Political correctness will hunt you down

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-15/french-schools-replace-mother-and-father-parent-1-and-parent-2

What genocide?

You’d need proof of dehumanization.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-15/california-nightmare-over-half-people-living-state-wish-they-could-leave

K-shift.

But you get the politicians you voted for, for years.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-14/socialized-healthcare-reality-exposed-30000-dead-due-record-long-hospital-waiting

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-15/if-socialism-so-good-why-are-people-moving-away

People evading responsibility, including marriage.

Socialists can’t run a business, a church or a creepy hybrid of both.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-06/no-free-lunch-panera-shutters-socialist-pay-what-you-want-restaurant

You can put security guards at a socialist cafe or walls at Rowling’s mansion property, but don’t you dare guard the borders of the country!

Why do security guards exist if everyone can be trusted?

Patient children

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180625122534.htm
Another sign of K-shift. This is compared to Baby Boomers. Z to Boomer.

Maybe it’s that the Boomers aren’t raising them?

The people who invented the Esteem Movement.

Raised by cynical X or Y is better in general.

Putting pressure on a kid like a Tiger Mom or making them the centre of a marriage is abusive.

Old men, dead babies

Harsh title? Yes. Accurate? Yes.

Both parental ages factor into miscarriage risk, equally.

https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/17/6/1649/2919231
Miscarriages occur in teens too so I dunno who is dumb enough to rely on this one variable alone.

37 is the age when maternal age starts to matter for women (depending on family history) if you look at the shift in gradient on the charts (barely any change before) but 40 is the huge risk age in both men and women, as in this study.
“However, the increase in risk was much greater for couples composed of a woman aged ≥35 years and of a man aged ≥40 years.”
Is Human Reproduction not a prestigious enough journal?

The 37/40 thing:
Age and the Risk of Miscarriage
It isn’t sufficiently studied in men but data on paternal age as a factor keeps coming out.
Looks like you can’t just blame the woman again. Takes two to make a baby.
“a dramatic rise starting after age 37, with the steepest increase occurring after age 40.”
“The man’s age matters too. Having a partner over the age of 40 significantly raises the chances of a miscarriage.” Nature doesn’t like old, mutant sperm either.
“Over half of miscarriages are caused by genetic abnormalities.” It isn’t a bad thing, really.
“On average, a woman in her early 20s will have chromosomal abnormalities in about 17% of her eggs” So that’s a really terrible metric considering humans are human. There is always risk.
It’s worse in men than women, so I’m hardly favouring women by opposing this reductionism.
“And as men age, chromosomal defects and point mutations–changes to a single nucleotide in their DNA–become increasingly common.”
Where minors are raped and studied, they tend not to do well either.

Memorize that chart.

A teenager is as bad (at-risk) as a woman with an additional two decades.
You’re still debating less than one percentage point of difference though. Are you autistic?

It’s an interesting variable but hardly everything.

An IVF study


Note: Again, 37 is the magic number.
“While IVF helps many couples overcome their fertility problems, it largely cannot overcome the age-related increase in genetic abnormalities. Without genetically normal sperm and eggs, a viable pregnancy is impossible.”
“Despite this problem, several studies involving couples discordant for age now paint a clear and consistent picture: older prospective fathers raise the risk of miscarriage by about 25-50%. One study found an a 60% increase in the odds of a miscarriage if the father was over 40. Another found a roughly 25% increase in the risk of miscarriage for fathers over the age of 35.”

I guess the Have it All guys can’t read.


As you can clearly see, getting a teenager up the duff would actually be worse.
All things considered.
There are plenty of studies on this but what’s the point?
They basically show the same thing.
No doubt they’ll try to cherry-pick something else to draw focus back onto Boo Women.

A little more then I’ll give up and hope men who value their health listen.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3809297/
“Trends towards increasing paternal age are being observed in the UK as well as USA, due to delay in marriages for attaining better socio-economic stability.”
Fucking feminists. /sarc

Advancing paternal age has been shown to result in subfertility, adverse pregnancy outcomes (miscarriage, late foetal death, preterm delivery, low birth weight), birth defects (cleft lip and palate, congenital heart defects), achondroplasia, osteogenesis imperfect , Apert’s syndrome, schizophrenia, childhood cancer (brain cancer, retinoblastoma, acute lymphoblastic leukaemia) and adult cancer (breast, prostate and nervous system).3 Possible mechanisms for these problems include single gene mutations, autosomal dominant diseases, structural abnormalities in sperm chromosomes (e.g., reciprocal translocations) and multiple genetic / chromosomal defects. DNA damage in sperm of men aged 36 – 57 years was found to be 3 times that of men less than 35 years”

Good luck blaming females for that.

“The present study has demonstrated that the paternal age more than 35 years was an independent risk factor associated with spontaneous first trimester miscarriages. In order to eliminate the effect of maternal age, which is itself a known risk factor, we selected women between the age of 20 – 35 years, as this is considered to be ideal age for child bearing.”

Yes. 20-35 is the ideal range.


The reproductive system needs time to become stable, women take longer to physically mature (completed by the late twenties).

Paternal age is a factor in disease and infertility, independently.

“They recommend counselling of men more than 40 years of age when seeking pregnancy.
I’m not gloating, my heart goes out to men who waited too long and have to raise, at best, a sickly child. They need to be warned of the risks of waiting just like women do.

“Kleinhaus K et al have studied various age groups and have found father’s age more than 40 years to be significantly associated with spontaneous miscarriage.13 Slama R has also studied age ranges and have found that risk of spontaneous miscarriage showed linear increase in the hazard of spontaneous miscarriage in male age between 20 and 45 years. They also observed that hazard ratio was highest with male age > 45 years compared with 18 – 24 years (HR = 1.87, 95% CI, 1.01 – 3.44).1 Others have used paternal age between 30 to more than 50 years.”

The male system matures before the female, (18, mid-20s). If we’re being nubile about social policy, the wife should be older slightly.

So the ideal female age for motherhood is 20-35, but as we see here, ideal male age for fatherhood is 18-24, up to 30 if we’re pushing it. You’d expect the male age to be earlier since they have more DNA damage over time and shorter lifespans combined with earlier physical maturation.

Biology? Sorry?

Freezing sperm doesn’t last by the way. They go off.

“Studies on paternal age and fertility suggest that male biological clock does exist. Similar to women, advancing paternal age results in negative effects on reproductive outcomes.”
“Klonoff-Cohen also found decreasing pregnancy rate with male age. Pregnancy rate was 53% for men less than or equal to 35 years, 35% for 36 – 40 years and 13% for men > 40 years.”
Again, 35 seems to be the turning point for male infertility. Almost equal to the female 37 downturn but the male peak is earlier because the (greater) damage is cumulative (see next quote) and gamete production is ongoing.

Why do you oldies wanna marry young unless you’re admitting there’s a deleterious effect to counteract?
In future, more studies will look at differences in the under-35 men, between, say, 18-24, 25-29 and 30-35.

We postulate from these studies that damage to sperm accumulates over a man’s lifetime. Sperm making cells continue to divide throughout the man’s life, increasing the chances of mutations. Impaired DNA replication and repair mechanisms and increased DNA fragmentation.
DNA damage could also result from reactive oxygen species formed by alcohol, nicotine and drug abuse.”
The wages of sin.
“According to Aitken RJ’s study, male genital tract infection can result in DNA damage in male germ cells and therefore, increase the rates of miscarriage.”
Oh look, male chastity was logical.

“CONCLUSION
Paternal age more than 35 years was found to be an independent risk factor in spontaneous first trimester miscarriages.”

They haven’t really studied younger in sufficient detail to claim that’s fine though, findings like those mentioned above show <30 is ideal in both sexes, to start.

https://academic.oup.com/humupd/article/16/1/65/705193
There a section called “Paternal age and infections”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4125283/
“In this Opinion piece we argue that the tendency of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) to cause infertility is likely to reflect an evolutionary adaptation of the pathogens. We use an evolutionary perspective to understand how STI pathogens may benefit from reducing fertility in the host and what clues the mechanisms of pathogenesis can offer to the evolution of this ability. While we concentrate on human infections, we will also briefly discuss the broader context of STI-induced infertility in other species.

STIs are a common cause of human infertility worldwide…”
No, men can’t sow any wild oats.

No such thing.

“Reduced fertility and an increased risk of complications during and following pregnancy both contribute to reduced reproductive success in the host—and may benefit the sexually transmitted pathogen by destabilizing partnerships and increasing promiscuity.”
The microbes in your urethra are thinking for you.

Not even your dick.

This does explain gay culture. Wow, gay germ theory gets everywhere. This also explains their fetish for fluids and pozzing parties. At least they’re somewhat aware of it.

“Not only are highly promiscuous individuals exposed to a higher risk of acquiring STIs, but STIs may also actively generate hubs of transmission in a vicious circle of promiscuity and infertility: in traditional societies,”
It’s anti-natal and terrible for society.
You can’t leave behind a life of sin.

Also liberal fertility rates make a lot more sense right about now. It is a bug, and it is a feature!

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pass-it-on-children-can-inherit-herpes/
STDs can be passed on at conception, which explains the first trimester paternal age miscarriage finding, the older you get, the more diseases infect the body.
A direct study hasn’t been conducted yet – sexual infection history and miscarriage.
Could it find funding?

Doubtful. Even if it looked at both parents.

Onward, to computer modelling!

Sim City; Sin City Edition.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/apr/12/stis-may-have-driven-ancient-humans-to-monogamy-study-says
“Writing in the journal Nature Communications, Bauch and his colleague Richard McElreath from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany, describe how they built a computer model to explore how bacterial sexually transmitted infections such as chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis that can cause infertility, affected populations of different sizes. The authors considered both small hunter gatherer-like populations of around 30 individuals and large agricultural-like populations of up to 300 individuals, running 2,000 simulations for each that covered a period of 30,000 years.

In small polygynous communities, the researchers found that outbreaks of such STIs were short-lived, allowing the polygynous population to bounce back. With their offspring outnumbering those from monogamous individuals, polygyny remained the primary modus operandi.

[coughs in r-selection]

But when the team looked at the impact of STIs on larger polygynous societies, they found a very different effect. Instead of clearing quickly, diseases such as chlamydia and gonorrhea became endemic. As a result, the population plummeted and monogamists, who did not have multiple partners, became top dog.

[hums in Malthusian tones]

The team also found that while monogamists who didn’t ‘punish’ polygyny could gain a temporary foothold, it was monogamists that ‘punished’ polygyny – often at their own expense of resources – that were the most successful.

[religion is evolutionally fit]

[K-types FTW and for discrimination based on self-protection]

While the form of such punishments were not specified in the model, Bauch suggests fines or social ostracisation among the possible penalties.

[stop paying for their babies and STD treatments? FIRSTLY?]
[kinda like how prison was meant to keep you from breeding – a genetic death penalty – until you dummies invented welfare for their women and conjugal rights, making the whole thing useless]

The results, they say, reveal that STIs could have played a role in the development of socially imposed monogamy that coincided with the rise of large communities that revolved around agriculture.”

Socially imposed?

Well, he had to get published I suppose.

The social/cultural clearly comes after the rest. Like, the die-offs?

Civilization has and always will be K-selected. 

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.

Modern parents spend more time with children now than in 50s

Yeah, don’t take your history lessons from adverts.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/modern-parents-spend-more-time-actively-engaged-with-children-than-50-years-ago/news-story/f7f9dc36605a5da378ef56754c9ba8f5

A spread between parental units is also better for the child’s development. Too much mother is as much a problem as too little.

The mother in the tender years (0-5ish) and the father for about 10 years after that to teach them the basics and keep them grounded, but overall children do need approximately as much quality time with each parent, and it’s terrible when men ‘want’ children just to say they have them but want to skip out on spending time with them. They aren’t a lamp. You can’t just pay for them and leave them there and expect them to be fine. Abandonment is more than financial, it’s giving up leisure time to extra-house priorities, which should come far lower. Family comes before friends, and nights out drinking don’t even really become a college student, let alone a Patriarch. I’ve seen men happy to spend time with a mongrel for hours at a park than five minutes with their spawn.

It doesn’t matter how much money he pulls in if his heart is made of ice. Women shouldn’t procreate with such monsters.
However, such parents will be abandoned once the resentment has festered by rights. They won’t get that replacement kidney or the good nursing home and won’t they be shocked? Their children built a whole life without them too!

dean winchester supernatural evil smirk lol laughing amused

Neither should the children always come first (for some things yes but balance it), that right actually belongs to the spouse, oft-ignored in pop culture like they’re boring to encourage affairs (by clubbing, drinking, bad influence friends). Without a secure spousal relationship, the children will suffer and doing it this way avoids spoiling them or making them arrogant. Happy wife, happy life. Better children too.

It’s common to see posts about maternal abandonment as if a man is a walking wallet. Aside from being a sexist reduction of the Patriarchal role, paternal abandonment has a much more far-reaching effect on the life of the child.

Patriarchs don’t just get to sit around at home while wifey makes them a cocktail and that’s a bizarro-world American Dream anyway. Nobody has that life, even billionaires. They are both workers in the home. He does DIY, she cooks, she cleans, he changes diapers. The 50s advert postcard image is just that – a mirage. Rich people hire help. That’s the trick. Outsourcing. Time is $$$.