Political correctness and birthrate

[sandorski]

http://healthland.time.com/2011/08/...upermom-myth-are-more-likely-to-be-depressed/

http://healthland.time.com/2011/08/03/chore-duty-do-fathers-still-have-it-easier-than-mothers/

http://healthland.time.com/2011/06/15/the-fathering-gap-the-perils-of-modern-fatherhood/

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2032116,00.html

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/11/18/the-decline-of-marriage-and-rise-of-new-families/



Just keep on clicking through articles like this maybe it will sink in. I chose a liberal source just for you.

Try reading the book "Second Shift" I had to for school, it was interesting. Would never have read it on my own though.

My "lol" was the thread, not your post in particular.

 

[nehalem256]

As for your previous statement that I missed, you appear to be saying that you believe women have been the privileged class for basically all of modern human history then. That is in fact nehalem levels of insanity.

Throughout most of history who died protecting whom?

EDIT: This is what male "privilege" looks like

 

[OverVolt]

Good quote

Like the marriage gap, the fathering gap is partly an unintended consequence of the growing education and economic clout of women. As women have had more successful careers and brought home more pay (wives now bring home an average of 44% of the household income), husbands have had to step up and share more in the joys (and chores) of parenting. “From 1985 to 2000,” says the Pew report, “the amount of time married fathers spent with their children more than doubled.” According to the most recent figures available, fathers log about 6.5 hours a week of child care. Mothers still do the lioness’s share, logging about almost 13 hours.

That daddy time has to come from somewhere, and one of the features of the fathering gap is that men now express more concern about work-life balance than women do. In 2008, 60% of men reported experiencing work-life conflict, compared with fewer than 50% of women, according to The New Dad, a study from Boston College’s Center for Work and Family. In 1975, more women (42%) than men (35%) were concerned about it.

But while women have found it hard to be taken seriously at work after they have had kids, men have found it more difficult to be taken seriously as parents. Workplaces expect them to be even more career-focused when they become dads. “In essence, contemporary fatherhood ideals are in many respects similar to what maternal ideals and expectations were 30 years ago but with the opposite challenge,” says the Boston College study. “Fathers struggling to balance career aspirations with a focus on parenting…may encounter ‘paternal walls’ not unlike the maternal walls working mothers have faced.”



Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2011/06/...he-perils-of-modern-fatherhood/#ixzz2iNvFyVCH

No mater how hard time tries to spin it...

According to the most recent figures available, fathers log about 6.5 hours a week of child care. Mothers still do the lioness’s share, logging about almost 13 hours.

All feminsm has done is double womens workload. Good job :thumbsup:

 

[Anarchist420]

What are you basing that on?

well, for starters, only a minority of 40-65 year olds have ED in the united states and it's even smaller globally.

 

[Texashiker]

All feminsm has done is double womens workload. Good job :thumbsup:

I think feminism has also driven men to a place where they do not want to be, and that is looking at women as equals.

What are you basing that on?

That is like asking to prove the grass is green. If you want proof just look around society.

 

[fskimospy]

That is like asking to prove the grass is green. If you want proof just look around society.

Ahhh, so your answer was "nothing".

 

[Texashiker]

Ahhh, so your answer was "nothing".

My answer is common sense.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Honestly I think the problem is more direct than sexism:

People are too self absorbed today to have children. Unlike in previous generations when the men got a job to provide for a wife and kids and the wife was focused on raising kids the next generation was always at the center of the plan.

Nowadays people of both sexes go off to have complex careers in corporations that are inherently biased against childcare. Even outside of work they are focusing on themselves and their self-importance as seen in hobbies and obsessions and played out through social media. They get married to starter wives/husbands and get divorced as neither can put the other person before themselves. So many are an island, separated from the calling to focus on others.

At least in my peer group I see this a lot.

The few exceptions are those I know who had children very young. Its like they never got a chance to fully indulge in themselves, so they don't mind sacrificing for their children.

But all my late 20 something friends are all very nervous about having kids, and "what gets left behind."

 

[mikeymikec]

My answer is common sense.

Common sense is usually backed up with logic that isn't regarded as debatable.

Considering that your entire argument is based on pretty shaky ground - "normal men look upon women as sexual objects" and "men looking upon women as sexual objects is essential to the survival of the species" yet "oh no! We're having a declining population!", I question you labelling your logic as "common sense".

The idea of the necessity of oppressing a portion of society "for the greater good" should fly in the face of common sense and experience, but either it doesn't or you lack common sense.

 

[sandorski]

Affluence and Birth Control is the cause of a falling Birth Rate. It has nothing to do with "PC".

 

[Texashiker]

Common sense is usually backed up with logic that isn't regarded as debatable.

Considering that your entire argument is based on pretty shaky ground - "normal men look upon women as sexual objects" and "men looking upon women as sexual objects is essential to the survival of the species" yet "oh no! We're having a declining population!", I question you labelling your logic as "common sense".

Sex sales, and that is a fact.

One of the reasons why sex sales is because men look at women as sexual objects.

Did yall just climb out from under a rock or something? Never hit puberty?

If I have to explain why women are viewed as sexual objects, do I have to explain why water is wet and the grass is green?

 

[mikeymikec]

Sex sales, and that is a fact.

One of the reasons why sex sales is because men look at women as sexual objects.

So let me just add this to your unassailable logic so far:

"normal men look upon women as sexual objects" and "men looking upon women as sexual objects is essential to the survival of the species" and "men look at porn so I must be right" yet "oh no! We're having a declining population!", I question you labelling your logic as "common sense".

Did yall just climb out from under a rock or something? Never hit puberty?

So because I don't treat women as sexual objects, you think I have lived under a rock and/or never went through puberty? Where are you going with your very odd questions? Perhaps I'm really an alien from outer space, because the idea of a heterosexual man who doesn't treat women as sexual objects is less plausible in your opinion?

If I have to explain why women are viewed as sexual objects, do I have to explain why water is wet and the grass is green?

If you think it'll help your point, I'm curious to know where you would be going with it.

Because "water is wet, grass is green and that's why / therefore normal men treat women as sexual objects", is an... interesting chain of reasoning.

 

[Texashiker]

So because I don't treat women as sexual objects, you think I have lived under a rock and/or never went through puberty?

Uh, yea, pretty much.

What kind of man does not look at a woman as a sexual object?

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Uh, yea, pretty much.

What kind of man does not look at a woman as a sexual object?

The ones who are of sound state of mind and not psychotic?

 

[Retro Rob]

The ones who are of sound state of mind and not psychotic?

Ha, exactly!

Normally, I'd say only demented people with rapists tendencies tend to look at women as only sex objects, and not human beings with thoughts and feelings like ourselves.

 

[SheHateMe]

We are He-Man woman haters, we feed girls to Alligators!

 

[Texashiker]

We are He-Man woman haters, we feed girls to Alligators!

You may send yours to the gators, I send mine to get pedicures.

 

[Paul98]

Sex sales, and that is a fact.

One of the reasons why sex sales is because men look at women as sexual objects.

Did yall just climb out from under a rock or something? Never hit puberty?

If I have to explain why women are viewed as sexual objects, do I have to explain why water is wet and the grass is green?

I think it's the other way around, if you are only looking at women as sexual objects you have a serious problem and should see someone about it. You have some self reflecting to do if all you see women as are sexual objects. But this says a lot about you and your ability to think and view others.

You are going to have a lot of problem with women and if you have children they are going to have problems also.

 

[Paul98]

Uh, yea, pretty much.

What kind of man does not look at a woman as a sexual object?

Most actually, most see them as people and if they are attracted to them ones that they want to have sex with.

 

[OverVolt]

Affluence and Birth Control is the cause of a falling Birth Rate. It has nothing to do with "PC".

How is it that the affluent don't have the time to raise kids. They have money but not time. Thats not really affluent. The truly affluent have both.

 

[werepossum]

I think you guys are missing the essence of Texashiker's point. It isn't that men should see women as ONLY sexual objects, but rather that men should see women ALSO as sexual objects and therefore any force which tends to desexualize women for men tends to reduce reproduction. It's not a theory to which I subscribe, but I have no problem understanding it.

I think the theory fails because ultimately we don't have a fornication shortage, we have a baby shortage, if even that. Men are still plenty interested in women as sexual beings, just more sensitive about seeing them as (or at least about admitting they see them as) only sexual objects. Even the theory that we have a baby shortage is suspect because it's usually accompanied by the complaint that "the wrong people" are having too many babies and "the right people" are having too few babies. While there are some possibly partially legitimate issues concerning IQ - there are always tensions between the requirements of Darwinism and the requirements of humanity, be it religion or Western secular humanism - people do not pair up based solely on IQ, so there is always a lot of mixing, and the very fact that so many of us are spending so much time on the Internet makes it clear that very few of us are straining our brains with our jobs. Therefore one suspects that the whole right/wrong people argument boils down to either "we need more people like me and fewer people who aren't like me" or "I suspect these people who aren't like me will have different priorities and values" - which is pretty much the same argument. Outside of that, there are legitimate reasons for wanting higher birth rates, but also legitimate reasons to fear higher birth rates. A Hong Kong full of Michio Kakus is still a very crowded place. (Although granted, one could have some amazing conversations with one's pizza delivery person or Roto-Rooter man.)

 

[OverVolt]

I think you guys are missing the essence of Texashiker's point. It isn't that men should see women as ONLY sexual objects, but rather that men should see women ALSO as sexual objects and therefore any force which tends to desexualize women for men tends to reduce reproduction. It's not a theory to which I subscribe, but I have no problem understanding it.

I think the theory fails because ultimately we don't have a fornication shortage, we have a baby shortage, if even that. Men are still plenty interested in women as sexual beings, just more sensitive about seeing them as (or at least about admitting they see them as) only sexual objects. Even the theory that we have a baby shortage is suspect because it's usually accompanied by the complaint that "the wrong people" are having too many babies and "the right people" are having too few babies. While there are some possibly partially legitimate issues concerning IQ - there are always tensions between the requirements of Darwinism and the requirements of humanity, be it religion or Western secular humanism - people do not pair up based solely on IQ, so there is always a lot of mixing, and the very fact that so many of us are spending so much time on the Internet makes it clear that very few of us are straining our brains with our jobs. Therefore one suspects that the whole right/wrong people argument boils down to either "we need more people like me and fewer people who aren't like me" or "I suspect these people who aren't like me will have different priorities and values" - which is pretty much the same argument. Outside of that, there are legitimate reasons for wanting higher birth rates, but also legitimate reasons to fear higher birth rates. A Hong Kong full of Michio Kakus is still a very crowded place. (Although granted, one could have some amazing conversations with one's pizza delivery person or Roto-Rooter man.)

You need to get out more, or read more on the subject, or something, because there isn't even a question concerning birth rate problems. There is a birth rate problem.

http://ideas.time.com/childfree/

 

[Nebor]

How is it that the affluent don't have the time to raise kids. They have money but not time. Thats not really affluent. The truly affluent have both.

The percentage of the population that meets that definition is so small that their birth rates are irrelevant.

 

[werepossum]

You need to get out more, or read more on the subject, or something, because there isn't even a question concerning birth rate problems. There is a birth rate problem.

http://ideas.time.com/childfree/

There is no question on the declining birth rate; there is very much a question on whether it is a problem. Your own link includes:
Having It All Without Having Children
Childfree Adults Are Not “Selfish”
Do Children Bring Happiness—or Misery?
“I Just Don’t Want A Child”
Sound Off: What Do You Think of the Childfree Life?
The Declining Birthrate Doesn’t Spell Disaster

None of that reads like a problem. There is no question that our birth rate is falling near to if not below sustainment, but is it a problem? For one thing, the benefits of automation make it possible for fewer workers to produce more wealth. For another, babies aren't our only source of recruitment. This is still the greatest country on Earth and literally a huge chunk of the world's population wants to come here. Historically this is disastrous for a nation as it loses its identity and culture. However, the USA is by nature a polyglot culture, a mongrel nation and damned proud of it. Therefore our culture is more varied and probably more resilient than most. I'm cautious of increased immigration - didn't work out well for Native Americans, after all - but I also recognize that it's probably less dangerous to us than to most nations simply because we do not have one (or a few) uniform culture. It's one thing to scream that "Greek culture is being destroyed" or "French culture is being destroyed", but American culture is already composed of pieces from many cultures blended more or less into one. E pluribus unum.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Another Texashiker, "I don't know anything about sex," thread.