Why are women delaying children?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-5908717/Women-freezing-eggs-unable-men-commit-relationship.html

They can’t find a man to commit to the investment with.

“Single women are freezing their eggs due them being unable to find men who will commit to a relationship, rather than to focus on their careers, new research suggests.
Delaying motherhood to focus on work is the least common reason women undergo the procedure, a Yale University study found today.”

“Some 85 percent of the participants were single”

The instinct is that strong.

“Speaking of the findings , study author Dr Marcia Inhorn said: ‘Our study suggests that the lack of a stable partner is the primary motivation. Freezing eggs holds out hope for many”

It isn’t education, it’s the stability of marriage.
Speak to women.

this comment explains the ignorance
“Men wanted to settle down when in their 20s. Stop blaming men for your failures women”

Where are the men financially capable and willing to settle in their 20s? They don’t exist anymore, Grandpa. And a woman still needs to earn food and other living expenses before getting married?

They want totally helpless Disney princess women who magically survived until he showed up.

That’s impossible.

Oh and she has to be super tough and rugged and cool – and deeply feminine!

Frilly apron wearing, pie-baking, gun-toting anal-sex preferring cool girl!

Manic Pixie Dream Waifu!

Wow, why do they attract borderlines so much who try to be everything?

They have no idea what they actually need is simple (and not contradictory) because they feel their wife should be a status symbol, there I said it. Who gives a shit what people think, you bloody omegas. It’s a wife, not a girlfriend. There’s a reason those never work out aka FAIL. The things you look for make it short term. You don’t know what you want.

Male choices are polluted. Your instincts are wrong.

They also focus on trivial shit like music taste and video games and whether they tolerate your BS (enabling is toxic, actually) then ignore divorce risk things like needing matching religion and politics. That includes your own. If you want a Christian, you need to be a real Christian or your divorce risk is still high. You can’t blame the other party. You cannot mitigate your divorce risk by choosing a “good” woman – and why would those women want them? It’s an investment, both parties need to decide to invest.

Imagine –

It’s 6pm, the baby won’t stop crying and your husband prefers a horrid desk job to seeing his child now the novelty’s worn off. The dinner you slaved over for three hours is cold and you’re pretty sure he’s fucking his secretary. All he does is give you money like a child then ignore you like a baby-making Furby. Sexually you’re frustrated because he doesn’t want you since he insisted on watching the baby come out and insisting you breastfeed. You feel ugly, exhausted and unloved. He’s nicer to his friends than he is to you.

That’s practically more miserable than the single mother getting the same or more money.

Was this man a real man? Was he a good choice? Is he superficial or successful?

Selfish people will fail in their marriage. Any selfish person must never ever marry.

If there’s no mutual exchange, they severely over-rate their attractiveness e.g. age 25+, 30+, 35+ = freaky sperm psychiatric risk. Women sense this. It doesn’t matter if you’re Don Draper IRL if you’re unhealthy. Plus cheating is the most common reason for divorce so the ones who plan to cheat deserve to be abandoned, they broke their vow. It’s like signing for insurance and defrauding, they don’t owe you because bad faith, trust bond is gone. Hey, stoning would be cheaper than divorce lawyers and less painful.

A man’s sperm is best age 18. Biologically, men should marry and reproduce 18-21, to 25 latest. The manosphere totally ignores this because it doesn’t care about you. A woman’s fertility peaks 21-28. The system must stabilize. They lie about these things, however I doubt they can read the data and with women it’s more intra-family health. Schools do not inform boys they even have a biological clock! Like the retirement scam.

Another thing these guys in the comments typically say – women should “prep” for decades to be good wives (mileage of definition may vary) but men just need to show up at the end of the aisle one day with penis. That is how all millennia of societies worked, O.K. I guess they own a katana too?

Most comments also fall for the “women want Don Draper career man” trope.
No? Traditional women want a man who is around! Nobody wants a spouse they never see!

nobody.

There are plenty of divorced or single rich men who thought money bought wife approval. She can get her own money? The kids hate them too, it’s a film trope for a reason, it’s fucking child abuse. It’s physical abandonment however much money you throw at them in guilt and their brains still demonstrate it (and in girls things like menarche hitting earlier, as if they’re dead!)…

They have no idea what women want. Look at how Don cracked at the end of that show, those guys are rich spoiled losers totally dependent on a fake economy and rigged promotion system. The gold watch career is GONE. Raising a family on one income is OVER. Workaholism isn’t sexy. It’s a mental problem.

Women have always worked, just not the easily taxed forms? They expect a lot of work from such a woman (at least 50 hours a week, add it up!) but disrespect her enough not to call it that?

That’s your woman, you should be singing her praises!

And they won’t do their fair share, even with childcare?

But nannies are evil and kids need their dad around? For what? To stare at them like possessions?

The guys saying this shit wouldn’t last a week being normal (no fast food and so on) with a small group of well-behaved kids. They’d snap.

Humans didn’t evolve to raise a kid, singular, alone. They need round the clock care, especially babies. You need shifts. I’m betting those guys refuse to let her live around relatives to help out because Muh Career.

The 50s postcard was bullshit even then. Everyone drank, smoked and medicated to numb it.

You need to go back older than that. They refuse. They’re too lazy to be real men. Everyone works. Nobody gets to sit with their feet up being an alcoholic porn addict or whatever. God America, what happened?

Oh, it’s past five so you get to be a slob? No? Parents do things they don’t like all the time! You have to. Dependents aren’t appliances that switch off at 5.30pm week nights. Only a man child would disagree. You are a parent forever. No breaks. These are the guys who bitch about lunch breaks. That’s why women avoid them. The man is meant to be the strong horse, biologically. A woman has to rely on him. He can’t sit there expecting foot rubs when she’s been working all day too (more manual work*, usually, in a weaker body) and there’s hours of work still.

The 50s started daycare and nursery cheats, remember. It was never humanly possible!

Okay, good luck finding a magic woman who will throw a sword at you, while we’re at it, when you can’t accept simple red pill truths about the modern world. This is it. This is the world you live in. It sucks for women too.

Like, if she is with you for your money that’s dumb. You will lose your job. Then what? And did you never see Desperate Housewives? Hours of time to cheat with Juan the Poolboy if all you provide is cash. What about when you retire?

They can’t say “it’s good when we avoid family for the ego boost of a career (don’t lie) but the need in this economy for a woman to earn her keep makes her evil” and “we refuse to marry and single mothers are the devil but women should have magical babies supported by magic money and raised by magic invisible fathers”.

Like, pick a narrative and stick with it, bitches.

Men who hate domestic life? NEVER MARRY.

When an adult chooses to become a parent and they’d make a bad parent, the child suffers.

Picture your kid hating you. If you get angry, never breed. Narcissists don’t want kids, they want supply. The internet confuses the motives.

*Irony: modern mother has more manual exhausting work than her desk job husband.

Link: On pathology of low birthrates, explained

From the HBD side, both Anonymous Conservative and Jayman have previously agreed that the low birth rate of liberals is a feature and not a bug. The former from the perspective of low child-rearing in r-selection and the latter from genetics and, I guess, Malthus?

It’s connected, r-type extinction events are Malthusian in nature.

Obviously, the PC practice of pathological altruism (there is an academic book of that title on the subject) is applying ingroup evolved mechanisms to depress the ingroup birthrate and increase the outgroup based on the largesse of state theft. It’s a combination of resource reparations and treacherous (if not suicidal and insane) genocide, by the post-WW2 original definitions, already linked here.

http://shylockholmes.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/on-pathology-of-low-birthrates.html
~tuts in Social Darwinism~

A selection of neat lil quotes.

“But even people who think about this when it comes to profit and organisations often don’t think about the equivalent for ideas and cultural practices.
To wit: if you want a culture or idea to survive, the people who practice it must have high birth rates…
Because ideas, like most things in this world, are heritable. Both genetics and culture mean that parents in general pass their values on to their children. Take away the children, and you take away the people likely to hold the idea tomorrow.
Of course, people are apt to forget this, because it’s a slow-moving effect. The faster way ideas spread is through communication across a given population.

requires homogeneity and a culture of respect for received wisdom, interrupted in the 20th century, when all the major fault-lines started showing

Which is all well and good. The more you spread the idea, the more people who hold it right now, and, ceteris paribus, the more people will hold it next generation…..”

Richard Dawkins did not advance the idea of a meme.

It was Darwin.

The ‘gene’ is an idea of transmitted information, it is not limited to the biological, it is symbolic theory nor limited to precise ranges of biological material. That is a 20th century use based on chemical experiments to ‘crack’ human DNA using computers.
‘Origin of the Species’ should be on school reading lists. It isn’t because it’s accurate and unPC. Many science teachers aren’t qualified to explain it either, knowing nothing about say, farming or animal breeding, which are used in examples. You need life experience to explain life.

Meanwhile, the intelligent are either at home or in the wider workforce.

Later, on progressivism, political correctness, social justice warrior feminism etc…
Feminism in particular needs a constant fresh crop of young women far more than Patriarchy.

Anti-natal ideologies are parasitic on the host’s reproductive potential, it cripples more surely than Polio. Just look at abortion and anything labelled Cultural Marxism, it’s dysgenic, it’s a society-killer. Just like there are no centuries-old atheist or multicultural societies, these things do not have any survivability or, in PC terms, sustainability (really longevity, they don’t stand up to the scrutiny of history). The ‘right side of history’ rhetoric assumes humans have innately changed within a few generations and the old rules no longer apply.

Why? They are ‘fat and happy’ for the first time in human history. If you look up the history of mankind, we are not designed for this surplus unless our behaviours are prosocial and good for fitness of our ‘family’, genetic kin. (To love your neighbour had always previously meant distant genetic kin). However, charity has murdered the West as well as it has Africa, the fighting spirit and much of the independence and creativity has gone, the intellectual thirst died with candy. A little hunger if we fell behind on bills without welfare or some reliable religious fasting kept us sharp, there are plenty of studies that demonstrate health benefits, epigenetics is coming in, microbiome improvements AND the cognitive spectrum from starvation to gluttony, each with particular traits. Could it have been a sin because it leads to a decadent mind? Perhaps. Too much of a good thing is a very, very bad thing. All these anti-obesity efforts that blame the wrong thing (it isn’t fat, it’s carbs) and increase the price of basic foodstuffs (see CPI and how starvation includes malnutrition, with the lower nutrient profile of mass-produced food) and THAT is a superior explanation for K-shift and the so-called ‘rise of conservatism’ like a tidal wave.

Bread and circuses.

The deepest self-loathing is genetic suicide, the notion you don’t deserve to live – into the next generation.

All surviving religions have a pro-natal credo. This is not a coincidence.

I like these old-type posts but feel I’m explaining why water is wet.

SI

If you’re searching for dysgenic factors or variables to trigger suicidal liberals.
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2017/01/18/practically-why-is-the-left-dead/
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2017/05/20/21st-century-economics-are-making-millennials-infertile/

Vice celebrates the self-sterilizing

We should be paying them. One-time lump fee. Just enough for a great holiday.
Weed out the high time preference. £4-5k? Conditional on their signature that they’ll never try to reverse it or otherwise breed, or at least won’t take welfare if/when they do.

If they aren’t responsible enough to make this choice at 18, they aren’t responsible enough to consent to sex. The schools should be blamed, since they were nowhere else.

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/the-people-choosing-to-be-sterilised-in-their-twenties

Please make this the hot new trend.

It’s still eugenics if they do it to themselves.

Congratulations Roosh and the other genetic suicides, you’re in the fine company of these lovely ladies.

“Life isn’t just about reproduction.”

Thank you for not breeding.

cool nothing shocks me scientist indiana jones calm haha amused

I bet the majority were already sterile due to undiagnosed STDs.

As one guy put it “your mutations end with you!”

Essentially they’re recognizing their existence is a mistake of nature.

Tell me Peter Pan Syndrome isn’t a thing.

What would they say to people who think 19, or even 29, is too young to make a decision so final? That this is a narcissistic lifestyle choice designed to hold onto their not-quite adult status? 

Katelin assuredly disagrees.

K

“I want time alone, time with my partner and time to travel and spend money on luxury. And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that,” she says.


how is that not-

“My generation live in a broken world. We come from broken homes and have broken minds and bodies. Many of us just don’t want to reproduce. It’s my life, and I’m not hurting anyone.

Still a vector for sexual diseases though, huh?

Never mention that?

They never want other tissues and nerves cut, no, that’s crazy!

superman drinking give up nope

Super-gonorrhea will have a long time to incubate in these people, before spreading to the normal population.

Comic: The Cure for Cancer and other Pro-Life

Cure for Cancer
Since the so-called pro-choice people are only ever pro-abortion, anti-natal, I thought to balance the dialogue out somewhat. I won’t use religion since these people don’t believe in the soul, nor have one, just science and logic.

abortion choice2

There are plenty of choices. Sex cannot be separated from reproduction. This is impossible and a lie. Every time someone consents to have sex, they consent to become a parent, should the sex result in conception. This is why expectant parents are congratulated before the birth, as soon as the test flags it within 3-5 weeks, because they are already parents, having conceived. Usually people who are trying for a baby say they are ‘trying to conceive’ and are congratulated on this point in particular. Sex is a medical choice, regarding the body, yet minors are considered fit to make it in some places, an overhang from underage marriages which should be struck off the books. Sexual consent should be the same age as majority, same as marriage and medical decisions (are not abortion, pregnancy and/or gynecological matters, all medical?). The parents of a miscarriage are still parents.

abortion choiceishavingsex

Never have sex unless you’re prepared to become a parent.
This is idiotically simple. If you aren’t prepared to be a parent, you shouldn’t be taking the ‘risk’ of pregnancy aka the consequence of your chosen action. Contraception is a myth, it simply reduces the probability and causes many issues besides. Abortion itself is linked with cancer because the stem cells from the baby take their revenge.

abortion oppression

Someone who refuses to see the connection between sex and babies should be legally classed as retarded. Actually no, I think even they get it, that’s unfair to the retarded, they can see causal connections. These fools shouldn’t be saying “no uterus, no opinion” when they have no idea what a uterus is for (clue: not sex, stupid slut). At least the ones who try to get their uterus removed are honest about it.

abortionguns

abortionreaction

They learn in the womb. Prenatal psychology.
They are sentient beings. They accrue new information.

betterthanbeingpoor

The world is majority poor, is killing them a merciful thing to do, to save them from their poverty?
Essentially, these middle class twits are saying “better dead than poor” and “better dead than adopted”.

cardiaclife

That would be the strict legal definition yes.

massmurder

Literally true, no matter how you fudge the numbers skyward. The numbers Auschwitz themselves revised down on new plaques.
Surely a few million of those people would have been geniuses? 3% MENSA standard? Surely a few of them would have been brilliant scientists, trying to cure cancer?

plannedparenthoodabortion

No liberal wants to talk about this one so I’m putting it, dammit.
Abortion is eugenic because only people dumb enough to go in for it will get one.

reproductiveright

Reproduction in sexual mammals is the combination of maternal and paternal DNA. This is literally what conception is. The egg and the spermatozoa. That’s it, case closed, there is a novel genetic lifeform.
inb4 what if it doesn’t attach? Naturally, this doesn’t happen. The fertilized egg hangs around long enough to attach undisturbed while the mother is sleeping, unless her uterine lining is damaged (incredibly rare). However, women imitate this sterilizing effect chemically, and it can remain once the chemicals are no longer taken and cause infertility. Look up the infertility forums for women who took the Pill for years and suddenly cannot get pregnant, nature doesn’t like being cheated and will prompt super-early/premature menopause too. This occurs most often when they take it from childhood (based on lies it was OK) because the reproductive system hasn’t finished developing (into the 20s, it stabilizes, shown by regularity, same with men and sperm quality at about 18).
The Pill is a chemical abortifacient. The same as various herbal teas throughout history and just as dangerous.

thepill chemical abortion thepill chemical abortion2 infertility

So Pill is not an option. If a woman wants to be sterile, have your tubes tied or uterus removed.
Temporary sterility is impossible. Fertility is not a tap you can turn on and off at will. Many of the women who make these decisions deserve a childless existence because they have no respect for life.

weakestamongusvictim

Pregnancy isn’t a disease. What irks me personally is how the women who pretend to regret it will say their child would have forgiven them. How self-centred can one person be? No, you valued your comfort over their very existence, those children rightfully despise their parents. You are as much a murderer as Jack the Ripper, and he didn’t kill kin. It wasn’t personal, intimate and chosen (except for rape, there was no sex involved because there was no consent, tantamount to using a turkey baster to achieve the same result). Medical urgency is another fitting reason but again, the mother already made a medical choice in conceiving and should try to spare the child wherever possible.

We don’t use a special name for the mother who chooses this (and/or the father who pressures her, it can happen it’s called reproductive abuse), and mothers of miscarriages are still called mothers (correctly), the status is ascribed based on conception. Abortionists don’t deserve to be called mother or father. We should call the abortion-users what they are (barring the exceptions stated for rape and mortality risk) by act: murderers. If it isn’t true, why would it bother them? If they can brag and laugh off their abortion in videos while getting them, they don’t see it as human, why not? The insult shouldn’t stick.

Murder is unlawful killing. The law only permits abortion based on outdated insubstantial medical evidence that fails to overcome the non-personhood assumption. Were these topics reviewed today, as they will be, there can be no doubt. The physiological and psychological reactions observed would grant personhood. It is certainly killing, so perhaps killer would be a more apt descriptor?

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/

Interestingly, UK law doesn’t prohibit the charge of infanticide as applied to abortion. Meaning, if the current other laws were over-turned, say by new medical evidence of personhood, all those who obtained or provided abortions could be charged after the fact. Infanticide is defined as a victim under 12 months, there is no minimum age given.

It doesn’t even mention birth as the starting point, in the murder law itself. Case law, which can be overturned, created the exception.

http://e-lawresources.co.uk/The-law-of-murder.php

Malice aforethought is the intention to kill. Well, they intend it to cease living so I guess we can call that one in the affirmative. Interestingly, a foetus was considered a non-human, before proper MRI technology came in to study this question. Personhood is granted upon birth, despite a plethora of evidence henceforth of psychological individual experience and therefore, existence. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal-fetal_medicine

The mother’s life is not superior to the person inside her, there is a symbiosis, a mutual exchange. For example, when she is injured, the foetus sends out stem cells, which she cannot do. They each provide life support.

See? There is no religion required to make an argument against abortion.

Isn’t science fun?

Paper: Towards a fetal psychology (2010);

https://community.dur.ac.uk/n.n.reissland/publication%20files/Special%20Issue%20introduction.pdf

IQ data before someone has a go.

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/iqtable.aspx

3% is the most conservative estimate to provide for potential, not to be confused with performance. 

Paper: The population cycle drives human history

http://www.v-weiss.de/cycle.html

No, it’s an actual paper.

The biggest problem with this population stuff is an emphasis of maths (quantity) over quality (HBD). The premise is false. Again, the premise is false:
HUMANS ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE COGS.

…Humans are not much different from animals. If one promotes the reproduction of farm horses, one receives farm horses and no racehorses. As outlined before, the power of a people depends upon its percentage of intelligent and efficient ones.

I have posted about economic prosperity and national IQ. http://wp.me/p10lxG-1t5

These cannot be produced by school and education according to demand, but they must be born before, like racehorses. It is the erroneous belief of the politically correct that ill and weak descendants, if only they are well fed and educated, would be able to uphold the high level of Western civilization or even develop it further….

cool mocking shades yes peace

#mike drop#

…Myrdal (1940, 188ff.) wrote far‑sightedly: “The basic principle for population policy in a democratic country … is, that a very large number of births must be regarded as undesirable. … In a democratic society we cannot accept a way of things whereby the poor, ignorant, and inexperienced maintain the stock of population. … .The deepest dilemma of democratic population policy is that we do not desire … a reversal of industrialization and rationalization. … The general method of population policy can be described as a transfer of income from individuals and families without children to families with children. … In a democracy a population policy is a contradiction in itself. … It is not, like much other reform policy, the relatively simple question of inducing a majority to tax a minority for its own benefit. It is just the contrary: to ask a majority to tax itself severely in favor of a minority. For the majority of every population … consists of citizens who are either unmarried or have no child burdens at all, or only very light ones. [DS: We are already taxed AWAY from having children by high rent, utilities, clothes etc, why is it this way around, the anti-social way?]… For the overwhelming majority of every people, distributional reforms in the interest of the reproducing families mean economic sacrifice.” Until now, nowhere can such a policy or even a eugenic one be maintained in the necessary long run required for any chance of success….

Taxes are supposed to punish poor social grace, being childless by choice is anti-society, since you want everyone else to pay for your stuff in old age, why shouldn’t it tax you? At least for your pension and other costs? Or might people exempt themselves from future societal benefits if they chose to be childless? I might agree with that.

This says it all:

When the insight began, it did not immediately produce the expected consequences, and once the consequences eventuated, any effective policy is mentally handcuffed by egalitarian ideology.

And what about assistance for those with children who couldn’t have the foresight to wear a condom? Nobody ever thinks of cutting it because ‘think of the children’ but they fail to see those people chose to be reckless, yet keep their kids. Any other type of recklessness is punished.

If you’re old enough to consent, you’re able to take full legal responsibility for the child.

Over to John Stuart Mill;

“Every one has a right to live. We will suppose this granted. But no one has a right to bring children into life to be supported by other people. Whoever means to stand upon the first of these rights must renounce all pretension to the last.”

Millennials can’t afford to grow up and have kids

It’s completely true. We aren’t feminists who want a demeaning career. The good men can hardly find a decent job to support themselves. Boomers took all the houses and our parents the free education. We’re collectively broke, for debts we didn’t run up.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/nov/14/babies-an-impossible-dream-the-millennials-priced-out-of-parenthood

…These hurdles to the world of adulthood continue to be a great source of sadness and anxiety, and I’m not alone. For swathes of people in their 20s and 30s, who largely thought they would be at least a bit sorted by now, achieving the adult lives they want seems a distant fantasy. Spiralling property prices coupled with the fetishisation of housing as an investment – expressed through buy-to-let properties and often poor rental conditions – means secure housing is off the table for many of us as we continue to subsidise our much richer landlords. The average price for a starter home rose to £211,000 this year, requiring an average deposit of 17%, or £36,000. The recession, unstable and unreliable unemployment, low pay compounded by a pensions shortfall and an ageing population, have all led to a situation in which many members of my generation feel not only short-changed, but helpless when it comes to building some semblance of a stable family life. While our generational predecessors, the baby boomers, reaped the rewards of free university education and affordable property prices, we have been disproportionately affected by austerity….

Austerity is a myth, Government spending and national debt are rising, but immigrants get free housing, healthcare, money and fully funded children.

…Andrea wanted to remain anonymous, as did most of the people I spoke to, for various reasons. Generation Y are used to being accused of whining when we talk about our frustrations, and we are sensitive to that. We’ve been brought up in a somewhat status-obsessed society, too, so mentioning financial difficulties leads to feelings of shame. Some young women were concerned that admitting to the desperate desire for a child might harm their career prospects. But by far the most commonly cited reason is that they didn’t want to hurt their parents’ feelings by discussing how, in contrast to the parents of some of their peers, they are unable to give them that vital leg up. Everyone I spoke to wanted to stand on their own two feet, but they were aware that their parents shared their feelings of powerlessness and sadness. “It would kill my father to have this printed,” one woman said. “He’s a proud man.”…

Europe is dying because the youth can’t afford to reproduce.