But the game is broken and I won't play. Not in the US anyway.
Don't sell the rest of the West short. Did you know that there is a feminist ideology based snow plowing system in Sweden? https://heatst.com/world/femin... It appears that clearning the roads is pandering to the Patriarchy, and since women are more likely to walk and bicycle, (their stupid assumption) the orders came down that the roads get plowed last, the sidewalks first. Didn't work for some reason.
One of the most amusing and stupid things about humanity is that no matter the political leaning - left or right - there are always asswipes who believe that their ideology trumps physics. Ideology only trumps intelligence.
Meanwhile, not playing the game is a pretty good strategy.
Having more paper doesn't create production out of thin air, the funding is still "just" book keeping.
Not certain I understand. I'm making my money the same way I made it through my adult life, except for the actual working. Not certain how my living off of my investments is costing anyone anything. Is there some sort of problem with that?
The meme of the parasitic retired person is just that - a meme. That there are some folks for whom SS is their only money is true, but I'm not costing society anything.
The actual goods and services consumed by pensioners will still be produced by the contemporary work force. The funding is just bookkeeping.
Not completely. If a person was foolish enough to not plan for retirement, they might have to live on Social Security. But that is a pittance. Many of us invested and saved and took advantage of every opportunity to provide for retirement.
Maybe if we started respecting and encouraging other people's culture rather than always invading and destroying they would flourish. Our arrogance is totally destructive.
It was truly terrible how America, with no provocation at all suddenly decided, "HEY!, let's go and destroy teh culture of Japan. They haven't done a damn thing to us, but that's pretty suspicious, and no doubt.
The historical record is clear. America, for no reason whatsoever, decided to attack the most pacifistic country in the world, that being Japan. A massacre indeed, as Japan had no navy or army, and was completely defenseless.
Seriously, at some level, self loathing and self hatred becomes indistinguishable from insanity.
If you loose your job, there's a good chance you'll loose your drivers license, passport and end up in jail for not paying support, even if it's not possible for you to work. Why would you ever risk that?
Funny how debtor's prisons have made their triumphant return. The ultimate fiscal insanity.
But the point is well taken. Any man signing up for the modern day husband/father shitshow needs counseling.
People are having fewer children because we're so productive and good at keeping them alive, there isn't as much incentive to spawn half a dozen or more for extra farm labor.
I suppose that having no children at all is a subset of having fewer children.
But we are become so productive that going out of existence is the goal? I'm guessing that personal productivity is not the only reason for negative population growth.
There are many reasons that people might decide not to have children, or even avoid entanglements with the opposite sex. Google "Dried Fish woman" and "Herbivore man", both social changes in Japan. Here's the Wikipedia pages for the herbivore men, couldn't find one for the dried fish women, probably poltically incorrect for them to have one.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There would be very little point in marrying say, a realdoll
Tax breaks. If you can get reduced tax because you're heterosexual then it's gender preference discrimination not to offer the same option to people that want to fuck robots.
Who should asexual people marry?
Asexual people can marry any consent giving human they want to marry.
Too much of the confusion between who marries who has come about via the religion aspect. Religion has weddings. The world has marriage, which is a secular arrangement that allows the couple to get certin benefits, and gives them certain obligations. It is like a two person business partnership , just not called such.
The confusion comes about from churches being granted the ability to perform the secular joining as well as the religious wedding.
A Justice of the Peace or Judge performing a marriage and wedding is every bit as legal and binding as a church wedding - except that in some churches cases, you can't continue as a member unless you had the church ceremony.
Which is how the crypto conservatives lost the gay marriage battle. You cannot deny people their patnership protection of marriage based on a religious restriction.
And despite what some think, both of the partners must be consenting people of a legal age. No horses or treestumps. That realdoll isn't going to be able to give consent. Now if some day, robots develop true sentience, that might be revisited. But I doubt that will happen any time soon.
I have heard of some women marrying themselves, but it isn't a real thing, just a sort of strange self affirmation. I wonder what the honeymoon would be like though. https://www.lifesitenews.com/b...
Just wait...people who are attracted to "sex robots" will be classified as yet another sexual orientation and will insist on marrying them, parading them around in public, and demand that the robot maintenance be included in their health benefits.
There would be very little point in marrying say, a realdoll. Marriage is a legal construct that requires two thinking creatures who are capable of entering into legal contracts, and can undertake all legal responsibilities and advantages. That's the part that doomed the "One man and one woman under the eyes of God" business. A man or woman can't marry their horse or dog or their 1936 Bentley because those critters and things cannot give consent, nor enter into a rational contract.
I can get started on any Pi just by hooking up an HDMI monitor and USB keyboard/mouse. This is a serious hindrance to any beginner and an annoyance to anyone beyond that.
Accidentally marked an insightful post as flamebait so I'm posting to burn the mod point
That's still only a small fraction of human existence. Homo Sapiens remains have been found that date back to 340,000 years ago. Humans didn't live long enough then for the woman to reach menopause, or men to reach the male climacteric.
Very true. Our state of existence at this time is artificial in the extreme.
Well congratulations! How often do I have to congratulate ya? You need a cake?
This isn't about whining,
Clearly you've never spoken to the GP then.
Did you think I was? I was talking about the situation.
The courts, the laws, and society are not feminist ideology.
Then why are you bringing them up?
It isn't like I gave the reasons in the next sentence. was it? But if you are having troubl following, the situation is such that if there were no feminists, however they might define themselves, men would still be getting longer prison sentences, are still sent to the modern day version of debto's prison, and still tend to get the short end of the stick in matters of divorce.
but society as a whole has merely made the rational decision for men to avoid relationships with women.
You keep telling yourself that. People happily in relationships might look at you kinda funny if you keep insisting on the point.
Males have been whined at about how awful they are since birth
Sounds like your life sucked then.
I've been married to the same woman for 40 years now, I'm pretty wealthy. Life's been pretty decent. We're both retired early, and on permanent vacation and travel to interesting places a lot. Just because I have an opinion on something doesn't mean it is my personal life. But as they say, jus' sayin'. Live long and prosper.
If it were advantageous in the evolutionary sense for 45 year old women to have children, and for younger ones to not, simple selection would ensure that women did not become fertile until they were much older.
The flaw in that argument is that since we, as a species, have achieved an expected lifespan long enough to consistently make it to 45 years of age, no significant biological evolution has occurred.
Right, but it isn't my argument. Spending fully half of our lives being fertile (or not) doesn't make much evolutionary sense for a species with a long juvenile existence. We are fully grown by our late teens/early 20's. We are at our physical peak around that time. We have the energy for child rearing. It would make sense to bear and raise children in that neighborhood. The extended childhood experiment that we tried out some time ago worked pretty well, it allowed for teenages to gather a little bit of wisdom before getting out on their own. But there are limits to extended childhood, and the extreme narrowing of fertility.
A couple that starts their family at 45 will be at around retirement age when their first child reaches 21 years of age. If their first child delays fertility until 45, they will be 90 years old when they become grandparents. Then maybe 115 when their first grandchild graduates college.
"Originally" (meaning before the 19th century) girls didn't reach puberty until 16-17 on average because of poor nutrition.
Allow me:
What we know about the onset of pubery in females"
From early historic times
Ancient Rome was 12 to 14 years of age
Middle ages in Europe was 12 to 14 years of age
Middle ages in the Middle East was 12 to13 years of age
In the 1800's
Manchester, England in the 1840s
lower class women was around 15 and a half years of age
upper class women was around 14 and a half years of age
London Hospital patients in 1855 was around 15 and a half years of age
Germany in 1869 was around 15 and a half years of age
Scotland 1870 was around 15 and a half years to 16 and a half years of age
London 1880 middle class females was around 15 years of age
U.S.A. late 19th century was around 12-14 and a half years of age
USA in 1905 was around 14-15 and a half years of age
Today it is around 12 years of age for menarche. much of this is attributed to weight of young ladies, perhaps some to estrogen and phytoestrogen exposure. from http://www.mum.org/menarage.ht...
Arguing anything about the intent of biology or that it "shows" us anything is nonsense.
So let me know when I ever argued about the "intent" of biology. Because biology does not have intent, and you are correct to imply such is indeed nonsense. But muchacho, don't be a jerk and attribute to me things that I never wrote.
Regardless of the specific age of menarche, the concept of a young lady who becomes fertile at 12 years of age, and one who waits until her mid 40's to have a child as being functionally equivalent certainly ranks as nonsense. If it were advantageous in the evolutionary sense for 45 year old women to have children, and for younger ones to not, simple selection would ensure that women did not become fertile until they were much older.
So your argument is a bit specious, with the reduction in age of menarche being over a fairly short number of years, and the signaling of fertility over a span of roughly 5 years, not decades as would be required for a superior outcome of a woman giving first birth in her thirties or forties.
Even if we give some credence to the idea that there is a superior outcome, then there must be some advantage to waiting 30 some years after fertility is achieved to make use of that fertility.
What makes humans different from animals is that we are not slaves to our biology, things are a lot more mutable than that.
So give me the biological background to the limits of your socially based mutablility. We gonna have gills and wings soon?
You throw histrionics while they are ignoring you and playing video games. Continue clutching pearls, they'll continue playing MMOs.
That's the problem. The histrionics don't stop. And it turns out that everything is an excuse for the bitching.
The only odd thing is that we would think this would make the ladies very happy. If a man is ignoring you, he isn't bothering you. He isn't harassing you by talking to you, or touching you, or interacting with you in a way you do not like. If he walks by averting his gaze, and trying his best not to be a problem for you, you've not only won the battle, you have achieved dominance. So why complain?
Not just shaming them for refusing to play the game, but shaming anyone who doesn't join the mob who is shaming the men.
The problem is, once the rational decision to check out of the game is made, any shaming is just a fine example of the continuous bitching than men endure. So it is counterproductive, reinforcing the very reasons why young men are avoiding relationships with women.
But the part that I do not understand is why is this not celebrated as a huge victory for women? The incessant complaints and the treatment of all men as rapists and pedophiles, now coming to fruition by men dropping out is a big plus, is it not?
Whiny MGTOW's are checking out for sure, but honestly, everyone else is glad about that.
Then be glad. This isn't about whining, and if you and whoever everyone else is is happy, then life is good.
I also like how you invent bits of feminist ideology to be angry at.
The courts, the laws, and society are not feminist ideology. They might have been shaped a bit by feminists, but society as a whole has merely made the rational decision for men to avoid relationships with women. The numbers aren't lies. But the ladies and their supporters should be happy about that.
That there are men who are butthurt by their experiences, and them choosing to complain is merely warning for men who have not ben caught in the utility web. Yeah. We hear about sitting with your legs too far apart on public transit is a male enabling rape culture, so if a guy is upset that his wife left him with the children and ende up with the house, the car, and he pays a thou or more a month until the kids are in their early 20's, and he gets to see them once a week and every other holiday - well I'm going to allow him to complain. That's a tangible complaint, not some weird complaint about how men sit that has now been made a crime.
And it's all a product of the "thou doth protest too much" effect. Males have been whined at about how awful they are since birth, and women taught how awful all men are. So at this point, the endless male shaming has little effect. It's just one more thing young males are bitched at about, so another data point supporting the rational decision to seek their enjoyment of life elsewhere than in the company of those who don't like them. And given that "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle http://www.phrases.org.uk/mean... a phrase adopted by Gloria Steinham but coined by Irina Dunn, it is pretty much a victory, because women simply do not need men at all.
Rates of genetic disease are also much higher with older dads, and the father being 40 or older is the main known risk factor for autism.
It's a narrative being sold because men are checking out. The odds are so slightly higher than they are almost insignificant.
The "story" being sold is due wholly to reality not matching feminist ideology, and almost all of these stories about how men have a biological clock are hyped to get men to play the game again.
You aren't wrong. Younger men are indeed checking out. While women's interest in marriage and children have increased, the number of young men who are interested in marriage is something like 29 percent. And many of the older men have already been through the divorce mill, and can't afford a new romance.
So think about that for a minute. most young men are not interested in marriage and children, and the selection process for the women tends to exclude deadbeats and psychos, so we are looking at a pretty dire situation for young women. that 29 percent is much smaller yet.
Society and the legal system is not the friend of the male of the species. And many women just view men as a utility that they've been trained since birth to dislike. The results are that many males just retreat into less dangerous environs. Xboxes and motorcycles are fun, and people shaming them for "not manning up" is much less expensive than handing over half of their paycheck and the house to children they may see for a few hours every week.
Why would I date a wrinkly, out-of-shape, pre-menopausal senior citizen shut-in with no modern interests, and that goes on and on about her grown-up children and how big her ex-boyfriend's cock was?
Because all of the other ladies think you're an asshole.
Identifying the inequality is the first step in resolving any social injustice.
Since we know men and women are equal and that means exactly the same, time to move forward with adjusting society until both men and women reach peak fertility at the same age. I vote for 40.
You jest, but are not far off the mark. Many women a few years back decided that they were going to wait until their mid-40's to have children. I even watched a TeD talk with a woman claiming that women are not biologically ready to bear children until they are well into their 30's. A good rationale, but bad biology.
Very strange, when humans are physically capable of childbearing in their early teens, yet aren't supposed to be actually ready until an age when they originally started dying off.
Regardless, humans are capable in their early teens, and the social engineering of teens not being considered adults until the late teens, and waiting at least until then to procreate has been pretty successful, but men and women both have some "best by date". Women's dates tend to be more of a hard stop, and men kind of dribble off more slowly, but for best freshness, nature has shown us when, and social engineering, not so much.
Try actually reading some NRA materials. They are all about safe firearm handling.
Yup, they are. but what is the point? Many of the angriest most vociferous gun nuts are the type that will shoot at anything and post it to youtube and think it is cool, and if they can rub the commie liberal gun control weirdos noses in it all the better. Safety? Fuck that, let's play with our toys!
Frankly? I have no problem whatsoever with these people killing themselves. I say give em whatever they want, and we can all watch as they Darwin themselves.
Me? I love my guns. But I was taught that they come out for cleaning, target shooting (at real targets) and hunting. And if brought out in anger, they will be discharged. Otherwise, they are kept safe.
These stupid assholes who think they are redneck toys, merely remove themselves from the Gene pool. And increase the average intelligence of humanity.
"If there is no need for the majority of humanity, why should the majority of humanity exist?"
The only reason we need any humans right now is because other humans exist. So if none of us existed there would be no need for any of us. Therefore, by your reasoning, we should self-terminate as a species.
Okay AC, that was pretty cute. You manage to insert something I never said, then tried to "use my reasoning" to make a point I never made. No soup for you!
There is no reason that the human race should make itself extinct. But the path we are on is making the vast majority of us unemployable. So the vast majority of us will become dependent on whatever government decides to give us. And the economics don't work in the ultimate banana republic that is the likely future of homo sapiens sapiens.
IOW, a relative few people with all of the assets, say 70 million are not going to support the 7 billion of the rest of humanity.
Has nothing to do with suicide, and all to do with what they decide to do with us.
The second world war had fuck all to do with speech making the point you are desperately trying to make kind of moot.
It had a lot to do with control though didn't it? I'm not certain if you are being obtuse or what. If by this time you don't get that there seems to be a desire for conformity that keeps arising, to the point of making certain speech - and therefore opinions - illegal, you are either being obtuse or demanding such a narrow ersatz precision that trolling or being obtuse are simply interchangeable words with resepct to what you are writing.
As an example, I used the word writing. Perhaps you will note the lack of precision in what I wrote, because I didn't actually write anything, I typed it. Good for you. Pointless precision.
My point, on the other hand, is that, saying "written in cyrillic" makes about much sense as saying that your rant is written in latin script.
Context, context, context. I wonder how many people reading what I posted did not understand the incredibly obvious reference to Russia. My guess is exactly none. Including you.
So instead of taking my point that Germany has a strange desire for conformity to the point of making certain assemblages of words and opinion actually illegal, and my not very kind joke about reminding them of the outcome of the last time they went on a conformity binge, by two of the countries that administered the justice, well okay. If you don't get it by now, you never will.
Maybe that odd overly precise attempt at deflection on your part gives us some insight on how Germany got into some of the trouble.
But Cyrillic is used by many languages, not just Russian. Serbs write both in Latin and Cyrillic script, Bulgarians write in Cyrillic - after all, they've invented it in the first place. There are also several non-Slavic languages written in Cyrillic, like Mongolian.
Oh my goodness - you've made my point. You're busy lecturing me on who uses Cyrillic, while knowing damn well I wasn't talking about anyone but the people who taught your country what should have been an indelible lesson - but I see it did not take.
Carry on, and tell us all when you get to the proper level of language to be made illegal. Because Y'all are starting up all over again
Slashdot Mirror
produce > consume consume > produce
Choose one, rent-seeker.
I produced a lot in my career. Now I'm consuming the profits of that production.
Sad part is so few people understand.
But the game is broken and I won't play. Not in the US anyway.
Don't sell the rest of the West short. Did you know that there is a feminist ideology based snow plowing system in Sweden? https://heatst.com/world/femin... It appears that clearning the roads is pandering to the Patriarchy, and since women are more likely to walk and bicycle, (their stupid assumption) the orders came down that the roads get plowed last, the sidewalks first. Didn't work for some reason.
One of the most amusing and stupid things about humanity is that no matter the political leaning - left or right - there are always asswipes who believe that their ideology trumps physics. Ideology only trumps intelligence.
Meanwhile, not playing the game is a pretty good strategy.
Having more paper doesn't create production out of thin air, the funding is still "just" book keeping.
Not certain I understand. I'm making my money the same way I made it through my adult life, except for the actual working. Not certain how my living off of my investments is costing anyone anything. Is there some sort of problem with that?
The meme of the parasitic retired person is just that - a meme. That there are some folks for whom SS is their only money is true, but I'm not costing society anything.
The actual goods and services consumed by pensioners will still be produced by the contemporary work force. The funding is just bookkeeping.
Not completely. If a person was foolish enough to not plan for retirement, they might have to live on Social Security. But that is a pittance. Many of us invested and saved and took advantage of every opportunity to provide for retirement.
Maybe if we started respecting and encouraging other people's culture rather than always invading and destroying they would flourish. Our arrogance is totally destructive.
It was truly terrible how America, with no provocation at all suddenly decided, "HEY!, let's go and destroy teh culture of Japan. They haven't done a damn thing to us, but that's pretty suspicious, and no doubt.
The historical record is clear. America, for no reason whatsoever, decided to attack the most pacifistic country in the world, that being Japan. A massacre indeed, as Japan had no navy or army, and was completely defenseless.
Seriously, at some level, self loathing and self hatred becomes indistinguishable from insanity.
If you loose your job, there's a good chance you'll loose your drivers license, passport and end up in jail for not paying support, even if it's not possible for you to work. Why would you ever risk that?
Funny how debtor's prisons have made their triumphant return. The ultimate fiscal insanity.
But the point is well taken. Any man signing up for the modern day husband/father shitshow needs counseling.
People are having fewer children because we're so productive and good at keeping them alive, there isn't as much incentive to spawn half a dozen or more for extra farm labor.
I suppose that having no children at all is a subset of having fewer children.
But we are become so productive that going out of existence is the goal? I'm guessing that personal productivity is not the only reason for negative population growth.
There are many reasons that people might decide not to have children, or even avoid entanglements with the opposite sex. Google "Dried Fish woman" and "Herbivore man", both social changes in Japan. Here's the Wikipedia pages for the herbivore men, couldn't find one for the dried fish women, probably poltically incorrect for them to have one.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
That might be the future for Western societies.
There would be very little point in marrying say, a realdoll
Tax breaks. If you can get reduced tax because you're heterosexual then it's gender preference discrimination not to offer the same option to people that want to fuck robots.
Who should asexual people marry?
Asexual people can marry any consent giving human they want to marry.
Too much of the confusion between who marries who has come about via the religion aspect. Religion has weddings. The world has marriage, which is a secular arrangement that allows the couple to get certin benefits, and gives them certain obligations. It is like a two person business partnership , just not called such.
The confusion comes about from churches being granted the ability to perform the secular joining as well as the religious wedding.
A Justice of the Peace or Judge performing a marriage and wedding is every bit as legal and binding as a church wedding - except that in some churches cases, you can't continue as a member unless you had the church ceremony.
Which is how the crypto conservatives lost the gay marriage battle. You cannot deny people their patnership protection of marriage based on a religious restriction.
And despite what some think, both of the partners must be consenting people of a legal age. No horses or treestumps. That realdoll isn't going to be able to give consent. Now if some day, robots develop true sentience, that might be revisited. But I doubt that will happen any time soon.
I have heard of some women marrying themselves, but it isn't a real thing, just a sort of strange self affirmation. I wonder what the honeymoon would be like though. https://www.lifesitenews.com/b...
Just wait...people who are attracted to "sex robots" will be classified as yet another sexual orientation and will insist on marrying them, parading them around in public, and demand that the robot maintenance be included in their health benefits.
There would be very little point in marrying say, a realdoll. Marriage is a legal construct that requires two thinking creatures who are capable of entering into legal contracts, and can undertake all legal responsibilities and advantages. That's the part that doomed the "One man and one woman under the eyes of God" business. A man or woman can't marry their horse or dog or their 1936 Bentley because those critters and things cannot give consent, nor enter into a rational contract.
I can get started on any Pi just by hooking up an HDMI monitor and USB keyboard/mouse. This is a serious hindrance to any beginner and an annoyance to anyone beyond that.
Accidentally marked an insightful post as flamebait so I'm posting to burn the mod point
That's still only a small fraction of human existence. Homo Sapiens remains have been found that date back to 340,000 years ago. Humans didn't live long enough then for the woman to reach menopause, or men to reach the male climacteric.
Very true. Our state of existence at this time is artificial in the extreme.
Then be glad.
Already said I was.
Well congratulations! How often do I have to congratulate ya? You need a cake?
This isn't about whining,
Clearly you've never spoken to the GP then.
Did you think I was? I was talking about the situation.
The courts, the laws, and society are not feminist ideology.
Then why are you bringing them up?
It isn't like I gave the reasons in the next sentence. was it? But if you are having troubl following, the situation is such that if there were no feminists, however they might define themselves, men would still be getting longer prison sentences, are still sent to the modern day version of debto's prison, and still tend to get the short end of the stick in matters of divorce.
but society as a whole has merely made the rational decision for men to avoid relationships with women.
You keep telling yourself that. People happily in relationships might look at you kinda funny if you keep insisting on the point.
Males have been whined at about how awful they are since birth
Sounds like your life sucked then.
I've been married to the same woman for 40 years now, I'm pretty wealthy. Life's been pretty decent. We're both retired early, and on permanent vacation and travel to interesting places a lot. Just because I have an opinion on something doesn't mean it is my personal life. But as they say, jus' sayin'. Live long and prosper.
If it were advantageous in the evolutionary sense for 45 year old women to have children, and for younger ones to not, simple selection would ensure that women did not become fertile until they were much older.
The flaw in that argument is that since we, as a species, have achieved an expected lifespan long enough to consistently make it to 45 years of age, no significant biological evolution has occurred.
Right, but it isn't my argument. Spending fully half of our lives being fertile (or not) doesn't make much evolutionary sense for a species with a long juvenile existence. We are fully grown by our late teens/early 20's. We are at our physical peak around that time. We have the energy for child rearing. It would make sense to bear and raise children in that neighborhood. The extended childhood experiment that we tried out some time ago worked pretty well, it allowed for teenages to gather a little bit of wisdom before getting out on their own. But there are limits to extended childhood, and the extreme narrowing of fertility.
A couple that starts their family at 45 will be at around retirement age when their first child reaches 21 years of age. If their first child delays fertility until 45, they will be 90 years old when they become grandparents. Then maybe 115 when their first grandchild graduates college.
Let us not forget that life expectancy in the US has gone down. http://www.webmd.com/healthy-a...
"Originally" (meaning before the 19th century) girls didn't reach puberty until 16-17 on average because of poor nutrition.
Allow me:
What we know about the onset of pubery in females"
From early historic times
Ancient Rome was 12 to 14 years of age
Middle ages in Europe was 12 to 14 years of age
Middle ages in the Middle East was 12 to13 years of age
In the 1800's
Manchester, England in the 1840s
lower class women was around 15 and a half years of age
upper class women was around 14 and a half years of age
London Hospital patients in 1855 was around 15 and a half years of age
Germany in 1869 was around 15 and a half years of age
Scotland 1870 was around 15 and a half years to 16 and a half years of age
London 1880 middle class females was around 15 years of age
U.S.A. late 19th century was around 12-14 and a half years of age
USA in 1905 was around 14-15 and a half years of age
Today it is around 12 years of age for menarche. much of this is attributed to weight of young ladies, perhaps some to estrogen and phytoestrogen exposure. from http://www.mum.org/menarage.ht...
Arguing anything about the intent of biology or that it "shows" us anything is nonsense.
So let me know when I ever argued about the "intent" of biology. Because biology does not have intent, and you are correct to imply such is indeed nonsense. But muchacho, don't be a jerk and attribute to me things that I never wrote.
Regardless of the specific age of menarche, the concept of a young lady who becomes fertile at 12 years of age, and one who waits until her mid 40's to have a child as being functionally equivalent certainly ranks as nonsense. If it were advantageous in the evolutionary sense for 45 year old women to have children, and for younger ones to not, simple selection would ensure that women did not become fertile until they were much older.
So your argument is a bit specious, with the reduction in age of menarche being over a fairly short number of years, and the signaling of fertility over a span of roughly 5 years, not decades as would be required for a superior outcome of a woman giving first birth in her thirties or forties.
Even if we give some credence to the idea that there is a superior outcome, then there must be some advantage to waiting 30 some years after fertility is achieved to make use of that fertility.
What makes humans different from animals is that we are not slaves to our biology, things are a lot more mutable than that.
So give me the biological background to the limits of your socially based mutablility. We gonna have gills and wings soon?
You throw histrionics while they are ignoring you and playing video games. Continue clutching pearls, they'll continue playing MMOs.
That's the problem. The histrionics don't stop. And it turns out that everything is an excuse for the bitching.
The only odd thing is that we would think this would make the ladies very happy. If a man is ignoring you, he isn't bothering you. He isn't harassing you by talking to you, or touching you, or interacting with you in a way you do not like. If he walks by averting his gaze, and trying his best not to be a problem for you, you've not only won the battle, you have achieved dominance. So why complain?
Victim much?
No, those are the guys who play the game.
Not just shaming them for refusing to play the game, but shaming anyone who doesn't join the mob who is shaming the men.
The problem is, once the rational decision to check out of the game is made, any shaming is just a fine example of the continuous bitching than men endure. So it is counterproductive, reinforcing the very reasons why young men are avoiding relationships with women.
But the part that I do not understand is why is this not celebrated as a huge victory for women? The incessant complaints and the treatment of all men as rapists and pedophiles, now coming to fruition by men dropping out is a big plus, is it not?
Whiny MGTOW's are checking out for sure, but honestly, everyone else is glad about that.
Then be glad. This isn't about whining, and if you and whoever everyone else is is happy, then life is good.
I also like how you invent bits of feminist ideology to be angry at.
The courts, the laws, and society are not feminist ideology. They might have been shaped a bit by feminists, but society as a whole has merely made the rational decision for men to avoid relationships with women. The numbers aren't lies. But the ladies and their supporters should be happy about that.
That there are men who are butthurt by their experiences, and them choosing to complain is merely warning for men who have not ben caught in the utility web. Yeah. We hear about sitting with your legs too far apart on public transit is a male enabling rape culture, so if a guy is upset that his wife left him with the children and ende up with the house, the car, and he pays a thou or more a month until the kids are in their early 20's, and he gets to see them once a week and every other holiday - well I'm going to allow him to complain. That's a tangible complaint, not some weird complaint about how men sit that has now been made a crime.
And it's all a product of the "thou doth protest too much" effect. Males have been whined at about how awful they are since birth, and women taught how awful all men are. So at this point, the endless male shaming has little effect. It's just one more thing young males are bitched at about, so another data point supporting the rational decision to seek their enjoyment of life elsewhere than in the company of those who don't like them. And given that "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle http://www.phrases.org.uk/mean... a phrase adopted by Gloria Steinham but coined by Irina Dunn, it is pretty much a victory, because women simply do not need men at all.
Rates of genetic disease are also much higher with older dads, and the father being 40 or older is the main known risk factor for autism.
It's a narrative being sold because men are checking out. The odds are so slightly higher than they are almost insignificant.
The "story" being sold is due wholly to reality not matching feminist ideology, and almost all of these stories about how men have a biological clock are hyped to get men to play the game again.
You aren't wrong. Younger men are indeed checking out. While women's interest in marriage and children have increased, the number of young men who are interested in marriage is something like 29 percent. And many of the older men have already been through the divorce mill, and can't afford a new romance.
So think about that for a minute. most young men are not interested in marriage and children, and the selection process for the women tends to exclude deadbeats and psychos, so we are looking at a pretty dire situation for young women. that 29 percent is much smaller yet. Society and the legal system is not the friend of the male of the species. And many women just view men as a utility that they've been trained since birth to dislike. The results are that many males just retreat into less dangerous environs. Xboxes and motorcycles are fun, and people shaming them for "not manning up" is much less expensive than handing over half of their paycheck and the house to children they may see for a few hours every week.
Why would I date a wrinkly, out-of-shape, pre-menopausal senior citizen shut-in with no modern interests, and that goes on and on about her grown-up children and how big her ex-boyfriend's cock was?
Because all of the other ladies think you're an asshole.
Identifying the inequality is the first step in resolving any social injustice.
Since we know men and women are equal and that means exactly the same, time to move forward with adjusting society until both men and women reach peak fertility at the same age. I vote for 40.
You jest, but are not far off the mark. Many women a few years back decided that they were going to wait until their mid-40's to have children. I even watched a TeD talk with a woman claiming that women are not biologically ready to bear children until they are well into their 30's. A good rationale, but bad biology.
Very strange, when humans are physically capable of childbearing in their early teens, yet aren't supposed to be actually ready until an age when they originally started dying off.
Regardless, humans are capable in their early teens, and the social engineering of teens not being considered adults until the late teens, and waiting at least until then to procreate has been pretty successful, but men and women both have some "best by date". Women's dates tend to be more of a hard stop, and men kind of dribble off more slowly, but for best freshness, nature has shown us when, and social engineering, not so much.
Try actually reading some NRA materials. They are all about safe firearm handling.
Yup, they are. but what is the point? Many of the angriest most vociferous gun nuts are the type that will shoot at anything and post it to youtube and think it is cool, and if they can rub the commie liberal gun control weirdos noses in it all the better. Safety? Fuck that, let's play with our toys!
Frankly? I have no problem whatsoever with these people killing themselves. I say give em whatever they want, and we can all watch as they Darwin themselves.
Me? I love my guns. But I was taught that they come out for cleaning, target shooting (at real targets) and hunting. And if brought out in anger, they will be discharged. Otherwise, they are kept safe.
These stupid assholes who think they are redneck toys, merely remove themselves from the Gene pool. And increase the average intelligence of humanity.
"If there is no need for the majority of humanity, why should the majority of humanity exist?"
The only reason we need any humans right now is because other humans exist. So if none of us existed there would be no need for any of us. Therefore, by your reasoning, we should self-terminate as a species.
Okay AC, that was pretty cute. You manage to insert something I never said, then tried to "use my reasoning" to make a point I never made. No soup for you!
There is no reason that the human race should make itself extinct. But the path we are on is making the vast majority of us unemployable. So the vast majority of us will become dependent on whatever government decides to give us. And the economics don't work in the ultimate banana republic that is the likely future of homo sapiens sapiens. IOW, a relative few people with all of the assets, say 70 million are not going to support the 7 billion of the rest of humanity.
Has nothing to do with suicide, and all to do with what they decide to do with us.
The second world war had fuck all to do with speech making the point you are desperately trying to make kind of moot.
It had a lot to do with control though didn't it? I'm not certain if you are being obtuse or what. If by this time you don't get that there seems to be a desire for conformity that keeps arising, to the point of making certain speech - and therefore opinions - illegal, you are either being obtuse or demanding such a narrow ersatz precision that trolling or being obtuse are simply interchangeable words with resepct to what you are writing.
As an example, I used the word writing. Perhaps you will note the lack of precision in what I wrote, because I didn't actually write anything, I typed it. Good for you. Pointless precision.
My point, on the other hand, is that, saying "written in cyrillic" makes about much sense as saying that your rant is written in latin script.
Context, context, context. I wonder how many people reading what I posted did not understand the incredibly obvious reference to Russia. My guess is exactly none. Including you.
So instead of taking my point that Germany has a strange desire for conformity to the point of making certain assemblages of words and opinion actually illegal, and my not very kind joke about reminding them of the outcome of the last time they went on a conformity binge, by two of the countries that administered the justice, well okay. If you don't get it by now, you never will.
Maybe that odd overly precise attempt at deflection on your part gives us some insight on how Germany got into some of the trouble.
But Cyrillic is used by many languages, not just Russian. Serbs write both in Latin and Cyrillic script, Bulgarians write in Cyrillic - after all, they've invented it in the first place. There are also several non-Slavic languages written in Cyrillic, like Mongolian.
Oh my goodness - you've made my point. You're busy lecturing me on who uses Cyrillic, while knowing damn well I wasn't talking about anyone but the people who taught your country what should have been an indelible lesson - but I see it did not take.
Carry on, and tell us all when you get to the proper level of language to be made illegal. Because Y'all are starting up all over again