle so oocytes are not being lost in the usual manner. A woman who’s spent much of her reproductive years pregnant is effectively going to have “younger” ovaries than a nun.

    Oh, I see. And then some of us don’t have periods while we’re nursing, either.

  111. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Wow, what a lucky guy. Where did you meet a woman 7 years younger who wanted 3 kids? I'm asking for myself, I would like to know where to find such women. I hope she is non Hispanic white.

    Also, any plans for a fourth?

    Through my sister. It wasn’t an arranged meetup or anything like that, she was just at my parents’ house one time when I came home and the rest is history as they say. Same SES/cultural milieu I am. Unfortunately she’s just a bit of an outlier so I’m not sure I have much strategic advice to give.

    She only wanted two children. Then she only wanted three. Now she only wants four! Four is probably be where we’ll call it quits. So maybe there’s something to go off of there–if she wants to have children, don’t get too caught up on the number if you think her number is too low. If she loves the first kid (she will), breaking through the resistance on more kids probably won’t be too difficult.

    Yes, she is a good huwhite woman. Whiter than I am–she has blue eyes, I don’t.

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian

    So maybe there’s something to go off of there–if she wants to have children, don’t get too caught up on the number if you think her number is too low.
     
    Funny you mention that - I consider myself to have done a (small) good deed for our future. My ex-girlfriend (white), was one of the "never want kids" type women. Once I demonstrated to her how a real, loving relationship with a firm and assertive male goes - she suddenly realized she wanted to have kids. Two, in fact. Although we're unfortunately no longer together, I like to think that I did help move the ball forward for our future. After feeling that, she still wants to have kids, even if it's not with me. Once you feel it you can't unfeel it. Every little bit counts.

    This goes to show, however, that men have a huge role to play in women's fertility. If a woman comes into contact with an upright, serious, and loving male she is almost certain to want kids. Many women actually think that most men are simply fuckboys who want one-night stands, and adjust their behavior accordingly. Men being horny idiots have a great deal of responsibility for the fertility crisis among whites.

    My great fear is that I will never find a wife and have kids. I guess I'm still young, though. If I have some whitepills for the future, it's that a large number of young white men are actually looking for relationships. I'm consistently impressed at how many younger white men want kids and a family. Fingers crossed, and keep rolling strong.

    UFO

    , @Stan d Mute

    Whiter than I am–she has blue eyes, I don’t.
     
    Wait, so you’re not Jumbo? And here I thought I had you doxxed. Dammit, that’s the last time I listen to Mr Townshend..

    https://youtu.be/dMrImMedYRo
    , @Twinkie

    She only wanted two children. Then she only wanted three. Now she only wants four! Four is probably be where we’ll call it quits.
     
    My wife turned into an extreme pro-natalist once the first child was born.

    Don’t stop when it’s the hardest - 3 or 4. It gets easier after that. Pinkie-promise.

    Absolutely the most harrowing time as parents for my wife and me was when we had a 3-year-old, a 1.5-year-old, and a newborn, basically three babies. I had so little sleep around that time that I have serious memory loss of that period. I rarely got REM sleep, they were so short. However, after that it got easier and easier, because the older ones helped out and we had built-in babysitters.

    It’s all peaches and cream now. Well, mostly anyway.
  112. @Rosie

    It would be interesting to see how much of the (smaller) decrease in male fertility with higher educational attainment is due to this factor — do doctors who marry high school grads still have fewer kids?
     
    Another question:

    If the gap between desired and actual fertility for highly educated men is smaller than the same gap for women, is it because of lower desired fertility, higher actual fertility, or some combination of both?

    Higher actual fertility, primarily.

  113. @Anonymous
    In the past, men in general had greater relative status. Higher education, employment outside the home and "breadwinning", and public life were exclusive to men. So in general, women would "marry up" almost by default, even if people tended to marry roughly within the same class background.

    A lot of the marrying of "equals" in occupation and status these days is due to simple logistics. There weren't any women doctors in the past, and people tend to marry those they tend to come in contact with.

    I don't think women have a preference for marrying professional equals. Ceteris paribus, a woman doctor will prefer a high powered executive or billionaire to a podiatrist. Compared to a woman doctor, the vast majority of men have lower incomes, educational attainment, and social status. This means the vast majority of men are undesirable or less than ideal mates for a woman doctor. Male doctors and other men of similar professional backgrounds are roughly the minimum desirable level as prospective mates for many women doctors and professionals, and they're also the men they're likely to come across in their professional lives. Men above this level of status have greater options and bargaining power in the mating market, and thus tend not to go for women doctors and the like, especially since women doctors tend to be older as they've spent many years training to become doctors.

    Men above this level of status have greater options and bargaining power in the mating market, and thus tend not to go for women doctors and the like, especially since women doctors tend to be older as they’ve spent many years training to become doctors.

    Any evidence to support your assertion? What I have seen is that women doctors on their clinic websites really like to mention that they are married to their “medical school sweetheart.”

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Any evidence to support your assertion? What I have seen is that women doctors on their clinic websites really like to mention that they are married to their “medical school sweetheart.”
     
    These guys seem to be laboring under the impression that getting an education and finding a husband are mutually exclusive pursuits.
    , @Anonymous
    Highest status men like the super wealthy, celebrities and the like typically don't marry women doctors.

    Med school and residency training typically takes 10 years after 4 years of undergrad, so at the earliest, a person becomes a doctor in their early 30s. Many people who don't start med school right away don't become fully practicing doctors until their late 30s and 40s. Women doctors basically spend their entire youth training to become doctors.
  114. @Audacious Epigone
    Through my sister. It wasn't an arranged meetup or anything like that, she was just at my parents' house one time when I came home and the rest is history as they say. Same SES/cultural milieu I am. Unfortunately she's just a bit of an outlier so I'm not sure I have much strategic advice to give.

    She only wanted two children. Then she only wanted three. Now she only wants four! Four is probably be where we'll call it quits. So maybe there's something to go off of there--if she wants to have children, don't get too caught up on the number if you think her number is too low. If she loves the first kid (she will), breaking through the resistance on more kids probably won't be too difficult.

    Yes, she is a good huwhite woman. Whiter than I am--she has blue eyes, I don't.

    So maybe there’s something to go off of there–if she wants to have children, don’t get too caught up on the number if you think her number is too low.

    Funny you mention that – I consider myself to have done a (small) good deed for our future. My ex-girlfriend (white), was one of the “never want kids” type women. Once I demonstrated to her how a real, loving relationship with a firm and assertive male goes – she suddenly realized she wanted to have kids. Two, in fact. Although we’re unfortunately no longer together, I like to think that I did help move the ball forward for our future. After feeling that, she still wants to have kids, even if it’s not with me. Once you feel it you can’t unfeel it. Every little bit counts.

    This goes to show, however, that men have a huge role to play in women’s fertility. If a woman comes into contact with an upright, serious, and loving male she is almost certain to want kids. Many women actually think that most men are simply fuckboys who want one-night stands, and adjust their behavior accordingly. Men being horny idiots have a great deal of responsibility for the fertility crisis among whites.

    My great fear is that I will never find a wife and have kids. I guess I’m still young, though. If I have some whitepills for the future, it’s that a large number of young white men are actually looking for relationships. I’m consistently impressed at how many younger white men want kids and a family. Fingers crossed, and keep rolling strong.

    UFO

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Talha
    You’re too young to lose hope and I’m figuring some White women out there want kids. Maybe you may find them at a conservative/traditional Church? I would assume that would be a target rich environment...

    Peace.
    , @Stan d Mute

    she suddenly realized she wanted to have kids. Two, in fact. Although we’re unfortunately no longer together, I like to think that I did help move the ball forward
     
    Yeah, I’m not sure that anecdote reflects on you the way you think it does.

    Be that as it may, some advice unsolicited: Find a broad from an intact family, who adores her daddy, whose daddy you resemble in character, and shit test her to see how she responds. If she’s loyal, put a ring on her and knock her up. Guys put too much emphasis on a broad’s mother when it’s their relationship with their father that can provide so much insight.
  115. @dvorak

    Men above this level of status have greater options and bargaining power in the mating market, and thus tend not to go for women doctors and the like, especially since women doctors tend to be older as they’ve spent many years training to become doctors.
     
    Any evidence to support your assertion? What I have seen is that women doctors on their clinic websites really like to mention that they are married to their "medical school sweetheart."

    Any evidence to support your assertion? What I have seen is that women doctors on their clinic websites really like to mention that they are married to their “medical school sweetheart.”

    These guys seem to be laboring under the impression that getting an education and finding a husband are mutually exclusive pursuits.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Of course they're not mutually exclusive pursuits. Many women pursue higher education with the hope that they'll have more lucrative and professional careers and end up in higher social circles where they'll meet higher status men than they would have had they stayed in their home towns and not gone to college.

    But at the level of society, they are mutually exclusive to a certain extent, as women with education and more professional careers find a smaller pool of males to be acceptable and desirable mates.
  116. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian

    So maybe there’s something to go off of there–if she wants to have children, don’t get too caught up on the number if you think her number is too low.
     
    Funny you mention that - I consider myself to have done a (small) good deed for our future. My ex-girlfriend (white), was one of the "never want kids" type women. Once I demonstrated to her how a real, loving relationship with a firm and assertive male goes - she suddenly realized she wanted to have kids. Two, in fact. Although we're unfortunately no longer together, I like to think that I did help move the ball forward for our future. After feeling that, she still wants to have kids, even if it's not with me. Once you feel it you can't unfeel it. Every little bit counts.

    This goes to show, however, that men have a huge role to play in women's fertility. If a woman comes into contact with an upright, serious, and loving male she is almost certain to want kids. Many women actually think that most men are simply fuckboys who want one-night stands, and adjust their behavior accordingly. Men being horny idiots have a great deal of responsibility for the fertility crisis among whites.

    My great fear is that I will never find a wife and have kids. I guess I'm still young, though. If I have some whitepills for the future, it's that a large number of young white men are actually looking for relationships. I'm consistently impressed at how many younger white men want kids and a family. Fingers crossed, and keep rolling strong.

    UFO

    You’re too young to lose hope and I’m figuring some White women out there want kids. Maybe you may find them at a conservative/traditional Church? I would assume that would be a target rich environment…

    Peace.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    traditional Church
     
    The parking lot of my parish looks like a Secret Service convention with lots of Suburbans and such. Very common to see families with 10+ children.

    My family and I belong to a community of obedient, orthodox Catholics, and we breed!
  117. @Talha
    You’re too young to lose hope and I’m figuring some White women out there want kids. Maybe you may find them at a conservative/traditional Church? I would assume that would be a target rich environment...

    Peace.

    traditional Church

    The parking lot of my parish looks like a Secret Service convention with lots of Suburbans and such. Very common to see families with 10+ children.

    My family and I belong to a community of obedient, orthodox Catholics, and we breed!

    • Replies: @Talha
    LOL! Good for you guys! I still haven’t come across a family in person that can top my grandmother’s number of 14, but anything over 5 in this day and age is highly impressive. When it comes to 10+ - if you can keep that group together and connected, you just established a clan within two generations; get a family crest/coat of arms (NO flowers) because you’re about to inherit the earth.

    Maybe you can hook up UFO, he seems to be in the market and eager for kids.

    Peace.

  118. Much ado about nothing. Everything is known, recriminations, bitterness, idealism,…. aside.

    1. modern women (white & Asian) are not mostly theistic. They want to have a family, their man, children.. Also, they want their slice of life, education, security & independence They want 1-2 children & that’s it. This is universal. We are at the turning point of history & civilization. Whether normative marriage & family will survive- I don’t know. Maybe dominant human civilization, Western, has destroyed traditional types of society prevalent in past 6000 years.

    But, there is no going way to traditional marriage (3-5 kinds, arranged marriages, 19th C type of marriage, women disenfranchised…..). Forget about it,it won’t happen.

    2. there is no going back to biology-true, females are the healthiest when they’re 17-18, but if more of them would have children when 18, it would result in more divorces, drug addiction, social parasitism, slutdom, ….

    4. colored races (Africans, most dot Indians, Muslims, Mestizos..) will have the dominant fertility in next few decades. This is a precarious situation. They’re unable to sustain anything modern. So, the betters among them will drop to 1-2 kids, others- 100s of millions will die out. Overpopulation is not good for your, or anyone’s future.

    5. liberal college educated white females cohort will, naturally, diminish in size.

    6. in other European countries where Western decadence has not set in, TFR is not high enough, but there is also no feminism, alienation of men, … It’s more about poverty & hopelessness, inactivity. But things get better. No slutdom comparable to the US or Western Europe.

    7. without extreme science fiction projections, what is achievable in next 20-30 years?

    Better health & longevity; perhaps some changes in law (euthanasia?); less importance of work force & masses of leisure people; for nuclear family- I don’t know, perhaps disappearance of romantic love along with pornification of entire culture; re-awakening of tribal & national loyalties..

    Artificial wombs ? Not likely in next 30 years.
    Boosting IQ so that you can in 2 years perfectly learn 5 foreign languages & 40% better performance in math than now? Not in next 40 years.
    Miscegenation on large scale? Not real.
    Disintegration of normal society due to collapse of monogamous nuclear family? Don’t know.
    Further sexualization & pornification of Western culture? Very likely.
    Definite split between still normal whites & lunatic liberals, as well as countries? Very likely.

    May you live in interesting times…

  119. Have you seen Anatoly’s white pill (well, in terms of whites not dwindling out of existence, anyway)?

  120. @Twinkie

    traditional Church
     
    The parking lot of my parish looks like a Secret Service convention with lots of Suburbans and such. Very common to see families with 10+ children.

    My family and I belong to a community of obedient, orthodox Catholics, and we breed!

    LOL! Good for you guys! I still haven’t come across a family in person that can top my grandmother’s number of 14, but anything over 5 in this day and age is highly impressive. When it comes to 10+ – if you can keep that group together and connected, you just established a clan within two generations; get a family crest/coat of arms (NO flowers) because you’re about to inherit the earth.

    Maybe you can hook up UFO, he seems to be in the market and eager for kids.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Maybe you can hook up UFO, he seems to be in the market and eager for kids.
     
    The catch is you have to be an orthodox Catholic in order to belong to the community.
  121. @Talha
    LOL! Good for you guys! I still haven’t come across a family in person that can top my grandmother’s number of 14, but anything over 5 in this day and age is highly impressive. When it comes to 10+ - if you can keep that group together and connected, you just established a clan within two generations; get a family crest/coat of arms (NO flowers) because you’re about to inherit the earth.

    Maybe you can hook up UFO, he seems to be in the market and eager for kids.

    Peace.

    Maybe you can hook up UFO, he seems to be in the market and eager for kids.

    The catch is you have to be an orthodox Catholic in order to belong to the community.

    • Replies: @Talha
    I hear you, bro. We operate on the same basis; can’t simply hand over our daughters (that we invested a bunch of love, time and effort into) to someone who isn’t down with the program.

    Peace.
  122. @Twinkie

    Maybe you can hook up UFO, he seems to be in the market and eager for kids.
     
    The catch is you have to be an orthodox Catholic in order to belong to the community.

    I hear you, bro. We operate on the same basis; can’t simply hand over our daughters (that we invested a bunch of love, time and effort into) to someone who isn’t down with the program.

    Peace.

  123. @Rosie

    They look at the educational and income characteristics of the husbands of married women with degrees and high incomes. They posit that these are the kind of husbands that unmarried women with degrees and high incomes would like to marry, and find that there aren’t enough of those men to go round.
     
    At that point the question becomes how to make more desirable men.

    The answer is obvious: Bring back high-paying industrial and tech jobs and put a stop to immigration, both high and low-skill.

    But those jobs would have to be high status and high paying, and they would have to exclude women. But if they exclude women, that would be incompatible with the modern and feminist sensibilities you seem to be sympathetic to.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    But those jobs would have to be high status and high paying, and they would have to exclude women.
     
    No they wouldn't; women would exclude themselves.
  124. Anonymous[292] • Disclaimer says:
    @dvorak

    Men above this level of status have greater options and bargaining power in the mating market, and thus tend not to go for women doctors and the like, especially since women doctors tend to be older as they’ve spent many years training to become doctors.
     
    Any evidence to support your assertion? What I have seen is that women doctors on their clinic websites really like to mention that they are married to their "medical school sweetheart."

    Highest status men like the super wealthy, celebrities and the like typically don’t marry women doctors.

    Med school and residency training typically takes 10 years after 4 years of undergrad, so at the earliest, a person becomes a doctor in their early 30s. Many people who don’t start med school right away don’t become fully practicing doctors until their late 30s and 40s. Women doctors basically spend their entire youth training to become doctors.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    My wife and I are on the board of a large healthcare system.

    From what I have seen (and confirmed by other observers, scholars, etc.), there is a quite distinct generation gap in marital sorting. Older male doctors are much more likely to be married to nurses (or former nurses) and women with lower educational attainment than they achieved, usually just a college or university degree. Younger doctors (say, age 50 and down) are far more likely to be married to women who are also doctors or other professionals (lawyers, investment bankers, etc.) and vice versa.


    Highest status men like the super wealthy, celebrities and the like typically don’t marry women doctors.
     
    Well, two examples come to mind immediately. Priscilla Chan, the wife of Mark Zuckerberg and Monica Turner, second wife of Mike Tyson (and sister of Michael Steele, the black Republican politician).

    While celebrities - such as actors and athletes - generally don't marry female doctors, because there is probably an educational attainment disparity/incompatibility, that is not the case with many super wealthy males with a high level of educational attainment or elite educational background.

    My wife and I are Ivy League alums, and most people who went to school with us married fellow alums or those of similarly high status university. This is assortative marriage and its grown prevalence over the past 30 years or so has been examined at some length by various social commentators and scholars at length.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/27/upshot/marriages-of-power-couples-reinforce-income-inequality.html

    https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2014/02/10/opposites-dont-attract-assortative-mating-and-social-mobility/

  125. Anonymous[292] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Any evidence to support your assertion? What I have seen is that women doctors on their clinic websites really like to mention that they are married to their “medical school sweetheart.”
     
    These guys seem to be laboring under the impression that getting an education and finding a husband are mutually exclusive pursuits.

    Of course they’re not mutually exclusive pursuits. Many women pursue higher education with the hope that they’ll have more lucrative and professional careers and end up in higher social circles where they’ll meet higher status men than they would have had they stayed in their home towns and not gone to college.

    But at the level of society, they are mutually exclusive to a certain extent, as women with education and more professional careers find a smaller pool of males to be acceptable and desirable mates.

  126. Anonymous[292] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    The part of the answer you left out is to have fewer high-earning women. Women’s standards don’t go down as their earnings increase, they go up.
     
    Reg,

    Part of the problem with manosphere thinking is that you all claim to disagree with feminists, then you turn right around and accept their premises, to wit, that men are just as intelligent, hard-working, and ambitious as men.

    Take Anon375 above. He claims that women doctors won't be able to find a mate because they are higher status than 98% (or whatever) of men.

    The problem with this is that men are vastly overrepresented in the highest IQ percentiles, so the smartest women actually have the best dating odds of any women. Even the very smartest women will always be able to find smarter men and more ambitious men. (I assume I don't need to link the overlapping IQ bell curves of men and women.)

    Indeed, as I referenced above, we know that highly intelligent people are prone to anxiety, and we know that highly intelligent women marry even more intelligent men, who, taken together, are going to have high levels of provisioning anxiety. This may explain dysgenic birth differentials all by itself.

    Take Anon375 above. He claims that women doctors won’t be able to find a mate because they are higher status than 98% (or whatever) of men.

    The problem with this is that men are vastly overrepresented in the highest IQ percentiles, so the smartest women actually have the best dating odds of any women. Even the very smartest women will always be able to find smarter men and more ambitious men. (I assume I don’t need to link the overlapping IQ bell curves of men and women.)

    No, by your logic, the dumbest woman would have the best dating odds, since the pool of men smarter than her would be the largest.

    Most guys would have no problem marrying a woman doctor, assuming she’s attractive and personable enough. That’s not the issue here. The issue is that to a woman doctor, most men are losers. Most men are not as successful and high in status as doctors are. The pool of men who are more successful and higher in status than doctors are is small, and they have the greatest choice in the mating market. Donald Trump married a series of models, not doctors.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    The pool of men who are more successful and higher in status than doctors are is small, and they have the greatest choice in the mating market. Donald Trump married a series of models, not doctors.
     
    You're desperate attempts, on this thread and elsewhere, to contrive zero-sum conflicts between White men and women are increasingly apparent for what they are. The most intelligent White men (Mike Enoch, Millennial Woes, Greg Johnson, ...) are retaking control of this movement and putting a stop to the Incel Reign of Terror once and for all. Even Hunter Wallace (!) is saying nice things about the Enlightenment!

    Now, fortunately, most men are not indifferent to women's intelligence. As I have said elsewhere, being a mediocre-looking girl in a philosophy department is kind of like being that girl in Something About Mary.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AjE4BXixsaQ
  127. @Anonymous
    Highest status men like the super wealthy, celebrities and the like typically don't marry women doctors.

    Med school and residency training typically takes 10 years after 4 years of undergrad, so at the earliest, a person becomes a doctor in their early 30s. Many people who don't start med school right away don't become fully practicing doctors until their late 30s and 40s. Women doctors basically spend their entire youth training to become doctors.

    My wife and I are on the board of a large healthcare system.

    From what I have seen (and confirmed by other observers, scholars, etc.), there is a quite distinct generation gap in marital sorting. Older male doctors are much more likely to be married to nurses (or former nurses) and women with lower educational attainment than they achieved, usually just a college or university degree. Younger doctors (say, age 50 and down) are far more likely to be married to women who are also doctors or other professionals (lawyers, investment bankers, etc.) and vice versa.

    Highest status men like the super wealthy, celebrities and the like typically don’t marry women doctors.

    Well, two examples come to mind immediately. Priscilla Chan, the wife of Mark Zuckerberg and Monica Turner, second wife of Mike Tyson (and sister of Michael Steele, the black Republican politician).

    While celebrities – such as actors and athletes – generally don’t marry female doctors, because there is probably an educational attainment disparity/incompatibility, that is not the case with many super wealthy males with a high level of educational attainment or elite educational background.

    My wife and I are Ivy League alums, and most people who went to school with us married fellow alums or those of similarly high status university. This is assortative marriage and its grown prevalence over the past 30 years or so has been examined at some length by various social commentators and scholars at length.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/27/upshot/marriages-of-power-couples-reinforce-income-inequality.html

    https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2014/02/10/opposites-dont-attract-assortative-mating-and-social-mobility/

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Those two examples are classic exceptions that prove the rule. Suffice to say that most women doctors do not marry billionaires and heavyweight boxing champs.

    Most Ivy League and high status university grads are upper middle class professionals who have to work for a living, not rentiers or tycoons or independently wealthy and the like.

    The point is that men will date sideways and downward, and women will date sideways and upward. Ivy League and high status uni grads marrying each other is completely consistent with this.
  128. Anonymous[292] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    The part of the answer you left out is to have fewer high-earning women.
     
    You haven't made any case as to why this is necessary. If Mike earns less than Susie, you can rectify this situation by paying Mike more. You don't need to pay Susie less.

    Women’s standards don’t go down as their earnings increase, they go up.
     
    How is that a problem if men are not subjected to unfair competition from foreigners, who I will remind you are taking very good jobs.

    https://giphy.com/gifs/south-park-jobs-redneck-oEqzXzvEX6vIs/tile

    Because “earnings” only make sense in reference to something. Saying one earns a million dollars a year doesn’t mean anything by itself. It only has meaning in reference to something else. One million dollars has one meaning if Big Macs cost one million dollars; it has another if Big Macs cost 5 dollars.

    In the context of this discussion, women’s “earnings” have meaning with respect to men’s “earnings”. Women’s standards increase as their earnings relative to men’s earnings go up. If women’s earnings increase at the same rate as men’s earnings go up, then their earnings relative to men don’t go up and their standards also don’t go up. Paying Mike more without paying Susie more means that Susie’s pay relative to Mike’s has declined.

  129. Anonymous[292] • Disclaimer says:
    @Twinkie
    My wife and I are on the board of a large healthcare system.

    From what I have seen (and confirmed by other observers, scholars, etc.), there is a quite distinct generation gap in marital sorting. Older male doctors are much more likely to be married to nurses (or former nurses) and women with lower educational attainment than they achieved, usually just a college or university degree. Younger doctors (say, age 50 and down) are far more likely to be married to women who are also doctors or other professionals (lawyers, investment bankers, etc.) and vice versa.


    Highest status men like the super wealthy, celebrities and the like typically don’t marry women doctors.
     
    Well, two examples come to mind immediately. Priscilla Chan, the wife of Mark Zuckerberg and Monica Turner, second wife of Mike Tyson (and sister of Michael Steele, the black Republican politician).

    While celebrities - such as actors and athletes - generally don't marry female doctors, because there is probably an educational attainment disparity/incompatibility, that is not the case with many super wealthy males with a high level of educational attainment or elite educational background.

    My wife and I are Ivy League alums, and most people who went to school with us married fellow alums or those of similarly high status university. This is assortative marriage and its grown prevalence over the past 30 years or so has been examined at some length by various social commentators and scholars at length.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/27/upshot/marriages-of-power-couples-reinforce-income-inequality.html

    https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2014/02/10/opposites-dont-attract-assortative-mating-and-social-mobility/

    Those two examples are classic exceptions that prove the rule. Suffice to say that most women doctors do not marry billionaires and heavyweight boxing champs.

    Most Ivy League and high status university grads are upper middle class professionals who have to work for a living, not rentiers or tycoons or independently wealthy and the like.

    The point is that men will date sideways and downward, and women will date sideways and upward. Ivy League and high status uni grads marrying each other is completely consistent with this.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Those two examples are classic exceptions that prove the rule.
     
    To quote "Princess Bride," I do think it means what you think it means: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule

    Suffice to say that most women doctors do not marry billionaires and heavyweight boxing champs.
     
    That's a meaningless sentence, because most women of any profession "do not marry billionaires and heavyweight boxing champs."

    As I already stated, celebrities such as actors and athletes typically do not have high education attainment, so are not likely to marry women who are highly credentialed. On the other hand, I would predict that such women are highly overrepresented among those with high-income husbands, particularly those in medicine, law, investment banking, executives of Fortune 500 companies, etc.

    Most Ivy League and high status university grads are upper middle class professionals who have to work for a living, not rentiers or tycoons or independently wealthy and the like.
     
    "Tycoons" are miniscule in number. Ivy League universities and other elite universities, however, do produce disproportionately high number of men with ultra-high net-worth. Your verbiage "most Ivy League..." is designed to obfuscate rather than get at the crux of the truth, which is that these institutions produce disproportionately higher percentages of "elite" males.

    The point is that men will date sideways and downward, and women will date sideways and upward. Ivy League and high status uni grads marrying each other is completely consistent with this.
     
    This is, again, a generalization that obfuscates a very clear change in marriage dynamic in the recent decades that favor assortative marriage.

    In other words, even if we were to accept your statement at face value, i.e. "men date sideways and downward while women date sideways and upward," the internal dynamic of that statement has changed over time. Meaning, in the past more women dated (better yet, married) up than sideways while more men did so downward than sideways. Today, however, the proportions of women and men who date sideways have risen while those who date upward and downward, respectively, have fallen.

    While the average age of marriage has risen today compared to, say, the 1970s, people still get married before they become economically "established." Notwithstanding internet billionaires, high income males do not achieve their status at age 30 or 35, but much later in life. In the mean time, people still get married to their college girlfriends or those they date in graduate school or in their early jobs - they don't wait till they are super-rich to marry. Increasingly, such men are not dating the pretty secretaries or nurses at work. They are dating their colleagues and professional peers or others in similar circles.

    I'll give you another example - Jeff Bezos. Yes, his new mid-life crisis girlfriend is a minor Latina celebrity. But he met his wife of decades at D.E. Shaw and they are both Princeton graduates. And that is the norm in the upper tier of the marriage market (and at D.E. Shaw, for that matter, something I know personally, because a friend is a VP there).

    I'll throw in yet another factor to consider. In those same decades, obesity has risen tremendously, especially among women. However, it has not risen proportionally across income, educational attainment, race, etc. Obesity is now disproportionately concentrated among the poor, the poorly educated, blacks and Hispanics, etc. Aside from the possibility that IQ is perhaps very modestly correlated to physical attractiveness (including among women), being physically fit is now a higher class marker among women (unlike in the past). Put simply, higher status males are not going to marry overweight women.

    Many of these socio-economic factors are converging and reinforcing each other to produce higher rates of assortative mating today than they did 30 years ago (and certainly compared to 50-70 years ago) when it was much more common for doctors to marry nurses, lawyers to marry paralegals, and executives their secretaries, rather than their peers.
  130. @Anonymous
    Those two examples are classic exceptions that prove the rule. Suffice to say that most women doctors do not marry billionaires and heavyweight boxing champs.

    Most Ivy League and high status university grads are upper middle class professionals who have to work for a living, not rentiers or tycoons or independently wealthy and the like.

    The point is that men will date sideways and downward, and women will date sideways and upward. Ivy League and high status uni grads marrying each other is completely consistent with this.

    Those two examples are classic exceptions that prove the rule.

    To quote “Princess Bride,” I do think it means what you think it means: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule

    Suffice to say that most women doctors do not marry billionaires and heavyweight boxing champs.

    That’s a meaningless sentence, because most women of any profession “do not marry billionaires and heavyweight boxing champs.”

    As I already stated, celebrities such as actors and athletes typically do not have high education attainment, so are not likely to marry women who are highly credentialed. On the other hand, I would predict that such women are highly overrepresented among those with high-income husbands, particularly those in medicine, law, investment banking, executives of Fortune 500 companies, etc.

    Most Ivy League and high status university grads are upper middle class professionals who have to work for a living, not rentiers or tycoons or independently wealthy and the like.

    “Tycoons” are miniscule in number. Ivy League universities and other elite universities, however, do produce disproportionately high number of men with ultra-high net-worth. Your verbiage “most Ivy League…” is designed to obfuscate rather than get at the crux of the truth, which is that these institutions produce disproportionately higher percentages of “elite” males.

    The point is that men will date sideways and downward, and women will date sideways and upward. Ivy League and high status uni grads marrying each other is completely consistent with this.

    This is, again, a generalization that obfuscates a very clear change in marriage dynamic in the recent decades that favor assortative marriage.

    In other words, even if we were to accept your statement at face value, i.e. “men date sideways and downward while women date sideways and upward,” the internal dynamic of that statement has changed over time. Meaning, in the past more women dated (better yet, married) up than sideways while more men did so downward than sideways. Today, however, the proportions of women and men who date sideways have risen while those who date upward and downward, respectively, have fallen.

    While the average age of marriage has risen today compared to, say, the 1970s, people still get married before they become economically “established.” Notwithstanding internet billionaires, high income males do not achieve their status at age 30 or 35, but much later in life. In the mean time, people still get married to their college girlfriends or those they date in graduate school or in their early jobs – they don’t wait till they are super-rich to marry. Increasingly, such men are not dating the pretty secretaries or nurses at work. They are dating their colleagues and professional peers or others in similar circles.

    I’ll give you another example – Jeff Bezos. Yes, his new mid-life crisis girlfriend is a minor Latina celebrity. But he met his wife of decades at D.E. Shaw and they are both Princeton graduates. And that is the norm in the upper tier of the marriage market (and at D.E. Shaw, for that matter, something I know personally, because a friend is a VP there).

    I’ll throw in yet another factor to consider. In those same decades, obesity has risen tremendously, especially among women. However, it has not risen proportionally across income, educational attainment, race, etc. Obesity is now disproportionately concentrated among the poor, the poorly educated, blacks and Hispanics, etc. Aside from the possibility that IQ is perhaps very modestly correlated to physical attractiveness (including among women), being physically fit is now a higher class marker among women (unlike in the past). Put simply, higher status males are not going to marry overweight women.

    Many of these socio-economic factors are converging and reinforcing each other to produce higher rates of assortative mating today than they did 30 years ago (and certainly compared to 50-70 years ago) when it was much more common for doctors to marry nurses, lawyers to marry paralegals, and executives their secretaries, rather than their peers.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Many of these socio-economic factors are converging and reinforcing each other to produce higher rates of assortative mating today than they did 30 years ago (and certainly compared to 50-70 years ago) when it was much more common for doctors to marry nurses, lawyers to marry paralegals, and executives their secretaries, rather than their peers.
     
    Incels pay no attention whatsoever to statistical facts. They just go by conventional wisdom, and since they self-ghettoize in their own echo chambers, as often as not they actually believe their nonsense because no one ever challenges them on it.

    https://i0.wp.com/live-nr-2017.pantheonsite.io/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Wang201-1.png?zoom=2&resize=640%2C421&ssl=1
    , @Anonymous

    That’s a meaningless sentence, because most women of any profession “do not marry billionaires and heavyweight boxing champs.”
     
    It's not meaningless. Women doctors are not more likely to marry billionaires and heavyweight boxing champs than other women are, despite your 2 cited examples.

    As I already stated, celebrities such as actors and athletes typically do not have high education attainment, so are not likely to marry women who are highly credentialed.
     
    I don't think this has much to do with male celebrities' educational attainment. Male celebrities generally have the greatest options in the mating market.

    “Tycoons” are miniscule in number. Ivy League universities and other elite universities, however, do produce disproportionately high number of men with ultra-high net-worth. Your verbiage “most Ivy League…” is designed to obfuscate rather than get at the crux of the truth, which is that these institutions produce disproportionately higher percentages of “elite” males.
     
    "Most Ivy League" does not obfuscate, but rather elucidates the plain fact that most Ivy League grads are not "ultra-high net worth", which is typically defined as someone with tens of millions of dollars in net assets in today's dollars. As I said, most Ivy League grads are upper middle class professionals who have to work for a living for their entire lives, not famous celebrities and very wealthy types.

    This is, again, a generalization that obfuscates a very clear change in marriage dynamic in the recent decades that favor assortative marriage.
     
    "Assortative mating" is completely consistent with the fact that men tend to date sideways and downward, and women sideways and upward.

    Women were banned from Ivy League schools until a few decades ago. There were sister colleges of course, but they weren't the same thing. Women were also excluded from the professions that Ivy League grads tended to pursue. Now that women attend universities, the Ivy League, and pursue the same professions as men, obviously they are also going to date those men who happen to be "sideways" i.e. other men from similar colleges and professions.

    Meaning, in the past more women dated (better yet, married) up than sideways while more men did so downward than sideways. Today, however, the proportions of women and men who date sideways have risen while those who date upward and downward, respectively, have fallen
     
    Again, this is completely consistent with what I and others have been saying above. There is more "sideways" because the relative status of women has risen, and that of men has declined, in general.
  131. @Anonymous
    But those jobs would have to be high status and high paying, and they would have to exclude women. But if they exclude women, that would be incompatible with the modern and feminist sensibilities you seem to be sympathetic to.

    But those jobs would have to be high status and high paying, and they would have to exclude women.

    No they wouldn’t; women would exclude themselves.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    So women will voluntarily exclude themselves from high status, high paying jobs? Just like they excluded themselves from any kind of job besides secretary, nurse, and maid?
  132. @Anonymous

    Take Anon375 above. He claims that women doctors won’t be able to find a mate because they are higher status than 98% (or whatever) of men.

    The problem with this is that men are vastly overrepresented in the highest IQ percentiles, so the smartest women actually have the best dating odds of any women. Even the very smartest women will always be able to find smarter men and more ambitious men. (I assume I don’t need to link the overlapping IQ bell curves of men and women.)
     
    No, by your logic, the dumbest woman would have the best dating odds, since the pool of men smarter than her would be the largest.

    Most guys would have no problem marrying a woman doctor, assuming she's attractive and personable enough. That's not the issue here. The issue is that to a woman doctor, most men are losers. Most men are not as successful and high in status as doctors are. The pool of men who are more successful and higher in status than doctors are is small, and they have the greatest choice in the mating market. Donald Trump married a series of models, not doctors.

    The pool of men who are more successful and higher in status than doctors are is small, and they have the greatest choice in the mating market. Donald Trump married a series of models, not doctors.

    You’re desperate attempts, on this thread and elsewhere, to contrive zero-sum conflicts between White men and women are increasingly apparent for what they are. The most intelligent White men (Mike Enoch, Millennial Woes, Greg Johnson, …) are retaking control of this movement and putting a stop to the Incel Reign of Terror once and for all. Even Hunter Wallace (!) is saying nice things about the Enlightenment!

    Now, fortunately, most men are not indifferent to women’s intelligence. As I have said elsewhere, being a mediocre-looking girl in a philosophy department is kind of like being that girl in Something About Mary.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    You haven't addressed any of my arguments or refuted anything I've said.

    The most intelligent White men (Mike Enoch, Millennial Woes, Greg Johnson, …) are retaking control of this movement and putting a stop to the Incel Reign of Terror once and for all.
     
    These aren't good examples of normal, healthy marital relations. Enoch married a Jewish woman and became some sort of nationalist/activist during his marriage and divorced her. Millenial Woes and Greg Johnson are homosexuals. Since homosexuality is a disease, and a disease is an involuntary affliction, as homosexuals they would be examples of incels themselves.

    I think the fact that you find them to be exemplary and worthy examples reveals a subconscious wish regarding how this social problem should be resolved. Socially imposed monogamy via patriarchy and raising the status of males in general is unacceptable to you and the feminist and modern sensibilities you hold dear. It relegates women to the possibility of being below in status to, and being married to, the lowest status males. But without socially imposed monogamy, you have the problem of the class of low status males, the incels, who can be dangerous, disruptive, and revolutionary if they retain their heterosexual sex drives. Homosexuals, then, are the ideal incels, because they have removed themselves from the mating market and they lack the heterosexual sex drive to threaten the social hierarchy, and homosexuals like Millenial Woes and Johnson are even more ideal because you regard them as akin to sterile worker bees serving your interests.

    Now, fortunately, most men are not indifferent to women’s intelligence. As I have said elsewhere, being a mediocre-looking girl in a philosophy department is kind of like being that girl in Something About Mary.
     
    Higher education, and any other environmental interventions, do not make people smarter. To the extent that smart women pursuing higher education lose their childbearing years, higher education decreases intelligence in society. A major reason the mediocre looking girl pursues higher education is so she can have access to a higher class of men and hopefully land one, instead of staying in her hometown and marrying Bob the plumber.
  133. @Twinkie

    Those two examples are classic exceptions that prove the rule.
     
    To quote "Princess Bride," I do think it means what you think it means: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule

    Suffice to say that most women doctors do not marry billionaires and heavyweight boxing champs.
     
    That's a meaningless sentence, because most women of any profession "do not marry billionaires and heavyweight boxing champs."

    As I already stated, celebrities such as actors and athletes typically do not have high education attainment, so are not likely to marry women who are highly credentialed. On the other hand, I would predict that such women are highly overrepresented among those with high-income husbands, particularly those in medicine, law, investment banking, executives of Fortune 500 companies, etc.

    Most Ivy League and high status university grads are upper middle class professionals who have to work for a living, not rentiers or tycoons or independently wealthy and the like.
     
    "Tycoons" are miniscule in number. Ivy League universities and other elite universities, however, do produce disproportionately high number of men with ultra-high net-worth. Your verbiage "most Ivy League..." is designed to obfuscate rather than get at the crux of the truth, which is that these institutions produce disproportionately higher percentages of "elite" males.

    The point is that men will date sideways and downward, and women will date sideways and upward. Ivy League and high status uni grads marrying each other is completely consistent with this.
     
    This is, again, a generalization that obfuscates a very clear change in marriage dynamic in the recent decades that favor assortative marriage.

    In other words, even if we were to accept your statement at face value, i.e. "men date sideways and downward while women date sideways and upward," the internal dynamic of that statement has changed over time. Meaning, in the past more women dated (better yet, married) up than sideways while more men did so downward than sideways. Today, however, the proportions of women and men who date sideways have risen while those who date upward and downward, respectively, have fallen.

    While the average age of marriage has risen today compared to, say, the 1970s, people still get married before they become economically "established." Notwithstanding internet billionaires, high income males do not achieve their status at age 30 or 35, but much later in life. In the mean time, people still get married to their college girlfriends or those they date in graduate school or in their early jobs - they don't wait till they are super-rich to marry. Increasingly, such men are not dating the pretty secretaries or nurses at work. They are dating their colleagues and professional peers or others in similar circles.

    I'll give you another example - Jeff Bezos. Yes, his new mid-life crisis girlfriend is a minor Latina celebrity. But he met his wife of decades at D.E. Shaw and they are both Princeton graduates. And that is the norm in the upper tier of the marriage market (and at D.E. Shaw, for that matter, something I know personally, because a friend is a VP there).

    I'll throw in yet another factor to consider. In those same decades, obesity has risen tremendously, especially among women. However, it has not risen proportionally across income, educational attainment, race, etc. Obesity is now disproportionately concentrated among the poor, the poorly educated, blacks and Hispanics, etc. Aside from the possibility that IQ is perhaps very modestly correlated to physical attractiveness (including among women), being physically fit is now a higher class marker among women (unlike in the past). Put simply, higher status males are not going to marry overweight women.

    Many of these socio-economic factors are converging and reinforcing each other to produce higher rates of assortative mating today than they did 30 years ago (and certainly compared to 50-70 years ago) when it was much more common for doctors to marry nurses, lawyers to marry paralegals, and executives their secretaries, rather than their peers.

    Many of these socio-economic factors are converging and reinforcing each other to produce higher rates of assortative mating today than they did 30 years ago (and certainly compared to 50-70 years ago) when it was much more common for doctors to marry nurses, lawyers to marry paralegals, and executives their secretaries, rather than their peers.

    Incels pay no attention whatsoever to statistical facts. They just go by conventional wisdom, and since they self-ghettoize in their own echo chambers, as often as not they actually believe their nonsense because no one ever challenges them on it.

    https://i0.wp.com/live-nr-2017.pantheonsite.io/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Wang201-1.png?zoom=2&resize=640%2C421&ssl=1

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    That graph doesn't tell us anything about the marriage rate in society. It shows educational attainment WITHIN married couples.

    In fact, marriage rates are hitting record lows and continuing to decline. In other words, your graph showing that within married couples, husbands are increasingly less educated than their wives, is correlated with marriage rates declining to record lows. Both these trends reflect the broader phenomenon of declining status of men. As men decline in status, they become less acceptable and desirable as marriage partners to women, and thus the marriage rate declines. And within the smaller number of married couples that remain, the educational attainment of men relative to women decreases relative to the past.

    "US Marriage Rate Drops to New Low"

    https://www.livescience.com/38308-us-marriage-rate-new-low.html

    "The marriage rate in the United States is continuing its decades-long downward slide, with fewer American women than ever getting married and others waiting longer to wed, according to a new report.

    The marriage rate has fluctuated in the past, with dips in the 1930s and 1960s, but it has been in steady decline since the 1970s."
  134. Anonymous[292] • Disclaimer says:
    @Twinkie

    Those two examples are classic exceptions that prove the rule.
     
    To quote "Princess Bride," I do think it means what you think it means: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule

    Suffice to say that most women doctors do not marry billionaires and heavyweight boxing champs.
     
    That's a meaningless sentence, because most women of any profession "do not marry billionaires and heavyweight boxing champs."

    As I already stated, celebrities such as actors and athletes typically do not have high education attainment, so are not likely to marry women who are highly credentialed. On the other hand, I would predict that such women are highly overrepresented among those with high-income husbands, particularly those in medicine, law, investment banking, executives of Fortune 500 companies, etc.

    Most Ivy League and high status university grads are upper middle class professionals who have to work for a living, not rentiers or tycoons or independently wealthy and the like.
     
    "Tycoons" are miniscule in number. Ivy League universities and other elite universities, however, do produce disproportionately high number of men with ultra-high net-worth. Your verbiage "most Ivy League..." is designed to obfuscate rather than get at the crux of the truth, which is that these institutions produce disproportionately higher percentages of "elite" males.

    The point is that men will date sideways and downward, and women will date sideways and upward. Ivy League and high status uni grads marrying each other is completely consistent with this.
     
    This is, again, a generalization that obfuscates a very clear change in marriage dynamic in the recent decades that favor assortative marriage.

    In other words, even if we were to accept your statement at face value, i.e. "men date sideways and downward while women date sideways and upward," the internal dynamic of that statement has changed over time. Meaning, in the past more women dated (better yet, married) up than sideways while more men did so downward than sideways. Today, however, the proportions of women and men who date sideways have risen while those who date upward and downward, respectively, have fallen.

    While the average age of marriage has risen today compared to, say, the 1970s, people still get married before they become economically "established." Notwithstanding internet billionaires, high income males do not achieve their status at age 30 or 35, but much later in life. In the mean time, people still get married to their college girlfriends or those they date in graduate school or in their early jobs - they don't wait till they are super-rich to marry. Increasingly, such men are not dating the pretty secretaries or nurses at work. They are dating their colleagues and professional peers or others in similar circles.

    I'll give you another example - Jeff Bezos. Yes, his new mid-life crisis girlfriend is a minor Latina celebrity. But he met his wife of decades at D.E. Shaw and they are both Princeton graduates. And that is the norm in the upper tier of the marriage market (and at D.E. Shaw, for that matter, something I know personally, because a friend is a VP there).

    I'll throw in yet another factor to consider. In those same decades, obesity has risen tremendously, especially among women. However, it has not risen proportionally across income, educational attainment, race, etc. Obesity is now disproportionately concentrated among the poor, the poorly educated, blacks and Hispanics, etc. Aside from the possibility that IQ is perhaps very modestly correlated to physical attractiveness (including among women), being physically fit is now a higher class marker among women (unlike in the past). Put simply, higher status males are not going to marry overweight women.

    Many of these socio-economic factors are converging and reinforcing each other to produce higher rates of assortative mating today than they did 30 years ago (and certainly compared to 50-70 years ago) when it was much more common for doctors to marry nurses, lawyers to marry paralegals, and executives their secretaries, rather than their peers.

    That’s a meaningless sentence, because most women of any profession “do not marry billionaires and heavyweight boxing champs.”

    It’s not meaningless. Women doctors are not more likely to marry billionaires and heavyweight boxing champs than other women are, despite your 2 cited examples.

    As I already stated, celebrities such as actors and athletes typically do not have high education attainment, so are not likely to marry women who are highly credentialed.

    I don’t think this has much to do with male celebrities’ educational attainment. Male celebrities generally have the greatest options in the mating market.

    “Tycoons” are miniscule in number. Ivy League universities and other elite universities, however, do produce disproportionately high number of men with ultra-high net-worth. Your verbiage “most Ivy League…” is designed to obfuscate rather than get at the crux of the truth, which is that these institutions produce disproportionately higher percentages of “elite” males.

    “Most Ivy League” does not obfuscate, but rather elucidates the plain fact that most Ivy League grads are not “ultra-high net worth”, which is typically defined as someone with tens of millions of dollars in net assets in today’s dollars. As I said, most Ivy League grads are upper middle class professionals who have to work for a living for their entire lives, not famous celebrities and very wealthy types.

    This is, again, a generalization that obfuscates a very clear change in marriage dynamic in the recent decades that favor assortative marriage.

    “Assortative mating” is completely consistent with the fact that men tend to date sideways and downward, and women sideways and upward.

    Women were banned from Ivy League schools until a few decades ago. There were sister colleges of course, but they weren’t the same thing. Women were also excluded from the professions that Ivy League grads tended to pursue. Now that women attend universities, the Ivy League, and pursue the same professions as men, obviously they are also going to date those men who happen to be “sideways” i.e. other men from similar colleges and professions.

    Meaning, in the past more women dated (better yet, married) up than sideways while more men did so downward than sideways. Today, however, the proportions of women and men who date sideways have risen while those who date upward and downward, respectively, have fallen

    Again, this is completely consistent with what I and others have been saying above. There is more “sideways” because the relative status of women has risen, and that of men has declined, in general.

  135. Anonymous[292] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    The pool of men who are more successful and higher in status than doctors are is small, and they have the greatest choice in the mating market. Donald Trump married a series of models, not doctors.
     
    You're desperate attempts, on this thread and elsewhere, to contrive zero-sum conflicts between White men and women are increasingly apparent for what they are. The most intelligent White men (Mike Enoch, Millennial Woes, Greg Johnson, ...) are retaking control of this movement and putting a stop to the Incel Reign of Terror once and for all. Even Hunter Wallace (!) is saying nice things about the Enlightenment!

    Now, fortunately, most men are not indifferent to women's intelligence. As I have said elsewhere, being a mediocre-looking girl in a philosophy department is kind of like being that girl in Something About Mary.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AjE4BXixsaQ

    You haven’t addressed any of my arguments or refuted anything I’ve said.

    The most intelligent White men (Mike Enoch, Millennial Woes, Greg Johnson, …) are retaking control of this movement and putting a stop to the Incel Reign of Terror once and for all.

    These aren’t good examples of normal, healthy marital relations. Enoch married a Jewish woman and became some sort of nationalist/activist during his marriage and divorced her. Millenial Woes and Greg Johnson are homosexuals. Since homosexuality is a disease, and a disease is an involuntary affliction, as homosexuals they would be examples of incels themselves.

    I think the fact that you find them to be exemplary and worthy examples reveals a subconscious wish regarding how this social problem should be resolved. Socially imposed monogamy via patriarchy and raising the status of males in general is unacceptable to you and the feminist and modern sensibilities you hold dear. It relegates women to the possibility of being below in status to, and being married to, the lowest status males. But without socially imposed monogamy, you have the problem of the class of low status males, the incels, who can be dangerous, disruptive, and revolutionary if they retain their heterosexual sex drives. Homosexuals, then, are the ideal incels, because they have removed themselves from the mating market and they lack the heterosexual sex drive to threaten the social hierarchy, and homosexuals like Millenial Woes and Johnson are even more ideal because you regard them as akin to sterile worker bees serving your interests.

    Now, fortunately, most men are not indifferent to women’s intelligence. As I have said elsewhere, being a mediocre-looking girl in a philosophy department is kind of like being that girl in Something About Mary.

    Higher education, and any other environmental interventions, do not make people smarter. To the extent that smart women pursuing higher education lose their childbearing years, higher education decreases intelligence in society. A major reason the mediocre looking girl pursues higher education is so she can have access to a higher class of men and hopefully land one, instead of staying in her hometown and marrying Bob the plumber.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    You haven’t addressed any of my arguments or refuted anything I’ve said.
     
    The facts themselves refute you, troll. You would know that if you bothered to research them.

    Millenial Woes and Greg Johnson are homosexuals.
     
    That statement is only half true.

    But without socially imposed monogamy, you have the problem of the class of low status males, the incels, who can be dangerous, disruptive, and revolutionary if they retain their heterosexual sex drives.
     
    The Alphas will deal with you, ruthlessly if necessary.

    Higher education, and any other environmental interventions, do not make people smarter.
     
    I never said it did. I'm just pointing out that men are not going to marry stupid women when they can have a smart one instead. This will become ever more true as the role of the X chromosome in genotypic intelligence becomes ever clearer.
  136. @Rosie

    But those jobs would have to be high status and high paying, and they would have to exclude women.
     
    No they wouldn't; women would exclude themselves.

    So women will voluntarily exclude themselves from high status, high paying jobs? Just like they excluded themselves from any kind of job besides secretary, nurse, and maid?

    • Replies: @Rosie

    So women will voluntarily exclude themselves from high status, high paying jobs? Just like they excluded themselves from any kind of job besides secretary, nurse, and maid?
     
    Women aren't interested in tech and industrial jobs. They are either too dangerous or too lonely. Once again, you refuse to acknowledge the facts.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more-gender-equality-the-fewer-women-in-stem/553592/
  137. @Anonymous
    You haven't addressed any of my arguments or refuted anything I've said.

    The most intelligent White men (Mike Enoch, Millennial Woes, Greg Johnson, …) are retaking control of this movement and putting a stop to the Incel Reign of Terror once and for all.
     
    These aren't good examples of normal, healthy marital relations. Enoch married a Jewish woman and became some sort of nationalist/activist during his marriage and divorced her. Millenial Woes and Greg Johnson are homosexuals. Since homosexuality is a disease, and a disease is an involuntary affliction, as homosexuals they would be examples of incels themselves.

    I think the fact that you find them to be exemplary and worthy examples reveals a subconscious wish regarding how this social problem should be resolved. Socially imposed monogamy via patriarchy and raising the status of males in general is unacceptable to you and the feminist and modern sensibilities you hold dear. It relegates women to the possibility of being below in status to, and being married to, the lowest status males. But without socially imposed monogamy, you have the problem of the class of low status males, the incels, who can be dangerous, disruptive, and revolutionary if they retain their heterosexual sex drives. Homosexuals, then, are the ideal incels, because they have removed themselves from the mating market and they lack the heterosexual sex drive to threaten the social hierarchy, and homosexuals like Millenial Woes and Johnson are even more ideal because you regard them as akin to sterile worker bees serving your interests.

    Now, fortunately, most men are not indifferent to women’s intelligence. As I have said elsewhere, being a mediocre-looking girl in a philosophy department is kind of like being that girl in Something About Mary.
     
    Higher education, and any other environmental interventions, do not make people smarter. To the extent that smart women pursuing higher education lose their childbearing years, higher education decreases intelligence in society. A major reason the mediocre looking girl pursues higher education is so she can have access to a higher class of men and hopefully land one, instead of staying in her hometown and marrying Bob the plumber.

    You haven’t addressed any of my arguments or refuted anything I’ve said.

    The facts themselves refute you, troll. You would know that if you bothered to research them.

    Millenial Woes and Greg Johnson are homosexuals.

    That statement is only half true.

    But without socially imposed monogamy, you have the problem of the class of low status males, the incels, who can be dangerous, disruptive, and revolutionary if they retain their heterosexual sex drives.

    The Alphas will deal with you, ruthlessly if necessary.

    Higher education, and any other environmental interventions, do not make people smarter.

    I never said it did. I’m just pointing out that men are not going to marry stupid women when they can have a smart one instead. This will become ever more true as the role of the X chromosome in genotypic intelligence becomes ever clearer.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    The Alphas will deal with you, ruthlessly if necessary.
     
    BTW, if this sounds harsh, consider the fact that Anon's statement is, in effect, a demand that men enslave women and hand them out as prizes to shitty men who couldn't get one on their own, and a threat of terrorism if this demand is not met.

    We exist, in other words, not as ends in ourselves, but rather as spoils to be distributed as a reward for good behavior, to pacify obnoxious incels.
    , @Anonymous

    The facts themselves refute you, troll. You would know that if you bothered to research them.
     
    Which facts? You haven't cited any.

    That statement is only half true.
     
    They're both homosexuals, although Millenial Woes may be bisexual.

    The Alphas will deal with you, ruthlessly if necessary.
     
    This reflects the crux of the issue here. Socially imposed monogamy is not acceptable to many women. They would rather have low status males as homosexuals - as a kind of sterile worker bee or eunuch class, or otherwise suppressed by "the alphas" whom the women share or try to attain access to.

    I never said it did. I’m just pointing out that men are not going to marry stupid women when they can have a smart one instead.
     
    The implication is that men will prefer to marry a woman who has had X number of years of educational and professional attainment, because that supposedly proves they are smart. This is not true. Men certainly prefer a smarter over a stupid woman, but they don't make these judgments and choices based on women's educational and professional attainment.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    This will become ever more true as the role of the X chromosome in genotypic intelligence becomes ever clearer.

    I've heard this alluded to but it leaves me scratching my head. Why would intelligence reside on the X chromosome when intelligence increases the SMV of men more than it does of women? Your anticipated response that men do care about intelligence to some degree doesn't negate the fact that women care about it more. Men care more about sexual attractiveness (fertility) than women do and women care about every other attribute more than men do (save for maybe promiscuity). Genghis Khan spread his seed all over Asia chasing fertility, not intelligence--but he was presumably considerably above average intelligence himself.
  138. @Anonymous
    So women will voluntarily exclude themselves from high status, high paying jobs? Just like they excluded themselves from any kind of job besides secretary, nurse, and maid?

    So women will voluntarily exclude themselves from high status, high paying jobs? Just like they excluded themselves from any kind of job besides secretary, nurse, and maid?

    Women aren’t interested in tech and industrial jobs. They are either too dangerous or too lonely. Once again, you refuse to acknowledge the facts.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more-gender-equality-the-fewer-women-in-stem/553592/

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Women aren't interested in jobs in general. Women are interested in fields that give them access to high status men and their social circles. STEM in "gender equal" countries is not high status and prestigious. The men in STEM do not dominate society and aren't regarded as culturally and socially prestigious. Professionals like lawyers, businessmen, media elites, celebrities, etc., dominate society and have the greatest status in "gender equal" societies. In the Middle Eastern societies with less gender equality cited by The Atlantic article, STEM has more status and prestige, because they have a conservative religious culture, rather than a commercial culture dominated by professionals and cultural elites.
  139. Anonymous[292] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Many of these socio-economic factors are converging and reinforcing each other to produce higher rates of assortative mating today than they did 30 years ago (and certainly compared to 50-70 years ago) when it was much more common for doctors to marry nurses, lawyers to marry paralegals, and executives their secretaries, rather than their peers.
     
    Incels pay no attention whatsoever to statistical facts. They just go by conventional wisdom, and since they self-ghettoize in their own echo chambers, as often as not they actually believe their nonsense because no one ever challenges them on it.

    https://i0.wp.com/live-nr-2017.pantheonsite.io/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Wang201-1.png?zoom=2&resize=640%2C421&ssl=1

    That graph doesn’t tell us anything about the marriage rate in society. It shows educational attainment WITHIN married couples.

    In fact, marriage rates are hitting record lows and continuing to decline. In other words, your graph showing that within married couples, husbands are increasingly less educated than their wives, is correlated with marriage rates declining to record lows. Both these trends reflect the broader phenomenon of declining status of men. As men decline in status, they become less acceptable and desirable as marriage partners to women, and thus the marriage rate declines. And within the smaller number of married couples that remain, the educational attainment of men relative to women decreases relative to the past.

    “US Marriage Rate Drops to New Low”

    https://www.livescience.com/38308-us-marriage-rate-new-low.html

    “The marriage rate in the United States is continuing its decades-long downward slide, with fewer American women than ever getting married and others waiting longer to wed, according to a new report.

    The marriage rate has fluctuated in the past, with dips in the 1930s and 1960s, but it has been in steady decline since the 1970s.”

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    In fact, marriage rates are hitting record lows and continuing to decline.
     
    Again, you ignore the internal dynamic of that generalization. Marriage is declining overall, yes, but that decline (as well as divorce) is much more pronounced at the low end of the SES. In other words, marriage is increasingly becoming an upper crust phenomenon.

    https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-marriage-divide-how-and-why-working-class-families-are-more-fragile-today

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/upshot/how-did-marriage-become-a-mark-of-privilege.html

    , @Rosie

    In fact, marriage rates are hitting record lows and continuing to decline.
     
    And you have no evidence whatsoever that women's emancipation, rather than secularism (nihilism) is the cause.

    https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2013/october/facebook-classmates-soulmates-christian-colleges-mrs-degree.html
  140. Anonymous[292] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    So women will voluntarily exclude themselves from high status, high paying jobs? Just like they excluded themselves from any kind of job besides secretary, nurse, and maid?
     
    Women aren't interested in tech and industrial jobs. They are either too dangerous or too lonely. Once again, you refuse to acknowledge the facts.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more-gender-equality-the-fewer-women-in-stem/553592/

    Women aren’t interested in jobs in general. Women are interested in fields that give them access to high status men and their social circles. STEM in “gender equal” countries is not high status and prestigious. The men in STEM do not dominate society and aren’t regarded as culturally and socially prestigious. Professionals like lawyers, businessmen, media elites, celebrities, etc., dominate society and have the greatest status in “gender equal” societies. In the Middle Eastern societies with less gender equality cited by The Atlantic article, STEM has more status and prestige, because they have a conservative religious culture, rather than a commercial culture dominated by professionals and cultural elites.

  141. @Anonymous
    That graph doesn't tell us anything about the marriage rate in society. It shows educational attainment WITHIN married couples.

    In fact, marriage rates are hitting record lows and continuing to decline. In other words, your graph showing that within married couples, husbands are increasingly less educated than their wives, is correlated with marriage rates declining to record lows. Both these trends reflect the broader phenomenon of declining status of men. As men decline in status, they become less acceptable and desirable as marriage partners to women, and thus the marriage rate declines. And within the smaller number of married couples that remain, the educational attainment of men relative to women decreases relative to the past.

    "US Marriage Rate Drops to New Low"

    https://www.livescience.com/38308-us-marriage-rate-new-low.html

    "The marriage rate in the United States is continuing its decades-long downward slide, with fewer American women than ever getting married and others waiting longer to wed, according to a new report.

    The marriage rate has fluctuated in the past, with dips in the 1930s and 1960s, but it has been in steady decline since the 1970s."

    In fact, marriage rates are hitting record lows and continuing to decline.

    Again, you ignore the internal dynamic of that generalization. Marriage is declining overall, yes, but that decline (as well as divorce) is much more pronounced at the low end of the SES. In other words, marriage is increasingly becoming an upper crust phenomenon.

    https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-marriage-divide-how-and-why-working-class-families-are-more-fragile-today

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/upshot/how-did-marriage-become-a-mark-of-privilege.html

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Marriage is declining overall, yes, but that decline (as well as divorce) is much more pronounced at the low end of the SES.
     
    Indeed, as well as a religious one.
    , @Anonymous
    In case you were unaware, this discussion is about society in general. Most of society is not "upper crust". The fact that marriage is increasingly becoming an upper crust phenomenon is completely consistent with marriage rates declining to record lows overall, and it would be consistent with marriage rates declining at all strata of society relative to the past.
    , @Rosie

    In case you were unaware, this discussion is about society in general. Most of society is not “upper crust”. The fact that marriage is increasingly becoming an upper crust phenomenon is completely consistent with marriage rates declining to record lows overall, and it would be consistent with marriage rates declining at all strata of society relative to the past.
     
    This is very typical of how this troll argues.

    He says: Highly educated women don't have anyone to marry, because they're not interested in marrying their peers.

    You say: Actually they do marry their peers in droves.

    He says: But we're talking about the decline in marriage among the lower classes, not the educated elites!
  142. @Anonymous
    That graph doesn't tell us anything about the marriage rate in society. It shows educational attainment WITHIN married couples.

    In fact, marriage rates are hitting record lows and continuing to decline. In other words, your graph showing that within married couples, husbands are increasingly less educated than their wives, is correlated with marriage rates declining to record lows. Both these trends reflect the broader phenomenon of declining status of men. As men decline in status, they become less acceptable and desirable as marriage partners to women, and thus the marriage rate declines. And within the smaller number of married couples that remain, the educational attainment of men relative to women decreases relative to the past.

    "US Marriage Rate Drops to New Low"

    https://www.livescience.com/38308-us-marriage-rate-new-low.html

    "The marriage rate in the United States is continuing its decades-long downward slide, with fewer American women than ever getting married and others waiting longer to wed, according to a new report.

    The marriage rate has fluctuated in the past, with dips in the 1930s and 1960s, but it has been in steady decline since the 1970s."

    In fact, marriage rates are hitting record lows and continuing to decline.

    And you have no evidence whatsoever that women’s emancipation, rather than secularism (nihilism) is the cause.

    https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2013/october/facebook-classmates-soulmates-christian-colleges-mrs-degree.html

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Secularism and women's emancipation generally go hand in hand. Traditional religion including Christianity are patriarchal and sexist by contemporary standards. This really should go without saying.
  143. @Twinkie

    In fact, marriage rates are hitting record lows and continuing to decline.
     
    Again, you ignore the internal dynamic of that generalization. Marriage is declining overall, yes, but that decline (as well as divorce) is much more pronounced at the low end of the SES. In other words, marriage is increasingly becoming an upper crust phenomenon.

    https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-marriage-divide-how-and-why-working-class-families-are-more-fragile-today

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/upshot/how-did-marriage-become-a-mark-of-privilege.html

    Marriage is declining overall, yes, but that decline (as well as divorce) is much more pronounced at the low end of the SES.

    Indeed, as well as a religious one.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    "The U.S. Is Retreating from Religion"

    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-u-s-is-retreating-from-religion/

    "Since 1990, the fraction of Americans with no religious affiliation has nearly tripled, from about 8 percent to 22 percent. Over the next 20 years, this trend will accelerate: by 2020, there will be more of these "Nones" than Catholics, and by 2035, they will outnumber Protestants."
    , @Twinkie

    Indeed, as well as a religious one.
     
    More specifically, Christian.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/education-church-attendance/524346/

    Educated Christians tend to have higher church attendance than less educated Christians.
  144. @Rosie

    You haven’t addressed any of my arguments or refuted anything I’ve said.
     
    The facts themselves refute you, troll. You would know that if you bothered to research them.

    Millenial Woes and Greg Johnson are homosexuals.
     
    That statement is only half true.

    But without socially imposed monogamy, you have the problem of the class of low status males, the incels, who can be dangerous, disruptive, and revolutionary if they retain their heterosexual sex drives.
     
    The Alphas will deal with you, ruthlessly if necessary.

    Higher education, and any other environmental interventions, do not make people smarter.
     
    I never said it did. I'm just pointing out that men are not going to marry stupid women when they can have a smart one instead. This will become ever more true as the role of the X chromosome in genotypic intelligence becomes ever clearer.

    The Alphas will deal with you, ruthlessly if necessary.

    BTW, if this sounds harsh, consider the fact that Anon’s statement is, in effect, a demand that men enslave women and hand them out as prizes to shitty men who couldn’t get one on their own, and a threat of terrorism if this demand is not met.

    We exist, in other words, not as ends in ourselves, but rather as spoils to be distributed as a reward for good behavior, to pacify obnoxious incels.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Actually, this is not harsh at all, but reflects the underlying issue and the primal instincts we are dealing with here. This is why civilization is very fragile, and tends not to persist.
  145. Anonymous[292] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    You haven’t addressed any of my arguments or refuted anything I’ve said.
     
    The facts themselves refute you, troll. You would know that if you bothered to research them.

    Millenial Woes and Greg Johnson are homosexuals.
     
    That statement is only half true.

    But without socially imposed monogamy, you have the problem of the class of low status males, the incels, who can be dangerous, disruptive, and revolutionary if they retain their heterosexual sex drives.
     
    The Alphas will deal with you, ruthlessly if necessary.

    Higher education, and any other environmental interventions, do not make people smarter.
     
    I never said it did. I'm just pointing out that men are not going to marry stupid women when they can have a smart one instead. This will become ever more true as the role of the X chromosome in genotypic intelligence becomes ever clearer.

    The facts themselves refute you, troll. You would know that if you bothered to research them.

    Which facts? You haven’t cited any.

    That statement is only half true.

    They’re both homosexuals, although Millenial Woes may be bisexual.

    The Alphas will deal with you, ruthlessly if necessary.

    This reflects the crux of the issue here. Socially imposed monogamy is not acceptable to many women. They would rather have low status males as homosexuals – as a kind of sterile worker bee or eunuch class, or otherwise suppressed by “the alphas” whom the women share or try to attain access to.

    I never said it did. I’m just pointing out that men are not going to marry stupid women when they can have a smart one instead.

    The implication is that men will prefer to marry a woman who has had X number of years of educational and professional attainment, because that supposedly proves they are smart. This is not true. Men certainly prefer a smarter over a stupid woman, but they don’t make these judgments and choices based on women’s educational and professional attainment.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    The implication is that men will prefer to marry a woman who has had X number of years of educational and professional attainment, because that supposedly proves they are smart.
     
    Only if you're logically challenged.

    They would rather have low status males as homosexuals – as a kind of sterile worker bee or eunuch class, or otherwise suppressed by “the alphas” whom the women share or try to attain access to.
     
    Yes, I would rather share MW or Mike Enoch with 1000 women than have a sadistic psychopath incel all to myself.
  146. @Anonymous

    The facts themselves refute you, troll. You would know that if you bothered to research them.
     
    Which facts? You haven't cited any.

    That statement is only half true.
     
    They're both homosexuals, although Millenial Woes may be bisexual.

    The Alphas will deal with you, ruthlessly if necessary.
     
    This reflects the crux of the issue here. Socially imposed monogamy is not acceptable to many women. They would rather have low status males as homosexuals - as a kind of sterile worker bee or eunuch class, or otherwise suppressed by "the alphas" whom the women share or try to attain access to.

    I never said it did. I’m just pointing out that men are not going to marry stupid women when they can have a smart one instead.
     
    The implication is that men will prefer to marry a woman who has had X number of years of educational and professional attainment, because that supposedly proves they are smart. This is not true. Men certainly prefer a smarter over a stupid woman, but they don't make these judgments and choices based on women's educational and professional attainment.

    The implication is that men will prefer to marry a woman who has had X number of years of educational and professional attainment, because that supposedly proves they are smart.

    Only if you’re logically challenged.

    They would rather have low status males as homosexuals – as a kind of sterile worker bee or eunuch class, or otherwise suppressed by “the alphas” whom the women share or try to attain access to.

    Yes, I would rather share MW or Mike Enoch with 1000 women than have a sadistic psychopath incel all to myself.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Yes, I would rather share MW or Mike Enoch with 1000 women than have a sadistic psychopath incel all to myself.
     
    Thank you for your honesty. Most women are unwilling or unable to be honest about this, which is why contemporary discourse operates under the illusion that widespread, stable monogamy is some automatic thing that naturally happens.

    We're still left with the basic problem though: how to maintain a sustainable civilization without socially imposed monogamy. Because without it, it will just collapse or be taken over by healthier civilizations.
    , @Mr. Rational

    Only if you’re logically challenged.
     
    You're weak on this "dialectic" thing, aren't you?  Neither insult nor bald assertion is an argument.

    Yes, I would rather share MW or Mike Enoch with 1000 women than have a sadistic psychopath incel all to myself.
     
    So, how is a man who has a woman because of imposed monogamy an "incel"?  It would certainly cure any problems he had that stemmed from loneliness and sexual frustration.
  147. Anonymous[292] • Disclaimer says:
    @Twinkie

    In fact, marriage rates are hitting record lows and continuing to decline.
     
    Again, you ignore the internal dynamic of that generalization. Marriage is declining overall, yes, but that decline (as well as divorce) is much more pronounced at the low end of the SES. In other words, marriage is increasingly becoming an upper crust phenomenon.

    https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-marriage-divide-how-and-why-working-class-families-are-more-fragile-today

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/upshot/how-did-marriage-become-a-mark-of-privilege.html

    In case you were unaware, this discussion is about society in general. Most of society is not “upper crust”. The fact that marriage is increasingly becoming an upper crust phenomenon is completely consistent with marriage rates declining to record lows overall, and it would be consistent with marriage rates declining at all strata of society relative to the past.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    You seem more interested in “winning” than getting things right. Good luck to you.
  148. Anonymous[292] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Marriage is declining overall, yes, but that decline (as well as divorce) is much more pronounced at the low end of the SES.
     
    Indeed, as well as a religious one.

    “The U.S. Is Retreating from Religion”

    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-u-s-is-retreating-from-religion/

    “Since 1990, the fraction of Americans with no religious affiliation has nearly tripled, from about 8 percent to 22 percent. Over the next 20 years, this trend will accelerate: by 2020, there will be more of these “Nones” than Catholics, and by 2035, they will outnumber Protestants.”

  149. @Rosie

    In fact, marriage rates are hitting record lows and continuing to decline.
     
    And you have no evidence whatsoever that women's emancipation, rather than secularism (nihilism) is the cause.

    https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2013/october/facebook-classmates-soulmates-christian-colleges-mrs-degree.html

    Secularism and women’s emancipation generally go hand in hand. Traditional religion including Christianity are patriarchal and sexist by contemporary standards. This really should go without saying.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Christianity are patriarchal and sexist by contemporary standards.
     
    My wife and I are orthodox Catholics and follow the Church’s teachings on the husband-wife relationship. It’s true that the Church urges wives to obey their husbands - as the Church (the communion of all believers) obeyed Christ. At first glance, this seems oppressive. But the flip side is that husbands ought to sacrifice for their wives and the children as Christ sacrificed for the Church. That’s a rather good deal for the wives as Christ’s sacrifice was perfect (and extremely painful) while the Church’s obedience was (and is) imperfect.

    Ideal Christian patriarchy is not men ordering their wives around for their own gratification. Women voluntarily submit to their husbands, because they know that the husbands sacrifice themselves (even their lives, should that be necessary) and because the husbands’ spiritual leadership of their families are selfless in nature, not selfish. It is for this reason that I give an illustrated copy of “The Gift of the Magi” to every newly-wed couple in my community.

    Even in East Asia, which is still patriarchal to a great extent and “a man’s world,” men have worked hard and ground themselves down while women have collected the paychecks and controlled the household finances.

    True Christian patriarchy is not some porn show in which men dominate and degrade women - it is the leadership of families by men, which by the very nature of leadership, asks far more difficult sacrifices out of the men. Men die younger for a reason.
  150. @Rosie

    The Alphas will deal with you, ruthlessly if necessary.
     
    BTW, if this sounds harsh, consider the fact that Anon's statement is, in effect, a demand that men enslave women and hand them out as prizes to shitty men who couldn't get one on their own, and a threat of terrorism if this demand is not met.

    We exist, in other words, not as ends in ourselves, but rather as spoils to be distributed as a reward for good behavior, to pacify obnoxious incels.

    Actually, this is not harsh at all, but reflects the underlying issue and the primal instincts we are dealing with here. This is why civilization is very fragile, and tends not to persist.

  151. Secularism and women’s emancipation generally go hand in hand.

    Irrelevant.

  152. Anonymous[292] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    The implication is that men will prefer to marry a woman who has had X number of years of educational and professional attainment, because that supposedly proves they are smart.
     
    Only if you're logically challenged.

    They would rather have low status males as homosexuals – as a kind of sterile worker bee or eunuch class, or otherwise suppressed by “the alphas” whom the women share or try to attain access to.
     
    Yes, I would rather share MW or Mike Enoch with 1000 women than have a sadistic psychopath incel all to myself.

    Yes, I would rather share MW or Mike Enoch with 1000 women than have a sadistic psychopath incel all to myself.

    Thank you for your honesty. Most women are unwilling or unable to be honest about this, which is why contemporary discourse operates under the illusion that widespread, stable monogamy is some automatic thing that naturally happens.

    We’re still left with the basic problem though: how to maintain a sustainable civilization without socially imposed monogamy. Because without it, it will just collapse or be taken over by healthier civilizations.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    We’re still left with the basic problem though: how to maintain a sustainable civilization without socially imposed monogamy. Because without it, it will just collapse or be taken over by healthier civilizations.
     
    That's not at all the case. SIPs (sadistic incel psychopaths) are, mercifully, a small, and manageable, percentage of the population. They have an exaggerated sense of their numbers and importance as a result of their dominance of 4chan ghettos, and until recently, the alt-Right.
  153. @Twinkie

    In fact, marriage rates are hitting record lows and continuing to decline.
     
    Again, you ignore the internal dynamic of that generalization. Marriage is declining overall, yes, but that decline (as well as divorce) is much more pronounced at the low end of the SES. In other words, marriage is increasingly becoming an upper crust phenomenon.

    https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-marriage-divide-how-and-why-working-class-families-are-more-fragile-today

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/upshot/how-did-marriage-become-a-mark-of-privilege.html

    In case you were unaware, this discussion is about society in general. Most of society is not “upper crust”. The fact that marriage is increasingly becoming an upper crust phenomenon is completely consistent with marriage rates declining to record lows overall, and it would be consistent with marriage rates declining at all strata of society relative to the past.

    This is very typical of how this troll argues.

    He says: Highly educated women don’t have anyone to marry, because they’re not interested in marrying their peers.

    You say: Actually they do marry their peers in droves.

    He says: But we’re talking about the decline in marriage among the lower classes, not the educated elites!

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Are you even reading these links? They show that marriage is declining among the middle and upper class as well, it's just that it's declining even faster among the lower classes. Furthermore, the fertility rate of middle and upper class women is lower.

    https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-marriage-divide-how-and-why-working-class-families-are-more-fragile-today

    Estimates derived from the 2013–15 National Survey of Family Growth indicate that poor women currently have about 2.4 children, compared with 1.8 children for working-class women, and 1.7 children for middle- and upper-class women. Poor women, in particular, start childbearing earlier and end up having markedly more children than more affluent women.
     
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/upshot/how-did-marriage-become-a-mark-of-privilege.html

    Currently, 26 percent of poor adults, 39 percent of working-class adults and 56 percent of middle- and upper-class adults ages 18 to 55 are married, according to a research brief published from two think tanks, the American Enterprise Institute and Opportunity America.

    In 1990, more than half of adults were married, with much less difference based on class and education: 51 percent of poor adults, 57 percent of working-class adults and 65 percent of middle- and upper-class adults were married.
     
  154. @Anonymous

    Yes, I would rather share MW or Mike Enoch with 1000 women than have a sadistic psychopath incel all to myself.
     
    Thank you for your honesty. Most women are unwilling or unable to be honest about this, which is why contemporary discourse operates under the illusion that widespread, stable monogamy is some automatic thing that naturally happens.

    We're still left with the basic problem though: how to maintain a sustainable civilization without socially imposed monogamy. Because without it, it will just collapse or be taken over by healthier civilizations.

    We’re still left with the basic problem though: how to maintain a sustainable civilization without socially imposed monogamy. Because without it, it will just collapse or be taken over by healthier civilizations.

    That’s not at all the case. SIPs (sadistic incel psychopaths) are, mercifully, a small, and manageable, percentage of the population. They have an exaggerated sense of their numbers and importance as a result of their dominance of 4chan ghettos, and until recently, the alt-Right.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Are you interested in a serious discussion? If so, please avoid bringing up strawmen. We are talking about significant proportions of the overall population that the data on marriage rates and other things cited reflect, not the trivial numbers on 4chan and the alt-right and the like.
  155. @Rosie

    We’re still left with the basic problem though: how to maintain a sustainable civilization without socially imposed monogamy. Because without it, it will just collapse or be taken over by healthier civilizations.
     
    That's not at all the case. SIPs (sadistic incel psychopaths) are, mercifully, a small, and manageable, percentage of the population. They have an exaggerated sense of their numbers and importance as a result of their dominance of 4chan ghettos, and until recently, the alt-Right.

    Are you interested in a serious discussion? If so, please avoid bringing up strawmen. We are talking about significant proportions of the overall population that the data on marriage rates and other things cited reflect, not the trivial numbers on 4chan and the alt-right and the like.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    We are talking about significant proportions of the overall population that the data on marriage rates and other things cited reflect, not the trivial numbers on 4chan and the alt-right and the like.
     
    People aren't getting married because they think it's just a "piece of paper, " and they are right, by and large. They're cohabiting.
  156. @Anonymous
    Are you interested in a serious discussion? If so, please avoid bringing up strawmen. We are talking about significant proportions of the overall population that the data on marriage rates and other things cited reflect, not the trivial numbers on 4chan and the alt-right and the like.

    We are talking about significant proportions of the overall population that the data on marriage rates and other things cited reflect, not the trivial numbers on 4chan and the alt-right and the like.

    People aren’t getting married because they think it’s just a “piece of paper, ” and they are right, by and large. They’re cohabiting.

  157. Anonymous[292] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    In case you were unaware, this discussion is about society in general. Most of society is not “upper crust”. The fact that marriage is increasingly becoming an upper crust phenomenon is completely consistent with marriage rates declining to record lows overall, and it would be consistent with marriage rates declining at all strata of society relative to the past.
     
    This is very typical of how this troll argues.

    He says: Highly educated women don't have anyone to marry, because they're not interested in marrying their peers.

    You say: Actually they do marry their peers in droves.

    He says: But we're talking about the decline in marriage among the lower classes, not the educated elites!

    Are you even reading these links? They show that marriage is declining among the middle and upper class as well, it’s just that it’s declining even faster among the lower classes. Furthermore, the fertility rate of middle and upper class women is lower.

    https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-marriage-divide-how-and-why-working-class-families-are-more-fragile-today

    Estimates derived from the 2013–15 National Survey of Family Growth indicate that poor women currently have about 2.4 children, compared with 1.8 children for working-class women, and 1.7 children for middle- and upper-class women. Poor women, in particular, start childbearing earlier and end up having markedly more children than more affluent women.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/upshot/how-did-marriage-become-a-mark-of-privilege.html

    Currently, 26 percent of poor adults, 39 percent of working-class adults and 56 percent of middle- and upper-class adults ages 18 to 55 are married, according to a research brief published from two think tanks, the American Enterprise Institute and Opportunity America.

    In 1990, more than half of adults were married, with much less difference based on class and education: 51 percent of poor adults, 57 percent of working-class adults and 65 percent of middle- and upper-class adults were married.

  158. @Rosie

    The implication is that men will prefer to marry a woman who has had X number of years of educational and professional attainment, because that supposedly proves they are smart.
     
    Only if you're logically challenged.

    They would rather have low status males as homosexuals – as a kind of sterile worker bee or eunuch class, or otherwise suppressed by “the alphas” whom the women share or try to attain access to.
     
    Yes, I would rather share MW or Mike Enoch with 1000 women than have a sadistic psychopath incel all to myself.

    Only if you’re logically challenged.

    You’re weak on this “dialectic” thing, aren’t you?  Neither insult nor bald assertion is an argument.

    Yes, I would rather share MW or Mike Enoch with 1000 women than have a sadistic psychopath incel all to myself.

    So, how is a man who has a woman because of imposed monogamy an “incel”?  It would certainly cure any problems he had that stemmed from loneliness and sexual frustration.

  159. @Rosie

    You haven’t addressed any of my arguments or refuted anything I’ve said.
     
    The facts themselves refute you, troll. You would know that if you bothered to research them.

    Millenial Woes and Greg Johnson are homosexuals.
     
    That statement is only half true.

    But without socially imposed monogamy, you have the problem of the class of low status males, the incels, who can be dangerous, disruptive, and revolutionary if they retain their heterosexual sex drives.
     
    The Alphas will deal with you, ruthlessly if necessary.

    Higher education, and any other environmental interventions, do not make people smarter.
     
    I never said it did. I'm just pointing out that men are not going to marry stupid women when they can have a smart one instead. This will become ever more true as the role of the X chromosome in genotypic intelligence becomes ever clearer.

    This will become ever more true as the role of the X chromosome in genotypic intelligence becomes ever clearer.

    I’ve heard this alluded to but it leaves me scratching my head. Why would intelligence reside on the X chromosome when intelligence increases the SMV of men more than it does of women? Your anticipated response that men do care about intelligence to some degree doesn’t negate the fact that women care about it more. Men care more about sexual attractiveness (fertility) than women do and women care about every other attribute more than men do (save for maybe promiscuity). Genghis Khan spread his seed all over Asia chasing fertility, not intelligence–but he was presumably considerably above average intelligence himself.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Why would intelligence reside on the X chromosome when intelligence increases the SMV of men more than it does of women?
     
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/children-intelligence-iq-mother-inherit-inheritance-genetics-genes-a7345596.html

    You can find any number of articles claiming that "it's not true" that boys inherit their intelligence from their mother, but if you actually read them, you'll see that they pretty much say, "Yes, it's true that boys inherit their intelligence from their mother."

    Your anticipated response that men do care about intelligence to some degree doesn’t negate the fact that women care about it more.
     
    And what do you think follows from that fact?
  160. @Rosie

    Marriage is declining overall, yes, but that decline (as well as divorce) is much more pronounced at the low end of the SES.
     
    Indeed, as well as a religious one.

    Indeed, as well as a religious one.

    More specifically, Christian.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/education-church-attendance/524346/

    Educated Christians tend to have higher church attendance than less educated Christians.

  161. @Anonymous
    In case you were unaware, this discussion is about society in general. Most of society is not "upper crust". The fact that marriage is increasingly becoming an upper crust phenomenon is completely consistent with marriage rates declining to record lows overall, and it would be consistent with marriage rates declining at all strata of society relative to the past.

    You seem more interested in “winning” than getting things right. Good luck to you.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    As I pointed out above in a reply to Rosie, your links to the NY Times article and IF Studies site show that marriage has declined among all strata, including the middle and upper class, and they show that fertility rates are lowest in the middle/upper class category.
  162. @Audacious Epigone
    This will become ever more true as the role of the X chromosome in genotypic intelligence becomes ever clearer.

    I've heard this alluded to but it leaves me scratching my head. Why would intelligence reside on the X chromosome when intelligence increases the SMV of men more than it does of women? Your anticipated response that men do care about intelligence to some degree doesn't negate the fact that women care about it more. Men care more about sexual attractiveness (fertility) than women do and women care about every other attribute more than men do (save for maybe promiscuity). Genghis Khan spread his seed all over Asia chasing fertility, not intelligence--but he was presumably considerably above average intelligence himself.

    Why would intelligence reside on the X chromosome when intelligence increases the SMV of men more than it does of women?

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/children-intelligence-iq-mother-inherit-inheritance-genetics-genes-a7345596.html

    You can find any number of articles claiming that “it’s not true” that boys inherit their intelligence from their mother, but if you actually read them, you’ll see that they pretty much say, “Yes, it’s true that boys inherit their intelligence from their mother.”

    Your anticipated response that men do care about intelligence to some degree doesn’t negate the fact that women care about it more.

    And what do you think follows from that fact?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    And what do you think follows from that fact?

    That intelligence is inherited *more* from the father than from the mother since the selection pressure for intelligence is stronger in the father than the mother!
  163. @Anonymous
    Secularism and women's emancipation generally go hand in hand. Traditional religion including Christianity are patriarchal and sexist by contemporary standards. This really should go without saying.

    Christianity are patriarchal and sexist by contemporary standards.

    My wife and I are orthodox Catholics and follow the Church’s teachings on the husband-wife relationship. It’s true that the Church urges wives to obey their husbands – as the Church (the communion of all believers) obeyed Christ. At first glance, this seems oppressive. But the flip side is that husbands ought to sacrifice for their wives and the children as Christ sacrificed for the Church. That’s a rather good deal for the wives as Christ’s sacrifice was perfect (and extremely painful) while the Church’s obedience was (and is) imperfect.

    Ideal Christian patriarchy is not men ordering their wives around for their own gratification. Women voluntarily submit to their husbands, because they know that the husbands sacrifice themselves (even their lives, should that be necessary) and because the husbands’ spiritual leadership of their families are selfless in nature, not selfish. It is for this reason that I give an illustrated copy of “The Gift of the Magi” to every newly-wed couple in my community.

    Even in East Asia, which is still patriarchal to a great extent and “a man’s world,” men have worked hard and ground themselves down while women have collected the paychecks and controlled the household finances.

    True Christian patriarchy is not some porn show in which men dominate and degrade women – it is the leadership of families by men, which by the very nature of leadership, asks far more difficult sacrifices out of the men. Men die younger for a reason.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Talha
    Solid post.

    Peace.
    , @Rosie

    It’s true that the Church urges wives to obey their husbands – as the Church (the communion of all believers) obeyed Christ.
     
    I've always wondered how this works in practice. My husband and I are so busy with the kids, we don't really have much time to think about who is obeying whom. The important thing is to get dinner on the table and get to practice, or whatever.
    , @Anonymous

    It’s true that the Church urges wives to obey their husbands – as the Church (the communion of all believers) obeyed Christ.
     
    The Catholic Church does not teach this in the context of marriage, only in the context of the Church (Mulieres in ecclesiis taceant); you are confusing the marriage vows used by some Protestant denominations with the Catholic position, which stresses the equality of the spouses and the idea of marriage as a partnership.
  164. @Twinkie

    Christianity are patriarchal and sexist by contemporary standards.
     
    My wife and I are orthodox Catholics and follow the Church’s teachings on the husband-wife relationship. It’s true that the Church urges wives to obey their husbands - as the Church (the communion of all believers) obeyed Christ. At first glance, this seems oppressive. But the flip side is that husbands ought to sacrifice for their wives and the children as Christ sacrificed for the Church. That’s a rather good deal for the wives as Christ’s sacrifice was perfect (and extremely painful) while the Church’s obedience was (and is) imperfect.

    Ideal Christian patriarchy is not men ordering their wives around for their own gratification. Women voluntarily submit to their husbands, because they know that the husbands sacrifice themselves (even their lives, should that be necessary) and because the husbands’ spiritual leadership of their families are selfless in nature, not selfish. It is for this reason that I give an illustrated copy of “The Gift of the Magi” to every newly-wed couple in my community.

    Even in East Asia, which is still patriarchal to a great extent and “a man’s world,” men have worked hard and ground themselves down while women have collected the paychecks and controlled the household finances.

    True Christian patriarchy is not some porn show in which men dominate and degrade women - it is the leadership of families by men, which by the very nature of leadership, asks far more difficult sacrifices out of the men. Men die younger for a reason.

    Solid post.

    Peace.

  165. @Rosie

    Why would intelligence reside on the X chromosome when intelligence increases the SMV of men more than it does of women?
     
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/children-intelligence-iq-mother-inherit-inheritance-genetics-genes-a7345596.html

    You can find any number of articles claiming that "it's not true" that boys inherit their intelligence from their mother, but if you actually read them, you'll see that they pretty much say, "Yes, it's true that boys inherit their intelligence from their mother."

    Your anticipated response that men do care about intelligence to some degree doesn’t negate the fact that women care about it more.
     
    And what do you think follows from that fact?

    And what do you think follows from that fact?

    That intelligence is inherited *more* from the father than from the mother since the selection pressure for intelligence is stronger in the father than the mother!

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Rosie

    That intelligence is inherited *more* from the father than from the mother since the selection pressure for intelligence is stronger in the father than the mother!
     
    Ok, that would stand to reason, but my understanding is that all intelligence-enhancing genes found so far have been located on the X. Boys only get one X, from Mom.
  166. @Audacious Epigone
    And what do you think follows from that fact?

    That intelligence is inherited *more* from the father than from the mother since the selection pressure for intelligence is stronger in the father than the mother!

    That intelligence is inherited *more* from the father than from the mother since the selection pressure for intelligence is stronger in the father than the mother!

    Ok, that would stand to reason, but my understanding is that all intelligence-enhancing genes found so far have been located on the X. Boys only get one X, from Mom.

  167. @Twinkie

    Christianity are patriarchal and sexist by contemporary standards.
     
    My wife and I are orthodox Catholics and follow the Church’s teachings on the husband-wife relationship. It’s true that the Church urges wives to obey their husbands - as the Church (the communion of all believers) obeyed Christ. At first glance, this seems oppressive. But the flip side is that husbands ought to sacrifice for their wives and the children as Christ sacrificed for the Church. That’s a rather good deal for the wives as Christ’s sacrifice was perfect (and extremely painful) while the Church’s obedience was (and is) imperfect.

    Ideal Christian patriarchy is not men ordering their wives around for their own gratification. Women voluntarily submit to their husbands, because they know that the husbands sacrifice themselves (even their lives, should that be necessary) and because the husbands’ spiritual leadership of their families are selfless in nature, not selfish. It is for this reason that I give an illustrated copy of “The Gift of the Magi” to every newly-wed couple in my community.

    Even in East Asia, which is still patriarchal to a great extent and “a man’s world,” men have worked hard and ground themselves down while women have collected the paychecks and controlled the household finances.

    True Christian patriarchy is not some porn show in which men dominate and degrade women - it is the leadership of families by men, which by the very nature of leadership, asks far more difficult sacrifices out of the men. Men die younger for a reason.

    It’s true that the Church urges wives to obey their husbands – as the Church (the communion of all believers) obeyed Christ.

    I’ve always wondered how this works in practice. My husband and I are so busy with the kids, we don’t really have much time to think about who is obeying whom. The important thing is to get dinner on the table and get to practice, or whatever.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    Do you not talk about the children’s education, household finances, social engagements, etc? What about religious observances? My wife, children, and I pray together every day and frequently pray the Rosary and also attend daily Mass. Do you not discuss matters of religion and spirit with your family?
  168. @MikeatMikedotMike
    "Too many White Trashionalists don’t think fatherhood is valuable."

    Citation needed Shiva. The white nationalists living rent free in your head have you pulling lies out of your unwiped ass.

    Agree and LOL!

  169. @Rosie

    It’s true that the Church urges wives to obey their husbands – as the Church (the communion of all believers) obeyed Christ.
     
    I've always wondered how this works in practice. My husband and I are so busy with the kids, we don't really have much time to think about who is obeying whom. The important thing is to get dinner on the table and get to practice, or whatever.

    Do you not talk about the children’s education, household finances, social engagements, etc? What about religious observances? My wife, children, and I pray together every day and frequently pray the Rosary and also attend daily Mass. Do you not discuss matters of religion and spirit with your family?

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Do you not talk about the children’s education, household finances, social engagements, etc?
     
    Yes, and my husband doesn't really insist on any particular authority on any of these. He doesn't like any mixing of science with religion, so I respect his wishes on that. Otherwise, he trusts my judgment. Neither one of us makes major purchases without consulting the other. I suppose we just use negotiation and compromise.

    What about religious observances?
     
    My husband has a gargantuan heart of pure gold, but he's not terribly religious. With the exception of the above-mentioned issue, religion is mostly my jurisdiction.

    My wife, children, and I pray together every day and frequently pray the Rosary and also attend daily Mass.
     
    Must be nice to have that kind of free time.
  170. @Twinkie
    You seem more interested in “winning” than getting things right. Good luck to you.

    As I pointed out above in a reply to Rosie, your links to the NY Times article and IF Studies site show that marriage has declined among all strata, including the middle and upper class, and they show that fertility rates are lowest in the middle/upper class category.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    your links to the NY Times article and IF Studies site show that marriage has declined among all strata, including the middle and upper class
     
    Good grief. I can't tell if you are suffering from a serious reading comprehension/elementary school math competency issue or you are just trolling. I am strongly inclined to believe Rosie that it is the latter.

    Look at these numbers:

    1990 % married
    Poor: 51%, working-class: 57%, middle- and upper-class: 65%

    Now % married
    Poor: 26%, working-class: 39%, middle- and upper-class: 56%

    In roughly 30 years, the marriage percentage of the poor collapsed by almost 50%. Among the working-class, it has declined by over 30%. Meanwhile, among the middle- and upper-class, it has declined by only close to 14%.

    And of course the bastardy rate among the poor is now 64% while in the middle- and upper-class category, it is only 13%.

    These are significant, society-altering differences (I would suspect that if you were to break up the middle- and upper-classes, the differences would be even more pronounced).


    fertility rates are lowest in the middle/upper class category.
     
    AE has already shown that education attainment (esp. of women) is inversely correlated to fertility while income is mildly positively correlated. But that data does not break down the middle/upper class category (stops at $150k+ per annum, which is below the median in many "super zip" areas, including where my primary residence is).

    But, what does this have to do with the increased tendency toward assortative marriages?

  171. @Anonymous
    As I pointed out above in a reply to Rosie, your links to the NY Times article and IF Studies site show that marriage has declined among all strata, including the middle and upper class, and they show that fertility rates are lowest in the middle/upper class category.

    your links to the NY Times article and IF Studies site show that marriage has declined among all strata, including the middle and upper class

    Good grief. I can’t tell if you are suffering from a serious reading comprehension/elementary school math competency issue or you are just trolling. I am strongly inclined to believe Rosie that it is the latter.

    Look at these numbers:

    1990 % married
    Poor: 51%, working-class: 57%, middle- and upper-class: 65%

    Now % married
    Poor: 26%, working-class: 39%, middle- and upper-class: 56%

    In roughly 30 years, the marriage percentage of the poor collapsed by almost 50%. Among the working-class, it has declined by over 30%. Meanwhile, among the middle- and upper-class, it has declined by only close to 14%.

    And of course the bastardy rate among the poor is now 64% while in the middle- and upper-class category, it is only 13%.

    These are significant, society-altering differences (I would suspect that if you were to break up the middle- and upper-classes, the differences would be even more pronounced).

    fertility rates are lowest in the middle/upper class category.

    AE has already shown that education attainment (esp. of women) is inversely correlated to fertility while income is mildly positively correlated. But that data does not break down the middle/upper class category (stops at $150k+ per annum, which is below the median in many “super zip” areas, including where my primary residence is).

    But, what does this have to do with the increased tendency toward assortative marriages?

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Look at these numbers:
     
    I did look at those numbers. They show that marriage rates have declined for all strata, including the middle/upper class.

    But, what does this have to do with the increased tendency toward assortative marriages?
     
    You injected yourself in a discussion I was having with Rosie. Rosie pointed to a graph depicting how men's educational attainment over that of their wives within marriages has been declining over time and recently fell below that of their wives. I responded that this trend has been concomitant with a precipitous decline in marriage rates, hitting record lows roughly around the same time that men's educational attainment fell below that of their wives within marriages. You then jumped in with the irrelevant point that "marriage is increasingly becoming an upper crust phenomenon", as if that obviates anything that was said and despite the fact that your own cite shows that marriage has declined at all strata, including the middle/upper class.
  172. Anonymous[292] • Disclaimer says:
    @Twinkie

    your links to the NY Times article and IF Studies site show that marriage has declined among all strata, including the middle and upper class
     
    Good grief. I can't tell if you are suffering from a serious reading comprehension/elementary school math competency issue or you are just trolling. I am strongly inclined to believe Rosie that it is the latter.

    Look at these numbers:

    1990 % married
    Poor: 51%, working-class: 57%, middle- and upper-class: 65%

    Now % married
    Poor: 26%, working-class: 39%, middle- and upper-class: 56%

    In roughly 30 years, the marriage percentage of the poor collapsed by almost 50%. Among the working-class, it has declined by over 30%. Meanwhile, among the middle- and upper-class, it has declined by only close to 14%.

    And of course the bastardy rate among the poor is now 64% while in the middle- and upper-class category, it is only 13%.

    These are significant, society-altering differences (I would suspect that if you were to break up the middle- and upper-classes, the differences would be even more pronounced).


    fertility rates are lowest in the middle/upper class category.
     
    AE has already shown that education attainment (esp. of women) is inversely correlated to fertility while income is mildly positively correlated. But that data does not break down the middle/upper class category (stops at $150k+ per annum, which is below the median in many "super zip" areas, including where my primary residence is).

    But, what does this have to do with the increased tendency toward assortative marriages?

    Look at these numbers:

    I did look at those numbers. They show that marriage rates have declined for all strata, including the middle/upper class.

    But, what does this have to do with the increased tendency toward assortative marriages?

    You injected yourself in a discussion I was having with Rosie. Rosie pointed to a graph depicting how men’s educational attainment over that of their wives within marriages has been declining over time and recently fell below that of their wives. I responded that this trend has been concomitant with a precipitous decline in marriage rates, hitting record lows roughly around the same time that men’s educational attainment fell below that of their wives within marriages. You then jumped in with the irrelevant point that “marriage is increasingly becoming an upper crust phenomenon”, as if that obviates anything that was said and despite the fact that your own cite shows that marriage has declined at all strata, including the middle/upper class.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    I did look at those numbers. They show that marriage rates have declined for all strata, including the middle/upper class.
     
    If that is all you can deduce, you might wish to go back to elementary school for remedial math.

    You injected yourself in a discussion I was having with Rosie.
     
    My first comment to you was in response to the female doctor thread between you and “dvorak.”

    And I commented on it, because I sit on the board of a multi-hospital healthcare system and am well-acquainted with to whom female physicians are married.

  173. @Anonymous

    Look at these numbers:
     
    I did look at those numbers. They show that marriage rates have declined for all strata, including the middle/upper class.

    But, what does this have to do with the increased tendency toward assortative marriages?
     
    You injected yourself in a discussion I was having with Rosie. Rosie pointed to a graph depicting how men's educational attainment over that of their wives within marriages has been declining over time and recently fell below that of their wives. I responded that this trend has been concomitant with a precipitous decline in marriage rates, hitting record lows roughly around the same time that men's educational attainment fell below that of their wives within marriages. You then jumped in with the irrelevant point that "marriage is increasingly becoming an upper crust phenomenon", as if that obviates anything that was said and despite the fact that your own cite shows that marriage has declined at all strata, including the middle/upper class.

    I did look at those numbers. They show that marriage rates have declined for all strata, including the middle/upper class.

    If that is all you can deduce, you might wish to go back to elementary school for remedial math.

    You injected yourself in a discussion I was having with Rosie.

    My first comment to you was in response to the female doctor thread between you and “dvorak.”

    And I commented on it, because I sit on the board of a multi-hospital healthcare system and am well-acquainted with to whom female physicians are married.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    If that is all you can deduce, you might wish to go back to elementary school for remedial math.
     
    You might want to try being intellectually honest.

    That is not all that can be deduced; it's simply the point that is relevant to this discussion, the point that you're trying to obfuscate for some reason.

    My first comment to you was in response to the female doctor thread between you and “dvorak.”
     
    But that's not what we're talking about here.
  174. @Twinkie
    Do you not talk about the children’s education, household finances, social engagements, etc? What about religious observances? My wife, children, and I pray together every day and frequently pray the Rosary and also attend daily Mass. Do you not discuss matters of religion and spirit with your family?

    Do you not talk about the children’s education, household finances, social engagements, etc?

    Yes, and my husband doesn’t really insist on any particular authority on any of these. He doesn’t like any mixing of science with religion, so I respect his wishes on that. Otherwise, he trusts my judgment. Neither one of us makes major purchases without consulting the other. I suppose we just use negotiation and compromise.

    What about religious observances?

    My husband has a gargantuan heart of pure gold, but he’s not terribly religious. With the exception of the above-mentioned issue, religion is mostly my jurisdiction.

    My wife, children, and I pray together every day and frequently pray the Rosary and also attend daily Mass.

    Must be nice to have that kind of free time.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    He doesn’t like any mixing of science with religion,
     
    What does that mean and what does that have to do with this?

    religion is mostly my jurisdiction.
     
    In Catholicism, fathers are to be the spiritual leaders of their families.

    Must be nice to have that kind of free time.
     
    We all get 24 hours a day. It’s a matter of priorities/allocation. And I probably have more children than you do.
  175. @Rosie

    Do you not talk about the children’s education, household finances, social engagements, etc?
     
    Yes, and my husband doesn't really insist on any particular authority on any of these. He doesn't like any mixing of science with religion, so I respect his wishes on that. Otherwise, he trusts my judgment. Neither one of us makes major purchases without consulting the other. I suppose we just use negotiation and compromise.

    What about religious observances?
     
    My husband has a gargantuan heart of pure gold, but he's not terribly religious. With the exception of the above-mentioned issue, religion is mostly my jurisdiction.

    My wife, children, and I pray together every day and frequently pray the Rosary and also attend daily Mass.
     
    Must be nice to have that kind of free time.

    He doesn’t like any mixing of science with religion,

    What does that mean and what does that have to do with this?

    religion is mostly my jurisdiction.

    In Catholicism, fathers are to be the spiritual leaders of their families.

    Must be nice to have that kind of free time.

    We all get 24 hours a day. It’s a matter of priorities/allocation. And I probably have more children than you do.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    We all get 24 hours a day. It’s a matter of priorities/allocation. And I probably have more children than you do.
     
    Indeed. Childhood is for play and learning IMO.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    We all get 24 hours a day.

    Every time I'd say something to the effect of "I don't have time to do that" or "I didn't have time to get it done", my dad would say the same. Sagacity.
  176. Anonymous[292] • Disclaimer says:
    @Twinkie

    I did look at those numbers. They show that marriage rates have declined for all strata, including the middle/upper class.
     
    If that is all you can deduce, you might wish to go back to elementary school for remedial math.

    You injected yourself in a discussion I was having with Rosie.
     
    My first comment to you was in response to the female doctor thread between you and “dvorak.”

    And I commented on it, because I sit on the board of a multi-hospital healthcare system and am well-acquainted with to whom female physicians are married.

    If that is all you can deduce, you might wish to go back to elementary school for remedial math.

    You might want to try being intellectually honest.

    That is not all that can be deduced; it’s simply the point that is relevant to this discussion, the point that you’re trying to obfuscate for some reason.

    My first comment to you was in response to the female doctor thread between you and “dvorak.”

    But that’s not what we’re talking about here.

    • Troll: Twinkie
    • Replies: @Rosie

    You might want to try being intellectually honest.
     
    That's rich coming from you.
  177. @Twinkie

    He doesn’t like any mixing of science with religion,
     
    What does that mean and what does that have to do with this?

    religion is mostly my jurisdiction.
     
    In Catholicism, fathers are to be the spiritual leaders of their families.

    Must be nice to have that kind of free time.
     
    We all get 24 hours a day. It’s a matter of priorities/allocation. And I probably have more children than you do.

    We all get 24 hours a day. It’s a matter of priorities/allocation. And I probably have more children than you do.

    Indeed. Childhood is for play and learning IMO.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Childhood is for play and learning IMO.
     
    Religious education IS an important part of learning, as is ethics/virtue inculcation.

    And I’m a big fan of the Greek concept of Agoge.
  178. @Anonymous

    If that is all you can deduce, you might wish to go back to elementary school for remedial math.
     
    You might want to try being intellectually honest.

    That is not all that can be deduced; it's simply the point that is relevant to this discussion, the point that you're trying to obfuscate for some reason.

    My first comment to you was in response to the female doctor thread between you and “dvorak.”
     
    But that's not what we're talking about here.

    You might want to try being intellectually honest.

    That’s rich coming from you.

  179. @Rosie

    We all get 24 hours a day. It’s a matter of priorities/allocation. And I probably have more children than you do.
     
    Indeed. Childhood is for play and learning IMO.

    Childhood is for play and learning IMO.

    Religious education IS an important part of learning, as is ethics/virtue inculcation.

    And I’m a big fan of the Greek concept of Agoge.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Religious education IS an important part of learning, as is ethics/virtue inculcation.
     
    I figure all wisdom and virtue flow from love of God, which flows from joyful living and a sense of wonder at His Creation, not religious exercises. If you tell your child that God wants him on his knees praying rosaries rather than playing in the sunshine with other little children, what are you telling your child about God's attributes?
  180. @Twinkie

    Childhood is for play and learning IMO.
     
    Religious education IS an important part of learning, as is ethics/virtue inculcation.

    And I’m a big fan of the Greek concept of Agoge.

    Religious education IS an important part of learning, as is ethics/virtue inculcation.

    I figure all wisdom and virtue flow from love of God, which flows from joyful living and a sense of wonder at His Creation, not religious exercises. If you tell your child that God wants him on his knees praying rosaries rather than playing in the sunshine with other little children, what are you telling your child about God’s attributes?

    • Replies: @Talha
    Why are the options mutually exclusive; why can’t the kid do both? My kids do their five daily prayers* (even the one before dawn) are trying to memorize Quran* and they still have time to play with friends (whether they are shooting hoops or each other on fortnite). Kids have a lot of time on their hands (my son also does Track and Soccer for high school) and usually just waste it if you don’t give them direction.

    Religious practice teaches the kids discipline and that they have responsibilities towards God and He has expectations of them as they grow older - isn’t that a valuable lesson to learn? I mean you don’t have to teach it to them like a drill sargeant else you are liable to beat the religion out of them.

    Peace.

    *MashaAllah
    , @Twinkie

    playing in the sunshine with other little children, what are you telling your child about God’s attributes?
     
    It just so happened that the weather where I live was unusually sunny and warm today (70F rather than the usual 20-30F), so my family and I, including the dogs, were all outside playing for hours... but not for the greater glory of God - just for pure fun. :) Yet another benefit of flexibility that homeschooling affords.

    But I don't think children not playing outside enough is what's making people secular and anti-religion.

    If you tell your child that God wants him on his knees praying rosaries

     

    I don't tell my children that God wants them on their knees for prayer. I tell them *I* want them on their knees for prayer, because I insist on a certain amount of discomfort and deference as necessary elements of inculcating children properly. But the amount of time they spend on their knees in prayer pales in comparison to the hours they spend on their knees at Judo and Jujitsu.

    joyful living and a sense of wonder at His Creation, not religious exercises.
     
    It appears that you consider religious observances as unpleasant chores, not something joyful. I am sad to read this.

    Joy is not necessarily the same as fun. You might not have fun doing hard work, but you might derive a great deal of joy from overcoming and mastering something difficult.

    My family and I, indeed, derive much joy in attending Mass almost daily (and not because it's challenging). To my children, who have been reared in participating in the celebration of Mass, it is not some cold, distant, meaningless series of empty rituals - it is something wondrous, miraculous, and joyous, something indeed to celebrate and communally! Having been reared in it from baby-hood, my children understand the meaning of every gesture the priest makes, the readings, the hymns, and the entirety of the rituals. They are transfixed by it all, and it is something that permeates all of their lives, not some isolated thing to put in a box on the schedule book and declare "good enough."

    As I mentioned in another comment about homeschooling in another thread, this kind of life is not for everyone, and neither would I judge someone who doesn't lead such a life as defective or less deserving of dignity.

    But what is true is that both religiosity and propriety have declined tremendously in our society - and I don't think it's because children are being reared with less fun today. I think it's more that children are being inculcated with less discipline and with a higher, frankly exaggerated, regard for themselves and their feelings.
  181. @Rosie

    Religious education IS an important part of learning, as is ethics/virtue inculcation.
     
    I figure all wisdom and virtue flow from love of God, which flows from joyful living and a sense of wonder at His Creation, not religious exercises. If you tell your child that God wants him on his knees praying rosaries rather than playing in the sunshine with other little children, what are you telling your child about God's attributes?

    Why are the options mutually exclusive; why can’t the kid do both? My kids do their five daily prayers* (even the one before dawn) are trying to memorize Quran* and they still have time to play with friends (whether they are shooting hoops or each other on fortnite). Kids have a lot of time on their hands (my son also does Track and Soccer for high school) and usually just waste it if you don’t give them direction.

    Religious practice teaches the kids discipline and that they have responsibilities towards God and He has expectations of them as they grow older – isn’t that a valuable lesson to learn? I mean you don’t have to teach it to them like a drill sargeant else you are liable to beat the religion out of them.

    Peace.

    *MashaAllah

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Why are the options mutually exclusive; why can’t the kid do both?
     
    Sunday school, a brief family prayer of thanksgiving at dinner time, weekly Bible lessons, and of informal chats about God are what my kids get for religious instruction, and to me it seems more than enough. Moreover, fitting anything more in would be much easier said than done, just as a logistical matter.

    Those of us who were raised Catholic often have bad memories of sitting through interminable Masses, Heaven forbid you and a friend start laughing and can't stop. Then there's the ridiculous spectacle of innocent seven-year-olds doing penance!

    Don't get me wrong. My fellow Protestants often go too far in eschewing repetitious prayer, fasting, devotions, etc, I readily admit. All these things have their place, but they are not appropriate for children.

    , @Talha
    Sorry, I meant “before sunrise”...even I have trouble waking for the optional pre-dawn night-vigil prayer.
  182. @Talha
    Why are the options mutually exclusive; why can’t the kid do both? My kids do their five daily prayers* (even the one before dawn) are trying to memorize Quran* and they still have time to play with friends (whether they are shooting hoops or each other on fortnite). Kids have a lot of time on their hands (my son also does Track and Soccer for high school) and usually just waste it if you don’t give them direction.

    Religious practice teaches the kids discipline and that they have responsibilities towards God and He has expectations of them as they grow older - isn’t that a valuable lesson to learn? I mean you don’t have to teach it to them like a drill sargeant else you are liable to beat the religion out of them.

    Peace.

    *MashaAllah

    Why are the options mutually exclusive; why can’t the kid do both?

    Sunday school, a brief family prayer of thanksgiving at dinner time, weekly Bible lessons, and of informal chats about God are what my kids get for religious instruction, and to me it seems more than enough. Moreover, fitting anything more in would be much easier said than done, just as a logistical matter.

    Those of us who were raised Catholic often have bad memories of sitting through interminable Masses, Heaven forbid you and a friend start laughing and can’t stop. Then there’s the ridiculous spectacle of innocent seven-year-olds doing penance!

    Don’t get me wrong. My fellow Protestants often go too far in eschewing repetitious prayer, fasting, devotions, etc, I readily admit. All these things have their place, but they are not appropriate for children.

    • Replies: @Talha

    are what my kids get for religious instruction
     
    Seems more than what many kids get and might be just fine for making sure they are on the right track going forward.

    much easier said than done, just as a logistical matter
     
    You know your situation better as a mother. I wasn’t trying to criticize you; my point was that there is no choice one has to make between letting kids play and also making sure they get religious instruction.

    Some of the more hard core families I know take their kids out of school for about 2-3 years to have them memorize the Quran. Then they catch up with studies and join school again. My son’s best friends did this. During those years they still have time to play and have fun.

    I can’t speak for other religions, but an open floor space at a mosque is a kid’s dream. They run around like crazy sometimes. Usually nobody cares unless they are being too loud. And they are usually asked to keep quiet only during the group prayer which is fairly short. Friday sermons are usually not over 20-30 minutes (people got to get to work and kids are at school).

    I was taught to ease kids into practice; start them off with a prayer here and there a half-day fast once in a while in Ramadan until they are old enough to appreciate it - usually around 12-13. Forcing it and pushing it early is a recipe for disaster.

    Peace.
    , @Twinkie

    to me it seems more than enough.
     
    Enough for what?

    Those of us who were raised Catholic often have bad memories of sitting through interminable Masses
     
    I find it the opposite. Mass ends too quickly for me! I attend Latin Mass and find it beautiful and magnificent. And the music! Why inertly say the Creed when you can sing it! https://youtu.be/ErJ3u_ePnuI

    Heaven forbid you and a friend start laughing and can’t stop.
     
    Setting aside the fact that it is a house of worship, do you not think laughing uproariously and continuously is just bad manners, especially in consideration of others nearby trying to pray and observe?

    Then there’s the ridiculous spectacle of innocent seven-year-olds doing penance!
     
    How strange. Recently, one of my boys shoved one of his sisters. He went to Confession and told the priest about it and was given one Hail Mary and was told to be extra nice and helpful to that little sister for the rest of the week. Why is this ridiculous?
    , @Twinkie
    By the way, Rosie, my goal here is not to degenerate the conversation into a "My Kung Fu is stronger than your Kung Fu"-style argument, as conversations about religion and child-rearing often do, particularly online and anonymously.

    My intent is not to attack your philosophy of child-rearing or religious education, but I may appear overly zealous. I hope you will forgive me for the over-enthusiasm of a convert.*

    *I grew up as an evangelical Protestant. My mother's family was all Catholic, but she rebelled and became an evangelical Protestant and filled me with all sorts of anti-Catholic bigotry when I was little.

    Then, one year before my wife and I converted (independently), SHE became a Catholic first. Try to imagine the first conversation she and I had after she did so (and I hadn't yet). Yeah, it was fun.
  183. @Talha
    Why are the options mutually exclusive; why can’t the kid do both? My kids do their five daily prayers* (even the one before dawn) are trying to memorize Quran* and they still have time to play with friends (whether they are shooting hoops or each other on fortnite). Kids have a lot of time on their hands (my son also does Track and Soccer for high school) and usually just waste it if you don’t give them direction.

    Religious practice teaches the kids discipline and that they have responsibilities towards God and He has expectations of them as they grow older - isn’t that a valuable lesson to learn? I mean you don’t have to teach it to them like a drill sargeant else you are liable to beat the religion out of them.

    Peace.

    *MashaAllah

    Sorry, I meant “before sunrise”…even I have trouble waking for the optional pre-dawn night-vigil prayer.

  184. @Rosie

    Why are the options mutually exclusive; why can’t the kid do both?
     
    Sunday school, a brief family prayer of thanksgiving at dinner time, weekly Bible lessons, and of informal chats about God are what my kids get for religious instruction, and to me it seems more than enough. Moreover, fitting anything more in would be much easier said than done, just as a logistical matter.

    Those of us who were raised Catholic often have bad memories of sitting through interminable Masses, Heaven forbid you and a friend start laughing and can't stop. Then there's the ridiculous spectacle of innocent seven-year-olds doing penance!

    Don't get me wrong. My fellow Protestants often go too far in eschewing repetitious prayer, fasting, devotions, etc, I readily admit. All these things have their place, but they are not appropriate for children.

    are what my kids get for religious instruction

    Seems more than what many kids get and might be just fine for making sure they are on the right track going forward.

    much easier said than done, just as a logistical matter

    You know your situation better as a mother. I wasn’t trying to criticize you; my point was that there is no choice one has to make between letting kids play and also making sure they get religious instruction.

    Some of the more hard core families I know take their kids out of school for about 2-3 years to have them memorize the Quran. Then they catch up with studies and join school again. My son’s best friends did this. During those years they still have time to play and have fun.

    I can’t speak for other religions, but an open floor space at a mosque is a kid’s dream. They run around like crazy sometimes. Usually nobody cares unless they are being too loud. And they are usually asked to keep quiet only during the group prayer which is fairly short. Friday sermons are usually not over 20-30 minutes (people got to get to work and kids are at school).

    I was taught to ease kids into practice; start them off with a prayer here and there a half-day fast once in a while in Ramadan until they are old enough to appreciate it – usually around 12-13. Forcing it and pushing it early is a recipe for disaster.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    I was taught to ease kids into practice; start them off with a prayer here and there a half-day fast once in a while in Ramadan until they are old enough to appreciate it – usually around 12-13.
     
    That sounds about right.
  185. @Talha

    are what my kids get for religious instruction
     
    Seems more than what many kids get and might be just fine for making sure they are on the right track going forward.

    much easier said than done, just as a logistical matter
     
    You know your situation better as a mother. I wasn’t trying to criticize you; my point was that there is no choice one has to make between letting kids play and also making sure they get religious instruction.

    Some of the more hard core families I know take their kids out of school for about 2-3 years to have them memorize the Quran. Then they catch up with studies and join school again. My son’s best friends did this. During those years they still have time to play and have fun.

    I can’t speak for other religions, but an open floor space at a mosque is a kid’s dream. They run around like crazy sometimes. Usually nobody cares unless they are being too loud. And they are usually asked to keep quiet only during the group prayer which is fairly short. Friday sermons are usually not over 20-30 minutes (people got to get to work and kids are at school).

    I was taught to ease kids into practice; start them off with a prayer here and there a half-day fast once in a while in Ramadan until they are old enough to appreciate it - usually around 12-13. Forcing it and pushing it early is a recipe for disaster.

    Peace.

    I was taught to ease kids into practice; start them off with a prayer here and there a half-day fast once in a while in Ramadan until they are old enough to appreciate it – usually around 12-13.

    That sounds about right.

    • Replies: @Anonn
    Some women are mentally ill monsters who need to be kept locked up.
  186. @Rosie

    I was taught to ease kids into practice; start them off with a prayer here and there a half-day fast once in a while in Ramadan until they are old enough to appreciate it – usually around 12-13.
     
    That sounds about right.

    Some women are mentally ill monsters who need to be kept locked up.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Talha
    As well as some men; what’s your point?

    Peace.
  187. @Anonn
    Some women are mentally ill monsters who need to be kept locked up.

    As well as some men; what’s your point?

    Peace.

  188. @Rosie

    Religious education IS an important part of learning, as is ethics/virtue inculcation.
     
    I figure all wisdom and virtue flow from love of God, which flows from joyful living and a sense of wonder at His Creation, not religious exercises. If you tell your child that God wants him on his knees praying rosaries rather than playing in the sunshine with other little children, what are you telling your child about God's attributes?

    playing in the sunshine with other little children, what are you telling your child about God’s attributes?

    It just so happened that the weather where I live was unusually sunny and warm today (70F rather than the usual 20-30F), so my family and I, including the dogs, were all outside playing for hours… but not for the greater glory of God – just for pure fun. 🙂 Yet another benefit of flexibility that homeschooling affords.

    But I don’t think children not playing outside enough is what’s making people secular and anti-religion.

    If you tell your child that God wants him on his knees praying rosaries

    I don’t tell my children that God wants them on their knees for prayer. I tell them *I* want them on their knees for prayer, because I insist on a certain amount of discomfort and deference as necessary elements of inculcating children properly. But the amount of time they spend on their knees in prayer pales in comparison to the hours they spend on their knees at Judo and Jujitsu.

    joyful living and a sense of wonder at His Creation, not religious exercises.

    It appears that you consider religious observances as unpleasant chores, not something joyful. I am sad to read this.

    Joy is not necessarily the same as fun. You might not have fun doing hard work, but you might derive a great deal of joy from overcoming and mastering something difficult.

    My family and I, indeed, derive much joy in attending Mass almost daily (and not because it’s challenging). To my children, who have been reared in participating in the celebration of Mass, it is not some cold, distant, meaningless series of empty rituals – it is something wondrous, miraculous, and joyous, something indeed to celebrate and communally! Having been reared in it from baby-hood, my children understand the meaning of every gesture the priest makes, the readings, the hymns, and the entirety of the rituals. They are transfixed by it all, and it is something that permeates all of their lives, not some isolated thing to put in a box on the schedule book and declare “good enough.”

    As I mentioned in another comment about homeschooling in another thread, this kind of life is not for everyone, and neither would I judge someone who doesn’t lead such a life as defective or less deserving of dignity.

    But what is true is that both religiosity and propriety have declined tremendously in our society – and I don’t think it’s because children are being reared with less fun today. I think it’s more that children are being inculcated with less discipline and with a higher, frankly exaggerated, regard for themselves and their feelings.

  189. @Rosie

    Why are the options mutually exclusive; why can’t the kid do both?
     
    Sunday school, a brief family prayer of thanksgiving at dinner time, weekly Bible lessons, and of informal chats about God are what my kids get for religious instruction, and to me it seems more than enough. Moreover, fitting anything more in would be much easier said than done, just as a logistical matter.

    Those of us who were raised Catholic often have bad memories of sitting through interminable Masses, Heaven forbid you and a friend start laughing and can't stop. Then there's the ridiculous spectacle of innocent seven-year-olds doing penance!

    Don't get me wrong. My fellow Protestants often go too far in eschewing repetitious prayer, fasting, devotions, etc, I readily admit. All these things have their place, but they are not appropriate for children.

    to me it seems more than enough.

    Enough for what?

    Those of us who were raised Catholic often have bad memories of sitting through interminable Masses

    I find it the opposite. Mass ends too quickly for me! I attend Latin Mass and find it beautiful and magnificent. And the music! Why inertly say the Creed when you can sing it!

    Heaven forbid you and a friend start laughing and can’t stop.

    Setting aside the fact that it is a house of worship, do you not think laughing uproariously and continuously is just bad manners, especially in consideration of others nearby trying to pray and observe?

    Then there’s the ridiculous spectacle of innocent seven-year-olds doing penance!

    How strange. Recently, one of my boys shoved one of his sisters. He went to Confession and told the priest about it and was given one Hail Mary and was told to be extra nice and helpful to that little sister for the rest of the week. Why is this ridiculous?

  190. @Rosie

    Why are the options mutually exclusive; why can’t the kid do both?
     
    Sunday school, a brief family prayer of thanksgiving at dinner time, weekly Bible lessons, and of informal chats about God are what my kids get for religious instruction, and to me it seems more than enough. Moreover, fitting anything more in would be much easier said than done, just as a logistical matter.

    Those of us who were raised Catholic often have bad memories of sitting through interminable Masses, Heaven forbid you and a friend start laughing and can't stop. Then there's the ridiculous spectacle of innocent seven-year-olds doing penance!

    Don't get me wrong. My fellow Protestants often go too far in eschewing repetitious prayer, fasting, devotions, etc, I readily admit. All these things have their place, but they are not appropriate for children.

    By the way, Rosie, my goal here is not to degenerate the conversation into a “My Kung Fu is stronger than your Kung Fu”-style argument, as conversations about religion and child-rearing often do, particularly online and anonymously.

    My intent is not to attack your philosophy of child-rearing or religious education, but I may appear overly zealous. I hope you will forgive me for the over-enthusiasm of a convert.*

    *I grew up as an evangelical Protestant. My mother’s family was all Catholic, but she rebelled and became an evangelical Protestant and filled me with all sorts of anti-Catholic bigotry when I was little.

    Then, one year before my wife and I converted (independently), SHE became a Catholic first. Try to imagine the first conversation she and I had after she did so (and I hadn’t yet). Yeah, it was fun.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    I hope you will forgive me for the over-enthusiasm of a convert.*
     
    I certainly will forgive you. I'm just not convinced that, if you want your children to follow in your faith, you're going about it the right way. It's your family, so follow your own conscience. Just be careful not to overdo it, that's all.

    Setting aside the fact that it is a house of worship, do you not think laughing uproariously and continuously is just bad manners, especially in consideration of others nearby trying to pray and observe?
     
    Yes, but that's just it. When you're a kid, sometimes you can't help it, and that raises the question whether Mass is an appropriate place for children.
  191. @Audacious Epigone
    Through my sister. It wasn't an arranged meetup or anything like that, she was just at my parents' house one time when I came home and the rest is history as they say. Same SES/cultural milieu I am. Unfortunately she's just a bit of an outlier so I'm not sure I have much strategic advice to give.

    She only wanted two children. Then she only wanted three. Now she only wants four! Four is probably be where we'll call it quits. So maybe there's something to go off of there--if she wants to have children, don't get too caught up on the number if you think her number is too low. If she loves the first kid (she will), breaking through the resistance on more kids probably won't be too difficult.

    Yes, she is a good huwhite woman. Whiter than I am--she has blue eyes, I don't.

    Whiter than I am–she has blue eyes, I don’t.

    Wait, so you’re not Jumbo? And here I thought I had you doxxed. Dammit, that’s the last time I listen to Mr Townshend..

  192. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian

    So maybe there’s something to go off of there–if she wants to have children, don’t get too caught up on the number if you think her number is too low.
     
    Funny you mention that - I consider myself to have done a (small) good deed for our future. My ex-girlfriend (white), was one of the "never want kids" type women. Once I demonstrated to her how a real, loving relationship with a firm and assertive male goes - she suddenly realized she wanted to have kids. Two, in fact. Although we're unfortunately no longer together, I like to think that I did help move the ball forward for our future. After feeling that, she still wants to have kids, even if it's not with me. Once you feel it you can't unfeel it. Every little bit counts.

    This goes to show, however, that men have a huge role to play in women's fertility. If a woman comes into contact with an upright, serious, and loving male she is almost certain to want kids. Many women actually think that most men are simply fuckboys who want one-night stands, and adjust their behavior accordingly. Men being horny idiots have a great deal of responsibility for the fertility crisis among whites.

    My great fear is that I will never find a wife and have kids. I guess I'm still young, though. If I have some whitepills for the future, it's that a large number of young white men are actually looking for relationships. I'm consistently impressed at how many younger white men want kids and a family. Fingers crossed, and keep rolling strong.

    UFO

    she suddenly realized she wanted to have kids. Two, in fact. Although we’re unfortunately no longer together, I like to think that I did help move the ball forward

    Yeah, I’m not sure that anecdote reflects on you the way you think it does.

    Be that as it may, some advice unsolicited: Find a broad from an intact family, who adores her daddy, whose daddy you resemble in character, and shit test her to see how she responds. If she’s loyal, put a ring on her and knock her up. Guys put too much emphasis on a broad’s mother when it’s their relationship with their father that can provide so much insight.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_Fathers,_Strong_Daughters
    , @Rosie

    Find a broad from an intact family, who adores her daddy, whose daddy you resemble in character, and shit test her to see how she responds.
     
    I know of six White children who would nebver have been born if a certain White man had followed this advice.
  193. @Audacious Epigone
    Through my sister. It wasn't an arranged meetup or anything like that, she was just at my parents' house one time when I came home and the rest is history as they say. Same SES/cultural milieu I am. Unfortunately she's just a bit of an outlier so I'm not sure I have much strategic advice to give.

    She only wanted two children. Then she only wanted three. Now she only wants four! Four is probably be where we'll call it quits. So maybe there's something to go off of there--if she wants to have children, don't get too caught up on the number if you think her number is too low. If she loves the first kid (she will), breaking through the resistance on more kids probably won't be too difficult.

    Yes, she is a good huwhite woman. Whiter than I am--she has blue eyes, I don't.

    She only wanted two children. Then she only wanted three. Now she only wants four! Four is probably be where we’ll call it quits.

    My wife turned into an extreme pro-natalist once the first child was born.

    Don’t stop when it’s the hardest – 3 or 4. It gets easier after that. Pinkie-promise.

    Absolutely the most harrowing time as parents for my wife and me was when we had a 3-year-old, a 1.5-year-old, and a newborn, basically three babies. I had so little sleep around that time that I have serious memory loss of that period. I rarely got REM sleep, they were so short. However, after that it got easier and easier, because the older ones helped out and we had built-in babysitters.

    It’s all peaches and cream now. Well, mostly anyway.

    • Agree: Rosie
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    You have found a chord of resonance and struck it hard. Ours are not quite that close together--two years between first and second, 30 months between second and third, but it's close enough to understand (and you had it harder still!). We'll take them one at a time--unless our next are twins!
  194. @Stan d Mute

    she suddenly realized she wanted to have kids. Two, in fact. Although we’re unfortunately no longer together, I like to think that I did help move the ball forward
     
    Yeah, I’m not sure that anecdote reflects on you the way you think it does.

    Be that as it may, some advice unsolicited: Find a broad from an intact family, who adores her daddy, whose daddy you resemble in character, and shit test her to see how she responds. If she’s loyal, put a ring on her and knock her up. Guys put too much emphasis on a broad’s mother when it’s their relationship with their father that can provide so much insight.
  195. Anonymous[384] • Disclaimer says:
    @Twinkie

    Christianity are patriarchal and sexist by contemporary standards.
     
    My wife and I are orthodox Catholics and follow the Church’s teachings on the husband-wife relationship. It’s true that the Church urges wives to obey their husbands - as the Church (the communion of all believers) obeyed Christ. At first glance, this seems oppressive. But the flip side is that husbands ought to sacrifice for their wives and the children as Christ sacrificed for the Church. That’s a rather good deal for the wives as Christ’s sacrifice was perfect (and extremely painful) while the Church’s obedience was (and is) imperfect.

    Ideal Christian patriarchy is not men ordering their wives around for their own gratification. Women voluntarily submit to their husbands, because they know that the husbands sacrifice themselves (even their lives, should that be necessary) and because the husbands’ spiritual leadership of their families are selfless in nature, not selfish. It is for this reason that I give an illustrated copy of “The Gift of the Magi” to every newly-wed couple in my community.

    Even in East Asia, which is still patriarchal to a great extent and “a man’s world,” men have worked hard and ground themselves down while women have collected the paychecks and controlled the household finances.

    True Christian patriarchy is not some porn show in which men dominate and degrade women - it is the leadership of families by men, which by the very nature of leadership, asks far more difficult sacrifices out of the men. Men die younger for a reason.

    It’s true that the Church urges wives to obey their husbands – as the Church (the communion of all believers) obeyed Christ.

    The Catholic Church does not teach this in the context of marriage, only in the context of the Church (Mulieres in ecclesiis taceant); you are confusing the marriage vows used by some Protestant denominations with the Catholic position, which stresses the equality of the spouses and the idea of marriage as a partnership.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    The Catholic Church does not teach this in the context of marriage, only in the context of the Church (Mulieres in ecclesiis taceant)
     
    http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a7.htm

    1616 This is what the Apostle Paul makes clear when he says: "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her," adding at once: "'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one. This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the Church."110
     
    Yes, “in reference to Christ and the Church.” Yet placed under the Sacrament of Matrimony, subheading Marriage in the Lord.
  196. @Twinkie
    By the way, Rosie, my goal here is not to degenerate the conversation into a "My Kung Fu is stronger than your Kung Fu"-style argument, as conversations about religion and child-rearing often do, particularly online and anonymously.

    My intent is not to attack your philosophy of child-rearing or religious education, but I may appear overly zealous. I hope you will forgive me for the over-enthusiasm of a convert.*

    *I grew up as an evangelical Protestant. My mother's family was all Catholic, but she rebelled and became an evangelical Protestant and filled me with all sorts of anti-Catholic bigotry when I was little.

    Then, one year before my wife and I converted (independently), SHE became a Catholic first. Try to imagine the first conversation she and I had after she did so (and I hadn't yet). Yeah, it was fun.

    I hope you will forgive me for the over-enthusiasm of a convert.*

    I certainly will forgive you. I’m just not convinced that, if you want your children to follow in your faith, you’re going about it the right way. It’s your family, so follow your own conscience. Just be careful not to overdo it, that’s all.

    Setting aside the fact that it is a house of worship, do you not think laughing uproariously and continuously is just bad manners, especially in consideration of others nearby trying to pray and observe?

    Yes, but that’s just it. When you’re a kid, sometimes you can’t help it, and that raises the question whether Mass is an appropriate place for children.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Just be careful not to overdo it, that’s all.
     
    There is no such thing as overdoing faith or godliness. I think perhaps you and I differ in philosophy, in part because our communities differ. I have a very active, faithful Catholic community - very tightly knit, very observant. Our daily Masses are well-attended, we homeschool together, our children belong to youth groups together and are friends with one another, we all go to retreats together, we babysit each other’s families, there are meal trains galore when someone has a newborn, the fathers go hunting together, we do group shooting (I’ve trained many of the women in the parish/homeschooling group in shooting), and so on. When the family is surrounded by others that share a similar philosophy, it’s not hard to reinforce the children with desired values.

    When you’re a kid, sometimes you can’t help it,
     
    I suppose I disagree with this. I think children can and should learn when and where one should be solemn and one needs not.

    I guess I’m just lucky that my children are very docile. My family and I have been able to go out to “fine dining” ever since we had our first baby. They behave well, at least in public. :)

    that raises the question whether Mass is an appropriate place for children.
     
    Never in all my years have I seen such a thing at Mass. Crying from babies, yes. But that’s rather tolerated - most parents take the baby out, calm him/her, then return, as my wife and I have done lots of times. At some point, I routinely spent almost the entire Mass rocking a baby carrier standing.
  197. @Stan d Mute

    she suddenly realized she wanted to have kids. Two, in fact. Although we’re unfortunately no longer together, I like to think that I did help move the ball forward
     
    Yeah, I’m not sure that anecdote reflects on you the way you think it does.

    Be that as it may, some advice unsolicited: Find a broad from an intact family, who adores her daddy, whose daddy you resemble in character, and shit test her to see how she responds. If she’s loyal, put a ring on her and knock her up. Guys put too much emphasis on a broad’s mother when it’s their relationship with their father that can provide so much insight.

    Find a broad from an intact family, who adores her daddy, whose daddy you resemble in character, and shit test her to see how she responds.

    I know of six White children who would nebver have been born if a certain White man had followed this advice.

  198. @Rosie

    I hope you will forgive me for the over-enthusiasm of a convert.*
     
    I certainly will forgive you. I'm just not convinced that, if you want your children to follow in your faith, you're going about it the right way. It's your family, so follow your own conscience. Just be careful not to overdo it, that's all.

    Setting aside the fact that it is a house of worship, do you not think laughing uproariously and continuously is just bad manners, especially in consideration of others nearby trying to pray and observe?
     
    Yes, but that's just it. When you're a kid, sometimes you can't help it, and that raises the question whether Mass is an appropriate place for children.

    Just be careful not to overdo it, that’s all.

    There is no such thing as overdoing faith or godliness. I think perhaps you and I differ in philosophy, in part because our communities differ. I have a very active, faithful Catholic community – very tightly knit, very observant. Our daily Masses are well-attended, we homeschool together, our children belong to youth groups together and are friends with one another, we all go to retreats together, we babysit each other’s families, there are meal trains galore when someone has a newborn, the fathers go hunting together, we do group shooting (I’ve trained many of the women in the parish/homeschooling group in shooting), and so on. When the family is surrounded by others that share a similar philosophy, it’s not hard to reinforce the children with desired values.

    When you’re a kid, sometimes you can’t help it,

    I suppose I disagree with this. I think children can and should learn when and where one should be solemn and one needs not.

    I guess I’m just lucky that my children are very docile. My family and I have been able to go out to “fine dining” ever since we had our first baby. They behave well, at least in public. 🙂

    that raises the question whether Mass is an appropriate place for children.

    Never in all my years have I seen such a thing at Mass. Crying from babies, yes. But that’s rather tolerated – most parents take the baby out, calm him/her, then return, as my wife and I have done lots of times. At some point, I routinely spent almost the entire Mass rocking a baby carrier standing.

  199. @Anonymous

    It’s true that the Church urges wives to obey their husbands – as the Church (the communion of all believers) obeyed Christ.
     
    The Catholic Church does not teach this in the context of marriage, only in the context of the Church (Mulieres in ecclesiis taceant); you are confusing the marriage vows used by some Protestant denominations with the Catholic position, which stresses the equality of the spouses and the idea of marriage as a partnership.

    The Catholic Church does not teach this in the context of marriage, only in the context of the Church (Mulieres in ecclesiis taceant)

    http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a7.htm

    1616 This is what the Apostle Paul makes clear when he says: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her,” adding at once: “‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one. This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the Church.”110

    Yes, “in reference to Christ and the Church.” Yet placed under the Sacrament of Matrimony, subheading Marriage in the Lord.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    Which is in turn derived from Ephesians 5: http://www.drbo.org/chapter/56005.htm

    [21] Being subject one to another, in the fear of Christ. [22] Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: [23] Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. [24] Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. [25] Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it:

    [26] That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life: [27] That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish. [28] So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife, loveth himself. [29] For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the church: [30] Because we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

    [31] For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. [32] This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the church. [33] Nevertheless let every one of you in particular love his wife as himself: and let the wife fear her husband.
     
    , @Rosie

    There is no such thing as overdoing faith or godliness.
     
    I'm sorry but millions of ex-Catholics would disagree with you.
    , @Rosie

    Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her,” adding at once:
     
    This is, of course, impossible in practice, which is my whole point. None of this translates very well into real life.
  200. @Twinkie

    The Catholic Church does not teach this in the context of marriage, only in the context of the Church (Mulieres in ecclesiis taceant)
     
    http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a7.htm

    1616 This is what the Apostle Paul makes clear when he says: "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her," adding at once: "'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one. This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the Church."110
     
    Yes, “in reference to Christ and the Church.” Yet placed under the Sacrament of Matrimony, subheading Marriage in the Lord.

    Which is in turn derived from Ephesians 5: http://www.drbo.org/chapter/56005.htm

    [21] Being subject one to another, in the fear of Christ. [22] Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: [23] Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. [24] Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. [25] Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it:

    [26] That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life: [27] That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish. [28] So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife, loveth himself. [29] For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the church: [30] Because we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

    [31] For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. [32] This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the church. [33] Nevertheless let every one of you in particular love his wife as himself: and let the wife fear her husband.

  201. @Twinkie

    The Catholic Church does not teach this in the context of marriage, only in the context of the Church (Mulieres in ecclesiis taceant)
     
    http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a7.htm

    1616 This is what the Apostle Paul makes clear when he says: "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her," adding at once: "'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one. This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the Church."110
     
    Yes, “in reference to Christ and the Church.” Yet placed under the Sacrament of Matrimony, subheading Marriage in the Lord.

    There is no such thing as overdoing faith or godliness.

    I’m sorry but millions of ex-Catholics would disagree with you.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    I’m sorry but millions of ex-Catholics would disagree with you.
     
    I don’t think too much godliness - whether on their part or on that of others around them - is why they are “ex-Catholics.”

    I see that, ever slowly, you can’t refrain from veering into “Your Kung Fu doesn’t work.” I think it would be unproductive to continue this conversation, so we should stop. I wish you well.
  202. @Twinkie

    The Catholic Church does not teach this in the context of marriage, only in the context of the Church (Mulieres in ecclesiis taceant)
     
    http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a7.htm

    1616 This is what the Apostle Paul makes clear when he says: "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her," adding at once: "'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one. This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the Church."110
     
    Yes, “in reference to Christ and the Church.” Yet placed under the Sacrament of Matrimony, subheading Marriage in the Lord.

    Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her,” adding at once:

    This is, of course, impossible in practice, which is my whole point. None of this translates very well into real life.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    This is, of course, impossible in practice, which is my whole point. None of this translates very well into real life.
     
    Many things are impossible in life, but that does not mean one gives up the pursuit of perfection in fear of failure.

    Am I ever going to be perfect in Judo? No, but I try everyday to get as close to it as possible.

    Not being God incarnate, my love for my wife is never going to be perfect, but I try.

    A wise person told me once that 50-50 marriages are bound to disappoint. If each spouse tries to do 50%, he/she, being imperfect, will inevitably fail to do 50% at times and they together will have a marriage of less than 100%. But if each reaches for 100% and inevitably fails, still they might, together, have a good shot at 100%. Mutual sacrifice bringing true love and happiness is the story of O. Henry’s The Gift of the Magi.

    All forms of love, be it paternal, fraternal, romantic, patriotic, or, indeed God’s love for man, have one thing in common: sacrifice - giving freely without expecting reciprocation. In my view, it’s not negotiation, not doing one’s share that makes a relationship of love work. It’s mutual sacrifice and the beautiful magic it creates that makes it “a foretaste of Heaven” as marriage is described in Christian faith.
  203. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @szopen
    Remember that historically it was not uncommon in north-western EUrope average date the women married was between 24 to 26. In Eastern Europe is was earlier.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_marriage_pattern

    "While the average age at first marriage had climbed to 25 years for women and 27 years for men in England and the Low Countries by the end of the 16th century,[17] and the percentage of unmarried Englishwomen rose from less than 10% to nearly 20% by the mid-17th century and their average age at first marriage rose to 26 years at the same time"

    The earlier pregnancy is dangerous for women's health and children. The lowest ratio for child defects is when mother's first child age is 26, while when assessing mother's health later in life it seems that the first-child age should be even later.

    Now thing which is more anecdotal, and not based on anything I've read, just on discussions with nurses: it seems that the chances for pregnancy and children for women at age 34 depend a lot of whether it's the first child or not. The doctors and nurses Ive talked to claimed, without giving sources (so it might be an urban legend common in their environment) that woman, who has already few children, would get less problems getting pregnant at close to 40 than women who is 35 and who is trying to get her first child.

    That was before the Industrial Revolution, when absolute standards of living were much lower. We also used to hang poor single mothers for shoplifting:

    http://www.executedtoday.com/2017/10/16/1771-mary-jones-hanged-for-shoplifting/

    Mary was thought to be about eighteen or nineteen years old but was already married with two children when her husband, William, was press ganged into the Navy to go to the Falkland Islands, leaving her virtually destitute. She lived with her friend Ann Styles in Angel Alley in the Strand and was at times reduced to begging to feed herself and the infants. It is said that she had her baby with her in the cart as she was taken to Tyburn to be hanged.

    More recently in the US, from the 50s until the early 80s, the median age of first marriage for women was below 22. From the 50s until the 70s, it was 20 years old:

    • Replies: @Rosie

    More recently in the US, from the 50s until the early 80s, the median age of first marriage for women was below 22. From the 50s until the 70s, it was 20 years old:
     
    I suspect being rushed into motherhood is part of why many women were dissatisfied. To this day, very early marriage is correlated with high divorce rates. Mid-20s is the sweet spot, where divorce risk is nearing its trough, but a woman still has plenty of fertile years ahead. Of course, if a couple wants to get married sooner, good for them!

    https://www.inspiredfinancial.biz/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/2016-10-06-Age-and-divorce-rate-graph-1024x878.jpg
  204. @Rosie

    Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her,” adding at once:
     
    This is, of course, impossible in practice, which is my whole point. None of this translates very well into real life.

    This is, of course, impossible in practice, which is my whole point. None of this translates very well into real life.

    Many things are impossible in life, but that does not mean one gives up the pursuit of perfection in fear of failure.

    Am I ever going to be perfect in Judo? No, but I try everyday to get as close to it as possible.

    Not being God incarnate, my love for my wife is never going to be perfect, but I try.

    A wise person told me once that 50-50 marriages are bound to disappoint. If each spouse tries to do 50%, he/she, being imperfect, will inevitably fail to do 50% at times and they together will have a marriage of less than 100%. But if each reaches for 100% and inevitably fails, still they might, together, have a good shot at 100%. Mutual sacrifice bringing true love and happiness is the story of O. Henry’s The Gift of the Magi.

    All forms of love, be it paternal, fraternal, romantic, patriotic, or, indeed God’s love for man, have one thing in common: sacrifice – giving freely without expecting reciprocation. In my view, it’s not negotiation, not doing one’s share that makes a relationship of love work. It’s mutual sacrifice and the beautiful magic it creates that makes it “a foretaste of Heaven” as marriage is described in Christian faith.

  205. @Rosie

    There is no such thing as overdoing faith or godliness.
     
    I'm sorry but millions of ex-Catholics would disagree with you.

    I’m sorry but millions of ex-Catholics would disagree with you.

    I don’t think too much godliness – whether on their part or on that of others around them – is why they are “ex-Catholics.”

    I see that, ever slowly, you can’t refrain from veering into “Your Kung Fu doesn’t work.” I think it would be unproductive to continue this conversation, so we should stop. I wish you well.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    I wish you well.
     
    Likewise.
    , @Stan d Mute

    I think it would be unproductive to continue this conversation, so we should stop. I wish you well.
     
    For a seemingly bright guy, you’re a slow learner. I suspect that this is the Jewish mind virus with which you’ve been afflicted. Spread the other cheek and all that. It’s probably incomprehensible to you, but I assure you it’s entirely possible and logically consistent to have mores and revere traditions without bowing down to some itinerant socialist hippie Jew carpenter who failed to magically reappear like he promised. Embrace your testosterone and learn to cut the line at the first sign it’s snagged. You’ll save yourself a lot of frustration and grief.
  206. @Twinkie

    I’m sorry but millions of ex-Catholics would disagree with you.
     
    I don’t think too much godliness - whether on their part or on that of others around them - is why they are “ex-Catholics.”

    I see that, ever slowly, you can’t refrain from veering into “Your Kung Fu doesn’t work.” I think it would be unproductive to continue this conversation, so we should stop. I wish you well.

    I wish you well.

    Likewise.

  207. @Anonymous
    That was before the Industrial Revolution, when absolute standards of living were much lower. We also used to hang poor single mothers for shoplifting:

    http://www.executedtoday.com/2017/10/16/1771-mary-jones-hanged-for-shoplifting/


    Mary was thought to be about eighteen or nineteen years old but was already married with two children when her husband, William, was press ganged into the Navy to go to the Falkland Islands, leaving her virtually destitute. She lived with her friend Ann Styles in Angel Alley in the Strand and was at times reduced to begging to feed herself and the infants. It is said that she had her baby with her in the cart as she was taken to Tyburn to be hanged.
     
    More recently in the US, from the 50s until the early 80s, the median age of first marriage for women was below 22. From the 50s until the 70s, it was 20 years old:

    https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/images/average-age-marriage-us-1521989692.jpg

    More recently in the US, from the 50s until the early 80s, the median age of first marriage for women was below 22. From the 50s until the 70s, it was 20 years old:

    I suspect being rushed into motherhood is part of why many women were dissatisfied. To this day, very early marriage is correlated with high divorce rates. Mid-20s is the sweet spot, where divorce risk is nearing its trough, but a woman still has plenty of fertile years ahead. Of course, if a couple wants to get married sooner, good for them!

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    I suspect being rushed into motherhood is part of why many women were dissatisfied. To this day, very early marriage is correlated with high divorce rates. Mid-20s is the sweet spot, where divorce risk is nearing its trough, but a woman still has plenty of fertile years ahead.
     
    It is odd that this needs to be stated on a site like this, but the notion that women were more dissatisfied in the postwar heyday of American families is not true and is leftist propaganda.

    The earlier age of marriage in the past was not associated with high divorce rates. Furthermore, the mid-20s is not a "sweet spot", it's just currently lower relative to the currently extremely high divorce rates. It's like saying that being obese today is some sort of sweet spot because there are so many morbidly obese around now.
  208. @Twinkie

    He doesn’t like any mixing of science with religion,
     
    What does that mean and what does that have to do with this?

    religion is mostly my jurisdiction.
     
    In Catholicism, fathers are to be the spiritual leaders of their families.

    Must be nice to have that kind of free time.
     
    We all get 24 hours a day. It’s a matter of priorities/allocation. And I probably have more children than you do.

    We all get 24 hours a day.

    Every time I’d say something to the effect of “I don’t have time to do that” or “I didn’t have time to get it done”, my dad would say the same. Sagacity.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Sagacity.
     
    Or insanity, with Asians parents. What is it that Amy Chua wrote in her Tiger Mom book? “It’s a mathematical truth - if you sleep less, you get more time to achieve things.”
  209. @Twinkie

    I’m sorry but millions of ex-Catholics would disagree with you.
     
    I don’t think too much godliness - whether on their part or on that of others around them - is why they are “ex-Catholics.”

    I see that, ever slowly, you can’t refrain from veering into “Your Kung Fu doesn’t work.” I think it would be unproductive to continue this conversation, so we should stop. I wish you well.

    I think it would be unproductive to continue this conversation, so we should stop. I wish you well.

    For a seemingly bright guy, you’re a slow learner. I suspect that this is the Jewish mind virus with which you’ve been afflicted. Spread the other cheek and all that. It’s probably incomprehensible to you, but I assure you it’s entirely possible and logically consistent to have mores and revere traditions without bowing down to some itinerant socialist hippie Jew carpenter who failed to magically reappear like he promised. Embrace your testosterone and learn to cut the line at the first sign it’s snagged. You’ll save yourself a lot of frustration and grief.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Christianity has done a far better job of it than any other Western tradition has. And yes, third century Rome is long enough to count as part of the Occident.
  210. @Twinkie

    She only wanted two children. Then she only wanted three. Now she only wants four! Four is probably be where we’ll call it quits.
     
    My wife turned into an extreme pro-natalist once the first child was born.

    Don’t stop when it’s the hardest - 3 or 4. It gets easier after that. Pinkie-promise.

    Absolutely the most harrowing time as parents for my wife and me was when we had a 3-year-old, a 1.5-year-old, and a newborn, basically three babies. I had so little sleep around that time that I have serious memory loss of that period. I rarely got REM sleep, they were so short. However, after that it got easier and easier, because the older ones helped out and we had built-in babysitters.

    It’s all peaches and cream now. Well, mostly anyway.

    You have found a chord of resonance and struck it hard. Ours are not quite that close together–two years between first and second, 30 months between second and third, but it’s close enough to understand (and you had it harder still!). We’ll take them one at a time–unless our next are twins!

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    unless our next are twins!
     
    That happened to a friend of mine!

    Good luck and Godspeed. Just remember that they grow fast, and enjoy every moment of it. Now that my wife and I are too old for more children, I regret deeply that I didn’t take a breath and savor all the experiences more. She and I now await the day that our children would wed and give us grandchildren. Then it will be just fun and games - all love, no expectations.
  211. @Stan d Mute

    I think it would be unproductive to continue this conversation, so we should stop. I wish you well.
     
    For a seemingly bright guy, you’re a slow learner. I suspect that this is the Jewish mind virus with which you’ve been afflicted. Spread the other cheek and all that. It’s probably incomprehensible to you, but I assure you it’s entirely possible and logically consistent to have mores and revere traditions without bowing down to some itinerant socialist hippie Jew carpenter who failed to magically reappear like he promised. Embrace your testosterone and learn to cut the line at the first sign it’s snagged. You’ll save yourself a lot of frustration and grief.

    Christianity has done a far better job of it than any other Western tradition has. And yes, third century Rome is long enough to count as part of the Occident.

    • Replies: @Stan d Mute
    The JewGod mind virus was grafted onto our pre-existing civilizational greatness and then led directly to the dark ages. Somehow, perhaps due to eugenic effects of the plague, we recovered for a time before the JewGod madness resurrected itself with a vengeance and transmogrified into PC/SJW/Communist universalism.

    Crediting the JewGod virus for our civilization is an opprobrious slander. We are (or were) great because of our innate inherited characteristics, not because of - but despite some ancient Jewish messianic cult. If it were otherwise, Chaldeans would have dominated the world rather than our late adopter ancestors.
    , @Twinkie

    Christianity has done a far better job of it than any other Western tradition has.
     
    You are mistaken, sir! It has done a far better job than ANY tradition, West or East. For all it’s flaws, it is the wellspring of so much goodness we take for granted today, and is the Mother of the West, which makes it the grandmother of modernity.
  212. @Audacious Epigone
    Christianity has done a far better job of it than any other Western tradition has. And yes, third century Rome is long enough to count as part of the Occident.

    The JewGod mind virus was grafted onto our pre-existing civilizational greatness and then led directly to the dark ages. Somehow, perhaps due to eugenic effects of the plague, we recovered for a time before the JewGod madness resurrected itself with a vengeance and transmogrified into PC/SJW/Communist universalism.

    Crediting the JewGod virus for our civilization is an opprobrious slander. We are (or were) great because of our innate inherited characteristics, not because of – but despite some ancient Jewish messianic cult. If it were otherwise, Chaldeans would have dominated the world rather than our late adopter ancestors.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    The JewGod mind virus was grafted onto our pre-existing civilizational greatness and then led directly to the dark ages.
     
    What led to “The Dark Ages” were the barbarian invasions by the Germans, Huns, Alans, etc. who could not maintain the Greek-Roman civilization (we now have the environmental data that confirm the collapses of the Third and Fifth/Sixth Centuries). The Church preserved the candles of civilization amidst all that chaos and ruin that later led to the great resurgence of the West and beyond.

    I’d recommend Étienne Gilson’s “The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy,” but, for some reason, the scene of Q in Star Trek The Next Generation quipping to Worf comes to mind. “Ah, Worf. Have you eaten any good books lately?”
  213. @Stan d Mute
    The JewGod mind virus was grafted onto our pre-existing civilizational greatness and then led directly to the dark ages. Somehow, perhaps due to eugenic effects of the plague, we recovered for a time before the JewGod madness resurrected itself with a vengeance and transmogrified into PC/SJW/Communist universalism.

    Crediting the JewGod virus for our civilization is an opprobrious slander. We are (or were) great because of our innate inherited characteristics, not because of - but despite some ancient Jewish messianic cult. If it were otherwise, Chaldeans would have dominated the world rather than our late adopter ancestors.

    The JewGod mind virus was grafted onto our pre-existing civilizational greatness and then led directly to the dark ages.

    What led to “The Dark Ages” were the barbarian invasions by the Germans, Huns, Alans, etc. who could not maintain the Greek-Roman civilization (we now have the environmental data that confirm the collapses of the Third and Fifth/Sixth Centuries). The Church preserved the candles of civilization amidst all that chaos and ruin that later led to the great resurgence of the West and beyond.

    I’d recommend Étienne Gilson’s “The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy,” but, for some reason, the scene of Q in Star Trek The Next Generation quipping to Worf comes to mind. “Ah, Worf. Have you eaten any good books lately?”

  214. @Audacious Epigone
    You have found a chord of resonance and struck it hard. Ours are not quite that close together--two years between first and second, 30 months between second and third, but it's close enough to understand (and you had it harder still!). We'll take them one at a time--unless our next are twins!

    unless our next are twins!

    That happened to a friend of mine!

    Good luck and Godspeed. Just remember that they grow fast, and enjoy every moment of it. Now that my wife and I are too old for more children, I regret deeply that I didn’t take a breath and savor all the experiences more. She and I now await the day that our children would wed and give us grandchildren. Then it will be just fun and games – all love, no expectations.

  215. @Audacious Epigone
    Christianity has done a far better job of it than any other Western tradition has. And yes, third century Rome is long enough to count as part of the Occident.

    Christianity has done a far better job of it than any other Western tradition has.

    You are mistaken, sir! It has done a far better job than ANY tradition, West or East. For all it’s flaws, it is the wellspring of so much goodness we take for granted today, and is the Mother of the West, which makes it the grandmother of modernity.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  216. @Audacious Epigone
    We all get 24 hours a day.

    Every time I'd say something to the effect of "I don't have time to do that" or "I didn't have time to get it done", my dad would say the same. Sagacity.

    Sagacity.

    Or insanity, with Asians parents. What is it that Amy Chua wrote in her Tiger Mom book? “It’s a mathematical truth – if you sleep less, you get more time to achieve things.”

  217. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    More recently in the US, from the 50s until the early 80s, the median age of first marriage for women was below 22. From the 50s until the 70s, it was 20 years old:
     
    I suspect being rushed into motherhood is part of why many women were dissatisfied. To this day, very early marriage is correlated with high divorce rates. Mid-20s is the sweet spot, where divorce risk is nearing its trough, but a woman still has plenty of fertile years ahead. Of course, if a couple wants to get married sooner, good for them!

    https://www.inspiredfinancial.biz/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/2016-10-06-Age-and-divorce-rate-graph-1024x878.jpg

    I suspect being rushed into motherhood is part of why many women were dissatisfied. To this day, very early marriage is correlated with high divorce rates. Mid-20s is the sweet spot, where divorce risk is nearing its trough, but a woman still has plenty of fertile years ahead.

    It is odd that this needs to be stated on a site like this, but the notion that women were more dissatisfied in the postwar heyday of American families is not true and is leftist propaganda.

    The earlier age of marriage in the past was not associated with high divorce rates. Furthermore, the mid-20s is not a “sweet spot”, it’s just currently lower relative to the currently extremely high divorce rates. It’s like saying that being obese today is some sort of sweet spot because there are so many morbidly obese around now.

    • Agree: Twinkie
    • Replies: @Rosie

    It is odd that this needs to be stated on a site like this, but the notion that women were more dissatisfied in the postwar heyday of American families is not true and is leftist propaganda.
     
    It is not propaganda to say that marriage and motherhood alone do not satisfy women, any more than it is to say that fatherhood and marriage alone do not satisfy men.

    It’s like saying that being obese today is some sort of sweet spot because there are so many morbidly obese around now.
     
    No it isn't. I have defined the sweet spot by reference to optimal outcomes, not mere centrism or moderation relative to an extreme.

    I understand that you think women only exist to serve men's sexual needs, and therefore are not entitled to any education or adventure before embarking on the selfless pursuit of motherhood, but nothing you say will ever make your own androcentric value system, according to which you limit full humanity to men only, a simple matter of objective common sense. You can be seen clearly for what you are: a psychopath who reduces human beings to instruments for the use and enjoyment of others.

    , @Twinkie

    It is odd that this needs to be stated on a site like this, but the notion that women were more dissatisfied in the postwar heyday of American families is not true and is leftist propaganda.
     
    https://www.nber.org/papers/w14969

    By many objective measures the lives of women in the United States have improved over the past 35 years, yet we show that measures of subjective well-being indicate that women's happiness has declined both absolutely and relative to men. The paradox of women's declining relative well-being is found across various datasets, measures of subjective well-being, and is pervasive across demographic groups and industrialized countries. Relative declines in female happiness have eroded a gender gap in happiness in which women in the 1970s typically reported higher subjective well-being than did men. These declines have continued and a new gender gap is emerging -- one with higher subjective well-being for men.
     
    Women were happier when they just took care of their families - now they do that AND work outside, often without much family/community support. This is not rocket science.
  218. @Anonymous

    I suspect being rushed into motherhood is part of why many women were dissatisfied. To this day, very early marriage is correlated with high divorce rates. Mid-20s is the sweet spot, where divorce risk is nearing its trough, but a woman still has plenty of fertile years ahead.
     
    It is odd that this needs to be stated on a site like this, but the notion that women were more dissatisfied in the postwar heyday of American families is not true and is leftist propaganda.

    The earlier age of marriage in the past was not associated with high divorce rates. Furthermore, the mid-20s is not a "sweet spot", it's just currently lower relative to the currently extremely high divorce rates. It's like saying that being obese today is some sort of sweet spot because there are so many morbidly obese around now.

    It is odd that this needs to be stated on a site like this, but the notion that women were more dissatisfied in the postwar heyday of American families is not true and is leftist propaganda.

    It is not propaganda to say that marriage and motherhood alone do not satisfy women, any more than it is to say that fatherhood and marriage alone do not satisfy men.

    It’s like saying that being obese today is some sort of sweet spot because there are so many morbidly obese around now.

    No it isn’t. I have defined the sweet spot by reference to optimal outcomes, not mere centrism or moderation relative to an extreme.

    I understand that you think women only exist to serve men’s sexual needs, and therefore are not entitled to any education or adventure before embarking on the selfless pursuit of motherhood, but nothing you say will ever make your own androcentric value system, according to which you limit full humanity to men only, a simple matter of objective common sense. You can be seen clearly for what you are: a psychopath who reduces human beings to instruments for the use and enjoyment of others.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    It is not propaganda to say that marriage and motherhood alone do not satisfy women, any more than it is to say that fatherhood and marriage alone do not satisfy men.
     
    This is a red herring. Nobody is arguing that marriage and motherhood and fatherhood alone satisfy people. The leftist propaganda does not merely claim that marriage and motherhood don't satisfy women. It says that the Leave it to Beaver suburban world of strong families and stay at home moms was brutally oppressive and sexist and filled with evil, wife beating alcoholic husbands. It says that families and motherhood are old fashioned and unnecessary, but that women can "have it all" if they want.

    No it isn’t. I have defined the sweet spot by reference to optimal outcomes, not mere centrism or moderation relative to an extreme.
     
    The reference is to current divorce rates. In other words, it's the age with the lowest divorce risk in the context of the very high divorce rates of today. It is not some Platonic, timeless, objective "sweet spot". Divorce rates across the board were much lower in the past. The whole average has shifted.

    I understand that you think women only exist to serve men’s sexual needs, and therefore are not entitled to any education or adventure before embarking on the selfless pursuit of motherhood
     
    I never said that. You think most men should only exist as a kind of servile eunuch class that furnishes the labor, infrastructure, and defense of society without any stakes in society themselves. While women can and should "have it all". At the same time, you, at least ostensibly, lament the decline of families and birth rates. This is not rocket science. There are tradeoffs.
  219. @Anonymous

    I suspect being rushed into motherhood is part of why many women were dissatisfied. To this day, very early marriage is correlated with high divorce rates. Mid-20s is the sweet spot, where divorce risk is nearing its trough, but a woman still has plenty of fertile years ahead.
     
    It is odd that this needs to be stated on a site like this, but the notion that women were more dissatisfied in the postwar heyday of American families is not true and is leftist propaganda.

    The earlier age of marriage in the past was not associated with high divorce rates. Furthermore, the mid-20s is not a "sweet spot", it's just currently lower relative to the currently extremely high divorce rates. It's like saying that being obese today is some sort of sweet spot because there are so many morbidly obese around now.

    It is odd that this needs to be stated on a site like this, but the notion that women were more dissatisfied in the postwar heyday of American families is not true and is leftist propaganda.

    https://www.nber.org/papers/w14969

    By many objective measures the lives of women in the United States have improved over the past 35 years, yet we show that measures of subjective well-being indicate that women’s happiness has declined both absolutely and relative to men. The paradox of women’s declining relative well-being is found across various datasets, measures of subjective well-being, and is pervasive across demographic groups and industrialized countries. Relative declines in female happiness have eroded a gender gap in happiness in which women in the 1970s typically reported higher subjective well-being than did men. These declines have continued and a new gender gap is emerging — one with higher subjective well-being for men.

    Women were happier when they just took care of their families – now they do that AND work outside, often without much family/community support. This is not rocket science.

  220. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    It is odd that this needs to be stated on a site like this, but the notion that women were more dissatisfied in the postwar heyday of American families is not true and is leftist propaganda.
     
    It is not propaganda to say that marriage and motherhood alone do not satisfy women, any more than it is to say that fatherhood and marriage alone do not satisfy men.

    It’s like saying that being obese today is some sort of sweet spot because there are so many morbidly obese around now.
     
    No it isn't. I have defined the sweet spot by reference to optimal outcomes, not mere centrism or moderation relative to an extreme.

    I understand that you think women only exist to serve men's sexual needs, and therefore are not entitled to any education or adventure before embarking on the selfless pursuit of motherhood, but nothing you say will ever make your own androcentric value system, according to which you limit full humanity to men only, a simple matter of objective common sense. You can be seen clearly for what you are: a psychopath who reduces human beings to instruments for the use and enjoyment of others.

    It is not propaganda to say that marriage and motherhood alone do not satisfy women, any more than it is to say that fatherhood and marriage alone do not satisfy men.

    This is a red herring. Nobody is arguing that marriage and motherhood and fatherhood alone satisfy people. The leftist propaganda does not merely claim that marriage and motherhood don’t satisfy women. It says that the Leave it to Beaver suburban world of strong families and stay at home moms was brutally oppressive and sexist and filled with evil, wife beating alcoholic husbands. It says that families and motherhood are old fashioned and unnecessary, but that women can “have it all” if they want.

    No it isn’t. I have defined the sweet spot by reference to optimal outcomes, not mere centrism or moderation relative to an extreme.

    The reference is to current divorce rates. In other words, it’s the age with the lowest divorce risk in the context of the very high divorce rates of today. It is not some Platonic, timeless, objective “sweet spot”. Divorce rates across the board were much lower in the past. The whole average has shifted.

    I understand that you think women only exist to serve men’s sexual needs, and therefore are not entitled to any education or adventure before embarking on the selfless pursuit of motherhood

    I never said that. You think most men should only exist as a kind of servile eunuch class that furnishes the labor, infrastructure, and defense of society without any stakes in society themselves. While women can and should “have it all”. At the same time, you, at least ostensibly, lament the decline of families and birth rates. This is not rocket science. There are tradeoffs.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Nobody is arguing that marriage and motherhood and fatherhood alone satisfy people.
     
    Then why do you begrudge women an opportunity for study or travel before settling down?

    It says that the Leave it to Beaver suburban world of strong families and stay at home moms was brutally oppressive and sexist and filled with evil, wife beating alcoholic husbands.
     
    There were no doubt plenty of wife-beating alcoholic husbands, and homelife was no doubt brutally oppressive for their unfortunate wives.

    It is not some Platonic, timeless, objective “sweet spot”.
     
    Actually...

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DoeJYHIVsAEGoZd.jpg

    I never said that.
     
    Yeah, you did say that. You demand that women be economically coerced into marriage for the benefit of men.

    While women can and should “have it all”.
     
    I absolutely never, ever said that. It is literally impossible for women to have it all, owing to the fact that we cannot be in two places at one time.

    There are tradeoffs.
     
    Indeed. I notice it's only ever women's rights you ever seem interested in "trading off."

    Here's a trade offer for you: no more birth control--> higher birth rates.
  221. @Anonymous

    It is not propaganda to say that marriage and motherhood alone do not satisfy women, any more than it is to say that fatherhood and marriage alone do not satisfy men.
     
    This is a red herring. Nobody is arguing that marriage and motherhood and fatherhood alone satisfy people. The leftist propaganda does not merely claim that marriage and motherhood don't satisfy women. It says that the Leave it to Beaver suburban world of strong families and stay at home moms was brutally oppressive and sexist and filled with evil, wife beating alcoholic husbands. It says that families and motherhood are old fashioned and unnecessary, but that women can "have it all" if they want.

    No it isn’t. I have defined the sweet spot by reference to optimal outcomes, not mere centrism or moderation relative to an extreme.
     
    The reference is to current divorce rates. In other words, it's the age with the lowest divorce risk in the context of the very high divorce rates of today. It is not some Platonic, timeless, objective "sweet spot". Divorce rates across the board were much lower in the past. The whole average has shifted.

    I understand that you think women only exist to serve men’s sexual needs, and therefore are not entitled to any education or adventure before embarking on the selfless pursuit of motherhood
     
    I never said that. You think most men should only exist as a kind of servile eunuch class that furnishes the labor, infrastructure, and defense of society without any stakes in society themselves. While women can and should "have it all". At the same time, you, at least ostensibly, lament the decline of families and birth rates. This is not rocket science. There are tradeoffs.

    Nobody is arguing that marriage and motherhood and fatherhood alone satisfy people.

    Then why do you begrudge women an opportunity for study or travel before settling down?

    It says that the Leave it to Beaver suburban world of strong families and stay at home moms was brutally oppressive and sexist and filled with evil, wife beating alcoholic husbands.

    There were no doubt plenty of wife-beating alcoholic husbands, and homelife was no doubt brutally oppressive for their unfortunate wives.

    It is not some Platonic, timeless, objective “sweet spot”.

    Actually…

    I never said that.

    Yeah, you did say that. You demand that women be economically coerced into marriage for the benefit of men.

    While women can and should “have it all”.

    I absolutely never, ever said that. It is literally impossible for women to have it all, owing to the fact that we cannot be in two places at one time.

    There are tradeoffs.

    Indeed. I notice it’s only ever women’s rights you ever seem interested in “trading off.”

    Here’s a trade offer for you: no more birth control–> higher birth rates.

  222. @Twinkie

    unless our next are twins!
     
    That happened to a friend of mine!

    Good luck and Godspeed. Just remember that they grow fast, and enjoy every moment of it. Now that my wife and I are too old for more children, I regret deeply that I didn’t take a breath and savor all the experiences more. She and I now await the day that our children would wed and give us grandchildren. Then it will be just fun and games - all love, no expectations.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS