Page 5 of 6 [ 86 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


Your reaction?
Yay! 21%  21%  [ 8 ]
Boo! 21%  21%  [ 8 ]
Meh! 59%  59%  [ 23 ]
Total votes : 39

aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,475

18 Feb 2013, 3:55 am

Given the births out of wedlock and the statistics provided among different ethnic groups, and the actual number of births 1990 vs 2010 in the table below, the number of eventual issues in society include, a continuing trend in this direction, a society increasingly dependent on assistance for subsistence, and most troubling is the lack of clear social roles for those in the society.

At one point the village or tribe provided the social roles, then the family and work provided the social roles, then increasingly work provided the social roles, and now work is no longer either as available or can easily be defined as a social role through the course of one person's life.

A lack of social roles for socials animals invariably lead to extinction of the social unit. The social unit now is becoming a global one, with virtual reality connections that glue it together. Social animals of the warmblooded variety don't make good hive creatures.

Japan and South Korea are seeing the impact as some young people are losing the will to form any relationships and have any children.

While one might contribute the approaching overall 40% decrease in under the age of 20 births, in the US, in just two decades, to better education on reproductive control, that whole demographic except for Hispanics are on an increasingly downward spiral.

The only overall demographic, that is also the overall smallest demographic, that is keeping the family unit together is the Asian demographic in the US, however the number of births are still decreasing dramatically among the under age 20 demographic of that group, while all other age groups are increasing dramatically in births among the Asian demographic.

Society in the US is currently held together by the social welfare state, as it is exists. Chaos will be the result if and when that glue disappears in the future. The only current answer to avoid it is the continued re-distribution of wealth. Without the impact of weapons of mass destruction, a balance will likely continue to be found for some time to come if enough intelligence AND social cooperation continues. One can also likely forget any potential for anything but a Democratic President in the US as long as this demographic trend continues.

But a lack of social roles is still a real problem and can eventually look like what is demonstrated among social animals per the link and quote below in John Calhoun's behavioral sink experiment in the 60's, when social roles cease to exist and subsistence is still provided.

Some interesting analogies are already occurring in Japan and South Korea, per John Calhoun's experiment and the "beautiful ones".

36% of males age 16 to 19 in Japan have no interest in real sex. Many of who are reported as despising the thought of it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/3 ... 242014.htm

And make-up has become the foundation of success for men in South Korea.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/wor ... 57792806/1

But a rapidly decreasing population and suicide among the young and old are increasing at an alarming rate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/world ... ral&src=me

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Calhoun#1963-1983

Quote:
After day 600 the social breakdown continued and the population declined toward extinction. During this period females ceased to reproduce. Their male counterparts withdrew completely, never engaging in courtship or fighting. They ate, drank, slept, and groomed themselves – all solitary pursuits. Sleek, healthy coats and an absence of scars characterized these males. They were dubbed “the beautiful ones”.


http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/11/ ... igrants/7/
Image



XFilesGeek
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,350
Location: The Oort Cloud

18 Feb 2013, 9:27 am

Quote:
But a lack of social roles is still a real problem and can eventually look like what is demonstrated among social animals per the link and quote below in John Calhoun's behavioral sink experiment in the 60's, when social roles cease to exist and subsistence is still provided.


Are we really losing "social roles," or are we just creating new ones?

I'm not debating any of the information you posted, I'm just wondering if humans simply haven't had enough time to adapt to our rapidly changing social conditions.

The modern way of living is still pretty "new" considering the evolutionary time scale, so I prefer a "wait-and-see" approach.


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (moderator)


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,475

18 Feb 2013, 3:00 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:
Quote:
But a lack of social roles is still a real problem and can eventually look like what is demonstrated among social animals per the link and quote below in John Calhoun's behavioral sink experiment in the 60's, when social roles cease to exist and subsistence is still provided.


Are we really losing "social roles," or are we just creating new ones?

I'm not debating any of the information you posted, I'm just wondering if humans simply haven't had enough time to adapt to our rapidly changing social conditions.

The modern way of living is still pretty "new" considering the evolutionary time scale, so I prefer a "wait-and-see" approach.


Yes, I would say that new social roles are being created but they are becoming increasingly virtual reality ones instead of flesh and blood ones.

That is better than nothing, but when the social unit is lost, whether it is as a result of the loss of social roles in the village, extended family, work, or even organized religion and other social activities that people were connected to in real flesh and blood life in the past, what can be lost is the interdependence of that connection that people have relied upon when their time of need for help from others came, whether it is a ride to the mechanic shop to pick up one's car or someone to take care of the children when they are sick. Those are simple everyday examples but the social needs of support in so many other ways cannot be met in a virtual way. That's what I mean by humans don't make good hive animals.

I think the question is can society continue to adapt to fully meet the social needs of humans. It's trying.

Some people will adapt better to this new way of life, and some will not. It is far from a real crisis of chaos at this point. That point would be a tipping point of chaos where enough people do not adapt. I am not sure what that would look like, but it won't likely present very nicely.



lotuspuppy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jan 2008
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,013
Location: On a journey to the center of the mind

18 Feb 2013, 4:50 pm

I grew up in a single parent household (my father died when I was four). My grandparents stepped in and financed a nice middle class upbringing for me and my siblings. My brother just graduated from Stanford, so none of us turned out too bad

BUT

My mother had to give up her career for a lower pay job with only a week of vacation time every year. She was often a tired woman. She would often say she was too tired to monitor our grades or force us to do anything. We think that's the reason we are so successful for our age :).

In all seriousness, I would not have been so blessed in life if I didn't have grandparents who could help or did help. I have a hard time imagining what would happen without this help. You lose a lot when raised by one parent. My mother just retired at 55, and was able to do so. I used to think her wish to retire young was laziness. Now I realize she is just worn out.

I fear for anyone born into a single family household, no matter the education level. You need two parents to keep you sane.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 115
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,800

18 Feb 2013, 9:07 pm

That's why you need life insurance.



Inventor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,295
Location: New Orleans

18 Feb 2013, 10:37 pm

The result of equality, no more buying my first ex wife a house, my second ex, paying for her two kids that do not look like me, but I was under contract, so I pay.

We are all equal now, so if you want to play, buy me a car or something, then go home.

As all non white homosexuals are twice as good, with laws to back that up, get them to buy you a drink, take you out to dinner, and support your children.

Equality was reached by the destruction of male roles,

You cut down the tree, now you miss the fruit?

That boat sailed long ago, I would rather have a new Bass Boat, than pay for what some crazie wants.

Men had a mass dieoff at 43 due to trying to fill an endless need, They worked themself to death for you.

Have you ever heard of a man fishing himself to death?

Men had a second great dieoff just after they retired, they crossed the finish line in a race they did not like, then could just die.

If you do not marry any, there will be just as many tomorrow, and since DNA tests, you wont be paying for her other customers results.

Marriage makes a man broke, in debt, he has given up his life, then he is abused to death.

They can find another meal ticket, it is called work, and women can die of a heart attack at 43.

Our Bodies, Ourselves, well you have it all now, and birth control and abortion, use it.

Have you seen the new Hatteras 43, it has everything a man could want.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,938

19 Feb 2013, 4:26 am

Wrt. DNA tests: that sword has two edges. No more claiming that she's a 'slut' and that the kid 'isn't yours,' and then fleeing the state, when you and she both know better. Maybe those kids just take after their mom or some other maternal relative rather than you - doesn't mean that half of your DNA isn't in there. If you really doubt, all it takes is a test kit, a cheek swab, and a little cash.

If you're that resentful of the kids in question, they're probably better off without you around, to call them bastards and badmouth their mother, anyway.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,475

19 Feb 2013, 8:06 am

LKL wrote:
Wrt. DNA tests: that sword has two edges. No more claiming that she's a 'slut' and that the kid 'isn't yours,' and then fleeing the state, when you and she both know better. Maybe those kids just take after their mom or some other maternal relative rather than you - doesn't mean that half of your DNA isn't in there. If you really doubt, all it takes is a test kit, a cheek swab, and a little cash.

If you're that resentful of the kids in question, they're probably better off without you around, to call them bastards and badmouth their mother, anyway.


Interesting human primate observation, that appears to comes from thousands of years of evolution, is that males tend to favor the facial characteristics of their biological mothers more than their biological fathers. And females tend to favor their biological father's facial characteristics more than there mothers.

I've even read suggestions that associated features of intelligence are greater associated with the opposite sex biological parent.

Of course evolution doesn't plan these things out in advance, but I suppose there have been SERIOUS human primate conflicts over this issue of paternity well before there was any institution of marriage, as is the case with other primates that tend more toward patriarchal/alpha male propensity than the matriarchal propensity of Bonobos. It's also interesting as this seems less evident in populations of humans that are not as sexually dimorphic, even if the current culture is patriarchal in practice.

That struggle of patriarchy vs. egalitarianism with biological elements that seem to underlie conflicts from individual to family to local community to country to the global scale, doesn't appear to be giving up easily in some sectors.



Inventor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,295
Location: New Orleans

19 Feb 2013, 4:15 pm

LKL wrote:
Wrt. DNA tests: that sword has two edges. No more claiming that she's a 'slut' and that the kid 'isn't yours,' and then fleeing the state, when you and she both know better. Maybe those kids just take after their mom or some other maternal relative rather than you - doesn't mean that half of your DNA isn't in there. If you really doubt, all it takes is a test kit, a cheek swab, and a little cash.

If you're that resentful of the kids in question, they're probably better off without you around, to call them bastards and badmouth their mother, anyway.


If half my DNA is there, I should have equal rights to chose abortion. If the other party refuses, that is their choice, and should not be my obligation for twenty years. Equal reproductive rights for men.

I chose Equality, and carry no more of a burden than any other toward Community, Religion, Regional or National Government, and the defense of any of it.

The support of home, wife, family, and the rest, fell unequally on men, and they died for it. That was not enough for some, so they also thought we should feel guilty for doing so.

It burst the Male Bubble, and those things cannot be put back together.

In olden times George Patton said it well, "You do not win wars by dying for your country, you win by making the other poor bastard die for his."

This war is about Free Women and their Free Range Children, and they can die for their country.

I do not support it, Tax Free Munis for me, no support for the Post Male World. Pay for your own food, house, schools, local governments, and I will profit from your labors.

There is no drive to the remedial education of those who grew up in that world, they would be much better off never knowing me, or I them. Male employers are treated to the same Guilty Daddy Syndrome, and I prefer machines, or offshore labor that does not insult me to manipulate.

It is your world, rise or sink to your own level.

Look to your leaders, The Black Community, where young males have a higher death rate than combat troops in Viet Nam. Where they fill prisons, and have the lowest education and income.

Women have a right to chose! Wisely or badly, and we have to respect that choice.

We were told we have nothing to do with it, and I agree. I want nothing to do with them or their children.

After abusing and insulting the horse you drove it off, you won, so now you can pull your own wagon.

I like being a horse running free.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 115
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,800

19 Feb 2013, 6:26 pm

[img][800:571]http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db18_Fig_6.png[/img]



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,475

20 Feb 2013, 12:06 am

ArrantPariah wrote:
[img][800:571]http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db18_Fig_6.png[/img]


Thanks for that graph. I didn't find the European countries too suprising, or the US and Canada, but there must be an incredible stigma in Japan for out of marriage births, that is still much stronger than the growing aversion to physical relationships and having children in that country. 1 to 2% is a percentage that I don't think has ever existed in the US, however it is worth noting that Asians in general are well ahead of all other ethnic groups in keeping the family unit in place in the US.

And as far as society goes the out of wedlock births probably are less of an impact to society in countries that have less heterogeneity in population and a social welfare state that takes care of things, like paid time off of work for maternity leave and associated issues, that are elements required for egalitarianism that is much better accepted in some of those countries.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,789
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

20 Feb 2013, 11:52 am

aghogday wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
[img][800:571]http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db18_Fig_6.png[/img]


Thanks for that graph. I didn't find the European countries too suprising, or the US and Canada, but there must be an incredible stigma in Japan for out of marriage births, that is still much stronger than the growing aversion to physical relationships and having children in that country. 1 to 2% is a percentage that I don't think has ever existed in the US, however it is worth noting that Asians in general are well ahead of all other ethnic groups in keeping the family unit in place in the US.

And as far as society goes the out of wedlock births probably are less of an impact to society in countries that have less heterogeneity in population and a social welfare state that takes care of things, like paid time off of work for maternity leave and associated issues, that are elements required for egalitarianism that is much better accepted in some of those countries.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the deal with Japan was more of an extreme societal aversion to marriage and childbirth as a whole. I'd heard that there was a decrease of interest in sex as a whole compared to other countries and marriage/family/childbearing (in or out of wedlock) is considered more of a hindrance to individual social and career goals.

There is a similar element in the US, and it's more about people thinking with their pocketbooks. We're around a lot of older people, and they absolutely LOVE us and our kids. So when we casually mention that we've considered having one more child, their beaming countenance falls and they start a mini-lecture on how we can afford another child and how expensive they are. We're like, children? Expensive??? REALLY??? We had NO IDEA!! !! When my wife's grandmother was still alive, she really pushed for us to stop with just one child. After a night of "I THINK we're okay" and a few months later, we had our little girl. Some years down the road, Trojan Man let us down and we had our third child--which we'd considered trying for anyway. We just sacrificed, cut costs everywhere we could, increased our income, and just got used to working our butts off. If we were unhappy it would be different. And we'll give it, say, until our oldest turns 25 and even with 4 kids we'll be empty-nesting and have no idea what to do with ourselves and all the money we don't have to spend anymore. So we'll work our tails off for another 20-25 years, shore up our retirement, and finally just enjoy what little time we're blessed to have left while spoiling our grandchildren.

MOST people in the US don't really have that mentality, at least not when they're still young. It's all about going to college, expanding your social life, career-building, investing in material comforts as quickly as possible (5-bedroom houses and BMW's), and THEN marrying that man or woman you've been stringing along since jr. high. Which, by the way, is pointless because it's extremely different cultivating fidelity for the 15 years you're going to wait to get married (post-high school), THEN you want to spend at least 5 good years together to just enjoy sleeping late every day, having as much sex as possible while on the pill, going out to eat every Friday night and hitting the bars every Saturday night. And THEN you decide to have children? We think we'll get it all done by 30, but if we're serious about all our other goals in life, more likely we'll be pushing 40 by the time we're READY. By then, what's the point? Half your life is gone.

And that's if you even bother to stick with it that long...given the divorce rate and shuffling kids between two houses, two cities, and even across state lines, marriage and family isn't something people even take all that seriously anymore.

Screw dat, sez I. I never WANTED to have children, to be honest. I just felt that being a father was something I was just supposed to do. Now I can't imagine what life would be like without them. My wife and I were talking about our honeymoon once, so without thinking I asked her, "Hey, what did we do with the kids that night?" It was a good laugh...because it seems like they've just always been with us, everywhere.

If decreasing birth rates in the US is due to a decrease in underaged, unwed, single mothers giving birth, then GREAT. Decreasing births due to selfishness and greed is something else entirely. I fear that low birth rates among MARRIED individuals is symptomatic of greater problems we as a society have.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 115
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,800

20 Feb 2013, 4:07 pm

AngelRho wrote:
I fear that low birth rates among MARRIED individuals is symptomatic of greater problems we as a society have.


What problem would that be? If you're married and don't want children, then making children would be a problem.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,475

20 Feb 2013, 6:07 pm

AngelRho wrote:
aghogday wrote:

I didn't find the European countries too surprising, or the US and Canada, but there must be an incredible stigma in Japan for out of marriage births, that is still much stronger than the growing aversion to physical relationships and having children in that country. 1 to 2% is a percentage that I don't think has ever existed in the US, however it is worth noting that Asians in general are well ahead of all other ethnic groups in keeping the family unit in place in the US.

And as far as society goes the out of wedlock births probably are less of an impact to society in countries that have less heterogeneity in population and a social welfare state that takes care of things, like paid time off of work for maternity leave and associated issues, that are elements required for egalitarianism that is much better accepted in some of those countries.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the deal with Japan was more of an extreme societal aversion to marriage and childbirth as a whole. I'd heard that there was a decrease of interest in sex as a whole compared to other countries and marriage/family/childbearing (in or out of wedlock) is considered more of a hindrance to individual social and career goals.

There is a similar element in the US, and it's more about people thinking with their pocketbooks. We're around a lot of older people, and they absolutely LOVE us and our kids. So when we casually mention that we've considered having one more child, their beaming countenance falls and they start a mini-lecture on how we can afford another child and how expensive they are. We're like, children? Expensive??? REALLY??? We had NO IDEA!! !! When my wife's grandmother was still alive, she really pushed for us to stop with just one child. After a night of "I THINK we're okay" and a few months later, we had our little girl. Some years down the road, Trojan Man let us down and we had our third child--which we'd considered trying for anyway. We just sacrificed, cut costs everywhere we could, increased our income, and just got used to working our butts off. If we were unhappy it would be different. And we'll give it, say, until our oldest turns 25 and even with 4 kids we'll be empty-nesting and have no idea what to do with ourselves and all the money we don't have to spend anymore. So we'll work our tails off for another 20-25 years, shore up our retirement, and finally just enjoy what little time we're blessed to have left while spoiling our grandchildren.

MOST people in the US don't really have that mentality, at least not when they're still young. It's all about going to college, expanding your social life, career-building, investing in material comforts as quickly as possible (5-bedroom houses and BMW's), and THEN marrying that man or woman you've been stringing along since jr. high. Which, by the way, is pointless because it's extremely different cultivating fidelity for the 15 years you're going to wait to get married (post-high school), THEN you want to spend at least 5 good years together to just enjoy sleeping late every day, having as much sex as possible while on the pill, going out to eat every Friday night and hitting the bars every Saturday night. And THEN you decide to have children? We think we'll get it all done by 30, but if we're serious about all our other goals in life, more likely we'll be pushing 40 by the time we're READY. By then, what's the point? Half your life is gone.

And that's if you even bother to stick with it that long...given the divorce rate and shuffling kids between two houses, two cities, and even across state lines, marriage and family isn't something people even take all that seriously anymore.

Screw dat, sez I. I never WANTED to have children, to be honest. I just felt that being a father was something I was just supposed to do. Now I can't imagine what life would be like without them. My wife and I were talking about our honeymoon once, so without thinking I asked her, "Hey, what did we do with the kids that night?" It was a good laugh...because it seems like they've just always been with us, everywhere.

If decreasing birth rates in the US is due to a decrease in underaged, unwed, single mothers giving birth, then GREAT. Decreasing births due to selfishness and greed is something else entirely. I fear that low birth rates among MARRIED individuals is symptomatic of greater problems we as a society have.


Yes I agree all of those issues are associated with the 2% out of wedlock births in Japan, however there is a long established cultural stigma against births out of marriage, even to the point where a person born out of wedlock's funeral arrangements, have been negatively impacted by the fact that the person that died was born out of wedlock. There is a huge reduction of births in Japan, but there are still hundreds of thousands of births occurring every year. Even if there were only 100, 2 out 100 births out of wedlock is reflective of a culture that has close to zero tolerance for out of wedlock births. The article below is from 1996, before the issue identified with loss of interest and aversion to flesh and blood sexual interaction was noted among 36% of males in Japan.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/OUT-OF-WE ... a083924067

Males as a whole do not have the same nurturing instinct as females as a whole, but that does change for many males when they bond with their children, even at the biological level with lowering levels of testosterone. There is obviously other instinctual rewards of the oxytocin variety, that are self rewarding, that come through the process of nature's built in behavioral modification program, also associated with motivation to bond socially in general.

Some people live in the empty nest all there life, not realizing the full benefits of being human that come with the nest. But on the other hand, other people are not cut out for having children, and it is likely that pressures social animals face like over-population, and all the other stresses of a technological non-flesh amd blood world impact human nature from conception to death.

When 36% of the males of any species of social animal lose interest in flesh and blood sex, it is an indication that the social unit as a whole is sick. It's just more complicated with humans pinning down the biological and/or cultural reasons for the illness.

I agree that the lower birth rates are a problem in the US, but the propensity toward type two diabetes in almost one-third of children in the US, is evidence that the life-style is no longer one suited to an animal evolved to be on the move, physically working for food, rather than in the sitting position with ample access to it. And that too is likely associated with lower birth rates in children, and unhealthy pregnancies in general, now and potentially more likely for the long term.

I think technology is providing alternative methods for sexual gratification in Japan, and the population pressures and stress overall reduces the propensity of the sexual drive in general.

I think similar factors are influencing teens in the US, but hasn't risen to the level of the issue in Japan. I doubt it has anything to do with birth control or cultural stigma in the US, over what existed 20 years ago.

I haven't researched it directly, but Japan is also a case study of the only populated areas in the world that has come subject to nuclear attacks. I think it is possible that could potentially play a role in the second generation of children from the individuals living in the 40's, but there are so many potential factors it is hard to pinpoint just one. I would more suspect that would lead to infertility or disability, however endocrine impacts could effect desire for physical relationships, which is a type of disability too, given the large picture of survival, and a requirement to replenish the population for long term survival.

But overall. it is probably still much easier for the average human to survive to reproductive age in our modern world than just one hundred years ago, because of public sanitation, vaccines, antibiotics and other medication.

Modern culture and technology provides virtual opportunities for alternatives to flesh and blood physical relationships now that never existed until the last decade to the extent they do now. And yes, I am talking about pornography and other dopamine stimulating technological activities as a major aspect in the last decade that has never been as large a part of mainstream life, and as a correlating factor does coincide with the loss of interest in physical relationships among males in Japan and the US. But, I am not sure about the correlations in other countries.

This is not even a factor in some countries, where population is still increasing at alarming rates, but there is always a negative consequence of over-population among any social animal. And in the case of humans, one of those consequences has been the result of almost continuous access to instant gratification, coming as a result of collective intelligence of hundreds of millions of human beings communicating with each other freely.

Mother nature could care less what the eventual result will be, what it is to be is up to the species and the individual. The complexity of it all is becoming too much for people to wrap their mind around, even the really "smart" ones. Depending on what smart means.

Meanwhile you're having kids and taking care of them. That part has not changed much until the last five decades and as a more direct result of effective birth control, among human beings, as another factor of instant gratification.

The nest is much emptier when it was never full, and nature doesn't always provide the same long term rewards for humans that don't or can't meet that challenge. That impact is being seen in Japan and South Korea among the elderly at this point, and likely points the way to the future for many people in the US, and other countries. Overall, it's been a good choice to have children historically, but there are tensions and alternative temptations now that never existed before.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,938

21 Feb 2013, 2:29 am

Inventor wrote:
LKL wrote:
Wrt. DNA tests: that sword has two edges. No more claiming that she's a 'slut' and that the kid 'isn't yours,' and then fleeing the state, when you and she both know better. Maybe those kids just take after their mom or some other maternal relative rather than you - doesn't mean that half of your DNA isn't in there. If you really doubt, all it takes is a test kit, a cheek swab, and a little cash.

If you're that resentful of the kids in question, they're probably better off without you around, to call them bastards and badmouth their mother, anyway.


If half my DNA is there, I should have equal rights to chose abortion. If the other party refuses, that is their choice, and should not be my obligation for twenty years. Equal reproductive rights for men.

'cause abortion is about DNA! (hint: NOT.)
Quote:
The support of home, wife, family, and the rest, fell unequally on men, and they died for it. That was not enough for some, so they also thought we should feel guilty for doing so. ...This war is about Free Women and their Free Range Children, and they can die for their country.

FELL. Past-tense. Part of loosening the yoke of feminism has been voluntarily taking up some of the yoke that has traditionally fallen on men.
Among other things, feminists have fought long and hard to actually fight beside men, and we've finally gotten there.
Quote:
I do not support it, Tax Free Munis for me, no support for the Post Male World. Pay for your own food, house, schools, local governments, and I will profit from your labors.

what is/are Munis?
As a socialist, I'm entirely in favor of providing those who cannot support themselves with basic necessities of life (and, yes, I am an employed, tax-paying individual).

Quote:
Women have a right to chose! Wisely or badly, and we have to respect that choice.
We were told we have nothing to do with it, and I agree. I want nothing to do with them or their children.
After abusing and insulting the horse you drove it off, you won, so now you can pull your own wagon.
I like being a horse running free.

Good. That has been part of the point: everyone gets to choose. If you like it, though, quit whining and wingeing about how awful women (in particular, apparently, your ex(es)).