Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

They know their own, in all cases of adoption, suspect pedo.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/sep/26/republicans-erupt-over-digs-left-amy-coney-barrett/

now Democratic activists are raising alarm about U.S. District Court Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s adoption of two children from Haiti.

Nowhere in the Bible does it support adoption of non-genetic children, it’s legalised child-snatching. The Bible says go forth and multiply if you want more kids. The CHINOs are an embarrassment.

Adoption of non-kin children is Satanic. It destroys the child’s legal right to their own heritage, culture and family. Celebrities could sponsor the child at home with the extended family but it’s all about pride. Looking at the child outcomes, like IQ and personality and such are even inherited from the real genetic parents. If you’re not blood, you are not their parent. Stop virtue signalling, children aren’t objects to be passed around like Pokemon cards to whoever has the most money.

The proportion of adopted kindergartners being raised by a mother of a different race or ethnic group rose by 50% between 1999 and 2011. The proportion of adoptees with Asian backgrounds nearly tripled over the same time period. Paradoxically, the fraction of adopted students who are African-American seems to have fallen. What has not changed is that a large majority of adoptive parents are white, older, well-educated, and relatively affluent.

I don’t think abuse of kids is justified if they’re another race, either. We must hold Christians to the correct standards. The Biblical one of if you want kids, make them.

It’s imperialistic. They treat the kid like a handbag, it’s sick.

How dare they call this Christian?

Their parents are generally well-educated and affluent. They receive more time and educational resources from those parents than the average child gets from theirs. Yet they get into more conflicts with their classmates at school, display relative little interest and enthusiasm about learning tasks, and register only middling academic performance. About whom are we talking? Adopted children. This is the paradox of adoption in America.

This is the first study of adopted children’s school behavior that is based on independent teacher reports and makes use of a representative national sample of students from adoptive families.

Yet my analysis shows that adoptees do not do as well in school as one would expect from their highly advantaged home environments. The results call into question the widely held assumption that larger investments of money and time in children can overcome the effects of early stress and deprivation and genetic risk factors.

DUH.

And the model minority thing is also propaganda, look at adolescent drinking/drug use/sexual promiscuity studies. There is no model minority, it’s just propaganda by the Boomers shaming the non-white kid into behaving. As you can see, when they’re not rigging the data by self-report, it doesn’t actually work.

Jayman used to blog about the non-existent parenting effect, even when they’re biologically yours.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4403216/

At best they claim 2-5 IQ point different with within-race adoption white to white, which isn’t significant. It’s never the upper number.

Our analysis showed that, among the biological parents, each additional unit on the parental education scale was associated with 2.7 IQ points in the child, whereas among the adoptive parents, each additional unit of education was associated with 1.7 IQ points.

Can we stop coddling their ego please? I don’t care about adult feefees and ego over any child.

The residual difference between the IQs of the two groups of children was reduced from 4.4 to 3.4 when the difference between the biological and rearing parents’ education was included in the model.

https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2014/04/15/more-behavioral-genetic-facts/

Shared environment accounts for 0% of life outcome.

The high early shared environment influence shows that in youth, environmental factors can make a difference. These influences diminish and disappear with time, dashing hopes of lasting parental influence. Some voices – including preeminent behavioral geneticist Robert Plomin himself – often try to claim that the increasing heritability of IQ and other behavioral traits can be boiled down to “gene-environment correlations” (rGE). The idea being that people seek out environments to suit their genetic proclivities (which they do), and the influence of that environment leads to the final trait. This is a nice rosy idea, because it appears to leave the door open to environmental manipulation, if we could intervene in the “proper” ways. However, it is fantasy. We clearly saw in my earlier post that the “gene-environment co-variance” was often negative! One’s environment seemed to be “making” one the opposite of what one would expect. Our experiences don’t shape our political attitudes like we think they do. So is the case with IQ.

Indeed, a meta-analysis of longitudinal twin and adoption studies attempted to test this idea. It sought to determine whether the increasing heritability of IQ could be explained by on-going environmental influence or genetic “amplification”; that is, the compounding of genetic effects over time. This is likely because the effect of each additional gene becomes more and more relevant as children grow up. Indeed, amplification is what they found:

Proponents of the efficacy of nurture – especially parenting – often repeat a few erroneous arguments. Here I will address them. One of them is the idea that parenting, while ineffective for most, may make a difference for individuals with certain temperaments. For example, perhaps the low IQ/shiftless/delinquent/criminal or otherwise poorly dispositioned might benefit from more authoritative parenting, say. It’s a nice idea to think about, but it doesn’t happen. This is essentially “Stolen Generations” wisdom. As we’ve seen in my earlier post, a massive review of twin and adoption studies found no significant shared environment effect on criminality in adults (well, modeling found a shared environment contribution of 0.09, which can generally regard to be non-significant given the enormous measurement error expected). Even an effect that operated on some children but not others would contribute to the overall average shared environment, which was negligible.

Edit, 6/5/14: [I wanted to expand on the above mentioned review of criminality (by Rhee & Waldman, R&W), particularly the appearance of a small but nonzero (though non-significant) shared environment finding. As we saw, the age the subjects are assessed seems to make a difference. As well, as discussed in my analysis on adolescent psychopathology below, the particular measure used – such who is doing the ratings – affect the values found. For example, self-ratings or ratings by parents tend to attenuate the heritability estimate, and both appear to inflate the shared environment estimate, at least in youth. The Rhee & Waldman meta-analysis is no exception. Here are the ADCE (A, or a2 = additive genetic variance; D, or d2 = non-additive genetic variance; C, or c2 = shared environment; E, or e2 = remaining variance) components as computed based on information given by different raters:

 Rating method a2 d2 c2 e2 Total no. of pairs in category Self-report 0.39 – 0.06 0.55 13,329 Other report (usually parents) 0.53 – 0.22 0.25 6,851 Criminal records 0.33 0.42 – 0.25 34,122

The total, or broad-sense heritability, H, is the sum of the additive (the narrow-sense heritability) and the non-additive genetic components. As we can see, when actual criminal records (a semi-objective metric) are used, as we’ve seen, the heritability shoots up to the usual range, at 0.75, and the shared environment estimate vanishes. The criminal record analysis also captures the largest number of subjects, bolstering its reliability. Parent reports, as seen below, inflate the shared environment measure. The self-report gives a negligible shared environment estimate, but reports a lower heritability estimate – which is not surprising, given that we can expect self-reported criminal behavior to be poorly reliable. It is unfortunate that R&W don’t separate out parents from peers and other non-relative raters in “other report.” Additionally, the adoption studies found a negligible shared environment impact of 0.05 between adoptive parents and adoptees. It is also too bad that R&W don’t cross tabulate the results by rating and age. But, as discussed below, adolescent shared environment effects maybe an artifact of unreliable raters anyway.

(For the record, the countries spanned by the studies in the meta-analysis include the U.S., Canada, the U.K., Australia, Denmark, and Sweden.)

The bottom line, it’s clear that when it comes to anti-social behavior, the 75-0-25 rule holds perfectly firm. Parents and parenting do nothing to create upstanding citizens, and heredity is considerably important. ***End Edit***]

But the eugenicists were wrong about everything, ignore the historic era of prosperity exactly one generation after their American sterilizations in the 20s… which they predicted.

Indeed, also supporting this is another massive meta-analysis of behavioral genetic influences on adolescent psychopathology (personality disorders). These captures various types of child misbehavior and dysfunction, including convenient diagnoses such as “oppositional-defiant disorder.” A look and the breakdown of their results is far more interesting than their main reported results. Typically, shared environment effects are seen in children (<18 years old). The main study reported this, but fortunately, they decomposed the type of measurements used. In addition to self-report and parental report, they also had teacher report, peer reports, and clinical diagnoses. The self and parental reports showed lower heritabilities (0.3-0.5) and significant (though small) shared environment components. However, when teacher or peer reports were used, they found much higher heritabilities, in the 0.65-0.8 range. As well, the shared environment impact vanished. Using clinical diagnosis also produced a zero shared environment impact. Considering the sheer size of this review, it’s clear that parental behavior dosen’t contribute to this malaise, even at these ages.

Adoptive parents can lie? Why do that?

[ego]

The problem of somewhat unreliable measurements (noise), especially coming from self-report, was illustrated in my earlier posts. Averaged peer ratings serve to adjust for this problem to an extent both by providing more proper social context by which to make accurate comparative ratings and by cancelling out fluke readings. Indeed, one behavioral genetic study, which attempted to investigate the idea of a “general factor of personality” (GFP), akin to g for cognitive ability, found that when using the combined scores of self and peer ratings, the heritabilities of the Big Five personality traits shot through the roof, with the additive heritable component being:

• Extraversion:           0.86
• Openness:              0.92
• Neuroticism:            0.59
• Agreeableness:       0.85
• Conscientiousness: 0.81

This demonstrates that more accurate measurements consistently push up the heritability estimate (even pushing them towards 100%), giving us the basis of the 75-0-25 or something rule.

As for the sixth dimension of personality, “honesty-humility”, the H component of the six factor HEXACO, evidence of its high heritability is also established, as we saw previously. Indeed, a recent post by Peter Frost (Evo and Proud: Compliance with moral norms: a partly heritable trait?) discussed a twin study from Sweden that looked at various forms of dishonesty, such as fraudulently claiming sick benefits or evading taxes. And sure enough, these particular behaviors showed considerable heritability. There is a desperate need for cross cultural behavioral genetic analyses. Many dimensions of personality systems like the HEXACO (as imperfect as they are) are likely to systematically vary from culture to culture.

The usefulness of behavioral genetics – indeed, the single most powerful and solid area of all social science – is highly evident. But behavioral genetic methods can be used to address several long-standing questions. Here we see it’s clear that parents don’t leave much of an impact on our behavioral traits. But what about people who aren’t parents? Here I will look at two sets of important people, spouses and peers.

It is no secret that spouses correlate on behavioral traits. This, assortative mating, is a powerful force, as we’ve seen previously. There are two aspects where spouses are highly correlated – the things you don’t talk about in a bar: politics and religion. Some have assumed that a good bit of this is because spouses grow more similar with time. But is this the case?

This is where the “extended twin” design comes in handy. One large study (N > 20,000) in particular looked at precisely that. By including twins, their spouses, and parents, etc, they were able to directly measure assortative mating. What did they find? Spouses were correlated for several traits. But the traits they were most correlated in were political orientation and religiosity. Social “homogamy” (having the same background as your spouse) couldn’t explain this, as the correlation between MZ twins and their co-twin’s spouse were consistently higher than that of DZ twins, and so on. As well, spouses weren’t influencing each other, as the correlation between spouses was not affected by length of the marriage (even when only couples married <2 years were examined).

The neocons marrying lefties are kidding themselves.

And leagues clearly exist, assortative mating is genetic.

The study was also able to lay to rest another persistent myth. We’ve heard that we choose spouses like our opposite sex parent (like our mothers for men and like our fathers for women). Anyone who’s remotely genetically informed should be able to see that this could just be due to choosing mates like ourselves. And so is the case. As the authors put it:

there was no evidence for the sexual imprinting hypothesis. Twins’ partners were not significantly more similar in any trait to the twin’s opposite-sex parent than to the twin’s same-sex parent or a DZ co-twin of either sex, nor was there even a trend in this direction

These results were also consistent with the Peter Hatemi et al extended twin study on political attitudes featured previously.

The similarity between spouses has nothing to do with mutual influence, but assortment. At least this bit is common sense. I suspect few long married individuals will believe that they changed their spouse.

On that note, a key theory put forward by the woman who first elucidated the non effect of parents, Judith Rich Harris, was that the unique environment “influence” might be boiled down to peer influence. Staffan did a nice recap of Harris’s theory (see The Nurture Enigma – How Does the Environment Influence Human Nature? | Staffan’s Personality Blog). We all have heard of peer pressure. And indeed, peers seem to be an important force when it comes to language and behaviors like smoking initiation. But do peers really have this great influence, as Harris posits? Well, as I posted over at the Lion of the Blogosphere:

Most research into peer effects is confounded by the same thing that standard parenting studies are: inability to control for the effect of heredity.

And:

A behavioral genetic study (on the Add Health data) that looked specifically at GPA and found that 72% of the similarity between U.S. high school students and their peers could be explained by genetic factors. In other words, school performance and the apparent peer “influence” is really just kids choosing to associate with kids of similar intelligence and motivation:

A behavior genetic analysis of the tendency for youth to associate according to GPA

Peers seem like a fine avenue to get excited about, because it seemed like a vehicle through which parents could assert some influence. But, when you really consider it, peers can’t really be all that important in the long run, because if there were systematic effects of peers on adult outcomes, it’d turn up in the shared environment, which it doesn’t. One could posit that the effect of peers is completely random, but if that were true (aside from the major violation of Occam’s Razor that presents), why worry about it?

The “75-0-25 or something” rule is robust and reliable. This instructs that should we find some major deviation from this, it can be taken to be a sign something is seriously amiss. We saw that with male homosexuality (see Greg Cochran’s “Gay Germ” Hypothesis – An Exercise in the Power of Germs). Now I will discuss two curious exceptions to this pattern.

One rather astonishing example was the heritability of social trust.behavioral genetic study out of the Netherlands found that the heritability of trust in others, as measured by:

The trust-in-others and trust-in-self scales were designed to include three items that were central in existing scales … thereby capturing items with positive valence (“I completely trust most other people”) and negative valence (“When push comes to shove, I do not trust most other people”), both of which explicitly used the word “trust”, and an item that captured the broad behavioral implication of the trust: the intention to accept vulnerability, as explicated in one of the most widely-accepted definitions of trust … (“I dare to put my fate in the hands of most other people”)

…found no significant heritable influence on these. The extent that people trusted, at least as captured by these measures, was virtually entirely a function of the unique environment.

homogeneous environment > high trust

not hard

This was a puzzling result. The clear pattern of the high heritability of all behavioral traits was established, as I’ve discussed. So how could a propensity to trust not also be influenced by genetic factors? One explanation touted around was that trust is contingent on experience; if we found people trustworthy, we would trust. If we didn’t, we would not. While that might sound convincing, the trouble is that the same could be said for many other behavioral traits. Is general trust less socially contingent than say bigoted feelings against some groups, like homophobia (which is at least 54% heritable)? That seems rather unreasonable.

One key question: how do they assess “trust”? Just how good was their measurement? Measurements in social science need to meet three basic criteria: they need to be reliable (that is multiple testing instances of the same individual should give roughly the same results), they need to be “valid” (that is, be predictive of some real-world outcome), and they should be heritable. This trust measure clearly fails on the third criterion. However, the study authors claim the test-retest correlation was good, so it is reliable. But what about the second? Does this trust measure actually predict anything?

To find out, I looked at a study that sought to answer that very question. This study, done in Germany, looked in detail at the reliability and the validity of their measurement of trust, a measurement very similar to the Dutch study. The noted a key point, one HBD Chick will appreciate. That is, trust is multi-faceted. There is trust in institutions, which is distinct from trust in known others, which is distinct from trust in strangers (I’d imagine HBD Chick would break it down one more, and separate “known others” into family and non-family). But more importantly, to question of validity, they assessed this by the correlation between trust in strangers and trusting behavior in the “dictator game.” They found a correlation, but only with trust in strangers.

But their correlation was very small (Spearman’s $\rho$ = 0.17) – and this is with a game which itself has questionable relation to trust behavior in the real world. I suspect that their instrument is not predictive of any trusting behavior in the real world. It’s worth mentioning another (fairly small) study of the heritability of trust from Australia found a non-insignificant heritability, though a smallish one (0.14-0.31).

The situation with trust is unclear. But this brings me to another example of a feature for which the heritability estimate appears to be trivial. That is the female G-spot. A study on about 1,800 female twins from Britain found that the heritability of the reported presence of a G-spot wasn’t significant. The result was virtually entirely unshared environment. Debate has raged on as to whether or not the female G spot exists at all, but that is to be expected, since research into human sexual behavior is among the most difficult to conduct properly. But, the result from this study indicating that the G spot isn’t heritable is puzzling. If the G spot was a real anatomical feature, and one that wasn’t universal, then one would expect a rather significant heritable impact. The finding that it’s not heritable points to one of two conclusions. One, perhaps the G-spot is in fact universal, but only some women have “discovered” it. That seems rather implausible, given the rather significant variation in heritable morphological features of sex organs in women. The second possibility is that the G-spot in fact doesn’t exist at all, and women who claim to have one are mistaken. That seems more likely, but I wouldn’t want to completely dismiss the claims of women who state they have such a feature. The mystery remains.

The findings of behavioral genetics, particularly the highly significant impact of heredity and the absence of shared environment effects, in addition to the complete failure to find reliable environmental sources that contribute to the “unique environment” component of the variance, calls into question virtually every pet environmental theory that has been put forward. It guides one to be suspicious of most “environmental” explanations of behavior. Now, let me be clear, I am not saying that these environmental influences don’t exist. I am not saying that if they do exist, we won’t be able to ever find them. I am also not saying that development doesn’t require a complex interplay between genes and environment. Try going without food, water, air, or speaking to another person if you don’t believe me. I am also not saying that the secular changes in human traits that are brought about by gross environmental changes don’t happen. The increase in average height over the past century disproves that. But what I am saying is that you should be doubtful of most pet theories of how the environment influences us, especially those that promise we can control, or sometimes even predict it. For as we see, that’s far from an easy task.

# Aging fathers, ugly kids

That’s one solid explanation for why people are generally uglier nowadays, even the healthy weight.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886916311035

### Paternal age negatively predicts offspring physical attractiveness in two, large, nationally representative datasets

Freeze your sperm at 18 for optimum freshness.

Effect of paternal age on offspring attractiveness is investigated in two datasets.

Various covariates are utilized.

Significant negative effects are found in both datasets.

Effects are independent of birth order.

Findings consistent with paternal age as a source of new mutations in offspring.

Abstract

The effect of paternal age on offspring attractiveness has recently been investigated. Negative effects are predicted as paternal age is a strong proxy for the numbers of common de novo mutations found in the genomes of offspring. As an indicator of underlying genetic quality or fitness, offspring attractiveness should decrease as paternal age increases, evidencing the fitness-reducing effects of these mutations.

That’s a hard rectal red pill.

I’m sure the manosphere will try its hardest to ignore like the dead and defective babies.

https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Sins-Of-The-Fathers

The problem is, you think you have time.

Thus far results are mixed, with one study finding the predicted effect, and a second smaller study finding the opposite. Here the effect is investigated using two large and representative datasets (Add Health and NCDS),

holy Jesus a sound method

I almost fell off my high horse

both of which contain data on physical attractiveness and paternal age.

Validity! Validity! My queendom for some statistical validity!

The effect is present in both datasets, even after controlling for maternal age at subject’s birth, age of offspring, sex, race, parental and offspring (in the case of Add Health) socio-economic characteristics, parental age at first marriage (in the case of Add Health) and birth order.

The confound control is practically orgasmic, I can’t wait to see how they mansplain this one away.

That is perfect method. But it triggers butthurts and their precious feefees are hurt by the mere implication that degenerate older dads are bad for their kid’s health. Because all those upper crust respectable 1950s dads were like “60 is the new 20 lol!” Who gives a shit if your kids need you past high school? You got more priceless clubbing times you don’t remember, that’s what really matters. Not seeing your grandkids.

Class, race, sex, age at marriage, birth order, maternal age, offspring age – there’s literally nothing else to control for. Nothing. It’s flawless.

THESE. ARE. THE. STUDIES. WE. NEED.

Logically, since women are born with most of their eggs, there wouldn’t be a maternal effect. It isn’t constantly replenishing like the male gamete. Cell division’s a bitch. Male lifestyle for all his years prior

affects the child at conception (and even which sperm is conceived) far more than the details of pregnancy (minus pollutants it’s pretty much the same as in ancient times, the womb is not a new environment).

Maybe add child health although those studies already exist to cross-reference with attractiveness?

As in, are the girls more womanly as adults in WHR and the boys have more manly frames (broad shoulders, narrow waist, which should be a metric of its own)? Or less gender typical? Even androgynous, or fully gender-atypical?

Do younger or older fathers produce better-looking kids in the gendered sense?

[We can tell by looking at old photos but let’s pretend.]

Give me a time machine, please. The ugly wigger types hurt my eyes.

[I have also noted mannish looking sisters tend to be the older, “ugly” sister of two -coughs Beatrice- and the girly looking brothers tend to be the younger, usually gay one. Cannot unsee.]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0162309595000682

e.g.

“In addition to their attractiveness and intimidatory effects, human secondary sexual characters also provide cues to hormonal status and phenotypic quality consistent with the good genes model of sexual selection (which includes parasite resistance). Low waist-hip ratio is sexually attractive in women and indicates a high estrogen/testosterone ratio (which favors reproductive function). Facial attractiveness provides honest cues to health and mate value. The permanently enlarged female breast appears to have evolved under the influence of both the good genes and the runaway selection mechanisms. The male beard is not obviously related to phenotypic quality and may have evolved through a process of runaway intersexual selection.”

The beard can also be a sign of poor grade genes e.g. savages, wolf man. Overall bone structure uber alles.

Maybe factor in sexual activity of the father prior to conception? Especially partner count and STDs. STDs are known to harm attractiveness in the host [coughs David Beckham, most of Hollywood] so why not the offspring’s?

Back to the top study:

The apparent robustness of the effect to different operationalizations of attractiveness suggests high generalizability, however the results must be interpreted with caution, as controls for parental levels of attractiveness were indirect only in the present study.

aka please don’t sue us but you know it’s true

But you can wait forever because the Jews said so!

Say, who owns all the biotech and IVF companies?

https://www.fertilitybridge.com/blog/2018/4/11/battleforivfmarketwallstreetvsprivatepractice

[chuckles in Israel shekels]

https://hmcisrael.com/specialty/ivf-israel/

“According to statistics, around 20% of couples wishing to conceive are faced with certain obstacles that inhibit a successful pregnancy.

Fertility Treatment is one of the most prioritized fields of medicine in Israel.”

Sure, you can wait for decades! Also, cut the kid when they’re born!

We need more future little Viagra users.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7752-female-genital-mutilation-can-cause-infertility/

Does Circumcision Decrease the Fertility of Sperm in the Male?

“However, birth rates are much higher in countries where the men are predominantly uncircumcised.”

There is no question that an uncircumcised man has a cooler penis than a circumcised man in the flaccid state. For some reason, removal of the foreskin is the reason for this. There seems to be some sort of temperature sensor in the foreskin that may control penile temperature. Removing the foreskin gets rid of this sensor.

It only takes a few temperature degrees of difference to damage sperm. As the penis is in close proximity to the testicles, it’s quite likely that a cooler penis would help keep the testicles cooler (Remember that men are more potent in the colder months of the year). Under these condition, if the testicles got too cold, they can always be retracted closer to the body.

Almost like God gave men a prepuce solely for this evolutionary function in reproduction.

…Now consider this: Circumcised and uncircumcised men have the same penis temperature on full erection, as we stated earlier in this article. So, clearly, there is a specific reason why a natural-uncircumcised penis remains at a cooler temperature during the flaccid state. When the penis is erect it is no longer in close proximity with the testicles, so penile temperature should not affect the testicular temperature at this phase (be the penis circumcised or uncircumcised).

Upon orgasm, the penis tends to retract more into the pelvis (at least with my experience). Due to the friction and increased blood flow that occurred during the sexual act, it makes sense that the penis will have an increase in temperature in a flaccid state post-sex than in a flaccid state previous to the sexual act. Could this retraction be another mechanism for the “heated” penis to steer clear of the testicles?

Go there, science.

Circumcision and Male Fertility: Is There a Link?

Scientists have recently concluded that circumcision can help with infertility in males suffering from two very specific diseases.

So… not generalizable.

Some woman perv studies after all that penis talk.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513814000269

Women’s faces and voices may be cues to their reproductive potential. If so, then individual differences in indices of female fecundity and residual reproductive value, such as hormonal profiles, body composition, and age, should be associated with women’s facial and vocal attractiveness to men. However, previous research on these associations is sparse, has rendered mixed results, and is limited to Western samples. The current study therefore explored relationships between correlates of reproductive capability (testosterone levels, age, and body mass index [BMI]) and facial and vocal attractiveness in women from industrial and foraging societies. Women’s facial and vocal attractiveness was associated with each of these indicators in at least one of the two samples. The patterns of these associations suggest that women’s faces and voices provide cues to both common and unique components of reproductive potential and help explain the evolution of men’s mating preferences.

Lesson: Avoid the manjaw.

Women change their vocal pitch all the time though. European women are taught to make it lower at school (speak up = louder, lower pitch), Asians try to make it higher. The key is how they sound when hysterically upset. That’s their true level. Europeans go up, Asians down.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513812000475

Attractive facial features in women are assumed to signal fertility, but whether facial attractiveness predicts reproductive success in women is still a matter of debate. We investigated the association between facial attractiveness at young adulthood and reproductive life history—number of children and pregnancies—in women of a rural community. For the analysis of reproductive success, we divided the sample into women who used contraceptives and women who did not.

So partnered, married women. Not single ones.

Introducing two-dimensional geometric morphometric methodology, we analysed which specific characteristics in facial shape drive the assessment of attractiveness and covary with lifetime reproductive success. A set of 93 (semi)landmarks was digitized as two-dimensional coordinates in postmenopausal faces. We calculated the degree of fluctuating asymmetry and regressed facial shape on facial attractiveness at youth and reproductive success. Among women who never used hormonal contraceptives, we found attractive women to have more biological offspring than less attractive women. These findings are not affected by sociodemographic variables. Postmenopausal faces corresponding to high reproductive success show more feminine features—facial characteristics previously assumed to be honest cues to fertility. Our findings support the notion that facial attractiveness at the age of mate choice predicts reproductive success and that facial attractiveness is based on facial characteristics, which seem to remain stable until postmenopausal age.

Menopause is not the face equalizer you think.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513816302318

# African and European perception of African female attractiveness

Dare you to do the same study with every race judging every other.

Majority of research on attractiveness is restricted to faces of European origin. The perception of attractiveness may, however, vary across communities due to variations in both facial morphology and local standards of beauty. We investigated the relative contribution of four facial markers of attractiveness based on 101 female facial portraits (standardized, non-manipulated) from Cameroon and Namibia, which were assessed by local male raters and by raters from a distant European population, the Czech Republic. Images from Cameroon include only women of Bantu origin, while Namibians are represented by women of both Bantu (Owambo/Herero) and Nama origin. While controlling for age and BMI, we explored the relationship between female attractiveness and a set of facial traits: fluctuating asymmetry, averageness, shape sexual dimorphism, and skin color (rated and measured in CIELab color space).

In the Cameroonian sample, local male raters favored lighter-skinned female faces with morphology closer to average. The attractiveness of Nama women as rated by Nama men positively correlated with lighter complexion, but this did not extend to rating by Cameroonian men. The attractiveness of Namibian Owambo/Herero women was positively associated with facial femininity and lighter complexion when judged by both Cameroonian and Nama male raters. In all samples, the attractiveness as rated by Czech men was predicted by age and BMI, but not by skin color. We found no significant association between attractiveness and fluctuating asymmetry in any of the tested samples. When controlling for age, the effect of skin color on attractiveness turned to be non-significant in the Owambo/Herrero and Nama sample, but remained significant in the Cameroonian sample. Variations in skin color thus represent an important factor of African female attractiveness within the African context, but they do not seem to affect judgements made by European raters.

They don’t want any of them.

Sensitivity to some facial markers of female attractiveness thus seems to be restricted to regional populations and/or constrained by shared ethnicity.

Paler women have more oestrogen. So duh.

Women reject old guys who’d give them dead or ugly kids:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513816301283

“This finding is consistent with men’s stated preference for young, fertile women in mating and suggests that the typical pattern is generated by women’s limiting role in mating.”

aka their gender role

“older men tend to marry older women, including those who are peri- and post-menopausal”

TIL Korea is so degenerate it has slave markets. Ooof.

So much for the myth that young women have the hots for them. Yeah, I’m sure the Jap schoolgirl came onto you, right perv?

Deadbeats are the end of the West:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513816303671

Research in evolutionary psychology, and life history theory in particular, has yielded important insights into the developmental processes that underpin variation in growth, psychological functioning, and behavioral outcomes across individuals. Yet, there are methodological concerns that limit the ability to draw causal inferences about human development and psychological functioning within a life history framework. The current study used a simulation-based modeling approach to estimate the degree of genetic confounding in tests of a well-researched life history hypothesis: that father absence (X) is associated with earlier age at menarche (Y). The results demonstrate that the genetic correlation between X and Y can confound the phenotypic association between the two variables, even if the genetic correlation is small—suggesting that failure to control for the genetic correlation between X and Y could produce a spurious phenotypic correlation. We discuss the implications of these results for research on human life history, and highlight the utility of incorporating genetically sensitive tests into future life history research.

I don’t think debtor’s prisons will come back – but if you breed it, you should feed it. I think the abandoned women that existed since Biblical times will just hire bounty hunters to shoot the first family deserter for a share of his life insurance policy.

Patriarchs everywhere would rejoice at culling the cads. The women get a widow’s pension.

Everyone wins. Hey, you said “until death do us part”. Men used to die by their oaths.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S109051381400052X

I have noticed that immigrant men have a higher pitch than their non-immigrant relatives.

Maybe the act of immigration impairs masculinity?

Low male voice pitch may communicate potential benefits for offspring in the form of heritable health and/or dominance, whereas access to resources may be indicated by correlates of socioeconomic status, such as sociolinguistic features. Here, we examine if voice pitch and social dialect influence women’s perceptions of men’s socioeconomic status and attractiveness. In Study 1, women perceived lower pitched male voices as higher in socioeconomic status than higher pitched male voices.

A lot of PUAs get shot down for 1. being brown and feeling entitled to a white woman, the lowest miscegenation group also further sickened by repeated forced “refugee” interactions and 2. having a high pitch voice and effete face compared to their national relatives. Compare within the white race, the “Latin lover” in Italy versus Italian immigrants raised and living in London, who sound like cartoon chipmunks by comparison.

Yes, we notice.

No, you can’t change it. We notice.

Same applies to white men who moved South so it appears to be immigration. Either being an immigrant or the act itself makes a man less manly. Most obviously, torso body fat deposition like a woman of their group and the sisters become like the men at home, more athletic.

In Study 2, women independently perceived lower pitched voices and higher status sociolinguistic dialects as higher in socioeconomic status and attractiveness.

It isn’t the money, it’s the genes.

Good genes, good brains, good money. Fixating on the money is what ugly guys do – Muslim prince to Jewish media mogul.

We also found a significant interaction wherein women preferred lower pitched men’s voices more often when dialects were lower in sociolinguistic status than when they were higher in sociolinguistic status.

Capacity to protect. Not a desk jockey. The middle-class is effeminate. They want army. No cowards.

Women also perceived lower pitched voices as higher in socioeconomic status more often when dialects were higher in sociolinguistic status than when lower in sociolinguistic status.

Women know quality, really? Almost like our lives depend on it.

Finally, women’s own self-rated socioeconomic status was positively related to their preferences for voices with higher status sociolinguistic dialects, but not to their preferences for voice pitch.

Plenty of men chose to marry down to get a looker out of their genetic league, hypergamy.

Erotic capital is worth it, as you can tell by the fertility study above, even post-menopausal they’re better-looking.

Hence, women’s preferences for traits associated with potentially biologically heritable benefits, such as low voice pitch, are moderated by the presence of traits associated with resource accrual, such as social dialect markers. However, women’s preferences for language markers of resource accrual may be functionally independent from preferences for potential biological indicators of heritable benefits, such as voice pitch.

Women…. making…. mate choices?

# Parental absence lowers child happiness and intelligence

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312357880_The_Effect_of_Parental_Absence_on_Child_Development_in_Rural_China_The_Effect_of_Parental_Absence_on_Child_Development

This includes emotional absence, re-marriage abandonment (abuse) and being ‘busy’ at work.

This study estimates the effect of parental absence on the development of children in rural China. Although some previous studies have looked into the effect of parental absence on children’s academic achievements, we investigate the effects of parental absence on both the cognitive and non-cognitive skills of children. Our results show that parental absence during early child development mostly incurs negative effects on the academic achievement and non-cognitive development of children. A child whose parents are both absent tends to have lower Chinese and mathematics test scores, lower self-assessment on his/her behavior, and is less likely to be happy and satisfied. A gender difference is also observed in the effect of parental absence: girls suffer more from the effect of both parents being absent on their mathematics test scores than do boys.

Remember, neglect is a form of child abuse.

A parent working over-time for their ego doesn’t actually care for the child.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151130084008.htm

We looked at children who were left behind with relatives when the parents left to seek employment far from home.”

For the study, which was led by Professor Su Lui and conducted at the Second Affiliated Hospital & Yuying Children’s Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, MRI exams from 38 left-behind girls and boys (ages 7 to 13) were compared to MRI exams from a control group of 30 girls and boys (ages 7 to 14) living with their parents. The researchers then compared the gray matter volume between the two groups and measured the intelligence quotient (IQ) of each participant to assess cognitive function.

The researchers found larger gray matter volumes in multiple brain regions, especially in emotional brain circuitry, in the left-behind children compared to children living with their parents. The mean value of IQ scores in left-behind children was not significantly different from that of controls, but the gray matter volume in a brain region associated with memory encoding and retrieval was negatively correlated with IQ score.

Since larger gray matter volume may reflect insufficient pruning and maturity of the brain, the negative correlation between the gray matter volume and IQ scores suggests that growing without parental care may delay brain development.

Both parents.

Skipping out to work all the time to get out of the house is still neglectful. We have the MRIs.

They have to do, like 1/3 of the parenting at least, some interactions.

“Our study provides the first empirical evidence showing that the lack of direct parental care alters the trajectory of brain development in left-behind children,” Xiao said. “Public health efforts are needed to provide additional intellectual and emotional support to children left behind by parents.”

Or shame the parents who think a promotion is more important than children.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3904543/

This is the red pill.

# The Causal Effects of Father Absence

[not inc. if he was actively abusive if present, obviously]

The literature on father absence is frequently criticized for its use of cross-sectional data and methods that fail to take account of possible omitted variable bias and reverse causality. We review studies that have responded to this critique by employing a variety of innovative research designs to identify the causal effect of father absence, including studies using lagged dependent variable models, growth curve models, individual fixed effects models, sibling fixed effects models, natural experiments, and propensity score matching models. Our assessment is that studies using more rigorous designs continue to find negative effects of father absence on offspring well-being, although the magnitude of these effects is smaller than what is found using traditional cross-sectional designs. The evidence is strongest and most consistent for outcomes such as high school graduation, children’s social-emotional adjustment, and adult mental health.

Parental absence in early childhood and onset of smoking and alcohol consumption before adolescence

Parental absence was associated with early uptake of risky health behaviours in a large, nationally representative UK cohort. Children who experience parental absence should be supported in early life in order to prevent smoking and alcohol initiation.

Pre-teen degeneracy. They’re also likelier to sleep around, do other drugs and commit crime but I’ve posted how that’s most common in mixed race kids before. Racial confound.

R-selected children with neglectful fathers (or mothers, and/or both) are lower quality per child than they otherwise would be. There’s no ‘sowing oats’ and novelty-seeking when you have kids, total myth. Normalizes child abuse.

# Pot smokers have sicklier babies

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16458631
“If men smoked marijuana 11 to 90 times in their lifetime, there was a 15% decrease in infant birth weight (P = .03); if this increased to more than 90 times, there was a 23% decrease (P = .01). Timing also played a role.”
“Women and men who smoked in the past 15 years, had 12% (P = .04) and 16% (P = .03) smaller infants, respectively.”

This is why ((they)) want to legalize.

Such a change in one generation is huge news.

Related

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15343228

Paternal age increases pregnancy failure and miscarriage rate in IVF

# Comic: shit rapists say

Sorry, is this shitposty enough? They really don’t deserve better.

Ironically, these are the same guys to bitch about prison rape (prison full of people exactly like themselves). Because women/children/rarely men have no rights when it conflicts with their lust and sense of entitlement, but God forbid someone wolf whistle snowflake in prison, he demands social justice!

If anything, the Devil supports free choice – free of conscience.

It makes you wonder, were the Devil like a person, how much he hates humanity?

Why else try to trick these scumbags into deserving heaped punishment?

That would logically explain why a Godhead was fine with it.

It’s just bringing out more of what’s already there, the blackness of their evil heart. Blaming the Devil is like an American blaming McDonald’s. Dude, just don’t go!

When I’m standing in a bakery and really hungry, I can’t steal the food no matter how much my body’s instincts scream at me. Crimes have a mens rea. Guilty mind, intent, it isn’t spiritual or physical. People miss that fact because they distract from it. These perverts try to play “Real Victim Here” when, if being themselves were such a torment, they’d commit suicide (logically). They have the lowest risk of suicide of many pathological groups, because they compulsively lie (obviously) and inhumanely enjoy their sexual predation like a lion biting into a juicy gazelle. This is difficult for good people to wrap their head around. They enjoy ruin, including their eventual own (idiots self sabotage). They dig their own grave, call it “insanity” (they’re not) or sin, the result remains.

It isn’t an excuse. If anything, far from meriting compassion like a full human being, they merit lead and a shallow grave because we put all other predators down except for the most deadly – human on human predators with provably subhuman brains. Or hell, if we’re going to think Joker style about this, give them to the necrophile rapists, that’d be a plot twist. They don’t believe in dignity, after all. They don’t think they have a soul so it’s just a clump of cells left behind, whether worms or technical humans enjoy it shouldn’t matter.

Man has caused most of his problems by ignoring or preventing natural law. Most law is in the punishments and they fit the crimes. By keeping various people around and worse, encouraging them (you can’t rehab someone if it’s what they are) then they increase the world’s suffering according to utilitarianism and the “helpers” become enablers also responsible for the crimes committed (part of pathological altruism in a clinical context).

When therapists and lawyers are held personally (partially) responsible for the criminals they helped free to re-offend, that’s justice.

If they released a non-human predator, we wouldn’t get so soft. Violent criminals are not children. Infantilizing them is enabling horrors.

They didn’t know? some cuck will claim. Really? It was their job to know, they took the job, they took the money, they looked at the facts. Case closed. They claimed a lie, in court, that criminal X was safe. At minimum perjury and medical negligence to society. They lied to a jury and a judge. To get more money. Isn’t that… aiding and abetting? Bribery?

Sexual selection does not include rape in humans, hence the “selection” part. Even birds choose their mates, bird brain is an insult (unfair but still). Rapists like Genghis Khan are not, in fact, successful in the Darwinian sense. He was an r-type. Fitness is qualitative (K-select attribute), not quantitative (N descendants) and over sufficient generations the material of one rapist would be diluted out or dead (inherited high time preference trait is recklessness), which is far less of a genetic “gain” to count than the murders (of men! creepy fans of his) that allowed him to continue his rampage for so long (including deaths of his kin in his own army). Khan was the ultimate deadbeat abuser. What’s to admire? That isn’t civilized, it’s a savage. Savages are unfit and if you read Darwin this comes through clearly. He discusses sexual selection in the context of society’s formation and fitness and the struggle for life and peace and what we consider the long, painful process of civilization (e.g. sanitation, humans prefer one another not smeared in shit). Rapist genes are useless (incompetent individuals who, by definition, need to steal/parasite from others) and in fact harmful to a group (hence there’s such a thing as incestuous rape, they aren’t even “good” for close kin). Inferior genes do exist (selfishness is a hallmark of the unfit) and a desperate man is no man at all. Unfit genes are culled and this is good, this is what evolution is all about. Whether it’s the vain guy who wants to focus on his career and the gym or the rapist who gives women “the creeps” so they don’t want even more vulnerable kids with it, those genes don’t serve any human society, current or future, they should be allowed to go gently into that good night. Rapists only desire to reproduce for three reasons: 1. control of the victim/mother including financial leeching, 2. vanity/children as status symbol (like welfare queens) despite abuse of the child (they see it as an object that should be grateful they let it live, God complex feeds into this point) and 3. all the benefit of children who will probably try to love them and feel like taking care of them when they’re old and none of the investment (deadbeats should be abandoned in turn, they come back to the kids classically when they ‘need’ a kidney). Such dependence and parasitism (and on the innocent too) is low and disgusting. Loyalty is a two-way street. Loyalty evolved (reciprocity, pair bonds) to merit compassion, they are owed nothing but society’s shaming. [Shame works on the narcissist better than anyone else.]

(Note: Deadbeat mothers should also be abandoned, the logic applies to all of the predatory leeches).

Children owe their parents in as much as they acted like parents. It’s a job.

Yet you’ll see them try to twist “honour thy mother and thy father” despite being atheists.

https://www.biblehub.com/2_corinthians/6-14.htm There is no fellowship. There is no obligation to a cheat in any game with rules.

Those are roles. You don’t magically become a parent at conception or birth, like modern simpletons claim, it’s really an IOU on years of upbringing. It’s a contract more than a title.

Deadbeats are like an employer who expects you to work but refuses to pay you. That has a name.

You know what is evolution, though? Natural selection. As in, murdering rapists and pedophiles to prevent the genes worming into future court cases, it’s good for the fitness of the group/tribe. They never “get” to that part. The Victorian society was so incredibly prosperous in the latter period directly BECAUSE it kept hanging for various crimes in the early period. A genetic cull preludes prosperity (dating back to the K/T extinction event allowing humans to best dinosaurs and later, the Ice Age giving Europeans* a massive edge at a unique latitude, an event Inuits missed with later migration Northbound), it’s a fact of history that some death allows worthier life to flourish whether the cause is a proportionate penal code with its act together, war with a vast drafting policy or fatal disease that picks on and exploits various human flaws e.g. promiscuity, by EVOLUTION. It’s the same with American prosperity, they hanged a bunch of criminals, were tough on crime (just?) for many decades and then magically, there was a long time where crime rates were pitiful, as if the problem stopped breeding. [Think rabbit farms but rabbits with rabies.] These are not human problems, it’s mathematical. There are forces that allow flourishing (fitness is the result) and those that regress society by depressing the flourishing forces (worst of all punishing those instead). Society is not obligated to keep those groups who endeavor to destroy it on an individual level. The Bible clearly doesn’t include punishment of violent crime as killing of 10 commandment fame because sometimes only death (let God sort them out alludes to killing, America) can prevent more death and trauma i.e. not killing your enemy means war eternally. It’s a binary choice of bad now or worse later.

Abortion of future criminals (I trust you can look up the stats) has prevented far more cruel murders. Would it be better to prevent conception or earlier in the chain of events, fornication? Of course but the fact remains, there are calculations. Human life does have a price – and a cost.

Keeping one human alive can incur a greater cost to humanity than any self-congratulation (sin of pride and playing God) at “sparing” their life (like you have the power or the wisdom to know what’s right). Such do-gooders are the most un-Christian people you’ll ever meet.

Suffering is not a wishy-washy thing. It’s quantifiable.

If we slot them into r/K (as an extreme, tbf) then you’d be hard-pressed to miss how r-types have a high fertility rate (consensual reproduction or not) simply to compensate for their extraordinarily high death rate (this is true across species). To accept the sexual fact of the matter (ignoring the proof on parental investment requirements for fitness) then ignore the fatality side of the literal life/death equation goes to show these psychopaths are low IQ.

Most of them are many, many SD below the likes of Bundy**, who was probably killing for a cult (look at his background). Rape-murder is a cliche case because it’s the epitome of misogynistic rage (think Jack the Ripper) and the epitome of unfit (no baby if they’re dead and it prevents other members of society from survival too, like genetic civil war).

Basically, rapists are enacting a kind of civil war on the genetics of the society dumb enough to host them, whether it be with murders, causing infertility (trauma can or various STDs they pass) or their inferior weakling genetics eventually leading to the death of the better genome they forcibly combined with. They’re the lamprey on the good genes (measured in fitness) of their victims. Pictured:

Society is the victim, especially at a group level (genetics, gene pool). Society is the biggest consensual structure going. This is why the legal system is mostly imposing its values via punishments. When losers have nothing, society has everything. Justice does not mean everyone gets a cookie.

If they dehumanize their rape victims, society owes them no humanization (let alone privileged treatment) themselves. Sexual impulses led to the modern creation of cheap satisfaction toys and there’s always their hands. There is no excuse. Evolutionary arguments would actually call for their hanging or castration because Social Darwinism. For the good of the collective genome.

If nobody wants something, it’s defective.

*A Troublesome Inheritance goes into it.

**Do not suffer a male witch to live either.

For the point about selfishness, in the clearest context we call it cowardice.

Selfish people don’t just stop one day. It escalates like psychopathy, rape and murder.

Considering this –

Society will be buzzing about that question after the next decade’s events.

# Video: Disney’s hypnotic neotony

It isn’t suspicious that it sexualizes children at all, perish the thought. Children can’t have a romantic life. Child marriage is a polite term for state endorsed rape.

The classic Princesses are more popular by appearance because they actually look like women, they’re just beautiful, not cute. One is sexually attractive and the other socially because it’s vulnerable, but in an adult brain this can be manipulative. Comparing competence between related people, one looking cute and another looking mature, would be an intriguing test of this. So would a cute wife serve as wife in their job role performing duties or become needy and flakey like a child if pressed unlike a more womanly woman? It could be medical too, blood pressure and chronic disease risk assessment.

The classic Princesses have more even emotions than the new bratty rebel type ones. People miss the old Disney for the grace these ladies used to have. Disney ladies are effectively dead and buried.

Based on the fox experiment, the pathological altruism of N. Europeans might also connect to visual markers of historical civility e.g. paler skin and this could be studied: skin tone x altruism in a lab game. Noblesse oblige could be genetic.

Fear of the outgroup (and this could apply to humans) does depend on how responsible the environment is for teaching life lessons, harsh ones. Let your kids hang round nice people with lots of tattoos and a gangster trying to lure them into a van has better odds. A parent’s choice in friends, where they have bad taste, can literally ruin them for life. Kids don’t make the distinction, they only see family. They trust but not blindly, based on the things you superficially see in people you trust but don’t make the connection.

It’s like letting them handle hot wax and wondering why they get tons of burns from touching other hot things. They need the mild pain and being told No on small stuff, to avoid life-ruining dangers. Going easy on them is depriving them of the lessons to survive without you. Permissive parenting is responsible for many damaged children, it’s a known finding.

Correction: he says human infants have flat faces, this is particular to certain races, especially African and is largely based on nasal bone differences, rather than the whole face and skull. The profile between babies is totally different but there’s a learning curve in spotting it. Breadth of face is very mature and masculine and Asians, for example, have among the broadest human facial type, so judging by one bone (nasal bridge) or “the jaw” like it’s one thing is another error. How a human face “looks” or “seems” from the front is really atrocious science. There’s more jaw development (major human maturity marker, the species is gracile-jawed) it just projects to the side and consequently, always smaller eyes (they’re paired processes, because it’s a maturation process on the whole area so the eyeball is crowded out by growing bone). A rounded forehead is infantile BUT again, varies by race because it’s skull shape and even subrace.

Short limbs can also be a sign of defective genes or stunted growth (poor diet, stress, heavy labour) so it cannot be relied upon as a trait.

On another point, another difference: African people, for example, “depend” less on their parents, they tend to hit puberty earlier. They also tend to have hardier bodies, shown best in the frame.

# Interpersonal deprivation from single fathers

If you’re going to call out something dysfunctional, nobody gets off scot-free.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/019251394015001006

If modern fathers were so great, their kids wouldn’t be whining on blogs about their bitch of a Mom, there wouldn’t be a criminal element or out-of-wedlock birth rates. Emotionally disturbed children are low fitness. A child is not like a talking dog or a car you can throw in the garage while you continue a Peter Pan bachelor deathstyle.

There aren’t many studies on single fathers because most men are too cowardly to stick around and do the hard work of raising a child they produced, a slight bias in the sample. Naturally, this scorn I heap on doesn’t apply to the widowed or those abandoned without a choice. Indeed, those men are truly courageous and society should support them. Real Patriarchs, great men. Doubly so if they don’t harm the child by re-marriage and commit to the greatest responsibility a person can have, re-marriage is selfish and purely for the parent’s sex life and social status. Look up the Cinderella effect for starters. Gen X onward gave us plenty to study, fake parents fuck you up. The abusive step-father is a cliche.

Single mothers are actually, as implied by studies like these, better-equipped to raise alone (but not ideal and not to be encouraged). Their struggles are largely external and economic, rather than inner psychiatric like the fathers who get easily overwhelmed and murder the children in all the newspaper stories to spite the mother. Scientifically, you would expect this difference from evolution, women have childcare, men have warfare. Questioning either one is pure idiocy. There are dimorphic reasons for this advantage like female empathy, EI, neural responsiveness to a baby’s cries, lower chance of infanticide by far compared to easily frustrated men but socially, women were often widowed after wars. Brothers, uncles and cousins would step in and help past the tender years. Single parents with a ‘support network’ of extended family are completely fine, considering. When compared, it is worse to have a single parent father than a single parent mother. Yet nobody dare say anything.

You people make me sick, claiming to care about the children. Stefan is shit-scared of this topic and he discusses almost everything.

But about the ones who choose to neglect their spawn, a form of abuse…

How could you be so selfish to deliberately harm your future children like that, especially after criticizing women for doing the same thing?
I know someone in child psych (academia-famous name) who calls people who deliberately become single parents “monsters” because all the life outcomes and even the kid’s physical health suffer. “How could someone do that on purpose? There are some evil people, they aren’t just little Mini-Mes.”
And it is always about the narcissistic parent. Spend fifteen minutes researching the damage of being raised by one, it’s the template for dysfunction.
They swear off having kids themselves, from spite and we can’t really blame them. If you don’t learn healthy parenting in a dual-unit healthy household united by a strong marriage with no cheating (distrust is the killer), it’s difficult to come back from. It’s like bargain-basement child-rearing, also, why are people trying to make this one thing so cheap? This is the one thing you don’t want to cheap out on. Nothing else in your life matters. If you wouldn’t die for your child, don’t have one.
They, that neglectful type, have the nerve to then complain about women fobbing off kids to daycare and nannies, oh, so they won’t do any less than 100% of the childcare, all by themselves? Right?

No room to move on that standard?

The narcissism of small differences is aptly named.

Having children is bigger than marriage. If you won’t get married, you can’t handle kids. If you want to inflict the cold world of rootless parenting into a child’s life, please get sterilized, it’s for the best. Those parents end up hating the child once they realize the hard way what it’s about. You can’t return them to the store or dump them like a girlfriend.

The mental issues are caused by being taken care of by strangers and an absentee or inferior parent. These guys are never dedicated. They love their drinking buddies more. Seriously.

Children take up all your time, even bathroom time. They couldn’t babysit for a week, I’d bet money. Solo, no help, for a week, none of them wanna do it. So much for being alpha and taking responsibility, lol. If it’s so easy, if it isn’t hard work, get paid for it?

They’re little children themselves, they cannot handle it. Most deny what it takes.

That means only part-time work max, no nights out, no business conventions and no holidays. Like, ever. No holidays. Considering how many of these guys complain about freedom, it’s a little like they’re locking themselves into a Houdini straitjacket. Plus chunky padlocks.

The good parents aren’t online saying how easy it is. No good parent says it’s easy. Those are outside observers or the shit ones.

This is with two parents and a marital support. Everything comes second to kids, especially companies: you are no longer an individual when you have dependents.

https://www.inc.com/jeremy-bodenhamer/5-lessons-that-saved-my-marriage-after-my-startup-almost-killed-it.html

Not to mention, surrogates have pitiful quality genes. National IQ India: 82.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-surrogate-mothers-india/surrogate-mothers-in-india-unaware-of-risks-idUSKBN0LY1J720150302

“Babies from multiple pregnancies are more likely to be premature or have cerebral palsy or learning disabilities”

When Tanderup asked doctors if they told surrogate mothers how many embryos they transfer, one answered: “No, we never ask them and they are not even informed how many are going to be transferred. They are illiterate, uneducated girls.”

Clinics typically reduce the number of fetuses according to commissioning parents’ wishes. A lethal solution is injected into unwanted fetuses around week 10 of pregnancy.

Then there’s your children you murdered for being inconvenient. Turns out, men can get abortions too!

Nobody says a fucking thing.

Last month Thailand outlawed surrogacy services for foreigners following several scandals, including an Australian couple that allegedly abandoned a baby with Down syndrome with his Thai mother but took his healthy twin home with them.

When you mix chocolate with shit, it all becomes shit. Don’t be shocked if it’s retarded, and I wonder if you’d indulge in the 24/7 round the clock care required?

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tog.12010/full

I don’t think so.

[And yes, the risk of birth defects and disabilities skyrockets with artificial methods. The fact they didn’t look this up, first page Google-tier, doesn’t surprise me. They’re low IQ.]

Parents must cooperate, Trivers researched why and even proved it mathematically. Children need a balance of their influences. And if you think girls or boys are innately inferior, you don’t deserve to breed. I ask the men planning on using a surrogate, what happens if you have a little girl? You understand nothing about little girls. Great way to make a lesbian, though. Look up role model theory.

Unless you’re going to cross-dress and roleplay the feminine influence too?

# Video: The failure of Gen X parents

Are they really Gen X? Lower Gen X.

“like they’re fucking Plato”

I’m glad someone is taking Molyneux to task on the liberal assumption all children are angelic snowflakes who care about reason and truth and never bully or murder one another unless it’s a parents fault for showing them violence.

Have you seen chimps?

Do chimps have violent cartoons Stefan?

Do gorilla spank?

Children are not smart. Children are not mature. Children do not have full brains yet.

That’s why they legally need a parent. They need hierarchy, they love routine and stability. Shit tests exist in children and the immature e.g. negging. If there are no boundaries practically, they know they never existed in theory – i.e. you lied to them, so not only will they keep misbehaving, but they won’t believe in moral objectivity (only relativism like the Pleasure Principle) but they’ll also hate you.

This failure to be an assertive ADULT is called permissive parenting. There are studies. Have at it, folks.

The smart Gen Y are doubting parenthood because they see this. Many Gen Y can’t even afford kids, let alone ungrateful ones. I do think Gen Y will be worse (like, abusive level worse) in places.

Weak parents, weak children. The sins of the father…. A good tree produces good fruit, a bad tree… should be sterilized. He misses one major issue here: slutty parents. This does a number on the kid’s brains. They begin to feel unwanted and this naturally fucks anyone up existentially (most edgy nihilism, parents ignored them). Should parents be allowed to re-marry if they have proven themselves incapable of the responsibility?

If the parent has no superego, how can they instill one to their spawn?
If the parent cares about the reputation of being married more than staying married, how can society allow this superficial abuse of the system to make their personal lives look more responsible?

Another one is technology. Anyone giving a smartphone to a baby or a toddler should be locked up. I’m completely serious. Apple employees wouldn’t do that. They would agree with me, it’s brain damaging. Why doesn’t Jr have impulse control when we gave him bleeping instant access to the whole world while he was still trying to figure out selfhood and not being selfish? There should be 16+ age restrictions on smartphones, especially the camera unit. With the amount of child-made child pornography (the grooming of “sexting”) it’s a rare time we need regulations because the parents are inept.

Other needs?

Revoke the marketing category of teenager. You’re adult or child.

Let older children work and earn as much money for the same labour.

Allow children to graduate early, including with MOOCs.

Encourage children to be useful to the family, they are not pets to be indulged.

Spoiling isn’t a good thing like adverts say. It’s corruption. The short track to the parental ego boost, it’s all about the parent seeing their brat ‘so happy’. The kid plays up to it over time.

Children can’t respect power in a parent that isn’t there.

# Bad parents upset to be lumped in with terrorists

EQUALITY

PROFILING IS RACIST

YOUR CHILD MAY BE A SUICIDE BOMBER

http://mashable.com/2017/03/21/tablet-ban-parents/?utm_cid=a-rr-watercooler#y9EQ1gq6Diq0

Your kids shouldn’t be electronics-dependent, it’s literally an addiction, terrible for their eyesight (JAPAN) and the Apple people don’t let their kids have iPads. It’s a form of abuse to give them digital whiskey.
..Would they rather the kids get murdered?
Wait, it only applies to parents bad enough to take their minors to dangerous countries.
Nevermind, nobody important.
“The ban could mean a much less enjoyable flight for travelers coming from the Muslim-majority countries impacted.”
If only we could solve this terrorist problem overnight… some kind of ban would be useful…
It isn’t about their kids, they’re the children glued to a screen. Peter Pan adults.

I thought the Apple Pencil was a parody video.