TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

54

CMV: Women love having children to the point they feel entitled to it, but they frame it as a selfless sacrifice to gain privileges. (self.PurplePillDebate)

submitted by Ultramegasaurus

Listening to public discourse, motherhood is depicted as some kind of unavoidable "fate" a woman is subjected to, a sacrifice that demands adoration and provision. And because "they take one for the team", they demand special rights, e.g. employers having to to pay full wage while she's on parental leave.

However, when you tell them they are not required to have children and would make at least as much money as men if they focus everything on their career, they get offended. The reality is, women feel entitled to having children because they love having children. But framing it as a sacrifice and a duty instead of a personal choice enables them to demand more things. With 7 billion people on Earth (and counting), automation killing lots of jobs in the future and contraception being freely availbale, children are freely chosen luxury.


[–]IckyStickyPoo15 points16 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

Listening to public discourse, motherhood is depicted as some kind of unavoidable "fate" a woman is subjected to, a sacrifice that demands adoration and provision. And because "they take one for the team", they demand special rights, e.g. employers having to to pay full wage while she's on parental leave.

It's not "special rights".

If all women stopped having children tomorrow, then wait and see what would happen over the next 10, 20, 30 years. Your future would be sunk.

If we end up with too many elderly and not enough young taxpayers, you are sunk.

However, when you tell them they are not required to have children and would make at least as much money as men if they focus everything on their career, they get offended.

I don't see women getting offended by this. It is reality.

The reality is, women feel entitled to having children because they love having children. But framing it as a sacrifice and a duty instead of a personal choice enables them to demand more things.

It's both a choice and a sacrifice. Women do sacrifice work for children. Women do choose to have children and do want to have them. (Some women, not all). If we make it too unattractive for women to have children, we'll end up like Japan.

With 7 billion people on Earth (and counting), automation killing lots of jobs in the future and contraception being freely available, children are freely chosen luxury.

Pray tell, what would you have the world do without new children being born?

Will you substitute with little robots?

Yes, automation is coming in. Do you want to substitute all humans for robots? Yes, that would solve the problem. You won't have any nasty women wanting fairer workplaces.

But framing it as a sacrifice and a duty instead of a personal choice enables them to demand more things.

In short, you're saying men don't get preggers, and men are the standard model of human.

Women do get get preggers and women are not the standard model of human. So boo hiss, they can't have anything that men don't have.

Men don't get preggers. End of story.

[–]DB605Everyone's a BlackPill in the end8 points9 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

You act like the human population is going to fall to extinction tomorrow unless we keep pumping out 2.5 children. Decreasing the human population would take many many years, and we could honestly use it at this point.

It's both a choice and a sacrifice. Women do sacrifice work for children. Women do choose to have children and do want to have them. (Some women, not all). If we make it too unattractive for women to have children, we'll end up like Japan.

Japan is Japan because they have an issue with masculinity, not because women don't want kids.

You're also misusing the concept of sacrifice. Women make a sacrifice to themselves and possibly their husband. They aren't making a sacrifice to society. Society didn't ask them to get pregnant. They volunteered for it because they want a child.

[–]IckyStickyPoo5 points6 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

You act like the human population is going to fall to extinction tomorrow unless we keep pumping out 2.5 children. Decreasing the human population would take many many years, and we could honestly use it at this point.

No. I am saying, quite clearly, that if all women decide to stop having kids tomorrow, we will be sunk within a couple of generations.

Japan is Japan because they have an issue with masculinity, not because women don't want kids.

Women don't want kids there because the men are too masculine - in the way of being traditionally masculine and not changing with the times.

They aren't making a sacrifice to society. Society didn't ask them to get pregnant. They volunteered for it because they want a child.

It's a sacrifice in a wider sense. Because we need those children.

A choice such as what car you buy etc isn't going to affect society in the way having a child will.

[–]DB605Everyone's a BlackPill in the end1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

No. I am saying, quite clearly, that if all women decide to stop having kids tomorrow, we will be sunk within a couple of generations.

Your perception of children as some kind of necessity that must be constantly in production is really odd. If half as many women were having children we'd be fine, and if we needed more children (which we won't) then we can just encourage people to have more children.

Men can have children till they die. We will never be in a situation in which we go extinct because people aren't fucking enough.

We aren't even living in a period of time in which it takes 2 people to make 1 person. A single man's sperm can be used to impregnate 1,000,000+ women.

Women don't want kids there because the men are too masculine - in the way of being traditionally masculine and not changing with the times.

Ugh, lol, no,...Japanese culture is being overtaken by "Otaku" tendencies in men, traditional masculinity is mostly dead, and men find women too difficult or taxing so instead, retreat to other indulgences in life.

There are many documentaries on this. Japanese women cannot find masculine men to inspire their hypergamy, not that there are too many masculine Japanese men.

It's a sacrifice in a wider sense. Because we need those children.

A choice such as what car you buy etc isn't going to affect society in the way having a child will.

We do not. And even if we did, that opens the door to other arguments like "well, if we as a nation NEEEEED these kids, then why are feminists championing contraception and reproductive rights being handed over to the individual?"

[–]IckyStickyPoo3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

If half as many women were having children we'd be fine, and if we needed more children (which we won't) then we can just encourage people to have more children.

No. Untrue. We need a constant rate to keep things going the way they are.

Men can have children till they die. We will never be in a situation in which we go extinct because people aren't fucking enough.

No. Untrue. Men over 40 begin experiencing erectile dysfunction and impotence and their sperm (when they do ejaculate) takes an increasingly long amount of time to get a woman pregnant, and their sperm increasingly carries mutations.

We cannot rely on older men to impregnate women and father healthy children. That would spell doom.

[–]DB605Everyone's a BlackPill in the end0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

No. Untrue. We need a constant rate to keep things going the way they are.

No we don't. Many first world countries have falling birth rates, and have for possibly decades. My countries natural birthrate has been in decline since I was in middle school and almost all our population growth is via immigration.

No. Untrue. Men over 40 begin experiencing erectile dysfunction and impotence and their sperm (when they do ejaculate) takes an increasingly long amount of time to get a woman pregnant, and their sperm increasingly carries mutations. We cannot rely on older men to impregnate women and father healthy children. That would spell doom.

Firstly, this is a gross over exaggeration.

Second, none of this is pertinent to the original topic.

[–]IckyStickyPoo1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

almost all our population growth is via immigration

There you go. You did need to keep up the people population. Which means women are having the babies needed to keep countries running.

Firstly, this is a gross over exaggeration.

No, it isn't. That is from medical sources.

Second, none of this is pertinent to the original topic.

It is.

[–]DB605Everyone's a BlackPill in the end0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

There you go. You did need to keep up the people population. Which means women are having the babies needed to keep countries running.

No it doesn't. It means women are not having the babies required to replace the population, and instead our population grows via induction of adults from other nations who already had children, came alone, had children after they came here.

If all women in my, or any nation stopped wanting babies tomorrow, there'd be a good 70 years before it was a problem in need of correcting because all the people who are adults now would live out their lives (50'ish yrs), and all the children now would have to mature at least 20-25 years to have 2 babies feasibly.

That's how math works. You're wrong.

It is.

No it isn't. The two main focuses of the thread is whether or not women feel having children begets them entitlements.

Let's reframe because I'm just going to say she's making a personal sacrifice and you're just going to keep saying she's making a societal sacrifice. What entitlements are women deserving of for making this sacrifice to society?

[–]aznphenix4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Your perception of children as some kind of necessity that must be constantly in production is really odd. If half as many women were having children we'd be fine, and if we needed more children (which we won't) then we can just encourage people to have more children.

I think this is more related to the fact that current support structures would start collapsing, like they are in china. There's a lot of stress on the current young people of marriage/child bearing age because of the one child policies which are basically resulting in 2 people not only trying to start their own family but also having to support 2 sets of aging parents with no help from anyone else.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.4 points5 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

You're also misusing the concept of sacrifice. Women make a sacrifice to themselves and possibly their husband. They aren't making a sacrifice to society. Society didn't ask them to get pregnant. They volunteered for it because they want a child.

Ok but when you have a working mother who births a child presumably who will end up in the workplace, paying taxes, etc, how does that not benefit "society"? I don't get the argument that women should either a) have kids or b) work, not do both.

[–]DB605Everyone's a BlackPill in the end1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Women aren't having kids for the benefit of society. They're having kids because they want kids.

Society isn't asking or demanding women fuck and make kids.

Therefore, it's not a sacrifice they're making for their neighbour, it's a personal sacrifice she volunteered to make because women can rarely both work, pay taxes, homemake, and raise a baby.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.6 points7 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Women aren't having kids for the benefit of society. They're having kids because they want kids.

Obviously. This isn't about intent. It's about the result.

Therefore, it's not a sacrifice they're making for their neighbour, it's a personal sacrifice she volunteered to make because women can rarely both work, pay taxes, homemake, and raise a baby.

I never said they were making some "sacrifice" for the greater good. I asked if working mothers having children was ultimately better for "society." And I also disagree with you, most of the women I know do all that shit.

[–]DB605Everyone's a BlackPill in the end0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Obviously. This isn't about intent. It's about the result.

Says who, based on what?

I never said they were making some "sacrifice" for the greater good. I asked if working mothers having children was ultimately better for "society." And I also disagree with you, most of the women I know do all that shit.

That was the point of the person you were siding with, so what is YOUR point then?

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Says who, based on what?

My comment?

That was the point of the person you were siding with, so what is YOUR point then?

That it's not "bad" for society for working mothers to have children who presumably give back to society. Why is this hard to understand?

[–]DB605Everyone's a BlackPill in the end0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

My comment?

No where was it stipulated that sacrifice is about intent rather than result. I can sacrifice my entire life in the name of my country and not be entitled to a single thing.

That it's not "bad" for society for working mothers to have children who presumably give back to society. Why is this hard to understand?

No one was ever denying that. Whether it's bad or not is entirely up to the individual woman.

[–]lynx_and_nutmeg0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

You act like the human population is going to fall to extinction tomorrow unless we keep pumping out 2.5 children. Decreasing the human population would take many many years, and we could honestly use it at this point.

You do realise that if, starting today, no children were born in the whole planet for 50 years, the humanity would be doomed to extinction, right? 50 years might be a long time for an individual person, but for a society as a whole relative to the rest of the history it's a very short time. And it would take far less than 50 year to notice severe economical damage, and technically could take only 40 years to doom the humanity.

Besides, you don't understand how this works. It's not about the total human population. The total population doesn't matter. A society could exist with as few as 50 people, it would just be a very different society from one with 7 billion people. What matters is the proportion of young people vs old people in the society - aka, people of working age and retired people. Because in order for the economy to keep going, people who retire need to be constantly replaced by young people. It's the people of working age who are paying the taxes, some of which is going to the older people's pensions. Many countries already keep increasing the age of retirement higher and higher because they just can't afford paying pensions, despite the fact that productivity has already decreased sharply at that age. Do you want your surgeon to be a 75 year old who's not fit to do it anymore but is forced to because he couldn't afford to retire?

Also, you're underestimating the effect of lack of children to the economy in the sense that children is an immense industry. Obstetrics and midwifery, pediatrics, daycare, kindergartens, 18 years worth of education, a huge number of various other groups, companies and institutions aimed at children - all this would collapse if there were no or too few children to be born. In my country already many schools are closing, many people losing their jobs, because there just aren't enough children anymore.

Japan is Japan because they have an issue with masculinity, not because women don't want kids.

It's both. Japanese women who graduate higher education get into workplace together with men, but once they have children they're forced out. Many women, both single and married, choose not to have children for this reason. Also because being a mother in Japan is basically being a single mother, you almost never see your husband or boyfriend.

You're also misusing the concept of sacrifice. Women make a sacrifice to themselves and possibly their husband. They aren't making a sacrifice to society. Society didn't ask them to get pregnant. They volunteered for it because they want a child.

The society is still standing because currently there are enough women who want to have children on their own will - and yet most countries in the world already have below replacement fertility rates. Before long women are probably going to lose their reproductive rights because their current too low fertility rates are unsustainable for societies.

It's just like any other job. Currently there are enough people who voluntarily become doctors. What would happen if suddenly nobody wanted to be a doctor?

[–]ayeayefitlikeBlueish-Purple Pill Woman32 points33 points  (53 children) | Copy Link

motherhood is depicted as some kind of unavoidable "fate" a woman is subjected to

It is, you're quite right. And as a woman you are pushed towards it. It's 'when will you find a nice guy', and when you have, 'when will you get married', and not one minute after marriage it's 'when is the baby coming'.

Family, especially parents and grandparents, put a huge pressure on women to have kids. My own dad turned round to me when I said I wasn't convinced about having kids and preferred to improve my career and told me that I was a pointless human being if I didn't procreate - that that is the whole point of human existence. As a research scientist, thanks, dad.

However, when you tell them they are not required to have children

Because this goes against everything we've been told since we first had baby dollies stuffed into our hands at a year old. You aren't a 'real woman' til you've had kids, you'll regret not having them, your timeline is ticking, you need to have babies.

The reality is, women feel entitled to having children because they love having children

Some women just want to have kids. I've met women who view their job as something they do until they settle down and have kids. Plenty of women, and most of the entirety of my close social circle, are not that bothered by kids. Me, personally, I would rather not, but my partner is the one who is dying to be a dad.

But framing it as a sacrifice and a duty instead of a personal choice enables them to demand more things

Anyone framing it as a sacrifice and a duty is wrong, I will agree with you. It's a choice, although some people don't like hearing that. But supporting women's ability to take time out to have kids and return to a career is economically good sense - it maintains both our work force and birth rate, which in the Western increasingly aging population is actually quite important.

Equally, if we don't support intelligent, working women who add to society having children and force them to choose between having a career and having kids, then we put ourselves in the situation of breeding out intelligence. The human race will literally worsen.

Interestingly, studies have shown that education is the most effective form of contraception. Developing nations with increasing numbers of women remaining in education longer show slower birth rates as these women start in careers. If you're worried about the planet in terms of population, know that smaller families and fewer children go hand in hand with more educational opportunities and better career opportunities for women.

[–]ClarityofDisasterPerson Going Their Own Way9 points10 points  (21 children) | Copy Link

Family, especially parents and grandparents, put a huge pressure on women to have kids. My own dad turned round to me when I said I wasn't convinced about having kids and preferred to improve my career and told me that I was a pointless human being if I didn't procreate - that that is the whole point of human existence.

Your family sounds like mine. My younger siblings all plan on having families and say I'm selfish for not doing so, and my mother constantly worries that my "biological clock" is going to start ticking any day now. My ex-stepfather would say similar shit to me as your dad...that just because I have a vagina, my purpose in life is to be a mother.

My opinion? Fuck that noise. I'm not getting married, I'm not having kids, I want to make money, get out of debt, and open a gaming/comic store before I'm 40. If I had a husband and kids, that dream would have to go on the back burner.

Me, personally, I would rather not, but my partner is the one who is dying to be a dad.

Is he willing to be a SAHD so you can continue your career as planned?

[–]ayeayefitlikeBlueish-Purple Pill Woman15 points16 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Is he willing to be a SAHD so you can continue your career as planned?

Not stay at home (unfortunately he's actually the higher earner), but he has the opportunity to work from home and also has office flexitime as it is, so he'd be the parent to get called from nursery or school and to do the school run etc. He'd also take the bigger share of our parental leave (UK laws means we can share the leave and I would pump whilst he stays home during the first year).

I've made this really, really clear from the outset that, whilst I know I'd love them and all once they actually arrived, my career is not going to be the one to suffer for the kids, especially as research contracts are so child-unfriendly.

Being a SAHM is my idea of hell on earth and I've made that really clear to him. Thankfully he's ace and fully supports me.

Edit: Why is this getting downvoted?

[–]ClarityofDisasterPerson Going Their Own Way2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Good for the two of you! I hope everything works out exactly as you've stated, and think it's fantastic you already have a plan for how things are going to go.

[–]ayeayefitlikeBlueish-Purple Pill Woman4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't think anything ever works out quite as planned, but I hope if we plan our absolute best then my career won't suffer too much for it, and thankfully he's super supportive.

But if it weren't for flexible work options for childcare etc (it just happens its my partner who has them not me!) then we just couldn't do it.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas2 points3 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

open a gaming/comic store before I'm 40.

srs question: is that even viable anymore? Aren't b rick and mortar stores in general going down the drain, even bigger chains getting eaten by Amazon?

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Maybe in a big city where people are nostalgic, but otherwise, I'd totally agree with your assessment.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

well good luck it sounds cool :)

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It's not me love lol, I was just commenting on your question.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

oh shit just realized that lol

[–]philomexaIF THE POISON WON'T TAKE YOU MY DOGS WILL2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Yes and no; table top gaming is making a revival, so a gaming/comic store could charge admission and host game nights, tournaments, etc.

The dusty ass comic shop in my neighbour is surprisingly poppin' with the table top nerd set on Friday and Saturday nights.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

My friends and I frequent a tabletop gaming cafe/bar about once a week. They seem to run a pretty good business.

[–]aznphenix1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

They don't really charge admission, but yes game nights, tournaments, and they sell snacks usually.

[–]ClarityofDisasterPerson Going Their Own Way1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

It's definitely viable! The warehouse I work at sells a shit-ton of card/board games, and I have over 89 accounts (stores), many of whom spend thousands of dollars every week. I also have worked at such stores since I was 16, and am well-versed in this particular industry, both as a hobbyist and retailer.

I'll absolutely have to do some careful research into the demographic of the area I open up in...college heavy areas are best, so long as there isn't heavy competition of other preexisting shops...but as I've opened/managed 3 such stores already, I'm confident that I'd do well.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

That's awesome, good luck!

[–]ClarityofDisasterPerson Going Their Own Way1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Thank you 😀

[–]trpobservereats ass0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

Would you marry or LTR a guy who also didn't want to have kids?

[–]ClarityofDisasterPerson Going Their Own Way0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes. My bf of 10 years is also single, never married, and likewise doesn't have kids. I don't do marriage though, it's current form is inherently misandric, unfortunately.

[–]ClarityofDisasterPerson Going Their Own Way0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Do you want kids yourself?

[–]trpobservereats ass0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

So far, no

[–]ClarityofDisasterPerson Going Their Own Way0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Would you be in an LTR with a woman who also didn't want kids, then?

[–]trpobservereats ass0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah, its an easy way of having her decide for me lol.

[–]ClarityofDisasterPerson Going Their Own Way0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Ah, okay. It's different from my pov. I just wouldn't be with a guy who wanted kids, period. It's part of why I had so much trouble with online dating when I tried it out...I'm 30 and very happily childless, but kept getting messages from 28-45 yr old men who's profiles said they were single dads or were currently childless but definitely wanted kids. 😓 Unfortunately, having kids/wanting kids is a deal breaker for me.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It is, you're quite right. And as a woman you are pushed towards it. It's 'when will you find a nice guy', and when you have, 'when will you get married', and not one minute after marriage it's 'when is the baby coming'.

Am a guy, get the exact same pressure from family even though I'm still pretty young. Every single time I tell them I'm not having kids, they don't listen, it's all "oh you'll change your mind."

This is not something aimed only at women, this is just family for you.

[–]wyntonkniffinBuilding Power5 points6 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

Equally, if we don't support intelligent, working women who add to society having children and force them to choose between having a career and having kids, then we put ourselves in the situation of breeding out intelligence. The human race will literally worsen.

Several thousand years of human society and technology would like to have a word with you.

[–]ayeayefitlikeBlueish-Purple Pill Woman5 points6 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

Except that up until the last 30 years, very few women weren't at home having kids. Now, a significant percentage of women are pursuing careers - and if none of those women are supported in having families and instead choose careers, you are excluding the top % of educated women from the gene pool.

It's simple biology.

[–]wyntonkniffinBuilding Power0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

I'm not sure what your point is. 30 years is far too small to have an effect on a macroeconomic scale, and even demographic crises (such as 50% of the population being to old to reproduce... like the way Japan and Australia are going...) barely begin to play out over that scale.

But if a woman is going to pursue an educated high tech career, that's going to place barriers towards her having kids. She's almost self selecting herself out of the gene pool unless she pops them out and hands them off to daycare or the like (which has developmental implications for the child).

Even so, my point was that thousands of years of patriarchal society (in the anthropological sense) and we managed just fine on the technology front.

Now if you want to talk about middle class educated western demographics being "bred out", take a look at which racial demographics' reproduction rates far outstrip them...

[–]ayeayefitlikeBlueish-Purple Pill Woman2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Biological not macroeconomic. My point is exactly what youve said - by not supporting intelligent women to have kids during careers, then these women won't have kids and we select for less intelligent parents. We are only just starting to see this become a significant factor, but with an already ageing population (it's a significant problem in Scotland where I live) it will only take a generation to see an effect as number of young people is so important for socialist care of the elderly.

You're right in world terms of course - Asian and African population booms well over those of Caucasians now. And as our populations age we will require ever more immigration to support our elderly, and we'll probably see a complete demographic change over the long term. But that's sort of beside the point of why helping women have kids and careers is important socially.

[–]wyntonkniffinBuilding Power0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

My understanding of Asian immigration is that a disproportionate part of it (comparatively speaking) is tourism or international schooling, so we're seeing less demographic shift from immigration from highly educated Asian countries, whereas for third world immigration (African and Middle Eastern) it tends to be for longer term economic/SES purposes. And of course third world migrants are coming from much lower SES backgrounds which contributes towards greater strain on the western social security and social stability. This is a tangent but I think it's a much greater issue than trends in mate selection which discourage breeding of intelligent women over generations.

by not supporting intelligent women to have kids during careers, then these women won't have kids and we select for less intelligent parents.

I think there's a flaw in your thinking here. By hypothetically discouraging intelligent women from reproducing, we are not necessarily doing the same for men - so there will still be intelligent parents only they will be primarily male.

[–]ayeayefitlikeBlueish-Purple Pill Woman1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

By hypothetically discouraging intelligent women from reproducing, we are not necessarily doing the same for men - so there will still be intelligent parents only they will be primarily male

Interesting idea - but what this doesn't take into account is intelligent male preference for intelligent women. What we could be doing is taking both out of the genetic market whilst they live DINK lifestyles - your typical professional couple.

[–]wyntonkniffinBuilding Power0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

DINK? And having a preference does not mean it's exclusive. If intelligent women become inclined to forgo relationships, then intelligent men will just start seeking out less intelligent women.

[–]ayeayefitlikeBlueish-Purple Pill Woman0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Double income no kids. Therefore not foregoing relationships, but not able to have both a career and kids and so choosing the career.

Of course not, but if there is a correlation between intelligent guys pairing with intelligent girls then naturally you'll see fewer intelligent parents in each trending generation.

[–]wyntonkniffinBuilding Power0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Idiocracy is uncomfortably real sometimes

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

wow it's almost like intelligent women should be finding intelligent breadwinning husbands and not trying to be men?

[–]DemonConsulting4" Dragon14 points15 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

The choice between leading a self-determined, free life in a fulfilling career of thei choosing, for which they are respected in society and giving that up for 9 months of pregnancy and then painful labor, only to sit at home raising an ungrateful child for 18 years, dependent on a husband who can divorce them at any point, only to be called lazy and a drain on society for that choice... really doesn't seem that hard from an early 20s woman's perspective.

The thing is, individual intelligent young women don't profit from having children, unless that in itself is their dream. Society profits from it, which is why we should encourage it, if we want individual women to choose this path.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

dependent on a husband who can divorce them at any point

bread winning husband divorcing SAHM ==== DIVORCE RAPE INCOMING

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.15 points16 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Choosing to pursue a career is not "trying to be men" FFS.

[–]ayeayefitlikeBlueish-Purple Pill Woman7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Having a job, contributing to science or business or engineering or medicine or law or whatever field she might choose and being good at it is being a man, huh? I obviously have a bigger dick than I realised.

[–]BabaElvis0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't understand how marriage is still a thing..

Benefits are far n few and the divorce is fucking painful , but like dumbasses most people still marry.

[–]ayeayefitlikeBlueish-Purple Pill Woman0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Marriage is a thing because tradition. And because we're a romantic species that always thinks their relationship is one of the good ones that will make it. Otherwise, yeah, I agree with you.

[–]OfSpock0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

If you exclude the damage that intelligent women with no desire for children do to their children when they quit work and have them anyway.

[–]handklap6 points7 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

And as a woman you are pushed towards it.

Secret: It's not men doing the "pushing"

[–]ayeayefitlikeBlueish-Purple Pill Woman4 points5 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

Never said it was. I've had more pushing by female relatives, but also by male ones and even by partners.

[–]handklap1 point2 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

As you just mentioned, it is overwhelmingly women who push this narrative upon other women, yet the narrative strangely ignores this point with, instead, the same usual demonization of men, The Patriarchy, etc.

[–]ayeayefitlikeBlueish-Purple Pill Woman5 points6 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Did I mention the patriarchy? It's society in general. As I said, my dad has brought it up as much as my mother to me. Part of it is definitely a sense of superiority from women with kids to women without, but part of it is general familial expectation and partner expectation.

I know this is anecdotal, but none of my serious partners haven't wanted kids. Maybe I just attract guys who want a family, but in my friend circle too (admittedly highly educated and ambitious men and women) more of the guys want family than the women.

I don't think it's the patriarchy by any means, but I think there is a societal expectation that women want kids, and as more women are making the choice of career over family, its creating conflict with family and relationships.

[–]handklap4 points5 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Whenever there is bad behavior from women - slut-shaming each other, hypergamy, child-shaming each other... suddenly it's the fault of "society in general". That's weird, right?

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

How is choosing to have children and work "bad behavior" on the part of women?

Edit: wait I might have misconstrued your point. Are you just talking about so-called "child-shaming" or are you talking about OP's point too?

[–]handklap1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Child-shaming is almost exclusively female-on-female bad behavior and it cuts both ways. Stay at home women shame career women as bad mothers because they leave their kids in daycare and selfishly spend so much time away from them at work. Career women shame stay at home women as settling for a "lesser than" option where they are "only" a housewife and mother, contributing to oppression, not as admirable as the Grrl Power VP of Tech company. Boths sides at each other's throats. Society's fault again, right?

[–]InterversityPurple Pill, Blue Tribe3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Check out the stories on /r/childfree. There are plenty of men who act like it's a foregone conclusion that women must have children to have purpose. I would agree that it's more women than men, but it's certainly not "almost exclusively" women. And I say this as a dude.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think what you're talking about is judgment. I don't see career women and SAHMs en masse publicly shaming each other.

[–]ayeayefitlikeBlueish-Purple Pill Woman6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Because it isn't just women. If it were just women, then yesnit would be women's fault. But both men and women - probably most accurately parents - put this pressure on young women.

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The Patriarchy

Even if she would say that it's due to patriarchy there wouldn't be any contradiction here because no one except the manosphere thinks that the patriarchy is the fault of all men and men only.

It's a demonization of traditional gender roles, but not of men in general.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I was a pointless human being if I didn't procreate - that that is the whole point of human existence.

he was kind of right IMO, but fuck meaning and fuck human existence

[–]Lammergayer2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Technically procreation isn't even the only way to be biologically successful--while it's the ideal it's also a viable strategy to ensure your close relatives are successful at reproduction. So helping raise a sibling's or cousin's kid also works.

[–]Princeso_Bubblegum☭ The real red pill ☭12 points13 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Why shouldn't be value and respect the process in which our species continues? I think having a kid is far more important than whatever nonsense work people do in office cubicles.

[–]DemonConsulting4" Dragon7 points8 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

They obviously don't love it enough/ universally, given that my country, Germany, has a measly birth rate of 1.4 children per woman, leaving it far under the replacement rate. And that is not even featuring in the fact that the women who have the most children are the poor, the uneducated and immigrants from countries where motherhood is still considered the norm and a virtue. It's not really surprising either since motherhood largely leaves you dependent on other people/ society as a whole while severely limiting your personal freedoms and career, without any tangible reward for the next 18 years.

So yeah, at this point I would say it is a sacrifice to society if a middle class woman decides to have children before 30, or at all, instead of climbing the career ladder and enjoying her freedom. Children are fundamentally the basis of society and right now that basis is crumbeling in many western countries, especially for the educated middle class (which already faces shrinkage due to economic factors). The alternative is either an ever aging population with high rates of poverty and lack of care in old age or importing immigrants from societies that encourage motherhood.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

importing immigrants

Don't worry, Merkel already did that.

[–]DemonConsulting4" Dragon1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, I know. And if all women were really as baby-crazy as the OP suggests, people couldn't hide behing the whole "we need more workers" excuse.

[–]IckyStickyPoo1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Perfect and rational comment.

Cannot believe I'm hearing this from a red piller. Are you male or female?

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Female

[–]IckyStickyPoo0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Ok, that explains it.

[–]DemonConsulting4" Dragon1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm female, although I have heard this exact position from plenty of people who are Red Pill, just not the angsty teens over at TRP who "enjoy the decline" or whatever. It's a pretty traditionally conservative view to want people to have more children early on, instead of chilling and partying in their 20s, then climbing the career ladder. The solution for the problem is probably the more controversial one, with one side wanting more state funding and regulation to get women to work on their career and have kids, the other side wanting to go back to having women choose kids instead of a career.

[–]IckyStickyPoo0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I have heard this exact position from plenty of people who are Red Pill

Must be RPW.

[–]DemonConsulting4" Dragon0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

yeah that and traditionally "Red Pill" people irl like most masculine men, especially the older ones, in contrast to young men online who want to become that

[–]SkinnySweaty points points [recovered] | Copy Link

Such a fucked up perspective.

Just another "all women think like this and I know because I read it on Reddit" posts that do more to highlight the weirdness of the OP than anything else.

[–]DB605Everyone's a BlackPill in the end2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Then you should be able to provide a counter argument beyond reproach.

[–]IamTheWalkingMenu points points [recovered] | Copy Link

Are all the Mother's Day ads getting to you?? 😂 I don't think motherhood is depicted as "some unavoidable fate" in public discourse. Lots of people decide not to have kids and are just as shrill as everybody else on a mission, like vegans. How they say "I'm childfree be choice!" Lolol imagine a childfree vegan 😂 Omg that would be funny.

[–]ClarityofDisasterPerson Going Their Own Way2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm a childfree vegetarian, does that count? 😉

[–]IamTheWalkingMenu points points [recovered] | Copy Link

Only if you are adequately self righteous about?!?! 😂

[–]ClarityofDisasterPerson Going Their Own Way3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Nah. People are free to eat as much meat and pop out as many kids as they want, it's not like I have any say in their lives (or particularly care). However, I dislike having to constantly defend my own choices, so I usually keep quiet about them irl unless someone makes an assumption.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Same on both issues.

[–]CoolLad0 points1 point  (15 children) | Copy Link

what's your personal view on vegans

[–]IamTheWalkingMenu points points [recovered] | Copy Link

I don't have a personal view on vegans. I'm sure they're lovely and they can eat whatever they like. I just don't like it when people act like their choices give them some kind of superiority over everyone else so they have to keep bringing it up.

[–]CoolLad-1 points0 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

do you think vegan diets are more healthy then meat eating diets

[–]IamTheWalkingMenu points points [recovered] | Copy Link

Idk? Idc either since I'm not giving up meat or dairy or anything else I like.

[–]CoolLad-2 points-1 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Why would you not give up on dairy, meat etc?

[–]IamTheWalkingMenu points points [recovered] | Copy Link

I like

[–]GridReXXit be like that6 points7 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Lol the vegan found you

[–]IamTheWalkingMenu points points [recovered] | Copy Link

Really lol

[–]CoolLad1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

do you think there are any ethical complications with producing and consuming meat

[–]Lammergayer0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Objectively speaking, the healthiness of vegan versus non vegan diets depends on the individual. Some people benefit greatly from going vegan, other people get horrifically sick and are quickly forced to give it up.

[–]CoolLad0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Is it possible that a well balanced vegan diet is more healthy and nutritious than a well-balanced meat eating diet

[–]Lammergayer0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

For some people. For others, meat is a requirement. A well balanced vegan diet is also not always possible, and is in fact harder to achieve than a well balanced meat inclusive diet.

[–]wtknightHardcore Romantic6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

With 7 billion people on Earth (and counting), automation killing lots of jobs in the future and contraception being freely availbale, children are freely chosen luxury.

Somebody still has to have kids, though, despite what the world's population is, or the population will soon become 0. If everybody woman who wanted a kid only had one kid instead of more, I would argue that it is still in society's best interests to give women those job protections. Men often benefit from these, as well. I don't think every man in a relationship or marriage suddenly wants to go from two incomes to one income, and then have to support their newborn with that one income, just because he and his partner choose to have a child.

[–]OfSpock10 points11 points  (26 children) | Copy Link

I could say the same thing about men and military service.

[–]HighResolutionSleepMen have always been the primary victims of maternal mortality.4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Not really; men don't demand entitlements except maybe health care, which they often don't receive in full.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

FMLA exists to provide medical leave in certain circumstances. Why wouldn't women take advantage of that? You can take FMLA to care for a sick family member -- if that option exists for you why wouldn't you take it?

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism1 point2 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Sitting there, enjoying your freedom and not even supporting the guys at the borders defending ya freedom? If these guys weren't there the queen of England could land in long island while the emperor of Japan claims Santa Barbara for his country. You should be grateful for their sacrifice! And by that I mean don't do more than say "Thanks for your service" if you ever see someone in uniform.

[–]IckyStickyPoo7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Sitting there, enjoying your freedom and not even supporting the guys at the borders defending ya freedom?

Sitting there, enjoying your world of comforts paid for by the people that women give birth to?

If women weren't having babies, the Queen of England wouldn't exist and neither would you. If you see a woman with a child, you should be grateful for their (unpaid) service. And by that I mean don't do more than say "Thanks for your service" if you ever see someone with a baby hanging off them.

(By the way, I am equally grateful for men and women in uniform and for mothers. Both are sacrificing.)

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

What? Do you even Schoppenhauer? Being alive is the source of all suffering! We wouldn't even need to thank people in uniform if we didn't exist! (Btw I hate anti natalism)

[–]IckyStickyPoo2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I see your Schoppenhauer and I raise you a two-year-old having a tantrum because he didn't get what he wanted.

Being alive is indeed the source of all suffering. The ghost babies of Japan are not suffering.

[–]OfSpock1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The Queen of England and Australia? Who visits this, her far flung territory?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Be grateful to me because I do a job that's not totally unnecessary?

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Defending muh freedoms is not unnecessary!

[–]salami_inferno0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

When was the last time American soldiers actually defended the border?

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

You just don't hear it because they are doing their job so well Canada doesn't dare to engage.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

No, you really couldn't.

[–]Ultramegasaurus[S] -2 points-1 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

You are kinda right when talking about volunteers. I don't think someone who went to Iraq or Afghanistan on his own deserves the extra recognition and goodies they feel entitled to.

Then again, these people are subjected to actual propaganda and brainwashing.

[–]DemonConsulting4" Dragon2 points3 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

well society also pushes women into having children, starting from little girls playing with baby dolls, to the family nagging any young woman into finally supplying a child ("when will you finally settle down and have a family", then when she is married a constant "are you pregnant yet?!?") Call it brainwashing like having little boys play toy- soldiers and guns, or nature, just like men being more violent, tribal and territorial - in the end, that behavior is both encouraged by society and has its roots in biology

[–]wyntonkniffinBuilding Power2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

starting from little girls playing with baby dolls

Girl children unexposed to gendered stereotypes about toys will naturally gravitate to plush creature toys.

[–]DemonConsulting4" Dragon2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

yup, not surprising

[–]OfSpock0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

I had dolls pushed on me and preferred plush toys. As did both my sons.

[–]wyntonkniffinBuilding Power0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

There are always exceptions. I read a fascinating article about how homosexuality can be spotted in insects and animals and hasn't been "bred out" over generations... the theory being that male homosexuality from an evolutionary standpoint functions as a secondary carer for the offspring.

[–]OfSpock0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

And then there's the theory that the ultra feminine female relatives of gay men have more children than average, counteracting their influence.

[–]wyntonkniffinBuilding Power0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes. I'm not suggesting it's bad from an evolutionary standpoint because it's obviously passed the Darwin test. Just suggesting it's an outlier. If there's a demographic shift where a significant proportion of males start willingly excluding themselves from the gene pool, we're going to see some major social shifts.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Families bug you about having kids no matter what your gender is.

[–]DemonConsulting4" Dragon2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

oh I agree - OP was talking about women so that is what I commented on but men certainly do get similar questions (although in my family those questions start around 21 for women and at about 30 for men which given the fertility rates and expected careers makes sense)

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Fair play. I've just heard a lot of people argue on here that it only happens to women.

I've had questions like this from my family since I was like 13 or so. They mentioned me giving them grandkids in the future or something at that age. Then at 16-18 whenever the extended family came around with their own kids they'd say things like "you'll be dealing with this one day." Then whenever I say I don't want kids it's "oh you'll change your mind in the future."

[–]DemonConsulting4" Dragon0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Then at 16-18 whenever the extended family came around with their own kids they'd say things like "you'll be dealing with this one day." Then whenever I say I don't want kids it's "oh you'll change your mind in the future."

Yeah that is pretty much what most people get to experience unfortunately (especially if you're a weird kid who doesn't socialize much, let alone have a relationship in high school).. not sure if the elders just want to spread the pain joy of havig children, want grandkids as a more fun alternative to having their own child after those juices dry up or if they're subconsciously scared of having raised an evolutionary dead end...

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Misery loves company.

[–]ANTIFA_SARKEESIAN points points [recovered] | Copy Link

this is just misogynist drivel. Women can have children for whatever reason they want, get the fuck over it, it's not your decision bro.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Your username is brilliant, lol

[–]PurpleBanner-4 points-3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Women can have children for whatever reason they want, get the fuck over it, it's not your decision bro.

And then what are the kids supposed to do - wonder who their father is as their fatty-fat-fat mother with her fat shelf hangs over her entire lower body?

[–]handklap4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The planet is bursting at the seams with overpopulation and they still pat themselves on the back for saving the human race from extinction .

[–]AutoModeratorBiased against humans[M] 1 point2 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

Attention!

  • You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.

  • For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.

  • If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.

  • OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

With 7 billion people on Earth (and counting), automation killing lots of jobs in the future and contraception being freely availbale, children are freely chosen luxury.

The war on respectable families with jobs and White picket fences continues.

[–]ThrowawayCactus60123 points4 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

With 7 billion people on Earth (and counting), automation killing lots of jobs in the future and contraception being freely availbale, children are freely chosen luxury.

Exactly. We have more than enough people on the planet, so anyone who has more than 1 child is unnecessarily wasting resources. Instead of getting tax deductions, they should be raising taxes on anyone with more than 1 child.

[–]DemonConsulting4" Dragon6 points7 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

The people who pay enough taxes to care about taxe breaks aren't the ones having a lot of kids in the first place. There are plenty of middle class couples who are child free already - getting them to have even less kids just accelerates the end of western civilization, just look at Germany with a birth rate of 1.4. The people who keep popping out babies are the poor and uneducated world wide and the only thing that could solve this quickly is to either provide a mass of birth control, pay them to get their tubes tied or cut all aid and watch them and their children die (which most people don't really want). Increasing taxes just shifts the money from the middle class to the poor instead of reducing the overall birth rate.

[–]SeemedGood0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

The people who pay enough taxes to care about taxe breaks aren't the ones having a lot of kids in the first place.

Not sure this is true. In all the very wealthy suburban communities in which I have lived, it is both the fashion and norm for SAHMs to have at least 2 children with 3 being the established norm and 4 or 5 not uncommon.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.3 points4 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

That doesn't sound like the demographic OP is talking about, he appears to be talking about working mothers.

[–]SeemedGood0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Maybe, but there are very few working mothers (not inclusive of volunteerism and "hobby" jobs) in the communities that shoulder the vast bulk of the net tax burden (and that's not the middle class).

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

I don't know, I'd need to see numbers. Most of the women I know pay higher income tax than probably the vast majority of PPDers.

[–]SeemedGood0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Most of the women I know pay higher income tax than probably the vast majority of PPDers.

Maybe so, but that wouldn't necessarily put them in the category of living in the communities which shoulder the bulk of the tax burden.

They'd all have to be earning more than $450k a year to be carrying the bulk of the tax burden, but in the communities to which I referred, the median incomes are significantly higher than that. In those communities, very few of the women work outside of the home, hobby jobs, and volunteerism and large families are par for the course.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Most men don't carry a tax burden of that degree either, you're talking about the 1%, their issues aren't the issues.

[–]SeemedGood0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Correct, most men don't but far more men do than women. Women typically make different life choices than the ones that lead there.

I was just responding to the implication that the middle class are carrying a significant portion of the net tax burden and the suggestion that:

The people who keep popping out babies are the poor and uneducated

[–]JaggedYellowPillyellow is the opposite of purple3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Did we stop requiring parent comments to be trying to change OP's view? Because all of the top posts here are basically "yes, I agree with you."

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Agreed 100%. Nothing more to say.

[–]HighResolutionSleepMen have always been the primary victims of maternal mortality.0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Agreed; I've spoken to multiple women on this subject that I've managed to corral in to speaking out of both sides of their mouths at the same time on this one-- speaking about how strong the urge to procreate is and claiming that it's a dutiful sacrifice that women are virtually forced into and need to be compensated for ad infinitum.

And if you point out the contraction, you're a big meanie who hates women.

[–]ClarityofDisasterPerson Going Their Own Way0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Listening to public discourse, motherhood is depicted as some kind of unavoidable "fate" a woman is subjected to

Well, thank fuck it most certainly is not unavoidable.

However, when you tell them they are not required to have children and would make at least as much money as men if they focus everything on their career, they get offended.

Truth hurts, I guess?

The reality is, women feel entitled to having children because they love having children.

Most women want children, not every single one of us. I like children the best when I can interact with them for an hour or so, then give them back to their parents. Kids are okay in small doses, lol.

But framing it as a sacrifice and a duty instead of a personal choice enables them to demand more things. With 7 billion people on Earth (and counting), automation killing lots of jobs in the future and contraception being freely availbale, children are freely chosen luxury.

Agree 100%. It is almost always a woman’s choice to get pregnant, and we have abortions and morning after pills for the times that choice is taken from her. Nowadays, if you have a kid it's because you wanted to have them.

[–]handklap0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

But framing it as a sacrifice and a duty instead of a personal choice enables them to demand more things

This is why women on maternity feel no gratitude or appreciation for the extra burden they place on their coworkers. The look at it as a suffering contest. From their perspective, they suffer with morning sickness, lack of sleep, pain from childbirth, etc and they instantly dismiss their coworker's complaints because she is suffering more overall. "They have it easy compared to what I'm going through". Completely clueless that her child-related sufferings are due to her personal choices and has absolutely nothing to do with everyone else at work.

[–]ClarityofDisasterPerson Going Their Own Way0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Completely clueless that her child-related sufferings are due to her personal choices and has absolutely nothing to do with everyone else at work.

Exactly. I may not have it myself, but don't begrudge any woman’s desire to get pregnant and have babies. But it is most assuredly a choice, with well known and documented physical consequences. If you want a child and don't want to undergo these changes, adoption is an alternative option (albeit not as easy to accomplish financially in many cases.)

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

deleted What is this?

[–]DB605Everyone's a BlackPill in the end1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I do not think women expect privileges for their sacrifice of having a baby, I think they just want babies, and then go "oh, wait, having a kid in 2017 is a socio-economically bad idea, but feminism has taught me I am not a free agent in life, therefore you all should all cater to me".

One of the issues facing my city recently is the increasing cost of child-care and it always kind of amazes me how many women are having these children before knowing, studying, or adding up whether or not they can actually afford the kid.

[–]Wallstreet31 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Motherhood is nothing special. The female body is designed for it. A woman wanting celebrated for it is akin to a garbage man wanting respect for showing up.

[–]TheBlackQuillMisanthrope0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

True. I just don't get the hype over it. Why women have to celebrate every single small things is beyond me.

[–]Wallstreet30 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

And usually they are the center of that celebration.

[–]TheBlackQuillMisanthrope0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

yep. There are more grand things in life that is worth celebrating for. The less things we celebrate, the more special the celebration is.

[–]Wallstreet30 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Well there is that. But the idea that 'I spread my legs, got pregnant and popped out a kid, therefore celebrate me and do things for me' is childish. Its like a kid throwing a tantrum for not getting his way.

So what, you procreated. You did what you were programmed to do. You followed your urges and instincts. Now you expect stuff?

This is like a guy doing nice things and expecting sex. Nope, it doesn't work that way.

[–]TheBlackQuillMisanthrope0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yep, agree. I just don't find it all that special, really. It is something almost every women do. Women are too entitled, these days.

[–]questioningwomandetached from society0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

In the past more women died of childbirth than men died in war. However now women are far less likely to die of it except in isolated areas of the third world.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

world is overpopulated, everyone would benefit if we just stopped reproducing all together. more resources, more money, less annoying little kids :D

[–]darla100 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Before the age of 25, there is tremendous pressure not to get pregnant and 'ruin your life'. After the age of 25, it becomes, 'where are my grandkids? The clock is ticking you know....' We don't feel entitled. We feel obliged.

[–]chickenw-broccolidislikes BP > likes RP0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I find that a lot of modern feminist raised women are really self absorbed. The child becomes an extension of them because they are raised to put themselves before others and they lose sight of raising a well adjusted adult. Now we have a bunch of pansy ass liberals walking around because mommy was too busy keeping up with the Joneses and daddy was busy burying himself in his liquor cabinet.

[–]salami_inferno0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Until we find a way to reliably have children without needing a woman's womb they may not be forced to but are specifically required to have children to not have modern civilization collapse completely. I agree with you for the most part but to call woman having children optional is not looking at the big picture. I'd rather have the government force woman to have babies than have us go extinct.

[–]CinnamonSuxWhateva, I do what I want!0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Your argument basically boils down to an individualist versus collectivist society. Capitalism versus socialism. Why should an employer have to pay parental leave for a woman when she chose to have that child? Well let's look at the alternatives: don't pay parental leave, and have women coming back to work before they're physically ready, causing issues with breastfeeding, bonding, post partum depression, the repercussions of putting a newborn in daycare, etc... So then why hire women at all? Well, you're limiting your talent pool, you're handicapping an entire gender for something that takes up a very small portion of their professional career, and you're discriminating against women who will not be bearing children while on the job.

From there, I think the best metric at which to judge which is the superior method is to look at the economy and quality of lives of examples of each society.

To address some other points about your argument, I do think you;re largely using a a straw man. Motherhood being depicted as an unavoidable fate is largely the result of conservative religious forces who largely agree that a woman's place is in the home. I do not think I have ever seen a woman argue from something other than a religious standpoint that the reason she is having children is because she is making a martyr-like sacrifice for the greater good, rather, she just wants to be a mom. The reason many women get offended when you point out that they could make more money if they don't become mothers is because they believe motherhood should not spell sacrificing a career the way fatherhood does not, and the merits of that argument lead us back to the beginning of my comment.

For the record, I am pro parental leave for both mothers and fathers, but believe that in a culture and economy like the US, that women do have to make a choice about which aspect of their lives they;re going to sacrifice: kids or career. This is typically a relatively easy decision for the upper middle class and above. Not so much for anyone below that.

[–]yehudia points points [recovered] | Copy Link

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zIhKAQX5izw

[–]youtubefactsbot0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Paid Family Leave: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO) [12:21]

Many American companies do not offer paid leave after the birth of a child, which means they probably shouldn’t run sappy Mother’s Day ads.

LastWeekTonight in Entertainment

6,640,504 views since May 2015

bot info

[–]EmpoweredGirlMisanthrope-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Mothers get to choice unconditionally whether they want to me mothers or not. 1) They can chose to not have sex, 2) They can use a condom. 3) They can take birth control. 4) They can get implants. 5) They can get an abortion. 6) They can drop their baby of at a police station. She can opt out at anytime, where as a man can never opt out past 2) (unless vasectomy).

Neither can technically even have a baby unless they both do, unless deceit was mixed in. In which case both make sacrifices to get a better benefit.

Though both reproduction laws and divorce settlements are out of whack and need adjusting to an ever increasing women workforce, they don't need the entitlements from when they were a stay at home mother.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter