Tuesday, September 16, 2014

Start sooner

It's a good thought, but in reality, young women should start prioritizing family over career no later than 25:
'When you're in your twenties, everything is about you. But when you enter your thirties, your world then begins to centre around your family.

'I know I said in the past that I was putting my career first, but when you reach your thirties, things change.

‘You get to a point where you seriously have to think about choosing between work and having babies.
Still, it's interesting to see that the younger actresses putting their careers on hold instead of working, remaining single, then adopting an token African child-substitute in their mid-40s as their predecessors are doing. One has to suspect there may be a connection between the two things.


Laguna Beach Fogey said...

Well said, Vox. This can't be stressed enough.

"...then adopting an token African child-substitute in their mid-40s..."

Haha. It's not just actresses doing this. I occasionally see this in town. It's usually a thirtysomething blonde woman holding the niglet, with glum-looking (white) husband in tow. How utterly embarrassing and humiliating. Sadly, I suspect the kind of people who do this are motivated by Churchian and tradcon beliefs.

jHans Walther said...

John Ross, of "Unintended Consequences" fame, wrote a column on this a number of years ago titled "Feminism's Terrible Blunder" or how comparative advantage is completely oblivious to the feminists.


Crowhill said...

Yes, certainly no later than 25, and one aspect of this is to be very careful about boyfriends. A young woman can't afford to fritter away those years on young men who aren't interested in marriage and family.

deti said...

Vox, I'm confused. I read the linked article and couldn't find the quoted language. Also, Holly Hagan isn't an actress per se; but is featured on some British reality show that I'm not familiar with. The linked article is about the (admittedly attractive) woman's weight loss.

Am I missing something?

hank.jim said...

The article isn't the one. Here's the correct link. Did a search.


She is still waiting until 30. Thankfully, she is married so having kids will not be difficult unless she is infertile.

Anonymous said...

No, Crowhill, they can't. I remember Vox put something up called "The Rules" a while back, written by a woman, about how long to stay in a relationship if no commitment is in sight. Sort of wish I'd read that when I was 19. My parents, and the parents of many, no, ALL of my friends, did not get involved in relationships, or give advice on matters of romance, or encourage courtship. It was very hands off, and as a young woman hoping for marriage, I only had Cosmo, college profs* and my friends to turn to for advice. Let me tell you, those are very, very, very bad sources of advice.

Eight years waiting for BF to be ready to marry...you'd think I would have figured it out earlier.

Parents do need to be involved in their kids' lives and relationships, and be willing to give unsolicited advice if they see something going wrong. And encourage young marriage and motherhood. I think the tide will turn on this one, hopefully for enough people that it begins to make a difference.

*a few, at least, who wanted to be friends with their students, rather than professors. I had required women's studies classes, those profs were the source of YGG! that made finding happiness rather difficult.

Brad Andrews said...

I could barely wait 9 months or so after I connected with my wife. I can't imagine years. Though I was committed to purity, something many are not today.

Feather Blade said...

In any sane society the opening statement would read: When you're in your teens, everything is about you. But when you enter your twenties, your world then begins to centre around your family.

Talk about the infantilization of women...

Anonymous said...

Considering three things:

#1 fertility for girls starts around 14-16
#2 immigrating masses have no compunction to refrain from producing babies until after age 18 or 24 or 30
#3 the nature of demographic war

When women are waiting ten to fifteen years into fertility to begin reproducing, their genetic offspring is losing ground at an exponential rate to other ethnic / religious groups (hell, let's just limit it to people of differing thought processes--without overtly calling it religious or ethnic). Not only are they reproducing later, they're having fewer children, losing ground on two exponential factors.

Anonymous said...

It's a start. Ideally, a girl should start prioritizing family as soon as she's able to understand the concept: learning to cook basic meals by 8-10, increasingly helping with younger siblings and housecleaning as she gets older, babysitting for siblings or neighbor families by 16, learning to dress well and take care of her hair and makeup, grocery shopping for Mom on a budget now and then once she's driving. She should have the basic housekeeping skills down by 16-18, be practiced at looking presentable and feminine, and be keeping an eye out for marriageable men in her vicinity. That way, if she makes the mistake of wasting several years on college, at least when she shifts toward marriage she'll be ready.

But that's the ideal, and we're nowhere near that. At least it looks like some women are rejecting the "You can have a baby at 50!" message and moving in the right direction.

Feather Blade said...

@cailcorishev: Fair point that basic survival skills aren't being taught.

At least there are resource books to fix that...

T.L. Ciottoli said...

At a minimum a girl's parents should be highly involved in her dating life, allowing her to only choose from a certain group of pre-selected, pre-approved potential husbands. Anything that gives a girl, or rather thousands and millions of girls, more leeway than that results in societal and civilizational disaster. See: The West. This includes all of Latin America. The feminist current is picking up speed and the societal damage in Central and South America is already palpable.

Anonymous said...

@ cailcorishev

While society in general are no where near doing things right, the people who do not engage in certain behaviors will be a genetic dead-end. In other words: those who shape up their daughters right now will be the ones to inherit the future. Of course, for those of us who had to make it nearly to thirty in order to start having kids... that cannot be undone. But allowing our daughters and sons to do the same is a sure way to be the genetic dead-end.

Anonymous said...

My cousin married a liberal Cali lawyer... she adopted a couple of niglets. Ugh. I don't get it, and my cousin is a fairly wealthy lawyer now, though he works like 50 hours a week. Why would any man put up with it? It's like cuckolding.

The Original Hermit said...

"My parents, and the parents of many, no, ALL of my friends, did not get involved in relationships, or give advice on matters of romance, or encourage courtship. It was very hands off"

That was my same experience. The only thing close to advice I got was from my dad basically saying "Don't have kids, they're too much work". My wife and I had our first when she was 23, I was 24. 9 years later we're about to have our fourth. It is work, and it can be tiring, but it has definitely been worth the effort. I couldn't imagine trying to raise 3+ kids starting a decade older.

Brad Andrews said...

Some of you must not really understand the drive for some of us to be parents. We were not giving birth to children ourselves, so we figured we would raise a sibling group that needed a stable home. It is horrid in many ways, especially since all of them treated us badly when they hit the teen years, turning just about everyone against us as they ultimately migrated back to the ways (and location) of their very dysfunctional birth family.

I wouldn't do it again, but the realization I will never have "my own children" (whether by birth or adoption) is one of the worst things I get to live with now. Those without that experience have no clue. You may not like the idea of a "trophy child," but wanting to be a parent is something God put into us. Get off your high horses a bit.

Our children could pass as our own though, as I look very much like the birth father, but I am a fair bit taller. Still sucks though when you find out they really were someone else's children all along.

Brave New Man said...

It goes against women's biology but hey, they really need to 'achieve something' and 'have a career'...until they realise it's a too late and they'll have to pay for their choices in their 20's.

Anonymous said...

Race is your extended family
their is nothing traditional or Christian in adopting outside your race

Unknown said...

What is the benefit of adopting African children? Especially after 40 when you are childless? Is it to signify to the rest of society that you are so low on the pole that even a darkie won't impregnate you and you have to go artificial??? Is it jealousy at your single mother friends who all have a mutt in tow so like everything else, heck I'll buy one!???

Women simply cannot handle independence or money and this is exactly what we are giving a near limitless amount of to women while taking it from men. It's crazy.

You want to know what will fix the entire West in one fell swoop?? Designate that all incomes over 75K are taxed at 90%. Yes seriously. Old school. If you are married, 150K. For every extra child add 50K more. This would make lefties wet themselves with redistributive joy, while making all of the incentives for women to career it up in meaningless jobs evaporate overnight. Want to live a better life ladies?? Have a husband and some kids. You get to stay home and love them without the rat race. Oh and now your hubby can make 250K for you and two kids without getting raped in taxes. Put the soul back in things. Also, women would choose more wisely. etc.

Feather Blade said...

Designate that all incomes over 75K are taxed at 90%. Yes seriously. Old school. If you are married, 150K. For every extra child add 50K more.

Yes, lets give the bloated bureaucracy even more ability to ruin lives! Punish success and hard work!

Do people only get the less-than-90% tax rate while their kids are still in the house? Or is it a lifelong reward for having Contributed New Workers to Society?

Unknown said...

Feather, of course this sucks. No disputing it does. But I'm talking about the only political answer possible save a king for the West. And at 90% tax rate the overwhelming majority would soon find working beyond their particular tax threshold is futile vs. extra time at home. Women would exit in droves while men of all classes flood back in.

Also for all the whinning betas, you get to be the big provider again. HR departments go away, etc. Not ideal, but if you don't think homebound wives and working husbands will flock to polls to keep out foreign competition you are crazy. Plus higher birthrates and less women's entanglement in important sphere's of man world.

Unknown said...

And yes man world is a phrase I think should be used more often.

In all seriousness, the West is at the point where comfort and money have to be sacrificed to a large extent to preserve itself. If not, we'll simply be the old couple rotting in the middle of a once nice, but now crap neighborhood waiting to die so our non-existant or mutt kids can sell it to immigrants.

I can do without the new boat this year, thank you.

Feather Blade said...

@Vincent Castrillo:

A government that minds its own business (interacting with foreign powers and regulating eternal commerce), and a citizenry that mind theirs (i.e. doing everything else) would have the same benefits - and this is the important part - without funding a greater and more intrusive bureaucracy.

No taxes and no entitlements would fix pretty much every one of the problems you seek to "solve" with your proposed governmental plunder of the American society - which, by the way - is the way most likely to get us not only a king, but a rapacious and despotic one.

Unknown said...

Aren't you tired yet of platitudes and RINO clichés.?? Yes that is ideally what many of us here and at VDs want. But it is clearly unicorns and fairies now. Every election cycle I still here "this is the most important election EVERRRR!!" Most people over 50 still think things can be fixed by voting in this guy or going back to basics. Bullsh&t!. It is clear that with demographic shifts, loss of faith, and an elite so entretched that nothing BUT a king will save us barring some radical solution. Which is why I propose it as a hypothetical. Unless you can break the system, you have to find things that will erode it from within itself or you are merely slowing down the decline. Nothing more.

You will get a despot either way if we continue along this path and it will be more Mao/Chavez, then Hilter. Hell, with the rich getting even richer as well as the press and government being the toy of the elites, you might just get a Caligula.

But keeping waving the freedom flag while yelling about Ayn Rand and less bureaucracy. Just don't notice that you have no real freedoms, that your armies use your sons as pawns for world elites, that your limited government can at anytime send storm troopers to kill you and your family. Try not having any kids because lord knows their future is so bright. At least we don't foreign rape gangs protected by the police yet.

In a world this huge and this stupid, you either get the government you fight to establish and maintain and yes have it impose your peoples' will on those against you. (Ideally under a God-fearing king) or you allow it to most certainly be imposed upon you. You will realize this over the next decade.

Unknown said...

Democracy like all other utopian ideas can only work in an homogenous bubble. Failing that they are the surest path to madness and chaos. The opposite of order. The thing you want most from your government in a civilized world is not simply defense against foreign powers, nor a stay out of our way always. What you must have is order.

We are not in a frontier. We are not in a bubble. Technology and communications are so instant that nothing can avoid the evils of this world for very long. Your old mentality wasn't even relevant/realistic fifty years ago. It was a nice dream, like how we view the 50s. But without order Obama was always going to happen.

Feather Blade said...

@ Vincent Castillo:

Money, in most circumstances, is indistinguishable from power.

If you give money, and therefore power, to a bureaucrat, the only thing you will get is more bureaucracy.
The bureaucracy that we have now, when they can't take more than 30% of our income, is already stunningly burdensome, and is currently being used to harass and abuse the citizenry. And you want to give them three times that funding? Or more?

Your premise is false: even that amount of theft from the people won't sate the leftists' rapacity. The more you allow them to take, the more they demand you surrender to them.

You may as well join the leftists now, while they're still accepting party members.

Unknown said...

Dịch vụ Check domain miễn phí. check domain nhanh chóng chính xác
Dịch vụ Tao web mien phi từ inet cho phép bạn tạo web bán hàng hoàn toàn miễn phí
Tin tức Bóng đá cập nhật 24/7. Nhận định trận đấu, tổng hợp kết quả các trận đấu bóng đá
CHuyên trang Tin tức cập nhật nhanh nhất chính xác nhất các tin tức nóng hổi
Cổng Tin tức online cập nhật tin tức trong và ngoài nước nhanh nhất, chính xác nhất
Cổng Tin tức trực tuyến cung cấp thông tin đời sống xã hội, tin tức tổng hợp
Blog Kiến thức seo cung cấp kiến thức seo căn bản cho người mới học seo
Blog Hướng dẫn SEO hướng dẫn học và làm seo

Post a Comment