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).

Where Spencer is wrong

Youtube comments, what do ya know? Tell me your secrets.

My friends read these (and rarely, write in themselves) so you don’t have to!
The little bitches could do the editing for me, though.

He should really study up on Trivers’ Parental Investment theory, that one would count as individualistic-oriented, I think. It also ties into r/K. Spencer is saying up with K-strategy, basically, which is individualistic in comparison to the rest of the world. Look at birth rates!

Try to find national case studies or go by national heroes.

Good find, there is no such thing as an individual in evolutionary or biological terms. There is only the breeding unit (plus surviving spawn) – man and woman, here defined in our culture as the nuclear unit.

Biologically, single humans do not exist because humans are not an asexual species.
Collectivist races tend to have extended family (Asians, genetic-Asian “Native” Americans) or a total breakdown of family but an extended community (The Hood).

For other theories Spencer could stand to use, anything about the amygdala, oxytocin and Terror Management Theory.

I’ve linked this before but it’s a good start.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2894685/

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022002186017002006

It’s ripe for discussion.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19864286

There’s no such thing as ‘harmless hedonism’, as libertarians imply.
The state must absorb the cost of their social damage e.g. STDs, abortions, drug resistance.
Is it really a freedom if someone else is paying for its consequences?

I find it ironic the winning ‘strategy’ of the Non-Aggression Principle (a wimp’s Golden Rule) is to either behave or plot murder. The solution to violence is violence. Instead of threat of violence, we have a guarantee. The evil of society will spontaneously and logically agree to stop pursuing a selfish strategy, in their mind.

Men and women need to be in harmony

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/spiritual-implications-of-metaphysical.html

The times when misogynists claim to be for a patriarchy, they believe it uplifts men and oppresses women.

Those systems don’t work. The Fall of Rome was because of men, not women.

At least, anything based on a plan remotely resembling that wouldn’t ascend close to 1st World standards.
Pre-Biblical times, at most. Since you’re literally halving the workforce at least, and then there’s all the losses of labour from pointless brawls, formal war and disease. Feminists can’t do Sisterhood, but Brotherhood is a similarly stupid idea. Men behave like jackals without women.

Both men and women are necessary.

Both masculinity and femininity are vital.

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/heavenly-mother-why-and-not.html

Today’s women, yesterday’s prostitutes

http://www.socialmatter.net/2016/08/05/todays-women-yesterdays-prostitutes/

I take issue with an over-reach regarding this topic. It’s rhetorical and makes us all look stupid.

Every time you hear an otherwise intelligent man discuss this topic, he will make a rare lapse and blame women. It’s trendy and edgy, they think.

i.e. the problem is women’s sexuality.

You can cut the woman part out, the problem remains.
They are discussing something where it literally takes two.

Unless they’re casually suggesting all men will suddenly turn gay?

I don’t think so.

Sexuality, period, is the destructive force. 

Anyone’s. In aggregate. Look at Africa.

Take a long, hard look.

Previous civilizations knew this. So you either bought in with marriage or forgo the benefits. Women don’t visit hookers. Which sex make up the majority of porn addicts? Perverts? Deviants? Sluts? Have you seen the paraphilia data? The STDs rising among young men, who pass it around easier for the same act, based on anatomy?
If you get to blame testosterone, well, women have that too. Some have naturally high levels. Does it excuse rape, because logically, if hormones rob you of agency I find that a rather sexist argument against your fellow man. To blame your body for the will of the mind makes a man into an animal, not deserving human rights. Women cannot attack men based on our hormones nor vice versa. If you are incapable of restraining yourself, you have no right to be beyond the confines of an asylum. The same could be argued of oestrogen but that hasn’t been linked to aggression as much as crying and craving chocolate, I think we’re safe.

History of Great Empires and their social decline?
The Greeks weren’t famous for screwing little girls.
The Romans did not have their most depraved orgies in women’s bath houses.

Which sex was at the centre of all these? The sex that to this day, holds the title of the Probable Sex Criminal? More paedophiles, at least? Can we agree that’s bad? Look at the crime data, the Right Wing say. Okay, we’ve looked by age, race, what about sex? Can we get some intellectual honesty here? Are the men involved less culpable for those crimes, as they demand female paedophiles be punished? [correctly] Does this not seem like a grand distraction to you? We have millennia of evidence on this one, unlike all other demographics.

If men (with power) get the sex they want, Empires fall. Lesson of ancient history.

You know what that means? You don’t get to blame the women. Especially since you also argue from the other side of your faces that women are weaker (physically true) and rely on men for protection (somewhat, historically, yes) – which makes women the victims of male power, logically?

You cannot argue two opposite things. They contradict, its impossible. Logic, invented by better men. Biology says men are the ones with the power, as does history. So if anyone is to blame, if either sex is ‘It’, men dropped the ball in the West. If there is an issue in the Sexual Marketplace, as the sexually dominant sex, that is the man’s responsibility.

This is not even complicated, logically. Moving on to details.

Cultural Marxism would’ve been impossible without the Sexual Revolution.

Why did the Sexual Revolution come about?

The Pill yes, but also to force women into the workforce while appeasing their men.

It was entirely economic. A quick way to make money Post-War. After all, millions of men workers had just died. Positions were available. Taxes were lacking to rebuild basic infrastructure.

Tradition, which is to say, Patriarchy, was more restrictive of male sexuality than female.
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2014/04/06/patriarchy-discourages-all-promiscuity/

Nobody mentions this fact.

Nobody dare ask why.

So no, you don’t get to argue Down with Vagina, whatever your emotions on the subject from pure to bitter, but that everything from Tinder to porn addiction is fine because you like it. We are not F60.89 leftist hedons here. Is it wrong of me to expect some maturity, a defining trait of men previously, on this issue? Can they look past self-interest and their own throbbing…. opinions?

It’s either a bad behaviour for society, or not. They’re casually arguing that promiscuity damages women, but not men? From what? Where’s the biological evidence?

Please, post it to Nature. Science. Collect Nobel in Medicine for averting disaster.

Ask the mature question.

Is the behaviour bad for the individual, full stop? Long-term? aka The Future?

All the evidence thus far says it is.

Neuroscience is catching up to bad social policy.

yourbrainonporn.com

You are harming yourselves.

Like any self-harm, first you must acknowledge a problem to fix it.

For argument’s sake, let us assume every woman in the West shut her legs tomorrow.

Okay, what happens to male sexuality then?

It’s impossible to balance a one-sided equation.

Come on, you’re smarter than this.

Expression is fine. Let’s keep it social.
The political is very personal, but the personal is not political. Unless you trust future adminstrations not to restrict your sexuality, keep it out of public politics.

There’s nothing wrong with men and women voting (see UK GE 2015, Brexit, Trump).
There’s nothing wrong with either sex owning property. If you study real history, not the past 300 years, inheritance was quite common among widows, who outlived their husbands usually. Property went to the family, blood, disregarding sex. To say women didn’t hold property is a feminist myth, and they do this deliberately, as you can’t prove a negative, and many ancient societies held them in the family too. While the men were away fighting, guess whose job it was to manage those estates? The women. To this day, women run the home. It is our domain. Now tell me who ‘owns’ it.

However, arguing against the evidence of pair bonding damage, vital for successful marriage, and expecting nuclear families to blossom out of overstimulated Pajama Boys as if by magic?

https://www.amazon.com/Hooked-Science-Casual-Affecting-Children/dp/0802450601

Doomed.

Random OT, sorta

Aside from strawmen, over-reactions and non-sequiturs…

Cosmetics were used by both sexes until recently, including rouge. Like today, they are medicinal. Many modern formulations are good for the skin, at least providing a UV barrier to make skin cancer less likely. Actually, men invented high heels, men wore tights/stockings first, and French poofs wore blusher and lipstick first in the West. Men also wore restrictive clothing, to suck in their guts, including corsets. Corsets (old clothes) and togas (very old clothes where breasts were exposed) are sexier than jeans and hoodies (modern clothes).
Just because a bad person does something doesn’t make it a bad idea e.g. plenty of bad people donate to charity.
The red lipstick thing had nothing to do with America, get over yourselves. It was our Queen, I covered this in detail. You followed us, America.

Someone made a list of male privileges

Okay, that is pretty accurate. There are more I can think of but I won’t derail.
I am surprised. I did not expect things that have been quantified e.g. interruptions in speaking studies, although men do speak as much by volume as women.
I think I can condense it down to two things.

First, they are usually treated as individuals rather than representatives of their sex.
Secondly, their comfort level is usually a default, so they don’t even notice it e.g. usually it’s a man in charge, so odds are he’ll also be heterosexual and therefore not creepily hit on you because you need his help. They don’t notice these things because, being men, they aren’t placed in those situations. It isn’t their fault when they’re naive to these things, as we’re naive to some of their insights. Fish in water problem. I wouldn’t call those privileges except for where they directly benefit at the expense of women for no other reason than birth (anti-meritocratic, sexual nepotism). However, to ignore that fact that Bad Things Happen in the world isn’t an excuse, and to deny them on any grounds inhumane. We founded society for the continual betterment of its inhabitants, that requires listening as much as we talk.

The ones about children irritate me because they’re based on received wisdom aka wrong but antique BS. Children require a nuclear family, minimum, to thrive best. An extended family is ideal but impractical. Both parents need to be involved and co-parenting isn’t feminist (that would be arguing children only need their mothers, against the evidence). It’s common sense that both sexes bring different traits to the table their child needs to benefit from, to say nothing of the two sexes OF child and the range of bonding required between the same-sex parent and the opposite sex through the stages of development. How can we build stable families in the West if we don’t work together? First, this requires communication, and that is two-thirds listening and one-third e-prime (not blaming, based on perceptions) e.g. I feel you are, You seem to be etc. Conflict resolution rather than escalation. Plenty of people nowadays cannot debate, certainly, but they cannot argue in their personal lives either. If you’re still angry, pick a violent hobby. Boxing is always popular.

Can I make the easy joke that the man was the better feminist?

I don’t see why a study of human differences has to be considered ‘feminist’ when really it’s actually a subject called BIOLOGY. If you want to be precise, much of this would come under social psychology and forensics.

It’s weird to see men, who usually go around spouting off on how different the sexes are, suddenly deny it whenever the feminists rarely admit it. Guys. They are by definition different.

These may not be sex differences a la HBD but that makes them no less valid. Social phenomena are important, from crime all the way to how people treat one another in a professional (supposedly non-personal) setting.

Fathers used to have a tendency to goof off in the upper class because they hired a retinue of staff to take their place. Not just women but also various men to teach and train their children, the tutor being the classic example. And no, the TV doesn’t count. If you can’t be there you shouldn’t have them, this goes for both parents although there is such a thing as too much Mummy, flexitime is the future, economically and socially. It’s no surprise that raising kids in a vacuum will screw them up, that isn’t one sexes fault, all of society is at fault (that means both).

In Victorian times, men began abandoning their families for drink in more urban pubs and bars, ‘throwing themselves away’ on it, and the modern vision of single parenthood emerged because the father was unconscious or …elsewhere. Addictions were common in men and excused for abandoning them on the regular because children were not considered full people, in part to deal with their mortality rate. Sometimes the women would die in childbirth, which is hardly their fault. Rarely one spouse would run away, often to America.

It is true that if men want the social power of the Master of the House, they need to be held to the highest moral standard. No affairs, no abuse, no addictions, the obvious. If they cared about their children above an egoistic promotion, they would spend their free time with them rather than playing the bachelor life (do you think the kids don’t notice?) I love the money excuse, when you can lose more with a promotion by moving into a higher tax bracket and in getting paid less per hour for the longer hours you’re expected to work. That isn’t an excuse and it misses the point deliberately. The studies have shown time and time again that children will always value time above money assuming a lower-middle class level of comfort. It’s an odd example of men trying to Have It All, or seem to, by having Work he hates, Wife he tolerates, Children he abandons and a debauched social life he pretends is good for his family, let alone himself.

How often do you hear parenting tips for mothers? All of parenting books and TV shows and so on, tend to lecture to women. It isn’t pandering, it’s telling us we’re faulty and need ‘experts’ plugging a book to tell us how to do the most basic human functions, it’s like eating! They lecture us, it’s trashy anyway.

How often do you hear lectures on fatherhood, and purposefully, what a good father is?

You don’t.

Ever.

Almost like modern society is against happy families, because they fill that emotional void with credit-purchased crap on Black Friday.

teadrinking sipping pretentious sarcastic bitch mmhmm not my problem lol

But that’s none of my business America.

And no, telling men not to abandon their kids after willingly reproducing is not advice. For all the mean stereotypes, the black family model used to be quite stable with the Church before the men went out for mistresses a la the faux Bachelor Life. I’m sure on their death beds, they’ll regret going to less strip-clubs and paying for less drinks at a bar.

Birth control – for whom?

A minor point on this.

Birth control takes away control from women. The feminists lie.
Men invented birth control, men prescribe birth control, men tell women they need to be on birth control. (So they can use us like whores, only whores used to require birth control/chemical abortions, if a man tells you that you need to be on it, he’s calling you a whore and that any child he conceives with you must be destroyed in shame because while you’re valuable for sex, he doesn’t want to provide in return, still want to fuck him?)

How, exactly, is all this the woman’s choice?

And for the feminists saying they’re pro-choice, well, which industries do they profit from? Sex-positive (slut) and abortion (anti-natal) taking the option of motherhood away from other women and wiping their wallets while doing it. The competition (pretty women, usually) have less children and see no rush to get married in their physical prime, a great incentive to r-types promoting it to the enemy, who also want to keep the number of nuclear families down.

Controlling the life or death inside another woman, or even whether that woman has a life growing inside her in the first place. Doesn’t sound like personal empowerment, but social, medical control.

The fewer mothers, the fewer conservative women, this is a known connection.
The more unhappy sluts, the more self-help bullshit they read blaming the Other (men).
Gee, sound like any belief system you know?

They say: You need this.

They mean: You need us.

It’s drug addiction. What do addicts do? They take the drug longer than maximum (the Pill is only ‘safe’ a few years, tops), they self-medicate with reckless behaviours (sex) and self-destruct emotionally because a core part of their feminine identity (the Mother) has been stolen from them. Result? They feel stuck. Perma-childhood.

Finger the villain.

They say it was a Sexual Revolution.

It was, in fact, a Maternal Destruction.

Listen between their lies.

Motherhood is bad and you’re bad for wanting it. You want to be a housewife? Why? Oh, you’re a mother, what a waste. Mothers are wasting their lives, it isn’t an ambition or a valid one to want a family, like a man who wants a legacy. Those father figures are losers, how dare they love you enough to want to provide for you until they die. You have all the time in the world but don’t do it now, put it off forever. Parents are uncool, you want to be hip, I can tell. You think you want kids, but you don’t really want those ugly, smelly ungrateful things you’d have made, do you? Children are always terrible and the fact they don’t like me proves it. You should be ashamed to side with your family instead of strange women who seem very unhinged and want you to take up their unhealthy habits. If you want a cuddle, buy a dog. Human purpose isn’t genetic, that’s so Darwinian. Parents aren’t superior or I would be one. Nobody wants to marry me so you shouldn’t settle down either because I’d be all alone. There are so many exciting men who’ll be happy to use you until your looks go, why are you depriving them their fun? (R-types stick together, as you can see with the manwhore pick-up artists and slut-positive feminists who both align only to protect Promiscuity Culture).

If this sounds backwards, because it’s a media Big Lie to blame the victim, think of it like this.

Why are there mothers and boyfriends grinding up birth control into an adult woman’s food?

Where is your ‘control’ there?

Why does the father (and they are a father if there is conception) get to order an abortion in someone else’s body, of the child he consented to create in consenting to the act of sex aka procreation?

(The two can never be divided, sex is making babies and making babies is having sex, biology 101; the drugs give us an illusion, or one method would work 100%).

Why were men on board for giving it to women they would never, ever marry?

It allows men to control a woman’s body and her most feminine aspect – her fertility, to use her for his pleasure until he can discard her with no consequences or investment (the masculine side of the sexual bargain).

Is that in any woman’s best interest?

well leaves nope no go leaving

For balance? This is also bad for men in general. Aside from the chemical sterile angle.
As the men opt out of the duties of an adult male, hard-won as a rite of passage, birth control is also anti-Patriarchy. On a fundamental level, it ruins their daughters for their odds of a happy marriage, allows their wife to cheat without being found out, allows their son to waste his time chasing tail instead of building the family business and getting serious, and they probably wouldn’t become Patriarchs in the first place, revoking their masculine power to found a family too and hard-won possibility of a legacy denied to many men who can’t find or earn a good spouse (but usually, modern men are dumb enough from anti-family propaganda to encourage their women to go on the stuff too, only to complain their woman has lost interest in starting a family, because he’s drugging her to think she already has one).