|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The world's economies will be racked if fertility rates stay where they are".
Not true, i mean the west will lose population but there will be two billion more poeple on the planet on 2050.
If having children is a joy, poeple have them, if they are a burden, there will be less and less children, if it is a disgrace well almost none. After the western goverments socialized all economic benefits of having children but not the costs, children become a burden, now rather than pay men to have children they tax them to death, "child support", thus even less children, there is really anyone surprised about what is happening?, is so clear.
Goverments subsidiazed something and they get more of it, they tax it, and they get less of it, and if they criminalized they have almost nothing. We all know that becoming a father is not rewarded by western goverments it is punished, with 60% tax, the degradation of slave labor, lost of properties and eventually prision time.
Civilizations come and go, it is nature law, now we are witnessing the fall of the west, well an interesting time to live, just relax and see the show.
Take Care!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The world's economies will be racked if fertility rates stay where they are".
Not true, i mean the west will lose population but there will be two billion more poeple on the planet on 2050.
If only it were that simple.
I don't know if it's been translated to Spanish, and I know that English isn't your first language, but if it's possible, I'd recommend reading "The Coming Generational Storm," by Kotlikoff and Burns. The book, which studies the coming problems due to population collapse, has been highly praised by 4 Nobel Prize winners in economics. In addition, Kotlikoff is a professor of economics at MIT.
In the book, the authors show why the continued growth of world population through about 2050 (at which time population is expected to start collapsing worldwide) is extremely unlikely to help the world's economies. Quite the opposite, in fact. Even in the developing world, populations continue to increase largely because of age extension. Fertility rates have collapsed pretty much everywhere, though not yet everywhere below replacement rates. In areas where fertility is still above replacement rate, there are growing programs to introduce more birth control.
The ageing populace of developing nations together with their poorly nourished and poorly educated youths (most of the wealthy and middle class of these areas have few children) offer little hope for developed nations as developed nations' populations collapse.
Another false hope is that some technological breakthrough will save us. Yes, someone might develop cold fusion so that every neighborhood can have its own cheap reactor turning hydrogen into helium, but scientists have been on the trail of that one for a long time with little success. Then again, maybe we'll all have robot slaves creating wealth for us by 2025. But hoping for these things is somewhat like financial planning based on the expectation that one will win the lottery at age 65.
Yes, immigration will help the US a bit, certainly more than Europe or Japan, but we'll still be dragged down as those economies collapse because of the importance of international trade.
Again, I encourage you to take a look at "The Coming Generational Storm" or any of the other growing number of books looking at the problem of population collapse. There's simply no way out of this morass without tremendous hardship. Economists, including Alan Greenspan, are aware of this and are actually starting to warn about it. To little too late, I'm afraid.
Thomas
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I encourage you to take a look at "The Coming Generational Storm" .
I will do, thank you very much.
"In areas where fertility is still above replacement rate, there are growing programs to introduce more birth control. "
Yep, but if societies need more children the way to achive this is not but making people have undesire children, like for example banning contraceptives, but making poeple desire them, just giving enough incentive to have the required ammount, this has been acomplished un France, Denmark and Sweeden.
If the goverment want roads, they can pay poeple to build them or use their own citizens as slave labor, well i think we all prefer that they pay.
As i said, if having children is a joy, people have them, if it is a burden they have few, if they become a disgrace they have none, is not that people are now or here more selfish than before or there, it is just that the circumstances and the consecuences of having children are different.
Just imagine for a moment that things would be the other way round, a society in wich women that have children has no right to rise them, recieve no goverment aid, get their properties taken away, 60% of their income, they have to stand that men becomes social parasites that exploite them as slave labor, and eventually sent to jail, for what reason should those women want to have children?, under these circumstances would any one surprised that they donīt have?, ofcourse no, evryone would find that an aberration and suicidal.
Some goverments have already reckon that, like the ones i said, having enough children is easy, just pay enough and you will make the more reluctant people willing to have them, make them a burden and you will have less, give death sentences to people that have children and you will have none, tell the half the population that if they have children they will be punished with slave labor, jail time and lost of properties and you will have very few.
Right now it seems the kindergarden of Europe is Africa, and Latin America in case of USA, it seems is cheaper to produce children there rather than here, internationalitation of human labor pruduction?, and by now there are enough surplus, but in the future they will have to change demographic policies, or right now if they do not want to have their cultures watered down to nothingness through inmigration.
Take Care!!
PD: I will read the book, thank you again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello Break:
I agree with much of what you've said. However, regarding France, Denmark, and Sweden having sufficient children as a result of "giving enough incentive," these countries have seen little effect so far as a result of such incentivizing. Replacement fertility rate in these countries is 2.1. Until economies are deeply modified, above replacement fertility rate is needed to prevent social collapse, which begins with extreme population ageing and defaults on transfer payments such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid in the US. Despite programs to encourage births, the fertility rates of France, Denmark, and Sweden are 1.9 ,1.8, and 1.6 respectively -- below replacement.
Australia has been kicking around ideas to incentivize parenthood for a while now and, as far as I know, Japan's "New Angel" program will go into effect next April. It'll be interesting to see how things develop there. With the continued erosion of male-female relations and the continued destruction of the traditional family, however, it's hard to see how matters will improve soon.
Two of the most chilling aspects of this are:
1. It takes about two and a half decades for a newborn to develop into a fully contributing member of society. So even if birth rates are turned around today, it will be two or three decades before the newborns are relieving the social problems that have been created by decades of declining fertility.
2. Men moreso than women will be expected to pay the higher taxes to support these incentive programs because the new mothers, many of them single, will want to spend time raising their children. Unfortunately, while the family has been being destroyed, so has male-education. Men won't be educated enough to create as much wealth to support women and their children and the rest of society as they could have had they been better educated. Will women in general decide to support relatively poorly educated men to stay at home and raise the children while the women go off to more hours of work at more demanding jobs than the men? Will they see to it that, in the event of a divorce, those men are protected by laws that force the women to lose some or all custody to the parent (father) who was most involved in raising the child? Will they see to it that, in the event of a divorce, those men are protected by laws that force the women to continue to support the men?
I doubt it, but we have yet to see.
You're right, though that criminalizing fatherhood will not lead to an increase in fertility. Quite the opposite in fact.
Enjoy the book!
Thomas
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Despite programs to encourage births, the fertility rates of France, Denmark, and Sweden are 1.9 ,1.8, and 1.6 respectively -- below replacement. "
True but they have rebounded, from much lower rates to those ones, just there are not enough incentives, and still remain quite strong disincentives yet.
If the goverment needs lets say 100 soldiers and with the pay they offer just can cover 50 of those jobs, the problem is not that paying is not the way to get soldiers so another solution should be devised, like ......... slavery, the problem is that the salary is not high enough.
Less child support and more benefits means more children, less benefits and more child support means less children. Punishment for having children, means less children, rewards for having them, means more children, as simple as that.
As the family transformed from being a unit of production to being a unit of consumption, children were no longer to be viewed as economic assets but rather as liabilities. With this historic change, coupled with the commodification of so many aspects of family life, it should come as no surprise that a price tag has been affixed to the cost of having children.
When framing parenting as some expensive hobby--all for someone who doesn't write home when an adult--it would seem most rational economically to raise cats or dogs.
But this only accounts for married people, for a lot of men is not only a burden, a expensive fancy, is much, much worst, means slave labor and prision. And still there are poeple wondering why fertility rates are so low?, amazing, is so clear.
what can be said about "child support"?, it is total madness, taxing people for having children instead of paying them, what a bunch of idiots.
The 'Social Situation Report 2002', published annually by the European Commission, maintains, however, that immigration alone can never counterbalance the effects of an ageing population in Europe and cannot solve the EU's labour market problems. It shows that even doubling immigration rates and simultaneously doubling fertility rates will not, on their own, make a significant contribution to securing sustainable labour markets and pensions systems at the year 2050.
So too late, however:
Patrick J. Buchanan told NPQ in an interview that according to his research, "it is as difficult to find a Western society where populations are not shrinking, as it is to find a Muslim society where populations are not exploding."
"There is not a single Western nation that has a birth-rate today that will enable it to stay alive in its present form after the middle of this century."
"He expressed his fears frankly in the following words: "The Islamic peoples of North Africa and the Middle East are moving in the hundreds of thousands into Europe every year."
"Of Europe's forty-seven nations, only one, Muslim Albania, was, by 2000 maintaining a birthrate sufficient to keep it alive indefinitely. Europe had begun to die."
"Europe's future is as [EURABIA], how will the native population react? Particularly given that Muslims are quick to consolidate power once they achieve the ability to do so. The northern states of Nigeria are a good example of what happens to a secular state once Muslims win at the ballot box. The sharia courts are already being applied to Christians, despite assurances that they wouldn't be. If you need a starker example of Muslim coexistence, look to Sudan."
"You're right, though that criminalizing fatherhood will not lead to an increase in fertility. Quite the opposite in fact."
Women can have children on their own, they can even rape men and have children from them without their consent, and even get rewarded with the state male slave labor programs, altough for the average women this does not means too much money, but they can not force men to desire children.
I have female friends on their 20īs and 30īs that they will want to have children as long as they can find a father for their children, even without beeing married or living in the same house, but they can notfind anyone. They could trick their lovers into a child, but this is not what they want, they need a man that encourages them to have children, that shares their ilusion for children, having to chose between remainig childless or having a child on their own, they chose to remain childless.
However given the policies regarding male reproduction rights and responsabilities, for lot of western men the idea of having children has become just nauseating, as nauseating as imaginating a life of slavery, chronical poverty and jail.
Take Care!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To: BroncoTickets
I think you would like to know your advertisement at The Cornell Daily Sun may have negative effects on your image.
The Sun has printed bigoted hate speech that can have be found at this link: http://www.cornellsun.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004 /05/06/4099f23890634?in_archive=1
When contacted about this article the editor replied as such:
http://www.cornellsun.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004 /09/23/41525e63ce744
I hope this informs you about your financial support of The Cornell Daily Sun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:29 PM September 29th, 2004 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Oh yes.
Good ol' KISS. They were my favorite band, back in the 70's. (Yeah, I know, I'm old.)
Gotta say I'm with Gene, one hundred percent.
Even if she seems like the sweetest angel from heven, all I can say is; "DON'T YOU DO IT!!!!"
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:36 PM September 29th, 2004 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Gene Simmons days, It's not beneficial for a man to marry. The worst thing a man can do is get married because he has to give 50 per cent of his gross pre-tax dollars to a woman who has given him nothing, apart from companionship.
He's right. A man's work should be done for its own sake, and never to impress potential mates. This is wrong. For as long as reproductive fitness is correlated with economic effectiveness, there will be no economic justice possible between men and women. So, men should not become providers, and women should stop looking for them.
Mens Economist
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:04 PM September 29th, 2004 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
In a traditional marriage, women don't just give companionship. They maintain the home and make it a place where one would want to live and entertain guests, to raise children.. which responsible unemployed women do most of.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:28 PM September 29th, 2004 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
In a traditional marriage, women don't just give companionship. They maintain the home and make it a place where one would want to live and entertain guests, to raise children.. which responsible unemployed women do most of.
That's immoral! It's wrong to agree to an arrangement where another partner is forced to support another one. One's work should be for its own sake, and not to support a household for the frivolous purpose of entertaining guests, or the immoral purpose of enhancing one's perceived reproductive fitness. Not until reproductive fitness is uncorrelated with economic effectiveness will there be true economic equality between the sexes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But sometimes those "responsible unemployed women" get "liberated" (in another words, brainwashed by the Maternalist-Feminists) and have no more use for their Male Hosts (aka hard working Husbands and great Fathers of their children), so it's a trip to the divorce court for them to collect on their husbands' (Male Hosts)wealth and assets.
Then she can remain unemployed, take her husbands' children (if they're even biologically his but whose to say without a paternity test) away from him, suck up all of his money, roost in HIS nest and kick him out of it, and live like the little parasite the Maternalist-Feminists bred her to be.
If men these days want companionship, create a secure group of good [loyal] friends and buy a pet.
Pets don't ruin your life financially, socially, and politically.
*Ms.Thea the Pre-Law Major, Pro-Gender Egalitarian, and Pro-Reproductive Rights Activist*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MS. Thea
I love reading your posts and am glad you are here. However sometimes I think (and do not be offened) you are a little too hard on your own gender. Gentlemen: don't take this as breach in my loyalty but if MS. right entered my life (and I have to admit I am not looking very hard) I would have no problem supporting her is she wanted to stay home and be a companion and put that wonderful female touch to the home. As for marrying her, well that may be a different story. After hanging out at this site for at least a year now, I have to admit it is beginning to affect my thinking about a lot of men's issures. So I must agree with a lot of this or I would not be coming back so frequently.
Pete in Nebraska
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pete,
As painful as it is for me to admit this, I would have to say, even you you find Ms Right, its probably best if you dont get married. Under the best of circumstances the marital relationship has a shelf life of about 10 years and no longer. I have yet to personally see an exception to this. After that its all about having a good room mate. At that point you have to decide if you want to be a doormat, and put up with her constant BS, or the financial hardship that men inevitably face at the end of the marriage.
The sad fact of marriage today is that, if your income ever falls below hers, if you are ever intimately unavailable, if a whole bunch of other reasons, she is going to split, and take all your stuff. Amicable divorces dont seem to exist. Make it extra nasty by adding some children into the mix. If you somehow manage to avoid all these pitfalls, she is still going to be emotionally and intimately unavailable.
I guess there is one more possibility... The woman becomes so fat and hidious that she has zero chance of finding another man, and she will cling cling cling. This is probably the worst possiblity.
When my dad told me this right before I got married all I could think was... What a jerk! Well a bunch of years later, and it turns out he was exactly right.
Greg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Greg;
thanks for passing that on and as painful as this may be I have agree with you. I have several married male friends, one has been married over 30 years as they married very young. He has told me many times if his wife ever passed away he would never do it again. Funny you should mention the fat women. This would be one of my biggest fears. She turns into a blimp. I know I could never live with that. Furthermore I sure as hell do not see many slim petite women (which is how I like them) today. This may sound shallow but I like slim pretty girls. If she turned into a blimp I would give her 6 months to loose it or she would loose me. Right now I do not even think I could take such a chance being a business owner and home owner, have too much to loose. But I have had lots of pretty and younger girl friends in the past and cannot seem to get them off my mind.
Pete in Nebraska
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's nothing wrong with having aesthetic preferences. Physical attraction is what makes that 'chemistry' happen between two people.
Who wants to be married to a Hippo?
I, unlike a lot of women who just seem to let themselves go once they trap a man in marriage take good care of myself. I exercise regularly and don't pig out all the time like a lot women are doing these days.
My skinny and healthy looking brother is forever tied down to very, VERY fat woman who is now pregnant (for the third damn time because SHE wants to be a birthing-goddess apparently) so she's going to look morbidly obese in a few months.
And my brother has been a physically-fit handsome guy (a 'stud' according to his old girlfriends who still bug him) and looks like he could be a rugged athletic male model but he is OWNED by a tyrranical fat bitch who refuses to finish her college education and get a REAL career.
He's a regional manager of a major hardware store chain and is making ALL of the money and doing ALL OF THE REAL WORK, while she's barely working in retail. She just wants to lay around the house on her border-line-obese ass (the two kids are in pre-school and kindergarten so it's not as if she as a reason to stay home)and suck him dry of his money.
I'll be damned if I ever end up to be plump or fat. I work my ass off to keep it from getting bigger.
And it's worked! I'm not apart of the 60% plus of women who are plump/chunky/overweight/obese. I'm healthy (I'm not model-thin but I'm tonned and fit).
And it's all because I get up off of my ass and exercise, and don't lay around eating bon-bons, reading Cosmo, watching Oprah, Sex And The City re-runs, and Dr.Phil.
Once most woman like my sister-in-law trap a man in marriage they let themselves go because they NO longer have any reason to look healthy and thin.
Once they duped the poor guy with their feminine wiles, their job is done.
Marriage in the Western Civilization is bullshit.
It's about manipulation, swindling, exhortion, false advertising on the part of the female, and exploitation.
Just find a person and become [hetero] life-partners with them(the religious people would call that living-in-sin but fuck 'em).
PS: I'm also for homosexual people choosing homosexual life-partners as well. Once again, fuck the Religious Right. Religion extremism (and bigotry) is responsible for a lot misery in the world and in history.
I hope to find a male life-partner in the future. NO marriage, NO pomp and pagentry, NO rings, NO paperwork, and NO ceremonies! Marriage only RUINS things. REMEMBER THAT GUYS!!!!
Nothing shallow about wanting a healthy looking soulmate.
*Ms.Thea the Pre-Law Major, Pro-Gender Egalitarian, and Pro-Reproductive Rights Activist*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh and NO kids for me either! Kids REALLY fuck things up, and RUINS the relationship. I want to be attached and devoted to ONLY ONE person.
*Ms.Thea the Pre-Law Major, Pro-Gender Egalitarian, and Pro-Reproductive Rights Activist*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:33 PM September 29th, 2004 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
There is nothing worse than someone who really wants kids but isn't really mature enough for them, and I am glad that you are not one of them, Thea. However, I don't agree with your generalization that children destroy all relationships. My parents are rather happily married, and I would hate to think that they regretted having me.
I also politely disagree with your apparent belief that being a housewife is inferior to having a job. It can be superior, in fact, when children are involved. Even children in school benefit from having a mother to come home to, though a part-time job can allow for that. I don't know what kind of ambitions my future wife will have, but if she indeed becomes my wife, a high prioritization of the children is prerequisite.
-
P.S. I believe that marriage should not be a legal institution, that couples who want a third-party to acknowledge their union should seek their own private means, religious or otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:40 PM September 29th, 2004 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
This is a plug, but oh well. I think every woman should read Laura Schlessinger's "Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands" before accepting an engagement, then again before marriage, then every year until she or her husband dies.
I have heard some people say that the book demeans men by calling us "simple." It doesn't do that, it is very complimentary toward our gender; we are heroes, providers, bulwarks of emotional support, etc. It just says we aren't as hard to please as women, that our NEEDs are simple. The further contention is that wives don't acknowledge the the needs of husbands at all, and there is no excuse for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:20 PM September 29th, 2004 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
Nonsense: men should do their work for the sake of doing it. Working and accumulating wealth to impress potential mates is morally reprehensible, as morally vile as determining reproductive fitness based on economic effectiveness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Male Mind is *NOT* simple or feeble. The Male Mind is rational and logical. (and more stable)
The superficial needs of Males (i.e. Material things) are FAR *LESS* complicated (and NOT exaggerated), than what American women think we (the XX chromosome sex) are entitled to in regards to superficial and emotional needs.
When is the last time one of you guys felt the urge to just own an Armani or fancy-designer wallet? (I would love to get my dad a Gucci wallet but I'm a poor ass college kid)
When's the last time one of you felt as if lots of money and spending every last penny of it on some kind of fancy-designer wear was the ONLY key to happiness?
Would I love to own one of the new Winter 2005 CHANEL line of purses? Hell yes! But material wealth NEVER solves any kinds of emotional problems or fulfills any needs.
Hence why most shop-oholic American females keep spending money their money on shit. That purse won't solve anything.
And the so-called emotional needs of the postmodern American woman has been socialized (aka brainwashed)into the minds of most women by Oprah, Sex And The City, pseudo-Therapists, Dr Phil, Cosmo Magazine, and Lipstick Feminists (aka gold-digging sex-ploitationist-Feminists).
How the HELL is a monotonous hour long therapy session of one emotionally inbalanced, socially-spoiled creature (aka the majority of women unfortunately) droning on and on about nothing going to fulfill any emotional needs?
Oh that's right, it WON'T!!! It's an ego-trip for these spoiled, selfish women who LOVE hearing the sound of their OWN damn voices, and BELITTLING the poor guy who had the unfortunate twist of fate to end up with such a bratty creature.
My emotional needs are simple (in comparison to these spoiled women's standard).
I just want my future male partner to let me know that he loves me once in a great awhile (NOT every five seconds--once a day would be fine), understand that sex during my cycle (hint-hint) is NOT a good (clean) thing, sex after I've learned that a close relative has died (i.e. my Father) would not be a good thing for awhile (two weeks probably, the death of my father would mean a temporary collapse of my mental stability).
But I like to grieve/morn by myself. I get over tough things better and quicker when I'm alone. I HATE being smothered by people (even if I love them) when I'm grieving for people I have lost.
I don't need cuddling 24/7 (like I said I HATE being smothered), I don't need compliments, I don't need that Chanel purse, I don't need apologies, I don't need chocolates, I don't need cards, I don't need diamonds, I don't need French cuisine dinners, I don't need to go on a cruise, I don't need flowers delivered to my office, I don't need [or want] to watch a romantic flick, I don't need teddy bears, I don't need [or want] my eggs to be fertilized, and I don't need any of that hyped up, greedy, materialistic, selfish, egotistical bullshit that so many people of my gender THINK they need.
I want *NONE* of those things!!! I've gotten along just fine without them and will continue to do just fine without them.
I'm living proof that women do *NOT* need that shit in order to survive and be happy.
Being realistic will make one happy. It's worked for me.
*Ms.Thea the Pre-Law Major, Pro-Gender Egalitarian, and Pro-Reproductive Rights Activist*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I dont really like being contrarian, but boy are you wrong...
Its something biological, I cant explain it. Something about the pain of childbirth makes a woman hate the man that did that to her forever. It starts a grudge that NEVER gets better. After a child it is always just below the surface.
My guess is, you wont heed my adivce, so I offer this. When your future bride starts talking about things like "Natural Child Birth", strongly and firmly disagree. You want her on all the drugs that the sadistic obgyn's will give her. As soon as labor starts, demand an epidural for her. Don't take no for an answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK Ms. Thea, Now I wish I were in my 20's. Why? Because I would hunt you down, wrap you around my little finger so tightly you would never want to be with anyone else!
So you are female, obviously very bright and intelligent (as I said I love reading your posts)and you like fitness and working out and keeping yourself looking good. Just what I have alway been looking for except for the fact that I am a little too old for you. I have always had a secret ambition in life to be a boxer. Boxers are the ultimate in fitness and power. So one of my passions is to be in the shape of one. The last 20 years I have been working out, today my waist size is 30 and I weigh in at 149lbs. Like to stand in front of the full length mirror and throw punches at myself. I am probably be one of the best looking 54 year olds you would ever see.
But enough of that, nice to know there are ladies like you out there, keeps my hopes up.
Pete in Nebraska
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I hope to find a male life-partner in the future.
I'm sure you'll have no difficulty finding one. We need a few thousand more like you.
Don't get mad. Get organised.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:34 PM September 30th, 2004 EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
I guess I'm a bit of an odd-ball, because I never really cared too much what my "soul mate" looked like. I didn't care if she was fat. (exept,perhaps for health reasons) Just as long as she was a "good" person, loved and respected me as much as I loved and respected her, was a reasonable conversationalist and reasonably intellegent (and a better speller than me, for example) I just really never cared.
And yes, I know I'm speaking in 'past tense'. It is because I gave up long ago.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And while on that webpage featuring Simmons, don't forget to check out the "Babe of the Day" (look to your left).
BRY
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A men's economist is something we really need, but I have to disagree with you about the relationship between men's reproductive fitness and economic effectiveness. Sex and economics have always been linked.
To understand human sexuality, you need to see it in evolutionary terms. A good book to read is "Why is Sex Fun?" by Jared Diamond. The title sounds like some New Age self-help crap, but it is not, it's popular science.
Reproductive fitness is often measured in terms of number of surviving offspring. When you are choosing a mate, therefore, you should choose one who will help you to maximise the number of your surviving offspring, and over millions of years we have evolved to become very successful at predicting the reproductive fitness of potential mates. I know that today a lot of us choose whether or not to have children, but we still respond to the same biological cues whether we realise it or not.
Males and females go about choosing mates in different ways. For a man, a good strategy is to impregnate as many females as possible. In theory he can leave thousands of surviving offspring. He has two strategies available. He can either be a 'show-off' or a 'good husband'. Gene Simmons is a successful show-off. The best strategy for a man is to go for quantity, assuming he can get them. If he can't (because there are too many other, better show-offs around) then he can play dull but reliable hubby instead and stick to one female. Thus there is great variation in male reproductive success; some men leave many offspring, and others leave none.
A woman, on the other hand, can only get pregnant once at a time, and can only leave a very small number of surviving offspring at most, and each time it is potentially life-threatening, so it is not something she should ever engage in lightly. Moreover, pretty much all females can find a mate if they want to, so there is much less variation in female reproductive success.
In addition, each child requires a lot of care and investment to bring it to maturity, and men are generally unwilling to support kids which are not their own - it is better for her and the kid if paternity is known, so it is not in her interest to be wildly promiscuous.
Thus, women benefit from being choosy. The best strategy for her when choosing a mate is to go for quality rather than quantity, and for this reason, men will always have to compete against each other to impress.
What counts as reproductive fitness is different for males and females.
First of all, good looks in both sexes are an indicator of good genes and a strong immune system. It is also the case that high status individuals of both sexes can leave more surviving offspring than low status ones, so wealth (economics) and politics does enter into it, whether we like it or not. However, beyond that the sexes differ.
In a woman, reproductive fitness is about fertility, which is basically youth and health. Contrary to feminist claims, beauty is not a myth. You can tell a lot about a woman's fertility by looking at her. That's really what female beauty is. The beauty industry exists for the purpose of helping women to deceive men about how young, healthy and fertile they really are.
For men, reproductive fitness is slightly more complicated. On the one hand, it is also about youth and health, specifically sperm quality, but there is more to it than that.
A man makes sperm all the time, and the older he gets, the more copying errors occur during sperm production, which make disabled children more likely. So, it is in a woman's interest to mate with a young man. However, young men are often penniless, and raising a child needs a lot of investment. So, men's reproductive fitness is linked to their economic success. The fact is, women find money attractive. Everyone knows that, it's just not PC to admit it. When choosing a mate, she has to balance age against estimates of potential economic and social status.
Of course both sexes can deceive each other. A woman can get the best of both worlds through paternity fraud. She can accept dull but reliable husband, but then have sex with young stud (who has good quality sperm) while hubby is away, and then fool hubby into paying for kids that aren't his.
On the other hand, a man can impregnate other women without his wife's knowledge, including other men's wives - if you object to paternity fraud then don't lay another man's wife!
This deception happens a lot, and we are evolved to cope with it. See 'Sperm Wars' by Robin Baker. This is taken from the Amazon review:
10 per cent of children are not fathered by their "fathers", less than 1 per cent off a man's sperm is capable of fertilizing anything - the rest is there to fight off other men's sperm, "smart" vaginal mucus encourages some sperm but blocks others, and a woman is far more likely to conceive through a casual fling than through sex with her regular partner.
Don't get mad. Get organised.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:35 AM September 30th, 2004 EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
|
A men's economist is something we really need, but I have to disagree with you about the relationship between men's reproductive fitness and economic effectiveness. Sex and economics have always been linked.
What specific statement did you disagree with? I have asserted that
1. Reproductive fitness is correlated with economic effectiveness;
2. That economic justice between the sexes is impossible due to this;
3. That men should therefore work against 1; in particular, they should pursue work for the sake of doing it.
Reproductive fitness is often measured in terms of number of surviving offspring. When you are choosing a mate, therefore, you should choose one who will help you to maximise the number of your surviving offspring, and over millions of years we have evolved to become very successful at predicting the reproductive fitness of potential mates. I know that today a lot of us choose whether or not to have children, but we still respond to the same biological cues whether we realise it or not.
Yes, this definition of reproductive fitness is made in evolutionary game theory, and other studies. I agree with this definition. My point is not that reproductive fitness is uncorrelated with economic efectiveness: it is. My point is that this has been the reason why men have been exploited, and why they have allowed themselves to be exploited. My point is that reproductive fitness should not be correlated with economic effectiveness, but since it is, and men pay heavily for this, they should refuse to participate in society as provider/consumers as a condition of being civilized. Evolution has provided us with many instincts that were necessary for our survival long before our modern post-industrial age. We typically eat more than we need to survive, for example; before food was so plentiful, dieting would have been suicidal. We do attempt to civilize the sexual instinct as well. Knowing that reproductive fitness is correlated with economic effectiveness, what should men do?
You can take two attitudes to this: that this is fate, and that knowledge isn't power in this case. Men can do nothing about it. Or, you can decide to do something about it. You can decide you aren't going to spend your life having to prove how good a provider you are. You can decide not to become a provider. You can decide to pursue your work for the sake of doing it, not for the sake of being compared and tested for your ability to raise offspring, and all the social inequity that follows from this. Men should consider that their own actions contribute to their exploitation. But they can do something about it: they can pursue their work for its own sake.
The answer to "I come here to dance by myself" is "I work for the sake of doing it."
Mens economist
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK, perhaps I misunderstood you.
You say:-
1. Reproductive fitness is correlated with economic effectiveness;
2. That economic justice between the sexes is impossible due to this;
3. That men should therefore work against 1; in particular, they should pursue work for the sake of doing it.
I agree with 1 (I think we agree that this is true much more for men than women). 2 I will come to below. I have issues with 3, because I'm just not sure there is anything that can be done about 1.
If men do not derive their reproductive fitness from work, then they will have to derive it from some other source, and I'm just not sure what that could be. Men who work against 1 will just become less reproductively fit relative to other men. Having more money than the guy next to you is just one way of competing for females.
It depends how you define 'work' of course. Gene Simmons must have spent many lonely hours practicing his scales and chord changes, almost certainly without pay, but this ended up making him more sexually attractive to women. He may say that he was doing it for the sake of it. Most jobs are not interesting enough to do just for their own sake, and wouldn't get done at all if men didn't need the money.
Perhaps you mean that men should not spend their hard-earned money on women. However, I suggest that they do so in order to acquire sex, and this is not likely to stop.
The only scenarios I can think of in which point 3 could make sense are all problematic.
- Build the men's movement - Form a mass protest movement rather like a trade union, in which all men co-operate to set the price of 'men' by controlling the supply side. This is exactly what the feminist movement has tried to do (Difficult one, as it relies on the idea of mass conversions, a bit like religion, and defaulters will benefit from an untapped sexual marketplace; if you don't offer material support in exchange for sexual access then someone else will, and he will therefore be 'fitter' than you. Many women will prefer the defaulters, so the movement will be self-limiting, but still could be large enough to be effective, although it would need very clear objectives. Short-term humanitarian cost as men withdraw their support from women as you seem to imply they should).
- Be independently wealthy so that you are not working for economic gain (not an option for most men. If it became an option, possible problem of menial but essential jobs not getting done).
- Only date women who absolutely refuse to accept any money under any circumstances (few and far between, and if I found one I would just be exposed to other kinds of sexual competition instead:- e.g. looks, charm etc, and I can't win or cancel every race.).
- Do not 'date' women at all - just buy all your sex from the commercial sex industry (won't appeal to all men, may be illegal, does not provide adequately for children).
- Take a vow of celibacy (won't appeal to most men, evolutionary dead-end).
- Total equality of outcomes in the workplace. This is one of the things that feminists seek, but it will never happen for various reasons.
- It fails to take account of women's preferences. A lot of women reason, 'why should I break my back all day on an equal basis to men when I can get a man to support me for nothing?'
- It doesn't take account of the needs of reproduction. Most women will have children, take career breaks, and mothers in the workplace generally don't pull their weight in the same way as fathers and childless people, often through no fault of their own.
- The woman who earns the same as you - and therefore doesn't need your money - may still take your money.
- Live in a science fiction utopia in which all economically productive work is done by machines (not currently an option).
Feminists have often insisted on the need to separate sex and money (i.e. reproduction and economics) as an argument against both marriage and the sex industry, but I'm saying that I just don't think they can be separated.
My solution instead is to re-define what you mean by 2, 'economic justice'. It is not really economic justice we seek, but sexual justice. In order to achieve this, we need to take sufficient account of reproduction. We need to accept that men and women have different, but complementary, roles, and men will probably always do most of the economic work. We need to write a new 'sexual constitution' outlining the rights and responsibilities of both sexes. If a man is economically supporting a woman, he has a right to expect some protection against paternity fraud, for example. Equal rights for fathers, and holding women to account for their actions would be a good start.
Don't get mad. Get organised.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:25 AM October 1st, 2004 EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
My solution instead is to re-define what you mean by 2, 'economic justice'. It is not really economic justice we seek, but sexual justice. In order to achieve this, we need to take sufficient account of reproduction. We need to accept that men and women have different, but complementary, roles, and men will probably always do most of the economic work. We need to write a new 'sexual constitution' outlining the rights and responsibilities of both sexes. If a man is economically supporting a woman, he has a right to expect some protection against paternity fraud, for example. Equal rights for fathers, and holding women to account for their actions would be a good start.
How are we to arrive at some sort of "sexual constitution" in the present scheme of things? And I disagree that men who pursue the maxim that their work should be pursued for its own sake will be any less reproductively fit. On the contrary, by focusing on their careers, they will be more economically effective. However, they will refuse to take advantage of their superior reproductive fitness, until circumstances adversely affecting men are corrected. Also, I disagree that it is not economic justice we seek. Many of the issues men face are economic, on the basis of their gender. They are disproportionately affected by paternity fraud, they are discriminated against in family court, they have virtually no reproductive rights, they are more likely to receive harsher punishments for the identical crime than women and so on.
So I suggest they exercise the only reproductive rights they have. You say this is unacceptable.
Build the men's movement - Form a mass protest movement rather like a trade union, in which all men co-operate to set the price of 'men' by controlling the supply side. This is exactly what the feminist movement has tried to do (Difficult one, as it relies on the idea of mass conversions, a bit like religion, and defaulters will benefit from an untapped sexual marketplace; if you don't offer material support in exchange for sexual access then someone else will, and he will therefore be 'fitter' than you. Many women will prefer the defaulters, so the movement will be self-limiting, but still could be large enough to be effective, although it would need very clear objectives. Short-term humanitarian cost as men withdraw their support from women as you seem to imply they should).
I suspect that, on the contrary, the defaulters will seem less interesting than the ones who withdraw their support. They will have exercised an unusual degree of self-control.
It is essential, whether one agrees with the notion that men should pursue work for its own sake, that men recognize that the correlation between reproductive fitness and economic effectiveness. Uncritical acceptance of this by men has been used against them. After thinking about the mens movement for many years, I have decided it is precisely this question that men must face, if the men's movement is to make progress. Perhaps the protective instincts are too strong. Perhaps the desire to reproduce can be manipulated, no matter what men do. But the question should be raised, and each man should answer it for himself.
Example: it was an article in this site that experimenters found that women control conversations with the men they meet. They begin chatting happily, to determine the status of the male--men go along with this. Then, after the status is determined (usually within 15 minutes), the generally end the conversation.
You may say, indeed, this is what the female of the species does. Fine, go along with it. Don't question it. I don't understand the lack of intellectual curiousity, and the willingness to pander to manipulative practices. But I cannot resist throwing my own monkey wrench into the works. I don't appreciate being controlled or manipulated, unconsciously or otherwise, even if the game is programmed by evolution, and beyond conscious control. It is this kind of awarenesss that men should cultivate. Men are presumably good game players: they have to appear sincere, when they speak with women. They do such a good job of appearing sincere, in order to gain some reproductive advantage with women, that women spend hours on the phone asking their friends whether their men really were sincere.
Men should be aware of the various reproductive games the sexes play. I advocate recognizing them, and not playing them altogether. You may disagree. But by playing them without knowing it, they undermine the work of the men's movement; they forget about it, by degrees.
It men decide the path of least resistance, and succumb to evolutionary pressure, they might as resign themselves to reproductive and financial servitude. Men have a choice about how they respond to evolutionary pressures. They have some say in the kind of civilzation they want to live in. I say: take a step back. Resist!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree men should resist the evolutionairy pressures. Since Feminism has forever thrown human civilization off it's natural/evolutionary course, evolutionary "institutions" so to speak are completely out of place in this new and corrupted society.
When civilization was sane (aka NOT controlled by the Feminazi Reich) men and women had their natural place and lot in life. Men and Women shared a mutual respect for one another because both contributed to human survival equally.
Nobody tried to usurp anybody's position in life based on ideological megalomania (ie: Feminism).
But now, to give women all the power, protection, privileges, pampering, coddling, and rights in the world, AND subliminally interject the evolutionary pressures of nature into the new feminist world order, AND place MORE emphasis on Men being in compliance to these pressures is OPPRESSION!!!
Feminism was SUPPOSED to or allegedly rid the world of all things resembling biological and evolutionary order in the least, and "free" humanity from evolutionary pressures and biology.
But if it will fuck men over, they'll be happily hypocritical and fascist, and thrust it upon men.
Let hypocrisy ring!!!!
*Ms.Thea the Pre-Law Major, Pro-Gender Egalitarian, and Pro-Reproductive Rights Activist*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK, I think we do misunderstand each other, and in fact we agree on most issues.
I thought your point was that sex and money should be separated, but I am saying they are intertwined whether we like it or not.
I agree with almost everything else you say here.
I disagree that it is not economic justice we seek. Many of the issues men face are economic, on the basis of their gender. They are disproportionately affected by paternity fraud, they are discriminated against in family court, they have virtually no reproductive rights, they are more likely to receive harsher punishments for the identical crime than women and so on. I agree with all of that. What I was saying was, getting back to basics, men and women want to be together and have children. Feminists have launched a concerted attack against heterosexuality and the family, and this attack needs to be resisted. In order to resist it, we need to model what is going on. I was saying that I think you are right to see things in economic terms, but that economics is only part if it - you can't ignore the needs of reproduction and child-care. I believe that, due to biology, the raising money/child-care split will never be equal, and we need to accept this and accomodate it, which is what I meant by the idea of a sexual 'New Deal' which takes account of both economic and reproductive factors, and is fair towards both men and women.
It is essential, whether one agrees with the notion that men should pursue work for its own sake, that men recognize that the correlation between reproductive fitness and economic effectiveness. Uncritical acceptance of this by men has been used against them...I don't appreciate being controlled or manipulated, unconsciously or otherwise, even if the game is programmed by evolution, and beyond conscious control. It is this kind of awarenesss that men should cultivate...Men should be aware of the various reproductive games the sexes play. I advocate recognizing them, and not playing them altogether. Again, I agree wholeheartedly. I have recently become aware of the central role of psychological and emotional manipulation in the way women behave, not only towards men, but often each other. I have commented on it here before. I agree that everyone - and especially men - would benefit from learning to recognise manipulation, and that the world would be better off without it. The correlate of 'male violence' is 'female manipulation', and we need to start talking about it a lot more.
I was initially confused by your phrase 'work for its own sake'. I assumed you meant rather than 'for the sake of making money', and it seemed a naive position. However if I understand you correctly you mean that a man should retain control of his own money; in effect work for his own benefit rather than for the benefit of others.
Don't get mad. Get organised.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:37 PM October 1st, 2004 EST (#37)
|
|
|
|
|
Ok; for the time being I advocate that men take control over what they have control over: their work, their incomes. Men don't have control over reproduction, so until things become more fair to both sexes, I suggest they take exercise more deliberate control of their work, and who gets access to it; they should stop working for the benefit of others while they receive so little benefit.
However if I understand you correctly you mean that a man should retain control of his own money; in effect work for his own benefit rather than for the benefit of others.
You pursue your work for the sake of doing it, not to impress potential mates. Men compete for well-paying jobs they really don't want, in their heart-of-hearts, because they will be successful--this correlates to reproductive fitness. Well, what if they were simply successful, then decided, "you know, I like simply being successful per se. I'm not going to support a family, or even bother to attempt to impress women with my success. My work is satisfaction in itself." It's a Zen-like attitude. There is nothing naive (I think) about getting on with one's work. The question of who one is working for is different. Imagine if one had the same drive to work, but the entire question of doing it to compete with other males for the attention of women was entirely absent. Forgotten. Missing.
Why would one want to adopt such an attitude? In an atmosphere of exploitation, it may be necessary to take stock of the things one can control. Women seem to have control over reproduction, and its consequences. Men are told: keep it in your pants. The question of the imbalance of reproductive rights between the sexes cannot be raised--even if in the final analysis, the ineluctable conclusion is that women have all the rights and men have all the responsibilities, the question cannot be raised. So if the option is "keep it in your pants" or else be prepared to accept the consequences, which are entirely beyond your control, one might decide that keeping it in your pants doesn't go far enough: I think I'll keep it in my wallet, while I'm at it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
" What I was saying was, getting back to basics, men and women want to be together and have children"
False premise, women and men want to get tobe together if there is economic reason for that, like women a re not allowed to work and need men to support them in return women must obey and serve men, as long as this is not true anymore, there are no speciall reason for men and women to live together. Same about children, when children are assets, people wants them now they are liabities, children belongs to the Goverment and the goverments must support them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:12 AM October 2nd, 2004 EST (#38)
|
|
|
|
|
OK, I'm persuaded. That is actually a radical and liberating position. I look forward to reading more of your posts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:45 PM October 2nd, 2004 EST (#44)
|
|
|
|
|
OK, I'm persuaded. That is actually a radical and liberating position. I look forward to reading more of your posts.
Thank you. This was my intention.
The mechanism of reproductive fitness seems to operate in science. Consider the article Marriage may tame genius. The article asserts that the competitive drive among scientists derives from a more fundamental drive to impress potential mates, to pursue science, or as the article states, to "gain the attention of women."
I find it deplorable that science should be pursued for any reason other than the advancement of knowledge and the improvement of the human condition! The possibility that a single human scientific advance owes its discovery to testosterone and not to the unalloyed spirit of inquiry seems to undermine the moral ground of the scientific enterprise. Does it all devolve, in the end, to the effort to impress women? If not all, then what portion?
Is this why you are on the planet earth? Do you not enjoy your work for its own sake, because it matters to you? Do we not have even a modicum of control over evolutionary forces, which apparently have been used against us? Are we utterly incapable of dignity?
Imagine if one had the same drive to work, but the entire question of doing it to compete with other males for the attention of women were missing. Forgotten.
Civilization requires us to sublimate and regulate primitive, instinctive urges. I suggest, in view of widespread, institutionalized anti-male bias, in which women enjoy essentially all the reproductive rights, and their consequences (in the judicial system and enforced by your local police), I suggest that we civilize ourselves further: that we pursue and enjoy our work for its own sake.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am only persuaded that your political stance 'keeping it in your wallet' is a useful strategy for men in the current climate.
I am not at all persuaded of your views on the relationship between male productivity and reproduction.
I thought the article 'Marriage may tame genius' was one of the clearest statements I have come across of a theory that I already subscribe to.
I find it deplorable that science should be pursued for any reason other than the advancement of knowledge and the improvement of the human condition!
Why? This is a very naive and idealistic postion if you don't mind me saying so. Science is very often pursued in order to find new ways of destroying other human beings, so why not to impress females?
The possibility that a single human scientific advance owes its discovery to testosterone and not to the unalloyed spirit of inquiry seems to undermine the moral ground of the scientific enterprise.
What is the 'moral ground' of the scientific enterprise? Is it 'the unalloyed spirit of inquiry' (inquiry as an end in itself), or is it 'the improvement of the human condition' (inquiry as a means to an end)? These are two different, and contradictory, descriptions. Does science even need a moral ground? If it is pursued for its own sake, then it seems to have no moral ground.
What's so bad about testosterone? Why does the idea of associating science (or productive work generally) with sexual reproduction offend you so much? We need to bear in mind that science is a human cultural artefact. We are evolved to do science in a way that tigers and pine trees are not. Science has an evolutionary basis, and it fulfills some social function, otherwise we wouldn't do it.
I feel the need to re-iterate some of my earlier points about the ineluctable relationship between production and reproduction. I recommend that you read 'Cannibals and Kings' by Marvin Harris. He describes this relationship very convincingly in economic terms.
In common with some other apes, human beings are a (i) female-selecting, (ii) female exogamous species. That is, (i)females choose males, not the other way round, and (ii)females marry 'out' - on marriage, they leave their own troop and go to join the husband's troop. In modern times that means adopting his name, and so on.
On what basis do females choose males? It is a common view in evolutionary psychology that females choose males on the basis of their displays of interesting behaviour, and that over evolutionary time, this is what has produced our large brains, language and technology - in fact 'the scientific enterprise' only exists at all because males tried to impress females (In fact female sexual choice was not the only factor - meat/fish eating was also essential for large brains. It may be that technological herbivores can't exist).
For hundreds of thousands of years, males who did interesting, clever things left more surviving offspring, and so over evolutionary time, the male brain has evolved to pursue certain kinds of intellectual tasks, which typically involve careful, meticulous work, creativity, risk-taking, and public display. Even if you are doing something that females find unattractive - like picking holes in feminism - you are doing it as a result of this evolutionary heritage.
This theory seems to have immense explanatory power. It accounts for a swathe of social phenomena that feminists object to.
(i) It accounts for the so-called 'glass ceiling' in the workplace. The glass ceiling is inside women's heads - they are just not as motivated to work hard as men are, because they simply have nothing to gain from it.
(ii)It explains why the 'great masters' were mostly men. Females often find male intellectual pursuits 'nerdy', and are just not that interested in pursuing them. Rich women did write music and paint pictures, but they did not exhibit them in public to the same extent, because, again, they had no motivation. Exhibiting your art (or publishing scientific papers) is a kind of sexual display, and women simply have nothing to gain by it.
(iii)It explains why most crime is commited by men. Men give women resources in exchange for sex, and crime is a just a way of acquiring resources. If he knew that a woman would not accept stolen money, he would not steal it.
Interestingly, feminists hate evolutionary psychology, because they see it as essentialist. Like them, you have an abligation to provide an alternative account of these social phenomena. Feminists offer only lame conspiracy theories for the first 2 points, and a hopeless, superstitious theory for the last one ('All men are born bad').
Do we not have even a modicum of control over evolutionary forces, which apparently have been used against us? Are we utterly incapable of dignity?
This reminds me of a statement by an early feminist (Mary Wollstonecraft?) which was something like "Is woman to be forever a prisoner of her biology?", one of the most misleading statements ever made on the subject. Woman is a 'prisoner' of her biology if you choose to regard biology as a prison, and only to the same extent that a man is, no more and no less. 'Do we not have even a modicum of control over evolutionary forces'. Yes. You can - and do - resist the urge to impregnate every female of child-bearing age that you come across.
And what is this about dignity? Is it lack of free will you are concerned about?
You don't want pure and noble science to be contaminated by base sexuality, but I think you are committing the very same intellectual crime that you object to - rejecting a theory because you emotionally dislike it, rather than fearlessly going wherever the pure enquiry takes you.
Don't get mad. Get organised.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:46 AM October 4th, 2004 EST (#46)
|
|
|
|
|
You misunderstand. I am not arguing against the scientific picture. I am saying that, in a certain sense, the scientific picture can fairly be called disgusting.
I agree that the evolutionary biological perspective offers a compelling scientific theory; however, morally, I find it repugnant. Not because it isn't feminist, but because it reduces the drive to understand to the drive to reproduce. I am not offering a competing scientific theory at all, I am asserting that such drives, if the account is correct, have been manipulated. I would like to live my life as if my scientific pursuits were pursued in the spirit of inquiry, and not because it all amounted, in the end, to an effort to impress women. You may call that idealistic and naive; I consider the assertion that a single one of my scientific publications arose, ultimately, from an attempt to impress women extremely presumptuous. They were written because they addressed scientific questions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:06 AM October 4th, 2004 EST (#47)
|
|
|
|
|
You don't want pure and noble science to be contaminated by base sexuality, but I think you are committing the very same intellectual crime that you object to - rejecting a theory because you emotionally dislike it, rather than fearlessly going wherever the pure enquiry takes you.
Skepticism towards a theory is not an intellectual crime. The theory you are advancing is still somewhat controversial. I am not rejecting it outright by expressing a certain disappointment with the conclusion. It does mean men have to work against strong evolutionary pressures if they are to liberate their wallets.
One has a right to be disappointed. But it's wrong to say that I reject the theory because I am disappointed with it. Where did you read that I rejected the theory? You didn't. I expressed my attitude towards it: I do not like the reductionism. That sounds simplistic and naive to me (although one could accuse me of advancing a kind of angelic morality ultimately inapplicable to humans). Probably a variety of factors account for scientific work--the desire to establish reproductive fitness may be one of them, but it is not established that this is the only reason. Where is this established?
I would prefer that it played a relatively minor role; ideally none at all. The article asserted that being married accounted for 25% of the decline in productivity in 5 years in male scientists--not 100%. The precise mechanism underlying the correlation is not known. That mechanism was an interpretation of the data, but it was not in the data themselves.
The article also said nothing about scientific productivity in females. Surely females do not pursue scientific work to impress other females. So some other mechanism must be at work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:51 AM October 4th, 2004 EST (#48)
|
|
|
|
|
What's so bad about testosterone? Why does the idea of associating science (or productive work generally) with sexual reproduction offend you so much? We need to bear in mind that science is a human cultural artefact. We are evolved to do science in a way that tigers and pine trees are not. Science has an evolutionary basis, and it fulfills some social function, otherwise we wouldn't do it.
I feel the need to re-iterate some of my earlier points about the ineluctable relationship between production and reproduction. I recommend that you read 'Cannibals and Kings' by Marvin Harris. He describes this relationship very convincingly in economic terms.
Evolutionary game theorists have attempted to account for altruistic behavior--the opposite of the self-regarding competitive behavior that favors the individual in pursuit of reproductive fitness. One has to make a distinction between evolutionary mechanisms: some may lead to competitive behavior, but others may lead to cooperative behavior. Having some sort of balance may improve the chances of survival of the entire population, possibly increasing the risk that some individuals may not reproduce. Here is a link on evolutionary game theory.
If the evolutionary game theorists are correct, we have yet to determine where on the spectrum of competitive and cooperative behavior scientific work (and productive work) generally lies. Perhaps some of it is competitive and self-regarding; but some of it may not directly benefit the individual who does it; it may be altruistic, to the benefit of others, or to the population as a whole, so that more individuals can reproduce. It may be that nerds are good for the survival of the species, although the reproductive penalty for being a nerd may be higher than the reproductive benefit for not being a nerd. It may even be that a combination of factors is at work: the quality of life of the individual doing it may play a role. To ignore this seems mistaken. One has to spell out in more detail how the "evolutionary basis of science" fulfils a "social function" which driven by a self-regarding competitive instinct to reproduce. This sounds incoherent. There may be a multitude of evolutionary pressures at work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the scientific picture can fairly be called disgusting...the evolutionary biological perspective offers a compelling scientific theory; however, morally, I find it repugnant.
The evolutionary perspective is, in a sense, morally neutral. It is a description of the origin and history of things; I'm not sure that it implies any moral program at all. Besides, I'm not sure why your view is morally any more attractive. If it seems to contradict the scientific evidence, then this would seem to undermine its value.
I wonder what branch of science you work in if you find reductionism so unattractive. Is it OK to be reductionist about galaxies, atoms and plants but not people's minds? If so, then on what grounds should we exempt people's minds? I suggest there are no such grounds other than sentimental ones.
I said in one of my earlier posts, we may choose our lifestyles today, but we still respond to the same ancient biological cues whether we like it or not. I'm not saying that you wrote a scientific paper just to impress women, but I am saying that the neural machinery that you used to write it with is only there because your ancestors impressed a lot of females in the past. You have an evolved tendency to tinker with ideas, and this is what has produced the paper. Of course it addressed a scientific question. It wouldn't be a scientific paper otherwise.
Don't get mad. Get organised.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One has to spell out in more detail how the "evolutionary basis of science" fulfils a "social function" which driven by a self-regarding competitive instinct to reproduce. This sounds incoherent. There may be a multitude of evolutionary pressures at work.
I agree. Of course science is a co-operative social activity the same as volleyball, banking, or war. It combines co-operation and competition in complex ways. I wasn't precluding the possibility of co-operative behaviour.
Don't get mad. Get organised.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am tired of this. Yes, marriage is not a good idea for men. Got it. Understand and agree with you. Organize a marraige strike, I support you 100%.
However, you do not seem content to stop there. You must bash the institution, childbearing, and stay at home mothers.
I am married, to DaveK. Tell him he was an idiot for marrying me then. We have 2 children, tell him he was stupid to have them too.
I stay home, I do not hold a regular job, tell him I am a parasite. But why do I stay home? Because we did not have children to shove them in daycare and afterschool programs. Did it ever occur to any of you that group rearing of children is part of what has made things as bad as they are? Daycare centers run by women who many times are bitter, divorced or single moms themselves?
Our kids are in school. I should go to work, right? What about summers, what about holidays, sick days, every day after school? Are we supposed to leave them at home alone? Who will watch them? Who will be there to keep their friends from offering them drugs or girls from pushing them into sex? Someday they will have to learn to fend for themselves, but at 14 and 8? We refuse to put our kids in that position at this age. I would love to get a job, I get lonely at home, I am always looking for part time ways to make money, and work when I can. However, I cannot get a regular job and do my first job well. My first job is a wife and mother. Only the feminists pretend you can do both well.
You all can go on and on about how parasitic women are, and how children are shackles, but you know what? You are not helping the many, many men who already are married and have children. You are not helping those traditional women who love men and do not agree with what has been happening. As for this one, you have pushed her right away. You can tell me how you are free to say anything you want. And you are right. And I am free to leave, as much as I will miss those like Thundercloud, LSBeene, Ray, and others. There is a difference between venting and hatred, and I feel many have crossed the line here.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For what's it's worth dear, I have never bashed women and refuse to ever do so. yes I have made a few crude remarks about them, my excuse? I am just a man. I do not consider stay at home mom's to be parasites, they are doing one of the most important jobs in the world. My mother was always home for me after school, I would not be anything if not for her. I happen to love kids too. Marriage could be the best thing on earth but unfortunately it has run amouck. If marriage were the way it was when I was a kid, I would have done it years ago. To me there would be nothing better than Ms. Right in my life. Let her stay home and I will make the money.
I wish you would stick around, personally I always love the female POV on just about anything. Life would suck without it.
Pete in Nebraska
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:41 PM September 30th, 2004 EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
Jen.
I hope you don't really leave.
I can understand your point, though. It is a valid point.
Sometimes I see others who "cross the line" and I try to remember that there are alot of guys who come here who feel very angry and frustrated about what they see happening to men And not just men but women and kids as well. Sometime that anger is expressed well and constructivly, other times it is not.
Today on this page I can see where it has not been constructive.
Although I am not innocent of it either. There have been times when I have said things that I wish I hadn't, because it may have hurt someone.
I think that is what has happened to you today. And frankly, I can see your position on this.
We, here, at times NEED to hear from someone like you, because it is a ray of hope. That not ALL or even MOST women are like the feminists. Sometimes we forget that 'woman' and 'feminist' are not nessisairily mutualy acsclusive.
That there are men AND WOMEN who are fighting this battle, and we are doing it TOGETHER. I think you need to hear some appreatiation of this from time to time, because you are ONE of those women who are figting for TRUE equality.
And even if some of the folks here REALLY DO think less of women, I don't beleive they are the majority, here. Don't let those who don't appreatiate what you as a mother and wife do dictate to you what you should do.
Like I said the quest for true equality is stronger for your being a part of it.
I would hate to lose that.
I would hate to see you go.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are there stay-at-home moms who work their ass off chasing the kids, feeding them, cleaning house, giving the dog a bath, giving the kids their medicine, don't got to bed until 3:00 a.m., and keep their sanity all the while, OF COURSE AND GOOD FOR THEM!!!
The example I gave of my sister-in-law is the case of some other women who have NO reason to stay at home because like I said the kids are in pre-school and kindergarten, and my brother does a lot of house work when he gets home, and she has shamelessly usurped the name of stay-at-home mom.
My other sister-in-law is a REAL stay-at-home mom. She does the daily grunge work of real stay-at-home mom, while my other brother brings home the income. The other sister-in-law doesn't. She just hangs around the house and watches television.
But *HOORAY* for all the women who act like *REAL* stay-at-home mothers!
And fuck the lazy ass, parasitic women who usurped and perverted the once respectable name of 'stay-at-home' mother.
It's always a few group of people who ruins things for everyone else.
Please stay TBQ. I can't be the only woman supporting the Men's Equal Rights Revolution. We need more women to be liberated from feminist tyrrany and fight for the cause.
And then, the name of stay-at-home mothers can be respectable again.
*Ms.Thea the Pre-Law Major, Pro-Gender Egalitarian, and Pro-Reproductive Rights Activist*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:31 PM September 30th, 2004 EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
The fact of the matter is Jen, is that it is YOUR posts alone that have been changing my mind about things like men and stay-at-home-moms.
People here have called me a troll.
I am begining to see why. Alot of it is because of you.
Phaedra
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:49 PM September 30th, 2004 EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
I have seen where a number of people have said that DAVEK is LUCKY to have you as a wife.
No one here in their right mind would say Dave is an "idiot" for marrying you.
Quite the opposite, I'd say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"But *HOORAY* for all the women who act like *REAL* stay-at-home mothers!"
The problem is that for that option to exist men should accept it, well i think this is not going to happen, anyhow in any case, stay-at-home mothers, should be valued no more than, stay-at-home fathers, there should be a crontract between them stating what are their responsabilities and how exactly they are going to be compensated in return of it, by their employer-parter, if both agrre to that and found it fair, no problem, but right now there are only rights without responsabilities.
Take care!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jenk,
I'm sorry you feel that way, I hope I have not contributed to that, but if I have then I apologise. Like so many others, I would be very sad to see you go.
I for one do not regard women as parasites, and I'm sure I haven't said so. Family life is central to human welfare, and the feminist attack on family life is one of the main reasons I came to this website. It is only really feminists who have attacked stay-at-home mothers (and fathers).
I applaud you for putting your kids first.
I hope you'll decide to stay around on this site for a long time yet.
Don't get mad. Get organised.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:26 PM October 1st, 2004 EST (#36)
|
|
|
|
|
C'mon, Jen. Even PHEADRA is on our side, here.
That's GOT to count for something!
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Traditonal women belongs to traditional societies, were women have NO RIGHTS, and NO RESPONSABILTIES, they are considered children under men care, first their fathers, after their husbands or their brothers.
There can not be traditional women in societies where women can vote, hold properties, have reproduction rights and custody of their children.
Having children without working to support them, voting without military duties, holding properties without having to work to pay for them, or living at someone else expense without any LEGAL obligation in return, quid pro quo, is sheer parasitism.
What services provide traditional women?, they can do the same and get paid for that, work in kindergarden, become a cooker, a sexual worker, a cleaner or whatever, but work, pay taxes, and have responsabilities, no work, no money, no money, no properties, no job, no custody of children, like men.
There are no real traditional women in the west, only traditional regarding responsabilities, they want NONE, but they will not renounce their right to vote, hold properties, have custody of their children, have reproduction rights, or the right to work.
And even if there is some REAL traditional women that would like that we go back again to a REAL traditional society, well that will never happen again.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
