I don’t think men who have no children are “failures” and nor do I think women who have no children are “failures.” I think that people make choices in life that are right or seem right for them at the time. People are autonomous beings who may or may not want children. While I agree that our culture is a negative one that often mistakenly tells women to go only for careers and other pursuits rather than have children, I do think there are some women who do not want them. This choice may be wrong for some but not for all.I like and respect Dr. Helen, but I disagree with her here on two grounds. First, one's success or failure as a human being are not determined by whether or not one is happy. That way lies, quite literally, madness. I'm sure John Wayne Gacy was quite happy when he was raping and killing little boys, and that was his decision about what was right for his own life, but I don't think we would be well to describe him as a success as a human being.
I had a friend in college who didn’t want kids. She is happy today many years later without them. That is her choice. It should be everyone’s to decide what is right for their own life. To call that a failure for that decision seems extreme.
Second, it's simply not possible to argue that a woman who is childless is not a failure at reproduction. That is a tautology; a childless woman has, by definition, failed to reproduce. Moreover, unlike men, this failure to reproduce is very seldom imposed by others, or by external circumstances. And while this doesn't make her a failure at anything else, it does mean that she has failed in her singular duty to her species, to her sub-species, and to her genetic line; she has failed to continue it.
And as a human being, what Earthly responsibility could possibly be greater?
In our present age, young women are being actively dissuaded from fulfilling their primary role and responsibility as women and as human beings. It should be no surprise that women have never been unhappier or less fulfilled. This is a consequence of the true Female Imperative being replaced by a false one.
The only way to effectively dispute the definition is to a) claim that women have a more important purpose in life or b) to claim that women have no purpose in life at all. And the latter, I submit, is entirely more damaging and degrading to women than to suggest that they have a extraordinarily important purpose at which they can fail.
As for the former, well, what is it?
85 comments:
The creeping inherent nihilism in evolution and atheism have sunk their fangs deep into our national psyche.
If we really are a cosmic accident, and there is no God, only a flying spaghetti monster, then there really is no point and you might as well be doing something that is fun.
Except that fun is fleeting, fun is Satan's counterfeit to joy. Joy comes from the deeper, more meaningful things. Like being a parent. Fun fades, joy lasts.
There is a more important purpose in life, which is serving God. However, serving God usually includes having a family. But if His gift to you doesn't include that (but how would you know that your choices didn't result in spurning God's planned mate for you?), then you can at least know the joy of serving His cause in real and productive ways that bear visible fruit. But God's fruit are not honored by the world.
May I mention a possible caveat?
My sister-in-law falls in to one of those external circumstances. Despite many attempts by my brother and her, they have not been able to reproduce. I can't recall what exactly it was but it's very hard for her to even conceive, much less carry successfully.
She has failed to reproduce, but my brother and her are making up for it by adopting two boys and raising them very well.
It's not ideal, but I would be hard-pressed to argue that my brother and sister-in-law are necessarily failures, given that they have attempted all they could with what they were given. Less to do with what was accomplished, rather than what was done with what was given, right?
I hope she reconsiders. I am guessing this hit home on her in regards to some personal experience on her part. I guess we get another look at the female mind and it's ability or inability to detach and observe.
There is an emotional response to the use of the word "failure" and fear based projection going on here. Maybe we need Anonymous Conservative to suss this out.
You are saying feel bad things again, Vox. You know what happens when you say feel bad things.
The only way to effectively dispute the definition is to a) claim that women have a more important purpose in life or b) to claim that women have no purpose in life at all.
I really hope she responds to this and maintains her oft reasonable and rational ways and doesn't go all "HUS"sy-ish.
It's too general of a statement...I would have worded it like this:
Women who willingly make the choice to not have children (religious women exempt because of the reason for their sacrifice) and encourage other women to do the same...are failures.
Student in Blue,
They are a failure and noting that should not necessarily be seen as bad. It is what it is. I say that as someone in the same situation, just several years later. We raised 4 children from a rough background and thought that would be meaningful, but it turned out to have less value than hoped when they all returned to their birth family's dysfunction.
We certainly failed, though it wasn't because we purposefully tried to do so unlike some today.
Life is rough and the results are what they are. Couching things in pleasant terminology doesn't change the base facts. We all don't get a participation award for life, even though we will all be judged on what we did with what we had.
I originally tried posting this comment at PJMedia on Dr. Helen's post, but it kept being flagged as spam for some reason. I might as well put it here:
"Vox Day is merely using rhetoric to get his point across. This is why he says the first response to such younger women should be to laugh at them, not because they're actual failures (yet), but because they're most likely going to change their mind. Furthermore, every woman's primary evolutionary reason for existing is to bear children, regardless of what current society is like, and in this respect, laughing at them is warranted since they are effectively saying "I want to be a failure" when they say "I don't want children." Bearing children is their evolutionary goal whether they like it or not.
And one has to admit... hearing someone else say "I want to be a failure" really IS funny."
" young women are being actively dissuaded from fulfilling their primary role and responsibility as women and as human beings. It should be no surprise that women have never been unhappier or less fulfilled. This is a consequence of the true Female Imperative being replaced by a false one."
Women's three basic directives are, in this order:
1. Secure the best man available for reproduction.
2. Secure provisioning and resources for the resulting children.
3. If she fails in directives 1. and 2., secure provisioning for herself by any means necessary.
Note the first directive. The very first thing any young woman does is seek out attractive men for sex. She's hardwired to do this so she can get pregnant. Now today, sex has been decoupled from reproduction; but this doesn't mean she doesn't want sex with attractive men. The entire reason why women want sex with attractive men despite their taking measures to avoid pregnancy is precisely because of this hardwired desire from that first directive -- she's acting out (LARPing, if you will) getting alpha genes. Their unhappiness is a result of their own continual frustration of the end result - they get the sex, but no babies.
'Now today, sex has been decoupled from reproduction;'
Which is the root of all the gender wars we have today.
Reality can be harsh, but choosing to ignore reality usually doesn't help.
I would suggest that a woman can achieve some degree of reproductive success if she nurtures her genetic relatives, and by doing so, she enables them to have more children than they otherwise would have. It's difficult to measure this kind of success, and it's a less reliable means of reproductive success than a woman having children of her own, but it is still an indirect means by which a woman can pass along some of her genes.
Another evolutionary strategy with some success in passing on your genes is to serve as an aunt or uncle. Since one's neices or nephews share up to 25% of one's genes, that role is as valuable as a grandparent. So if these childless men or women have siblings who are having children, and they have some involvement in their upbringing, that is certainly not 'failure' and perhaps represents a very rational choice. However, if they are not only childless but represent the end of their recent genetic lines, that is certainly a failure in a genetic sense, although they can still contribute to humanity in other ways.
@Student in Blue
Read your Bible - barrenness was considered a curse. Barren women would weep and pray in the temple for years, seeking repentance for whatever they had done, or their family had done, to impose this curse upon them. Read the stories of Sarai/Sarah, Hannah, Rachel, or Elizabeth.
Our modern day culture seeks to turn both its men and its women into Sodomites, who pursue sex solely for self-fulfilment and pleasure. Hormonal birth control quite literally turns women into poor copies of men, incapable of reproducing, and incapable of experiencing normal feminine emotions. And this is a restless evil: quite a few men will never be seduced by male sodomy, but nearly all men seem to be subject to the seduction of female sodomy.
My citation is the near-obsession in modern pornography, and with modern young men, with acts of sodomy as opposed to natural, normal sex. And the obsession the left has with making sure people use condoms all the time.
I know the first thing I think of when I think of Mother Teresa is...What a failure!
I posted this comment on Dr. Helen's blog:
As other commenters have pointed out, Vox Day is correct, biologically speaking. I would like to point out that a large number of these women who have chosen not to reproduce are more intelligent than average and otherwise have good genetic profiles. The US government is also paying women with (generally) lower intelligence to have children, in the form of assistance to single mothers. Does anyone else see a problem with that?
I wonder how many flaming SJW comments it will attract?
Two other avenues of failure are:
Religious. If the female in question is a christian, jew, or muslim, they've disobeyed God's first Command.
Civilizational. Failure to reproduce a replacement member of your civilization and inculcate them with your civilization's values, culture, and identity alters and kills the civilization.
We can be objective about the biological, civilizational, and religious failure criteria.
What could be more important than reproduction for women in society? I would posit that there are a multitude of ways a woman today could add to society resulting in a net positive (which I submit would remove the failure label.)
Being a teacher and positive role model for youth with none such (or terrible) examples in their own lives.
Inventing something of use.
Working to cure diseases.
Helping the elderly.
Working in 3rd world countries.
Assume for a second that a hypothetical woman does not want children, does not attempt to dissuade other women from having children, and does something meaningful that benefits society instead of being a welfare government succubus. In addition, let's also assume that she would make a terrible mother. Would this woman still be considered a failure as a human being? I suspect Vox and many will still argue that yes, there is nothing to be done of significance that can offset the negative of failing to reproduce, but I disagree.
I personally hate children, and if I were forced to be a father I would be a terrible one. Not necessarily by choice, but by the fact that after more than 30 minutes around any child I have a very strong inclination to kill them.
There is an emotional response to the use of the word "failure" and fear based projection going on here. Maybe we need Anonymous Conservative to suss this out.
Nah, the emotional response is to the "as a human being" part. Of course Vox is using it as rhetoric, but the core truth within the rhetoric is the notion that "as a human being" means our biological selves, as opposed to our spiritual selves. Most people however think of "as a human being" meaning "as something more than animal," as something that transcends biology. Weak faith in God means they have to find their divinity in themselves, in their "humanity," so they hear Vox calling them spiritual failures rather than just biological ones.
Which I assume was his plan all along.
And it's true too, if you accept a secular view of the world and carry it to it's logical conclusion. If there is no God and we are merely the biological embodiment of natural processes, then anything spiritual about us must come from within our biology and failing to reproduce means destroying your part of that biological spirituality. Biodiversity is, we are told, of supreme importance. So Spinster Suzy refusing to have children is refusing to do her part in maintaining biodiversity.
Hate to break it to you Matt, but wanting to kill children isn't normal. Finding badly behaved kids annoying is though.
No, failure to breed can only be offset by setting aside breeding to enable fellow members of your tribe to breed even more. The game is to out reed your opponents, so only tactics that allow your tribe to overcome the other can be considered a victory. "Working in a 3rd World Country" etc. while sentimental, is not a successful tactic for the cold gray game of natural selection. Play to win rather than to receive a bs participation trophy.
I say the real issue is narcissism/solipsism. Many adult aged people in the West never grew out of the childhood narcissism because there was no pressure to belong or conform to something larger than the self. They don't want kids because of the self sacrifice. They don't want to marry or even date because of the sacrifice. Everything promoted is promoted because it serves the self. So long as narcissism continues to be rampant and grow in the citizenry, the more failures will occur until a collapse.
Regarding adoption, being the helpful aunt, etc. Those are all worthwhile backup plans if Plan A (have kids) fails.
I had a business fail once. I managed to sell the assets for a little bit of money, which salvaged something from the situation, but the business still failed. It didn't set out to try to fail, but sometimes things don't work and then you do your best to salvage what you can. Salvaging what you can is an honorable thing to do, it just shouldn't be your Plan A.
From a biological stand point you're obviously right. So then the question becomes: "so what?"
Aside from the Christian perspective, why should a particular person care if they are a biological failure or not?
Interesting issues here. Is a man less or more of a failure than a woman if he fails to have children? Related: is male homosexuality less or more of a human failure than female homosexuality, given that both are spiritual disasters?
' Is a man less or more of a failure than a woman if he fails to have children?'
Less...his role is to be a productive member of society in the scope of why he was born. To labor and toil. God set this tone back in Genesis.
What could be more important than reproduction for women in society? I would posit that there are a multitude of ways a woman today could add to society resulting in a net positive (which I submit would remove the failure label.)
Being a teacher and positive role model for youth with none such (or terrible) examples in their own lives.
By teaching them to repeat her own mistakes. Be feminist, but accept some traditional roles (all the benefits but none of the responsibilities). Put off having kids, and focus on career. Everything's awesome, don't be judgemental. Very positive role model.
To hell with society and being a success in it. Why did VD forget MPAI? Most people should not reproduce, as they are almost all idiots. Enjoy life and have fun and get rich.
Most people however think of "as a human being" meaning "as something more than animal," as something that transcends biology.
Gnosticism is alive and well in the modern belief that the body is completely separate from the soul, at best a pleasure machine and at worst an anchor. From that they reject the idea that what you do with your body has any inherent moral value. It's not supposed to matter what you do with your genitals, as long as you're a Good Person spiritually and emotionally.
I think this is one of Vox's points (much like the MGTOW ones) that most people simply aren't going to be able to get. You can explain it word-by-word with charts and definitions and color glossy pictures with circles and arrows, and you'll only be able to get them as far as, "Okay, I see what you mean, but still..." It's just too emotional. But that's okay.
Talk of exceptions makes me think of St. Rose of Lima (Peru), Virgin, the first canonized saint from the Western Hemisphere. She was known even as a child for her absolute devotion to Jesus, but also for her great beauty. Her parents wanted her to marry -- with her looks and grace she could have married very well and helped out her poor parents who had 12 other children -- but she wanted to be a nun. As she grew up, her beauty was so admired that she began doing things to uglify herself to keep suitors away -- rubbing hot peppers on her face to cause a rash, for instance, and chopping off her hair. (Even in 1600 they knew short hair on women was ugly!)
She took on increasingly extreme penances, whatever her confessor would allow, and constantly begged him to let her do more. She was never admitted as a nun, but lived like one in a bare cell in her father's home until her death at age 31. By then she was already well-known in the area for her holiness, her absolute devotion to Christ, and her attentions to the poor and sick. Many miracles were reported in her name, and the Church canonized her only 54 years later, which was pretty fast back then when the standards were high.
Of course there are exceptions. But the problem in our society isn't that we have too many St. Rose of Limas, so that exception is irrelevant. It would be an insult to compare her to the girl who dates through her 20s while telling the guys she does or doesn't bang, "Oh, I don't think I'll ever want kids." These are not women who are devoting their lives to some higher calling, some holy purpose that doesn't leave room in their life for motherhood. These are just little girls saying, "No, I don't want to come in and eat my peas yet; I'm still having fun out here in the treehouse playing doctor with the boys. I'll eat them when I feel like it."
By teaching them to repeat her own mistakes. Be feminist, but accept some traditional roles (all the benefits but none of the responsibilities). Put off having kids, and focus on career. Everything's awesome, don't be judgemental. Very positive role model.
This is the reason I said "Assume for a second...does not attempt to dissuade other women from having children..." My suggestion is predicated on the fact that the woman is a net positive on society, obvious qualities that would disqualify her negate that argument completely. I'm not suggesting ALL teachers are net positives, I'm suggesting that this particular specimen can overcome that and be an actual positive role model and thus not a failure.
I completely understand the link of narcissism to not wanting to bear or raise children. But there have to be at least a few ways to contribute to "your tribe" or society that can counteract the failure to procreate. As said above men can "labor and toil." Why not something similar for women.
"Talk of exceptions makes me think of St. Rose of Lima (Peru), Virgin, the first canonized saint from the Western Hemisphere . . . . Of course there are exceptions. But the problem in our society isn't that we have too many St. Rose of Limas, so that exception is irrelevant."
Admittedly, I am not well-versed in Catholicism, but I would assume that someone like St. Rose of Lima, Mother Teresa, et al were responding to a 'call' ostensibly from G-d. If they didn't respond to this particular and EXCEPTIONAL call, the only other alternative for them would have been wife and mother. Both alternatives would therefore express a commitment and devotion to G-d's will.
" . . . the girl who dates through her 20s while telling the guys she does or doesn't bang, "Oh, I don't think I'll ever want kids.""
Alternative number three for the G-dless and immoral who could care less about G-d's thoughts on the matter, I suppose.
FWIW, from a Jewish perspective, celibacy and castration are excesses that are no less grievous than debauchery and licentiousness. The Jewish idea is that the sensuous side of us is to be kept within prescribed moral limits established and dictated by a Holy God.
Sexual encounters outside the context and covenant of marriage (a divine institution) is fornication; sexual intimacy within the context of the marriage covenant is holy and honorable.
Aside from the Christian perspective, why should a particular person care if they are a biological failure or not?
Not quite on par with "Be fruitful," but Darwinists do have that survival of the fittest thing . . . never mind. No true Darwinists would tolerate the privilege of being "fittest."
Next question: if a man doesn't impregnate a female, is he a failure as a human being?
Next next question: From a biblical perspective, if a woman doesn't bear forth children in pain, and a man doesn't eat by the sweat of his brow, haven't they each failed?
Not quite on par with "Be fruitful," but Darwinists do have that survival of the fittest thing . . . never mind. No true Darwinists would tolerate the privilege of being "fittest."
well by that metric somebody who has a natural disinclination to reproduce is NOT fit and actually shouldn't reproduce.
But that still doesn't really answer my question of why, religious reasons aside, should an individual care if they are a biological failure or not?
@Jack Amok
The problem with that analogy is that you can always make another business, but if a woman is barren or a man infertile, it's not just a matter of dusting yourself off and giving another go at it. And adoption is not the same thing as children which are biologically yours.
The business you made after the first one failed may be in a different field, but it remains both your business.
"From a biblical perspective, if a woman doesn't bear forth children in pain, and a man doesn't eat by the sweat of his brow, haven't they each failed?"
I don't think these were commands as much as consequences for disobedience i.e. sin.
Double E -
On what basis are you posing "should?"
Double E,
We talk about "saving Western Civilization" here. That's where the "should" comes from.
Ultimately, those who don't want to reproduce are our ideological enemies, once they start infecting other, good people with their death-cult ideas about why they shouldn't reproduce.
Sensible, traditional societies have always had a tiny minority of people who choose not to reproduce. They are tolerated, but look on as freaks and weirdos. As they should be.
Yes, women's natural desire to have children is nature's way of propagating the species. However, I would not automatically label those women who do not have this natural desire and therefore choose not to have children failures. Perhaps there's a kind of natural selection we don't understand going on. Here's another way to think of it: is it really in humanity's best interest, let alone modern man's best interest, for radical feminists to reproduce? Hell no.
As for Vox's regret that Isaac Newton never had children, I think he's looking at it the wrong way. To raise children correctly, a father must spend time and attention raising and teaching his children, time and attention Newton would have spent away from his study of mathematics and science. Now *that* would have been the real tragedy. Besides, Newton had serious mental issues. Some say he was bi-polar. He himself said he suffered at least one nervous breakdown, possibly two. Others speculated he was a latent homosexual. In any case, he didn't show any romantic interest in any woman at any time. Since he was essentially a savant, I'm not surprised. Most exceedingly brilliant men don't connect well with other people on an interpersonal level.
But that still doesn't really answer my question of why, religious reasons aside, should an individual care if they are a biological failure or not?
Most individuals do care about something. They have some subjective moral code or set of ethics they adhere to, that make sense to them. Outside of Nihilism, I'm having a hard time thinking of a philosophy a woman may have that wouldn't support reproduction.
I would think Utilitarianism would certainly find a woman who doesn't reproduce to be a drain of resources without replenishment to the tax base.
If women understood that their choice to not reproduce is an expression of Nihilism and is dyscivic, they might reconsider. Especially if shamed. Women really don't like being shamed. It is SUCH a useful tool.
Newton's mother was basically an opportunistic twat who was probably dissatisfied with her first marriage, remarried soon after her husband's death, wanted to get her son involved in farming, which he hated, and pretty much neglected him throughout his life, left him psychologically damaged and emotionally stunted. Nobody ever taught him how to become a potential husband and father. He never had a chance.
Echoing a sentiment that Kim Priestap about I. Newton:
Should the mentally ill be encouraged to propagate? Even if they are Christian?
I only say that because I used to go to a small inner city church that provided food and housing to the homeless.
Many of these people were wholly incapable of maintaining even a part time job. Some were at the functional level of small children themselves.
The chances of their potential children becoming responsible, contributing adults would be practically nil.
If the child was not adopted by someone who was willing to raise a low functioning, and possibly "troubled" child then it would just end up another ward of the state.
I'm not suggesting ALL teachers are net positives, I'm suggesting that this particular specimen can overcome that and be an actual positive role model and thus not a failure.
Because women are herd animals. A woman who never marries and focuses on teaching will encourage the girls she teaches to never marry and also focus on teaching. It amplifies her behavior, and what do you think will follow from all those unmarried single young teachers ... ?
So much for net positive. I'm following your premise and finding the results will contradict the assumption, "that the woman is a net positive on society".
Now, it'd be different if she starts off teaching as a single and gets herself married off in a few ... but then that too contradicts the premise ... because the best female role model is to Get. Married. (Wisely)
Should the mentally ill be encouraged to propagate?
Is it in anyway dishonest to say those who don't are failures at reproduction?
@Jack Amok
Nah, the emotional response is to the "as a human being" part. Of course Vox is using it as rhetoric, but the core truth within the rhetoric is the notion that "as a human being" means our biological selves, as opposed to our spiritual selves
Vox could even put his words "And while this doesn't make her a failure at anything else," in flashing red letters at the top of the post and it wouldn't matter, the separation of biological and spiritual is just not getting through to some.
What is life about? Is it just the short span you are on the planet and nothing more? If the answer is anything but that, then not having children would be to fail. Why? Because life is to live and beget life. Failing to do so means you are terminating your line, your heritage, etc. You can only look back, not toward the future because with your end there is no longer life flowing from you.
I think of a scene from the movie/book "The Thirteenth Warrior", where the norsemen are giving their death speeches and refer to looking behind them and seeing their forebears. Part of that has always resonated with me and the idea that your line flows out after you with you as a link has always been the completion of that concept to me.
"Besides, Newton had serious mental issues. Some say he was bi-polar. He himself said he suffered at least one nervous breakdown, possibly two. Others speculated he was a latent homosexual. In any case, he didn't show any romantic interest in any woman at any time. Since he was essentially a savant, I'm not surprised. Most exceedingly brilliant men don't connect well with other people on an interpersonal level. "
Examined from a different angle it would be just as easy to assert it was the LACK of family that left him imbalanced. Perhaps you have never found a relationship to bring you peace, renewing you and enabling you to do more. Perhaps Newton would have lived longer and produced more if he had had those personal connections. I believe there have been more than a few studies citing the longer life span of married men. Who knows, Newton's son may have even surpassed him.
Most exceedingly brilliant men don't connect well with other people on an interpersonal level.
In my own case, I seem to connect well with other high-IQ men, and can connect just fine with women, since flirting and sexual behavior doesn't require IQ parity. There's this one silly bimbo I know who's an absolute blast to BS with.
I do have trouble with average-IQ men, though. I couldn't care less about college and pro sports, which seems to be the default topic of choice for such men.
"I submit, is entirely more damaging and degrading to women than to suggest that they have a extraordinarily important purpose at which they can fail."
But but.. even Dr Helen doesn't want women to be judged by criteria that leads to clear pass or fail.
The problem with that analogy is that you can always make another business,
Way to completely miss the point. I didn't set out to fail. Salvaging what I could of the failure was not my Plan A. It was what I was left with after Plan A didn't work. If I tried to claim that ending up with chicken scratching for two years of work was what I actually wanted to do, everybody would be justified in laughing at me.
A woman who tries to have kids, fails, and then falls back on adoption or helping her siblings raise their kids is doing her best to salvage what she can and deserves admiration. A woman who says she will intentionally avoid having children but make up for it by being an good aunt is planning on failure and deserves ridicule.
The unattached, child-free life may appeal to men and women at 25, but they'll find it's lost its luster a decade later. And at 45, the age when you feel the first cold wind of mortality down the back of your neck, it's a pretty miserable substitute for a family.
Here's another way to think of it: is it really in humanity's best interest, let alone modern man's best interest, for radical feminists to reproduce? Hell no.
They are still failures as human beings when they don't. If they do, there is at least some chance that either (a) mom will wise up, or (b) their children will realize mom is full of shit and ignore her stupidities.
God knows I don't agree with my mom on everything...
From a biblical perspective, if a woman doesn't bear forth children in pain, and a man doesn't eat by the sweat of his brow, haven't they each failed?
A man who is a burden on society - who eats at the expense of others - is also a failure as a human being.
What could be more important than reproduction for women in society? I would posit that there are a multitude of ways a woman today could add to society resulting in a net positive (which I submit would remove the failure label.)
"Being a net positive" does not mean they're doing something more important than reproducing.
Think of the most accomplished woman you know who doesn't have kids. (I know lots of accomplished women without kids.) They are doing things that "add to society". BUT is what they are doing more important than reproducing? NO. None of them are doing anything a man couldn't do. If they fail to reproduce, they remain failures as human beings.
If you do not reproduce, your failure is truly comprehensive:
1. You have failed yourself.
2. You have failed your spouse.
3. You have failed your family.
4. You have failed your ancestors.
5. You have failed your country.
6. You have failed your race.
7. You have failed humanity.
"They are still failures as human beings when they don't."
In an objective sense, yes, but man does not live in a vacuum. Radical feminists have caused so much damage to society (anti-patriarchy and anti-family) and humanity as a whole (abortion) that I consider their not reproducing a feature, not a bug.
"If they do, there is at least some chance that either (a) mom will wise up, or (b) their children will realize mom is full of shit and ignore her stupidities."
You're an optimist, clearly. Me, I still don't like the risk to benefit ratio in light of the damage radical feminism has done and will continue to do.
If you don't have kids your the first one since the beginning of time to drop the ball, its 2.billion an 0 and you just added a 1 to the loser column. Now the game is over for your line, the game stops once 1 drops the ball, 2 billion perfect passes, well done butterfingers!!
I avoid reality, if you go near it or stay to close for too long you might not be able to retreat to that safe place, the safe place is a bubble that reality will burst. Don't let it get to you losers!! Hide!!
Divorced guy, propped up by marriage and kids. Underlying losersville waiting to get out, dumped when kids get to adulthood. Mrs takes new guy to his local, to him he's hounded out. Saw him walking to his "new local" (he's already fcked just saying that) with one of those Aussie hats that are meant to stop the flies. Its British winter. He goes back to where he came from, gasses himself in a car.
Reality destroys when your weak.
I hate reality.
What is the chief end of man?
Man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.
..............
It does no good for a Christian to appeal to a false philosophy in order to advise his fellow Christians on how to live - and even less good for those Christians to accept the false philosophy's premises.
The only good purpose an appeal to a false philosophy can have, is to demonstrate its bankruptcy to its adherents and to the undecided.
Feather Blade, as a woman, why were you created?
>From a biological stand point you're obviously right. So then the question becomes: "so what?"
>Aside from the Christian perspective, why should a particular person care if they are a biological failure or not?
Because your ancestors, suffered, fought, and died so that you might live. Not to pass on the favor makes you among the most ungrateful, repugnant, and worthless of humanity.
Because your ancestors, suffered, fought, and died so that you might live. Not to pass on the favor makes you among the most ungrateful, repugnant, and worthless of humanity.
lol Oh gimme a break. What you mean is it makes me repugnant to YOU.
So I ask again, why should I care?
Double E -
On what basis are you posing "should?"
Exactly.
Double E,
We talk about "saving Western Civilization" here. That's where the "should" comes from.
Ultimately, those who don't want to reproduce are our ideological enemies, once they start infecting other, good people with their death-cult ideas about why they shouldn't reproduce.
Sensible, traditional societies have always had a tiny minority of people who choose not to reproduce. They are tolerated, but look on as freaks and weirdos. As they should be.
You really believe there is any amount of children I can have that would "save western civilization"? And the "well what if everyone did it?" argument isn't a real argument for or against anything. If everyone went all in in a poker hand, I wouldn't do it. But if everybody limps in and I'm last to act, it may make more sense.
Genetically/statistically speaking a person not wanting to reproduce is 'weird", but that doesn't mean there is any compelling reason for me to do it, especially when it wouldn't even accomplish 'saving civilization", even it that were my goal.
People not wanting to reproduce are not necessarily "our" ideological enemies. Like you said there is always a small amount that doesn't want to, and that group is not the one destroying civilization. I am not running around proselytizing about not having kids like these crazed feminists who are doing it for ideological purposes, I just don't want any.
And yet you feel I should have some just because? No thanks.
Those of you who want to get the more intelligent, competent people to have more kids should support the following ideas:
First, legalize and reinstate polygamy. Successful men ought to be able to have harems and to have kids through those harems. Implementing this will require changes in divorce/family law. Say, if you are worth, for example, $100 million, and one of your five wives divorces you after 10 years or so, the law would allow her, say, a max of $5 million or so in assets. This is enough for her to live financially independent for the rest of her life, but would only be a small portion of the successful man's assets. If implemented properly, polygamy is quite eugenic because the successful men are passing their (superior) genetics on whereas the less capable men (presumably with inferior genetics) will have fewer kids or no kids at all. This will improve society's human capital over time.
Second, not only make legal, but offer tax and other incentives to promote the massive reenginering of the human race using CRISPR and other biotechnologies so that people will giver birth to better kids. Cognitive and behavioral traits as well a superior athleticism and better immune resistance to disease should be bio-engineered into our offspring. People of low cognitive and behavioral characteristics should be encouraged (again through the tax and social welfare system) NOT to have kids. I simply do not understand the reticence towards the (eugenic) genetic engineering of the future generations in our society. The Chinese are very much in favor of this. The future will belong to those societies who improve their human capital at the maximum possible rate.
Thirdly, much finance and R&D effort should be put into developing exowombs. Exowombs will allow for more women as well as older women to have kids without having to experience the health risks (not to mention cosmetic changes) of pregnancy. A lot of women (and men) do want kids, but do not want the hassle (and physiological changes) of pregnancy. Exowombs will increase the attractiveness of having kids among people who otherwise might not have kids. Japanese and Chinese researchers are working to develop exowomb technology. We should do the same.
All of these policies will not only increase the birthrate, but will improve the human capital of the future generations, thus countering the current dysgenic trends that affect our society. I think all conservatives and other right-thinking people should support such policies. Being a Christian does not require that one be a luddite. If god did not want us to use such technologies to improve ourselves (and our progeny) he would not have given us the brains and intellect to do so. The fact that he did clearly implies he wants us to pursue it. God is the ultimate bio-engineer. As his children, he wants us to follow in his footsteps by emulating him. It is time to discard the false connection between religion and luddism.
I just don't want any.
So you're a genetic dead end who is a failure reproductively. As Vox said:
it does mean that she has failed in her singular duty to her species, to her sub-species, and to her genetic line; she has failed to continue it.
And If you dispute this statement you need to either:
a) claim that women have a more important purpose in life or b) to claim that women have no purpose in life at all.
If "a" - what is it?
If we don't stigmatize childlessness, we will continue to die off.
You really believe there is any amount of children I can have that would "save western civilization"?
Yes -- and the number is two or more.
if the goal of a woman is not to have kids, then she is not a failure. she may not want to have kids. she may have other goals. her responsibility is to pursue those goals. once those goals are met she will be happy. but if she does not have kids it does not make her a failure in this sense. that sounds stupid.
OT:
Sex And The Valley: Tech Guys Seek Expert Love Advice From Therapists
“Dan” seems at first to perfectly embody that popular object of scorn these days in San Francisco: the privileged tech worker. He’s a developer-turned-manager at a thriving startup, the type of guy you would expect to see dodging protesters at a Google bus stop or evicting low-income tenants in order to build his dream condo. But beyond that veneer of untouchable privilege, there is a soft underbelly. He’s a 40-year-old virgin, and his troubles with women are bad enough that he’s sought out a sex therapist for help....
I just talked to our IT contractor at my company. He and his wife adopted two kids from India (they have infertility problems that prevent them from having their own kids). He told me that the waiting period for those who want to adopt anglo kids is unbelievably long (something like 5 to 10 years). This gave me the following idea that might help increase U.S. birth rates. It is known that several groups of Japanese and Chinese researchers are developing exowombs. They expect success sometime in the next 10 years. My idea is an exowomb breeding program that will create kids for those who want to adopt. That there is a 5 to 10 waiting period makes clear to me that there is a huge, unfulfilled market for adoption, particularly of anglo kids, that simply being ignored by all of the current providers. The other things are that both sperm and ova can be produced from stem cells and that CRISPR appears to be the real deal on grem-line genetic engineering. These capabilities work perfectly with exowomb technology to produce more (and better) kids. Perhaps this is a business venture that some of you might be interested in pursuing or investing in. Not only is it an opportunity to make money, but you would also be doing a service to our country and Western civilization. This is win-win at its finest.
@Jack Amok
Way to completely miss the point. I didn't set out to fail. Salvaging what I could of the failure was not my Plan A.
No shit.
A woman who tries to have kids, fails, and then falls back on adoption or helping her siblings raise their kids is doing her best to salvage what she can and deserves admiration. A woman who says she will intentionally avoid having children but make up for it by being an good aunt is planning on failure and deserves ridicule.
Of course.
You said exactly what I thought you said, so there's no way I missed your point. You apparently missed mine, however.
So you're a genetic dead end who is a failure reproductively. As Vox said:
it does mean that she has failed in her singular duty to her species, to her sub-species, and to her genetic line; she has failed to continue it.
And If you dispute this statement you need to either:
a) claim that women have a more important purpose in life or b) to claim that women have no purpose in life at all.
If "a" - what is it
I didn't dispute his statement at all. My question was, absent religious reasons, why should I, as a man who doesn't want children, care that I am a genetic dead end?
Yes -- and the number is two or more.
That is completely false. every single member of the ENTIRE population that you want to preserve has to have 2 or more kids for that to work.
According to all the data that is available, that is not happening in western civilizations. At this current point me personally choosing to have more or less than 2 kids will not change that, and I defy you to prove otherwise.
The answer is b since we know the universe will end and mankind will perish forever.
شرموطة سعودى بتتناك في مصر بزاز ملبنة وجسم نار
افيلم سكس محجبة شرموطة تتناك وتتصور بالحجاب
بنيك بنات جميلة هايجة فى المدرسة سكس بنات اجانب
بنيك بنات جميلة هايجة فى المدرسة سكس بنات اجانب
">
سكس بنات العالم
موقع يتخصص في افلام سكس عربي اجنبي وافلام اغراءو سكس مشاهير العالم وصور سكس
http://www.moviesxarabic.com/
ب
سكس تركي على السرير و نيكة حامية جدا بين الشا
سكس عربي نيك طحن لسعودية ممحونة
أفلام سكس نيك الطيز قصة نيك فاتن مع الباشا
سكس امريكى مولع ناار موزة صاروخ وراجل زبرة جامد
www.moviesxarabic.com
افلام سكس مشاهدة اون لاين نيك عربى الطيز
افلام سكس شرموطه سعودى نيك ساخن
نيك مراهقة مصرية من الصعيد محجبة - فيديو - عرب سكس تيوب
نيك محجبة مصرية وكلام يهيج وبتقولة زبرك نار -
فيديو سكس مصري ينيك محجبة مصرية
...........................
رقص سكس محجبة ساخن مصرية محجبة - تحميل افلام سكس
افلام سكس مصرية,محجبة مصرية بوس واحضان ساخنة
ينيكها في محل التجارة محجبة لذيذة
www.moviesxarabic.com
مصرية محجبة بزاز كبيرة تتناك داخل المستشفي
شرموطه محجبه بتتناك في الخلا مع عشيقها وسكس ساخ
www.moviesxarabic.com
قحبه خ
فيلم سكس لبناني روعة مص ونيك علي الارض
.....................
بفيلم سكس لبناني واضح - فيديو - افلام سكس تيوب : افلام
فيلم سكس مباشر نيك عراقية باوضاع مثيرة - افلام سكس تيوب
عاشر فيلم سكس عنتيل المحلة مدرب الكراتيه الفشيخ علي
www.moviesxarabic.com
سكس مجنون نــار ممنوع الدخول الا لمن يتحمل المنظر
سكس ام متناكة بزازها كبيرة تتناك من جارها سكس امهات | موقع
.................
بفيلم سكس مصري نيك شرموطه مصرية على السرير - فيديو ..
مصريه مغتصبه افلام اغتصاب | موقع افلام سكس
فيلم سكس سوري كامل - فيديو - افلام سكس تيوب : افلام سك
الممثلة الهنديه كاترينا كايف في فلم سكس رهيب - فيديو
www.moviesxarabic.com
فيلم سكس الفلاحه المصريه - فيديو - افلام سكس تيوب : افلام
فيلم سكس الشاعرة العراقية شهد الشمري - افلام سكس تيوب
فيلم سكس مص احلى بنات
فيلم سكس عربي افلام سكس | موقع افلام سكس
...................
سكس عربي خيانة زوجية متناكة فرسة تركب الزبر وتتناك ...
موقع سكس بينيكها في المطبخ فيلم سكس ساخن فشخ
فيلم نيك مصرى بنت مصريه جامده قوي - افلام سكس تيوب
اجدد فيلم نيك شرموطه مصريه www.moviesxarabic.comب
That is completely false. every single member of the ENTIRE population that you want to preserve has to have 2 or more kids for that to work.
So hey, congrats, you figured it out! The population, writ large, has to replace itself if the civilization is to continue!
According to all the data that is available, that is not happening in western civilizations. At this current point me personally choosing to have more or less than 2 kids will not change that, and I defy you to prove otherwise.
So go ahead and give up, then. You genes and your ideas will have no influence on the future of humanity. You will have failed - and this remains true no matter how many other people also fail, and indeed, if everyone else in the world fails.
The future will be owned by those who show up for it, which is as it should be.
I want to thank God for using Dr Okougbo Alaba as my source of savior after 2 year of joblessness and my lover left me alone for 2 years,Have just been heart broken until i go in contact with Dr Okougbo Alaba after i saw a lady testimony on how she was helped by this same dr Okougbo Alaba, So i decided to get in contact with him and when i told him all my problem he laughed and said this is not a problem that everything will be ok in 3days time. Exactly the 3rd day my ex lover called me i was shocked and what surprise me the most was that a company i applied for over 4month called me and said i should resume work as soon as possible.Am so grateful to Dr Okougbo Alaba if you wish in contacting him realhomeofspell@outlook.com He do cast the spell as following
(1) If you want your ex back.
(2) you need a divorce in your relationship
(3) You want to be promoted in your office.
(4) You want women & men to run after you.
(5) If you want a child.
(6) You want to be rich.
(7) You want to tie your husband & wife to be yours forever.
(8) If you need financial assistance.
(9) Herbal care
Contact him today on: realhomeofspell@outlook.com
You apparently missed mine, however.
No, but I'll let it go.
So go ahead and give up, then.
Give up on what? What is it you think I'm trying to accomplish?
You genes and your ideas will have no influence on the future of humanity.
One doesn't have to reproduce for his ideas to have influence on the future.
You will have failed - and this remains true no matter how many other people also fail, and indeed, if everyone else in the world fails.
Fail at what, reproducing? you're begging the question. You still have not addressed WHY I should care that I am a genetic failure if I fail to reproduce. I understand that since I have no innate desire to have kids I am a biological failure. So what?
The future will be owned by those who show up for it, which is as it should be.
I'm not showing up for the future anyway, i'll be dead.
My question was, absent religious reasons, why should I, as a man who doesn't want children, care that I am a genetic dead end?
My apologies, I thought you were a woman.
My apologies, I thought you were a woman.
No worries, but I would ask the same either way. If an individual doesn't have a religious motivation for reproducing, what reasons do they have to be concerned with whether they are a genetic/biological failure or not?
er, I am not embarrassed to admit that when my 25 and 21 year old daughters just recently began speaking about their future children, they were moments of inexplicable joy and relief. It was 'fashionable' for young women to protest that they would prefer to forgo children in pursuit of personal ambitions. Thankfully, it seems my daughters grew out of this mindset when the right mate was 'found'. Personally, I was a failure in marriage, and, consequently failed my children as a mother in that regard. I'm committed to supporting their not lapsing into the self-absorbed, illogical and emotionally driven beliefs and behaviors that I modelled as a young mother. Time and wisdom has corrected my wrong thinking and natural consequences are what they are. I am 45 and single. I expect this won't change. I wasn't competent for marriage when I was in my early twenties but I can influence the outcome of the marriages of my children, i hope. Truth is what it is, my people. We don't have to like it and it really doesn't care if we do. Nothing is as brilliant as natural consequences, imo.
Give up on what?
You're giving up on everything.
One doesn't have to reproduce for his ideas to have influence on the future.
Oh, so you have written an influential book? Or any book at all?
Buh bye.
Fail at what, reproducing?
Failed at everything.
I'm not showing up for the future anyway, i'll be dead.
Those of us who reproduced are showing up for the future even after we're dead.
You're giving up on everything.
This is just ludicrous rhetoric. There is no actual argument in your statement here. It is certainly not logically true that by failing to reproduce, one is "giving up on everything". That doesn't even mean anything. First of all to 'give up" on something you have to first care about it or be attempting it. What goal do you think I was attempting to achieve that I have given up?
Oh, so you have written an influential book? Or any book at all?
I have written a book, but that is irrelevant. Your reading comprehension and argumentative reasoning is very weak. I never said that I thought my ideas would influence the future. I was responding to the claim that one has to reproduce for their ideas to have influence on the future, which is demonstrably false. You seem to agree, by implying that ideas in a book could influence the future.
Where you get lost in the argumentative reasoning is by thinking my claim that something is possible is the same as claiming I have done it, or that it is even meaningful. Those are separate arguments.
Failed at everything.
Again, this is a nonsensical statement. There is no real argument here.
Those of us who reproduced are showing up for the future even after we're dead.
Not true. You may be able to exert some kind of influence on the future through your offspring, but you will not be there. But again the question is so what? you are begging the question. You are assuming a priori that being a biological failure or failing to influence the future are important, but you can not say why, aside from religious reasons.
If somebody is not religious, why does it matter if they are a biological failure, or if the don't have their genetic fingerprint on the population 500 years from now?
Not you or a single other person has yet addressed my question of why these issues should matter to an individual who is not religious, other than what appears to be an appeal to vanity/pride.
I am actually asking looking for an answer, not just to play devil's advocate. I am totally able to be convinced on this issue, but not with lame emotional outbursts like "you fail at everything". Gimme a break.
What a success! http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/30/us/killing-over-grades/index.html?sr=fb053115killingovergrades4pVODtopLink
Gender stereotypes for women exist for a reason. But if VoxDay was obedient to society's decrees, he wouldn't be living by his pen, one way or another. He would have obeyed Social Authority then, if he really thought that human potential could be limited by Decrees from above.
فيلم سكس مصرى نيك بنت مصرية مثيرة
سكس مصري محارم .ابن ينيك امة ويمص بزازها
شاب مصري ينيك اخته في الحمام وهي تصرخ
اخ بينيك اختة نيك فى المطبخ جامد جدا سكس امريكي مولع نار
دكتورة تمارس الجنس مع المريض سكس مولع نار
فيلم سكس رومانسى , نيك رومانسى على السرير
سكس يابانى مثير ولد ينيك مرات ابوه
سكس محجبة مصرية جميلة تتناك على السرير
سكس محارم نيك امهات فى الحمام
سكس اغتصاب شقراء بقوة نيك فتاة حلوة ومربربة
افلام نيك محجبات قصص سكس مثيرة
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.