• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Political correctness and birthrate

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
lol. 'A tiny fraction of men die in wars, therefore the privilege that men exhibit in the rest of society on a continuing basis doesn't count.'

It is always fun to see the knots you twist yourself in to justify your hatred of women.

What privilege are you talking about?

The privilege to work in a coal mine? The privilege to die at a younger age?

Throughout most of history neither gender has had very much choice in what to do in life. Liberals just for some reason that caring for children is the short-end of the stick.

If you really prefer coal mining to children well then you must really hate children.
 
What privilege are you talking about?

The privilege to work in a coal mine? The privilege to die at a younger age?

Throughout most of history neither gender has had very much choice in what to do in life. Liberals just for some reason that caring for children is the short-end of the stick.

If you really prefer coal mining to children well then you must really hate children.

I bet that's why parents leave female children to die in countries like China. They just really need more coal miners.
 
Bullhockey. You two are suffering a disconnect on the definition of "affluent." Really "affluent" people have more children than the average middle class American. Billionaires worldwide blow away the average American middle class birthrate, and even American billionaires have more than the average number of kids.

But as I said, the number of people who fall into that category are exceedingly small. The problem we're seeing is that the halfway point of the middle class on up to the "middle upper" class are seeing far below replacement rate birthrates. They're more likely to see it as a choice between children and financial security\independence. The people above and below that don't worry about finances as they relate to children, though for different reasons.
Personally I was referring to the affluent in the current marketing definition, the top 10% of wage earners but not the top 1%. The top 1% has more children because since they can afford a stay-at-home parent and domestic help, they really suffer none of the down side of having children. It's all up side. (Or at least until one gets incurably sick, killed or arrested.) The 2% - 9% may well avoid children because this group includes the very motivated professionals clawing their way up into the ranks of the wealthy. I don't agree that either group avoids sex because they can travel to Cabo, but YMMV.

I think Hillary Clinton said it best:
Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children.
(she openly admits how much she hates life and would rather die than be forced to move or be a parent)


The courts are responsible for that. Most guys don't seem to mind spending money and resources on women and children because that has been the norm since the dawn of civilization. What's different about modern America is that courts punish men for trying to do the right thing. Date a single mother? Hell no. The courts could force you to pay for her children. Letting a single mother live with you is a terrible idea because she could try to claim common law marriage and still take half a guy's stuff. Several of the guys I've dated said they had no plan to ever get married because they had seen friends or family members get destroyed in divorce court. On top of all that, add in the stat that women get child custody about 90% of the time. With a divorce rate around 50%, that means there's roughly a 45% chance of a man being forced to pay for kids that he rarely sees. (0.9)(0.5) = 0.45. Of those 45%, some of them will even go to debtor's prison because child support and alimony have been ruled to be criminal matters rather than civil matters. Dave Foley was on Joe Rogan's podcast explaining how the court ordered him to pay more than 100% of his income. This is not unusual at all. The Young Turks covered a story a few years ago where a man was thrown in jail for failing to pay child support for someone else's kids. Men might be stupid, but even the dumb ones can see this trap from a mile away. Men are protesting by going Galt.

Modern men also seem to be genuinely afraid of children. A simple accusation of being a pedophile is enough to destroy a man, so men avoid children at all cost. Men are no longer becoming teachers or child care workers. Men avoid pediatric medicine. One family was trying to get family photographs developed, and Walmart called the police because the film contained pictures of children playing in a bath tub.

A lot of people will blame feminists for this screwed up legal system, but I place the blame on men. Why? Because men were in charge when this started. It was male judges who showed extreme bias against men in divorce court. It was male judges who ordered child support for someone else's kids. It was male politicians and judges who made the 10 year alimony rule. After 10 years of marriage, the woman gets alimony for life if the two get divorced. This law by itself strongly encourages women to get divorced even if a marriage is relatively healthy. Going back to that 45% I mentioned earlier, men have very little reason to want marriage or children. Your marriage will likely end, your children will likely be taken away, and you'll lose the stuff you owned before you got married.
Not much of that with which I can agree, except maybe about men avoiding children for fear of molestation accusations. I don't think that applies to their own though. The idea that women are the primary victims of war because their husbands and sons are conscripted and sent to die should be laughably wrong even at a glance - it's one of the dumbest things Clinton has ever said, and that's as hotly contested a category as things that make John Boehner cry.

My wife doesn't work - her decision - but she worked when we began hanging out and dating. And it certainly wouldn't be a turn-off if she went back to work, started earning a pot of money, and bought me something pretty. (New bass boats are pretty. Jewelry for men is not pretty.) Powerful, high earning women are HOT.

As far as who I blame, no one. People know what qualities make for stable relationships; if they choose mates for other qualities, they should not blame society's protection of women and children when the marriage breaks up.
 
As far as who I blame, no one. People know what qualities make for stable relationships; if they choose mates for other qualities, they should not blame society's protection of women and children when the marriage breaks up.

So women should be protected in the event of marital breakup(NOTE: 2/3 marriages are broken up by women) and well quite frankly FUCK men huh?

Sounds to me like you are making Spungo's point for her. Why would any man get married with that attitude being helf by society.?

And it seems like that attitude also takes a dump on the idea of male privilege.
 
So women should be protected in the event of marital breakup(NOTE: 2/3 marriages are broken up by women) and well quite frankly FUCK men huh?

Sounds to me like you are making Spungo's point for her. Why would any man get married with that attitude being helf by society.?

And it seems like that attitude also takes a dump on the idea of male privilege.
Women with children should be protected in the event of marital breakup, yes, because that is necessary to protect the children. Where the man gets custody or earns significantly less, the man is similarly protected in the event of marital breakup.
 
Women with children should be protected in the event of marital breakup, yes, because that is necessary to protect the children. Where the man gets custody or earns significantly less, the man is similarly protected in the event of marital breakup.

Any law that protects a certain race, religion or sex is in itself a form of discrimination.
 
Why does "fulfilling their potential" mean having a career?

Does it? Did I say that? No. It can do for some people, men or women. Their full potential might be to become a professional sportsman, an author, a full-time parent, whatever.

You mean as opposed to

Liberals message: Women, be what feminists want you to be. What you want doesn't matter.

Or any other extreme that you want to pull out of the hat (though what purpose it serves is unclear). A lot of people identify themselves as feminists, but it doesn't mean that they all hold the same views.

Am I a feminist because I believe in equal rights for women? Some people say yes, other people say that's just common sense.


Not seeing the relevance to this discussion.
 
Women with children should be protected in the event of marital breakup, yes, because that is necessary to protect the children.

If the woman is unable to take care of herself maybe the man should be given custody.

Where the man gets custody or earns significantly less, the man is similarly protected in the event of marital breakup.

Not true. A woman can abandon her children keep collecting child support for months after having done so, and then be given zero child support obligation. I have seen the court order.
 
Am I a feminist because I believe in equal rights for women? Some people say yes, other people say that's just common sense.

With equal rights also comes equal sacrifice.

I do not see to many womens organizations demanding women pay their fair share in child support.

Nor do I see womens rights groups demanding women register for the draft.
 
With equal rights also comes equal sacrifice.

I do not see to many womens organizations demanding women pay their fair share in child support.

Nor do I see womens rights groups demanding women register for the draft.

Nor do I see women's organizations saying women should be held solely responsible for women's sole decision to have a child.

If women wanted to be considered equals maybe they should stop demanding that men be responsible for the choices they make about their bodies?
 
With equal rights also comes equal sacrifice.

I do not see to many womens organizations demanding women pay their fair share in child support.

Are you saying that in America, if the father takes custody/care of the kids then the mother doesn't pay anything in child support, but if the situation is the other way around, the father does? If so, that is screwed up. You probably ought to do something about that.

Nor do I see womens rights groups demanding women register for the draft.
I find it amusing how you come up with restrictions that were very likely imposed on women by men, then blame women for not doing something about it. Something tells me that if the roles were reversed, you wouldn't be rushing to do something about it.
 
Nor do I see women's organizations saying women should be held solely responsible for women's sole decision to have a child.

If women wanted to be considered equals maybe they should stop demanding that men be responsible for the choices they make about their bodies?

It takes two to tango.
 
Are you saying that in America, if the father takes custody/care of the kids then the mother doesn't pay anything in child support, but if the situation is the other way around, the father does?

Mothers are ordered to pay child support just like dads.

However, the courts are less likely to throw women in jail for not paying support as compared to men.
 
It takes two to tango.

I'm sorry is it the woman's body or isn't it? Why do you want to hold men responsible for the body choices of women? If women want equality maybe they should start with taking responsible for their bodies?

If a woman buys a guy(who is as far as she knows completely law-abiding) a gun for his bday and 9 months later he shoots someone should the woman be held equally liable for murder?
 
Are you saying that in America, if the father takes custody/care of the kids then the mother doesn't pay anything in child support, but if the situation is the other way around, the father does? If so, that is screwed up. You probably ought to do something about that.
.

I have seen a judges order saying exactly that.

Note this was after she dumped the kids off at the father's and didn't bother to inform anyone she wasn't coming back and kept collecting child-support for several months.
 
And with higher income/more education their birthrate declines. Got a point with your post?

I will add something to that post.

With declining birthrates, who is going to pay the bills the previous generation ran up?

The government has stripped social security.

The government has spent more money than a single generation can ever hope to pay back.

With fewer people paying taxes, who is going to pay the bill?
 
I'm sorry is it the woman's body or isn't it? Why do you want to hold men responsible for the body choices of women? If women want equality maybe they should start with taking responsible for their bodies?

If two people take part in a mutually consensual sexual act, they both hold a degree of responsibility over the consequences.

If a woman buys a guy(who is as far as she knows completely law-abiding) a gun for his bday and 9 months later he shoots someone should the woman be held equally liable for murder?

Those are two separate actions.

I have seen a judges order saying exactly that.

Note this was after she dumped the kids off at the father's and didn't bother to inform anyone she wasn't coming back and kept collecting child-support for several months.

A number of judgements don't necessarily say what the law is, hence judgements can be appealed.
 
If two people take part in a mutually consensual sexual act, they both hold a degree of responsibility over the consequences.

Perhaps you can explain why rubbing your dick around for 15 minutes should result in the same degree of responsibility as choosing to carry a fetus around for 9 months?

The only consequence of sex is pregnancy(and STDs). A child is not a consequence of sex, but of the choice of a woman to carry around a fetus for 9 months.

Those are two separate actions.

And sex and choosing to have a child are 2 separate actions.
 
Women will side with other women and make it 'us vs them' so its a bit dumb to be on the side going hoorah hoorah take away more of my own rights hoorah.
 
Perhaps you can explain why rubbing your dick around for 15 minutes should result in the same degree of responsibility as choosing to carry a fetus around for 9 months?

Massive goal post change there. Can you manage to stay on topic?

The only consequence of sex is pregnancy(and STDs). A child is not a consequence of sex, but of the choice of a woman to carry around a fetus for 9 months.
Your opinion.

The opinion of most sane men out there is that having sex resulting in pregnancy and then declaring that the pregnancy isn't your problem is a douchebag thing to do.
 
Your opinion.

The opinion of most sane men out there is that having sex resulting in pregnancy and then declaring that the pregnancy isn't your problem is a douchebag thing to do.

Actually my opinion would be the same as the opinion of feminists. The pregnancy is only the issue of the woman.

Her body, her choice and all.

EDIT: And what is so douchy about it? You are giving women autonomy over their lives and expecting women to give you the same. Is expecting equality douchy now?
 
Back
Top