On looks, leagues and other such irritants...

Page 3 of 4 [ 59 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

ToadOfSteel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,157
Location: New Jersey

28 Nov 2010, 11:52 pm

RICKY5 wrote:
You really want to be a slave to a bunch of fickle people who don't appreciate you? Suit yourself!


How would you get them to appreciate you then?



RICKY5
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Dec 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,201

29 Nov 2010, 12:04 am

ToadOfSteel wrote:
RICKY5 wrote:
You really want to be a slave to a bunch of fickle people who don't appreciate you? Suit yourself!


How would you get them to appreciate you then?


I simply don't care because they will not ever appreciate you.

I used to be in this place that you are in now. When I decided on throwing away my v-card, I changed A LOT and simply did not care about a lot of the stupid crap I used to.

You learn to say what people want to hear. Be pleasant at work and make money.

That's about all there is to it.



sluice
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Aug 2007
Age: 111
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,543
Location: center of universe

29 Nov 2010, 1:24 am

Many of the women I have been with have been completely out of my league. The ones I've struggled with mostly are the more intelligent women. I don't look or act like their type; I don't believe. If you're interested in somebody then you're going to make sure they take notice of you. Then you're going to have to put yourself at some risk and take the dive into the deep end. Being attractive doesn't change who you are or make you special, so treat them like you would anybody else.



fb5b
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 53
Location: Australia

29 Nov 2010, 1:49 am

I never got this "out of my league" thing, is there an internet site where you type in their name, then your name, and it tells you if they are or are not in your 'league'?



zen_mistress
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,033

29 Nov 2010, 3:35 am

RICKY5 wrote:
ToadOfSteel wrote:
RICKY5 wrote:
You really want to be a slave to a bunch of fickle people who don't appreciate you? Suit yourself!


How would you get them to appreciate you then?


I simply don't care because they will not ever appreciate you.

I used to be in this place that you are in now. When I decided on throwing away my v-card, I changed A LOT and simply did not care about a lot of the stupid crap I used to.

You learn to say what people want to hear. Be pleasant at work and make money.

That's about all there is to it.


So, Ricky, What stupid crap did you decide not to care about? What is your secret to happiness? Are you happy?


_________________
"Caravan is the name of my history, and my life an extraordinary adventure."
~ Amin Maalouf

Taking a break.


zen_mistress
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,033

29 Nov 2010, 3:37 am

To me, I think that the looks/League thing is like the caste system in India. People like castes. No matter how many castes they try and abolish, they just rebuild different ones in their minds anyway.


_________________
"Caravan is the name of my history, and my life an extraordinary adventure."
~ Amin Maalouf

Taking a break.


Subotai
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,036
Location: 日本

29 Nov 2010, 3:42 am

zen_mistress wrote:
To me, I think that the looks/League thing is like the caste system in India. People like castes. No matter how many castes they try and abolish, they just rebuild different ones in their minds anyway.


Even lower primates do it.



zen_mistress
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,033

29 Nov 2010, 2:36 pm

Except for the fact that I dont view other primates as lower than me, I agree with your point.


_________________
"Caravan is the name of my history, and my life an extraordinary adventure."
~ Amin Maalouf

Taking a break.


starygrrl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 795

29 Nov 2010, 4:19 pm

Truth is looks are not as important to me as intelligence and education. In fact that is the case with many men and women.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... -2,00.html

I will not give the time of day to a guy without a bachelors. Many of the guys I have dated have Ph.D.s or graduated from top tier universities. I have a JD myself. I am not looking for a provider-type, I am looking for a partner ultimately that shares my intellect and at least some of my interests.

A reason why the economy is becoming bifurcating is because there is a concept coming out similiar to leagues, but it has nothing to do with looks. It has to do with education and opportunity. Men and Women are looking for partners on the higher end of the socio-economic scale, and women are looking for providers on the lower end.

I know being autistic is a strike against you, but it is not your looks, it may be something deeper going on which is the ability to connect to somebody who is looking for a partner. I will tell you women evaluate partnerships much deeper than you may think, and if they are looking for a partner, it is ultimately your other traits which are hurting you. Ultimately it gets down to "can I live with this person", will they hold my interest, are they an intellectual match. Educated women are not looking for provider types since honestly, many of us don't need men to provide for us. Conversely many educated men are looking for the same thing, a partner. I have seen this so many times I have lost count at this point. This is at the heart of the reason for the economic bifurcation, uneducated women are often looking for the provider types, but many of the well educated men are now "out of thier league", and likewise uneducated men cannot necessarily fit that role as the economy has shifted, and educated women are out of thier league. There are leagues, just not the ones you would normally think of, it is not a high school heirarchy, it is something beyond that, a complex socio-economic heirarchy that has emerged recently. Your autistic traits may hurt you more with a woman who is looking for a partner as supposed to a provider. You may be seen as incompatible to an educated NT woman, not because of your earning potential, but your failure to connect emotionally. When you are looking for a partner, the requirements shift quite a bit.



billsmithglendale
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,223

29 Nov 2010, 5:38 pm

Starygrrl, I like your reply, but I am thinking it is too black and white --

When the ideal person comes, sometimes it transcends all boundaries if the match is good enough. I have a MBA, my wife only has a AA degree -- yet she relates to me better than many of her better-educated peers, and she brings more to the table in terms of running a household and being a good mother. The things I talk about with her are over the head of most people, grad students included, yet she is able to keep up and is willing to learn. An exception, I'm sure, but not hopeless or uncommon.

I'm not disputing that some men, especially those at the top of academia (i.e. the Phd's you refer to), want to marry their academic equal -- however, plenty of men are just looking for a nice woman who is pleasant to be around, pulls her weight with regards to the household (bonus points if she does more than that), and will be a good mother.

I also find it hard to believe, at least with my experience, that women aren't looking for provider types. For all of the talk about equality in the workplace and women having the same goals as men professionally, I have seen far too many women take advantage of child leave, milk the government and the job for all of the benefits they could get, and then run out the door as soon as that term was over to switch to child-rearing full time.

I don't dispute that there are career-oriented women who are serious, but I don't think they are the majority when you take into account plans or intentions around childrearing. Those who milk the system, like I mention above, do ruin it for everyone (e.g. they diminish the trust in a sexist way), but also point out that there are some things in life more important than your career. Yes, the top 10% may stay committed, but many women change their tune when the biological clock goes off.

But yeah, with you on everything else -- seldom do I see a woman go for a guy with less education than herself, and with women now the majority at schools, and the majority of the population, the odds are working against any guy who doesn't at least get a Bachelors.



starygrrl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 795

30 Nov 2010, 11:11 am

I would look at the report more closely. I am not saying childrearing does not come into play. As you stated you have a hard time relating to college educated women anyway. The truth of the matter is they don't need men anymore as a provider, so have the luxury of being much more selective in terms of partners, where at one point it may have been out of necessity to find a partner who can act as a provider, this is not so much the case anymore, and the statistics bear this out. That is what I mean by the fact they are looking for a partner first, they don't feel like they are being forced into marriage out of necessity to survive and are looking for somebody they can get along with first and foremost. Basically the first thing women ask now is whether they can fundimentally get along with the person and if they are a good match, there is also the question whether they can carry their own weight, but this is inherantly tied into the education factor. Women are not going to look at men "below them", they are going to look at guys who can carry the same measure of success and can have a deep connection with as well (love). Men may not do this as often, but from everything I observed women rarely do go down the educational ladder these days, and the number of men who do so is decreasing as well. These women with college educations may plan on having kids, but it is usually later, after they have established themselves, their careers, and their relationships, and even when they do have kids they often go back to thier jobs in some capacity. The point is the whole finding a good provider, is not a necessity of survival, but finding a good partner who they can emotionally and intellectually connect with is more important, the thing is they are often one in the same, as the standards for good partners are often far more selective than somebody looking for a provider type to lift them up. When you don't need somebody else to be co-dependant you get to be far pickier. This is why it hurts autistic men in many cases, it is the difficulty emotionally connecting to somebody. When a college educated women is looking for somebody they can get along with first and foremost, are confident in their compatibility, often test the relationship and have the luxury of being picky. When you don't need a partner to live or lift you up, you can be far more selective about who you date and ultimately marry. The funny thing is because of the selectivity about 60% of educated women marry. They get to choose the best mates both from an emotional and success standpoint. Thus the whole "out of your league" thing being related to education, not looks. When you are talking about fundimentally selective women versus those who are less selective. The better educated the woman, the more selective she will be about her partner and there will be more factors that come into play on whether or not she will form a relationship with them.

Yes, I may very well be talking about a minority, not everybody is college educated in this country, most do not. Only about 29% of women in the US have at least a bachelors degree, this 29% will only real form relationships with the 30% of men who have at least bachelors degrees. The folks I am talking about though are beyond academics though. The thing is expectations and social structuring for those who are in the top 30% are going to be very different than the rest of the population. While you may be observing a phenomenom where you live, where I live in DC area, which has the highest portion of college educated individual in the country and is majority female, I have seen what I have described happen numerous times again and again. The thing is those looking for a provider first probably will not have a bachelors. Women who are in this group tend to be far less picky from a partnership standpoint, but far more demanding from an economic one as they deeply desire providers. Considering the phenomenom of people dating within their education, this ultimately hurts them more than anything, as the socio-economic circumstances are bifurcating between those who have an education and those who do not. The men with their similiar educational backgrounds are not in the socio-economic position to excel anymore and economic circumstances are far from stable.



The thing is most women work full time these days no matter the economic circumstances, 74% of women work full time, and they make up over 50% of the labor force.



mv
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,131

30 Nov 2010, 11:52 am

billsmithglendale wrote:
Starygrrl, I like your reply, but I am thinking it is too black and white --

When the ideal person comes, sometimes it transcends all boundaries if the match is good enough. I have a MBA, my wife only has a AA degree -- yet she relates to me better than many of her better-educated peers, and she brings more to the table in terms of running a household and being a good mother. The things I talk about with her are over the head of most people, grad students included, yet she is able to keep up and is willing to learn. An exception, I'm sure, but not hopeless or uncommon.

I'm not disputing that some men, especially those at the top of academia (i.e. the Phd's you refer to), want to marry their academic equal -- however, plenty of men are just looking for a nice woman who is pleasant to be around, pulls her weight with regards to the household (bonus points if she does more than that), and will be a good mother.

I also find it hard to believe, at least with my experience, that women aren't looking for provider types. For all of the talk about equality in the workplace and women having the same goals as men professionally, I have seen far too many women take advantage of child leave, milk the government and the job for all of the benefits they could get, and then run out the door as soon as that term was over to switch to child-rearing full time.

I don't dispute that there are career-oriented women who are serious, but I don't think they are the majority when you take into account plans or intentions around childrearing. Those who milk the system, like I mention above, do ruin it for everyone (e.g. they diminish the trust in a sexist way), but also point out that there are some things in life more important than your career. Yes, the top 10% may stay committed, but many women change their tune when the biological clock goes off.

But yeah, with you on everything else -- seldom do I see a woman go for a guy with less education than herself, and with women now the majority at schools, and the majority of the population, the odds are working against any guy who doesn't at least get a Bachelors.


It's so interesting, billsmithglendale, but I found your response so much more black-and-white than starygrrl's, which I found quite nuanced, comparatively.

I think where your experiences break down for me is your comments on "milking the government" and similar. The quite simple truth is that someone has to have the babies (if we're to continue the human race) and someone has to care for them full time and raise them. I'm one of the higher-educated types that starygrrl talks about, but to me, what's vital is the CHOICE to do this babyhaving / babyraising in a way that's best for me and my children. It is much, much better for me to work full-time and pay for childcare; I'm a better person and partner because of it, and no one "provides" for me (or has, *ever*, other than my parents when I was young). I had the opportunity to stay home with both of my children for 3 months, but no one was "milked" for this choice, other than my very own savings account. There is no mandatory paid child leave where I live, such an animal does not exist. I am lucky to have had the opportunities I've had, some people are not so lucky. Some people cannot afford to have children, and some have them despite not being able to afford them. I don't agree with that, but that's not my lookout.

So, I ask you: who are you expecting to further the human race? Does it only exist for you in a meaningful way if it follows your dictates and choices? I don't mean to be harsh with you; I have a difficult time with communication, but when you write things like you have written, to me that's the complete erosion of trust in a sexist way.



billsmithglendale
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,223

30 Nov 2010, 12:05 pm

mv wrote:
billsmithglendale wrote:
Starygrrl, I like your reply, but I am thinking it is too black and white --

When the ideal person comes, sometimes it transcends all boundaries if the match is good enough. I have a MBA, my wife only has a AA degree -- yet she relates to me better than many of her better-educated peers, and she brings more to the table in terms of running a household and being a good mother. The things I talk about with her are over the head of most people, grad students included, yet she is able to keep up and is willing to learn. An exception, I'm sure, but not hopeless or uncommon.

I'm not disputing that some men, especially those at the top of academia (i.e. the Phd's you refer to), want to marry their academic equal -- however, plenty of men are just looking for a nice woman who is pleasant to be around, pulls her weight with regards to the household (bonus points if she does more than that), and will be a good mother.

I also find it hard to believe, at least with my experience, that women aren't looking for provider types. For all of the talk about equality in the workplace and women having the same goals as men professionally, I have seen far too many women take advantage of child leave, milk the government and the job for all of the benefits they could get, and then run out the door as soon as that term was over to switch to child-rearing full time.

I don't dispute that there are career-oriented women who are serious, but I don't think they are the majority when you take into account plans or intentions around childrearing. Those who milk the system, like I mention above, do ruin it for everyone (e.g. they diminish the trust in a sexist way), but also point out that there are some things in life more important than your career. Yes, the top 10% may stay committed, but many women change their tune when the biological clock goes off.

But yeah, with you on everything else -- seldom do I see a woman go for a guy with less education than herself, and with women now the majority at schools, and the majority of the population, the odds are working against any guy who doesn't at least get a Bachelors.


It's so interesting, billsmithglendale, but I found your response so much more black-and-white than starygrrl's, which I found quite nuanced, comparatively.

I think where your experiences break down for me is your comments on "milking the government" and similar. The quite simple truth is that someone has to have the babies (if we're to continue the human race) and someone has to care for them full time and raise them. I'm one of the higher-educated types that starygrrl talks about, but to me, what's vital is the CHOICE to do this babyhaving / babyraising in a way that's best for me and my children. It is much, much better for me to work full-time and pay for childcare; I'm a better person and partner because of it, and no one "provides" for me (or has, *ever*, other than my parents when I was young). I had the opportunity to stay home with both of my children for 3 months, but no one was "milked" for this choice, other than my very own savings account. There is no mandatory paid child leave where I live, such an animal does not exist. I am lucky to have had the opportunities I've had, some people are not so lucky. Some people cannot afford to have children, and some have them despite not being able to afford them. I don't agree with that, but that's not my lookout.

So, I ask you: who are you expecting to further the human race? Does it only exist for you in a meaningful way if it follows your dictates and choices? I don't mean to be harsh with you; I have a difficult time with communication, but when you write things like you have written, to me that's the complete erosion of trust in a sexist way.


Hi mv,

Thanks for the reply -- I was a bit worried that my example of milking the system was both too extreme and inflammatory -- I didn't mean to come off as sexist as it sounded.

I in fact am one of the people who waited to have kids until we could afford a house and our finances were in order -- I'm 34 now, as is my wife. Much as I would rather her stay home with our child, it looks like we will have to turn to child care out of necessity. This is disappointing, because I was raised by a mother who stayed at home, and enjoyed the attention and extra activities and freedom this allowed. I'm pretty disappointed in my country that compared to my parents, and grandparents, who could easily afford a single-income household on a pretty moderate income, I'm making a pretty good income, yet combined with my wife, we can barely get the essentials here -- truly a sign of big changes in the world economy and standards of living. If anything, the first world is regressing back to third world standards, even as the third world comes closer to our standards.

But I digress -- I'm all for having children. If anything, I wish more intelligent people would have children -- as it is, too many of the least-qualified are having kids. I think getting welfare or public assistance should require mandatory birth control -- our system rewards the wrong people and allows them to reproduce while the financially responsible foot the bill and go childless.

On my point above -- it's not to not have children. It's that women should remember that this is one of the reasons why the marketplace treats women differently than men in the job market, because a good % of women will either drop out of the workforce or be otherwise hindered by child-rearing. Promoting someone to a VP slot (which means they are in charge of something important), only to have them duck away for two 4 month maternity periods in 3 years, is not a good return on your money or good planning. This isn't to say women shouldn't be promoted to VP slots -- what it is saying is that companies can't count on employees to be honest about their plans, and that companies manage around this by using discriminatory policies. It's not right, but this is part of the reason why. And I have yet to see more than 10% of all women in any workplace I've been in (all white collar, corporate workplaces) be that career-woman stereotype. Most do turn to motherhood, and their work does lapse as a result.



mv
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,131

30 Nov 2010, 12:16 pm

billsmithglendale wrote:
mv wrote:
billsmithglendale wrote:
Starygrrl, I like your reply, but I am thinking it is too black and white --

When the ideal person comes, sometimes it transcends all boundaries if the match is good enough. I have a MBA, my wife only has a AA degree -- yet she relates to me better than many of her better-educated peers, and she brings more to the table in terms of running a household and being a good mother. The things I talk about with her are over the head of most people, grad students included, yet she is able to keep up and is willing to learn. An exception, I'm sure, but not hopeless or uncommon.

I'm not disputing that some men, especially those at the top of academia (i.e. the Phd's you refer to), want to marry their academic equal -- however, plenty of men are just looking for a nice woman who is pleasant to be around, pulls her weight with regards to the household (bonus points if she does more than that), and will be a good mother.

I also find it hard to believe, at least with my experience, that women aren't looking for provider types. For all of the talk about equality in the workplace and women having the same goals as men professionally, I have seen far too many women take advantage of child leave, milk the government and the job for all of the benefits they could get, and then run out the door as soon as that term was over to switch to child-rearing full time.

I don't dispute that there are career-oriented women who are serious, but I don't think they are the majority when you take into account plans or intentions around childrearing. Those who milk the system, like I mention above, do ruin it for everyone (e.g. they diminish the trust in a sexist way), but also point out that there are some things in life more important than your career. Yes, the top 10% may stay committed, but many women change their tune when the biological clock goes off.

But yeah, with you on everything else -- seldom do I see a woman go for a guy with less education than herself, and with women now the majority at schools, and the majority of the population, the odds are working against any guy who doesn't at least get a Bachelors.


It's so interesting, billsmithglendale, but I found your response so much more black-and-white than starygrrl's, which I found quite nuanced, comparatively.

I think where your experiences break down for me is your comments on "milking the government" and similar. The quite simple truth is that someone has to have the babies (if we're to continue the human race) and someone has to care for them full time and raise them. I'm one of the higher-educated types that starygrrl talks about, but to me, what's vital is the CHOICE to do this babyhaving / babyraising in a way that's best for me and my children. It is much, much better for me to work full-time and pay for childcare; I'm a better person and partner because of it, and no one "provides" for me (or has, *ever*, other than my parents when I was young). I had the opportunity to stay home with both of my children for 3 months, but no one was "milked" for this choice, other than my very own savings account. There is no mandatory paid child leave where I live, such an animal does not exist. I am lucky to have had the opportunities I've had, some people are not so lucky. Some people cannot afford to have children, and some have them despite not being able to afford them. I don't agree with that, but that's not my lookout.

So, I ask you: who are you expecting to further the human race? Does it only exist for you in a meaningful way if it follows your dictates and choices? I don't mean to be harsh with you; I have a difficult time with communication, but when you write things like you have written, to me that's the complete erosion of trust in a sexist way.


Hi mv,

Thanks for the reply -- I was a bit worried that my example of milking the system was both too extreme and inflammatory -- I didn't mean to come off as sexist as it sounded.

I in fact am one of the people who waited to have kids until we could afford a house and our finances were in order -- I'm 34 now, as is my wife. Much as I would rather her stay home with our child, it looks like we will have to turn to child care out of necessity. This is disappointing, because I was raised by a mother who stayed at home, and enjoyed the attention and extra activities and freedom this allowed. I'm pretty disappointed in my country that compared to my parents, and grandparents, who could easily afford a single-income household on a pretty moderate income, I'm making a pretty good income, yet combined with my wife, we can barely get the essentials here -- truly a sign of big changes in the world economy and standards of living. If anything, the first world is regressing back to third world standards, even as the third world comes closer to our standards.

But I digress -- I'm all for having children. If anything, I wish more intelligent people would have children -- as it is, too many of the least-qualified are having kids. I think getting welfare or public assistance should require mandatory birth control -- our system rewards the wrong people and allows them to reproduce while the financially responsible foot the bill and go childless.

On my point above -- it's not to not have children. It's that women should remember that this is one of the reasons why the marketplace treats women differently than men in the job market, because a good % of women will either drop out of the workforce or be otherwise hindered by child-rearing. Promoting someone to a VP slot (which means they are in charge of something important), only to have them duck away for two 4 month maternity periods in 3 years, is not a good return on your money or good planning. This isn't to say women shouldn't be promoted to VP slots -- what it is saying is that companies can't count on employees to be honest about their plans, and that companies manage around this by using discriminatory policies. It's not right, but this is part of the reason why. And I have yet to see more than 10% of all women in any workplace I've been in (all white collar, corporate workplaces) be that career-woman stereotype. Most do turn to motherhood, and their work does lapse as a result.


Oh, I'm so with you on all this! I had my first baby at 35, and though I'm glad I waited, it's still very expensive. I think my point was that it's unfair to penalize women in the workforce because someone, somewhere, sometime has to have and raise the babies. I understand from a business standpoint why your first choice wouldn't be to have an executive leave for such an arbitrary thing as having a baby, but I still think we need to shift the paradigm. Otherwise men continue to get all the responsibility in the work-world, and the glass ceiling remains firmly in place.

My grandmother quit her nursing job after she had kids, it was what was done then. But I know she missed it and her first calling wasn't being a stay-at-home mom. My mom worked full time my entire life; she and my dad joked about leapfrogging each other on the pay/responsibility scales over the years. So, my experience and nostalgia derived therefrom are different from yours, I think.

And your comment on intelligent people having babies gave me a wry chuckle. My favorite part of the movie "Idiocracy" is the first five minutes, where it's explained how cultural pressures bifurcated society in such a way that we bred out our own intellectuals and productive members of society. Have you seen it?



billsmithglendale
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,223

30 Nov 2010, 1:00 pm

Idiocracy is one of my favorite movies, and actually one of the reasons I decided to finally get on the ball and have a baby.

What is scary is how true it is -- one need only watch a show like "Maury" here in the U.S. to see it in action -- urban idiots cranking out kids by the dozens, with different women (also idiots), while you and I foot the tax bill. What's sad is that so many of these children will end up as criminals or otherwise unproductive, not ready for the 21st century info economy, and doing more harm than good to our economy.

Meanwhile countries like China and India continue to pass us by in areas like Mathematics -- so basically, their children will be outperforming western world children by the time I am in my 60s.



Shadwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 568
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

01 Dec 2010, 9:02 am

billsmithglendale wrote:
Idiocracy is one of my favorite movies, and actually one of the reasons I decided to finally get on the ball and have a baby.

What is scary is how true it is -- one need only watch a show like "Maury" here in the U.S. to see it in action -- urban idiots cranking out kids by the dozens, with different women (also idiots), while you and I foot the tax bill. What's sad is that so many of these children will end up as criminals or otherwise unproductive, not ready for the 21st century info economy, and doing more harm than good to our economy.

Meanwhile countries like China and India continue to pass us by in areas like Mathematics -- so basically, their children will be outperforming western world children by the time I am in my 60s.


There is some bad genetics out there no doubt, but poverty is a reason why people have a lot of kids the world over. It's like a survival tactic. They also have terrible schools and its not their fault. People talk down on welfare but they forget rich people are the biggest welfare queens there are.