Maternity leave good for children, misogynists

The mothers are far from being selfish* and lazy.

(*Expecting the man to make the money, his gender role?)

http://bernard.pitzer.edu/~dmoore/psych199s03articles/Brooks-Gunn_Daycare.pdf
Show me the equivalent study on fathers, please. [TLDR Tender Years is true.**]

Past nine months, needs more research to say it’s bad (the positive claim, burden of proof).

**You’d expect this loss of the father is survivable since men died all the time of war, hunting and disease yet we’re demonstrably still here. 

Note for idiots: Survivable is not desirable. Hume is disappointed in you.

Ideally, women should take maternity leave, if the couple can afford to. Whether she does or not is her husband’s business (read: not yours).

No wedding, no opinion

What do you think a marriage is?

Seriously for a moment.

 

What do you think a marriage entitles you to, gentlemen?

Legally.

These degenerates want the rights of a husband without the responsibilities.

Er….

No?

YOU’RE ENTITLED TO NOTHING.

YOU SHOULD GET NOTHING.

GOOD DAY, DEGENERATE.

What did you expect?

It’s like if I didn’t buy Apple stock ten years ago and sent them an invoice backdated of all the money they owed me. How the fuck does America expect this shit works?

It doesn’t work. What are you doing? You’re breaking marriage. Literally.

Ya gotta invest before you expect.

You reap as you sow.

If you don’t sow, you get nothing.

THAT SHIT IS BIBLICAL AND BASIC AS HELL.

K-selection, bitches. It’s in the Little Red Hen! Where were you, Tyrone?

That is not your wife.

Expecting the property rights of a head of a household is invalid. You didn’t buy the house. You didn’t step a toe in that direction. Actually, given ample time and opportunity, you ran in the opposite direction and deserted the prospect. Decisions will be made without you, snowflake.

Black guy abandons woman, expects to have a say.

What?

It’s like claiming disability because they suffer and you suffer as a human too. Not how it works, snowflake. You can’t apply something so broadly that all sperm is magically a baby and something you considered trash can be back-dated as ownership rights based on your present feelings (and over the person who did make it, kept it alive and does actually own it, had medical responsibility this whole time and didn’t neglect it).

It’s like the SJWs crazy enough to count a fully-consented sex act they regret as rape, it’s the exact same reasoning and it’s shit.

Present doesn’t alter past. Anything less is insanity.

A marriage is not just a piece of paper and has FA to do with wuv, sorry, love.

It’s an investment document.

She makes babies, you get an opinion.

That’s IT.

HOLY SHIT, AMERICA.

Just when I think you can’t get any worse.

It shouldn’t list father on the birth certificate but husband. Maybe a separate section if it’s a rape baby. Because guess who’s paying for all the upkeep, food, rent, medical expenses?

Does the mother own his sperm that went in the trash all those years too? Irrational claims go both ways.

There’s no logical way to sell this. They are being anti-science.

You didn’t make that baby. You didn’t want that baby.

Why do you complain that you can’t get something you rejected?

The entitlement, I can smell it from here. What a cesspit.

Can women claim all a man’s earnings from fucking him once? [no, contrary to reports with lacking citation, wife is a distinct assortment of rights, if you aren’t married and try to claim common law marriage here, we’re smart and civilized enough to know there’s no such thing, you must consciously consent to the legal structure, no slow slides without paperwork or anyone could claim to have lived with you and slept with you]

Seriously now, consider how much more badly this will go for men if you allow it to continue. So you don’t marry a bitch but she still gets all the legal entitlements of a wife without even a prenup.

You can only get a prenup on a wedding. No wedding, no nuptials, no prenup.

Fucking r-types reee. You wanted your no-investment lifestyle, you KEEP your no-returns lifestyle.

You can’t retroactively own something.

Basic property rights.

Deadbeats get nothing. You shouldn’t have left. You should’ve gotten married. Your mistake, individually, we shouldn’t break the legal system of thousands of years for chocolate snowflake.

Men ejaculate into socks everyday, they don’t own a baby.

From a purely biological perspective (ya gonna deny biology now?) you didn’t grow something for nine months putting your life at risk, and then again to take the medical risk of death to bring it into the world. It’s like Loki’s gambit here, the sperm you gave away are no longer yours, fertile or not. You can’t take anything away.

Landing in a sock or ending up in an egg. A seed on rock or fertile soil.

He’s a sperm donor, they also revoke their legal rights, any they might have had.

Consequences, bitches! You put yourself in an unmarried situation!

Are you also gonna insist you get rights back (they’re not refundable, it’s like women wanting back their period eggs) for all the trashed sperm since your balls dropped? Pretty sure those were abandoned for at least days too.

Legally you don’t have a leg to stand on.

Do you want all the cells of your faeces and urine and sweat (skin cells) back too? You can’t privilege rights over one abandoned cell to another. Not how the law works. This whole thing is absurd.

The biological proof racking up showing how a baby actually grows in their mother, is itself a growing field.

These guys sound like SJWs.

Reproduction is not equal. It’s the woman’s investment. She owns it because legally, it’s her body. You only get a right over a woman’s reproductive system when you marry her. Simple, you’d think?

Her body, her choice is a legal and medical point. It is misapplied to contraception. You don’t own her periods either. If men could carry babies, the woman wouldn’t own it since the carrier is the one taking all the medical risk (including death) and hence, all the responsibility. He doesn’t own a single one of her cells, he didn’t marry her.

Make your own baby, in your own body, then it’ll belong to you!

Seriously, if men did that the law would then be on their side. If you risk death to create life, you deserve it.

As it is because they’re too scared to develop that technology and actually use it on themselves? Men don’t make babies and so don’t own babies unless married to the mother.

You can’t grow a child in an artificial womb unattached to a body, it would be stunted (fetal psychology, it needs the carrier for more than blood and nutrients, your knowledge of science is woefully out of date). Women are vastly complex baby machines, men just switch it on.

I don’t get to turn up to a gold mine on land I might’ve bought but didn’t and grab some because it’s.. there now. Nah-uh, there’s a process. Opportunities are windows because you can always see them but you can’t get to them anymore once they close. You passed it up. You and only you.

A product of adultery doesn’t belong to the cheating dick. It’s the guy who owns the womb (or the original womb-owner if single).

Aren’t they libertarians, usually? They know how property rights work. Someone hunting on your land is trespassing, that isn’t their deer. It doesn’t belong to the person who sees what was made by the land and selfishly wants it.

“My baby”, says the deadbeat. Nope!

Unfit parent too. Women also avoid marrying them too.

And note the narcissism often used in these cases like it’s a toy to get revenge instead of a person with best interests.

“Our child”, says the husband. Depriving a child of its human right to a family life with the happy adopted arrangement is abuse, an abuse of its human rights. I hope it grows up and sues him, the kid would win. He was spiting the child and ruining its future to hurt the mother and prove a petty point, how evil. If I won’t keep you, they can’t either? 

What did you do for those nine months plus time after? Nothing. You didn’t even marry her pregnant, the time limit long since passed. You passed over your right to an opinion. Ask any traditionalist. It’s better off elsewhere, the mother is correct. The father is an abandonment case. You don’t get to leave a kid alone then wonder why you can’t visit them like a dog in the kennels after a long holiday.

It reminds me of when Emma Watson abandoned a kitten then came back in the guy’s life ages later to get her cat back. He told her to take a hike and she did, now if she knew she was taking the piss… what’s the excuse? There isn’t one.

Biology is starkly clear.

The single sperm gamete that eventually (time delay a week to conception) made that child was abandoned (legal rights revoked, you do not own your medical waste) and you don’t have any claim to the maternal cells they fused with to produce a zygote AND implant, the first stage of a baby. Men have nothing to do with actual, biological reproduction, it all happens inside the mother. A child is genetically mostly their mother (X-chromosomes have more material, her blood, various substances from her body in utero including vitamins and minerals leeched from her bones, stem cells exchanged with maternal cells into the foetus including brain cells etc.) so nah. This isn’t equal.

The idea men reproduce is a biological myth. Produce what, exactly? They shed a gamete, like a skin cell. In number and value (nothing). This gamete has no medical risk associated and will be shed in nocturnal emissions regardless of choice. It legally counts as human medical waste and men dispose of it as such. Female seahorses don’t reproduce either. If you want to be very technical about it. The production event has nothing to do with them. Biologically or psychologically. A virgin woman can technically impregnate herself and theoretically reproduce asexually (no sexual act in that case, which is one definition) with sperm in a condom in the street. The autistic focus on information fails under scrutiny too. To define by DNA when there are more things being discovered everyday (inc. RNA and mtDNA) is essentially calling a baby one type of one single set of half a code, corrupted, that cannot support itself without a case (uterus) and has no platform to “live” (mother’s blood, presence) or in this example, read/be read. Is a CD with half a human DNA code, no case, no drive, broken (mutations repaired/corrected by the mother’s DNA), a baby? Any scientific person would ridicule this outdated legal interpretation. Your errant sperm entitles you to nothing. Your hand is not your fingerprint, police can’t take your hand. Your brain is not your IQ, schools own none of your brain despite adding to your IQ. No transfer of ownership. Your words are not your tongue, nobody can cut out your tongue for singing their song. Non sequiturs are fallacies. A woman’s period gamete shedding (women shed their gametes not-living too) doesn’t entitle her to a living baby either. She’s gotta make it herself and produce the life. It takes about a year. That is a job.

J.O.B. That is work. Are you Communists now? Are you entitled to the labour of others?

The quality of life is something only the female of our species can give, to date (and it doesn’t always work, as in miscarriage). Is the man responsible for that too? Can a man miscarry? Exactly.

Life is the organism, completed in its maturation to independent life (growth, birth and infanthood), it’s very clear biology and you can read Darwin. He wrote enough books on it.

Tell me, in the pure data example, who gives life? As such, to who does it belong?

Data without a computer is nothing. The computer also has its own data to work the hardware or the input is again, worthless.

Humans reproduce sexually as a rule, we evolved our gamete system and behaviour around this rule. There are exceptions and it gets weird. The baby itself, if grown and born, would still die as an infant without the mother’s milk. The father does fuck-all again. Nature says baby belongs to Mommy. Get over it.

Women have childbearing, stay in your gender role lane. A woman giving you a gun doesn’t own the medal for all the people you shot with it. That would be ridiculous.

Is DNA in a petri dish a baby? Legally, we’ve been over this and I don’t like it as a situation but I comprehend how it works as an exception. Important difference for the triggered idiots who think their feelings should make fact and Onan’s spilled seed should be counted a baby by law in the census. Miscarried fetuses don’t count as babies either, no infanticide there, if even the mother doesn’t own early stage, pre-birth as a separate legal entity to her body, you certainly have no fucking say, Mr. pre-conception.

Preconceived = wrong. Onan didn’t go by the DNA/seed rule, it was marriage that made the father by law. He didn’t actually marry the woman he was screwing and therefore knew it was wrong to get her pregnant since it wouldn’t be his. In a plot twist, God counted them as married by contextual technicality. Doesn’t change the rules, does it?

Pre-conception, your role = no baby. Point on the doll where the scientism hurt you.

What is the value of a DNA test in this case? A test of what, there was no acknowledged baby in the conception process or via marriage ceremony later even after conception. He didn’t claim his rights. Be ye fruitful and don’t run away from the tree?

You breathe in DNA fragments from people on public transport, so what?

Microbes on them or from inside them are DNA too.

You eat DNA fragments from the chef in your food. Did you steal or was it normal shedding?

They say we should sell licenses to reproduce. Yeah, we do.

S’called a marriage license.

Although technically it’s a claim on reproduction (the process) the lady does. A male claim. Male proposal? And the lady has to accept it (#womb4rent) or it doesn’t count. Tell me, where was the offer in that case? He didn’t want a baby then and should have no rights over a baby he didn’t want in the present. If he didn’t want to be a father genetically, don’t fuck a fertile woman. It’s very simple, that’s how babies are made. Get a vasectomy too.

The child deserves a better life with a father that wants it and gives a shit.

And the precedent will mean, if truly applied, that rapists have ownership of the baby the woman (or little girl) didn’t consent to produce, over her husband’s/own right to abort it. What in tarnations. A rapist has no paternal rights. You can’t take all that carrier agency and medical risk away on a flimsy what if emotional fallacy pretext.

And what happens when two men screw? Do they get to ask for their sperm back?

If this case stands, spermicide is homicide. Literally. That’s how stupid.

Are you sure, America? Is this the future you want?

Sperm isn’t life. Neither are eggs. A zygote, then implanted is life. 

You might notice that’s the woman’s job, 100%.

Do you want donated blood back too because it ended up in a rich person? Bloody hell.

The “baby killer” rhetoric they try to pull is so empty, like fathers never murder their maturing, born children or push a woman down the stairs to cause a miscarriage (not the mother’s choice). I don’t think the mother approves either in those cases and I don’t think that changes the fact. Any of them. So male choice to end pregnancy in another body – fine by pigs, but female choice – Satan? They even try to pull this manipulative bullshit off when the baby in question has nothing to do with them, they didn’t contribute anything, even sperm, they try to control the situation on principle that they want ownership control of a stranger. What principle? Slavery? If a man does something I disapprove of, can I physically curtail his rights to stop him? What if it causes him medical harm? Ah, but no convenient foot-stamping guilt trips for the abortion-loving fuckers when they’re male, eh? You do know the Pill is an abortion chemical, right? Chemical abortion is the earliest kind. The Pill is an abortifacient, that’s how it works biologically. It’s the earliest form of abortion. So if you’ve been screwing women on the Pill and you’re happy about that, you’ve aborted your own children by your own logic, at some point? There was a fused zygote. If you were responsible at the fusion… “Men” even feed a woman the morning-after pill or abortive herbs and claim they were morally right to do it! No, there’s a poisoning case, domestic abuse for concealment of forced medication, acting as a doctor without a license and then the actual abortion thing ending a baby’s life itself. Are they not baby murderers?

Crickets from the guys whining about agency.

Worse than that, monsters. Imagine the uproar, the other way around. They already complain about male rape enough.

Considering sperm as usable materials wouldn’t even work.

Since men have issue with topics like this, imagine you threw away some metal-based trash and someone else used it to build something great over nine months and it damaged their health to do so. They sell it to someone who loves it. That’s a beautiful thing and better than abortion, remember. But does that person owe you the thing you threw out and wanted no claim (responsibility) over?

Not one single wonky chair leg to stand on.

And I would bet money – he STILL won’t marry her, even for the statistical good of the child. Yeah, let’s help that guy! Stefan’s too scared to bring that up in his lectures (to women) and add two to two and make four. A family is a unit under marriage. Any claims of “she’s taking my family away” should be met with “where’s the marriage certificate?” Your? Family? Really? No.

Words have meanings.

Educated women better mothers

http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.co.uk/2007/07/women-children-and-education.html

Pretty sure I already mentioned this.

Anyone reading this blog habitually knows that is due to:

  1. Low time preference
  2. High IQ

Personality trait 1 comes from genetic 2.

Breeding before you’re an adult (20s) is a bad idea.

Caution (conscientiousness), vital for good parents, and good pair-bonding ability (not promiscuous) also factor in.

Maternal IQ fact supported by genetics

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/children-intelligence-iq-mother-inherit-inheritance-genetics-genes-a7345596.html

A lot of bitter old men have been butthurt over this. Lemme explain.
Hey, you wanted genetic studies of IQ, this is part of HBD. If you only want ones that make men look good, you aren’t being scientific. Become a feminist and quit crying because facts don’t support your feels.

eric ooh aah umm uhuh play dumb smile laugh evil grin

When has the manosphere ever distorted scientific findings?

It’s been known for decades that child IQ is usually higher correlated with maternal IQ. This isn’t one study’s opinion. It’s hundred of thousands of datapoints. It’s a fact, or as close to one as child psychology gets.

The cerebral cortex is also highly implicated in what we think of as higher functions and especially IQ measures (broadly, all types of IQ). There are also racial differences, however, the findings are more within-family e.g. they don’t differ as much between men/women as you’d expect.

There are different reasons given for this maternal IQ jump but since it’s psychology, they don’t use genetic, they seek social explanations primarily. This study is important because it plugs that gap. Previously, it was considered as part of the tender years hypothesis, which that article mentions, i.e. that women are usually primary caregiver, hence raise the IQ of the child simply with their presence. Were that the case, men could boost their contributions simply by becoming stay at home fathers or (gasp) being a co-parent (the technical term for just sticking around, being with their family) of their own spawn.

This study really makes the abandoning fathers look atrocious. As they deserve. Some of the non-fathers are getting butthurt that they can’t blame Mommy for everything, which I won’t even touch as a topic because that requires a professional by the hour.

As it is, the harder science always wins. There isn’t the social science window for BS here, so that’s pretty much out of the window. That’s why they’re so embittered, their stupidity is misreading it and they can’t dance around it with lies.

What the study says: IQ is genetically matrilineal, supporting social findings. All of them.

What the study does NOT say: men are stupid.

crying laughter lmao

But it’s amazing how it brings the stupid ones out.

These guys are often trying to lecture their fellow dunces on IQ as if they understand it, like misinterpreting what an average is (stats 101) or falsely claiming “men” are higher in IQ (if you took the average man off the street, he’s likelier to be a retard, stop embarrassing yourselves).

They’re faux intellectuals, so I’m enjoying writing this up. I really trigger them.

Due to the matrilineal nature of genetics (women conceive and grow the foetus, duh) and the nature of genetics itself (the X chromosome contains more material, a fact I have previously mentioned) everyone inherits more cortical genetic instruction from their mother’s side, possibly all (due to the so factual it’s directly manipulable deactivation this study discusses). Women also give birth and we all know infant brain size can only grow as large as the female can pass. It’s all female, all the way up!

Men don’t need to be at the epicentre of everything – ESPECIALLY CHILDBIRTH.

omg really wtf go away no audrey

Although watching them struggle to take credit for this one thing that’s ours, that’s truly feminine, has been an exercise in patience.

I can’t believe they’re questioning so much reality. Those guys are not redpills.
What, do men conceive? Give birth? Raise their kids? I wish on that last one. Truly, I do.

It’s a very precise study about the nature of intelligence’s inheritance. Not what the organism does with it. Nor does it suggest how intellect potentiates, develops or who ‘has’ more. Intellect isn’t something you have, as these idiots claim with their fake G ratings (childhood scores do not count as an adult, I repeat, childhood scores do not count as an adult) but intelligence is something you do, something you use. Not a trophy you can waggle in someone’s face like a MENSA card, it is more fluid and never something to rest on. Those are a faux appeal to authority anyway, only useful to teachers and employers. They want to get all the status of doing something, but they’re lazy. So they brag about a single pop quiz, which is all most IQ tests are. Which sex, when married with kids, works more total hours per week? Clue: not the one who eschews the bulk of childcare and household duties and spends the bulk of their office time goofing off online. It’s the one that tries to have it all.

This is a very direct finding about a genetic sequence, how it activates and how much cellular volume directly results.

No, it isn’t up for debate. It is the opposite of personal, it’s completely objective. This isn’t political at all because we all grew inside a woman, whether you unconsciously hate her or not. The study said nothing about female children distinct from males, it didn’t study that. Talk about a red herring, those who dare claim such simply dumb. Liars to boot, derailing onto something no one mentions, but let’s stick with what is factually obvious.

Welcome to science, not scientism. We don’t give a flying fuck about your feelings of emasculation.

What you inherit from your mother doesn’t make you less of a man, mothers are no less human as implied, and intelligence is not a ‘male’ thing how ever many fake quotes you post beside Einstein’s face.

If you think that makes me sexist, when all I did was explain, please get your head examined. Seriously.

Study shows older mothers make smarter babies

Research says children of older mothers are smarter, taller, and stronger

I don’t think this means what people think it does.

Considering IQ is at least mostly genetic (like, 70% charitably), and child IQ is based on the maternal IQ (not paternal).
Considering high IQ women marry and have children later (and always have done, historically, the average age of marriage in fact used to be around 25, earlier was reckless from immaturity, later was also fine hence remarriages were also allowed).
Considering they invest more money and time into their children, which accounts for the non-genetic factors to boot.
I think those factors all combine that there’s a third variable. Innate maternal IQ.

The age isn’t causing the intelligence in mothers to pop into existence out of nowhere.

Those women are intelligent to begin with, they delayed the gratification of family until they could support one and we’re seeing those women, responsible women, being compared with the spawn of the irresponsible and stupid.
Older mothers (very old, not, like, 30) either have very healthy babies or very sickly ones, it isn’t clear-cut always bad or always good. Either there are serious problems (a bad pregnancy, often ending in miscarriage) or there aren’t (a good one, biologically the same as a younger woman). Underage girls or young women also have a higher rate of miscarriage (and death) and disease/defects, although this is almost never mentioned. Nature evolved this for good reason, you can’t do things until their time and the reproductive system needs to stabilize hence this result shouldn’t be a surprising correlate. Your ovaries don’t start misfiring suddenly at an arbitrary age (although men, from the way they constantly produce sperm, DO have this high-mutation problem affecting the health and longevity of kids). The males of the manosphere, where you won’t see these studies covered because they’re bluepill pussies, have a lot of ridiculous notions of the female reproductive anatomy and function (e.g. they still talk about hymens like a seal on a tin can and making women bleed as a good thing). They can’t explain this stuff, in part because they think it’s “not their issue/problem”, “not science” and just “ew gross blood n stuff”, while expecting to be taken seriously as adults with internet access on reproductive topics. Naturally, if we try to educate them (you should be paying for this information), they’ll ignore you or call you wrong, because you ‘re a woman. Why would you know how a woman’s body works? That’s just silly.

oh no oh dear hides facepalm double

It isn’t as if I’m trying to give them advice on ED, is it? (Although many of them are porn addicts, the true cause of ED). Everyone has their subjects. Random myths about ovaries and scare-mongering about fertility (while telling men to have kids while on Death’s door) are unhelpful. These people dole out dangerous advice to men (life-ruining, if you look at the cost of raising a special needs child) and have such a lack of class they mock women for their fertility problems and blame them for having a medical condition like PCOS (as if men don’t have fertility problems, when men have more fertility problems in total, mostly impotence issues and getting it up caused/exacerbated by porn use).

On the Eugenic Problem aka Idiocracy Problem.

If you want smart people to have children, they aren’t going to do it at age 18, it isn’t our way and never has been, so you’d better get used to later pregnancies. You can’t shame people into ignoring biology, like the feminists pushing fat as sexy. People always left it ‘late’ compared to the modern welfare baby at 15 ‘standard’. It isn’t too late until you can’t have any or if you refuse to have kids and become a genetic suicide.

Video: How to destroy the world

Stefan is knocking it outta the park recently. Highest quality redpill stuff.
Who turned him onto us? Anyone know?

wow omg likey

TLDW: Social engineers are child abusers.

In one word, it comes down to Legacy. The legacy is the future.

You either have one, or you don’t. You eat the cake, or you keep the cake.
But it doesn’t last forever. Never kick the pup because the pup grows up.
We are reaching that tipping point. I saw a comment, I think it was on Vox Day’s blog, pointing out that by recreating the conditions of Weimar Germany in every system, it’s predictable what would happen next. But neolibs don’t listen to history, they’re on the Right Side… *snicker*

I treat you as a sentient intelligent lifeform. Objections?

He’s right that the quality of men dropped before the quality of women. I feel the manosphere forgets there is another half to the equation. Post-WW, the few surviving men lived it up. Then the Sexual Revolution just happened on by shortly thereafter because women felt left out and wanted some of the attention. Men lost their motivation because sex is practically all they want from women and…. yup, that’s pretty much it. This causes the economy to tank eventually and we’ve been building up bubbles ever since (look at the time you went off the Gold Standard to cover for it, LOOK) because men buy most of the shit needed for a family from a position of surplus and women, while easier to sell to, must buy on credit.

The manosphere mocks women for saying “Where have all the good men gone“? Answer: They’re Peter Pans at home playing video games and watching porn, the Lost Boys, which hardly reflects well on men as they think it does, while all the time most of their discussions feature “Where have all the good women gone“? without a trace of self-awareness. Answer: Pump and dumps, pretty much. Not Asia. Not S. America. You chucked them, or some other guy did, and now they’re psychologically ruined by it.

n.b.

Maternal instinct isn’t a myth. It’s much like paternal drive in men. Some have it, some have it strongly and some do not have it at all. Women are dumb enough to freely admit where they lie there, oblivious to how it affects their long-term value: are you pro-choice? They can only answer for themselves and only the women who state the rape/cancer exception are permissible.

p.p.s.

Gold Standard in America: 1971. I’m sure that’s a maaaa-ssive coincidence.
UK: 1934. WW1 made us broke. However, we had similar problems:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_British_national_debt#1970s

The crisis was seen as a national humiliation.