Conservative women are also falling for the liberal disease

[smarterthanone]

No matter what a woman's view points are, it seems once she has had a taste for education or work, they have few if any children. Even many conservative women! They fall for the same trap.

Look to Tomi Lahren, Ann Coulter, and many others. Many have no kids, or if they do they only have one or two (which two still contributes to a negative population growth) or like Tomi she is at an age that she should be on it if she wants to have 3 or more.

This is in my personal life too, I have family and friends who are educated libertarian or conservative women and they have few if any children.

I would bet that if we compiled data for statistics, no matter how much a woman agrees with being a mother or wife and no matter how libertarian or conservative she is, once exposed to higher education or work, they will not choose to have kids.

Even Stef and his wife who I assume is on the same page as him, they only have one child. I don't know what her education or background is but he seems like he would go for someone educated.

This is probably the biggest contributing factor to our culture's decline.

[ticketyboo]

On 8/22/2018 at 7:15 PM, smarterthanone said:

I would bet that if we compiled data for statistics, no matter how much a woman agrees with being a mother or wife and no matter how libertarian or conservative she is, once exposed to higher education or work, they will not choose to have kids.

Female education is inversely correlated with number of children. Education is positively correlated with IQ. IQ is mostly genetic.

Feminism is heavily dysgenic for IQ.

 

Edited August 24, 2018 by ticketyboo
Fixed nonsensical first sentence

[Dr. Dealgood]

@smarterthanone

Higher education leads women to choose to not want children I think is the argument you are making.

I suggest to you that correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation.

There is also a correlation between education, higher IQ and higher income. Higher income means more resources for the self. Provision for one's own needs means that children/husband/family are not necessary. They are optional.

Let me throw the question back at you... for an individual women who has her career why should she want to take the risks of childbirth? And it is risky, even today, particularly as women have children at an older and older age. (Speaking anecdotally, a friend of mine's wife died giving birth to their first child. She was 40).

[ticketyboo]

3 hours ago, Dr. Dealgood said:

@smarterthanone

Higher education leads women to choose to not want children I think is the argument you are making.

Ignore all the rationalizing gobbledygook and sentimentality about how much we love our children and look at it from a pure utilitarian perspective.

The reason that nobody wants kids is that nobody today needs to give birth to their farm labor work force.

Children are farm laborers. If you don't have a farm, they change from an asset to a useless expense. Actually, worse than useless, because there is enormous cost and risk with having them.

Children are a retirement plan. If you have a stable society with 401k plans, then children change from being a retirement asset to a dangerous and costly expense.

3 hours ago, Dr. Dealgood said:

I suggest to you that correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation.

There is also a correlation between education, higher IQ and higher income. Higher income means more resources for the self. Provision for one's own needs means that children/husband/family are not necessary. They are optional.

Let me throw the question back at you... for an individual women who has her career why should she want to take the risks of childbirth? And it is risky, even today, particularly as women have children at an older and older age. (Speaking anecdotally, a friend of mine's wife died giving birth to their first child. She was 40).

Pregnancy at 40 is much riskier than pregnancy at 20.

Smarter women have fewer kids because they know to use birth control. Less smart women lack the planning capacity.

[smarterthanone]

52 minutes ago, ticketyboo said:

Ignore all the rationalizing gobbledygook and sentimentality about how much we love our children and look at it from a pure utilitarian perspective.

The reason that nobody wants kids is that nobody today needs to give birth to their farm labor work force.

Children are farm laborers. If you don't have a farm, they change from an asset to a useless expense. Actually, worse than useless, because there is enormous cost and risk with having them.

Children are a retirement plan. If you have a stable society with 401k plans, then children change from being a retirement asset to a dangerous and costly expense.

Pregnancy at 40 is much riskier than pregnancy at 20.

Smarter women have fewer kids because they know to use birth control. Less smart women lack the planning capacity.

I think you are not paying enough attention to biology. If women actually do not want children, why do so many women in their 30's and 40 experience baby fever and/or regret at being unable to have kids? We want children because we want children, whether they do something for us or not. It is a biological imperative, like eating, although its certainly further up the pyramid of needs.

(I believe you mean economic vs utilitarian perspective) From an economic perspective, children can be assets to wealthy people. I own quite vast assets of various types. When I have children, they can manage them for me for a much higher income and earn their ownership of them over time far exceeding what they would have access to in the normal marketplace, while providing me a much more cash flush and stable retirement that actually continues to grow instead of decline like most peoples retirement assets once tapped. When I meet women they all are like "oh id want a wealthy man" but none of them actually want to live a wealthy lifestyle. They are simply retarded (these are the so called educated intelligent independent women). This is why I don't think they are actually intelligent. Most women are kind of OCD and anxious. So if you tell them to do a mountain of paperwork (basically school or any kind of HR or marketing job) they will naturally find the ability to do it. But if you ask them for independent thought and carry through to do something on their own, many fall flat on their face. They simply do not understand why they are doing what they are doing. ("Not all, not all, not all." Jesse Lee Peterson)

I disagree, I think smarter women know they want kids and instead of tricking themselves into not having kids because they are told to, they do their best to figure out how to have kids because that is what they want. Unfortunately marriage is not really a thing any more where one can simply find a successful man to marry and then start having a family. And most of them are young so even if they are smart, they are not wise. One young woman I was talking to for a bit was I think 130 IQ but she had a child at age I think 18 because she knew she wanted kids more than anything. Unfortunately she didn't have the wisdom to do it in a stable and sustainable way. And she knew she had no interest in a job or significant higher education.

You are equating the following behaviors to intelligence: planning to not have kids -> spending lots on an education -> grinding at a dead end job -> only to then regret not having kids later and spending all the money you made on trying to get fertility treatments to work

I am considering that mentally retarded. Its simply following the behaviors people tell you to do, down a path of something you don't want until its too late. You can be "book smart" all you want but if you completely fail at life, you fail.

Which is faster? A computer processor at 2ghz vs a 4ghz? Well initially you might say 4ghz but if the 4ghz is computing the wrong equation, the 2ghz is faster to get the proper solution. 1. I think you are wrong to assume non college women are not as intelligent. 2. I think even if the higher IQ type women are going to college, they have defective intelligence that makes it useless.

[smarterthanone]

4 hours ago, Dr. Dealgood said:

@smarterthanone

Higher education leads women to choose to not want children I think is the argument you are making.

I suggest to you that correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation.

There is also a correlation between education, higher IQ and higher income. Higher income means more resources for the self. Provision for one's own needs means that children/husband/family are not necessary. They are optional.

Let me throw the question back at you... for an individual women who has her career why should she want to take the risks of childbirth? And it is risky, even today, particularly as women have children at an older and older age. (Speaking anecdotally, a friend of mine's wife died giving birth to their first child. She was 40).

Well they seem to want it. This is why older women are often desperate to have children. Your friends wife would have been much better off to have children at 20 instead, that is on her.

children husband etc are not necessary unless you want them, most women want them. They don't understand you cant really get them later though even though it seems pretty obvious.

But the main point is, without at minimum averaging 3 children, your culture is dying. So get practical. Do you want your culture to die out? Muslims make sure theirs doesn't die out. Marrying young and multiple wives to the best men ensures huge population growth. We are actually shrinking. 2016 the white american population shrunk for the first time, 2017 it shrunk more, 2018 is expected to at an even greater because the rate for the last idk 20 years has been a straight line pattern. Say bye bye because you know educating women is so important.

[ticketyboo]

29 minutes ago, smarterthanone said:

I think you are not paying enough attention to biology. If women actually do not want children, why do so many women in their 30's and 40 experience baby fever and/or regret at being unable to have kids? We want children because we want children, whether they do something for us or not. It is a biological imperative, like eating, although its certainly further up the pyramid of needs.

It is a biological imperative when women are experiencing baby rabies in their 30s and 40s and are already too old to have replacement-rate numbers of births.

Low-IQ women without the capacity to plan have children young. Intelligent women delay it to establish their careers first and end up barren.

29 minutes ago, smarterthanone said:

(I believe you mean economic vs utilitarian perspective) From an economic perspective, children can be assets to wealthy people. I own quite vast assets of various types. When I have children, they can manage them for me for a much higher income and earn their ownership of them over time far exceeding what they would have access to in the normal marketplace, while providing me a much more cash flush and stable retirement that actually continues to grow instead of decline like most peoples retirement assets once tapped. When I meet women they all are like "oh id want a wealthy man" but none of them actually want to live a wealthy lifestyle. They are simply retarded (these are the so called educated intelligent independent women). This is why I don't think they are actually intelligent. Most women are kind of OCD and anxious. So if you tell them to do a mountain of paperwork (basically school or any kind of HR or marketing job) they will naturally find the ability to do it. But if you ask them for independent thought and carry through to do something on their own, many fall flat on their face. They simply do not understand why they are doing what they are doing. ("Not all, not all, not all." Jesse Lee Peterson)

Not enough parents will have enough assets for their children to manage for the asset management model of child rearing to replace the farm laborer model. You need enough to pay for the kids and then enough left over for to manage. Boomers are planning to party it up and die broke in the rare case of them actually having assets. Look up data on savings rates and retirement savings. The money is not there.

29 minutes ago, smarterthanone said:

I disagree, I think smarter women know they want kids and instead of tricking themselves into not having kids because they are told to, they do their best to figure out how to have kids because that is what they want. Unfortunately marriage is not really a thing any more where one can simply find a successful man to marry and then start having a family. And most of them are young so even if they are smart, they are not wise. One young woman I was talking to for a bit was I think 130 IQ but she had a child at age I think 18 because she knew she wanted kids more than anything. Unfortunately she didn't have the wisdom to do it in a stable and sustainable way. And she knew she had no interest in a job or significant higher education.

I agree about the lack of wisdom. Women are misled about basic information regarding their fertility. It's ridiculous that the West as devolved to the point where basic knowledge about "the birds and the bees" is withheld or misrepresented. Western culture is truly rotten.

29 minutes ago, smarterthanone said:

You are equating the following behaviors to intelligence: planning to not have kids -> spending lots on an education -> grinding at a dead end job -> only to then regret not having kids later and spending all the money you made on trying to get fertility treatments to work

I am considering that mentally retarded. Its simply following the behaviors people tell you to do, down a path of something you don't want until its too late. You can be "book smart" all you want but if you completely fail at life, you fail.

Which is faster? A computer processor at 2ghz vs a 4ghz? Well initially you might say 4ghz but if the 4ghz is computing the wrong equation, the 2ghz is faster to get the proper solution. 1. I think you are wrong to assume non college women are not as intelligent. 2. I think even if the higher IQ type women are going to college, they have defective intelligence that makes it useless.

Educational achievement correlates well enough with IQ to be a useful proxy for IQ. Look this up if you doubt it.

[ticketyboo]

42 minutes ago, smarterthanone said:

You are equating the following behaviors to intelligence: planning to not have kids -> spending lots on an education -> grinding at a dead end job -> only to then regret not having kids later and spending all the money you made on trying to get fertility treatments to work

I am considering that mentally retarded. Its simply following the behaviors people tell you to do, down a path of something you don't want until its too late. You can be "book smart" all you want but if you completely fail at life, you fail.

I agree that many high IQ women are making unwise choices. Maybe IQ doesn't positively correlate with a desire to make the necessary sacrifices to sustain civilization?

 

[smarterthanone]

5 minutes ago, ticketyboo said:

Educational achievement correlates well enough with IQ to be a useful proxy for IQ. Look this up if you doubt it.

Maybe so in general. I have serious doubts that a woman who gets a degree in women's studies, then works at startbucks for years and years is actually intelligent (or using her intelligence?). They can see patterns well when its on a piece of paper but they cannot see patterns well when its in real life. I think men are much better at this because high IQ men simply make more money.

[ticketyboo]

13 minutes ago, smarterthanone said:

24 minutes ago, ticketyboo said:

Educational achievement correlates well enough with IQ to be a useful proxy for IQ. Look this up if you doubt it.

Maybe so in general. I have serious doubts that a woman who gets a degree in women's studies, then works at startbucks for years and years is actually intelligent (or using her intelligence?). They can see patterns well when its on a piece of paper but they cannot see patterns well when its in real life. I think men are much better at this because high IQ men simply make more money.

Women are more conflict-avoidant. The popular culture encourages them to do useless, self-destructive degrees, and so they do.

The education-IQ correlation is weakening as the rate of college admissions increases. They used to take only the top people. Now, they take everyone, and invent fake subjects that low-IQ people can degree in, like women's studies. The education-IQ correlation is weakening.

 

[Dr. Dealgood]

@smarterthanone

"Well they seem to want it. This is why older women are often desperate to have children."

They seem to want "it"?  What is "it"? Take risks or have children? IMO they want neither.  Generally speaking women are not risk takers and by way of proof I offer the evidence that women overwhelmingly don't take risky jobs.  I'd suggest that this is because they are wired to avoid risks.

As for wanting children what's your proof?  The declining population rate suggests otherwise. The majority of women don't want children.

"They don't understand you cant really get them later though even though it seems pretty obvious. "

You seem to be displaying some prescient knowledge about an awful lot of people.  Did it occur to you that they don't have children because they want something else instead?  Ticketyboo made the same argument and I agree with him.  I'll grant that there definitely are some people who want children for their own intrinsic worth but for most women they have children to serve a purpose that advances HER purposes.

China has a population imbalance in their genders as parents favor sons over daughters. The reason is straightforward as there is no equivalent to social security or CPP in China. By law, sons have to support their parents in their old age. The children there are an old age pension.  As China has become more wealthy, the Chinese growth rate of the population is decreasing.  You are now seeing the same trends there that you are in the West... women don't want kids. As more state and private resources are thrown at women the less need they have to take the risks of child birth.

In third world countries population rates are still increasing. Why? Because larger families bring more resources into the family unit... working on farms, factories, weaving carpets, etc. The children exist to advance an objective purpose.  Her purpose.  

"But the main point is, without at minimum averaging 3 children, your culture is dying. So get practical. Do you want your culture to die out? "

Lower birth rate won't eliminate culture or society. It will however ultimately create economic problems and this will create social problems. Particularly as governments are driven by debt spending with fewer and fewer tax drones their wealth redistribution policies and the power they have been given to do it will end.  Once the social services on which women depend evaporate and more tax drones are required, I predict that children will show up.

My last point is that it is not "my culture" any more than it is your culture. It's her culture. Women are the gatekeepers to reproduction and if they don't want them then they will suffer the consequences. The male fate, for most of us is genetic oblivion and I'm OK with that.  (Only 40% of males get to reproduce).  I'll add too that "our culture" has no compassion for males, is utterly gynocentric and openly hostile to males.  You don't get to ask me to care for something that doesn't give a shit about me.

[ticketyboo]

41 minutes ago, Dr. Dealgood said:

My last point is that it is not "my culture" any more than it is your culture. It's her culture. Women are the gatekeepers to reproduction and if they don't want them then they will suffer the consequences. The male fate, for most of us is genetic oblivion and I'm OK with that.  (Only 40% of males get to reproduce).  I'll add too that "our culture" has no compassion for males, is utterly gynocentric and openly hostile to males.  You don't get to ask me to care for something that doesn't give a shit about me.

MGTOW?

[Siegfried von Walheim]

Statistically White Conservatives have the most children in America, just shy of Hispanics by a decimal point. 

I'm not worried about the future: lots of things could happen, including: a revolt of the young against the old (especially since people my age (20) and younger are statistically the most likely to be Conservative as the WWII generation as well as the most Rightist in general, ranging from social opinions--like drugs and tattoos--to political opinions); a Conservative outbreeding of Liberals (already happening at a 2:1 ratio); Fall of the Roman Empire (and thus the birthing of France, Germany, Spain, etc. but in America); Liberal Paradise Suddenly Working Out (probably because the Conservatives are running it--can't be sustained); Status Quo (if enough Trumps hit the White House, I'm pretty sure the Status Quo will live a few more decades); Other (maybe Godzilla will pitch in and scare humanity into temporary unity like he does with Japan lol).

Ultimately the smart thing to do (I think) is live like an island early on and invite likeminded people to come on it over time so that, come what may, we are neither alone nor broke. And "inviting likeminded people" includes getting married and making lots of babies. I plan to have at least 5 and, if my future income can sustain it, up to 8. I'm an only child and my parents came from generations of 4-6 btw (although my dad has about 6-8 children, just not by my mother lol).

 

Edited August 25, 2018 by Siegfried von Walheim

[smarterthanone]

On 8/24/2018 at 5:28 PM, ticketyboo said:

Women are more conflict-avoidant. The popular culture encourages them to do useless, self-destructive degrees, and so they do.

The education-IQ correlation is weakening as the rate of college admissions increases. They used to take only the top people. Now, they take everyone, and invent fake subjects that low-IQ people can degree in, like women's studies. The education-IQ correlation is weakening.

  

Sure. Without knowing the specific statistics, I am assuming they are general. So I would assume if you removed men from iq college stats, the correlation would be much weaker. Then if you removed women from math and science degrees, which are the minority of women with degrees you would meet from the pool, the correlation would be even weaker. It also doesn't help the average college woman in a non math science degree especially I would assume is more likely to be a flaming liberal feminazi. So if you blindly chose a woman in college vs a random woman not in college, I think you would find a non college girl making more intelligent decisions in life, whether she has a technically higher IQ or not. Don't forget people don't go to college for many reasons besides not being smart enough. There are plenty of absolute geniuses that do not attend higher education.

 

On 8/25/2018 at 3:48 AM, Dr. Dealgood said:

@smarterthanone

"Well they seem to want it. This is why older women are often desperate to have children."

They seem to want "it"?  What is "it"? Take risks or have children? IMO they want neither.  Generally speaking women are not risk takers and by way of proof I offer the evidence that women overwhelmingly don't take risky jobs.  I'd suggest that this is because they are wired to avoid risks.

As for wanting children what's your proof?  The declining population rate suggests otherwise. The majority of women don't want children.

"They don't understand you cant really get them later though even though it seems pretty obvious. "

You seem to be displaying some prescient knowledge about an awful lot of people.  Did it occur to you that they don't have children because they want something else instead?  Ticketyboo made the same argument and I agree with him.  I'll grant that there definitely are some people who want children for their own intrinsic worth but for most women they have children to serve a purpose that advances HER purposes.

China has a population imbalance in their genders as parents favor sons over daughters. The reason is straightforward as there is no equivalent to social security or CPP in China. By law, sons have to support their parents in their old age. The children there are an old age pension.  As China has become more wealthy, the Chinese growth rate of the population is decreasing.  You are now seeing the same trends there that you are in the West... women don't want kids. As more state and private resources are thrown at women the less need they have to take the risks of child birth.

In third world countries population rates are still increasing. Why? Because larger families bring more resources into the family unit... working on farms, factories, weaving carpets, etc. The children exist to advance an objective purpose.  Her purpose.  

"But the main point is, without at minimum averaging 3 children, your culture is dying. So get practical. Do you want your culture to die out? "

Lower birth rate won't eliminate culture or society. It will however ultimately create economic problems and this will create social problems. Particularly as governments are driven by debt spending with fewer and fewer tax drones their wealth redistribution policies and the power they have been given to do it will end.  Once the social services on which women depend evaporate and more tax drones are required, I predict that children will show up.

My last point is that it is not "my culture" any more than it is your culture. It's her culture. Women are the gatekeepers to reproduction and if they don't want them then they will suffer the consequences. The male fate, for most of us is genetic oblivion and I'm OK with that.  (Only 40% of males get to reproduce).  I'll add too that "our culture" has no compassion for males, is utterly gynocentric and openly hostile to males.  You don't get to ask me to care for something that doesn't give a shit about me.

None of what you say makes any sense. Are you younger or not very active in dating? There are TONS of women who are 30-40 years old who are desperate to date any man who will marry them and give them a child. Many will give up marriage and just beg any man to just give them a child. Its because when they are young they do not want to be responsible and just sleep around and work and travel and then when they are old they decide oh snap I wasted a lot of time and I do actually want kids (for the pure enjoyment of passing on their DNA). This is very very common knowledge. Any guy who is into his 30s and dating can tell you this. If you haven't actively dated numerous women in their late 20's, and 30's you would not know this maybe.

 

On 8/25/2018 at 12:39 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Statistically White Conservatives have the most children in America, just shy of Hispanics by a decimal point. 

I'm not worried about the future: lots of things could happen, including: a revolt of the young against the old (especially since people my age (20) and younger are statistically the most likely to be Conservative as the WWII generation as well as the most Rightist in general, ranging from social opinions--like drugs and tattoos--to political opinions); a Conservative outbreeding of Liberals (already happening at a 2:1 ratio); Fall of the Roman Empire (and thus the birthing of France, Germany, Spain, etc. but in America); Liberal Paradise Suddenly Working Out (probably because the Conservatives are running it--can't be sustained); Status Quo (if enough Trumps hit the White House, I'm pretty sure the Status Quo will live a few more decades); Other (maybe Godzilla will pitch in and scare humanity into temporary unity like he does with Japan lol).

Ultimately the smart thing to do (I think) is live like an island early on and invite likeminded people to come on it over time so that, come what may, we are neither alone nor broke. And "inviting likeminded people" includes getting married and making lots of babies. I plan to have at least 5 and, if my future income can sustain it, up to 8. I'm an only child and my parents came from generations of 4-6 btw (although my dad has about 6-8 children, just not by my mother lol).

That stats are showing decreases in white population growth. I just read an article about the mormons even, one of the largest and most conservative groups in the US. They noticed the kids raised in mormonism are marrying later and thus having kids later and thus having less kids. So they made some changes to try and encourage earlier marriages. Even these most conservative groups are having problems with this. I think the reason is there is no long term sustainable way to both encourage women to become educated to a high degree AND have positive growth levels of children. There is no population that I am aware of in the history of the world that could do this on a mass level at long periods of time.

So when I see a very conservative family pushing their daughters to go to college and put off marriage and such its basically like saying "bye bye, glad you are most likely giving up on most of the values we believe in and giving up on our genetic line" why would conservative families do this when the spend so much time and effort to get to where they were in the first place?

[Siegfried von Walheim]

On 8/28/2018 at 4:46 PM, smarterthanone said:

That stats are showing decreases in white population growth. I just read an article about the mormons even, one of the largest and most conservative groups in the US. They noticed the kids raised in mormonism are marrying later and thus having kids later and thus having less kids. So they made some changes to try and encourage earlier marriages. Even these most conservative groups are having problems with this. I think the reason is there is no long term sustainable way to both encourage women to become educated to a high degree AND have positive growth levels of children. There is no population that I am aware of in the history of the world that could do this on a mass level at long periods of time.

So when I see a very conservative family pushing their daughters to go to college and put off marriage and such its basically like saying "bye bye, glad you are most likely giving up on most of the values we believe in and giving up on our genetic line" why would conservative families do this when the spend so much time and effort to get to where they were in the first place?

What matters is that White Conservatives are still the most fertile (second to Hispanics by a slight margin) and thus they will become the overwhelming majority of Whites in general. Eventually most (80%+) Whites will be Conservative since the birth rates are 2.8 to 1.1 (I think--something stupidly low for White Liberals) and that's good since, after a couple generations, only the wisest and best fit of Whites will be around to vote, enter politics, etc. as the Left is dying out from their lack of fertility.

It's a passive (and unpredictable) solution to the demographic crisis, but it's a plausible one since the numbers favor it and thus gives America a few generations before seriously having End-Roman-style problems. Right now it's the "Panic Phase", by the time I'm 40 or 60 it could go a lot of ways but the numbers favor White Conservatives. And I'd rather Whites go down in proportion of the population if it means the remaining Whites are mostly Conservatives.

I know the kinds of "Conservatives" (are you "really" conservative if you think it's a good idea to genderbend your daughters into sons?--however the studies I found off YouTube probably went by self-identification) you speak of but they won't last (because they're not making babies) and thus their unsustainable practices will go with the Dodo. It's extremely difficult to predict the future given the large amount of moving pieces, but I am optimistic since Liberals and those that follow their ways are dying off compared to Conservatives and similar types who are at least slightly above replacement level.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

On 8/28/2018 at 4:46 PM, smarterthanone said:

 Don't forget people don't go to college for many reasons besides not being smart enough. There are plenty of absolute geniuses that do not attend higher education.

Like myself(Lol)! Now I just have to prove to my peers I've made the right decision and be financially independent before they graduate college with a hundred thousand+ in debt...

[CygniAustralis]

I think we need to look at this from a biological perspective, which I feel has been largely ignored. Pregnancy, childbirth and childrearing are INCREDIBLY resource consuming for women. We aren't like other mammals, who have multiple offspring at once; we gestate for 9 long, miserable months before experiencing excruciating pain to deliver a baby that will be fully dependent upon us for survival for several years. Factor in feeding every 1.5 to 3 hours for at least six months, healing from vaginal birth or c-section, bleeding, post-partum depression and a lack of sleep, and you have to understand, at least on some level, why having multiple children is not the most endearing prospect to a lot of women, even conservative women.

My mom consumed nothing but grape juice for 5 months straight because she couldn't keep anything else down and was violently sick multiple times a day until her 6th month. I knew my pregnancy would be difficult, yet here I am, 34 weeks pregnant. I've lost 35+ pounds, and have not gained a single pound in fat back since January. I've had morning sickness all but 6 weeks of my pregnancy. Add migraines and severe food aversion to the mix, as well as a 9 week healing from a broken ankle, and I can sincerely say that I'd be very hesitant to ever try and have another child. It is physically exhausting, draining and permanently damages your body. Am I saying my baby and rearing my child are not worth the struggle? No, of course not. But you have to understand how much a woman sacrifices biologically and mentally to gestate, birth and raise even a single child. And I didn't even have a job throughout this pregnancy; I can't imagine trying to work my previous nursing home job with the way I've suffered through this pregnancy. 

If we want our women to have more children, we need to change the way we approach pregnancy, birth and motherhood. Drastically. I can honestly say that there is no possible way I personally could balance work and childrearing. It would be literally impossible. For many women, I believe this is also the case. Women force themselves to work while pregnant and work while childrearing because our society tells us that this dichotomy is the only way for women to be empowered. That's nonsense. We need to bring back stay-at-home motherhood if we want more children to be brought into our world. And we also cannot expect women to look perfect, act delightful and happy and carefree and be attentive to everyone else's needs while dealing with the difficulties of pregnancy. That too is impossible. 

[S1988]

I also would like to add my two cents as a woman who's not pregnant (and doesn't want to be, especially since I don't want to endure what CygniAustralis is going through right now).

It's not feasible for me to be a mom for the following reasons: it's expensive to raise children, and I barely make enough to support myself. Also, I can't care for a child for emotional reasons because I'm still healing from the emotional scars of my less than ideal upbringing, and I don't think I can meet someone else's needs since I have unmet needs myself.

CyngiAustralis' mention of how a woman can't endure pregnancy and work made me think about how crucial it is for a pregnant woman to have a strong support system. Some women are fortunate enough to have others to care for them during their rough time, but not everyone does. I sure don't. If I were to get pregnant, I would be at a major disadvantage. The only friend I have lives in another state, and my family members are too toxic for me, and they would be too toxic for my hypothetical child, too. 

I'm not anti-natalist, but I also don't think one should have children willy-nilly without giving it some careful thought. It's not right to coerce someone into something that may not be a good fit for them, particularly something like parenting. This could result in child abuse, abandonment, or resentful/incompetent parenting, and no child needs any of that. 

In a nutshell, if a woman is financially and emotionally stable and has a great support system, then there's nothing wrong with her having one or more children. But, if she doesn't have any of these qualities (like yours truly) parenting is something that's best to be avoided. 

[smarterthanone]

11 hours ago, CygniAustralis said:

If we want our women to have more children, we need to change the way we approach pregnancy, birth and motherhood. Drastically. I can honestly say that there is no possible way I personally could balance work and childrearing. It would be literally impossible. For many women, I believe this is also the case. Women force themselves to work while pregnant and work while childrearing because our society tells us that this dichotomy is the only way for women to be empowered. That's nonsense. We need to bring back stay-at-home motherhood if we want more children to be brought into our world.

Well I agree with this. But I don't think you can encourage SAHM's in and of itself. The way to encourage that would be to push for less education of women.

I mean I can understand if you work hard for higher education and preparing for a career and then *poof* you are expected to jump into a completely different lifestyle, that is difficult. Its difficult to make any major lifestyle change.

Certainly its only anecdotal, but most SAHM I can think of, didn't go crazy on education or careers and then drop it, they just never did much in the way of education or careers to start off with. I know a few women who talk about how bad they want to be SAHM but they are still at work, they just can't give it up. And they don't need the money.

3 hours ago, S1988 said:

It's not feasible for me to be a mom for the following reasons: it's expensive to raise children, and I barely make enough to support myself.

Well its silly to try and support yourself. Wouldn't it be much simpler and easier to marry a man who could support you and a family? Say you could support yourself. How does that even help? Will you be working through your pregnancy and as a new mother? It just doesn't make logical sense as the easiest way to reach the goal.

[S1988]

7 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

Wouldn't it be much simpler and easier to marry a man who could support you and a family? 

It may appear to be easier if I want to marry (the operative word being "want," with marriage being something I don't want for myself). But, marrying someone doesn't have guarantees. It could result in divorce due to him being abusive or us just not being compatible. (And divorce isn't cheap.) He could also leave me. And, even if he was a decent guy, what if he gets laid off from his job due to a company making cutbacks or a disability, and I would have to take on more work to support us both? He could also die and leave me a widow. (Or the reverse could happen: I could die and leave him a widower, and if there's a child in tow, it'd be difficult for one parent to raise a child while grieving over a deceased spouse.) 

Besides, I enjoy being self-sufficient, and I love the freedom that I have. Maybe being married and having a family is okay for some people, but it's not the lifestyle for me. Why give up what makes me happy for something that may be an inappropriate fit for me and may even make things worse for me?

 

[smarterthanone]

6 hours ago, S1988 said:

It could result in divorce due to him being abusive or us just not being compatible.

I mean that doesn't seem like a realistic fear, if you don't marry an abuser or someone you aren't compatible with, it would stand to reason you would not be abused or stuck with someone incompatible.

6 hours ago, S1988 said:

He could also leave me. And, even if he was a decent guy, what if he gets laid off from his job due to a company making cutbacks or a disability, and I would have to take on more work to support us both? He could also die and leave me a widow. (Or the reverse could happen: I could die and leave him a widower, and if there's a child in tow, it'd be difficult for one parent to raise a child while grieving over a deceased spouse.) 

In every situation mentioned, it would be drastically worse doing it on your own. What if you were the sole provider and caregiver and then you lost your job? That certainly seems worse. What if you are the sole provider and caretaker and you died? Wouldn't that be worse for the children?

6 hours ago, S1988 said:

It may appear to be easier if I want to marry (the operative word being "want," with marriage being something I don't want for myself). 

Besides, I enjoy being self-sufficient, and I love the freedom that I have. Maybe being married and having a family is okay for some people, but it's not the lifestyle for me. Why give up what makes me happy for something that may be an inappropriate fit for me and may even make things worse for me?

This is exactly what I am talking about in the OP. Once a woman has a taste of independence they usually write off children completely. Even if they are someone who is the type of woman who would end up on this forum.

Women seem to find the end goal of life to be independent, whereas men seem to find being independent a stepping stone to then going back and taking on responsibility for a family and children.

[Dr. Dealgood]

On 8/25/2018 at 4:30 AM, ticketyboo said:

On 8/25/2018 at 3:48 AM, Dr. Dealgood said:

My last point is that it is not "my culture" any more than it is your culture. It's her culture. Women are the gatekeepers to reproduction and if they don't want them then they will suffer the consequences. The male fate, for most of us is genetic oblivion and I'm OK with that.  (Only 40% of males get to reproduce).  I'll add too that "our culture" has no compassion for males, is utterly gynocentric and openly hostile to males.  You don't get to ask me to care for something that doesn't give a shit about me.

MGTOW?

AWM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84ya7v5bPLk

 

[Elizbaeth]

On 9/2/2018 at 4:18 PM, CygniAustralis said:

I think we need to look at this from a biological perspective, which I feel has been largely ignored. Pregnancy, childbirth and childrearing are INCREDIBLY resource consuming for women. We aren't like other mammals, who have multiple offspring at once; we gestate for 9 long, miserable months before experiencing excruciating pain to deliver a baby that will be fully dependent upon us for survival for several years. Factor in feeding every 1.5 to 3 hours for at least six months, healing from vaginal birth or c-section, bleeding, post-partum depression and a lack of sleep, and you have to understand, at least on some level, why having multiple children is not the most endearing prospect to a lot of women, even conservative women.

My mom consumed nothing but grape juice for 5 months straight because she couldn't keep anything else down and was violently sick multiple times a day until her 6th month. I knew my pregnancy would be difficult, yet here I am, 34 weeks pregnant. I've lost 35+ pounds, and have not gained a single pound in fat back since January. I've had morning sickness all but 6 weeks of my pregnancy. Add migraines and severe food aversion to the mix, as well as a 9 week healing from a broken ankle, and I can sincerely say that I'd be very hesitant to ever try and have another child. It is physically exhausting, draining and permanently damages your body. Am I saying my baby and rearing my child are not worth the struggle? No, of course not. But you have to understand how much a woman sacrifices biologically and mentally to gestate, birth and raise even a single child. And I didn't even have a job throughout this pregnancy; I can't imagine trying to work my previous nursing home job with the way I've suffered through this pregnancy. 

If we want our women to have more children, we need to change the way we approach pregnancy, birth and motherhood. Drastically. I can honestly say that there is no possible way I personally could balance work and childrearing. It would be literally impossible. For many women, I believe this is also the case. Women force themselves to work while pregnant and work while childrearing because our society tells us that this dichotomy is the only way for women to be empowered. That's nonsense. We need to bring back stay-at-home motherhood if we want more children to be brought into our world. And we also cannot expect women to look perfect, act delightful and happy and carefree and be attentive to everyone else's needs while dealing with the difficulties of pregnancy. That too is impossible. 

Wow. Sounds like you're having a rough pregnancy! I hope everything ends up ok for yall.

And to what all you said - yup! I would like many more kids, but hate pregnancy so much that it's really giving me second thoughts. Pregnancy isn't just a woman getting fat. It can be very painful. I remember stepping over one of our baby gates (to keep our son from getting into certain rooms), and the scissoring motion of my hip and pelvis hurt so much I had to sit and cry for a while. Your bones spread apart to make way for the baby and that can cause a lot of pain. My mother-in-law lost multiple teeth during each pregnancy. Many, many woman (most, I would say, although most usually don't talk about it) have pelvic floor dysfunction for the rest of their lives, and it usually gets worse with each subsequent pregnancy and delivery. This means fecal and urinary incontinence, and internal organs like the uterus and bladder literally start to fall out of the body through the vagina, not to mention that sex is less pleasurable for the man and can often be painful for the woman, or there is a total lack of sensation at all. The lack of sleep is severe. I have a few friends who got those magical unicorn babies that just somehow sleep through the night from 3 days old, but that has not been the case for either of my sons. They both seem to loathe going to sleep, and will fight it very hard. This means I'm often on Baby Duty from 4:30 am to 9-10pm, and sometimes till wake up in the night between those hours. It gets to you. The mood swings are tough to deal with, too. So there's so excuse for acting poorly, but imagine that you take a whole bunch of mood-altering, perception-altering drugs and then you're expected to act and feel normally, just like people who aren't doing drugs. The inner struggles I have fought to just act sanely and rationally have been substantial, and depending on the mood swing, it can really take a tremendous amount of will power to calm to extreme storm going on on the inside.

Also add to the fact that women are basically cut off from society at large once you get pregnant and have kids (no sports, no socializing, no restaurants, no movies, no music festivals, no quiet library times, no personal preferences because you can't afford to want what you want, because what you want is just not going to happen and you will inevitably feel resentful or disappointed if you hold out expectations of it), and that women live off of attention, and it's really not hard to understand why someone like Tomi Lahren isn't having kids at the moment. Why would she? She is popular because she is a beautiful, high SMV woman who spouts ideas that one certain portion of the population agrees with. If a plain, Average Joe were to say the same things people would not give him half as much attention and might even be annoyed with him. If she trades in her fame for motherhood, the attention she receives will severely drop, unless she is the woman who "does it all and still looks just as hot after n+ kids." Women can get pretty desperate for attention, and society has nothing to offer modern women in return for them giving up their SMV and independence. I think we used to have a system set up that more or less ushered women into the different roles, and rewarded them for the sacrifice by making them the most powerful player in the domestic sphere. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the matriarch of the family used to have much more status and respect than the high SMV, unmarried girl. One had SMV and the other had power and status. So there was a safety net put in place for the women who traded in their SMV for family, but that really is gone. And there's very little reconciliation in the general culture for married women. No one is there to show women how to gracefully transition from high SMV to wife to mother, and how to become more womanly and of even more value even as her youth and looks fade. It's just not there. The closest I've been able to find is in the Christian world. 

Why would an intelligent, conservative woman, who enjoys the popularity of being an attractive Conservative woman (and you know the men in her circle all like her because she's an attractive conservative woman) give that up for something which costs her attention and value in the eyes of the world at large? Why would she give up the opportunity to self-actualize, to follow her own ambition or dreams or to utilize her intelligence? Because the truth is that a mom who raises her kids at home needs to have all the skills taught in HomeEc - and no one wants a woman who focuses on that. People look down on those girls for being dull or dumb. Conservative men want a woman who looks like a young, high SMV hottie but who can talk politics and business with the men, who isn't emotional, and who is hard-hitting and fully logical. We are all screwed up and backwards. Masculinity is not valued in men and femininity is not valued in women, and even conservative men have fallen prey to this liberal misdirection as well. 

[Elizbaeth]

On 9/3/2018 at 12:35 PM, S1988 said:

. It could result in divorce due to him being abusive or us just not being compatible. (And divorce isn't cheap.) He could also leave me.

I don't think the sin of the average guy is to divorce his wife... I think most men value the long-term bond. However, I think the sin of the average guy is to want to stay married, but also cheat. I think most guys would leave only if things were utter hell for them. 

On 9/3/2018 at 6:56 PM, smarterthanone said:

This is exactly what I am talking about in the OP. Once a woman has a taste of independence they usually write off children completely. Even if they are someone who is the type of woman who would end up on this forum.

Women seem to find the end goal of life to be independent, whereas men seem to find being independent a stepping stone to then going back and taking on responsibility for a family and children.

I think that this is true. I think there are lots of reasons for it and it's a little complicated, but the end result is what you said. I personally think it comes from the model of culture we have at the moment. Right now, for a woman, giving up independence means giving up SMV to her husband and family. You have to have a lot of trust that you will be cherished, loved, and valued by your husband and society once your SMV is gone. There is very little incentive to trade in SMV for anything else, because nothing else really exists to take its place at the moment. We did away with everything that could help transition women from high SMV to existing on the "inside" and building a family. Plus, if a woman does have an amount of intelligence, it is difficult to do the "baby life" of feed, change diaper, clean house, bathe, sleep (or not sleep), rinse repeat. You keep thinking to yourself, is this what I learned all that stuff for? Don't we pay 3rd world immigrants to do all this stuff? I thought my husband wanted me to be the mother of his children because I was an intelligent woman - you don't need more than just-enough IQ to sweep a house and fold clothes and change diapers. It took me a long time to adjust and just go with the flow and enjoy this season of life, and it wasn't without a full-on grieving process for the person I once was. I was also sad because I thought my husband would not love me as much, since he originally chose the person I used to be, and it is no longer possible for me to be that person anymore - I mean yes, I still have the same basic preferences and tastes, but the change has been profound.  I think it would have been very useful to have had  a social network put in place around me to help soften that blow. I wish I had had a mother and M-I-L who cold have sort of guided me through this, or anyone else. I have been working very hard to build up our social circle, but it really is tough. Everyone is so isolated, and people seem content to waste away in front of Netflix. And there is no attention. This is so important for women. All the attention that hot, smart Conservative women enjoy in their conservative circles disappears once they give up their SMV and choose to stay home, and it leaves a big hole for a woman. It takes quite a lot of connection and intimacy to counterbalance the lack of attention. 

[Siegfried von Walheim]

46 minutes ago, Elizbaeth said:

Also add to the fact that women are basically cut off from society at large once you get pregnant and have kids (no sports, no socializing, no restaurants, no movies, no music festivals, no quiet library times, no personal preferences because you can't afford to want what you want, because what you want is just not going to happen and you will inevitably feel resentful or disappointed if you hold out expectations of it), and that women live off of attention, and it's really not hard to understand why someone like Tomi Lahren isn't having kids at the moment. Why would she?

EDIT: I kinda wrote this after the second paragraph since I thought the jealously/status thing deserved attention. Basically, please take what I wrote down below with a grain of salt as I used a unicorn as an example for a horse. 

==

Because what does any of the rest described matter if you're (not YOU but Tomi or similar types) not going to have kids? Adulthood really begins with parenthood; until then we're just faking it, really. Maybe I'm unusual because I actually looked forward to fatherhood and have since I was little (I remember being 5 and wanting to be a daddy and had fun coming up with names) or maybe I'm actually "better fit" or "oldschool" in some kind of way because I think the common norm of today is actually very unusual and bizarre from a historical standpoint.

Having children for their own sake was a very commonly accepted ambition; the greatest kings in history (and when I say "great" I mean lived a long time, did a lot, and otherwise wasn't just some easy-come easy-go) had literally dozens upon dozens of children--including adopted children from friends, former/dead enemies, their concubines, etc. It was very normal for the alpha of alphas to be a very family-oriented person. An easy example being Cao Cao of ancient China, founder of the Wei Empire: at the time of his natural death of 66, he had 28-ish children by 12 women. Among those children were step-children (he was unusual for his time in that he had a preference for widows over young and inexperienced women) and he raised them in the same setting as his biological children alongside his wife (who mothered about 6 children who lived), concubines, and close friends. He was basically a big family man when he wasn't waging wars for Chinese unification.

Now as you might imagine, Cao Cao is an example of "historically made to be.../evolved to be..." to an extreme. He was literally a super-genius (he was--and is still considered---one of the greatest poets of all time, as well as a musician, general, politician, administrator, and family patriarch) and basically the kind of guy that would make Christian Gray look like a pale imitation (in terms of being super-successful, youthful, and alpha in terms of his interpersonal relationships. Personality-wise, Cao Cao was famously easy-going and casual in a culture where stiffness and over-politeness was the norm. He spoke to the commoners, soldiers, and nobles as social equals and is known to take criticism well and encourage public debates between the smartest and wisest of his country. He's basically perfect).

Point is though, guys like Cao Cao were not unusual in terms of generally keeping a close family while also working ensuring there was an unofficial system in place that groomed males to fight and work as well as females to love and breed. Basically men were taught to be men while women were taught to be women.

Quote

She is popular because she is a beautiful, high SMV woman who spouts ideas that one certain portion of the population agrees with. If a plain, Average Joe were to say the same things people would not give him half as much attention and might even be annoyed with him. If she trades in her fame for motherhood, the attention she receives will severely drop, unless she is the woman who "does it all and still looks just as hot after n+ kids." Women can get pretty desperate for attention, and society has nothing to offer modern women in return for them giving up their SMV and independence. I think we used to have a system set up that more or less ushered women into the different roles, and rewarded them for the sacrifice by making them the most powerful player in the domestic sphere. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the matriarch of the family used to have much more status and respect than the high SMV, unmarried girl. One had SMV and the other had power and status. So there was a safety net put in place for the women who traded in their SMV for family, but that really is gone. And there's very little reconciliation in the general culture for married women. No one is there to show women how to gracefully transition from high SMV to wife to mother, and how to become more womanly and of even more value even as her youth and looks fade. It's just not there. The closest I've been able to find is in the Christian world. 

From what I know, families used to actually be a thing. Meaning Grandpa would actually be involved in who his children and grandchildren married, their work, etc. while Grandma, aunties, etc. would assist other females in handling the struggles of pregnancy as well as ensuring the least amount of scarring, malfunction, etc. possible. Women used to give birth to literally dozens of children and less than half would survive. Modern women have it much easier than historical women; perhaps modern women are weaker than historical women. And I mean that physically--perhaps being a farmer or a rancher helped strengthen the muscles necessary for being pregnant and birthing children as well as playing with and meaningfully engaging them. I can't be sure, but I have to wonder how most historical women could give birth year after year after year while modern women can't even handle a single pregnancy. Perhaps it really is a physical thing; maybe it's best young women--like 18 to 20--do the birthing because that's when they can do it with the least amount of physical damage and scarring. And then maybe as the female body gets used to pregnancy and birthing it isn't so destructive to the bowels. After all, contrary to popular belief, medieval people were not only sanitary but quite smart about family organization.

In East Asian houses would be rather big (kind of like compounds) and made to house generations of family members in fairly close proximity so that elders could assist/educate the youth and basically mitigate--if not eliminate--all the problems you described.

Mental strength may also have been far stronger; in the past having kids at a young age wasn't just the norm it was the ideal. A young man, around 16-18, marrying a similarly aged young woman before actually embarking on his career (and of course impregnating her ASAP) was the standard fare and young men effectively became men once they had a strong driver to do manly work (namely raise their children). Likewise what separated a girl from a woman was whether or not she was a mother (and presumably, the younger a woman was the best fit she was to have that first pregnancy and first birthing).

Quote

Why would an intelligent, conservative woman, who enjoys the popularity of being an attractive Conservative woman (and you know the men in her circle all like her because she's an attractive conservative woman) give that up for something which costs her attention and value in the eyes of the world at large? Why would she give up the opportunity to self-actualize, to follow her own ambition or dreams or to utilize her intelligence? Because the truth is that a mom who raises her kids at home needs to have all the skills taught in HomeEc - and no one wants a woman who focuses on that. People look down on those girls for being dull or dumb. Conservative men want a woman who looks like a young, high SMV hottie but who can talk politics and business with the men, who isn't emotional, and who is hard-hitting and fully logical. We are all screwed up and backwards. Masculinity is not valued in men and femininity is not valued in women, and even conservative men have fallen prey to this liberal misdirection as well. 

Honestly I'd rather be a woman because I'd be very willing to risk all the pains and struggles you've described just so I could have that physical closeness with my future children. There is nothing more I want in life than to make babies and raise them to adulthood and then see them make and raise babies.

I think a big problem (not just young women but young men too) is that people don't have the "familial mindset" that we used to have nor the culture that structured boys and girls to become men and women.

There was no patriarch/matriarch in the modern sense of a domineering bastard/bitch (although they obviously existed, they were neither the ideal nor the accepted norm) but rather an informal but highly functional system of men who groomed boys to take their place and women who groomed girls to do the same. Basically older relatives raised younger relatives; young people, once ready, got to work and made babies. Older people helped the younger people work and raise those babies. Then eventually it was pretty easy to pop out a baby a year because women's bodies were well-adapted to it and the men were actually men because they had children to strive for. Men respected their women because they'd see them birthing/raising and women respected their men because they saw them working/providing. Men would naturally want to play with their children when women were too exhausted; women naturally would want to assist and comfort their men when the men were exhausted from laboring. Obviously there were horrors and craps and all that; but the point is--there used to be an unofficial system in place that "got things done" and ensured the birth rate (not counting still-borns or those that died before adulthood) would be a 5 on average rather than a mere 1.1.

==

EDIT: I didn't want to totally re-write the above (nor delete it all since I think I made some good points you might not have known or considered); but I think I could have made my point in less words: boys had dads/uncles/grandpas; girls had moms/aunts/grandmas. Modern times, we lack these (effectively). Why? I don't know for sure. I think mindset has a lot to do with it (blame feminism?). Re-focus your (or any girl who has this problem) desire for attention of complete strangers onto husband/children by becoming a great wife/mother. Embrace the awesome journey of making and raising babies instead of treating them/seeing them like parasites. Stefan really loves being a dad (I never heard him complain); maybe it's because of his mindset and the way he treated his baby girl. I don't know.

Point is: I think the solution is to "rough it" in our generation so that our children have us to support them when they make babies; and their kids will have us as grandparents. This is basically how we rebuild the family unit.

Making it harmonious and good? Not totally sure. I believe mutual appreciation, respect, and love helps a lot since these things are sorely lacking nowadays (especially on TV/media/fiction). Men want mothers; women want fathers; I think this is a very simple way to figure out how to do things. The complicated part is identifying "father/motherliness" as someone lacking these examples. 

 

Edited September 13, 2018 by Siegfried von Walheim
Trying to fix this word salad.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

6 minutes ago, Elizbaeth said:

 

I think that this is true. I think there are lots of reasons for it and it's a little complicated, but the end result is what you said. I personally think it comes from the model of culture we have at the moment. Right now, for a woman, giving up independence means giving up SMV to her husband and family. You have to have a lot of trust that you will be cherished, loved, and valued by your husband and society once your SMV is gone. ... Everyone is so isolated, and people seem content to waste away in front of Netflix. And there is no attention. This is so important for women. All the attention that hot, smart Conservative women enjoy in their conservative circles disappears once they give up their SMV and choose to stay home, and it leaves a big hole for a woman. It takes quite a lot of connection and intimacy to counterbalance the lack of attention. 

"Society" doesn't exist. In history, it was "family" that ensured the marrying and the birthing and all that.

I don't want to assume, but perhaps you or women you know/knew have a jealousy problem becaues--frankly--why does it matter if some stranger gets attention? Why do you need attention? What's wrong with being the shortest, ugliest, etc. on the bloc? Wouldn't you rather be surrounded by people that are amazing? Especially compared to you or me? I know I would. (And to be clear: I don't mean to say "I want to be bad so everyone is good by comparsion", I mean "I want everyone to be great so that I have only up to look). 

Isolation is definitely a big problem--especially within families. 

And it seems awfully strange for women to seek attention from strangers rather than their husbands (maybe that's the solution to the problem you're describing; re-focus that desire for attention onto the husband and children by being a great wife/mother). If anything (I kinda repeat), a man/woman should be focused mostly if not only on their family. 

It's harder nowadays entirely because a lot of us have to "rebuild" our families as we lack parents or grandparents to support us. Therefore we must be our own "founders" and make it so that our future children have parents (us) and their children have grandparents (us) to give them the guidance we didn't get.

[Elizbaeth]

On 8/24/2018 at 4:20 PM, smarterthanone said:

This is why I don't think they are actually intelligent. Most women are kind of OCD and anxious. So if you tell them to do a mountain of paperwork (basically school or any kind of HR or marketing job) they will naturally find the ability to do it. But if you ask them for independent thought and carry through to do something on their own, many fall flat on their face. They simply do not understand why they are doing what they are doing. ("Not all, not all, not all." Jesse Lee Peterson)

I disagree, I think smarter women know they want kids and instead of tricking themselves into not having kids because they are told to, they do their best to figure out how to have kids because that is what they want. Unfortunately marriage is not really a thing any more where one can simply find a successful man to marry and then start having a family. And most of them are young so even if they are smart, they are not wise. One young woman I was talking to for a bit was I think 130 IQ but she had a child at age I think 18 because she knew she wanted kids more than anything. Unfortunately she didn't have the wisdom to do it in a stable and sustainable way. And she knew she had no interest in a job or significant higher education.

You are equating the following behaviors to intelligence: planning to not have kids -> spending lots on an education -> grinding at a dead end job -> only to then regret not having kids later and spending all the money you made on trying to get fertility treatments to work

I am considering that mentally retarded. Its simply following the behaviors people tell you to do, down a path of something you don't want until its too late. You can be "book smart" all you want but if you completely fail at life, you fail.

I would agree with most of this. I think what's happened is that women's nature has been weaponized against us and against society. We're still women underneath it all, and can never truly be the "men" we're encouraged to be. 

The girl having a kid at 18 probably has more to do with her own upbringing. I've read that if a father is absent, a girl will have risky sex and seek out unstable sexual relationships because her biology was primed to believe that father involvement was not a possibility, therefore the next alternative for her to reproduce is to just get pregnant as young and as quickly as possibly, because the risk is on her anyways. 

I wish I had discovered the Red Pill of sexual strategies much sooner. It was such a relief to understand why I did some of the things I did. I gave me power. I made lots of poor choices, and always felt depressed and wanted to be better and felt stuck and blah blah blah, and seeing why I was doing what I was doing allowed me to hack my nature to be something more aligned with what I desired to be. It's really a tragedy that our own natures are hidden from us so thoroughly. It would be much kinder for us to admit what we are and then submit to the reality of our own weaknesses and then act in ways which help us be the good person I think we all wish to be. 

On 8/24/2018 at 5:11 PM, smarterthanone said:

Maybe so in general. I have serious doubts that a woman who gets a degree in women's studies, then works at startbucks for years and years is actually intelligent (or using her intelligence?). They can see patterns well when its on a piece of paper but they cannot see patterns well when its in real life. I think men are much better at this because high IQ men simply make more money.

This was pretty much me. I got a degree in Literature and Biblical Studies, worked super hard through college, and graduated without a single idea of what to do to support myself. Lots of panic attacks later, I found myself working at Starbucks to supplement my art teacher income. I had zero ability to think well under any threat of uncertainty, and had no ability to be competitive or creative when I felt uncertain about my finances. 

 

I also never wanted to go to college. I graduated high school at 16 and wanted to go work as a maid in this gorgeous house in New England. I thought it would be a fun way to see the Eastern Coast and I wanted to see what people were like there. If I had had my way I probably would have gone to New England, worked for a while, and found a guy and got married and knocked up. My mother actually applied to college for me, and then informed me that I was going to this stupidly conservative Christian college. It was awful. We had mandatory chapel every day, and I was locked into my dorm every night between 11pm and 6 am, and we had to ask permission to go out of town or be alone with someone of the opposite gender. It was miserable. She also took out lots of loans for it and never told me, signing my name for them. I should have known, tbh. But I had very little ability to go against her when I was younger. I always thought I was somehow defective. I really understand now that I was being a typical female, and I really would have benefited from having a strong, loving masculine presence in my life to teach me how to resist my "group" and to act in accordance with my own vision and integrity. 

[Siegfried von Walheim]

40 minutes ago, Elizbaeth said:

I don't think the sin of the average guy is to divorce his wife... I think most men value the long-term bond. However, I think the sin of the average guy is to want to stay married, but also cheat. I think most guys would leave only if things were utter hell for them. 

I think you're dead-wrong--as a young unmarried man anyway.

Men do not want to cheat; men want to be loved. If men don't feel loved by their wife, they will find love wherever they can get it (and that doesn't necessarily have to be from a woman btw; it could be a pet, close friend, or close relative).

Some cynical traditionalists even endorsed male-cheating as a lazy way out of just being better wives/mothers. Even some lazy men chose to let their wives cheat rather than be good husbands/fathers. However this is obviously not a solution worth considering...

...Instead, I recommend to all women that they act motherly--this guarantees a man's faithfulness. The exceptions are with cads who are simply too rabbit-like to be familial. So don't bother with unstable/unreliable guys in the first place (and in my experience: they're super easy to spot).

But reliable guys (and I'm tempted to think this is most guys by my own personal experience dealing with males my age) are very easy to keep: just hug them, love them, and otherwise be good to them. You maybe want to use them as "practice" before becoming an actual mother since the basics aren't even that different...

As for guys: I don't know how to "prepare". But I do know if I found a good woman, I'd act "fatherly" so long as she was "motherly". Meaning so long as I felt loved and wanted, I would not only act loving and protective but also wanting of the woman. Like, we'd be magnets!

I think any woman who is motherly and chose a reliable guy has nothing to worry about from cheating. Men are naturally repelled by the idea of cheating and only consider it if they feel unloved, unwanted or otherwise like a slave or a bastard. I hypothesize this is especially true with motherless men. 

 

EDIT: About all the above posts I've made: I apologize for their disorderliness and repetitiveness. I wanted to make a point but it wasn't until the end that I was able to shorten it and make it sharp, you know?

I hope I've helped (you do provide me with some insight--especially about motherhood--and that's why I enjoy reading you in the first place. It helps me prepare for what I could expect from a woman as well as think about what to do as a solution for certain problems--like isolation and difficulty of pregnancy/birthing). 

Edited September 13, 2018 by Siegfried von Walheim

[smarterthanone]

On 9/13/2018 at 1:34 PM, Elizbaeth said:

Why would an intelligent, conservative woman, who enjoys the popularity of being an attractive Conservative woman (and you know the men in her circle all like her because she's an attractive conservative woman) give that up for something which costs her attention and value in the eyes of the world at large? Why would she give up the opportunity to self-actualize, to follow her own ambition or dreams or to utilize her intelligence? Because the truth is that a mom who raises her kids at home needs to have all the skills taught in HomeEc - and no one wants a woman who focuses on that. People look down on those girls for being dull or dumb. Conservative men want a woman who looks like a young, high SMV hottie but who can talk politics and business with the men, who isn't emotional, and who is hard-hitting and fully logical. We are all screwed up and backwards. Masculinity is not valued in men and femininity is not valued in women, and even conservative men have fallen prey to this liberal misdirection as well. 

I especially like the last sentence you wrote here. Just as I said conservative women are falling for the disease, conservative men are as well. Why are conservative men pushing their daughters to higher education instead of HomeEc? Why are men not standing firm in our desires for relationships? For example, I don't appreciate tattoos on women for marriage, just as most men don't. But if I had given up on getting married, I would tell women sure, yeah you should get tattoos, its sexy. What do I care if it makes you less marriageable if it makes my hook up slightly more interesting? Men aren't helping things either, although we are not the gatekeepers on fertility so men cannot solve the problem.

 

On 9/13/2018 at 2:01 PM, Elizbaeth said:

I thought my husband wanted me to be the mother of his children because I was an intelligent woman - you don't need more than just-enough IQ to sweep a house and fold clothes and change diapers. It took me a long time to adjust and just go with the flow and enjoy this season of life, and it wasn't without a full-on grieving process for the person I once was.

I honestly think in many cultures and times simple women were probably preferred instead of intelligent ones. What does that do to the children's IQ's though? Well regression to the mean and all but its not good. So now we want intelligent women but it can make things difficult. Personally I prefer intelligent women but I've also noticed some are capable of being child like, someone who can sit down and just color in a kids coloring book or sing while they clean and be content. If they can do that, they can be happy being best friends with a young child all day. At least that's my thought.

Regarding pregnancy being difficult, the younger you are the easier it is. Also, the women I know who love having kids or who have lots of kids, they have all sexualized pregnancy. They think that if they get pregnant, the thoughts of their husbands sperm growing inside of them will sexually turn them on. Or they think about how everyone can see their baby bump and know they are knocked up almost as a form of exhibitionism. I know it sounds freaky but they didn't describe it quite like this, its my more clinical description of what they've told me. So they want to be pregnant not only because they want a child but because they want to become aroused and its pleasurable.

 

On 9/13/2018 at 2:28 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

I think you're dead-wrong--as a young unmarried man anyway.

Men do not want to cheat; men want to be loved. If men don't feel loved by their wife, they will find love wherever they can get it (and that doesn't necessarily have to be from a woman btw; it could be a pet, close friend, or close relative).

Some cynical traditionalists even endorsed male-cheating as a lazy way out of just being better wives/mothers. Even some lazy men chose to let their wives cheat rather than be good husbands/fathers. However this is obviously not a solution worth considering...

...Instead, I recommend to all women that they act motherly--this guarantees a man's faithfulness. The exceptions are with cads who are simply too rabbit-like to be familial. So don't bother with unstable/unreliable guys in the first place (and in my experience: they're super easy to spot).

But reliable guys (and I'm tempted to think this is most guys by my own personal experience dealing with males my age) are very easy to keep: just hug them, love them, and otherwise be good to them. You maybe want to use them as "practice" before becoming an actual mother since the basics aren't even that different...

As for guys: I don't know how to "prepare". But I do know if I found a good woman, I'd act "fatherly" so long as she was "motherly". Meaning so long as I felt loved and wanted, I would not only act loving and protective but also wanting of the woman. Like, we'd be magnets!

I think any woman who is motherly and chose a reliable guy has nothing to worry about from cheating. Men are naturally repelled by the idea of cheating and only consider it if they feel unloved, unwanted or otherwise like a slave or a bastard. I hypothesize this is especially true with motherless men. 

 

EDIT: About all the above posts I've made: I apologize for their disorderliness and repetitiveness. I wanted to make a point but it wasn't until the end that I was able to shorten it and make it sharp, you know?

I hope I've helped (you do provide me with some insight--especially about motherhood--and that's why I enjoy reading you in the first place. It helps me prepare for what I could expect from a woman as well as think about what to do as a solution for certain problems--like isolation and difficulty of pregnancy/birthing). 

I agree to an extent. Men and women cheat for different reasons typically. If a man is emotionally fulfilled and respected at home, he isn't going to cheat in such a way as to leave his family. That is what I agree with. But men are always tempted to cheat when it comes to power, and that is just pure sex and not even for pleasure primarily. Its typically more subtle, but say a man is out with business partners and he wants to show is the the most manly and dominating one of all, so he wants to pick up some girl at a bar and take her back to the hotel so all the other guys know, he is sexually successful. He isn't doing that because he cares about the girl at all, or that he doesn't like or is not into his wife, she could be perfect. It's strictly a power play over other men in order to have a better negotiation and make more money and in the end provide better for his family. Or say some guy is harassing you, and you have a shot at his wife now, so you have sex with her. It has nothing to do with your wife being a bad wife or you wanting any kind of romantic situation with another woman. It is just power and a way to protect his image against the harassment, and a mans reputation and image being built up can help him be better for his family. And when a man feels down on himself, it could be him regaining personal power, proving hes still got it, which having a confident man is better for his family. This is the main reason why men cheat, and its for power and at the end of the day it helps the man be stronger and be better for his family.

Women do not cheat for power. They just cheat because of hyper gamy reasons and that is specifically to destroy or bail on the current relationship. This is why mens cheating and womens cheating is viewed differently.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

7 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

Regarding pregnancy being difficult, the younger you are the easier it is. Also, the women I know who love having kids or who have lots of kids, they have all sexualized pregnancy. They think that if they get pregnant, the thoughts of their husbands sperm growing inside of them will sexually turn them on. Or they think about how everyone can see their baby bump and know they are knocked up almost as a form of exhibitionism. I know it sounds freaky but they didn't describe it quite like this, its my more clinical description of what they've told me. So they want to be pregnant not only because they want a child but because they want to become aroused and its pleasurable.

I suspected this; after all, pregnancy is proof of a lack of virginity (and supposedly breasts were too: as they may have once been retractable and only "came out" when a woman was pregnant/gave birth) and that can be arousing. After all, if X found her attractive enough to impregnate, maybe I could too? Or something like that. 

I also suspect that the more "Earthly" a woman is about her sexuality and reproduction system (rather than mentally splitting and creating a "lustful/evil" and "loving/good side", realizing that it's both lust and love in the creation of a baby and making more of them) and perhaps the younger she is (at what point is "ideal" versus "too young"? I don't know, but I do know 18 is generally the safe age legally so maybe it's around there). 

I'm not sure if it's intelligence in a woman that might make her dislike children and childishness. After all, most of the abusive bitches by peers grew up with were damn-near retarded! And personally, as a guy with a big IQ cock (not to compensate or anything 0.o), I really enjoy playing with children and fantasize about making babies and then raising them into adulthood. And if I, a high IQ guy, really want to make and raise babies, then surely high IQ women can as well. Maybe there IS a correlation between high IQ and not-wanting-to-raise children that is in fact biological rather than high IQ people being more likely to eat the infertile "wait until you're 80" crap. But I suspect it's really all a matter of mindset: if you love children (specifically the idea of your own children--personally I don't really care about strangers' children all that much, while I do care about children related to me, and definitely care about the children not yet made by me) and view making and raising babies as the best part of adulthood and the "real beginning" rather than an end, then I suspect making babies, birthing babies, and raising them into adults becomes a Hell of a lot easier.

Quote

I agree to an extent. Men and women cheat for different reasons typically. If a man is emotionally fulfilled and respected at home, he isn't going to cheat in such a way as to leave his family. That is what I agree with. But men are always tempted to cheat when it comes to power, and that is just pure sex and not even for pleasure primarily. Its typically more subtle, but say a man is out with business partners and he wants to show is the the most manly and dominating one of all, so he wants to pick up some girl at a bar and take her back to the hotel so all the other guys know, he is sexually successful.

I'm highly skeptical. Perhaps is a mental or biological thing; maybe it's Dad vs. Chad or K vs r. Maybe it's a total mindset thing as I've never really cared for the petty oneupmanship (I'd rather be the guy that beats them in whatever matters that they never see coming, or more directly at like boxing or whatever). If I was with a bunch of guys and they started egging each other on about who has the balls to get some woman in some bar, I'd be the guy chastising them for their stupidity and tell them to either ask her out for a one-night-stand or do the smart thing and wait for marriage. I'm a good Catholic boy...

Quote

 He isn't doing that because he cares about the girl at all, or that he doesn't like or is not into his wife, she could be perfect. It's strictly a power play over other men in order to have a better negotiation and make more money and in the end provide better for his family. Or say some guy is harassing you, and you have a shot at his wife now, so you have sex with her.

If I had a problem with some guy specifically, I wouldn't be so beta as to go for his wife. I'd go directly for him (in whatever way is permitted by law) one way or another. I'm not exactly averse to physical confrontation... and almost thanks to that, I haven't had physical confrontations since I was a teenager. Of course, part of it was just being able to spot real danger instinctively. I'm not some sort of hard-nosed tough guy, just a talkative guy who isn't afraid to state exactly what he thinks and feels so long as he knows the consequences of doing so wouldn't put him 6 feet under (like you know I wouldn't be so frank with a gangster with tattoos all over his face--I'd keep clear of him). 

Quote

It has nothing to do with your wife being a bad wife or you wanting any kind of romantic situation with another woman. It is just power and a way to protect his image against the harassment, and a mans reputation and image being built up can help him be better for his family. And when a man feels down on himself, it could be him regaining personal power, proving hes still got it, which having a confident man is better for his family.

Yeah if I knew a guy like this I'd kick his ass to the curb. How much of a weakling could he be? I've got my own insecurities, but acting upon them in such a way? Disgusting. If I was a woman and took this as an example of most men's thinking, or I didn't know better men, I'd probably be a feminist after reading this. Just switch the genders; I could easily imagine a feminist saying this to justify female cheating of men. It's "masculinism" in the sense of being "male feminism".

Quote

This is the main reason why men cheat, and its for power and at the end of the day it helps the man be stronger and be better for his family.

Point is, the behavior you describe is incredibly beta and frankly subhuman by my own standards and way of thinking. I'm sure there's a class go guys who think/act like this but any woman with a brain would be able to smell these guys a mile away and avoid them. Any woman with a brain doing anything with these guys knows it'll be a one-night-stand or asking for long-term trouble (or both). 

To be clear, all of my descriptions before about male mindset towards cheating is based on how K-selected family types think. I don't really care about human vermin, and neither should a woman who is thinking long-term, beyond keeping them as far away from me as possible. It's impossible to generalize all male or female sexuality because of the big K/r and Alpha/Beta divides. What you describe sounds like the way either a Beta K or r thinks (as Betas tend to be either manipulative and/or cowardly; r selected people are short-sighted and immoral). Theoretically an Alpha r wouldn't even hide his "cheating" so it wouldn't be cheating (because he'd be very up front with his future/potential disloyalty and therefore sexual monogamy was never "part of the deal" so to speak). 

Not to mention I have a hard time imagining how succumbing to weakness makes a man stronger or better. It just makes him a weakling unworthy of respect. If I knew his wife, I'd probably encourage her to cheat on him because he not only broke his vows but also proved himself too beta to be looked at in the eyes. However if I knew such a woman, she probably wouldn't be married to a beta male...

Quote

Women do not cheat for power. They just cheat because of hyper gamy reasons and that is specifically to destroy or bail on the current relationship. This is why mens cheating and womens cheating is viewed differently.

How is it viewed differently? I only ever hear that line from Leftists and even then I've never heard a real difference because the common thread is a breaking of loyalty. While the consequences were surely different historically/biologically, practically it's the same: man hates cheating because it is disloyal (breaks his trust); woman hates cheating because it is disloyal (breaks her trust). The typical difference is the consequences: when a man cheats, he's investing into a new gene pool. When a woman cheats, she's removing her husband from her gene pool and inviting a new man. Either way... I have never met anyone who wasn't a whore (and I don't mean just slutty women; I mean slutty men too) that had a complicated view of cheating. It's dead simple: breaking vows/loyalty=cheating. 

Even in the case of hypergamy, that IS a power-move as the higher status male is presumably someone who could dominate the lower status male. And since it's not too hard for most women to control most men... well, it's indirect, but it's power. 

 

[Elizbaeth]

On 9/13/2018 at 2:07 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Maybe I'm unusual because I actually looked forward to fatherhood and have since I was little (I remember being 5 and wanting to be a daddy and had fun coming up with names)

Awwwww. My husband also wanted kids from a young age. A lot of women think men are family and relationship-averse (not true, but lots of women believe that) so it's always refreshing and nice to know that men want and look forward to those things. 

 

On 9/13/2018 at 2:07 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Point is though, guys like Cao Cao were not unusual in terms of generally keeping a close family while also working ensuring there was an unofficial system in place that groomed males to fight and work as well as females to love and breed. Basically men were taught to be men while women were taught to be women.

Totally agree. I am a little confused as to why there is all this talk about "alphas" being the ones to ditch families... It doesn't make sense to me. I would think, that if a man were really an alpha, he would never question his own desire and choices in love, and would only feel happier surrounded by the product of his own love. 

 

On 9/13/2018 at 2:07 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

From what I know, families used to actually be a thing. Meaning Grandpa would actually be involved in who his children and grandchildren married, their work, etc. while Grandma, aunties, etc. would assist other females in handling the struggles of pregnancy as well as ensuring the least amount of scarring, malfunction, etc. possible. Women used to give birth to literally dozens of children and less than half would survive. Modern women have it much easier than historical women; perhaps modern women are weaker than historical women. And I mean that physically--perhaps being a farmer or a rancher helped strengthen the muscles necessary for being pregnant and birthing children as well as playing with and meaningfully engaging them. I can't be sure, but I have to wonder how most historical women could give birth year after year after year while modern women can't even handle a single pregnancy. Perhaps it really is a physical thing; maybe it's best young women--like 18 to 20--do the birthing because that's when they can do it with the least amount of physical damage and scarring. And then maybe as the female body gets used to pregnancy and birthing it isn't so destructive to the bowels. After all, contrary to popular belief, medieval people were not only sanitary but quite smart about family organization.

Yep, agree again. But you know...we are in a weird time of change. I have strongly felt the void of a strong family network, and have mourned it, to be honest. But by the same token I am not bound to adopt the crazy or burdensome traditions that would be inescapable. I miss tradition and family, but I am not forced to swallow all the oppression and lies that are also tied up with a solid, stable, old tradition and web-like family network. It is a problem to solve. I would like to get the best of both worlds - the community/stability and the choice of values and ability to judge skeptically. But yes. I do believe family was once a real thing, and very useful. 

I've wondered the same thing about pregnancy. All I know is my own experiences. Pregnancy is utterly physical (spiritual, too, which is often left out and the spiritual side is very important). Young women definitely handle it better, physically. Also, I think it's so destructive to the bowels for lots of unnecessary reasons - I am a very bitter towards modern birthing practices. A healthy woman, who gives birth in the place of her choosing, and is emotionally supported and feels safe and is allowed to act on her urges and impulses does not need an obstetrician. Maybe I'm wrong, but I the more I see, the less I think doctors have any place in births, apart from the basics of hygiene. All they do is interfere and complicate a process which a woman is rightfully equipped to handle on her own, by birthright. Almost everything is wrong - moving a woman during labor halts  the process, lying down is very  unproductive; the hips cannot spread apart as easily from this angle (the bones need to be able to move), and the baby will come out, the woman can't use her own muscles effectively and is hobbled and hindered by the bed and all the I.V.s; I'm convinced that all the drugs are evil; pitocin (they give you this to induce labor and to stimulate contractions) makes the labor contractions SO much more painful, and can cause stress to the baby which can lead to interventions like c-Section, because it unnaturally amplifies contractions and forces them to be harder and longer than they would have otherwise been. The body will ramp up contractions naturally in response to hormones given out by the baby. In a natural birth the baby controls the speed and force, and the baby's heart rate and stress levels are typically sustainable. And usually, when the mother is given pitocin, the contractions are so painful for her that she will end up begging for pain meds or an epidural (epidural are often made from strong opioids, which does drug the baby and often causes problems with the baby nursing after birth), and usually this blocks the mother's ability to "push" (a mother should never be told to push. This in itself is responsible for most pelvic floor damage. The tissue does tear, often, in natural births, but natural tears actually heal much easier, and there is literally no need to push. If the mother pushes forcefully, before she is ready and before her muscles and tissue have opened, there is tremendous damage because everything has been forcefully ripped. A woman's body is made to open, and it will open, on it's own, when it and the baby are ready to open. I have heard countless stories of women being told to "push" by a Dr who is tired of waiting, and she is usually given an episiotomy to "speed up the opening." It's infuriating. A man has no reason to be in that room, unless the father wishes to support the woman - on her terms - and to be part of the child's entrance into the world. Men do not understand the meditation, the soul-searching, the totally-encompassing event that birth is, and they meddle and want to make it clinical and they get uncomfortable and want to stop the woman from hurting and they get impatient so they try to expedite the process. And yes, modern woman are weak. They are afraid of pain. That's so stupid. It's such a different pain than a broken leg or a cut or anything like that. This pain will not kill you. 

My first birth was a hospital birth and I regret it and feel robbed of my crowing achievement and of my birthright. My baby was taken by the doctors and I was not allowed to bond, I ws poked and prodded, I was on display, I was examined and interfered with and denied water (denied water! it's barbaric!), and I was butchered for no other reason than the doctor's convenience. I don't know if I will ever "get over" that experience. My second birth was in the hospital parking garage, and I LOVED it. I labored at home for 24 hours, and walked around, ate apples and fruits until food was unappealing and I took warm baths and swam and watched movies and I sank, ever more deeply, into myself, and into what I was feeling, and into this timeless moment of becoming and of welcoming a deep, deep pain and just primordial knowing - it was really an ancient as my DNA, no other way to say it - and understanding that my other soul, that other human inside me was getting ready to come into this reckless but lovely world, and listening to him and knowing that he and I were in harmony. We waited until the last minute then drove to the hospital at 4 am, and almost as soon as I stepped out of the truck in the parking garage I felt my hip bones split apart and his head slip down. It was incredible. Then his came out in a rush and my husband caught him - how incredible is that! my husband caught him so that he didn't hit the concrete floor! The only downside was actually being in the hospital. They were like swarms of extremely irritating bugs. I needed to sleep, and my baby needed to be with me, and they just kept pestering me and sucking my blood, and I would have been happy to swat them all away. I know this is very detailed and intimate, but that's what birth is.

 

On 9/13/2018 at 2:14 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

I don't want to assume, but perhaps you or women you know/knew have a jealousy problem becaues--frankly--why does it matter if some stranger gets attention? Why do you need attention? What's wrong with being the shortest, ugliest, etc. on the bloc? Wouldn't you rather be surrounded by people that are amazing? Especially compared to you or me? I know I would. (And to be clear: I don't mean to say "I want to be bad so everyone is good by comparsion", I mean "I want everyone to be great so that I have only up to look). 

Isolation is definitely a big problem--especially within families. 

And it seems awfully strange for women to seek attention from strangers rather than their husbands (maybe that's the solution to the problem you're describing; re-focus that desire for attention onto the husband and children by being a great wife/mother). If anything (I kinda repeat), a man/woman should be focused mostly if not only on their family. 

I think women should give up the attention of the outside world and only wish to gain their husband's attention and the love of their family. I'm just saying that it is a problem I see. I think the seeds of it are planted very early on, since women are encouraged to gain attention while they're growing up, and then the game and rules change once in a marriage, and once in a marriage, feminist-raised women have little to zero understanding of how to connect with a man, or to please him, or to be useful or valuable to him - they only know how to get the superficial attention of the dating world. An older woman, who had been through it all, would be useful in shepherding her through this and showing her what to do, but then again, if a woman like that was in a girl's life, she might not have trouble in the first place giving up the attention of the outside world in exchange for a place in a family. 

 

On 9/16/2018 at 7:48 AM, smarterthanone said:

Why are conservative men pushing their daughters to higher education instead of HomeEc? Why are men not standing firm in our desires for relationships? For example, I don't appreciate tattoos on women for marriage, just as most men don't. But if I had given up on getting married, I would tell women sure, yeah you should get tattoos, its sexy. What do I care if it makes you less marriageable if it makes my hook up slightly more interesting? Men aren't helping things either, although we are not the gatekeepers on fertility so men cannot solve the problem.

Right. I think our generation inherited some pretty messed up things, and we did our fair share of perpetuating them, and now we're all seeing how screwed up it is and how badly it damages everything. And I used to think that men were the only ones who could save society, but I'm starting to think it's women, because, like you said we're the gatekeepers of fertility. Which is interesting - growing up, it never once occurred to me that a woman had power by deciding who to have children with. Never once. Honestly, it makes me mad to see how deceived I was. I should have been aware of my glorious power when I was a girl. Not so that I could be mean or misuse it or anything like that, but so I could be humbled by it, and honest with myself, and could have proceeded with grace and could have celebrated my unique place in this life. But girls are now taught that is is power to use their femininity in only the most shallow and destructive ways. And it destroys all of us. 

 

On 9/16/2018 at 7:48 AM, smarterthanone said:

Regarding pregnancy being difficult, the younger you are the easier it is. Also, the women I know who love having kids or who have lots of kids, they have all sexualized pregnancy. They think that if they get pregnant, the thoughts of their husbands sperm growing inside of them will sexually turn them on. Or they think about how everyone can see their baby bump and know they are knocked up almost as a form of exhibitionism. I know it sounds freaky but they didn't describe it quite like this, its my more clinical description of what they've told me. So they want to be pregnant not only because they want a child but because they want to become aroused and its pleasurable.

 Yup. And childbirth is sexual, too. But I don't think it's sexual in a gross, obscene way. But this is how I think true female sexuality is - it's not that aggressive, overly sexual hook-up sexuality that is pushed right now, and that cares about orgasm. That's a man's sexuality. A woman's sexuality is about the whole process, and it is about being wrapped up in being desired and it about being the object  of love and passion, and of making new things and absorbing. Women's sexuality is about a mode of being. It's not the sex act itself. 

 

On 9/16/2018 at 3:07 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

I'm not sure if it's intelligence in a woman that might make her dislike children and childishness. After all, most of the abusive bitches by peers grew up with were damn-near retarded! And personally, as a guy with a big IQ cock (not to compensate or anything 0.o), I really enjoy playing with children and fantasize about making babies and then raising them into adulthood. And if I, a high IQ guy, really want to make and raise babies, then surely high IQ women can as well. Maybe there IS a correlation between high IQ and not-wanting-to-raise children that is in fact biological rather than high IQ people being more likely to eat the infertile "wait until you're 80" crap. But I suspect it's really all a matter of mindset: if you love children (specifically the idea of your own children--personally I don't really care about strangers' children all that much, while I do care about children related to me, and definitely care about the children not yet made by me) and view making and raising babies as the best part of adulthood and the "real beginning" rather than an end, then I suspect making babies, birthing babies, and raising them into adults becomes a Hell of a lot easier.

No, intelligence does not at all make a woman dislike children. I can't imagine how it could. I think intelligence makes is somewhat less desirable to do the other chores surrounding the care-taking of children, like the cleaning. But the children themselves? Not at all. '

 

On 9/16/2018 at 3:07 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Yeah if I knew a guy like this I'd kick his ass to the curb. How much of a weakling could he be? I've got my own insecurities, but acting upon them in such a way? Disgusting. If I was a woman and took this as an example of most men's thinking, or I didn't know better men, I'd probably be a feminist after reading this. Just switch the genders; I could easily imagine a feminist saying this to justify female cheating of men. It's "masculinism" in the sense of being "male feminism".

Right. That's why most women now dislike men - most of them don't have fathers they are close to, and they see examples of men doing these sorts of things and think all men are like that. But really, most people are just acting out their brokenness and hurt. Men who do this are weak. They're trying to become powerful by taking value and power from someone else - a woman (ironic, in a way) and they should not behave in this way by any means, and yet I've developed a lot of sympathy for what drives the action. They need to see a better path, and they need to know that they can become better.

 

On 9/16/2018 at 3:07 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

I'd probably encourage her to cheat on him because he not only broke his vows but also proved himself too beta to be looked at in the eyes.

Why cheat? Two wrongs don't make a right. If she is too disgusted and the trust is too broken, she should leave and save her own integrity. I would, however, think that it would be worthwhile to investigate the man and see if he is just in a lost place in his life, and needs to be reminded of his own values and integrity. This is one instance of when I think a wife needs to put of the mother hat. Is the man a chronic scoundrel? Leave him. Is he lost and in need of direction? For me, it might be worth discovering. A marriage vow is not something to dissolve lightly. Even if the other person breaks their vows, I would have to know that I did my best to ask for the best out of the other person before I walked away for good. The time, at least in my opinion, to be stern and extreme is in the beginning, when you are selecting. Once you make those vows, I think the question is more a matter of clearly defending my own boundaries and integrity, because I think it is my duty and job to try to help, understand, forgive bad and encourage good of my partner as much as possible, only ceasing to do this when it costs me my own self-value and integrity. But yes, overall, if he's cheating to make himself feel powerful, he probably is so far gone that there's no hope, and staying with him would only be emotional suicide. 

 

On 9/16/2018 at 3:07 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

How is it viewed differently? I only ever hear that line from Leftists and even then I've never heard a real difference because the common thread is a breaking of loyalty. While the consequences were surely different historically/biologically, practically it's the same: man hates cheating because it is disloyal (breaks his trust); woman hates cheating because it is disloyal (breaks her trust). The typical difference is the consequences: when a man cheats, he's investing into a new gene pool. When a woman cheats, she's removing her husband from her gene pool and inviting a new man. Either way... I have never met anyone who wasn't a whore (and I don't mean just slutty women; I mean slutty men too) that had a complicated view of cheating. It's dead simple: breaking vows/loyalty=cheating. 

Even in the case of hypergamy, that IS a power-move as the higher status male is presumably someone who could dominate the lower status male. And since it's not too hard for most women to control most men... well, it's indirect, but it's power. 

Right. Cheating is cheating, and a broken vow or broken trust is still just broken trust. I've heard a lot of people in the Red Pill community try to justify make cheating by saying that an alpha-enough guy is biologically driven to have a main girl and then impregnate as a many others as he can, and they hey, it's just biology. It's pretty disgusting. But, if a man is going to cheat and be dishonest or cruel or selfish or whatever you call it, that's usually how he justifies it, and when women decide to be dishonest or cruel or whatever, it's by branch-signing. If a man or woman has no morals or standards, these are the ways in which their lack or morals usually manifest. 

[smarterthanone]

12 hours ago, Elizbaeth said:

Totally agree. I am a little confused as to why there is all this talk about "alphas" being the ones to ditch families... It doesn't make sense to me. I would think, that if a man were really an alpha, he would never question his own desire and choices in love, and would only feel happier surrounded by the product of his own love. 

The only reason I would ditch a family was because it was no good or degrading to be part of the family. ie if my wife was cheating I would leave and now instead of the kids being my family, they are simply in the way financially and emotionally of me starting a new family, one that was not broken by the mother and degrading to be associated with. I think you see this a lot with the whole "bastard" lineage. Men would have bastard children and leave them nothing on purpose so that they could leave their inheritance to the married family. The family unit is more important than an individual child.